Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 07212015 - D.9
PDF Return D.9 To: Board of Supervisors From: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date: July 21, 2015 Contra Costa County Subject:West County Detention Center Expansion Project and related CEQA APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/21/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact:Leigh Chavez, (925) 313-2366 cc:DCD, Current Planning, T. Moreira DCD, Current Planning, A. Bhat Public Works Finance, D. Oyler Public Works, Capital Projects, R. Kanzaria Public Works, Environmental, L. Chavez Sheriff, Detention Division, T. Chalk County Administrator, T. Ewell I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 21, 2015 David Twa, BY:June McHuen , Deputy RECOMMENDATION(S): FIND that the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the West County Detention Center Expansion Project; and FIND that the Final EIR for the West County Detention Center Expansion Project is adequate and complete, was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and County and State CEQA Guidelines, and reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis; and RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) CERTIFY the Final Environmental Impact Report for the West County Detention Center Expansion Project pursuant to Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines, and ADOPT the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan contained therein; and ADOPT the CEQA Findings (Exhibit A) pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines; and DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of $3,069.75 for California Department of Fish and Wildlife fees, a $50 fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Determination, and a $25 fee to the Department of Conservation and Development for processing. FISCAL IMPACT: Fees totaling $3,144.75, will be funded by the General Fund. BACKGROUND: The County Public Works Department is working with the Sheriff-Coroner to expand the West County Detention Facility (WCDF) as envisioned during the original planning for the facility. The proposed project entails the development of approximately 2.3 acres within the existing WCDF for a high-security detention facility with supporting re- entry program facilities, and a mental health treatment facility. The new facility would provide high-security housing, educational and vocational facilities, and programs to help prepare inmates for re-entry into society. The proposed project would result in essentially no increase of California Department of Corrections rated beds in the County. The 240 cells at the Martinez Detention Facility (MDF) that do not meet security and safety requirements would be repurposed for short-term housing of inmates for purposes of in- processing and release. The MDF would continue to be the booking facility for law enforcement agencies in the central and eastern areas of the County. If approved, the proposed project consists of construction of a new 150,000 square foot building containing approximately 240 double-occupancy cells (480 beds), a mental health treatment facility, and educational and vocational program facilities along with facilities to support outpatient medical services, recreational activities, and minor administrative functions of the existing WCDF. In addition, a small, single story, equipment or generator building would be located adjacent to the main building. Intake, release, inpatient health care, central library services, food service, laundry, commissary, and maintenance/warehouse storage will continue to be provided in existing buildings and using existing infrastructure on the WCDF site. In order to proceed with the proposed project, the applicant must obtain approval from the Board of Supervisors, the State Department of Corrections and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Additionally, the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) will require a Construction General Permit for management of storm water during construction activities, and the San Francisco Regional Water Board will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) storm water permit. The Environmental Impact Report identifies potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: - Air Quality - Cultural - Public Services and Utilities Potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Zoning Administrator Hearing July 20, 2015 The Zoning Administrator (ZA) held a hearing on July 20, 2015 to consider the proposed project. After evaluating the project in its entirety, including all public comment and evidence in the record, the Administrator made the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to certify the Environmental Impact Report. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Delay in approving the project may jeopardize funding under Senate Bill 863. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Terrance Cheung, Richmond Mayor's Office; Rick Alcaraz; Lee Lawrence, Contra Costa Interfaith Supporting Community Organization (CCISCO). Eleanor Clarke, CCISCO, did not wish to speak but left written comments for the Board's consideration (attached). The Public Works Director noted that the recommendation to "DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk" cannot be completed until the project is approved. The Board removed the direction to file a notice of completion and adopted all other recommendations AgendaQuick©2005 - 2023 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved West County Detention Facility Expansion Final EIR A-1 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Exhibit A West County Detention Facility Expansion Project Written Findings of Significant Effects In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, the following findings and supporting facts address each significant environmental effect that has been changed (including adoption of mitigation measures) to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the effect, as identified in the Final EIR. The findings described below are organized by resource issue, in the same order as the effects are discussed in the EIR. The County’s findings regarding the project alternatives follow the individual effect findings. The findings reference the Final EIR (part of the record upon which the County bases its decision) and mitigation measures in support of the findings. For specific resource mitigation measures, the section and page number where the full text of the mitigation measure occurs is noted in the finding. Introduction The project site is located at 5555 Giant Highway in north Richmond, California, north of San Pablo and west of Pinole and encompasses approximately 2.3 acres of an approximately 50-acre County- owned property within the city limits of the City of Richmond that is developed and fenced consistent with its institutional use as a detention facility. The proposed project entails constructing and operating the West County Detention Facility (WCDF) Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion at the WCDF for a high-security detention facility with supporting reentry program facilities, and a mental health treatment facility. The new facilities would provide high-security housing, and educational and vocational facilities and programs to help prepare inmates for reentry into society. The proposed project would result in essentially no net increase of California Department of Corrections rated beds in Contra Costa County as a whole. The proposed project would increase the number of beds within the City of Richmond, although external operations are expected to be similar to existing operations at the facility. The 240 cells at the Martinez Detention Facility (MDF) that do not meet security and safety requirements would be repurposed for short-term housing of inmates for purposes of in-processing and release. This project does not include physical changes to the MDF facility. The MDF would continue to be the booking facility for law enforcement agencies in the County. The County’s objectives for this project are listed below. 1. Reduce overcrowding of high-security inmates. 2. Replace non-secure housing with high-security housing. 3. Provide facilities to support re-entry programming for high-security inmates. 4. Provide facilities to support mental healthcare for high-security inmates. 5. Expand facilities as cost-efficiently as possible with the support of state grant funding. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Findings of Significant Effects West County Detention Facility Expansion Final EIR A-2 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Record of Proceedings and Custodian of Record The record upon which all findings and determinations related to the approval of the project are based comprises the items listed below. The EIR and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the EIR. All information (including written evidence and testimony) provided by County staff to the Board of Supervisors relating to the EIR, the approvals, and the project. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the Board of Supervisors by the environmental consultants who prepared the EIR or incorporated into reports presented to the Board of Supervisors. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the County from other public agencies related to the project or the EIR. All applications, letters, testimony, and presentations relating to the project. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented at any County hearing related to the project and the EIR. All County-adopted or County-prepared land use plans, ordinances, including without limitation general plans, specific plans, and ordinances, together with environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring programs, and other documents relevant to land use within the area. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. All other documents composing the record pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the County’s decisions are based is Hillary Heard, Planner II or her designee. Such documents and other material are located at 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553. Consideration and Certification of the EIR In accordance with CEQA, the Board of Supervisors certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. The Board of Supervisors has independently reviewed the record and the EIR prior to certifying the EIR and approving the project. By these findings, the Board of Supervisors confirms, ratifies, and adopts the findings and conclusions of the EIR as supplemented and modified by these findings. The EIR and these findings represent the independent judgment and analysis of the County and the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors recognizes that the EIR may contain clerical errors. The Board of Supervisors reviewed the entirety of the EIR and bases its determination on the substance of the information it contains. The Board of Supervisors certifies that the EIR is adequate to support the approval of the action that is the subject of the Resolution to which these CEQA findings are attached. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Findings of Significant Effects West County Detention Facility Expansion Final EIR A-3 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 The Board of Supervisors certifies that the EIR is adequate to support approval of the proposed WCDF Project described in the staff report, each component and phase of the project described in the EIR, any variant of the project described in the EIR, any minor modifications to the project or variants of the project described in the EIR, and the components of the project. Absence of Significant New Information The Board of Supervisors recognizes that the Final EIR incorporates information obtained and produced after the Draft EIR was completed, and that the Final EIR contains additions, clarifications, and modifications. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of this information. The Final EIR does not add significant new information to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. The new information added to the EIR does not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed that the project sponsor declines to adopt and that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project. No information indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR. Thus, recirculation of the EIR is not required. The Board of Supervisors finds that the changes and modifications made to the EIR after the Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment do not individually or collectively constitute significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 or Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Severability If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the County. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The EIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from the proposed project. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Findings of Significant Effects West County Detention Facility Expansion Final EIR A-4 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant Impacts that are Mitigated to a Less-Than-Significant Level Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Impact AQ-2: Violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation (less than significant with mitigation) Potential Impact: Construction of the proposed project has the potential to create air quality impacts through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, construction worker vehicle trips, and truck hauling trips. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from site preparation and grading. Criteria pollutant emissions generated by these sources were quantified using CalEEMod (version 2013.2.2). Please refer to Appendix A for model outputs. As discussed in Section 3.2.3.1, Methods, several construction activities would occur concurrently. The combination of phases that produced the highest daily emissions in each construction year was selected as the peak day for impact analysis purposes. This approach is meant to convey a worst-case scenario, and is, therefore, not necessarily representative of actual emissions that would be generated on a daily basis throughout the construction period. Estimated construction emissions are summarized in Table 3.2-6 of the DEIR. An exceedance of BAAQMD thresholds is shown in bold. As shown in Table 3.2-6, construction of the project would generate NOX emissions in 2017 that exceed BAAQMD’s numeric threshold of 54 pounds per day. This would be a potentially significant impact. BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines outline basic and additional emissions controls to reduce project-level impacts when emissions exceed applicable thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are therefore required to address NOX emissions. BAAQMD considers dust impacts to be less than significant through the application of best management practices (BMPs). Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures, discussed in Section 3.2.3.3 of the EIR, are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust and Equipment Exhaust Emissions Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Equipment Exhaust Emissions Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds the following. Effects of Mitigation: Estimated construction emissions with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are summarized in Table 3.2-7 of the DEIR. With implementation of these measures, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and this impact would be less than significant. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Findings of Significant Effects West County Detention Facility Expansion Final EIR A-5 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Implementation of the mitigations recommended by Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 will ensure that the impacts associated with emissions exceeding BAAQMD thresholds will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The County will implement the following actions. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust and Equipment Exhaust Emissions The County will require all construction contractors to implement the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by BAAQMD to reduce fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures. Additional measures may be identified by BAAQMD or contractor as appropriate. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure in 13 CCR Section 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Equipment Exhaust Emissions The County will require all construction contractors to implement the Additional Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by BAAQMD to reduce equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures. Additional measures may be identified by BAAQMD or contractor as appropriate. Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes. Develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20% NOX reduction and 45% PM reduction compared Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Findings of Significant Effects West County Detention Facility Expansion Final EIR A-6 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 with the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM. Require that all contractors use equipment that meets ARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impact associated with emissions during construction will be less than significant. Cultural Resources Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (less than significant with mitigation) Potential Impact: It is unlikely that any cultural or historical resources would be found during the construction of the proposed project because all construction would take place on previously developed and disturbed land. However, it is possible construction of the new facility would result in the discovery of buried cultural or historic resources, because the project site was graded but not the subject of excavation for new buildings. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 prohibits destruction of cultural resources. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, discussed in the Initial Study for the project and Section 1.2.4 of the EIR, is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Stop Work at Discovery of Cultural Resources Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds the following. Effects of Mitigation: Because there are no known historic or archaeological resources present on site, construction and operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical, or archaeological resource. Therefore, with implementation of the above mitigation measure if necessary, the impact would be less than significant. Implementation of the mitigations recommended by Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will ensure that the impacts associated with potential discovery of unknown cultural resources will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The County will implement the following actions. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Stop Work at Discovery of Cultural Resources If buried cultural resources such as chipped or ground stone, historic debris, or building foundations, are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within a 100-foot radius of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop a response plan, with appropriate treatment measures, in consultation with the County, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and other Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Findings of Significant Effects West County Detention Facility Expansion Final EIR A-7 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 appropriate agencies. Preservation in place shall be the preferred treatment method pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b) (avoidance, open space, capping, easement). Data recovery of important information about the resource, research, or other actions determined during consultation, is allowed if it is the only feasible treatment method. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impact associated with potential discovery of unknown cultural resources during construction will be less than significant. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (less than significant with mitigation) Potential Impact: There are no known unique paleontological resources, sites, or unique geologic features at the project site. Although the entire project site has been previously disturbed by construction of the existing facilities and grading of the proposed project site, it is possible construction of the new and expanded facilities would result in the discovery of paleontological resources or sites. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, discussed in the Initial Study for the project and Section 1.2.4 of the EIR, is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Stop Work at Discovery of Paleontological Resources Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds the following. Effects of Mitigation: Because there are no known paleontological resources present on site, construction or operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to destroy any paleontological resources. Still, paleontological resources could be encountered. Therefore, with implementation of the above mitigation measure if necessary, the impact would be less than significant. Implementation of the mitigations recommended by Mitigation Measure CUL-2 will ensure that the impacts associated with potential discovery of unknown paleontological resources will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The County will implement the following actions. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Stop Work at Discovery of Paleontological Resources The construction contractor and subcontractors shall stop all work in the area immediately in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during grading, construction, landscaping, or other construction-related activity. The Contra Costa Public Works Department shall be notified and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to evaluate the resources and recommend appropriate mitigation. Work may resume after the find has been mitigated appropriately. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impact associated with potential discovery of unknown paleontological resources during construction will be less than significant. Public Services and Utilities Impact PUB-1: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Findings of Significant Effects West County Detention Facility Expansion Final EIR A-8 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities (less than significant with mitigation) Potential Impact: Although the proposed project would include a new building and increase the inmate population and number of employees at the project site, this increase is not anticipated to substantially affect the need for fire protection services. The proposed new facility would be designed to meet fire standards. The Richmond Fire Department indicates that there is concern that local water pressure in this portion of the city is low (Harris, personal communication). Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures, discussed in Section 3.5.3.3 of the EIR, are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure PUB-1a: Incorporate design measures or contribute to improvements to ensure adequate water pressure for fire suppression needs Mitigation Measure PUB-1b: Comply with all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements, subject to review and approval by the City of Richmond Planning and Building Services Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds the following. Effects of Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures PUB-1a and PUB-1b will ensure that water pressure fire performance objectives and fire codes are met for the proposed project. With implementation of these measures, this impact would be less than significant. The County will implement the following actions. Mitigation Measure PUB-1a: Incorporate design measures or contribute to improvements to ensure adequate water pressure for fire suppression needs The County will coordinate with the Richmond Fire Department to ensure that pressure tests will be performed to ensure water pressure fire performance objectives are met for the proposed project. If tests indicate that the pressure is insufficient, the County will incorporate design measures or contribute to improvements to ensure adequate water pressure for fire suppression needs. Mitigation Measure PUB-1b: Comply with all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements, subject to review and approval by the City of Richmond Planning and Building Services The County will ensure the design and construction of the proposed project complies with all building and fire code requirements as established by Chapter 8.16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Richmond and the 2013 California Administrative Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1 (California Building Code). Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impact associated with fire flow requirements will be less than significant. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Findings of Significant Effects West County Detention Facility Expansion Final EIR A-9 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Findings for Cumulative Impacts State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires the consideration of cumulative impacts in an EIR when a project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable “means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3).) In identifying projects that may contribute to cumulative impacts, the State CEQA Guidelines allow the use of a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, producing related or cumulative impacts, including those that are outside of the control of the lead agency. The proposed Project’s cumulative contribution to various impacts was considered in conjunction with other proposed and approved projects, as set forth in Chapter 5 of the EIR. Based on analysis in the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County makes the following findings with respect to the project’s cumulatively considerable potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Project. No Contribution to a Cumulative Impact Based on the discussion in Chapter 5 of the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds that the proposed WCDF Project will not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any impacts. Findings for Alternatives Considered in the EIR Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires findings about the feasibility of project alternatives whenever a project within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the lead agency will have a significant environmental effect that has not been mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Identification of Project Objectives The State CEQA Guidelines state that the “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one of more of the significant effects” of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[d][2]). Thus, an evaluation of the project objectives is key to determining which alternatives should be assessed in the EIR. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the primary project objective is to help the County achieve its capacity, security, facility, and programming needs based on current standards and classifications. The specific project objectives are listed below. 1. Reduce overcrowding of high-security inmates. 2. Replace non-secure housing with high-security housing. 3. Provide facilities to support re-entry programming for high-security inmates. 4. Provide facilities to support mental healthcare for high-security inmates. 5. Expand facilities as cost-efficiently as possible with the support of state grant funding. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Findings of Significant Effects West County Detention Facility Expansion Final EIR A-10 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR The State CEQA Guidelines state that the “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects” of the project. In addition, the EIR must examine the No Project alternative. The County evaluated the alternatives listed below. No Project Alternative Smaller Expansion Alternative Two Facilities and Treatment Center Alternative No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative there would be no construction of expanded facilities at the WCDF. The existing facility would continue to operate as it does currently. The County’s existing detention facilities would continue to be overcrowded and ill-equipped to properly and safely house the classifications of inmates in custody. The safety risks to officers and inmates would persist as inmates would continue to be housed in existing facilities. The County would not be able to upgrade its facilities or provide new educational and vocational programming, or healthcare and mental health facilities for high-security inmates. Finding: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County rejects the No Project alternative as infeasible because it would not meet most of the objectives of the project. Explanation: The No Project alternative would fail to meet many of the following project objectives and is therefore rejected as infeasible. Reduce overcrowding of high-security inmates. The No Project Alternative would not reduce overcrowding. Replace non-secure housing with high-security housing. The No Project Alternative would not replace any housing. Provide facilities to support re-entry programming for high-security inmates. The No Project Alternative would not provide any new facilities. Provide facilities to support mental healthcare for high-security inmates. The No Project Alternative would not provide any new facilities. Expand facilities as cost-efficiently as possible with the support of state grant funding. The No Project Alternative would not provide any new facilities. Smaller Expansion Alternative Under the Smaller Expansion Alternative, the County would build one 75,000-square-foot building with high-security housing and treatment facilities. The facility would have 120 double-occupancy cells (240 beds). Finding: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County rejects the Smaller Expansion alternative as infeasible because it would not meet most of the objectives of the program. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Findings of Significant Effects West County Detention Facility Expansion Final EIR A-11 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Explanation: The Smaller Expansion Alternative would not reduce overcrowding to the amount needed by the County for the inmate population, based on need studies, and because it would be inefficient to pursue grant funds that do not maximize the opportunity to reduce overcrowding to standards, this alternative would fail to meet many of the following project objectives and is therefore rejected as infeasible. Reduce overcrowding of high-security inmates. The Smaller Expansion Alternative would not reduce overcrowding to the amount needed by the County for the inmate population, based on need studies. Replace non-secure housing with high-security housing. The Smaller Expansion Alternative would replace some housing, but would not provide enough high-security housing to meet the identified need. Provide facilities to support re-entry programming for high-security inmates. The Smaller Expansion Alternative would provide some new facilities but not enough to meet the identified need. Provide facilities to support mental healthcare for high-security inmates. The Smaller Expansion Alternative would provide some new facilities but not enough to meet the identified need. Expand facilities as cost-efficiently as possible with the support of state grant funding. The Smaller Expansion Alternative would expand facilities on the site of an existing facility, but it not maximize the opportunity to reduce overcrowding to standards. Two Facilities and Treatment Center Alternative Under the Two Facilities and Treatment Center Alternative, the County would develop two buildings on approximately 4 acres at the WCDF. Each building would be approximately 75,000 square feet with high-security housing modules and approximately 120 double-occupancy cells (240 beds) for a total of 240 double-occupancy cells (480 beds). The new buildings would be similar to the existing onsite facilities. Finding: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County rejects the Two Facilities and Treatment Center alternative as infeasible because it would not meet most of the objectives of the program. Explanation: The Two Facilities and Treatment Center Alternative would have slightly lower aesthetic impacts but would have a greater impact in other areas than the proposed project. Impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise from construction would be greater than under the other alternatives because construction would take longer and the greatest amount of land would be developed under this alternative. The Two Facilities and Treatment Center Alternative was rejected because it had a higher level of environmental impacts than the proposed project. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant Irreversible Changes CEQA Section 21100(b)(2)(B) requires that an EIR identify any significant effect on the environment that would be irreversible if the WCDF Project were implemented. Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines characterizes irreversible environmental changes as those involving a large Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Findings of Significant Effects West County Detention Facility Expansion Final EIR A-12 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 commitment of nonrenewable resources or irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents. The State CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes: changes in land use that would commit future generations to specific uses, irreversible changes from environmental actions, and consumption of nonrenewable resources. The WCDF Project’s significant and irreversible changes are discussed in Section 5.4 of the EIR. Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds that the WCDF Project would result in a significant irreversible effect on the environment consisting of the commitment of nonrenewable resources, such as sand, gravel and other components of cement, metals and fossil fuels, necessary for construction and operation of the proposed project. Explanation: The project involves the development of approximately 2.3 acres for a 150,000- square-foot high-security detention facility with supporting reentry program facilities, and a mental health treatment facility in western Contra Costa County. The commitment of nonrenewable resources, such as sand, gravel and other components of cement, metals and fossil fuels, necessary for construction and operation of the proposed project would be irreversible. The proposed project would be located on currently developed land that is zoned for Public and Civic uses, both of which allow for the site’s existing use as an institutional facility. There are no changes in land use that would commit future generations to the continued use of this site as an institutional facility, as this commitment has already been made. Construction of the proposed facility would require the consumption of nonrenewable resources, such as fuel for construction vehicles and equipment. However, such use would be limited to the short-term construction period. The temporary, construction-related increase would not result in significant use of nonrenewable resources and would not commit future generations to similar uses. Operation and maintenance of the proposed project would not increase the use of nonrenewable resources relative to existing conditions because the proposed project would not result in a net gain of beds within the County. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Growth- Inducing Impacts Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR should discuss “…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 State CEQA Guidelines do not provide specific criteria for evaluating growth inducement and state that growth in any area is not “necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[d]). CEQA does not require separate mitigation for growth inducement, as it is assumed that these impacts are already captured in the analysis of environmental impacts. Furthermore, Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR “discuss the ways” a project could be growth inducing and to “discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment.” Growth can be induced in a number of ways, such as elimination of obstacles to growth, stimulation of economic activity within the region, and precedent-setting action such as the provision of new access to an area or a change in a restrictive zoning or general plan land use designation. In general, a project could be considered growth-inducing if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Findings of Significant Effects West County Detention Facility Expansion Final EIR A-13 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way. However, the State CEQA Guidelines do not require a prediction or speculation of where, when, and in what form such growth would occur (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15145). The WCDF Project’s growth-inducing impacts are discussed in Section 5.2 of the EIR. Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds that the proposed project would not induce growth for the following reasons. Explanation: The proposed project would not construct any new roads, infrastructure, or enhance access to the project site. The proposed project would be constructed entirely within the existing WCDF which, as a detention facility, does not require additional access in addition to the already established facility access points. The services provided at the proposed facility would not extend beyond those incarcerated at the WCDF. The land is currently designated for use for the WCDF and there will be no changes to zoning or General Plan land use as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would not be expected to indirectly or directly induce population growth. Typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project is considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in a different location or in excess of what is assumed in pertinent general plans or land use plans, or projections made by regional planning agencies, such as the Association of Bay Area Governments. The proposed project does not include the construction or demolition of any housing, and so would not have a direct impact on population or housing growth. Construction of the proposed project would result in a short-term increase in construction-related job opportunities in the Contra Costa County region. However, construction workers can be expected to be drawn from the existing construction employment labor force. Therefore, opportunities provided by construction of the proposed project would not likely result in the relocation of construction workers to the project area. Therefore, the employment opportunities provided by construction are not anticipated to induce indirect growth in the region. Operation of the proposed project is anticipated to only require up to 30 additional staff, including volunteers, at the WCDF. Inmates who would reside in the proposed facility would be transferred from the MDF in downtown Martinez, which is approximately 16 driving miles from the WCDF. Once the inmates are transferred from MDF the staff required at WCDF would be transferred from MDF as well. Because the WCDF and MDF are only 16 miles from each other it is not anticipated that the staff would relocate to different residences. There would be no new long-term employment opportunities as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to induce indirect or direct growth in the region. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WEST COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY EXPANSION S T A T E C L E A R I N G H O U S E #2015042003 P R E P A R E D F O R : Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Contact: Hillary Heard P R E P A R E D B Y : ICF International 630 K Street Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Brad Norton, Project Manager May 2015 ICF International. May. Draft Environmental Impact Report West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft. 2015. (ICF 00026.15.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, CA. West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report i May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contents List of Tables and Figures ...................................................................................................................... iv List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Proposed Project .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 CEQA Environmental Review Process .............................................................................. 1-3 1.2.1 Intent of the EIR ............................................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2 Notice of Preparation ...................................................................................................... 1-4 1.2.3 Scoping ............................................................................................................................. 1-4 1.2.4 Resources Eliminated from Review ................................................................................. 1-4 1.2.5 Public Comment on the Draft EIR .................................................................................... 1-5 1.3 EIR Organization ............................................................................................................... 1-6 Chapter 2 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Setting .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Location............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3.1 Project Design and Characteristics .................................................................................. 2-2 2.3.2 Operations ....................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.3 Construction Methods and Schedule .............................................................................. 2-5 2.4 Required Permits and Approvals ..................................................................................... 2-6 Chapter 3 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................... 3.1-1 3.1.1 Evaluating Visual Character and Quality ....................................................................... 3.1-1 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 3.1-3 3.1.3 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................. 3.1-4 3.1.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3.1-4 3.2 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy .................................................... 3.2-1 3.2.1 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 3.2-1 3.2.2 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................. 3.2-7 West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report ii May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.2.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................... 3.2-12 3.3 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................. 3.3-1 3.3.1 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 3.3-1 3.3.2 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................. 3.3-2 3.3.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3.3-2 3.4 Noise ............................................................................................................................. 3.4-1 3.4.1 Noise Terminology ........................................................................................................ 3.4-1 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 3.4-2 3.4.3 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................. 3.4-7 3.4.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3.4-7 3.5 Public Services and Utilities .......................................................................................... 3.5-1 3.5.1 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 3.5-1 3.5.2 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................. 3.5-3 3.5.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3.5-4 3.6 Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................................ 3.6-1 3.6.1 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 3.6-1 3.6.2 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................. 3.6-1 3.6.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3.6-5 Chapter 4 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Criteria .......................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Screening Criteria ............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives ................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.3 Impact Avoidance ............................................................................................................ 4-2 4.1.4 Feasibility ......................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................................ 4-2 4.2.1 No Project Alternative ..................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Smaller Expansion Alternative ......................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.3 Two Facilities and Treatment Center Alternative ............................................................ 4-3 4.2.4 Expansion of Martinez Detention Facility Alternative ..................................................... 4-3 4.2.5 Alternatives to Incarceration Alternative ........................................................................ 4-3 4.2.6 Alternatives Dismissed from Analysis .............................................................................. 4-3 4.2.7 Alternative 1 – No Project ................................................................................................ 4-4 4.2.8 Alternative 2 – Smaller Expansion ................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.9 Alternative 3 – Two Facilities and Treatment Center ...................................................... 4-6 4.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................................. 4-8 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations .............................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................................... 5-1 West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report iii May 2015 ICF 00026.15 5.1.1 Legal Requirements ......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.3 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 5-2 5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts ................................................................................................ 5-6 5.2.1 Remove Obstacles to Growth or Provide New Access .................................................... 5-7 5.2.2 Economic, Population, and Housing Growth ................................................................... 5-7 5.3 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ...................................................... 5-7 5.4 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes ....................................................... 5-8 5.4.1 Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations ................................... 5-8 5.4.2 Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions .......................................................... 5-8 5.4.3 Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources ..................................................................... 5-8 Chapter 6 References ........................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Chapter 1, Introduction ................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Chapter 2, Project Description ......................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Section 3.1, Aesthetics ..................................................................................................... 6-1 6.4 Section 3.2, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy ................................... 6-2 6.5 Section 3.3, Land Use and Planning ................................................................................. 6-3 6.6 Section 3.4, Noise ............................................................................................................ 6-3 6.7 Section 3.5, Public Services and Utilities ......................................................................... 6-3 6.8 Section 3.6, Transportation and Traffic ........................................................................... 6-4 6.9 Chapter 4, Alternatives .................................................................................................... 6-4 6.10 Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations ........................................................................... 6-4 Chapter 7 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1 Contra Costa County ........................................................................................................ 7-1 7.2 ICF International .............................................................................................................. 7-1 7.3 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. ...................................................................... 7-1 Appendix A Air Quality Modeling Results Appendix B Transportation Study Results Appendix C Initial Study, NOP, and Scoping Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report iv May 2015 ICF 00026.15 List of Tables and Figures Tables Page 1-1 Summary of County Needs by Inmate and Bed Type ...................................................... 1-2 2-1 Summary of the Proposed Project Building Area ............................................................ 2-2 2-2 Summary of Equipment Types Needed ........................................................................... 2-6 3.2-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................................ 3.2-2 3.2-2 Lifetimes and Global Warming Potentials of Key Greenhouse Gases .......................... 3.2-9 3.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data from the Pablo-Rumrill Boulevard Monitoring Station (2011–2013) ................................................................................ 3.2-11 3.2-4 Federal and State Attainment Status of Contra Costa County ................................... 3.2-12 3.2-5 BAAQMD Criteria Pollutant Thresholds ...................................................................... 3.2-15 3.2-6 Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) ......................... 3.2-18 3.2-7 Mitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) ............................. 3.2-18 3.2-8 Estimated Annual Operational Emissions (pounds per day) ...................................... 3.2-20 3.2-9 Maximum Project-Level Health Risks during Construction ........................................ 3.2-22 3.2-10 Cumulative Project-Level Health Risks during Construction ...................................... 3.2-22 3.2-11 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (metric tons per year) ................................. 3.2-24 3.2-12 Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions (metric tons per year) ...................... 3.2-25 3.3-1 Public and Civic Zone Development Standards ............................................................ 3.3-2 3.3-2 Existing Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................... 3.3-2 3.3-3 Richmond General Plan Policy Consistency .................................................................. 3.3-4 3.4-1 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ................................................................................. 3.4-2 3.4-2 Typical Construction Noise Emission Levels ................................................................. 3.4-8 3.6-1 Existing Intersection Level of Service ............................................................................ 3.6-4 3.6-2 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ..................................................... 3.6-7 3.6-3 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ................................................. 3.6-7 3.6-4 Level of Service at Study Area Intersections under Existing Plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................................... 3.6-10 4-1 Comparison of Alternatives’ Impacts ............................................................................... 4-8 West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report v May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Figures Follows Page 1‐1 Average Annual Occupancy at West County Detention Facility ................................. on 1‐1 2‐1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................... 2‐2 2‐2 Project Site .............................................................................................................................................. 2‐2 2‐3 Aerial View and Preliminary Site Plan ........................................................................................ 2‐2 3.1‐1 Representative Photo Locations ................................................................................................. 3.1‐4 3.1‐2 Representative Photograph 1 ...................................................................................................... 3.1‐4 3.1‐3 Representative Photograph 2 ...................................................................................................... 3.1‐4 3.1‐4 Representative Photograph 3 ...................................................................................................... 3.1‐4 3.1‐5 Representative Photograph 4 ...................................................................................................... 3.1‐4 3.1‐6 Representative Photograph 5 ...................................................................................................... 3.1‐4 3.3‐1 Project Site and Surrounding Zoning ........................................................................................ 3.3‐2 3.4‐1 Contra Costa Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ........................................... 3.4‐4 3.4‐2 City of Richmond Noise Exposure Land Use Compatibility Standards ................ on 3.4‐5 3.6‐1 Existing Road Network and Study Locations ........................................................................ 3.6‐2 3.6‐2 Existing Lane Configurations ....................................................................................................... 3.6‐4 3.6‐3 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................ 3.6‐4 3.6‐4 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment .......................................................................... 3.6‐10 West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report vi May 2015 ICF 00026.15 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter AB Assembly Bill AC Transit Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District ARB California Air Resources Board AT&SF Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe AWSC all way stop control BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District Basin Plans Water Quality Control Plans BMPs best management practices C-3 Regional Commercial District CAA federal Clean Air Act CAAQS California ambient air quality standards CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCAA California Clean Air Act CCAP Community Climate Action Plan CCAs Community Choice Aggregators CCR California Code of Regulations CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines CH4 methane CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent County Contra Costa County CPUC California Public Utilities commission CRR Community and Regional Recreational District CTP Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan dB Decibel dBA A-Weighted Decibel DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report EO executive order EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESPs energy service providers West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report vii May 2015 ICF 00026.15 FAR floor to area ratio FHWA Federal Highway Administration g/m3 micrograms per cubic meter GHG greenhouse gases gpd gallons per day GWP global warming potential HCM Highway Capacity Manual Hexagon Hexagon Transportation Consultants HFCs Hydroflourocarbons HHW hazardous waste HI hazard impacts I- Interstate IOUs investor-owned utilities IRRF Integrated Resource Recovery Facility LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard Ldn Day-Night Level Leq Equivalent Sound Level Lmax Maximum Sound Levels LOS level of service LOS level of service MCAP Municipal Climate Action Plan MDF Martinez Detention Facility MFM-2 Multifamily Medium Density Residential District mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter mph miles per hour N2O nitrous oxide NAAQS, National Ambient Air Quality Standards NGOs nongovernmental organizations NO nitric oxide NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOP Notice of Preparation NOX nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment PA Planned Area District PFCs perfluorocarbons PM Particulate Matter PM 2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million ppt parts per trillion West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report viii May 2015 ICF 00026.15 proposed project West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Public Works Contra Costa County Public Works Department ROG reactive organic compounds RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard San Francisco Bay Water Board San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bills SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 sulfur dioxide SPTC Southern Pacific Transportation Company SSSC side street stop control State Water Board State Resources Control Board TAC Toxic Air Contaminates Tanner Act Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act TCMs traffic control measures UPRR Union Pacific Rail Road USGS United States Geological Survey VMT Vehicle miles traveled WCCSL West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill WCDF West County Detention Facility WCWD West County Wastewater District WPCP water pollution control plant West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Executive Summary This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse #2015042003 has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed expansion of the West County Detention Facility (WCDF). This EIR is intended to enable the County to comply with CEQA in approving the project described in this EIR. The County is the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed project. This EIR provides project- level analysis of the construction of a high-security detention facility with supporting reentry program facilities, and a mental health treatment facility. As required by Section 15123 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this summary contains the following sections. Project Under Review Project Objectives Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Project Alternatives Potential Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved Project Under Review The proposed project entails the development of approximately 2.3 acres at the WCDF for a high- security detention facility with supporting reentry program facilities, and a mental health treatment facility. The new facilities would provide high-security housing, and educational and vocational facilities and programs to help prepare inmates for reentry into society. The proposed project would result in essentially no net increase of California Department of Corrections rated beds in Contra Costa County as a whole. The proposed project would increase the number of beds within the City of Richmond, although external operations are expected to be similar to existing operations at the facility. The 240 cells at the Martinez Detention Facility (MDF) that do not meet security and safety requirements would be repurposed for short-term housing of inmates for purposes of in-processing and release. This project does not include physical changes to the MDF facility. The MDF would continue to be the booking facility for law enforcement agencies in the County. Project Objectives The County’s objectives for this project are listed below. 1. Reduce overcrowding of high-security inmates. 2. Replace non-secure housing with high-security housing. 3. Provide facilities to support re-entry programming for high-security inmates. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-2 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 4. Provide facilities to support mental healthcare for high-security inmates. 5. Expand facilities as cost-efficiently as possible with the support of state grant funding. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Summary of Project Impacts The project impacts are summarized in Table ES-1 (presented at the end of this chapter). For potentially significant impacts, mitigation measures are identified where feasible to reduce the impact on the resources to a less-than-significant-level. Refer to Chapter 3, Impact Analysis, for a detailed discussion of project impacts and detailed description of the mitigation measures. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Significant and unavoidable impacts are those that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation or for which no feasible mitigation is available. The proposed project is not expected to result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. Project Alternatives Chapter 4, Alternatives Development and Screening Process, presents the alternatives screening process and the results of the analysis. The following five alternatives were evaluated and subject to the screening process. No Project alternative, required by CEQA, assumes that there would be no construction of expanded facilities at the WCDF and the existing facility would continue to operate as it does currently. Smaller Expansion alternative assumes that the County would build one 75,000-square-foot building with high-security housing and treatment facilities. The facility would have 120 double- occupancy cells (240 beds). Two Facilities and Treatment Center alternative assumes the County would develop two buildings on approximately 4 acres at the WCDF. Each building would be approximately 75,000 square feet with high-security housing modules and approximately 120 double-occupancy cells (240 beds). Expansion of Martinez Detention Facility alternative assumes the existing MDF would be upgraded and expanded to accommodate high-security inmates and reduce overcrowding. Expansion of the facility would replace the parking area with a facility that incorporates parking. This facility would be stand-alone from the existing MDF. Alternatives to Incarceration alternative assumes the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department would employ prisoner management methods to reduce incarceration and, as a result, reduce the population of inmates. Prisoner management methods include accelerated release of inmates, work- in-lieu-of-jail program, and county parole. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-3 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Potential Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved Based on scoping comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) there are few environmental concerns related to the proposed project. However, the City of Richmond is concerned about how the expanded facility would affect the community, including how inmate discharge may affect the community, how programming services would be delivered, and how the Sheriff’s Department would operate intake. These issues are not environmental issues and are, therefore, not evaluated in detail in this EIR, although the Sheriff’s Department and City staff will be meeting to discuss and resolve these issues outside of the CEQA process. How to Comment on this Draft EIR Reviewers of the Draft EIR should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate significant environmental effects. The Draft EIR has been released for a 45-day public review period from May 15, 2015, to 5 p.m. July 1, 2015. Comments on this draft EIR are due to the County no later than 5 p.m. on July 1, 2015, and can be forwarded by any of the following methods. Mail: Contra Costa County Public Works Department Attn: Hillary Heard 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Email: hhear@pw.cccounty.us A public comment meeting will be conducted at 3:30 on June 10, 2015, in the County’s Zoning Administrator Room, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, California. Comments on the Draft EIR will be received during this time. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-4 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Aesthetics Impact AES-1: Potential to have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista Less than significant None necessary Impact AES-2: Potential to substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway No impact None necessary Impact AES-3: Potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings Less than significant None necessary Impact AES-4: Potential to create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area Less than significant None necessary Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Impact AQ-1: Conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan Less than significant None necessary Impact AQ-2: Violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation Significant Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust and Equipment Exhaust Emissions Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Equipment Exhaust Emissions Less than significant Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-5 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Impact Level of Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Impact AQ-3: Potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard Less than significant None necessary Impact AQ-4: Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Less than significant None necessary Impact AQ-5: Creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people Less than significant None necessary Impact GHG-1: Generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment Less than significant None necessary Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases Less than significant None necessary Impact GHG-3: Subject property and persons to otherwise avoidable physical harm in light of inevitable climate change Less than significant None necessary Impact EGY-1: Result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy, including transportation energy use Less than significant None necessary Cultural Resources (as identified in the Initial Study) Checklist items a and b: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Significant Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Stop Work at Discovery of Cultural Resources Less than significant Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-6 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Impact Level of Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Checklist item c: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Significant Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Stop Work at Discovery of Paleontological Resources Less than significant Land Use and Planning Impact LUP-1: Physically divide an established community No impact None necessary Impact LUP-2: Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect No impact None necessary Noise Impact NOI-1: Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies Less than significant None necessary Impact NOI-2: Expose persons to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project Less than significant None necessary Impact NOI-3: Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels Less than significant None necessary Impact NOI-4: Expose persons to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project Less than significant None necessary Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-7 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Impact Level of Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Impact NOI-5: Be located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels Less than significant None necessary Public Services and Utilities Impact PUB-1: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities Significant Mitigation Measure PUB-1a: Ensure adequate water pressure and supply for potential fire suppression needs. Mitigation Measure PUB-1b: Comply with all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements, subject to review and approval by the City of Richmond Planning and Building Services Significant Impact PUB-2: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Less than significant None necessary Impact PUB-3: Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects Less than significant None necessary Impact PUB-4: Require new or expanded entitlements to water resources Less than significant None necessary Impact PUB-5: Require additional capacity to accommodate solid waste disposal needs associated with increased solid waste production from expanded facility Less than significant None necessary Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-8 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Impact Level of Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Transportation and Traffic Impact TRA-1: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit Less than significant None necessary Impact TRA-2: Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways Less than significant None necessary Impact TRA-3: Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks Less than significant None necessary Impact TRA-4: Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature or incompatible uses Less than significant None necessary Impact TRA-5: Result in inadequate emergency access No impact None necessary Impact TRA-6: Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities Less than significant None necessary Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-9 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Cumulative Impacts Contribution to Cumulative Effects Additional Mitigation Measures Contribution after Mitigation Aesthetics Not considerable None necessary Agriculture and forestry resources Not considerable None necessary Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions Not considerable None necessary Biological resources Not considerable None necessary Cultural resources Not considerable None necessary Geology and soils Not considerable None necessary Hazards and hazardous materials Not considerable None necessary Hydrology and water quality Not considerable None necessary Land use and planning Not considerable None necessary Mineral resources Not considerable None necessary Noise Not considerable None necessary Population and housing Not considerable None necessary Public services and utilities Not considerable None necessary Recreation Not considerable None necessary Transportation and Traffic Not considerable None necessary West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Proposed Project This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential impacts of constructing and operating the West County Detention Facility (WCDF) Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion (proposed project). The EIR is intended to identify the anticipated environmental impacts of the facility expansion that may be undertaken by Contra Costa County (County). 1.1.1 Overview At the time of the original planning of the WCDF, future expansion was envisioned. At this time, the Contra Costa County Public Works Department (Public Works) is working with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department to implement such an expansion. 1.1.2 Background The original WCDF facility was designed and constructed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The site plan evaluated in the 1990 EIR for the facility included housing for up to 1,536 inmates and 495 staff members, and the existing facility was designed to include infrastructure scaled to support future housing expansion to that size. The proposed project would utilize existing infrastructure, such as administration, kitchen, laundry, sewer and water, and maintenance facilities, to serve the proposed larger population. The facility opened in 1991, with housing capacity for a population of 1,196. A small expansion occurred in 1994. Changes in standards, described below, have affected the capacity of the facility, though the campus’ total capacity ranges up to 1,096 inmates, depending on the types of inmates. Approximately 115 employees, including deputies, clerks, aides, cooks, teachers and medical staff, are assigned to work at the WCDF, and a typical shift consists of approximately 37 employees. The WCDF population has remained steady with an average population of approximately 800 inmates each year over the past 5 years (Figure 1-1); however, the population in 2015 is expected to vary from 574 inmates, the current population, to 625 inmates based on changes in the Federal Inmate Program. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Introduction West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-2 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Over the past 13 years there have been substantial changes in California’s criminal justice system. A series of court decisions, state laws, and voter initiatives have resulted in changes in the profile of those incarcerated and how the County must address their needs. The County Sheriff administers more than a dozen classifications of inmates, each requiring special needs and services, and some of who must be further separated for staff and inmate safety. The proposed expansion would help the County achieve its capacity, security, facility, and programming needs based on these current standards and classifications. These are described briefly below. The County’s existing detention facilities are not equipped to properly and safely house all the classifications of inmates now in custody; consequently, the current operation presents a safety liability. According to the 2013 Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff Jail Needs Assessment Update, the County Sheriff currently must detain approximately 650 inmates classified as high security, but only has 53 beds that were designed and built for high-security detainees (Grady Williams Associates 2013). Table 1-1 provides a summary of the County’s needs by inmate and bed type from the 2013 Needs Assessment. Another needs assessment will be prepared this year, and it is expected to show similar numbers. Table 1-1. Summary of County Needs by Inmate and Bed Type Inmate Classification Current Capacity by Bed Type Current Required Bed Type Net Surplus or Deficit Minimum 188 71 117 Medium 1,738 855 883 Maximum 53 642 -589 Source: Grady Williams Associates, 2013 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Introduction West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-3 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Placing special inmates in inappropriate housing units on a temporary basis creates safety risks for both officers and inmates. Housing that was originally designed as disciplinary and intake housing units now provides space for administrative segregation, protective custody, housing the general population (including rival gangs), and mental health and medical care of inmates. Since the implementation of Assembly Bill 109, Contra Costa County has been housing higher level inmates previously housed in state facilities for much longer periods of time, requiring staff to regularly move inmates in an effort to minimize security risk. Currently, the only available housing for high-security inmates is at another facility, the Martinez Detention Facility (MDF), which was not designed for high security inmates. Large concrete pillars obstruct views of inmates, and angular sight lines make supervision of inmates outside of their cells difficult without extensive staffing. The facility design is soft—characterized by dry cells and rooms with shared lavatories. Flooring can be pried up and used to fabricate or hide makeshift weapons. Cells have wooden doors and furnishings that do not provide the adequate security for maximum security inmates. Similarly, because of the soft design, the MDF dayroom areas are not suitable for providing educational or behavioral programming. The County needs to provide educational and vocational programming for its high security inmates, but is limited by the lack of secure facilities. Because these facilities do not exist, new high security educational and vocational facilities are needed in the WCDF. These facilities would provide staff with the opportunity to work with inmates and to support their rehabilitation in a safe environment. Such facilities would include hardened multipurpose classrooms. New programming could include educational classes, vocational classes, drug treatment and prevention classes, parenting classes, library programs, and faith-based programs to improve inmates’ re-entry into society. This type of programming can be provided only in facilities that are appropriate for the inmate classification. Similarly, the County has limited high security healthcare and mental health facilities; additional facilities are needed to meet state requirements. Outpatient care facilities are essential to provide close-proximity outpatient medical services. The high security classification, aging population, and mental health needs of a large portion of the inmate population dictate the need for close-proximity outpatient medical services. 1.2 CEQA Environmental Review Process 1.2.1 Intent of the EIR The County has prepared this Draft EIR in compliance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.). As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR is an informational document to aid in public review and official decision making. The EIR addresses the proposed project, disclosing information describing the environmental setting; potential direct, indirect, cumulative, and growth- inducing impacts of the proposed project; mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce or avoid those impacts; alternatives to the proposed project; and impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation. The Contra Costa County Department of Community Development is the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed project. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Introduction West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-4 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 1.2.2 Notice of Preparation The County prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the intent to prepare a Draft EIR for the proposed project. The NOP was posted in the County clerk’s office on March 31, 2015 and delivered to the State Clearinghouse for distribution on April 1, 2015. The County also mailed copies of the NOP to interested parties, local agencies, and other interested stakeholders. The scoping period for the EIR closed on April 30, 2015. 1.2.3 Scoping This EIR addresses comments on the NOP to the extent that they influenced the scope of the environmental analysis. Four comment letters were received: one from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), one from California Department of Transportation, one from East Bay Municipal Utilities District, and one from Contra Costa County Health Services Department. The City of Richmond’s planning director also submitted comments via e-mail. Comments received regarding the scope of the Draft EIR pertained to the following topics. Aesthetics Noise Biological resources Public safety (e.g., the need to obtain permits for geotechnical investigations, well and septic closures, and medical waste from the County’s Health Services Department) Transportation and traffic Water supply The County is addressing all of these issues in this Draft EIR. A public scoping meeting was conducted in the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator hearing room on April 20, 2015. There were four public speakers at the meeting. No environmental issues were raised during the meeting. 1.2.4 Resources Eliminated from Review The following resources were eliminated from review because the analysis of potential project impacts contained in the Initial Study (Appendix C) indicated there would be no significant impacts on these resource topics. Agriculture and forestry resources Biological resources Geology and soils Hazards and hazardous materials Hydrology and water quality Mineral resources Population and housing Recreation Contra Costa County Public Works Department Introduction West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 1‐5 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 A letter was received from CDFW asking for additional analysis of biological resources onsite and offsite. However, because the project would be located on a site that has previously been graded, is developed, and is within an existing fenced area of the WCDF, the County is not undertaking additional analysis of biological resources. The County is aware that there may be birds that nest in nearby trees and monarch butterflies that use nearby trees; however, the County does not propose to remove these trees. The County will require standard use of Best Management Practices, including pre‐construction surveys, to ensure that nesting birds would not be affected. Cultural resources was the one resource topic for which the Initial Study identified potential impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation (see Appendix C, Initial Study, NOP and Scoping Comments). This resource topic is not further evaluated in this EIR, but the mitigation identified in the Initial Study will be carried forward and incorporated into the proposed project. 1.2.5 Public Comment on the Draft EIR CEQA does not require formal hearings at any stage of the environmental review process (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15202[a]). However, CEQA does encourage “wide public involvement, formal and informal, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15201). The County distributed an NOP of intent to prepare a Draft EIR for the proposed project beginning on April 1, 2015. A 30‐day public comment period for the NOP ended on April 30, 2015. Comments on the NOP were considered in the preparation of this EIR. Appendix C contains the NOP and written comments on the NOP. This Draft EIR was made available for public comment beginning May 15, 2015, and the 45‐day public comment period will end on July 1, 2015. A public meeting will be conducted on June 10, 2015 at 3:30 p.m. in the County’s Zoning Administrator Room, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, California. Written comments may be submitted at any time during the public comment period. All comments on the Draft EIR will be presented in the Final EIR and a response will be provided to each comment received. 1.2.5.1 Making Effective Comments Readers are invited to review and comment on the adequacy and completeness of this Draft EIR in describing the potential impacts of the proposed project, their level of severity, the mitigation measures being proposed to reduce or avoid impacts, and the project alternatives being considered. The most effective comments are those that focus on the adequacy and completeness of the environmental analysis and that are supported by factual evidence. Comments that focus on whether the project should be approved or denied are not comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. 1.2.5.2 Submitting Comments Written comments may be submitted by mail or email to the following addresses by July 1, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Attention: Hillary Heard 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 email: hhear@pw.cccounty.us Contra Costa County Public Works Department Introduction West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-6 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 1.3 EIR Organization This Draft EIR and supporting information are presented in the chapters and appendices listed below. Chapter 1, Introduction, provides an introduction and overview describing the focus of the Draft EIR and the environmental review process. Chapter 2, Project Description, describes the project and provides details on location, objectives, and required approvals. Chapter 3, Impact Analysis, describes the environmental setting, provides analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and identifies mitigation measures for any significant impacts. Chapter 4, Other CEQA Considerations, provides a discussion of significant and unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible environmental effects, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. Chapter 5, Alternatives, provides an evaluation of project alternatives. Chapter 6, References, lists the published sources of information and individuals consulted for preparation of this Draft EIR. Chapter 7, Preparers, identifies the individuals who prepared this document. Appendix A, Air Quality Modeling Results. Appendix B, Transportation Study Results. Appendix C, Initial Study, NOP, and Scoping Comments. West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Chapter 2 Project Description 2.1 Project Setting 2.1.1 Location The project site is located at 5555 Giant Highway in north Richmond, California, north of San Pablo and west of Pinole (Figure 2-1). The project site encompasses approximately 2.3 acres of an approximately 50-acre County-owned property (Figure 2-2) within the city limits of the City of Richmond that is developed and fenced consistent with its institutional use as a detention facility. 2.1.2 Existing Conditions The project site is a currently undeveloped portion of the West County Detention Facility (WCDF) that was previously graded to support future expansion. The project site is composed of ruderal grassland with security lighting every 100 feet to 200 feet. It is surrounded by a perimeter security fence and patrol road, and landscaped berms. 2.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses As shown on Figure 2-2, the WCDF is bordered by the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline on the west and south, the Pinole Point Business Park on the north, and a residential neighborhood and the Richmond Country Club on the east. Two railroad lines are located near the project site: the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTC) railroad on the west, and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe (AT&SF) railroad line on the east along Giant Highway. As shown on Figure 2-3, the project site is surrounded on the north, west, and south by the existing WCDF facilities and on the east by vacant graded land within the fence of the existing WCDF facility. 2.2 Project Objectives The County’s objectives for this project are listed below. 1. Reduce overcrowding of high-security inmates. 2. Replace non-secure housing with high-security housing. 3. Provide facilities to support re-entry programming for high-security inmates. 4. Provide facilities to support mental healthcare for high-security inmates. 5. Expand facilities as cost-efficiently as possible with the support of state grant funding. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-2 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 2.3 Project Overview The proposed project entails the development of approximately 2.3 acres at the WCDF for a high- security detention facility with supporting reentry program facilities, and a mental health treatment facility. The new facilities would provide high-security housing, and educational and vocational facilities and programs to help prepare inmates for reentry into society. The location of the expansion is generally shown on Figure 2-3. The proposed project would result in essentially no net increase of California Department of Corrections rated beds in Contra Costa County as a whole. The proposed project would increase the number of beds within the City of Richmond, but external operations are expected to remain similar to existing operations at the facility. Additional information on staffing is provided below and analysis of traffic effects are provided in Section 3.6, Transportation and Traffic. The 240 cells at the Martinez Detention Facility (MDF) that do not meet security and safety requirements would be repurposed for short-term housing of inmates for purposes of in-processing and release. This project does not include physical changes to the MDF facility. The MDF would continue to be the booking facility for law enforcement agencies in the County. 2.3.1 Project Design and Characteristics The proposed project would consist of construction of a 150,000-square-foot building containing approximately 240 double-occupancy cells (480 beds), a mental health treatment facility, and educational and vocational program facilities, along with facilities to support outpatient medical services, recreational activities, and minor administrative functions of the existing WCDF. In addition, a small, single story, equipment or generator building would be located adjacent to the main building. Table 2-1 summarizes the proposed new project elements. Table 2-1. Summary of the Proposed Project Building Area Proposed Use Approximate Area (square feet) Inmate Housing 70,000 Educational And Vocational Program Facilities 30,000 Healthcare and Mental Health Services 20,000 Central Control 2,000 Video Visitation 2,000 Administration 1,000 Mechanical and Circulation 25,000 Generator Building 1,000 Total Facility Construction 151,000 Intake, release, inpatient health care, central library services, food service, laundry, commissary, and maintenance/warehouse storage will continue to be provided in existing buildings and using existing infrastructure on the WCDF site. N APA S ONOMA M ARIN S OLANO C ONTRA C OSTA A LAMEDA 24 13 29 29 37 12 4 1 121 121 112 116 80 80 580 580 880 101 101 Faireld Novato Petaluma Sonoma San Rafael Mill Valley Tiburon Sausalito Corte Madera San Francisco Vallejo Richmond San Pablo Pinole Oakland Hayward Berkeley Albany El Cerrito Alameda San Leandro Concord Benicia Martinez Walnut Creek Napa San Pablo Bay San Francisco Bay Suisun BaySonoma CkPetaluma R.Pac i c OceanNapa R .Figure 2-1 Project Location Miles 50 Project Location Graphics … 0026.15 (4-17-2015) West County Detention Facility Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Parking San Pablo Bay Richmond Golf and Country Club Residential UPS Customer Center Pinole Point Business Park SOUTHERN PACIFIC RRAT&SF RR Giant HwyGiant RdAtlas RdLinks DrLi n k s D rFringe DrVista Dr At l a s R d Horizon DrMeadow View DrPark Ridge DrOakm o n t Dr Sobrante AveGraphics … 0026.15 (4-17-2015)Figure 2-2 Project Site Feet 200 6004000 Image: Google Inc. 2015. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.0. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: 1-22-2014. Legend Project Site West County Detention Facility Expansion Area Pinole Point Business Park Giant HwySobrante AveSOUTHERN PACIFIC RRPoint Pinole Regional Shoreline Parking Richmond Golf and Country ClubAT&SF RRFigure 2-3 Aerial View and Preliminary Site PlanGraphics … 0026.15 (4-17-2015)Feet 100 3002000 Image: Google Inc. 2015. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.0. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: 1-26-2015. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-3 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 New Building Design The proposed new structure would consist of one 150,000-square-foot building with several wings, and one small, single story, equipment or generator building located adjacent to the main building. Most elements of the main building would be two stories with mezzanines, with a taller central building element at the main entrance. Building heights would range from approximately 32 to 45 feet. Because the site proposed for the new building is relatively flat, only limited grading would be required to provide drainage away from the building, and the entire footprint of the main floor of the building would be at a single level. The roofs of the building elements would mostly be flat. The walls of the building would be plastered an off-white color to match the existing structures and would be predominantly flat with very little adornment. Along the west side of the building, where the entry would be located, there would be more architectural character involving windows, roof- line and trim features. The building design would include patios and courtyards with trellis forms to provide sun and wind protection. The service yard would be screened from view from other buildings on and off campus to prevent unauthorized inmate communication. Exercise yards would be situated in the interior of the building. The project design does not include guard towers. An exterior breezeway would be constructed between the new building and the existing visitation building. Landscaping and Lighting Existing landscaping at the WCDF site would be maintained. New landscaping around the proposed new buildings would be consistent with other existing onsite landscaping. For security reasons, no new landscaping would be installed adjacent to security fencing. Exterior lighting for the facility would be similar to existing lighting, directed downward with the minimum wattage to meet security needs. Fencing Adequate chain-link security perimeter fencing already exists onsite. The proposed new facility would be designed so that the exterior wall of the building serves as the primary security barrier. If necessary, additional security fencing may be added to control pedestrian access from the new building to the adjacent existing building. 2.3.2 Operations Housing Housing would be designed for male inmates pending arraignment, during trial, and upon sentence of commitment to the county jail, (i.e., a Type II jail as defined by California Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 1 Section 13-102 (a)); there is currently sufficient space on site for female inmates. Housing would have double-occupancy cells, configured in approximately eight internal housing units of approximately 60 beds each, with mezzanines. The housing units would be designed in a manner that allows for direct and indirect supervision. In addition to cells and a dayroom, each housing unit would have program space and visitation/interview rooms and booths (see below). Each unit would have a pedestrian sally port, shower and changing area, equipment storage, medical examination room, food cart storage, control room, staff toilet, and janitor closet. The housing units would be arranged in a modular configuration centered on a corridor and central control. There would be two floors of housing, each with an exercise yard and multipurpose room. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-4 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Programs The new building would provide space in each housing unit for vocational and rehabilitation programs. Four multipurpose classrooms and two vocational workshops dedicated to specific industries would be located in the building and accessible to each housing unit, along with supporting storage, a chaplain’s office and storage, a small in-house library with associated storage and book repair area, workspace for staff, and locker space for staff and trainers. Administration The new administrative space would comprise three staff offices, reception, two conference rooms, copy/layout room, records, and office supplies storage. Visitation The new building would have a centralized visiting for the new facility consisting of 10 video booths and 2 contact/confidential interview rooms, as well as a public toilet and janitor closet. In addition, three video visitation booths, one contact/confidential interview room, and two non-contact/ confidential interview rooms would be located in each housing unit. Central Control Primary security would remain with the existing central control on campus. However, because the new high-security expansion must be considered a separate security zone to comply with security requirements, the new facilities would be designed so that the Sheriff’s Department could implement independent control and security functions internally within the building. The new building would also contain an armory and Specialized Emergency Response Team room. Staff Services The staff services facility would provide required nearby space for staff briefing, showering, and physical training. Male and female locker space would be provided for 25 and 15 staff members, respectively. A staff food counter and a janitor closet would be included. Health Care The new building would house health care administration facilities, including an outpatient clinic, reception, three staff offices, clerical workstation, conference room, staff break room, and toilet. The outpatient clinic would consist of three exam rooms, two mental health interview rooms, a waiting area, two secure holding cells, officer’s station, reception and nurse’s station, medical records storage areas, staff and inmate toilets, equipment storage, clean utility storage, and soiled utility/hazardous storage spaces. Project Staffing and Hours of Operation The Sheriff’s Office estimates that an additional 24 staff members—12 people per 12-hour shift— would be needed to support the facility. The majority of the staff added as a result of the proposed project may be current employees reassigned from other County facilities to fully utilize existing staff. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-5 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 The facility is a 24-hour facility. It is assumed that 12-hour shifts (6 a.m. to 6 p.m.) similar to those currently in place at the WCDF, would be standard. The educational and vocational reentry component of facility would involve an additional six employees or community volunteers providing various educational, vocational, and drug and alcohol counseling services throughout the day. Because these services would be offered from a limited programming space, the persons involved would not all be arriving and leaving at the same time, but rather at various times throughout the day according to a programming schedule. Therefore, the proposed project could result in an increase in staffing at the site of up to 30 total staff members, including community volunteers. Inmate Bus Transportation between MDF, WCDF and the Courthouse An existing bus route is operated by the Sheriff’s department that transports inmates among MDF, WCDF, and the courthouse. Implementation of the proposed project would not change the number or timing of the existing bus system, which operates on a fixed route and schedule, and will be able to accommodate changes in distribution of inmates between MDF and WCDF as proposed. 2.3.3 Construction Methods and Schedule Construction Schedule The County expects to use a design-bid-build or design-build process for this project. Planning for this process was initiated in January 2015 and will be completed in late 2015. The County will be applying for state lease revenue bond financing in 2015. If the County’s application is successful, the County expects design to begin in spring 2016. Construction is then expected to begin in summer 2017. Construction would take approximately 18 to 24 months to complete. Construction Equipment and Staffing Specific construction equipment and personnel needed to construct the proposed project are not yet known. However, based on the size and duration of construction as estimated in CalEEMod, an air quality model, the equipment listed in Table 2-2 would be needed during construction. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-6 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Table 2-2. Summary of Equipment Types Needed Phase Equipment Type Site preparation Grader Scraper Backhoe Grading Grader Rubber tired dozer Tractor/loader/backhoe Building construction and architectural coating Crane Forklift Generator set Tractor/loader/backhoe Welder Air compressor Paving Cement mixer Paver Paving equipment Roller Tractor/loader/backhoe Construction staff is expected to work from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., 5 days per week. The number of construction staff onsite is expected to average 20 people per day, with a maximum daily onsite workforce of approximately 40 people. 2.4 Required Permits and Approvals Implementation of the proposed project will require the following approvals. County review and approval, including possible permits from the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division and building permits from the Building Inspection Division. State Department of Corrections review and approval. State Water Resources Control Board approval of a Construction General Permit for management of stormwater during construction activities. San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board approval of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination stormwater permit. Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Chapter 3 Impact Analysis This chapter provides environmental analyses of the physical impacts that could result from implementation of the West Count Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion. The chapter is organized into separate sections for each resource analyzed, as listed below. Each section provides a description of the environmental and regulatory setting, significance criteria and methodology used in the impact analysis, and the potential impacts and required mitigation measures. Specific details of the West Count Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description, were used for the analyses in this chapter. This chapter is organized into the following sections. 3.1, Aesthetics 3.2, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy 3.3 Land Use and Planning 3.4, Noise 3.5, Public Services and Utilities 3.6, Transportation and Traffic Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Aesthetics West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.1 Aesthetics This section identifies and evaluates issues related to visual resources in the project area. Section 3.1.3, Environmental Setting, describes the current setting. The purpose of this information is to establish the existing environmental context against which the reader can understand the environmental changes caused by the proposed project. The environmental setting information is intended to be directly relevant to the subsequent discussion of impacts. The setting also identifies groups of people who have views of the project area. This section also identifies project impacts and their level of significance. Identifying a project area’s visual resources and conditions involves three steps. 1. Objective identification of the visual features (visual resources) of the landscape. 2. Assessment of the character and quality of those resources relative to overall regional visual character. 3. Determination of the importance to people, or sensitivity, of views of visual resources in the landscape. Visual quality is evaluated using the well-established approach to visual analysis adopted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), employing the concepts of vividness, intactness, and unity described below (Federal Highway Administration 1988:46–59). The FHWA approach is used because it establishes an objective measure of visual quality and visual character. The aesthetic value of an area is a measure of its visual character and quality, combined with the viewer response to the area (Federal Highway Administration 1988). Scenic quality can best be described as the overall impression that an individual viewer retains after driving through, walking through, or flying over an area. Viewer response is a combination of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. Viewer exposure is a function of the number of viewers, number of views, distance of the viewers, and viewing duration. Viewer sensitivity relates to the extent of the public’s concern for a particular viewshed. These terms and criteria are described in detail below. 3.1.1 Evaluating Visual Character and Quality 3.1.1.1 Visual Character Natural and artificial landscape features contribute to the visual character of an area or view. Visual character is influenced by geologic, hydrologic, botanical, wildlife, recreational, and urban features. Urban features include those associated with landscape settlements and development, including roads, utilities, structures, earthworks, and the results of other human activities. The perception of visual character can vary significantly seasonally, even hourly, as weather, light, shadow, and elements that compose the viewshed change. The basic components used to describe visual character for most visual assessments are the elements of form, line, color, and texture of the landscape features (Federal Highway Administration 1988). The appearance of the landscape is described in terms of the dominance of each of these components. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Aesthetics West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-2 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.1.1.2 Visual Quality Visual quality is evaluated using the well-established approach to visual analysis adopted by Federal Highway Administration, employing the concepts of vividness, intactness, and unity (Federal Highway Administration 1988), which are described below. Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in striking and distinctive visual patterns. Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements; this factor can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, and in natural settings. Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole; it frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the landscape. Visual quality is evaluated based on the relative degree of vividness, intactness, and unity, as modified by its visual sensitivity. High-quality views are highly vivid, relatively intact, and exhibit a high degree of visual unity. Low-quality views lack vividness, are not visually intact, and possess a low degree of visual unity. 3.1.1.3 Visual Exposure and Sensitivity The measure of the quality of a view must be tempered by the overall sensitivity of the viewer. Viewer sensitivity or concern is based on the visibility of resources in the landscape, proximity of viewers to the visual resource, elevation of viewers relative to the visual resource, frequency and duration of views, number of viewers, and type and expectations of individuals and viewer groups. The importance of a view is related in part to the position of the viewer to the resource; therefore, visibility and visual dominance of landscape elements depend on their placement within the viewshed. A viewshed is defined as all of the surface area visible from a particular location (e.g., an overlook) or sequence of locations (e.g., a roadway or trail) (Federal Highway Administration 1988). To identify the importance of views of a resource, a viewshed must be broken into distance zones of foreground, middleground, and background. Generally, the closer a resource is to the viewer, the more dominant it is and the greater its importance to the viewer. Although distance zones in a viewshed may vary between different geographic region or types of terrain, the standard foreground zone is 0.25–0.5 mile from the viewer, the middleground zone from the foreground zone to 3–5 miles from the viewer, and the background zone from the middleground to infinity. Visual sensitivity depends on the number and type of viewers and the frequency and duration of views. Visual sensitivity is also modified by viewer activity, awareness, and visual expectations in relation to the number of viewers and viewing duration. For example, visual sensitivity is generally higher for views seen by people who are driving for pleasure, people engaging in recreational activities such as hiking, biking or camping, and homeowners. Sensitivity tends to be lower for views seen by people driving to and from work or as part of their work (Federal Highway Administration 1988). Commuters and nonrecreational travelers generally have fleeting views and tend to focus on commute traffic, not on surrounding scenery; therefore, they are generally considered to have low visual sensitivity. Residential viewers typically have extended viewing periods and are concerned about changes in the views from their homes; therefore, they are generally considered to have high visual sensitivity. Viewers using recreation trails and areas, scenic highways, and scenic overlooks are usually assessed as having high visual sensitivity. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Aesthetics West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-3 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Judgments of visual quality and viewer response must be made based in a regional frame of reference. The same landform or visual resource appearing in different geographic areas could have a different degree of visual quality and sensitivity in each setting. For example, a small hill may be a significant visual element on a flat landscape but may have very little significance in mountainous terrain. 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting 3.1.2.1 Federal The federal government does not explicitly regulate visual quality but recognizes its importance and preserves aesthetic values through the National Park, National Wildlife Refuge, National Monument, and National Scenic Byway Systems. There are no such parks or refuges in the vicinity of the project. 3.1.2.2 State The state government regulates visual quality with respect to state scenic highways and wild and scenic rivers. There are no state-designated scenic highways or rivers in the vicinity of the project. 3.1.2.3 Local The City of Richmond Municipal Code and Richmond General Plan 2030 include policies that relate to the protection of visual resources (City of Richmond 2012a). The Municipal Code includes development standards that guide development while maintaining natural and human-made views important to the City of Richmond. Article 15 of the Municipal Code establishes the land use zoning, design guidelines, and development protocols. The City of Richmond General Plan contains the following policies related to visual quality: LU5.3 Land Use Compatibility: Minimize conflicts between land uses to protect wetlands, marshlands, and creeks, humans and environmental health and safety, preserve community character and retain job generating activities that have long-term viability. LU5.B Design Guidelines: Develop design guidelines and standards for all land uses and development prototypes. The guidelines would build on zoning codes to promote high-quality design. Guidelines should also address compatibility between new and existing historic structures and districts, residential and adjacent non-residential uses and urban and natural areas. The general plan designation for the site is Public, Cultural, and Institutional and the site is zoned PC for Public and Civic uses, both of which allow for the site’s existing use as an institutional facility. Lands surrounding the WCDF site are designated for Community and Regional Recreational District (CRR), Regional Commercial District (C-3), Planned Area District (PA), and Multifamily Medium Density Residential District (MFM-2) (City of Richmond 2015). The development standards for the site are a building height a maximum of 45 feet, maximum floor-to-area ratio of 0.6:1, and minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Aesthetics West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-4 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.1.3 Environmental Setting Vicinity Character The WCDF site, on which the project site is located, is surrounded by a mix of residential, regional park, and modernizing industrial land. The project site is visible from Giant Highway, from the Richmond Country Club golf course to the south-east, from Point Pinole Regional Shoreline on the west and north, from the Pinole Point Business Park to the north, and a residential neighborhood to the east. Elevations on the project site range from 20 to 70 feet, and the site slopes gently to the west. The existing facility structures are one- and two-story buildings with flat roofs in a landscaped campus setting. The existing facility exteriors are textured concrete in neutral earth tones. The boundaries of the WCDF site are bermed to create a topographic barrier to views of the facility and have been landscaped with plants similar to the surrounding landscape, including native plants and eucalyptus trees. Existing outdoor lighting fixtures are mounted on 30-foot poles on the perimeter of the secured area and throughout the site at 100- to 200-foot intervals. All lights are high pressure sodium using 250- or 400-watt bulbs that are recessed in a square box to direct light downward. Existing Viewer Groups Existing viewer groups that will be described in the impact analysis consist of residents, business employees and patrons, roadway users, and recreational users. Views from local reference locations representing these viewer groups’ perspectives are provided in Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-6. 3.1.4 Impact Analysis 3.1.4.1 Methods 3.1.4.2 Methods for Analysis Using the concepts and terminology described at the beginning of this section, and criteria for evaluating impacts and determining significance described below, analysis of the visual effects of the project are based on the following sources and methods. Direct field observation on February 5, 2015 and April 14, 2015 from vantage points, including neighboring properties and roadways. Photographic documentation of key views of and from the project site. Evaluation of the regional visual context. Review of the project in regard to compliance with state and local ordinances and regulations and local general plan policies. Professional standards pertaining to visual quality. Feet 200 6004000 Image: Google Inc. 2015. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.0. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: 1-22-2014. Legend Project Site West County Detention Facility Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Parking San Pablo Bay Richmond Golf and Country Club Residential UPS Customer Center Pinole Point Business Park SOUTHERN PACIFIC RRAT&SF RR Giant HwyGiant RdAtlas RdLinks DrLi n k s D rFringe DrVista Dr At l a s R d Horizon DrMeadow View DrPark Ridge DrOakm o n t Dr Sobrante Ave00026.15 Contra Costa Pub Works-West Co Detention (05-15) SSFigure 3.1-1 Representative Photo Locations 1 2a 2b 3 4 5 00026.15 Contra Costa Pub Works-West Co Detention (05-15)SSFigure 3.1-2 Representative Photo 1 Photo 1: Looking southwest towards project site from Pinole Point Business Park. 00026.15 Contra Costa Pub Works-West Co Detention (05-15)SSFigure 3.1-3 Representative Photo 2a and 2b Photo 2b: Looking east towards project site from Giant Highway. Photo 2a: Looking west towards project site from Giant Highway. 00026.15 Contra Costa Pub Works-West Co Detention (05-15)SSFigure 3.1-4 Representative Photo 3 Photo 3: Looking northeast towards project site from Giant Highway. 00026.15 Contra Costa Pub Works-West Co Detention (05-15)SSFigure 3.1-5 Representative Photo 4 Photo 4: Looking northeast towards project site from Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Parking area. 00026.15 Contra Costa Pub Works-West Co Detention (05-15)SSFigure 3.1-6 Representative Photo 5 Photo 5: Looking west towards project site from Links Drive. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Aesthetics West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-5 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.1.4.3 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant effect if it would result in any of the conditions listed below. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. 3.1.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact AES-1: Potential to have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (less than significant) There are no scenic vistas designated by the City of Richmond or the County near the project site. Portions of the project site are visible from Giant Highway, Point Pinole Regional Shoreline, Richmond County Club golf course, Pinole Point Business Park, and residences on Par Court and Links Drive to east. The Richmond General Plan 2030 has policies emphasizing the importance of maintaining the character of the existing community. Construction of the new facility would be consistent with the existing land uses and would not obstruct scenic views or otherwise degrade a scenic vista. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Impact AES-2: Potential to substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway (no impact) There are no state- or County-designated scenic highways near the project site. The project site is not visible from State Routes 4 or 24 or Interstate 680, which are the designated scenic highways in Contra Costa County (California Department of Transportation 2013). The County would implement the proposed project on a previously graded site within the WCDF and construction of the proposed project would not require any tree removal and there are no rock outcroppings or historic buildings. The proposed project would not damage scenic resources. There would be no impact. Impact AES-3: Potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings (less than significant) The project site is within the existing WCDF site, which is surrounded by a mix of residential, regional park, and modernizing industrial land. The site vicinity has a somewhat rural and remote setting despite being within an incorporated city. The existing landscaping was installed as part of mitigation for the original WCDF project visual impacts. The County is maintaining the existing landscaping to ensure it continues to provide adequate screening. Trees that have died will be replaced this year. In addition, the completed tree restoration project south of the WCDF parking lot will provide additional screening as the trees grow. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Aesthetics West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-6 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Residents The closest residence to the project site is approximately 450 feet to the northeast. A sound wall between Link Drive and Giant Highway blocks street-level views of the project site. Limited views of the roof of the proposed structures may be available from the second stories of some of the residences in the area. The overall views from these areas would be primarily of the roofs of the Pinole Point Business Park, an electric substation, and the trees along Giant Highway. The visual character of the area is expected to be retained given that the proposed project’s building forms, colors, and textures would be similar to those already existing on the WCDF site. Residential views from this area are generally low-quality because of the lack of intact and unified visual elements. Therefore, the project’s impact on the visual character of the area for residences would be less than significant. Businesses Businesses at the Pinole Point Business Park are approximately 600 feet north of the project site. Street level views from the Pinole Point Business Park to the project site are not available because the WCDF facility is at a higher elevation (i.e., approximately 10–20 feet higher) and perimeter vegetation obscures line of sight visibility of the tops of the buildings. Existing vegetation plantings and the substation between the business park and the WCDF also serve to obstruct views. Views from the business park area toward WCDF are generally low-quality because of the lack of intact and unified visual elements. Therefore, the project’s impact on the visual character of the area for businesses would be less than significant. Roadway Users Community residents, employees and business owners, and others traveling north-east on Giant Highway have views to the north of a sound wall, then, as they approach the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline park, they have unobstructed views of the San Pablo Bay, then the WCDF parking lot with solar panels, then brief intermittent views of WCDF buildings and perimeter security fencing. The landscaped berm provides some visual buffer, although the existing perimeter security fencing and some existing WCDF buildings are visible from the road. Although the proposed new structure would be located on the portion of the WCDF site closest to the Giant Highway, views for roadway users in the vicinity of the regional park would be similar to existing views and the visual character of the area is expected to be retained given the proposed project’s building forms, colors and textures would be similar to those already in use. The building is expected to be taller than existing buildings visible from the road, but is not expected to be intrusive for the viewer because of the short duration of viewing opportunities and because it would conform to the local building height restrictions. Views from the road are vivid when passing the regional park, but become considerably less so when passing the WCDF. Overall, the portion of the roadway corridor visible to vehicle drivers and passengers next to the project site has low visual unity and would be substantially similar following construction of the proposed project. Therefore, the project’s impact on the visual character of the area for roadway users would be less than significant. Recreationists Recreational users of Point Pinole Regional Shoreline experience expansive, intact and vivid views of the San Pablo Bay when walking in much of the park, and have partially obscured views of the WCDF Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Aesthetics West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-7 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 depending on their location within the park. Those entering the park can see the WCDF parking lot, the solar panels over the parking lot, and the tops of buildings, but would be unable to see the proposed new building because viewers would be below the project site. Those users in the park walking along the eastern most trails have intermittent views of the perimeter security fencing, though most views are obscured by the existing eucalyptus grove on park land. Park users in this area would be unlikely to be able to see the proposed building because buildings in the foreground would obscure those in the background. Even if portions of the project are visible, the visual character of the area would remain unchanged because the proposed project’s building forms, colors, and textures would be similar to those already in use. Recreational users of the Richmond Country Club golf course have partially obscured views of the WCDF when they are on the two tee boxes and two greens at the northern most portion of the golf course. The views are partially obscured by mature eucalyptus trees and other vegetation on the north side of the golf course, by vegetation along the landscaped berm on the perimeter of the WCDF, and by the existing security fencing on the southeast side of WCDF. There are also railroad tracks between the golf course and Giant Highway. The views from this area are not particularly unique or vivid. As golfers approach the greens nearest the WCDF facility, the visual character of the area is expected to remain unchanged because the proposed project’s building forms, colors, and textures would be similar to those already in use. The building is expected to be taller than existing buildings visible from the golf course, but is not expected to be intrusive for the viewer given existing visual obstructions and the short duration of viewing opportunities. Golfers on the tee boxes would have their backs to the proposed new building. Overall, the project’s impact on the visual character of the area for recreational users would be less than significant. Impact AES-4: Potential to create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area (less than significant) Existing sources of light and glare near the project site include the existing facility and parking lot, and the industrial and road lighting along Atlas Road. Onsite there are security lights throughout the entire interior of the WCDF, including the undeveloped portions of the site. The proposed project would have additional exterior lighting associated with the new building. The exterior lighting would be downward facing, but is generally not expected to interfere with nighttime views. Lighting would be oriented so that only the compound and security areas are lit and light would be the minimum wattage required to meet security needs. Lighting would be designed so as not to produce glare on Giant Highway or on any other parcel in compliance with City of Richmond Municipal Code Article 15.04.840.040, Lighting and Glare Standards. The residential district to the east of the project site has limited nighttime views of the project area for the same reasons described under Impact AES-3 for daytime views. The project is not expected to create substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.2 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy This section describes the regulatory and environmental setting for air quality and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the project area. It also analyzes environmental impacts associated with GHG and climate change that could result from implementation of the proposed project and provides mitigation measures for significant impacts, where appropriate. 3.2.1 Regulatory Setting Air quality regulation in the United States is governed by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition to being subject to requirements of the CAA, air quality in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). At the federal level, the CAA is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In California, the CCAA is administered by California Air Resources Board (ARB) and by air districts at regional and local levels. The CAA and CCAA set overall air quality standards that are achieved by various rules and regulations at the regional and local level. This section describes relevant federal, state, and local regulations applicable to the proposed project. 3.2.1.1 Federal Regulations Clean Air Act The CAA was first enacted in 1963 and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes federal air quality standards, known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), for six criteria pollutants and specifies future dates for achieving compliance. The CAA also mandates that the state submit and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for local areas not meeting those standards. The plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met. The 1990 amendments to the CAA identify specific emission-reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS. These amendments require both a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporation of additional sanctions for failure to attain or meet interim milestones. Table 3.2-1 shows the NAAQS currently in effect for each criteria pollutant, as well as the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) (discussed below). Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-2 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Table 3.2-1. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Criteria Pollutant Average Time California Standards National Standardsa Primary Secondary Ozone 1-hour 0.09 ppm Noneb Noneb 8–hour 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm 0.075 ppm Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-hour 50 g/m3 150 g/m3 150 g/m3 Annual mean 20 g/m3 None None Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24-hour None 35 g/m3 35 g/m3 Annual mean 12 g/m3 12.0 g/m3 15 g/m3 Carbon Monoxide 8-hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm None 1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm None Nitrogen Dioxide Annual mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm 1-hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm None Sulfur Dioxidec Annual mean None 0.030 ppm None 24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.014 ppm None 3-hour None None 0.5 ppm 1-hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm None Lead 30-day Average 1.5 g/m3 None None Calendar quarter None 1.5 g/m3 1.5 g/m3 3-month average None 0.15 g/m3 0.15 g/m3 Sulfates 24-hour 25 g/m3 None None Visibility Reducing Particles 8-hour -d None None Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm None None Vinyl Chloride 24-hour 0.01 ppm None None ppm= parts per million g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter a National standards are divided into primary and secondary standards. Primary standards are intended to protect public health, whereas secondary standards are intended to protect public welfare and the environment. b The federal 1-hour standard of 12 parts per hundred million was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced because it was employed for such a long period and is a benchmark for State Implementation Plans. c The annual and 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Dioxide only apply for 1 year after designation of the new 1-hour standard to those areas that were previously in nonattainment for 24- hour and annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards. d California Ambient Air Quality Standards for visibility-reducing particles is defined by an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer – visibility of 10 miles or more due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70%. Source: California Air Resources Board 2013 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-3 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Nonroad Diesel Rule EPA has established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new offroad diesel equipment, onroad diesel trucks, and locomotives. New construction equipment used for the proposed project, including heavy-duty trucks and offroad construction equipment, would be required to comply with the emission standards. Greenhouse Gas Regulation Although there is currently no federal overarching law specifically related to climate change or the reduction of GHGs, EPA is developing regulations under the CAA that may be adopted pursuant to EPA’s authority under the CAA in the next 2 years. Foremost among recent developments have been the settlement agreements between EPA, several states, and nongovernmental organizations to address GHG emissions from electric generating units and refineries; the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA; and EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” “Cause or Contribute Finding,” and Mandatory Reporting Rule. Although periodically debated in Congress, federal legislation concerning GHG emissions limitations is not in effect. In Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc., et al. v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals upheld EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions under the CAA. 3.2.1.2 State Regulations California Clean Air Act In 1988, the state legislature adopted the CCAA, which established a statewide air pollution control program. The CCAA requires all air districts in the state to endeavor to meet the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. Unlike the CAA, the CCAA does not set precise attainment deadlines. Instead, the CCAA establishes increasingly stringent requirements for areas that will require more time to achieve the standards. CAAQS are generally more stringent than the NAAQS and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, visibility-reducing particles, and vinyl chloride. The CAAQS and NAAQS are shown in Table 3.2-1. ARB and local air districts bear responsibility for achieving California’s air quality standards, which are to be achieved through district-level air quality management plans incorporated into the SIP. In California, EPA has delegated authority to prepare SIPs to ARB, which, in turn, has delegated that authority to individual air districts. ARB traditionally has established state air quality standards, maintaining oversight authority in air quality planning, developing programs for reducing emissions from motor vehicles, developing air emission inventories, collecting air quality and meteorological data, and approving SIPs. The CCAA substantially adds to the authority and responsibilities of air districts. The CCAA designates air districts as lead air quality planning agencies, requires air districts to prepare air quality plans, and grants air districts authority to implement transportation control measures. The CCAA also emphasizes the control of “indirect and area-wide sources” of air pollutant emissions. The CCAA gives local air pollution control districts explicit authority to regulate indirect sources of air pollution and to establish traffic control measures. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-4 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 State Tailpipe Emission Standards ARB has established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new offroad diesel equipment, onroad diesel trucks, and harbor craft. New construction equipment used for the project, including heavy duty trucks and offroad construction equipment would be required to comply with the standards. Toxic Air Contaminant Regulations California regulates toxic air contaminants (TACs) primarily through the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act (Tanner Act) and the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (“Hot Spots” Act). In the early 1980s, ARB established a statewide comprehensive air toxics program to reduce exposure to air toxics. The Tanner Act created California’s program to reduce exposure to air toxics. The “Hot Spots” Act supplements the Tanner Act by requiring a statewide air toxics inventory, notification of people exposed to a significant health risk, and facility plans to reduce these risks. In August 1998, ARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines (i.e., diesel particulate matter [DPM]) as TACs. In September 2000, ARB approved a comprehensive Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce emissions from both new and existing diesel-fueled engines and vehicles. The goal of the plan is to reduce DPM (respirable particulate matter) emissions and the associated health risk by 75% by 2010 and by 85% by 2020. The plan identifies 14 measures that ARB will implement over the next several years. Because the ARB measures would be enacted before any phase of construction, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable diesel control measures. Greenhouse Gas Regulation California has adopted statewide legislation addressing various aspects of climate change and GHG emissions mitigation. Much of this legislation establishes a broad framework for the state’s long- term GHG reduction and climate change adaptation program. The Governor of California has also issued several executive orders (EOs) related to the state’s evolving climate change policy. Of particular importance to local governments is the direction provided by the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Scoping Plan, which recommends that local governments reduce their GHG emissions by a level consistent with state goals (i.e., 15% below current levels). In the absence of federal regulations, control of GHGs is generally regulated at the state level and is typically approached by setting emission reduction targets for existing sources of GHGs, setting policies to promote renewable energy and increase energy efficiency, and developing statewide action plans. Summaries of key policies, legal cases, regulations, and legislation at the state levels that are relevant to the project are provided below. Assembly Bill 1493—Pavley Rules (2002, Amendments 2009, 2012 rulemaking) Known as Pavley I, AB 1493 standards are the nation’s first GHG standards for automobiles. AB 1493 requires ARB to adopt vehicle standards that will lower GHG emissions from new light-duty autos to the maximum extent feasible beginning in 2009. Additional strengthening of the Pavley standards (referred to previously as Pavley II, now referred to as the Advanced Clean Cars measure) has been proposed for vehicle model years 2017–2025. Together, the two standards are expected to increase average fuel economy to roughly 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-5 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Assembly Bill 32—California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) AB 32 codified the state’s GHG emissions target by requiring that the state’s global warming emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Since being adopted, ARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Public Utilities commission (CPUC), and the Building Standards Commission have been developing regulations that will help meet the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan for AB 32 identifies specific measures to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and requires ARB and other state agencies to develop and enforce regulations and other initiatives for reducing GHGs. Specifically, the Scoping Plan articulates a key role for local governments, recommending they establish GHG reduction goals for both their municipal operations and the community consistent with those of the state. Executive Order S-01-07—Low Carbon Fuel Standard (2007) EO S-01-07 essentially mandates: (1) that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020; and (2) that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established in California. ARB approved the LCFS on April 23, 2009, and the regulation became effective on January 12, 2010 (California Air Resources Board 2011). The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled in December 2011 that the LCFS violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. ARB appealed this ruling in 2012 and on September 18, 2013, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the LCFS, ruling that the program does not violate the Commerce Clause and remanding the case to the Eastern District. State CEQA Guidelines (2010) The State CEQA Guidelines require lead agencies to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of GHG emissions that would result from a project. Moreover, the State CEQA Guidelines emphasize the necessity to determine potential climate change effects of a project and propose mitigation as necessary. The State CEQA Guidelines confirm the discretion of lead agencies to determine appropriate significance thresholds, but require the preparation of an EIR if “there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with adopted regulations or requirements” (Section 15064.4). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 includes considerations for lead agencies related to feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions, which may include measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of emissions that are required as part of the lead agency’s decision; implementation of project features, project design, or other measures that are incorporated into the project to substantially reduce energy consumption or GHG emissions; and offsite measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required. Senate Bills 1078, 107, and 2—Renewables Portfolio Standard (2011) Senate Bills (SBs) 1078 (2002), 107 (2006) and 2 (2011), California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), obligates investor-owned utilities, energy service providers, and Community Choice Aggregators to procure additional retail sales per year from eligible renewable sources with the long-range target of procuring 33% of retail sales from renewable resources by 2020. The CPUC and CEC are jointly responsible for implementing the program. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-6 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings— Green Building Code (2011), Title 24 Update (2014) California has adopted aggressive energy efficiency standards for new buildings and has been continually updating them for many years. In 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards, which include standards for many other built environment aspects apart from energy efficiency. The California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (24 California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Part 11 establishes voluntary standards that became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code, including planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The current energy efficiency standards were last adopted in 2013 and took effect on January 1, 2014. The standards are planned to be updated periodically in the future. 3.2.1.3 Regional Regulations At the regional level, responsibilities of air quality districts include overseeing stationary-source emissions, approving permits, maintaining emissions inventories, maintaining air quality stations, overseeing agricultural burning permits, and reviewing air quality–related sections of environmental documents required by CEQA. The air quality districts are also responsible for establishing and enforcing local air quality rules and regulations that address the requirements of federal and state air quality laws and for ensuring that NAAQS and CAAQS are met. The air quality study area falls under the jurisdiction of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD adopted advisory emission thresholds to assist CEQA lead agencies in determining the level of significance of a project’s emissions. The thresholds are outlined in BAAQMD’s 2011 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines). BAAQMD has also adopted air quality plans to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate. The Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan was adopted to reduce ozone and achieve the NAAQS ozone standard. BAAQMD also adopted a resignation plan for carbon monoxide (CO) in 1994. The resignation plan includes strategies to ensure the continuing attainment of the NAAQS for CO in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The proposed project may be subject to the following district rules. This list of rules may not be all encompassing because additional BAAQMD rules may apply to the proposed project as specific components are identified. Regulation 2, Rule 5 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminates [TAC]). This regulation outlines guidance for evaluating TAC emissions and their potential health threats. Regulation 6, Rule 1 (Particulate Matter [PM]). This regulation restricts emissions of PM darker than No. 1 on the Ringlemann Chart to less than 3 minutes in any 1 hour. Regulation 8, Rule 15 (Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts). This regulation limits emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROG) caused by paving materials. Regulation 9, Rule 8 (Stationary Internal Combustion Engines). This regulation limits emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and CO from stationary internal combustion engines of more than 50 horsepower. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-7 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.2.2 Environmental Setting Ambient air quality is affected by climatological conditions, topography, and the types and amounts of pollutants emitted. The area potentially affected by the project is within the SFBAAB. The following discussion describes relevant characteristics of the SFBAAB, describes key pollutants of concern, summarizes existing ambient pollutant concentrations, and identifies sensitive receptors. 3.2.2.1 Climate and Meteorology The SFBAAB contains all of Napa, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties, as well as portions of Sonoma and Solano Counties (CCR Section 60101). Climate within the SFBAAB is characterized by moderately wet winters and dry summers. Winter rains, which occur in the months of December through March, account for about 75% of the average annual rainfall. Climate is affected by marine air flow and the basin’s proximity to the San Francisco Bay. Bay breezes push air onshore during the daytime and draw air offshore at night. During the summer months, the bay helps to cool the warm onshore flows, while it warms the air during the winter months. This mediating effect keeps temperatures relatively consistent throughout the year. In the westernmost portion of the SFBAAB, which encompasses the study area, the bay wind patterns can concentrate and carry air pollutants from other cities to the region, adding to the mix of pollutants that are emitted locally (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2011). 3.2.2.2 Pollutants of Concern Criteria Pollutants As discussed above, the federal and state governments have established NAAQS and CAAQS, respectively, for six criteria pollutants: ozone, lead, CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and PM, which consists of PM less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and PM less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Ozone and NO2 are considered regional pollutants because they (or their precursors) affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, SO2, and lead are considered local pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally. The primary pollutants of concern in the project vicinity are ozone (including NOX and ROG), CO, and PM. Principal characteristics of these pollutants are discussed below. Ozone, or smog, is a photochemical oxidant that is formed when ROG and NOX (both byproducts of the internal combustion engine) react with sunlight. Ozone poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Additionally, ozone has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth and premature death. Ozone can also act as a corrosive, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products. Reactive Organic Gases are compounds made up primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of hydrocarbons. Other sources of ROG are emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by ROG but rather by reactions of ROG to form secondary pollutants such as ozone. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-8 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Nitrogen Oxides serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog production. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 is a reddish-brown irritating gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. NOX acts as an acute respiratory irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens. Carbon Monoxide is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation. Particulate Matter consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized—inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, and inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind on arid landscapes also contributes substantially to local particulate loading. Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. Toxic Air Contaminants Although NAAQS and CAAQS have been established for criteria pollutants, no ambient standards exist for TACs. Many pollutants are identified as TACs because of their potential to increase the risk of developing cancer or because of their acute or chronic health risks. For TACs that are known or suspected carcinogens, ARB has consistently found that there are no levels or thresholds below which exposure is risk-free. Individual TACs vary greatly in the risks they present. At a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than another. TACs are identified and their toxicity is studied by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Air toxics are generated by a number of sources, including: stationary sources, such as dry cleaners, gas stations, auto body shops, and combustion sources; mobile sources, such as diesel trucks, ships, and trains; and area sources, such as farms, landfills, and construction sites. Adverse health effects of TACs can be carcinogenic (cancer-causing), short-term (acute) noncarcinogenic, and long-term (chronic) noncarcinogenic. Direct exposure to these pollutants has been shown to cause cancer, birth defects, damage to the brain and nervous system, and respiratory disorders. The principal TAC associated with the proposed project is DPM, which was identified as a TAC by ARB in 1998. Greenhouse Gases The principle anthropogenic (human-made) GHGs contributing to global warming are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds, including sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Water vapor, the most abundant GHG, is not included in this list because its natural concentrations and fluctuations far outweigh its anthropogenic sources. The primary GHGs of concern associated with the project are CO2, CH4, and N2O. Principal characteristics of these pollutants are discussed below. Carbon Dioxide enters the atmosphere through fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) combustion, solid waste decomposition, plant and animal respiration, and chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-9 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 of cement). CO2 is also removed from the atmosphere (or sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. Nitrous Oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. Methods have been set forth to describe emissions of GHGs in terms of a single gas to simplify reporting and analysis. The most commonly accepted method to compare GHG emissions is the global warming potential (GWP) methodology defined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reference documents. The IPCC defines the GWP of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of CO2 (CO2 has a global warming potential of 1 by definition). Table 3.2-2 lists the global warming potential of CO2, CH4, and N2O, their lifetimes, and abundances in the atmosphere. Table 3.2-2. Lifetimes and Global Warming Potentials of Key Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse Gases Global Warming Potential (100 years) Lifetime (years) Current Atmospheric Abundance CO2 1 50–200 401 ppm CH4 28 9–15 1,893 ppb N2O 265 121 326 ppb Sources: Myhre et al. 2013; Blasing 2014; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2015. CH4 = methane CO2 = carbon dioxide N2O = nitrous oxide ppb = parts per billion ppm = parts per million Existing Air Quality Conditions The existing air quality conditions in the project vicinity can be characterized by monitoring data collected in the region. Table 3.2-3 summarizes data for criteria air pollutant levels from the San Pablo-Rumrill Boulevard monitoring station, which is the closest station to the proposed project, for the last 3 years for which complete data are available (2011–2013). Air quality concentrations are expressed in terms of parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). As shown in Table 3.2-3, the monitoring station has detected only occasional violations of the PM NAAQS and CAAQS. No violations of the ozone, CO, or NO2 NAAQS and CAAQS were reported during the monitoring period. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-10 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Attainment Status Local monitoring data (Table 3.2-3) are used to designate areas as nonattainment, maintenance, attainment, or unclassified for the NAAQS and CAAQS. The four designations are further defined as shown below. Nonattainment—assigned to areas where monitored pollutant concentrations consistently violate the standard in question. Maintenance—assigned to areas where monitored pollutant concentrations exceeded the standard in question in the past but are no longer in violation of that standard. Attainment—assigned to areas where pollutant concentrations meet the standard in question over a designated period of time. Unclassified—assigned to areas were data are insufficient to determine whether a pollutant is violating the standard in question. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-11 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Table 3.2-3. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data from the Pablo-Rumrill Boulevard Monitoring Station (2011–2013) Pollutant 2011 2012 2013 Ozone (O3) Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.078 0.086 0.074 Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.058 0.059 0.065 Number of days standard exceededa CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 0 0 0 CAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 0 0 0 NAAQS 8-hour (>0.075 ppm) 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.99 0.92 - Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 1.9 1.6 2.2 Number of days standard exceededa NAAQS 8-hour (>9 ppm) 0 0 - CAAQS 8-hour (>9.0 ppm) 0 0 - NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) State maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 50.7 54.7 46.8 State second-highest 1-hour concentration (ppm) 50 54 46 Annual average concentration (ppm) 9 9 10 Number of days standard exceeded CAAQS 1-hour (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter (PM10)c Nationalb maximum 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 69.6 45.1 45.6 Nationalb second-highest 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 37.9 44.0 42.4 Statec maximum 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 73.4 46.7 48.1 Statec second-highest 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 40.0 45.3 43.8 National annual average concentration (g/m3) 19.0 15.2 17.8 State annual average concentration (g/m3)d 19.7 15.7 - Number of days standard exceededa NAAQS 24-hour (>150 g/m3)e 0 0 0 CAAQS 24-hour (>50 g/m3)e 6 0 - Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nationalb maximum 24-hour concentration (g/m3) - 12.8 41.2 Nationalb second-highest 24-hour concentration (g/m3) - 12.5 38.7 Statec maximum 24-hour concentration (g/m3) - 12.8 41.2 Statec second-highest 24-hour concentration (g/m3) - 12.5 38.7 National annual average concentration (g/m3) - - 11.9 State annual average concentration (g/m3)d - - 12.0 Number of days standard exceededa NAAQS 24-hour (>35 g/m3) - - 2 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) No data available Source: California Air Resources Board 2015; United States Environmental Protection Agency 2015a. ppm = parts per million. NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards. CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards. g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter. > = greater than. - = data not available. a An exceedance is not necessarily a violation. b National statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods. c State statistics are based on local conditions data, except in the South Coast Air Basin, for which statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, State statistics are based on California approved samplers. d State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating valid annual averages are more stringent than the national criteria. e Mathematical estimate of how many days concentrations would have been measured as higher than the level of the standard had each day been monitored. Values have been rounded. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-12 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Table 3.2-4 summarizes the attainment status of Contra Costa County. Table 3.2-4. Federal and State Attainment Status of Contra Costa County Pollutant Federal State Ozone (8 hr) Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Moderate Maintenance (P) Attainment PM10 Attainment Nonattainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015b; California Air Resources Board 2014 (P) Designation applies to a portion of the County. 3.2.2.3 Sensitive Receptors The NAAQS and CAAQS apply at publicly accessible areas, regardless of whether those areas are populated. For the purposes of air quality analysis, sensitive land uses are defined as locations where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, are located and where there is reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure according to the averaging period for the air quality standards (i.e., 24-hour, 8-hour, and 1-hour). Typical sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals, and schools. Existing and new inmates at the WCDF would also be considered sensitive receptors. San Pablo Bay and Point Pinole Regional Shoreline border the WCDF to the north and west. The Richmond Country Club golf course and residential subdivisions are east of the WCDF site, approximately 285 feet and 315 feet away, respectively. The distances to the proposed project would be greater – approximately 450 feet from the project site to the nearest residence. Single family homes are also approximately 2,000 feet south of the WCDF. There are no churches, schools, or hospitals within the immediate vicinity. 3.2.3 Impact Analysis This section describes the environmental impacts of the proposed project in the context of air quality, GHG, and climate change. It describes the methods used to evaluate the impacts and the thresholds used to determine whether an impact would be significant. Measures to mitigate significant impacts are provided, where appropriate. 3.2.3.1 Methods Air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project were assessed and quantified using standard and accepted software tools, techniques, and emission factors. A summary of the methodology is provided below. Construction Construction of the project would generate emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 that would result in short-term impacts on ambient air quality in the study area. Emissions would originate from mobile and stationary construction equipment exhaust, employee vehicle exhaust, dust from land clearing, and application of architectural coatings. It is expected that construction would require four phases from March 2017 to February 2019: site preparation, grading, construction, and Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-13 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 paving and application of architectural coating (see Appendix A for the air emission modeling results). Aspects of site preparation, grading, and building construction would occur concurrently in 2017, and components of building construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings would occur concurrently in 2019. Criteria pollutant emissions from heavy-duty equipment, on-road vehicles, and land disturbance were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2013.2.2. Model defaults for equipment and vehicle trips were utilized based on construction of a 151,000 square foot four-year university. Because CalEEMod does not contain a land use type for jail facilities, a four-year university, which has similar components to the proposed project (e.g., workout facilities, dormitories), was selected. Exposure to construction-related DPM was assessed by predicting the health risks in terms of excess cancer, non-cancer hazard impacts (HI), and elevated PM2.5 concentrations. A screening-level health risk assessment (HRA) was performed according to the following steps. 1. Use EPA’s AERSCREEN dispersion model to predict the PM10 and PM2.5 hourly concentrations at sensitive land uses based on the maximum daily PM10 and PM2.5 exhaust emissions for each construction period estimated by CalEEMod. 2. Calculate the project-level cancer risk, non-cancer HI, and annual PM2.5 concentration based on the AERSCREEN hourly concentrations and the construction durations using BAAQMD- approved methodology. 3. Identify background stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the project site using Google Earth map files provided by the BAAQMD. The Google Earth map files include estimated risk and hazard impacts at nearby receptors from these sources (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2014; Kirk pers. comm.). Consistent with BAAQMD guidance, background risks associated with generators were adjusted using the Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool for Diesel Internal Combustion (IC) Engines. 4. Calculate the cumulative health risks by adding the background health risks sources identified in step 3 to the project-level health risk and hazard impacts estimated in step 2. Operation Operation of the proposed project would generate emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 that could result in long-term impacts on ambient air quality. Two types of air pollutant sources are typically associated with jails: mobile and area. Mobile source emissions are associated with vehicle trips. Area sources include emissions from natural gas combustion for heating requirements; landscaping activities; consumer products (e.g., personal care products); and periodic paint emissions from facility upkeep. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the inmate population or number of employees in Contra Costa County. Rather, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the County would transfer 480 inmates and up to 24 employees from the MDF to the WCDF and would add 6 community volunteers or other program staff members. Because neither the number of inmates nor employees would increase within the airshed relative to existing conditions, there would be no net increase in vehicle trips within the County or BAAQMD. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by visitors, attorneys, and employees may change as a result of the proposed project because individuals may travel different distances to visit the WCDF than they would to visit the MDF. However, visitor, Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-14 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 employee and attorney VMT is not likely to change substantially on a countywide, or air shed basis, because these trips are already being made within the region. Because no changes in vehicle trips or VMT would result from proposed project implementation relative to existing conditions, there would be no increase in mobile source criteria pollutant or GHG emissions in the airshed as a result of the proposed project. Accordingly, the operational analysis focuses exclusively on area source emissions, which were evaluated using CalEEMod. Model defaults for landscaping activities, consumer products, architectural coatings, and utilities (water, natural gas, waste, and electricity) were assumed based on a 151,000-square-foot facility. Energy efficiency improvements achieved by LEED Silver certification were not incorporated into the emissions modeling at this time because, although the County may pursue this certification, specific equipment and treatments have not yet been selected. Accordingly, the emissions analysis represents a conservative assessment of potential air quality and GHG impacts. Area source emissions at the existing MDF were also assumed to remain constant because the facility would continue to operate. However, it is likely area source emissions at the MDF would decrease with implementation of the project since 480 inmates would be transferred to the WCDF. The analysis of health risks during project operations considers exposure to DPM and CO hot-spots. The proposed project itself is not expected to represent a significant source of DPM, as DPM- generating equipment and activities, such as diesel trucks, are not associated with project operations. The project would also not affect existing operations at the WCDF that currently generated DPM. Accordingly, an analysis of project-level DPM health risks using the BAAQMD’s project-level HRA thresholds is not discussed further because there would be no project-level impact. Inmate exposure to cumulative DPM was evaluated qualitatively through an analysis of background stationary sources adjacent to the MDF and WCDF. The potential for project traffic to result in CO hot-spots was evaluated based on traffic data provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc. (see Appendix B) and the BAAQMD’s (2011) CO screening criteria (discussed further below). 3.2.3.2 Thresholds of Significance Air Quality The State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (14 CCR Section 15000 et seq.) identifies the following significance criteria to be considered for determining whether a project could have significant impacts on existing air quality. 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be used to make significance Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-15 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 determinations for potential impacts on environmental resources. As discussed above, BAAQMD is responsible for ensuring that state and federal ambient air quality standards are not violated within the SFBAAB. Analysis requirements for construction- and operation-related pollutant emissions are contained in the BAAQMD’s (2011) CEQA Guidelines; these thresholds are presented in Table 3.2-5. Table 3.2-5. BAAQMD Criteria Pollutant Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day or 10 tons/year NOX 54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day or 10 tons/year CO -- Violation of CAAQS PM10 (exhaust) 82 pounds/day 82 pounds/day or 15 tons/year PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day or 10 tons/year PM10 /PM2.5 (dust) Best management practices -- Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2011. CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 = particulate matter PM2.5 = fine particulate matter ROG = reactive organic compounds With respect to potential health effects from project-generated emissions, the analysis focuses on those pollutants with the greatest potential to result in a significant, material impact on human health, which are DPM and locally concentrated CO (i.e., CO hot-spots). The following criteria were used to determine whether the proposed project would result in a significant DPM impact. Generate DPM concentrations during construction resulting in a maximum incremental cancer risk greater than 1 in 10 million, a health HI greater than 1, or a PM2.5 concentration increase of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter. Contribute to a cumulative cancer risk greater than 100 in 1 million, a health HI greater than 10, or a PM2.5 concentration increase of 0.8 micrograms per cubic meter. The following criteria were used to determine whether the project would result in a significant CO impact. Increase traffic volumes at intersections affected by project traffic to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. Increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). Increase traffic to a level that is inconsistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change The State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G identifies the following significance criteria to be considered for determining whether a project could have significant impacts GHGs. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-16 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate change is a global problem and GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants (such as ozone precursors), which are primarily pollutants of regional and local concern. Given their long atmospheric lifetimes (see Table 3.2-2), GHGs emitted by many sources worldwide accumulate in the atmosphere. No single emitter of GHGs is large enough to trigger global climate change on its own. Rather, climate change is the result of the individual contributions of countless past, present, and future sources. Thus, GHG impacts are inherently cumulative. BAAQMD has not established a quantitative threshold for the evaluation of construction-related GHG emissions. The significance of construction GHG emissions is, therefore, evaluated by determining whether or not the project has incorporated all feasible reduction measures. Operational emissions are evaluated against BAAQMD’s land use development threshold of 1,110 metric tons CO2e. Accordingly, operational GHG emissions are considered significant if they exceed 1,100 metric tons CO2e per year. A qualitative discussion of the potential impacts of climate change has been provided below using the following criterion. Would the project place people or structures at substantial risk of harm as a result of predicted climate change effects? Energy Based on State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, the proposed project would have a significant impact with respect to energy usage based on the following. The project's energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project, including construction, operation, maintenance, and removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity. The effects of the project on peak- and base-period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. The effects of the project on energy resources. The project's projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives. The State CEQA Guidelines recommend that the discussion of applicable energy impacts focuses on whether the project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, because this may constitute an unavoidable adverse effect on energy resources. Efficiency projects that incorporate conservation measures to avoid wasteful energy usage facilitate long-term energy planning and avoid the need for unplanned or additional energy capacity. Accordingly, based on the criteria outlined in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, the proposed project would cause significant Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-17 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 impacts related to energy if it would lead to a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary usage of direct or indirect energy. As discussed in Section 3.2.1.2, State Regulations, energy legislation, policies, and standards adopted by California and local governments were enacted and promulgated for the purpose of reducing energy consumption and improving efficiency (i.e., reducing wasteful and inefficient use of energy). Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, wasteful and inefficient are defined as circumstances in which the project would conflict with applicable state or local energy legislation, policies, and standards. Accordingly, if the project conflicts with legislation, policies, or standards designed to avoid wasteful and inefficient energy usage, it would result in a significant impact related to energy resources and conservation. 3.2.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact AQ-1: Conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan (less than significant) A project is inconsistent with air quality plans if it would result in population or employment growth that exceeds estimates used to develop applicable air quality plans. Projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by the relevant land use plans would be consistent with the current BAAQMD air quality plans. Likewise, projects that propose development that is less dense than anticipated in a general plan or other governing land use document would be consistent with the air quality plans because emissions would be less than estimated for the region. The proposed project would upgrade the County’s existing jail facilities to improve security and visitation while improving inmate housing and services. The proposed project would be consistent with current land use and zoning designations and would not induce population growth in the area. Although emissions would be generated during construction and operation (discussed under Impact AQ-2), emissions are expected neither to exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds nor to impede attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or CAAQS with implementation of mitigation. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable land use plan or policy. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Impact AQ-2: Violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation (less than significant with mitigation) Construction Construction of the proposed project has the potential to create air quality impacts through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, construction worker vehicle trips, and truck hauling trips. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from site preparation and grading. Criteria pollutant emissions generated by these sources were quantified using CalEEMod (version 2013.2.2). Please refer to Appendix A for model outputs. As discussed in Section 3.2.3.1, Methods, several construction activities would occur concurrently. The combination of phases that produced the highest daily emissions in each construction year was selected as the peak day for impact analysis purposes. This approach is meant to convey a worst-case scenario, and is, therefore, not necessarily representative of actual emissions that would be generated on a daily basis throughout the construction period. Estimated construction emissions are summarized in Table 3.2-6. An exceedance of BAAQMD thresholds is shown in bold. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-18 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Table 3.2-6. Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Year ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Dust Exhaust Total Dust Exhaust Total 2017 6 58 41 6 3 9 3 3 6 2018 3 23 21 1 1 2 <1 1 1 2019 34 35 35 1 2 3 <1 2 2 Threshold 54 54 – 82 BMPs – 54 BMPs – BMPs = best management practices CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 = particulate matter PM2.5 = fine particulate matter ROG = reactive organic compounds Exceedance shown in bold. As shown in Table 3.2-6, construction of the project would generate NOX emissions in 2017 that exceed BAAQMD’s numeric threshold of 54 pounds per day. This would be a potentially significant impact. BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines outline basic and additional emissions controls to reduce project-level impacts when emissions exceed applicable thresholds. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are therefore required to address NOX emissions. BAAQMD considers dust impacts to be less than significant through the application of best management practices (BMPs). Accordingly, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is also required to reduce the impact of construction-related fugitive dust emissions to a less-than-significant level. Estimated construction emissions with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are summarized in Table 3.2-7. With implementation of these measures, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and this impact would be less than significant. Table 3.2-7. Mitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Year ROG NOXa CO PM10 PM2.5 Dustb Exhaustc Total Dustb Exhaustc Total 2017 6 46 41 3 2 5 2 2 3 2018 3 18 21 <1 1 1 <1 1 1 2019 34 28 35 <1 1 1 <1 1 1 Threshold 54 54 – 82 BMPs – 54 BMPs – a Assumes a 20% reduction in NOX with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2. b Assumes a 53% reduction in fugitive dust with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. c Assumes a 45% reduction in PM exhaust with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2. BMPs = best management practices CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 = particulate matter PM2.5 = fine particulate matter ROG = reactive organic compounds Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-19 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust and Equipment Exhaust Emissions The County will require all construction contractors to implement the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by BAAQMD to reduce fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures. Additional measures may be identified by BAAQMD or contractor as appropriate. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure in 13 CCR Section 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Equipment Exhaust Emissions The County will require all construction contractors to implement the Additional Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by BAAQMD to reduce equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures. Additional measures may be identified by BAAQMD or contractor as appropriate. Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes. Develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20% NOX reduction and 45% PM reduction compared with the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-20 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM. Require that all contractors use equipment that meets ARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. Operation Operation of the proposed project has the potential to create air quality impacts through use of landscaping equipment, off-gassing during the reapplication of architectural coatings, and use of consumer products (solvents, cleaning supplies, cosmetics, toiletries). Onsite natural gas combustion for space and water heating represents another type of emission source associated with the project. Each of these sources was taken into account in calculating the project’s long-term operational emissions, which were quantified using CalEEMod (version 2013.2.2). As explained under Operation in Section 3.2.3.1, Methods, this analysis assumes to net change in mobile source emissions from vehicles during project operation. Estimated operational emissions are summarized in Table 3.2.8. It was conservatively assumed that emissions at the MDF would not change with implementation of the project. However, it is likely area source emissions at the MDF would decrease because 480 inmates would be transferred to the WCDF. The modeling also does not account for emissions benefits achieved through LEED Silver certification, which the County may pursue. Accordingly, the emissions presented in Table 3.2-8 represent a worst case assessment of potential air quality impacts. Table 3.2-8. Estimated Annual Operational Emissions (pounds per day) Source ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Area Sourcesa 4 <1 <1 <1 <1 Energy Use <1 2 1 <1 <1 Total Project Emissions 4 2 2 <1 <1 Threshold 54 54 CAAQSb 82 54 a Includes emissions from operation of landscaping equipment, off-gassing during the reapplication of architectural coatings, and use of consumer products. b Refer to Impact AQ-4 for a discussion of CO hotspots. CO = carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 = particulate matter PM2.5 = fine particulate matter ROG = reactive organic compounds As shown in Table 3.2-8, operation of the project would not generate ROG, NOX, or PM emissions in excess of the BAAQMD’s numeric thresholds. Accordingly, this impact would be less than significant. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-21 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Impact AQ-3: Potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (less than significant) BAAQMD has identified project-level thresholds to evaluate criteria pollutant impacts (see Table 3.2-5). In developing these thresholds, BAAQMD considered levels at which project emissions would be cumulatively considerable. As noted in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (2011), In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project‘s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary. The criteria pollutant thresholds presented in Table 3.2-5, therefore, represent the maximum emissions a project may generate before contributing to a cumulative impact on regional air quality. Exceedances of the project-level thresholds, as identified in Section 3.2.3.2, would be cumulatively considerable. As discussed in Impact AQ-2, construction of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant air quality impact with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. All construction emissions would be short-term and would cease once construction is complete. Long-term operation of the proposed project would result in minor increases of all criteria pollutants, which could contribute to cumulative air quality impacts and corresponding regional human health effects. For example, increases in ROG and NOX could increase photochemical reactions and the formation of tropospheric ozone. However, cumulative ozone concentrations depend on ROG and NOX emissions throughout the SFBAAB and complex photochemistry. Moreover, an increase in ozone concentration does not guarantee an increase in respiratory ailments because individuals may be exposed and experience no symptoms at varying concentrations. The minor increase in criteria pollutant emissions associated with project operation (see Table 3.2- 8) would not exceed air district thresholds. BAAQMD’s thresholds were established to assist the SFBAAB reach regional attainment with the federal and state ambient air quality standards. Accordingly, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to criteria pollutant emissions. The impact would be less than significant. Impact AQ-4: Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (less than significant) Existing Inmate and Receptor Exposure to Construction-Generated Diesel Particulate Matter Diesel-fueled engines, which generate DPM, would be used during construction of the proposed project. BAAQMD considers ultra-fine particle (PM2.5) emissions to be the DPM of greatest health concern. Cancer health risks associated with exposure to diesel exhaust are typically associated with chronic exposure, in which a 70-year exposure period is assumed. In addition, DPM concentrations, and, thus, cancer health risks, dissipate as a function of distance from the emissions source. BAAQMD has determined that construction activities at distances of greater than 1,000 feet from a sensitive receptor likely do not pose a significant health risk As discussed in Section 3.2.2.3, Sensitive Receptors, there are multiple sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) located within 1,000 feet of the project site. Existing inmates at the WCDF also represent sensitive receptors that could be affected by DPM generated during construction. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-22 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Exposure to construction DPM emissions was assessed by predicting health risks in terms of excess cancer, non-cancer HI, and elevated PM2.5 concentrations. A screening-level HRA was performed using the EPA’s AERSCREEN dispersion model and estimated PM10 and PM2.5 exhaust emissions (see Table 3.2-7). The screening-level assessment assumes worst-case meteorology and, as a result, often overstates the actual likely level of exposure for sensitive receptors The results of the HRA are summarized in Table 3.2-9 and are compared with the BAAQMD’s project-level DPM thresholds. Please refer to Appendix A for model outputs. Table 3.2-9. Maximum Project-Level Health Risks during Construction Receptor Distance from Project (meters) Cancer Risk (per million) Chronic Non- Cancer Hazard Impacts Annual PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) Nearest Receptor ~5 0.27 0.007 0.03 Maximum Concentration 31 0.28 0.007 0.04 Threshold - 10 1.0 0.3 Note: Analysis assumes implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. PM2.5 = fine particulate matter µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter As shown in Table 3.2-9, construction of the project would not result in a significant increase of cancer risk, non-cancer HI, or annual PM2.5 concentrations. Consistent with the BAAQMD’s (2011) CEQA Guidelines, cumulative exposure was also evaluated by adding background health risks within 1,000 feet of the WCDF to the health risk estimated for the project. Bio-Rad Laboratories, the existing WCDF, a generator at the West County Wastewater District, and the Southern Pacific Transportation Company and Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe railroads were identified as background sources and included in the analysis. The results of the cumulative impact assessment are summarized in Table 3.2-10. Table 3.2-10. Cumulative Project-Level Health Risks during Construction Source Cancer Risk (per million) Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard Impacts Annual PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) Bio-Rad Laboratories 1.3 <0.001 <0.01 WCDF 20.0 0.100 0.33 West County Wastewater District 10.8 0.009 <0.01 Southern Pacific Railroad 35.0 0.012 0.06 Atchison, Topeka, Santa Fe Railroad 2.6 <0.001 <0.01 Total Ambient Sources 69.8 0.121 0.39 Project Construction (see Table 3.2-9) 0.3 0.007 0.04 Total (ambient + project construction) 70.1 0.128 0.43 Threshold 100 10 0.8 Note: Analysis assumes implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1and AQ-2. PM2.5 = fine particulate matter µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2014; Kirk pers. comm. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-23 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 As shown in Table 3.2-10, construction of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase of cancer risk, non-cancer HI, or annual PM2.5 concentrations. This impact would be less than significant. New Inmate Exposure to Ambient Diesel Particulate Matter As discussed above, the proposed project itself is not expected to represent a significant source of DPM, because DPM-generating equipment and activities, such as diesel trucks, would not be associated with project operations. New inmates at the WCDF may be exposed to increased DPM concentrations and associated health risks from adjacent land uses. As shown in Table 3.2-10, background cancer risk, non-cancer HI, and annual PM2.5 concentrations within 1,000 feet of the WCDF would not exceed the BAAQMD’s cumulative risk thresholds. Accordingly, new inmates at the WCDF would not be exposed to cumulatively considerable DPM concentrations or associated health risks. Rather, an analysis of stationary and railway sources within 1,000 feet of the WCDF and MDF indicates that background cancer risk adjacent to the MDF (88.9 per million) is higher than at the WCDF (69.8 per million) (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2014; Kirk pers. comm.). Because the 480 inmates would be transferred from the MDF, their cancer risk exposure would decrease with implementation of the project. This impact would be less than significant. Existing Inmate and Receptor Exposure Potential Project-Generated Carbon Monoxide Hot-Spots Elevated CO concentrations are typically found in areas with significant traffic congestion. CO is a public health concern because it combines readily with hemoglobin and reduces the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. BAAQMD requires an analysis of localized CO concentrations associated with traffic congestion to ensure concentrations remain below CAAQS and NAAQS. The air district has developed a set of preliminary screening criteria that can be used to determine whether a project would cause or contribute to an existing or future violation of the ambient air quality standards (refer to Section 3.2.3.2, Thresholds of Significance). Implementation of the proposed project would shift existing vehicle trips from the MDF to the WCDF, decreasing traffic and CO concentrations adjacent to the MDF and increasing traffic and CO concentrations by a corresponding amount near the WCDF. Accordingly to the project-specific traffic study (see Appendix B), project traffic would not exceed 100 vehicles per hour and total volumes at the intersection with the greatest traffic volumes (Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway) is less than 5,000 vehicles per hour (4,860 total vehicles). Accordingly, shifting traffic from the MDF to the WCDF would not exceed the BAAQMD’s screening threshold of 24,000 vehicles per hour. As discussed in Section, 3.5, Transportation and Traffic, the proposed project also would be consistent with applicable traffic management plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with BAAQMD’s screening criteria and would not cause or contribute to an existing or future violation of the NAAQS or CAAQS. This impact would be less than significant. Impact AQ-5: Creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people (less than significant) Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and air districts. Any project with the potential to frequently expose the public to objectionable odors would have a significant impact. According to ARB’s (2005) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, refining, and manufacturing. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-24 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 The proposed project may cause temporary odors resulting from diesel exhaust during construction. Although these emissions may be noticeable from time to time, they would be localized and are not likely to adversely affect existing inmates or adjacent receptors. Operation of the proposed project is not expected to result in substantial odors, relative to existing conditions, that would affect offsite receptors or result in confirmed odor complaints. Given similarities in surrounding land uses, the 480 inmates transferred from the MDF would be exposed to similar (if not slightly reduced) ambient odors at the WCDF. Accordingly, neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would result in nuisance odors. This impact would be less than significant. Impact GHG-1: Generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (less than significant) Construction Construction of the project would generate direct emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from mobile and stationary construction equipment exhaust, as well as employee vehicle and haul truck exhaust. Estimated construction emissions associated with the proposed project are summarized in Table 3.2-11. Table 3.2-11. Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (metric tons per year) Year CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 2017 360 0.06 <0.01 362 2018 405 0.06 <0.01 407 2019 72 0.01 <0.01 72 Total 837 0.14 <0.01 841 CH4 = methane CO2 = carbon dioxide CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent N2O = nitrous oxide As shown in Table 3.2-11, construction of the proposed project would generate a total of 841 metric tons of CO2e during the construction period. This is equivalent to adding almost 180 typical passenger vehicles per year to the road during construction (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014). The highest annual emissions, estimated at 407 metric tons CO2e, would occur in 2018. As explained under Greenhouse Gases in Section 3.2.3.2, Thresholds of Significance, BAAQMD has not established a quantitative threshold for the evaluation of construction-related GHG emissions. However, this amount is below BAAQMD’s 1,100 metric ton threshold for project operations. Moreover, the County would implement BMPs during construction that would reduce fuel consumption and ensure equipment is operating efficiently and in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications (see Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2). Accordingly, this impact would be less than significant. Operation Operation of the project would generate direct and indirect GHG emissions. Sources of direct emissions include natural gas combustion and landscaping activities. Indirect emissions would be generated by electricity generation and consumption, waste and wastewater generation, and water Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-25 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 use. Each of these sources was taken into account in calculating the project’s long-term operational emissions, which were quantified using CalEEMod (version 2013.2.2). Estimated annual operational emissions are summarized in Table 3.2.12. It was conservatively assumed that emissions at the MDF would not change with implementation of the project. However, it is likely emissions at the MDF would decrease because 480 inmates would be shifted to the WCDF. The modeling also does not account for emissions benefits achieved through LEED Silver certification, which the County may pursue. Accordingly, the emissions presented in Table 3.2-12 represent a worst case assessment of potential GHG impacts. Table 3.2-12. Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions (metric tons per year) Year CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Landscaping activities <1 0.00 <0.01 <1 Energy (natural gas & electricity) 560 0.03 0.01 564 Waste generation 18 1.05 <0.01 47 Water use 15 0.46 0.01 31 Total 593 1.54 0.02 642 CH4 = methane CO2 = carbon dioxide CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent N2O = nitrous oxide As shown in Table 3.2-12, annual operation of the project would generate 642 metric tons CO2e per year (equivalent to adding about 130 typical passenger vehicles per year) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014). This is well below the BAAQMD’s annual 1,100 metric ton GHG threshold. Accordingly, this impact would be less than significant. Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (less than significant) The state has adopted AB 32, which codifies the state’s GHG emissions reduction targets for the future. Contra Costa County adopted a Municipal Climate Action Plan (MCAP) in December 2008 and published a draft Community Climate Action Plan in December 2012. The MCAP covers emissions generated by municipal operations and County-owned facilities, such as the WCDF, and is, therefore, the most applicable local plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Consistency with AB 32 and the MCAP are discussed below. ARB adopted the AB 32 Scoping Plan as a framework for achieving AB 32. The Scoping Plan outlines a series of technologically feasible and cost-effective measures to reduce statewide GHG emissions. Some reductions will need to come in the form of changes pertaining to vehicle emissions and mileage standards. Some will come from changes pertaining to sources of electricity and increased energy efficiency at existing facilities. The remainder will need to come from plans, policies, or regulations that will require new facilities to have lower carbon intensities than they have under business as usual conditions. The MCAP estimates current (2006) and future (2020 and 2030) GHG emissions generated by municipal activities. The MCAP specifies aggressive 2020 and 2030 emission reduction goals and identifies a list of mitigation measures recommended to achieve these goals. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-26 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 As discussed above, the WCDF expansion could be LEED Silver certified and would include a number of energy efficiency improvements relative to the existing MDF. This is consistent with strategies identified in the AB 32 Scoping Plan, as well as MCAP goals to conserve energy and reduce GHG emissions generated by County facilities. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with AB 32 or the MCAP. The impact would be less than significant. Impact GHG-3: Subject property and persons to otherwise avoidable physical harm in light of inevitable climate change (less than significant) Unavoidable climate change may result in a range of potential impacts on the project and adjacent areas. The extent of these effects is still being defined as climate modeling tools become more refined. Regardless of the uncertainty in precise predictions, it is widely understood that substantial climate change is expected to occur in the future. Potential climate change impacts in California and the Bay Area could include sea level rise, extreme heat events, increased energy consumption, increase in infectious diseases and respiratory illnesses, reduced snowpack and water supplies, increased water consumption, and potential increase in wildfires. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed a series of maps identifying areas vulnerable to future sea level rise projections. According to USGS (2012), future sea level rise estimates are not expected to intrude upon the project site or pose a substantial risk to new inmates (see Figure 3.2- 1). Other potential climate change impacts may affect the project, including increased temperatures and heat stress days. However, the project would not exacerbate these issues; rather, energy efficiency strategies associated with the project may reduce potential heat-related climate change impacts on inmates. Likewise, although regional water supplies are subject to potential future climate change effects that could impact water supplies, the project design would include water-efficiency measures that would help alleviate demand for scarce statewide water resources. As identified above, the proposed project would not increase exposure of property or persons to the potential effects of climate change. The project site is also not anticipated to be affected by future sea level rise. Consequently, the impact of climate change and associated sea level rise on the project would be less than significant. Impact EGY-1: Result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy, including transportation energy use (less than significant) As indicated in Chapter 2, Project Description, and discussed under Impact GHG-2, the proposed project would be consistent with AB 32, the County’s MCAP, the County’s Green Building Code, and would be planned for a high level of energy efficiency and sustainability, potentially to LEED Silver levels. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with state and local energy policies and would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary usage of energy. This impact would be less than significant. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Land Use West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.3 Land Use and Planning This section describes the regulatory and environmental setting for land use and planning in the project vicinity. It also describes the impacts related land use and planning that would result from implementation of the proposed project. 3.3.1 Regulatory Setting 3.3.1.1 Federal and State There are no relevant land use regulations at the federal or state level. 3.3.1.2 Local Contra Costa County The project site is located within the existing WCDF on land owned by Contra Costa County but within the city limits of the City of Richmond. The Contra Costa County General Plan contains relevant policies in its Public Facilities/Services Element. Policy 7-61. Increased costs associated with the County's jail system shall not reduce the level of sheriff patrol service throughout the County. Implementation Measure 7-ar. Public protection facilities needs will be included in the 5-year Capital Improvements Program to ensure that the facilities will be available as development proceeds. City of Richmond Project Site General Plan and Zoning The City of Richmond general plan designation for the site is Public, Cultural, and Institutional and the site is zoned PC for Public and Civic uses, both of which allow for the site’s existing use as an institutional facility. The Richmond General Plan 2030 contains the following policies related to land use compatibility: LU5.3 Land Use Compatibility: Minimize conflicts between land uses to protect wetlands, marshlands, and creeks, humans and environmental health and safety, preserve community character and retain job generating activities that have long-term viability. LU5.B Design Guidelines: Develop design guidelines and standards for all land uses and development prototypes. The guidelines would build on zoning codes to promote high-quality design. Guidelines should also address compatibility between new and existing historic structures and districts, residential and adjacent non-residential uses and urban and natural areas. The Richmond General Plan 2030 states that the Public, Cultural and Institutional land use designation allows public, semi-public and educational uses such as civic facilities, community centers, libraries, museums, national park facilities, hospitals, and schools. No density standards are Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Land Use West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-2 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 applied in the Richmond General Plan 2030, and the intensity standard is up to 1:1 floor-to-area ratio. The height limit is up to 45 feet. Richmond Municipal Code Section 15.04.430.020, Permitted Uses, states that the PC zone allows a number of uses including: Civic, Public and Semipublic Uses. Government services. Consistent with the general plan land use designation, the zoning regulations include the development standards in Table 3.3-1. Table 3.3-1: Public and Civic Zone Development Standardsa Min. Lot Area (square feet) Maximum Building Height (feet) Floor-to-Area Ratio Minimum Setbacks and Yards (feet) Front Side Rear 10,000 45 0.6:1 51 5 15 a When abutting R-district same as R-district. Surrounding Area General Plan and Zoning Surrounding lands are designated for Community and Regional Recreational District (CRR), Regional Commercial District (C-3), Planned Area District (PA), Multifamily Medium Density Residential District (MFM-2) (see Figure 3.3-1) (City of Richmond, 2015). 3.3.2 Environmental Setting As detailed in Chapter 2, Project Description, existing land uses on the project site consist of the detention facility and other Sheriff’s facilities. Surrounding land uses are described in Table 3.3-2. Table 3.3-2: Existing Surrounding Land Uses Location Use North of the Project Site Pinole Point Business Park East of the Project Site Richmond Country Club golf course and a residential area to the north of the golf course South of the Project Site Point Pinole Regional Shoreline and a residential area to the south of the park area West of the Project Site Point Pinole Regional Shoreline 3.3.3 Impact Analysis 3.3.3.1 Methods The project’s effects are compared with the thresholds of significance to determine whether the project would result in a significant change in the resource or regulation represented by the PA PA CRR CRR CRR PC MFR-2 M-3 C-3 M-2 Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Parking San Pablo Bay Richmond Golf and Country Club Residential UPS Customer Center Pinole Point Business Park SOUTHERN PACIFIC RRAT&SF RR Giant HwyGiant RdAtlas RdLinks DrLi n k s D rFringe DrVista Dr At l a s R d Horizon DrMeadow View DrPark Ridge DrOakm o n t Dr Sobrante AveWest County Detention Facility Graphics … 0026.15 (05-11-2015) SSFigure 3.3-1 Project Site and Surrounding Zoning Feet 200 6004000 Image: Google Inc. 2015. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.0. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: 1-22-2014. Zoning PA Planned Area District PC Public and Civic CRR Community and Regional Recreation District C-3 Regional Commercial District Zoning District Boundary M-2 Light Industrial District M-3 Heavy Industrial District MFR-2 Multifamily Medium Density Residential Legend Project Site Source: City of Richmond. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Land Use West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-3 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 threshold. The determination of the project’s impact on land use is based on the expansion of the existing facilities for the same use as the existing land use, as well as temporary construction activities. 3.3.3.2 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant effect if it would result in any of the conditions listed below. 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, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 3.3.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact LUP-1: Physically divide an established community (no impact) The proposed facilities would be located entirely within the WCDF property. The proposed project is consistent with the existing uses of the property and would not divide an established community. Therefore, there would be no impact. Impact LUP-2: Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (no impact) The proposed facility would expand the existing facilities and would be consistent with the existing land use designations and zoning of the property. The Richmond General Plan 2030 policies presented in the setting are aimed at reducing conflict between land uses. Table 3.3-3 presents the proposed project’s consistency with general plan policies. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Land Use West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-4 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Table 3.3-3 Richmond General Plan Policy Consistency Policy Project Consistency LU5.3 Land Use Compatibility: Minimize conflicts between land uses to protect wetlands, marshlands, and creeks, humans and environmental health and safety, preserve community character and retain job generating activities that have long term viability. The proposed project would be entirely within the fence of the existing WCDF. Existing fencing and landscaping reduce the potential conflict with the adjacent recreational and business park uses, and with the nearby residential uses. Although the population of the WCDF may increase as a result of the proposed project, the activities taking place at the facility would be the same or similar to those currently taking place. Activities outside of the fence, such as buses transporting inmates to offsite facilities, would not occur more frequently, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description, because these activities occur on a schedule that can accommodate the increased population. Existing parking facilities have substantial additional capacity to serve all vehicles that may come to the site during operation of the proposed project; therefore, project parking demand would result in no effects on surrounding land uses. LU5.B Design Guidelines: Develop design guidelines and standards for all land uses and development prototypes. The guidelines would build on zoning codes to promote high quality design. Guidelines should also address compatibility between new and existing historic structures and districts, residential and adjacent non residential uses and urban and natural areas. As noted above, the proposed project would be entirely within the fence of the existing WCDF. Aesthetic effects are addressed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics. As discussed in that section, the proposed project would not have significant impacts related to aesthetics and visual quality. Changes in views from adjacent areas would be minimal and would not result in adverse impacts. The proposed project would not be visible from the residential areas. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. There would be no impact. Impact LU-3: Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan (no impact) There is no adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan that is currently applicable to the project site. There would be no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.4 Noise This section defines common noise terminology and describes the regulatory and environmental setting for noise in the project vicinity. It also describes the noise impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project. 3.4.1 Noise Terminology The following are brief definitions of noise terminology used in this evaluation. Sound. A vibratory disturbance transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air and capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone. Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. Decibel (dB). A measure of sound based on a logarithmic scale that indicates the squared ratio of actual sound pressure level to a reference sound pressure level (20 micropascals). A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). A measure of sound that is weighted to take into account the varying sensitivity of the human ear to different frequencies of sound. The dBA scale is the most widely used for environmental noise assessments. Typical A-weighted noise levels for various types of sound sources are summarized in Table 3.4-1. Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level that would contain the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound that actually occurs during the monitoring period. The 1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level (Leq 1h) is the energy average of A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period. Maximum Sound Levels (Lmax). The maximum (Lmax) sound levels measured during a monitoring period. Day-Night Level (Ldn). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Sound from multiple sources operating in the same area such a multiple pieces of construction equipment will result in a combined sound level that is greater than any individual source. The individual sound levels for different noise sources cannot be added directly to give the sound level for the combined noise sources. Rather, the combined noise level produced by multiple noise sources is calculated using logarithmic summation. For example, if one bulldozer produces a noise level of 80 dBA, then two bulldozers operating side by side would generate a combined noise level of 83 dBA (only 3 dBA louder than the single bulldozer). Human sound perception, in general, is such that a change in sound level of 3 dB is just noticeable; a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable; and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving the sound level. A doubling of actual sound energy is required to result in a 3 dB (i.e., barely noticeable) increase in noise; in practice, for example, this means that the volume of traffic on a roadway typically needs to double to result in a noticeable increase in noise. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-2 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Table 3.4-1. Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels Common Outdoor Activities Sound Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock band Jet flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Gas lawnmower at 3 feet 90 Diesel truck at 50 mph at 50 feet Food blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, daytime Gas lawnmower at 100 feet 70 Vacuum cleaner at 3 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 Large business office Quiet urban area, daytime 50 Dishwasher in next room Quiet urban area, nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban area, nighttime 30 Library Quiet rural area, nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) Rustling of leaves 20 Broadcast/recording studio 10 0 Source California Department of Transportation 2013. When distance is the only factor considered, sound levels from isolated point sources of noise typically decrease by about 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the noise source. When the noise source is a continuous line, such as vehicle traffic on a highway, sound levels decrease by about 3 dB for every doubling of distance. Noise levels can also be affected by several factors other than the distance from the noise source. Topographic features and structural barriers that absorb, reflect, or scatter sound waves can affect the reduction of noise levels over distance. Atmospheric conditions (wind speed and direction, humidity levels, and temperatures) and the presence of dense vegetation can also affect the degree of sound attenuation. 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting 3.4.2.1 Federal and State There are no federal or state noise regulations applicable to the proposed project. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-3 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.4.2.2 Local Contra Costa County The Contra Costa General Plan Noise Element contains a number of goals, policies, and implementation measures for addressing noise within the County. Section 11.8 of the Noise Element contains the following goals. 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. To maintain appropriate noise conditions in all areas of the County. To ensure that new developments will be constructed so as to limit the effects of exterior noise on the residents. To recognize the economic impacts of noise control and encourage an equitable distribution of these costs. To recognize citizen concerns regarding excessive noise levels, and to utilize measures through which the concerns can be identified and mitigated. The following policies from Section 11.9 of the Contra Costa General Plan Noise Element may be relevant to this project. New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained in Figure 3.4-1. These guidelines, along with the future noise levels shown in the future noise contours maps, should be used by the county as a guide for evaluating the compatibility of “noise sensitive” projects in potentially noisy areas. The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 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. If the primary noise source is train passbys, then the standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of 70 dB. A higher DNL is allowable since the DNL is controlled by a relatively few number of train passbys that are disruptive outdoors only for short periods. Even though the DNL may be high, during the majority of the time the noise level will be acceptable. The following implementation measures from Section 11.10 of the Noise Element may be applicable to the proposed project. Continue to require a review and analysis of noise-related impacts as part of the existing project development review procedures of the County. Evaluate the noise impacts of a proposed project upon existing land uses in terms of the applicable Federal, State, and local codes, and the potential for adverse community response, based on a significant increase in existing noise levels. Encourage use of the following mitigation measures to minimize noise impacts of proposed development projects: 1. Site planning. Proper site planning is the first mitigation measure that should be investigated to reduce noise impacts. By taking advantage of the natural shape and terrain of a site, it often is possible to arrange the buildings and other uses in a manner that will reduce and possibly eliminate noise impact. Specific site planning techniques include: Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-4 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 a. Increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver; b. Placing non-noise-sensitive land uses such as parking lots, maintenance facilities, and utility areas between the source and the receiver; c. Using non-noise-sensitive structures such as garages to shield noise-sensitive areas; and d. Orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source. 2. Architectural layout of buildings. In many cases, noise reduction can be attained by careful layout of noise-sensitive spaces. Bedrooms, for example, should be placed away from freeways. Quiet outdoor spaces can be provided next to a noisy highway by creating a U- shaped development which faces away from the highway. 3. Noise Barriers: Noise barriers or walls are commonly used to reduce noise levels from ground transportation noise sources and industrial sources. While serving a dual purpose in that they can reduce noise level both outdoors and indoors, to be effective, a barrier must interrupt the line of sight between the noise source and the receiver. A barrier should provide at least 5 dB of noise reduction to achieve a noticeable change in noise levels. 4. Construction modifications: If site planning, architectural layout, noise barriers, or a combination of these measures does not achieve the required noise reduction, then construction modification to walls, roofs, ceilings, doors, windows, and other penetrations may be necessary. Contra Costa County does not have an ordinance specifically addressing noise. Noise complaints within unincorporated areas of the county are addressed through application of peace disturbance sections of the County Code and application of generic nuisance ordinances of the County Code. City of Richmond The City of Richmond General Plan 2030 contains goals, policies, and implementing actions for addressing noise within the city. Goal SN4 Acceptable Noise Levels Achieve noise levels consistent with acceptable standards and reduce or eliminate objectionable noise sources. Prevent where possible, or mitigate noise impacts from industries, roadways, railroads and businesses in residential areas and sensitive uses in the community. In addition, apply new technology, buffers and other solutions to reduce excessive noise. Policy SN4.1 Noise Levels Work with regulatory agencies to monitor and enforce noise standards in the community. Reduce or mitigate objectionable noise sources and require new noise sources to comply with noise standards. Regulate both indoor and outdoor noise levels to protect health and safety. Use a combination of noise standards and existing noise levels to determine impacts and mitigation measures. Policy SN4.2 Land Use Compatibility All new development must avoid or mitigate to the greatest extent feasible potential negative impacts such as noise, odors, and pollution. Figure 3.4-2 provides City of Richmond noise exposure land use compatibility standards for noise. These standards are the same as those provided in Table 1 for Contra Costa County. Figure 11-6 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Graphic Created on August, 23 2004 Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor - N. Wing, Martinez, CA94553-0095 37:59:48.455N122:06:35.384W Page 11-38 Source: Contra Costa County, Noise Element (2014) Figure 3.4-1 Contra Costa Noise and Land Use Compatibility GuidelinesGraphics … 0026.15 (4-17-2015) Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-5 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Figure. 3.4-2. City of Richmond Noise Exposure Land Use Compatibility Standards. Chapter 9.52 of the City of Richmond Municipal Code is the City’s community noise ordinance. In general, the ordinance states that it is unlawful to create noise that causes annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivities. For single-family residential uses exposed to non- construction noise sources, the maximum noise level not to be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any hour is 60 dBA at the property line. The limit increases to 65 dBA for multifamily residential uses. For mobile construction equipment, the maximum sound level limit is 75 dBA at residences on weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. On weekends and legal holidays the limit is 60 dBA between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. For stationary equipment, the limit is 60 dBA on weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and 55 dBA on weekends and legal holidays between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. 3.4.3 Environmental Setting The project site is located at 5555 Giant Highway in Richmond, north of San Pablo and west of Pinole. The area is bordered by the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline on the west and south, the Pinole Point Business Park on the north, and a residential neighborhood and the Richmond Country Club on the east. Two railroad lines are located near the project site: the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTC) railroad on the west, and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe (AT&SF) railroad line on the east along Giant Highway. The nearest residence is located approximately 450 feet from the Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-6 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 proposed project site. The majority of noise in the project area comes from motor vehicle traffic, railroad operations, and the existing WCDF facilities. Given that the project site is mostly surrounded by undeveloped land, ambient noise levels in the area are expected to be in the range of 50 to 60 dBA Ldn. 3.4.4 Impact Analysis 3.4.4.1 Methods Potential construction and operational noise impacts are assessed by estimating potential construction and operational noise levels and comparing those noise levels with applicable standards. Specific prediction methods are discussed under each impact. 3.4.4.2 Thresholds of Significance City of Richmond and Contra Costa County land use compatibility standards are the same. Contra Costa does not have a noise ordinance whereas the City of Richmond does. Potentially affected receivers are located in Richmond. City of Richmond noise ordinance standards are therefore applied. A project noise impact would be considered significant if the project would result in any of the following conditions. Construction noise that exceeds City of Richmond construction noise standards for mobile and stationary sources. Construction vibration that would be perceptible at nearby residential uses. Operational noise that exceeds City of Richmond noise standards. Exposure of outdoor use area at the jail facility to noise that exceeds 65 Ldn. 3.4.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact NOI-1: Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies (less than significant) Existing noise at the project site mainly comes from traffic on Giant Highway, operation of the SPTC railroad, and the AT&SF railroad line, and operation of the WCDF. Construction As stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, construction staff is expected to work from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., 5 days per week. Construction of the proposed 150,000-square-foot building and a small equipment or generator building is anticipated to begin in spring of 2016 and continue for approximately 18-24 months. Construction of these project elements would temporarily increase the noise levels at the project site for the entirety of the construction period. Table 3.4-2 lists equipment that is expected to be used along with typical noise levels reported in the Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (Federal Highway Administration 2006). Lmax sound levels at 50 feet are shown along with the typical acoustical use factors. The acoustical use factor is the percentage of time each piece of construction equipment is assumed to be operating at full power (i.e., its noisiest condition) during construction and is used to Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-7 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 estimate Leq values from Lmax values. For example, the Leq value for a piece of equipment that operates at full power 50% of the time (acoustical use factor of 50) is 3 dB less than the Lmax value for that piece of equipment. Table 3.4-2. Typical Construction Noise Emission Levels Equipment Typical Lmax Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet Acoustical Use Factor (%) Leq Noise Level at 50 feet (dBA) Concrete Mixer Truck 79 40 75 Crane 81 16 73 Dump Truck 76 40 72 Excavator 81 40 77 Flat Bed Truck 74 40 70 Grader 85 40 81 Paver 77 50 74 Pickup truck 75 40 71 Roller 80 20 73 Tractor 84 40 80 Source: Federal Highway Administration 2006. dBA= A-weighted decibel Leq = equivalent sound level Lmax = maximum sound levels A reasonable worst-case construction noise level scenario assumes that the three loudest pieces of equipment operate concurrently (grader, tractor, and excavator). The combined Lmax level for these three pieces of equipment is 88 dBA at 50 feet and the Leq level is 84 dBA at 50 feet. The nearest residence is located approximately 450 feet from the project site. At this distance, this construction noise level would reduce to about 69 dBA Lmax and 65 dBA Leq. Because these noise levels are less than the daytime construction noise standard for mobile equipment of 75 dBA, the exposure of existing residents to construction noise would be a less-than-significant impact. Inmates housed in the existing facility could potentially be exposed to excessive construction noise. However, because inmates are normally located within existing buildings or in outdoor areas shielded by existing buildings from the construction area, no adverse construction noise effects on inmates are anticipated. During construction there would be increased traffic on Giant Highway, the primary access road to the project site, as a result of material delivery and worker trips. However, this increased traffic would be a very small percentage of the existing traffic volume on Giant Highway and is expected to result in an increase in noise that is less than 3 dB (i.e., less than perceptible). Operation Operational noise would be primarily associated with air handling equipment. Specific details on the type and location of air handling equipment have not been determined at this time. A typical packaged air handling unit with a cooling capacity in the range of 100 to 300 tons would produce a sound level of about 70 dBA at 50 feet (Hoover and Keith 2000). At the nearest residences located Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-8 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 about 450 feet away, this would correspond to about 51 dBA, which is below the City standard of 60 dBA. Therefore, the impact of operational noise would be less than significant. Outdoor use areas at the facility would be located in areas that are shielded from rail and roadway noise by existing and new buildings. Noise in these areas is, therefore, anticipated to be less than 65 Ldn. The exposure of inmates to existing noise would be a less-than-significant impact. Impact NOI-2: Expose persons to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (less than significant) As discussed under Impact NOI-1, construction noise could be as high as about 69 dBA Lmax and 65 dBA Leq at the nearest residences. Although construction noise at these levels would likely be greater than existing ambient noise levels, the noise levels would not exceed the applicable standard of 75 dBA. The temporary increase in noise associated with construction would not be substantial and this impact would be less than significant. Impact NOI-3: Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (less than significant) Construction The operation of heavy construction equipment can generate localized groundborne vibration at buildings adjacent to the construction site, especially during the operation of high-impact equipment, such as pile drivers. Vibration from nonimpact construction activity and truck traffic is typically below the threshold of residential annoyance when the activity is more than about 50 feet from the noise-sensitive land uses (Federal Transit Administration 2006). The nearest residential uses are located approximately 450 feet from the project site and the existing onsite buildings are located more than 50 feet from the new proposed building. Additionally, project construction would not involve high-impact equipment such as a pile driver. Therefore, groundborne vibration and noise impacts associated with project construction would be less than significant. Operation Operation of the proposed project would not involve the use of vibratory equipment that would generate groundborne vibration and noise. Therefore, there would be no impact related to groundborne vibration and noise associated with project operation. Impact NOI-4: Expose persons to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (less than significant) As discussed in Impact NOI-1, noise associated with operation of the new facility would be primarily associated with air handling equipment. Specific details on the type and location of air handling equipment have not been determined at this time. A typical packaged air handling unit with a cooling capacity in the range of 100 to 300 tons would produce a sound level of about 70 dBA at 50 feet. At the nearest residences located about 450 feet away, this sound would correspond to about 51 dBA. This is below the City standard of 60 dBA and is expected to be similar to the existing ambient noise level. No permanent increase in noise is anticipated and this impact would be less than significant. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-9 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Impact NOI-5: Be located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (less than significant) The closest airport to the project site is the San Rafael Airport, which is located more than 9 miles to the west of the project site. The nearest private airport is the Brookside Hospital Heliport, which is 3 miles from the project site. Because the proposed project would not expose inmates, employees, visitors, or construction workers to excessive noise levels related to aircraft overflight, this impact would be less than significant. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Public Services and Utilities West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.5 Public Services and Utilities This section describes the regulatory and environmental setting for public services and utilities. It also describes the impacts on public services and utilities that would result from implementation of the proposed project and mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. 3.5.1 Regulatory Setting Federal There are no relevant federal regulations for public facilities and services, although a variety of environmental laws ensures the public is protected when these services are delivered. Clean Water Act Section 304 of the Clean Water Act establishes primary drinking water standards and requires states to ensure that potable water retailed to the public meets these standards. State primary and secondary drinking water standards are promulgated in 22 California Code of Regulations 64431– 64501. Secondary drinking water standards incorporate nonhealth risk factors, including taste, odor, and appearance. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulates the discharge of drainage to surface waters. Federal NPDES regulations are administered by the State Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and through the Regional Water Boards, which, in the project area, is the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay Water Board). Municipal storm drainage is required to meet water board standards under waste discharge regulations and NPDES permits. State There are no relevant state regulations for public facilities and services, although a variety of environmental laws ensures the public is protected when these services are delivered. Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 13000 et seq.) The Porter–Cologne Act directs the State Water Board and Regional Water Boards to prepare Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans) that establish water quality objectives and beneficial uses for each body of water, including groundwater basins, within the regional boundaries. The Porter– Cologne Act empowers the State Water Board and Regional Water Boards to protect the beneficial use of California waters, thereby providing broader authority than offered by the Clean Water Act alone. The State Water Board and Regional Water Boards adopt regulations to protect surface water quality. California Energy Commission The California Energy Commission (CEC) regulates the provision of natural gas and electricity within the state. The CEC is the state’s primary energy policy and planning agency and has five major responsibilities: forecasting future energy needs and keeping historical energy data, licensing thermal power plants 50 megawatts or larger, promoting energy efficiency through appliance and Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Public Services and Utilities West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-2 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 building standards, developing energy technologies and supporting renewable energy, and planning for and directing the state response to energy emergencies. California Integrated Waste Management Board The California Integrated Waste Management Board is the state agency designated to oversee, manage, and track California’s 76 million tons of waste generated each year. It is one of the six agencies under the umbrella of the California Environmental Protection Agency. The California Integrated Waste Management Board develops laws and regulations to control and manage waste; enforcement authority is typically delegated to the local government. The board works jointly with local government to implement regulations and fund programs. Pursuant to the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989, all cities in California are required to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed in landfills. Contracts that include work that will generate solid waste, including construction and demolition debris, have been targeted for participation in source-reduction, reuse, and recycling programs. Contractors are urged to manage solid waste to divert waste away from disposal in landfills (particularly Class III landfills) and to maximize source reduction, reuse, and recycling of construction and demolition debris. Wastewater Wastewater is regulated by the State Water Board and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Local The City of Richmond Municipal Code and the Richmond General Plan 2030 address the provision of public services. In 2013 the City of Richmond amended Chapter 8.16 of the Municipal Code to adopt the 2013 California Fire Code with local amendments. The California Fire Code, 2013 Editions (24 California Code of Regulations Part 9) is enforced by the Fire Prevention Bureau in the Richmond Fire Department (City of Richmond Ordinance No. 24-13 N.S. 2013). The Richmond General Plan 2030 contains the following goal and policies that are relevant to the proposed project. Goal SN2 - High Levels of Police and Fire Service Policy SN2.2 Level of Service Provide a high level of police and fire service in the community. Secure adequate facilities, equipment and personnel for police and fire and collaborate with neighboring jurisdiction and partner agencies to adequately respond to emergencies and incidents in all parts of the City. Policy SN2.3 Fire Safety Regularly update policies that will protect the community and its urban and natural areas from fire hazards. Emphasize prevention and awareness of fire safety guidelines to minimize risk and potential damage to life, property and the environment. In areas designated by the Richmond Fire Department as having a high fire hazard, ensure adequate fire equipment, personnel, firebreaks, facilities, water and access for a quick and efficient response in any area. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Public Services and Utilities West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-3 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Action SN2.B Level of Service Monitoring Regularly review response times for police, fire and emergency medical calls. Use the results of the evaluation to gauge the need for additional facilities, equipment and personnel, and identify specific geographic areas of the City that may not be adequately served. Action SN2.C Regional Emergency Coordination Plan Collaborate with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions to develop and implement a regional emergency coordination plan and agreement for police, fire and emergency medical services. 3.5.2 Environmental Setting 3.5.2.1 Government Services The City of Richmond provides fire and police protection to the project site and surrounding area. Fire protection is provided by the Richmond Fire Department Station #68, which is 1.9 road miles away from the project site. Police protection services are provided by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, which operates the WCDF. The Richmond Police Department provides police services to the project vicinity, as that area is within the City of Richmond. The Sherriff’s Department is responsible for traffic-related services in all unincorporated areas of the County. The project site is located in the West Contra Costa Unified School District. The West Contra Costa Unified School District covers the cities of El Cerrito, San Pablo, Pinole, and Hercules, and the unincorporated areas of Bayview Montalvin Manor, East Richmond Heights, El Sobrante, Kensington, North Richmond, and Tara Hills. Residents in the project area attend Montalvin Manor Elementary School, Pinole Middle School, and Pinole Valley High School. The WCDF site, within which the project site is located, is bordered on the west and north by the 2,315-acre Point Pinole Regional Shoreline, which is operated by the East Bay Regional Park District. Park activities include birdwatching, hiking, bicycle and horse riding, fishing, and camping. 3.5.2.2 Water Service The WCDF, including the project site, is supplied with water by the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s (EBMUD’s) Central Pressure District through an existing 16-inch water main along Giant Highway. EBMUD’s adopted Urban Water Management Plan 2010 describes EBMUD’s overall water supply system and resources planning, water shortage contingency plan, water demand, wastewater and recycled water, and water conservation plans (East Bay Municipal Utility District 2011). Institutional water use represents approximately 5% of EBMUD’s overall customer base. EBMUD also does long-term water supply planning in its Water Supply Management Program 2040 (East Bay Municipal Utility District 2012). In this document, EBMUD develops a complete water supply framework with the intent of identifying solutions to meet dry-year water needs through 2040. 3.5.2.3 Wastewater Service Wastewater service is provided by the West County Wastewater District (WCWD) through a gravity- flow system that drains wastewater to a storage tank at the east corner of the WCDF, where two pumps operate intermittently to discharge the wastewater into the force main. A second pump and Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Public Services and Utilities West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-4 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 storage tank provide backup service in the event of a primary pump failure. WCWD operates a 12.5 million gallon per day, average dry weather flow water pollution control plant (WPCP). Approximately 30% of the plant’s volume comes from the city of Richmond. Service area growth projections by the WCWD indicate that flow to the WPCP will not exceed the permitted capacity in a 20-year planning period (from 2013 to 2033) (West County Wastewater District 2013). 3.5.2.4 Stormwater Drainage As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, on site facilities, including onsite drainage facilities, were sized to serve a detention facility of a size that would include the proposed expansion. However, more recent regulations require development projects to implement low-impact development standards and ensure runoff is retained on-site. 3.5.2.5 Solid Waste Disposal Richmond Sanitary Service, an affiliate of Republic Services, Inc., provides residential and commercial municipal solid waste, recycling and green waste collection services in the City of Richmond. Republic Services owns and operates through separate subsidiary corporations, a 21- acre site at the foot of Parr Boulevard in Richmond that includes the Golden Bear Transfer Facility and former West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL). The West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (IRRF) that includes a household hazardous waste (HHW) facility is located at 101 Pittsburg Avenue in Richmond and is operated by another affiliate, West County Resource Recovery, Inc. The WCCSL was closed to waste disposal in 2006 and was capped for final closure in 2009. Additional material sorting and recovery operations will be conducted on the site, including recyclables, construction and demolition debris, and organics composting. (City of Richmond 2012) The Golden Bear Transfer Facility is a transfer point for the city’s garbage solid wastes before they are disposed of at the Keller Canyon Landfill in Pittsburg. The landfill is operated by Republic Services, Inc. and has 8 to 10 years of permitted capacity. Permit applications are pending that would expand the original capacity and add about 30 years of potential landfill life. The West County IRRF described above processes all of the City’s recyclables prior to sale and shipment to remanufacturing processors. The HHW facility accepts a variety of hazardous and universal wastes from West County residents and small businesses for appropriate recycling or disposal. (City of Richmond 2012a) 3.5.3 Impact Analysis 3.5.3.1 Methods Identifying the project’s impacts on public services involved a review of the Contra Costa County General Plan, the Richmond General Plan 2030, and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Hazard Severity Zone Map, as well as contacting local fire department officials, water planners, and wastewater planners to discuss the existing conditions and potential effects of the proposed project. Identifying the impacts of the proposed project on utilities and service systems involved a review of project information, review of water and wastewater master plans, discussions with local water and wastewater planners, and review of other applicable regulations. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Public Services and Utilities West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-5 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant effect if it would result in any of the conditions listed below. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Fire protection Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant effect if it would result in any of the conditions listed below. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Require new or expanded entitlements to water resources. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the proposed projects’ projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Generate solid waste that would exceed the permitted capacity of area landfills to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 3.5.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact PUB-1: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities (less than significant with mitigation) Fire Protection. Although the proposed project would include a new building and increase the inmate population and number of employees at the project site, this increase is not anticipated to Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Public Services and Utilities West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-6 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 substantially affect the need for fire protection services. The proposed new facility would be designed to meet fire standards. The Richmond Fire Department indicates that there is concern that local water pressure in this portion of the city is low (Harris, personal communication).This impact would be potentially significant but would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation, which is presented below. Police Protection. The proposed project is designed to facilitate improved management of inmates and to provide more secure facilities, reducing the burden on the Sherriff’s Office. Video services are also expected to make court hearings, attorney visits and family visits more efficient. Although the proposed project would increase the inmate population and require additional employees at the project site, the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially affect the level of police protection services. The County Sheriff’s Department has indicated that it will help their overall level of police protection services by providing better security for inmates and a safer situation for officers. There would be no increase in response time. The City of Richmond Police Department would continue to book inmates at MDF. Additional rehabilitation, job training, and treatment services offered at WCDF are intended to prepare inmates for release. The proposed project would not cause any substantial adverse impacts on existing police protection services. There would be a less-than-significant impact on police protection services. Schools. As stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, the County intends to staff the new facility as much as possible with existing employees, including those currently employed at the existing MDF. Because of the short distance between the MDF and the WCDF, it is not anticipated that the transferred employees at the WCDF would relocate to the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, the small number of employees means that even if they were all new, the project would not induce population increase requiring the construction of new housing adding new school age children to the area. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact. Parks. The project is not expected to affect the use of Point Pinole Regional Shoreline. Current detention facilities are within a fenced area that is not accessible from the park, and are only slightly visible from the park (see Section 3.1, Aesthetics). Park users sometimes use the WCDF parking lot and would continue to be able to use the parking lot. The expansion of the WCDF is not expected to alter the relationship between the facilities. The project would have a less-than-significant impact. Other Public Facilities. The proposed project would not cause significant growth in the City of Richmond or Contra Costa County and would not significantly impact existing public facilities. There would be a less-than-significant impact on other public facilities. Mitigation Measure PUB-1a: Incorporate design measures or contribute to improvements to ensure adequate water pressure for fire suppression needs The County will coordinate with the Richmond Fire Department to ensure that pressure tests will be performed to ensure water pressure fire performance objectives are met for the proposed project. If tests indicate that the pressure is insufficient, the County will incorporate design measures or contribute to improvements to ensure adequate water pressure for fire suppression needs. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Public Services and Utilities West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-7 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Mitigation Measure PUB-1b: Comply with all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements, subject to review and approval by the City of Richmond Planning and Building Services The County will ensure the design and construction of the proposed project complies with all building and fire code requirements as established by Chapter 8.16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Richmond and the 2013 California Administrative Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1 (California Building Code). Impact PUB-2: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (less than significant) The proposed project would utilize the wastewater infrastructure which already exists on the project site and serves the WCDF. The existing WCWD facility complies with wastewater treatment requirements of the San Francisco Bay Water Board, and it is anticipated that the wastewater treatment would continue to remain in compliance after implementation of the proposed project. The WCDF expansion would not add new chemicals or contaminants to the wastewater system that would cause the WCWD plant to exceed water treatment requirements. Therefore, the impacts of increased wastewater from the proposed project would be less than significant. Impact PUB-3: Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (less than significant) The proposed project would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Water would be provided by EBMUD via the existing water main. Wastewater would be delivered to the wastewater force main in Giant Highway which has available capacity to meet the increased wastewater generated by the proposed project (Savannah, personal communication). Additional engineering would be conducted prior to construction to verify the onsite pumps provide enough lift to deliver wastewater to the force main, but it appears the connections were sized to accommodate this type of expansion. WCWD service area growth projections indicate flow to the WPCP will not exceed the permitted capacity in a 20-year planning period (West County Wastewater District 2013). The project would, therefore, not result in the need for wastewater treatment plant expansion. This impact would be less than significant. Impact PUB-4: Require new or expanded entitlements to water resources (less than significant) Water supply at the WCDF comes from EBMUD’s Central Pressure District. Construction of the proposed project would result in water use for construction for activities such as airborne dust suppression, routine cleaning of construction equipment, concrete mixing, and other purposes. Water demand during construction activities would be temporary in nature and is not anticipated to be substantial. Water demand associated with construction activities would not require additional water treatment facilities or entitlements. Water use during operation of the project would be associated with the expanded onsite population. Water consumption by inmates is lower than by average members of the community, and water demand would primarily consist of water use in bathrooms and showers within the new facility. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Public Services and Utilities West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-8 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Based on an average water use of 80 gallons per day (gpd) for 480 new inmates and 35 gpd for up to 30 additional staff, the site could use up to an additional 39,450 gpd, or approximately 45 acre-feet per year. This is likely an over-estimate of the additional water demand generated by the project because the facility would not always be at capacity and not all the additional staff members would be working any given shift. Recent communication with EBMUD staff indicates that EBMUD currently provides water service to the existing property and could accommodate the additional demand. EBMUD indicated that a Water Supply Assessment is not needed and that the County should contact EBMUD new business office when more detailed plans and demand estimates are available. Staff further elaborated that EBMUD’s Urban Water Management Plan 2010concludes that EBMUD has, and will have, adequate water supplies to serve existing and projected demand within the Ultimate Service Boundary during normal and wet years but that deficits are projected for drought years. EBMUD’s Drought Management Program Guidelines establish the level of water use restrictions that EBMUD may consider based on the projected total system storage at the end of the water year. Up to a Stage 3 Drought, EBMUD-wide water use reduction goals of up to 15 percent may be required. In a Stage 4 Drought, EBMUD-wide mandatory water use reduction goals can exceed 15 percent. The project will be subject to the same drought restrictions that apply to all EBMUD customers. Further, on April 14, 2015, EBMUD declared a Stage 4 Drought and a mandatory EBMUD-wide water use reduction goal of 20 percent and adopted revised regulations regarding mandatory water use prohibitions and restrictions. This 20 percent conservation goal is consistent with the California State Governor’s April 1, 2015 drought emergency order and with an April 7, 2015 California State Water Resources Control Board proposed rulemaking which specifically identifies a 20 percent water reduction goal for EBMUD. (Rehnstrom, personal communication). Overall, this impact would be less than significant because there are available supplies, but the County will also need to plan for future drought conditions. Impact PUB-5: Require additional capacity to accommodate solid waste disposal needs associated with increased solid waste production from expanded facility (less than significant) The project site is currently served by the Golden Bear Transfer Facility, which is approximately 3.2 miles from the project site. The Golden Bear Transfer Facility is a transfer point for the City’s garbage solid wastes before being disposed of at the Keller Canyon Landfill in the City of Pittsburg. The Keller Canyon Landfill has 8 to 10 years of permitted capacity and permit applications are pending that would expand the original capacity and add about 30 years of potential landfill life (City of Richmond 2012a). The Keller Canyon Landfill has a permitted capacity of 3,500 tons per day, a remaining capacity of 63,408,410 cubic yards, and a maximum permitted capacity of 75,018,280 cubic yards (CalRecycle 2015). The majority of solid waste generation would take place during construction of the facility. Minimal solid waste would be generated during the operation of proposed project. Inmates generate approximately 4 pounds of waste per day, or 1,450 pounds per year. The projected increase of 480 inmates would generate approximately 1,920 pounds per day. This is approximately 0.0002% of the daily permitted capacity of the Keller Canyon Landfill. Based on the relatively small increase in waste and the availability of capacity to accommodate this increase, this impact would be less than significant. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.6 Transportation and Traffic This section describes the regulatory and environmental setting for transportation and traffic in the vicinity of the project site. It also describes impacts related to transportation and traffic that could result from proposed project implementation. This section is based on the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Hexagon) and presented in Appendix B. 3.6.1 Regulatory Setting 3.6.1.1 Federal and State No federal transportation regulations pertain to the proposed project. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for operating and maintaining the state highway system. Interstate (I-) 80 is the state highway closest to the project site. Because of the project site’s distance from I-80 (approximately 2.5) miles and because of the minimal amount of traffic the project is likely to generate on I-80, no state highway regulations are applicable to the proposed project. In 2013, Public Resources Code Section 21099 (b) (1) was amended to direct the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines establishing criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria are intended to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, OPR must recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include vehicle miles traveled (VMT), VMT per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or number of automobile trips generated. OPR may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section. These revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines have not yet been proposed or adopted. 3.6.1.2 Local The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) adopted the most recent version of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) in 2009 and released a draft update of the CTP in August 2014. The CTP “provides the overall direction and a coordinated approach for achieving and maintaining a balanced and functional transportation system within Contra Costa” (Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2014: I-2). The CTP designates routes of regional significance, which include Richmond Parkway and San Pablo Avenue in the proposed project vicinity. The CTP identifies needed improvements for automobiles, bicyclists and pedestrians on these routes of regional significance. The CTP also establishes appropriate level of service (LOS) for routes of regional significance. The City of Richmond does not have LOS policies for signalized or unsignalized intersections. Therefore, this report relies on CCTA’s standards. 3.6.2 Environmental Setting The proposed project would be located at 5555 Giant Highway in Richmond (see Figure 2-2). Two WCDF driveways on the west side of Giant Highway provide direct access to the project site. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-2 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.6.2.1 Existing Roadway Network I-80 provides regional access to the project vicinity. San Pablo Avenue, Richmond Parkway, and Atlas Road all provide local access to the project vicinity. Richmond Parkway and Atlas Road both intersect Giant Highway, which provides direct access to two driveways leading to the WCDF. Figure 3.6-1 depicts these roadways. I-80 is primarily an east-west freeway with four mixed-flow lanes in each direction in West Contra Costa County. The I-80 interchange at Richmond Parkway and Fitzgerald Drive would provide access to the project vicinity. Richmond Parkway is major arterial that runs primarily north-south. It connects to I-580 via Canal Boulevard in the south. The parkway connects to I-80 in the north, where the parkway becomes Fitzgerald Drive and continues into Pinole. Richmond Parkway varies from four to six lanes. It is a designated truck route in Richmond and a designated route of regional significance in the CTP. The parkway has an interchange at Giant Highway approximately 0.9 mile south of the project site. San Pablo Avenue is a four-lane major arterial that runs north-south through the cities of Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo, Albany, Berkeley, and Oakland. The CTP designates San Pablo Avenue a route of regional significance because of it provides connections to numerous cities. Atlas Road is a four-lane divided collector road from Richmond Parkway to Giant Road/Giant Highway, which provides direct access to the driveways at the project site. Atlas Road is a truck route in Richmond. Giant Highway is a north-south, two-lane collector road from Atlas Road in the north to Richmond Parkway in the south. The roadway continues as Giant Road north of Atlas Road and south of Richmond Parkway. Giant Highway has a speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph) and is a truck route in Richmond. The two driveways serving the project site intersect Giant Highway. 3.6.2.2 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Bicycle facilities are designated by class. Class I bikeways provide for two-way bicycle travel on bike paths that are physically separated from the travel way for motor vehicles. Class II bikeways are bike lanes on roadways and are marked by striping and signage. Class III bikeways are routes that have only signage to guide bicyclists and indicate to motorists that bicyclists may be on the roadway. The 2011 City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan describes the existing and proposed bicycle network in Richmond within the project vicinity (City of Richmond 2011). Richmond Parkway has an existing Class I bicycle path between San Pablo Avenue and Atlas Road. The path is located on the north side of Richmond Parkway. A landscaped strip separates the Class I bikeway from the travel way for motor vehicles. San Pablo Avenue is a designated Class III bike route between Kay Road and Tara Hills Drive, just north of Richmond Parkway. There also is a section of Class II bike lane on the southbound side of San Pablo Avenue, between Shamrock Drive and Kay Road. Atlas Road has a Class I bikeway from the Class I path on Richmond Parkway on the east to the Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) tracks on the east. Figure 3.6-1 Existing Road Network and Study LocationsGraphics … 0026.15 (4-17-2015)Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2015 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-3 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Point Pinole Regional Shoreline trails provide a part of the San Francisco Bay Trail network that circles San Pablo and San Francisco Bays. The shoreline park is located northwest of the project site, across the UPRR tracks. Giant Highway has no bicycle facilities. The City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan proposes designating a Class III bike route along Giant Highway from the Class I bikeway on Atlas Road just north of the project site to Brookside Drive, at which point a proposed Class I bikeway would begin. In addition, a Class I bike path is proposed just west of the project site, along the UPRR tracks. No sidewalks exist on Giant Highway, and the City of Richmond Pedestrian Plan does not propose adding any. Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway have sidewalks in the project vicinity. 3.6.2.3 Existing Transit Service The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) provides bus service in the project vicinity and throughout the East Bay, in addition to routes into Santa Clara County and San Francisco. AC Transit also provides paratransit bus service. AC Transit service connects to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) system and to Central Contra Costa County Transportation Authority services. There is an AC Transit bus stop at the WCDF next to the general parking lot, just south of the project site. AC Transit routes 71 and 376 serve the WCDF with approximately 30-minute headways 23 hours per day. Both routes connect to BART stations. 3.6.2.4 Existing Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes Existing intersection lane configurations and traffic volumes are depicted in Figures 3.6-2 and 3.6-3 and are based on observations and data gathered for the project (see Appendix B). 3.6.2.5 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Level of service is a quantitative description of operations conditions that are ranked from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, which indicates jammed conditions with excessive delay (see Level of Service Standards in Section 3.6.3.1, Methods, for a more complete description). There are six intersections in the transportation study area. 1. Site driveway north and Giant Highway. 2. Site driveway south and Giant Highway. 3. Atlas Road and Giant Highway. 4. Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway. 5. San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway. 6. Giant Highway and Richmond Parkway ramps. The first three intersections are unsignalized and the last three are controlled by signals. Unsignalized Intersections The LOS for the three unsignalized intersections is A during A.M. and P.M. peak hours (7 to 9 a.m., and 4 to 6 p.m.), which is an acceptable LOS under CCTA’s standards. None of the intersections has enough peak hour traffic to warrant a signal. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-4 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Signalized Intersections The LOS for the three signalized intersections ranges from B to D, depending on the intersection and time of day (see Table 3.6-1). The LOS at each intersection is within the acceptable range identified by CCTA for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, which is LOS D or better. Table 3.6-1. Existing Intersection Level of Service Study Number Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Average Delay (seconds) LOS 1 Site driveway north and Giant Highway SSSC A.M. 0.3/9.3 A P.M. 9.2/9.9 A 2 Side driveway south and Giant Highway SSSC A.M. 0.8/9.0 A P.M. 8.7/9.6 A 3 Atlas Road and Giant Highway AWSC A.M. 7.9 A P.M. 7.9 A 4 Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway Signal A.M. 19.0 B P.M. 26.2 C 5 San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway Signal A.M. 33.3 C P.M. 49.1 D 6 Giant Highway and Richmond Parkway ramps Signal A.M. 13.8 B P.M. 12.0 B a SSSC intersection LOS and average delays are for both the overall average delay and the approach with the longest delay. Signalized and AWSC intersection LOS and delays are for overall average delay. LOS = level of service. SSSC = side street stop control. AWSC = all way stop control. Source: Appendix B. 3.6.2.6 Observed Traffic Conditions To identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service, Hexagon observed conditions in the field (Appendix B). The field study determined that intersections operate adequately during A.M. and P.M. peak hours and confirmed the accuracy of calculated levels of service. However, field observations identified one operational issue in the project vicinity. At San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway, the queue for the left turn from eastbound Richmond Parkway to northbound San Pablo Avenue consistently spills out of the turn pocket and into the through lanes during the P.M. peak hour. The backup often extends beyond the intersection at Richmond Parkway and Atlas Road. Field observers found that some left turning vehicles needed two or three signal cycles to clear the intersection, even though the signal operates on a 160- to 180- second cycle with 60 seconds for the left turn. One reason for the congestion is a traffic backup on northbound San Pablo Avenue at the intersection with Kay Road, which is just north of the Richmond Parkway/San Pablo Avenue intersection. The backup prevents cars from turning left onto northbound San Pablo Avenue. This situation is addressed in Chapter 5, Section 5.1, Cumulative Impacts. Figure 3.6-2 Existing Lane ConfigurationsGraphics … 0026.15 (4-17-2015)Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2015 Figure 3.6-3 Existing Traffic VolumesGraphics … 0026.15 (4-17-2015)Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2015 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-5 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3.6.3 Impact Analysis 3.6.3.1 Methods Data for this transportation and traffic analysis was provided in a project-specific traffic study (Appendix B), which is based on new traffic counts, previous traffic studies, data from the City of Richmond, field observations, and published information from various transportation agencies. This analysis does not consider potential changes in VMT because, as discussed in Section 3.6.1, Regulatory Setting, the state has not yet adopted CEQA guidelines for analyzing changes in VTM. Project Trip Generation & Assignment Project trip generation is typically estimated by applying to the size and uses of the development the appropriate rates in the Trip Generation Manual by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). However, the Trip Generation Manual only has two studies for the land use code “Prison,” and the range between the rates is very large. Thus, ITE data could not be used to determine the trip generation for the proposed project. Instead, the West County Detention Facility was surveyed during a typical weekday in February to determine existing trip generation rates. Because ITE used “beds” as the independent variable that most closely correlates with trip generation, the trip generation rate was calculated based on the current average occupancy of 574 beds. The trip generation rate per bed was determined to be 0.05 trips per bed during the A.M. peak hour and 0.06 trips per bed during the P.M. peak hour. Using these rates, the proposed project, which would add 480 beds, would generate 24 additional trips during the A.M. peak hour and 29 additional trips during the P.M. peak hour. This trip generation rate likely overstates the amount of traffic that the proposed project would generate because many trips to and from the WCDF are related to existing sheriff patrols and administration and are not influenced by the number of jail inmates, and because many staff members at the facility perform functions for which an increase in staff will not be required as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, these per-bed rates are considered a conservative estimate and are appropriate for determining the worst-case traffic impacts for purposes of the EIR. The assignment of site-generated traffic to and from intersections in the project vicinity was determined based on existing travel patterns, the locations of neighboring land uses, and a previous traffic impact analysis (Atlas Road Warehouse/Distribution Center Traffic Study dated October 2014 by PHA Transportation Consultants) in the project vicinity. Project trips were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the trip distribution. The Transportation Impact Analysis also uses the Trip Generation Manual to calculate the amount of traffic the proposed project would generate during construction. The Transportation Impact Analysis identifies the roadway network, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit service, existing intersection lane configurations and traffic volumes, and existing intersection levels of service discussed in Section 3.6.2, Environmental Setting. The traffic study also identifies the size, type, and location of approved and pending development projects. Conditions were analyzed at six intersections within the transportation study area. 1. Site driveway north and Giant Highway. 2. Site driveway south and Giant Highway. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-6 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 3. Atlas Road and Giant Highway. 4. Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway. 5. San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway. 6. Giant Highway and Richmond Parkway ramps. Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The A.M. peak hour is generally from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m., and the P.M. peak hour is typically from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. It is during these periods that traffic is most congested on an average day. Scenarios Studied Traffic conditions were evaluated for four scenarios. Scenario 1, Existing Conditions: Existing traffic volumes, except at the project site driveways, are based on traffic counts (collected in August 2014) used in a previously approved Atlas Road Warehouse/Distribution Center Traffic Study dated October 2014 for the Atlas Road Warehouse/ Distribution Center at 2995 Atlas Road. Hexagon conducted new turning movement counts at the project site driveways in February 2015. Scenario 2, Existing Plus Project Conditions: Existing plus project conditions were estimated by adding traffic that the project would generate to existing traffic volumes. Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions to determine potential project impacts. Scenario 3, Future Year Cumulative No Project Conditions: Traffic volumes were obtained from the CCTA Countywide Traffic Model through the Atlas Road Warehouse/Distribution Center Traffic Study. The cumulative no project traffic volumes reflect all approved and pending development in Richmond. The CCTA Countywide Traffic Model predicts future travel patterns for the region based on population and economic growth projections for Contra Costa County. Scenario 4, Future Year Cumulative With Project Conditions: Traffic that the project would generate was added to the traffic volumes from the CCTA Countywide Traffic Model. Future year cumulative with project conditions were evaluated relative to future year cumulative without project conditions to determine potential long-term project impacts. Level of Service Standards The City of Richmond evaluates LOS at signalized intersections based on the Transportation Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. The HCM method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Control delay is the amount of delay that is attributed to the particular traffic control device at the intersection, and includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The correlation between average delay and LOS is shown in Table 3.6-2. TRAFFIX software was used to apply the HCM operations method for evaluation of conditions at signalized intersections (see Appendix B). Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-7 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Table 3.6-2. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds) A Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very short vehicle delay. 10.0 or less B Operations are characterized by good signal progression and short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than under LOS A, causing longer average vehicle delay. 10.1 to 20.0 C Longer delays may result from fair signal progression or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this LOS. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although vehicles may still pass through the intersection without stopping. 20.1 to 35.0 D The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high value-to-capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 35.1 to 55.0 E This is considered the limit of acceptable delay. Long delays generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume- to-capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent. 55.1 to 80.0 F Most drivers consider this level of delay to be unacceptable. This condition results from oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delays. More than 80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000), as presented in Appendix B. The LOS at unsignalized intersections also was based on the HCM method. TRAFFIX software was used to apply the HCM operations method for evaluation of conditions at unsignalized intersections. This method is applicable for one-way, two-way, and all-way stop-controlled intersections. The delay and corresponding LOS at unsignalized, stop-controlled intersections is presented in Table 3.6-3. For side-street stop controlled intersections, the LOS was reported for the overall intersection average delay and the average delay on the worst approach (see Table 3.6-1). Table 3.6-3. Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Description Average Delay Per Vehicles (seconds) A Little or no traffic delay. 10.0 or less B Short traffic delays. 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays. 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays. 25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays. 35.1 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays. More than 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000), as presented in Appendix B. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-8 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Traffic Signal Warrant Methodology The LOS analysis for unsignalized intersections was supplemented with an assessment of the need for signalization of the intersections. The need for signalization was assessed on the basis of the operating conditions at the intersections and on the peak hour volume signal warrant – Warrant #3 – described in the 2012 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This method provides an indication of whether traffic conditions and peak hour traffic levels are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. 3.6.3.2 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with CEQA, the effects of a proposed project are evaluated to determine if they would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based on the State CEQA Guidelines, specifically Appendix G, the proposed project would have a significant impact on transportation and traffic if it would result in any of the following conditions. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. Because the City of Richmond does not have an LOS policy for signalized or unsignalized intersections, the proposed project’s potential traffic impacts were evaluated following the CCTA’s standards and methodologies. Because the proposed project is expected to generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips, a congestion management program analysis is not required. Potential traffic impacts were determined based on A.M. and P.M. peak hour levels of service for three signalized intersections, one unsignalized intersection, and two project site driveways, which are listed in Section 3.6.3.1, Methods. The LOS policy in CCTA’s West County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, which is a part of the CTP, was used to determine the significance of potential impacts. Based on this policy, an impact is considered significant if it would result in either of the following conditions at a signalized intersection. The LOS at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F under project conditions. The project is expected to increase the average control delay by more than 5 seconds at an intersection that is already operating at an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F under no project conditions. In addition, an impact is considered significant if it would result in either of the following conditions at an unsignalized intersection. Intersection operations decline significantly with the addition of project traffic. A traffic signal would be warranted based on the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices peak hour signal warrant. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including LOS standards and travel demand measures or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6‐9 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Result in inadequate emergency access. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. 3.6.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact TRA‐1: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit (less than significant) The only measure of effectiveness applicable to the proposed project is CCTA’s LOS policies for signalized and unsignalized intersections. To determine the project’s compatibility with these policies, project traffic was calculated based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual and on a survey of the WCDF during a typical weekday in February 2015 (see Chapter 3 of Appendix B). As described in Section 3.6.3.1, Methods, the Transportation Impact Analysis developed the trip generation rate for this analysis based on measurement of existing traffic at the existing facility. The Transportation Impact Analysis expresses this trip generation rate as a per bed rate, but, because the rate is based on actual measurement of traffic at the facility, it includes trips for all activities at the site, including staff and volunteer trips, other Sheriff’s department activities at the site, and trips by inmate visitors, including attorneys. Also as described in Section 3.6.3.1, the trip generation rate is considered a conservative rate that may overstate trips generated by the proposed project. Using this trip generation rate, Hexagon calculated that the proposed increase of 480 beds would result in 24 additional A.M. peak hour trips and 29 additional P.M. peak hour trips during project operation. The distribution of these trips on different roadways and at the study area intersections is depicted in Figure 3.6‐4. Construction of the proposed project would last for approximately 24 months beginning in spring 2016. Construction is anticipated from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays, with an average onsite construction staff of 20 people per day and a maximum onsite workforce of 40 people. The trip generation rates under the general light industrial category in the ITE Trip Generation Manual are 0.44 trips per worker during the A.M. peak hour and 0.42 trips per worker during the P.M. peak hour. These rates would equate to 18 A.M. peak hour trips and 17 P.M. peak hour trips by the proposed project’s maximum onsite construction staff, which would be fewer peak hour trips than during project operation. Based on the estimated trip generation during project operation, the proposed project would result in increased delay of no more than 1.0 second at any study area intersection (see Table 3.6‐4). Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-10 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Table 3.6-4. Level of Service at Study Area Intersections under Existing Plus Project Conditions Study Number Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Existing Existing Plus Project Average Delaya LOSb Average Delaya LOSb Average Delay Increasea 1 Site driveway north at Giant Highway SSSC AM 0.3/9.3 A/A 0.7/9.4 A/A 0.4/0.1 PM 9.2/9.9 A/A 9.3/10.1 A/B 0.1/0.2 2 Site driveway south at Giant Highway SSSC AM 0.8/9.0 A/A 1.3/9.0 A/A 0.5/0.0 PM 8.7/9.6 A/A 8.5/9.8 A/A -0.2/0.2 3 Atlas Road and Giant Highway AWSC AM 7.9 A 8.1 A 0.2 PM 7.9 A 8.1 A 0.2 4 Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway Signal AM 19.0 B 19.2 B 0.2 PM 26.2 C 27.2 C 1.0 5 San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway Signal AM 33.3 C 33.4 C 0.1 PM 49.1 D 49.1 D 0.0 6 Giant Highway and Richmond Parkway ramps Signal AM 13.8 B 13.9 B 0.1 PM 12.0 B 12.2 B 0.2 a Average delay and average delay increase measured in seconds. b SSSC intersection LOS and average delays are for both the overall average delay and the approach with the longest delay. Signalized and AWSC intersection LOS and delays are for overall average delay. LOS = level of service. SSSC = side street stop control. AWSC = all way stop control. Source: Appendix B. As indicated in Table 3.6-4, the only change in LOS that would result from the proposed project would be at the intersection of the site driveway north and Giant Highway, where the LOS would decrease from A to B during the P.M. peak hour. LOS B would still be acceptable under the applicable CCTA policy for unsignalized intersections. The proposed project would not affect any intersections with an unacceptable LOS. Because no study area intersection would degrade from an acceptable LOS to an unacceptable LOS, and because no study area intersections have an unacceptable LOS, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact. Figure 3.6-4 Project Trip Distribution and AssignmentGraphics … 0026.15 (4-17-2015)Source: Hexagon Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-11 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Impact TRA-2: Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways (less than significant) The Contra Costa County Congestion Management Agency (CCTA) last updated its congestion management program in 2013. Because the proposed project is expected to generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips, a congestion management program analysis is not required (see Chapter 1, Introduction, in the Transportation Impact Analysis located in Appendix B. The project impact would be less than significant. Impact TRA-3: Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks (no impact) As discussed in the project’s Initial Study (Appendix C), the airport nearest the project site is the San Rafael Airport, which is located more than 9 miles west of the project site, on the opposite side of San Pablo Bay. The project site is not in an area covered by an airport compatibility land use plan. There would be no impact. Impact TRA-4: Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature or incompatible uses (less than significant) The proposed project would not change the nature or design of any roadways or intersections. Therefore, it is not expected to increase traffic hazards from a design or incompatible use perspective. Additional trucks and heavy equipment would slow and turn upon entering the site during construction, possibly creating a short-term hazard on Giant Highway. However, as indicated in Table 3.6-4, conditions at the driveway intersections at Giant Highway would be no worse than LOS B, which is characterized as short traffic delays. In addition, Giant Highway is a truck route in Richmond. Truck and heavy equipment traffic on Giant Highway as a result of the proposed project would not be unusual or incompatible. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than- significant impact. Impact TRA-5: Result in inadequate emergency access (no impact) As discussed in the project’s Initial Study (Appendix C), the proposed project would not alter the project site in a way that would impair emergency response or evacuations. Emergency response time and distance to the project site would remain unchanged. In the event of a county-wide emergency, the state highways would all serve as primary evacuation routes. The closest state highway is I-80, which is 2 miles to the east of the project site and which would be unaffected by the proposed project. There would be no impact. Impact TRA-6: Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities (less than significant) Regular bus service by AC Transit would continue as usual throughout construction and after the proposed project is completed. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-12 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 There are currently no pedestrian or bicycle facilities on the project site or in the immediate vicinity, although the City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan does designate Giant Highway as a future Class III bicycle route and proposes a Class I bike path along the UPRR tracks adjacent to the project site. Because the proposed project would be contained entirely within the existing WCDF fence, the proposed project would not preclude development of these bicycle facilities. However, an increase in Giant Highway traffic, especially truck and heavy equipment traffic, could discourage use of Giant Highway by bicyclists. Giant Highway has no sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities such as striped crosswalks, and the City of Richmond has proposed no such facilities. Still, the proposed project would not preclude development of such pedestrian facilities. Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact. West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Chapter 4 Alternatives 4.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Criteria According to Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or project location that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project. Accordingly, alternatives that do not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts of a project do not need to be analyzed in an EIR. Additionally, the State CEQA Guidelines require analysis of a No Project Alternative to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of project approval with the impacts of not approving the project. The EIR must evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative. An EIR is not required to present the alternatives analysis at the same level of detail as the assessment of the project, and it is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making. Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6) pertaining to the alternatives analysis are summarized below. The discussion of alternatives will focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are feasible, meet most or all of the project objectives, and would substantially reduce one or more of the project’s significant effects. The range of alternatives must include the No Project Alternative. The no project analysis will discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation was published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The No Project Alternative is not required to be feasible, meet any of the project objectives, or reduce the project’s expected impacts to any degree. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a rule of reason; therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. An EIR is not required to analyze every conceivable alternative to a project. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained, whose implementation is remote and speculative, or that would not achieve the basic project objectives. 4.1.1 Screening Criteria A range of potential alternatives was subjected to screening criteria to eliminate those potential alternatives that do not qualify as alternatives under CEQA. As discussed above, there was no attempt to include every conceivable alternative in this range. Rather, the County selected a number of representative alternatives to consider based on the following screening criteria. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 4‐2 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Does the alternative meet most or all of the project objectives? Is the alternative potentially feasible? Would the alternative substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects associated with the project? 4.1.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the primary project objective is to help the County achieve its capacity, security, facility, and programming needs based on current standards and classifications. The specific project objectives are listed below. 1. Reduce overcrowding of high‐security inmates. 2. Replace non‐secure housing with high‐security housing. 3. Provide facilities to support re‐entry programming for high‐security inmates. 4. Provide facilities to support mental healthcare for high‐security inmates. 5. Expand facilities as cost‐efficiently as possible with the support of state grant funding. 4.1.3 Impact Avoidance The proposed project would result in significant impacts on air quality and GHG emissions, cultural resources, and fire‐related public services. This EIR identifies mitigation to reduce the impacts to a less‐than‐significant level. However, this EIR also analyzes alternatives that could further avoid or minimize these impacts. 4.1.4 Feasibility Feasible is defined as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364). CEQA does not require that an EIR determine the ultimate feasibility of a selected alternative but rather that it is probably feasible. Accordingly, no economic studies have been prepared regarding the economic feasibility of the selected alternatives. 4.2 Alternatives Analysis The following alternatives were considered and subjected to the screening process described above. 4.2.1 No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative there would be no construction of expanded facilities at the WCDF. The existing facility would continue to operate as it does currently. The County’s existing detention facilities would continue to be overcrowded and ill‐equipped to properly and safely house the classifications of inmates in custody. The safety risks to officers and inmates would persist as inmates would continue to be housed in existing facilities. The County would not be able to upgrade its facilities or provide new educational and vocational programming, or healthcare and mental health facilities for high‐security inmates. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-3 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 4.2.2 Smaller Expansion Alternative Under the Smaller Expansion Alternative, the County would build one 75,000-square-foot building with high-security housing and treatment facilities. The facility would have 120 double-occupancy cells (240 beds). 4.2.3 Two Facilities and Treatment Center Alternative Under the Two Facilities and Treatment Center Alternative, the County would develop two buildings on approximately 4 acres at the WCDF. Each building would be approximately 75,000 square feet with high-security housing modules and approximately 120 double-occupancy cells (240 beds) for a total of 240 double-occupancy cells (480 beds). The new buildings would be similar to the existing onsite facilities. 4.2.4 Expansion of Martinez Detention Facility Alternative Under the Expansion of Martinez Detention Facility Alternative the existing facility would be upgraded and expanded to accommodate high-security inmates and reduce overcrowding. Expansion of the facility would replace the parking area with a facility that incorporates parking. This facility would be stand-alone from the existing Martinez Detention Facility. 4.2.5 Alternatives to Incarceration Alternative Under the Alternatives to Incarceration Alternative the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department would employ prisoner management methods to reduce incarceration and, as a result, reduce the population of inmates. Prisoner management methods include accelerated release of inmates, work- in-lieu-of-jail program, and county parole. 4.2.6 Alternatives Dismissed from Analysis 4.2.6.1 Alternatives that Do Not Meet the Project Objectives Alternatives that do not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts of the project or that do not meet the project objectives do not need to be analyzed in an EIR. Most of the alternatives screened, other than the No Project Alternative, would meet portions of project objectives because they include construction of expanded facilities which would reduce overcrowding and provide necessary services. The Alternatives to Incarceration Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives for the purpose of providing high-security housing or providing support facilities. Additionally, the programs proposed under this alternative would not significantly reduce overcrowding as many of these programs are already in place. The Martinez Detention Facility Alternative would reduce overcrowding and provide high-security housing and support facilities; however, the existing facility is located in an urban area with little room for expansion. Because this alternative would require the construction of additional laundry and kitchen facilities, the amount of new construction under this alternative would be greater than under the proposed project. The existing parking area at the existing MDF site is unlikely to provide enough room for the expansion. The construction and operation of the Martinez Detention Facility Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-4 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Expansion Alternative would not meet the County’s objective of expanding facilities as efficiently as possible with the support of state grant funding. This alternative does not meet the project objectives and is not considered further in this EIR. The Smaller Expansion Alternative only partially reduces overcrowding but was retained because it would reduce air quality impacts and provide a point of reference for the County to evaluate potential alternatives. 4.2.7 Alternative 1 – No Project 4.2.7.1 Aesthetics Under the No Project Alternative, there would be neither a temporary nor any permanent change to current views, visual character, daytime glare, or nighttime lighting. Therefore, impacts on aesthetic resources would be less under this alternative than under the proposed project. 4.2.7.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions The No Project Alternative would not generate short-term construction-related emissions that would result from construction of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would avoid significant impacts related to construction emissions, and impacts on air quality would be less than under the proposed project. 4.2.7.3 Land Use The No Project Alternative, like the proposed project, would not entail a change in land use. Land use density under this alternative would be less than under the proposed project because the portion of the WCDF site proposed for the project would remain unused. 4.2.7.4 Cultural Resources The No Project Alternative would not entail ground-disturbing activities; therefore, it would not have the potential to disrupt historic and archaeological resources. Therefore, the impacts on cultural resources under this alternative would be less than under the proposed project. 4.2.7.5 Noise Under the No Project Alternative there would be no construction and, therefore, there would be no increase in noise levels as a result of construction or future operation of the proposed project. Under this alternative, impacts related to noise would be less than under the proposed project. 4.2.7.6 Public Services and Utilities Under this alternative, there would be no changes in demand on service providers and, therefore, no impacts. The impact on public services and utilities would be less than under the proposed project. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-5 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 4.2.7.7 Traffic/Transportation The No Project Alternative would not generate construction-related truck traffic or increased employee and visitor vehicle traffic. Therefore, the impacts on traffic and transportation under this alternative would be less than under the proposed project. 4.2.8 Alternative 2 – Smaller Expansion 4.2.8.1 Aesthetics The Smaller Expansion Alternative would result in one new, one-story building that would be the same height as the existing buildings. The new facility would be constructed using similar materials and would be visually consistent with the existing facilities. Because it would be shorter, the building is likely to be less noticeable from Giant Highway than the proposed project would be. Therefore, the visual effects are likely to be less under this alternative. 4.2.8.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Air quality emissions associated with construction of this alternative would generate short-term construction-related emissions that would result from construction of this alternative. Construction of one smaller building would require less construction time than one large building, generating fewer short-term construction related emissions. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer impacts on air quality than those under the proposed project. 4.2.8.3 Land Use This alternative, like the proposed project, would not entail a change in land use. Land use density under this alternative would be less than under the proposed project because the increase in the number of beds would be half that of the proposed project. 4.2.8.4 Cultural Resources This alternative would involve ground-disturbing activities that would have the potential to disrupt historic and archaeological resources. No cultural or historical resources are known to be present at the project site; however, if they are to be discovered, mitigation measures are identified in this EIR that would reduce potential cultural impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impacts on cultural resources would be the same as under the proposed project if cultural or historical resources are discovered. 4.2.8.5 Noise Under this alternative, temporary increases in noise levels as a result of construction would be less than the proposed project because the construction duration would be shorter. Noise impacts from future operation of the facility under this alternative would be similar to existing operations. 4.2.8.6 Public Services and Utilities Under this alternative the construction of a new single story facility and relocation of inmates from MDF to WCDF could impact public services. There would be little impact on police services as the WCDF is already staffed and operated by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department and the Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-6 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 proposed project is anticipated to help the County Sheriff Department’s overall level of police protection services by providing better security. Although the inmates would not utilize parks, schools or other public facilities, and the transferred employees may relocate to the area and utilize public services such as parks, schools, or other public facilities. Fire protection services could increase with additional buildings and an increased inmate population, but this impact is anticipated to be the same as the fire pressure issue would still need to be resolved. Water consumption, wastewater generation, stormwater drainage, and solid waste during construction and operation would be the same as the proposed project because MDF would still be overcrowded. The impacts on utilities and service systems under this alternative would be similar to those under the proposed project. 4.2.8.7 Traffic/Transportation This alternative would generate temporary construction-related truck traffic. The amount of traffic is expected to be slightly lower than under the proposed project as construction would be shorter. Operational traffic would be less than under the proposed project. Impacts on traffic and transportation under this alternative would be less than under the proposed project. 4.2.9 Alternative 3 – Two Facilities and Treatment Center 4.2.9.1 Aesthetics The Two Facilities and Treatment Center Alternative would result in two new, one-story buildings that would be the same heights as the existing buildings. The new facilities would be constructed using similar materials and would be visually consistent with the existing facilities. Additional internal fencing may be needed to ensure that movement of inmates within the site occurs in a secure manner. Overall, these buildings are likely to be less noticeable from Giant Highway because would be shorter than the building under the proposed project. Therefore, the visual effects are likely to be less under this alternative. 4.2.9.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Air quality emissions associated with construction of this alternative would generate short-term construction-related emissions. Construction of two buildings would require more construction time than one, generating greater short-term construction related emissions. Therefore, this alternative would result in greater impacts on air quality than those under the proposed project as there would be more temporary construction emissions due to the extended construction timeframe. 4.2.9.3 Land Use This alternative, like the proposed project, would not entail a change in land use. The total housing density under this alternative would be equal to that of the proposed project but the density would be spread across a larger area (4 acres). Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-7 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 4.2.9.4 Cultural Resources This alternative would involve ground-disturbing activities which would have the potential to disrupt historic and archaeological resources. No cultural or historical resources are known to be present at the project site; however, if they are to be discovered mitigation measures are identified in this EIR that would reduce potential cultural impacts to a less-than-significant level. The acreage that would be disturbed to build two buildings increases the chances of this discovery. However, because there are no known resources, this impact is unavoidable. Because of this alternative’s larger footprint, impacts on cultural resources have the potential to be greater than under the proposed project if cultural or historical resources are discovered. 4.2.9.5 Noise Under this alternative there would be temporary increases in noise levels as a result of construction. Noise impacts from future operation of the facility under this alternative would be similar to existing operations and would be greater than the No Project Alternative. Under this alternative, impacts related to noise would be similar to those under the proposed project. 4.2.9.6 Public Services and Utilities Under this alternative the construction of a new one-story facilities and relocation of inmates from MDF to WCDF could impact public services. There would be little impact on police services as the WCDF is already staffed and operated by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department and the proposed project is anticipated to help the County Sheriff Department’s overall level of police protection services by providing better security. The inmates would not utilize parks, schools or other public facilities. The need for fire protection services could increase with additional buildings and an increased inmate population, but this impact is anticipated to be minimal because the buildings would be built to fire code. Furthermore, impacts may be less than under the proposed project because the buildings would be single story and existing water pressure would be sufficient to protect these buildings. Therefore, impacts on public services under this alternative would be less than the impacts under the proposed project. Water consumption, wastewater generation, stormwater drainage, and solid waste during construction and operation would remain the same. The impacts on utilities and service systems under this alternative would be similar to those under the proposed project. 4.2.9.7 Traffic/Transportation This alternative would generate temporary construction-related truck traffic. The amount of traffic is expected to be similar to the proposed project, although it could be slightly higher if construction of multiple buildings takes longer. Operational traffic would be the same as increases under the proposed project. Impacts on traffic and transportation under this alternative would be greater than under the proposed project. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-8 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 4.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative The State CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative be identified. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would avoid or substantially lessen, to the greatest extent, the environmental impacts associated with the project while feasibly attaining most of the major project objectives. If the alternative with the least environmental impact is determined to be the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The identification of the environmentally superior alternative results from a comparison of the impacts associated with each alternative to those of the proposed project, as shown in Table 4.1-1. Of all of the alternatives evaluated, the No Project Alternative would have the least impacts because no construction would be involved. The Smaller Expansion Alternative would have less of an impact on aesthetic resources, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public services, and traffic. The Two Facilities and Treatment Center Alternative would have slightly lower aesthetic impacts but would have a greater impact in other areas than the proposed project. Impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise from construction would be greater than under the other alternatives because construction would take longer and the greatest amount of land would be developed under this alternative. As shown in Table 4.-1, the No Action Alternative would have the least environmental impacts. Of the alternatives analyzed, the Smaller Expansion Alternative would have the least environmental impacts. For this reason, it would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, because this alternative would not reduce overcrowding to the amount needed by the County for the inmate population, based on need studies, and because it would be inefficient to pursue grant funds that do not maximize the opportunity to reduce overcrowding to standards, this alternative was rejected. Table 4-1. Comparison of Alternatives’ Impacts Environmental Topic Area Level of Proposed Project Impact Impact Compared with the Proposed Project No Project Smaller Expansion Two Facilities and Treatment Center Aesthetics Less than significant Less Less Less Air Quality and GHG Significant Less Less Greater Land Use No impact Less Less Less Cultural Less than significant Less Similar Greater Noise (Short-term) Less than significant Less Less Greater Noise (Long-term) Less than significant Less Less Similar Public Services and Utilities Significant Less Less Similar Traffic/Transportation Less than significant Less Less Greater West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations This chapter includes the following discussions and analyses required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Cumulative impacts. Growth-inducing impacts. Significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Significant irreversible environmental changes 5.1 Cumulative Impacts 5.1.1 Legal Requirements State CEQA Guidelines require that the cumulative impacts of a project be addressed in an EIR when the cumulative impacts are expected to be significant and when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[a]). Cumulative impacts are impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impacts of a proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355[b]). Such impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over time. Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the discussion of cumulative impacts need not provide as much detail as the discussion of effects attributable to the project alone. The level of detail should be guided by what is practical and reasonable. 5.1.2 Methodology According to the State CEQA Guidelines, an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts should contain the following discussions. An analysis of related future projects or planned development that would affect resources in the project area similar to those affected by the project. A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects, with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available. A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR must examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impacts. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Other CEQA Considerations West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-2 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 When evaluating cumulative impacts, CEQA recommends one of the following two methods. 1. Projects to consider in the cumulative analysis include any past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including projects outside the control of the lead agency (i.e., project list approach). 2. The cumulative analysis would consider projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or would use a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified for such a plan (i.e., plan approach). Additionally, the cumulative background may differ for each resource (water-type projects for effects related to fish may differ from traffic-type projects for effects related to traffic, air, and noise). This analysis is based on a combination of the plan/projections and list approaches and using the land use designations of the City of Richmond General Plan 2030. The City of Richmond general plan designation for the site is Public, Cultural, and Institutional and the site is zoned PC for Public and Civic uses, both of which allow for the site’s existing use as an institutional facility. The spatial boundary for the study of a cumulative impact varies depending on the resource of concern. For example, impacts related to geology and archeological resources are generally site specific, while air and noise impacts can encompass larger areas. Most of the impacts are site- specific and limited in terms of geography, and do not have the ability to compound impacts from past, existing or future projects beyond the project area. In these circumstances, CEQA directs that it is not necessary to address in detail the impacts from other projects: “[w]here a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not ‘cumulatively considerable,’ a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable” (CEQA Guidelines, §15130, subd. [a]); and “[a]n EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 subd. [a][1]). 5.1.3 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts The description below presents the cumulative background used for the assessment of cumulative impacts for specific topical areas as well as an assessment of cumulative impacts and the contribution to those impacts by the project. 5.1.3.1 Aesthetics The City of Richmond General Plan EIR (City of Richmond 2012b) concluded that buildout of the 2030 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to aesthetics. The project would not change the overall character of the project vicinity, or adversely impact views of residents, businesses, motorists, or recreational users. The building would be constructed using similar materials and would not introduce substantial new sources of light and glare. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact. 5.1.3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources Because the project would have no impact on agriculture and forestry resources, it would not contribute to any cumulative impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Other CEQA Considerations West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-3 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 5.1.3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has identified project-level thresholds to evaluate criteria pollutant impacts (see Table 3.2-5). BAAQMD’s thresholds have been adopted to prevent further deterioration of ambient air quality, which is influenced by emissions generated by projects within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The project-level thresholds, therefore, consider relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the SFBAAB. For example, in developing these thresholds, BAAQMD considered levels at which project emissions would be cumulatively considerable. As noted in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (2011), In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project‘s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary. The criteria pollutant thresholds presented in Table 3.2-5, therefore, represent the maximum emissions a project may generate before contributing to a cumulative impact on regional air quality. Consequently, if estimated project-level emissions are below BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds apply to both unmitigated and mitigated emissions. In other words, projects that exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds, but which apply mitigation to reduce emissions below established limits, would be considered to have a less-than-significant cumulative impact. Estimated construction emissions with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are summarized in Table 3.2-7. As discussed in Impact AQ-2, with implementation of these measures, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and would not be cumulatively considerable. In addition, all construction emissions would be short-term and would cease once construction is complete. Long-term operation of the proposed project would result in minor increases of all criteria pollutants, which could contribute to cumulative air quality impacts and corresponding regional human health effects. For example, increases in ROG and NOX could increase photochemical reactions and the formation of tropospheric ozone. However, cumulative ozone concentrations depend on ROG and NOX emissions throughout the SFBAAB and complex photochemistry. Moreover, an increase in ozone concentration does not guarantee an increase in respiratory ailments because individuals may be exposed and experience no symptoms at varying concentrations. The minor increase in criteria pollutant emissions associated with project operation (see Table 3.2- 8) would not exceed air district thresholds. BAAQMD’s thresholds were established to assist the SFBAAB reach regional attainment with the federal and state ambient air quality standards. Accordingly, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than cumulatively considerable air quality impact. GHG emissions are inherently a cumulative concern, in that the significance of GHG emissions is determined based on whether such emissions would have a cumulatively considerable impact on global climate change. Although the geographic scope of cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions is global, this analysis focuses on the state, the region, and this project’s direct and/or indirect generation or offset of GHG emissions. The impacts of the proposed project related to GHG emissions are addressed in Impacts AQ-6 and AQ-7, and the impacts would be less than significant. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Other CEQA Considerations West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-4 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 5.1.3.4 Biological Resources The project is not located in an area with biological resources. The project site has been previously graded and is inhospitable to species in the project area. The project is located next to Pinole Point Regional Shoreline Park; however, it is not anticipated to impact any of the species residing in the park. The City of Richmond General Plan EIR (City of Richmond 2012b) concluded that buildout of the 2030 General Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts on biological resources. Therefore, because there would be no cumulative impact and because the proposed project would not result in any impacts on biological resources, the proposed project would not result in or contribute to a cumulatively considerable effect. 5.1.3.5 Cultural Resources The geographic scope of potential cumulative effects with respect to cultural resources is usually limited to areas within the physical footprint of a proposed project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures presented in this EIR, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on historic resources, archaeological resources, and human remains. Because the impact would be limited to unknown buried archaeological resources at the project site, the project could not contribute to a cumulative impact. 5.1.3.6 Geology and Soils The City of Richmond General Plan EIR (City of Richmond 2012b) concluded that buildout of the 2030 General Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils. Project- specific geotechnical investigation and seismic design standards promulgated by the City building codes would ensure that project impacts are avoided. No cumulative impact would occur. 5.1.3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The City of Richmond General Plan EIR (City of Richmond 2012b) concluded that buildout of the 2030 General Plan would result in less–than-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, because there would be no cumulative impact and because the proposed project would avoid hazardous impacts through compliance with existing regulations, no cumulative impact would occur. 5.1.3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The City of Richmond General Plan EIR (City of Richmond 2012b) concluded that buildout of the 2030 General Plan would result in less–than-significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, because there would be no cumulative impact and because the proposed project would avoid impacts through compliance with existing regulations, no cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality would occur. 5.1.3.9 Land Use and Planning As discussed in detail in Section 3.3, Land Use, the project would not result in any impacts related to land use. There would be no impacts related to division of a community, inconsistency with plan policies, or inconsistency with a habitat conservation plan. Because the proposed project would not result in any impacts on land use, it would not result in or contribute to a cumulatively considerable effect. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Other CEQA Considerations West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-5 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 5.1.3.10 Mineral Resources Because the proposed project would not result in any impacts on mineral resources, it would not result in or contribute to a cumulatively considerable effect. 5.1.3.11 Noise The cumulative noise analysis considers the construction and operation of other proposed activities in the project vicinity that could also contribute to the ambient noise environment at the existing sensitive receptors affected by noise generated as a result of the project. No noise- or traffic- generating projects are proposed in the vicinity, and therefore, the project, which would have less- than-significant noise impacts, would not contribute to a cumulative noise impact. 5.1.3.12 Population and Housing The City of Richmond General Plan EIR (City of Richmond 2012b) concluded that buildout of the 2030 General Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to population and housing. The proposed project would result in an increase of only 12–18 jobs, and no additional housing. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to the cumulative growth of Richmond. 5.1.3.13 Public Services and Utilities The proposed project would not utilize any non-emergency public services in the area and would therefore not cumulatively affect the level of service at schools, parks, and other public facilities. There is no anticipated increase in demand on police or fire services. The incremental increase in inmates and employees at the project site would be a small percentage of overall growth. The existing facility is already staffed by the Contra Costa County sheriff’s department and the proposed project improvements will reduce the burden the Sheriff’s Office and improve overall level of police protection services. The frequency of emergency fire protection services are not anticipated to increase as the proposed project will operate in a tightly controlled system. The proposed project will not have a cumulative impact on public services in the project area. The City of Richmond General Plan EIR (City of Richmond 2012b) concluded that buildout of the 2030 General Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to utilities and service systems. Therefore, because the proposed project would avoid impacts related to utilities and service systems through compliance with existing regulations, no cumulative impact would occur. 5.1.3.14 Recreation The City of Richmond General Plan EIR (City of Richmond 2012b) concluded that buildout of the 2030 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to parks and recreation. Because the project would have no impact on Recreation, it would not contribute to any cumulative impacts related to recreation. 5.1.3.15 Transportation and Traffic The cumulative traffic analysis considers the other projects in the project area vicinity that would involve construction activities concurrently with those of the proposed project and that would result in traffic on the same roadways, creating the potential to cumulatively degrade the traffic operation, Contra Costa County Public Works Department Other CEQA Considerations West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-6 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 bicycle facilities, and safety condition on the local access roads in the vicinity of the proposed project. The City of Richmond does not have a level of service (LOS) policy for vehicle traffic and intersection operation. However, in a recent traffic study used by the City for the Atlas Road Warehouse Distribution Center (PHA Transportation Consultants 2014) the following significant criteria were used in evaluating project impact on study intersections. These criteria are consistent with following policies and standards established by Contra Costa Transportation Authority and cities in Contra Costa County. If a signalized intersection is projected to operate within expected delay ranges (i.e., LOS D or better with an average control delay of equal to or less than 55 seconds per vehicle) without the project and the project is expected to cause the intersection to operate at an unacceptable LOS (E or F). If an intersection is projected to operate at or over capacity (i.e., LOS E or F) without the project, and the project is expected to increase the average control delay by more than 5 seconds. If the operations of a non-signalized study intersection is projected to decline with the addition of Project traffic, and if the installation of a traffic signal based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Peak Hour Signal Warrant (Warrant 3) would be warranted. The proposed project is not expected to result in a LOS of E or F, increase average control delay by more than 5 seconds, or require the installation of a traffic signal. Therefore, using these criteria, cumulative traffic impacts would be less than significant. 5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts Section 21100(b)(5) of CEQA requires an EIR to discuss how a project, if implemented, may induce growth and the impacts of that induced growth (see also State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126). CEQA requires the EIR to discuss specifically “the ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[d]). The State CEQA Guidelines do not provide specific criteria for evaluating growth inducement and state that growth in any area is “necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.” CEQA does not require separate mitigation for growth inducement as it is assumed that these impacts are already captured in the analysis of environmental impacts (see Chapter 3, Impact Analysis). Furthermore, the State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR “discuss the ways” a project could be growth inducing and to “discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment.” According to the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have potential to induce growth if it would result in either of the following conditions. Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., through the expansion of public services into an area that does not currently receive these services), or through the provision of new access to an area, or a change in a restrictive zoning or General Plan land use designation. Result in economic expansion and population growth through employment opportunities and/or construction of new housing. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Other CEQA Considerations West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-7 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 In general, a project could be considered growth-inducing if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way. However, the State CEQA Guidelines do not require a prediction or speculation of where, when, and in what form such growth would occur (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15145). 5.2.1 Remove Obstacles to Growth or Provide New Access The proposed project would not construct any new roads, infrastructure, or enhance access to the project site. The proposed project would be constructed entirely within the existing WCDF which, as a detention facility, does require additional access in addition to the already established facility access points. The services provided at the proposed facility would not extend beyond those incarcerated at the WCDF. The land is currently designated for use for the WCDF and there will be no changes to zoning or General Plan land use as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would not be expected to indirectly or directly induce population growth. 5.2.2 Economic, Population, and Housing Growth Typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project is considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in a different location or in excess of what is assumed in pertinent general plans or land use plans, or projections made by regional planning agencies, such as the Association of Bay Area Governments. The proposed project does not include the construction or demolition of any housing, and so would not have a direct impact on population or housing growth. Construction of the proposed project would result in a short-term increase in construction-related job opportunities in the Contra Costa County region. However, construction workers can be expected to be drawn from the existing construction employment labor force. Therefore, opportunities provided by construction of the proposed project would not likely result in the relocation of construction workers to the project area. Therefore, the employment opportunities provided by construction are not anticipated to induce indirect growth in the region. Operation of the proposed project is anticipated to only require up to 30 additional staff, including volunteers, at the WCDF. Inmates who would reside in the proposed facility would be transferred from the MDF in downtown Martinez, which is approximately 16 driving miles from the WCDF. Once the inmates are transferred from MDF the staff required at WCDF would be transferred from MDF as well. Because the WCDF and MDF are only 16 miles from each other it is not anticipated that the staff would relocate to different residences. There would be no new long-term employment opportunities as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to induce indirect or direct growth in the region. 5.3 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts Section 21067 of CEQA and Sections 15126(b) and 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less than significant level. Furthermore, where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being Contra Costa County Public Works Department Other CEQA Considerations West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-8 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should also be described. This EIR has not identified any significant and unavoidable impacts. 5.4 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) requires that an EIR discuss any environmental changes that would be irreversible if a project were implemented. CEQA defines irreversible environmental changes as the irretrievable commitment of resources and/or irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents. Irreversible changes may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and secondary or growth inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. The State CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes, including changes in land use that would commit future generations to specific uses; irreversible changes from environmental actions; and consumption of nonrenewable resources. 5.4.1 Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations The proposed project would be located on currently developed land that is zoned for Public and Civic uses, both of which allow for the site’s existing use as an institutional facility. There are no changes in land use that would commit future generations to the continued use of this site as an institutional facility, as this commitment has already been made. 5.4.2 Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions The project involves the development of approximately 2.3 acres for a 150,000-square-foot high- security detention facility with supporting reentry program facilities, and a mental health treatment facility in western Contra Costa County. The commitment of nonrenewable resources, such as sand, gravel and other components of cement, metals and fossil fuels, necessary for construction and operation of the proposed project would be irreversible. 5.4.3 Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources Construction of the proposed facility would require the consumption of nonrenewable resources, such as fuel for construction vehicles and equipment. However, such use would be limited to the short-term construction period. The temporary, construction-related increase would not result in significant use of nonrenewable resources and would not commit future generations to similar uses. Operation and maintenance of the proposed project would not increase the use of nonrenewable resources relative to existing conditions because the proposed project would not result in a net gain of beds within the County. West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Chapter 6 References 6.1 Chapter 1, Introduction California Department of Conservation. 2014. California Important Farmland Finder. Available: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html. Accessed: February 2, 2015. City of Richmond. 2015. City of Richmond Zoning Information. Available: http://geoweb.ci.richmond.ca.us/SilverlightViewer_1_x/Viewer.html?ViewerConfig=http://geo web.ci.richmond.ca.us/Geocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/ZoningInfoINTERNET/viewers/Zonin gInfoINTERNET/virtualdirectory/Config/Viewer.xml. Accessed: February 2, 2015. California Department of Conservation. 2012. Aggregate Sustainability in California. Available: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mlc/Pages/Index.aspx. Accessed: February 3, 2015. Grady Williams Associates. 2013. Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff Jail Needs Assessment Update. September 25, 2013. 6.2 Chapter 2, Project Description None. 6.3 Section 3.1, Aesthetics California Department of Transportation. 2013. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Last Revised: October 14, 2013. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm. Accessed: February 2, 2015. Federal Highway Administration, 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. Publication FHWA-HI-88-054. Office of Environmental Policy. Washington, DC. City of Richmond. 2012a. Richmond General Plan 2030. April. Available: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=2608. April. City of Richmond. 2015. City of Richmond Zoning Information. Available: http://geoweb.ci.richmond.ca.us/SilverlightViewer_1_x/Viewer.html?ViewerConfig=http://geo web.ci.richmond.ca.us/Geocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/ZoningInfoINTERNET/viewers/Zonin gInfoINTERNET/virtualdirectory/Config/Viewer.xml. Accessed: February 2, 2015. Contra Costa County Public Works Department References West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-2 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 6.4 Section 3.2, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. June. San Francisco, CA. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2014. Google Earth map files for Contra Costa County to identify stationary and highway sources and associated estimated risk and hazard impacts for the cumulative analysis. Available: <http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and- Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx>. Accessed April 6, 2015. Blasing, T. J. 2014. Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations. DOI: 10.3334/CDIAC/atg.032. Updated February. California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. April. California Air Resources Board. 2013. Ambient air quality standards. Last Revised: June 4, 2013. Available: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf>. Accessed: January 27, 2014. California Air Resources Board. 2014. Area designations maps. Last Revised: June 27, 2014. Available: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm>. Accessed: April 6, 2015. California Air Resources Board. 2015. Top 4 measurements and days above the standard. Available: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php>. Accessed: April 6, 2015. Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc. 2015. West County Detention Facility Expansion at 555 Giant Highway Transportation Impact Analysis. Prepared for ICF International. March 27. Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang. 2013. Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T. F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P. M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 659–740. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2015. Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa. Available: <http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html>. Accessed: April 8, 2015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Last Revised: April 16, 2014. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy- resources/calculator.html>. Accessed: April 6, 2015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015a. Monitor values report. Last Revised: September 9, 2013. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html>. Accessed: April 6, 2015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015b. Greenbook of nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants. Last Revised: January 30, 2015. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk>. Accessed: April 6, 2015. Contra Costa County Public Works Department References West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-3 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. Potential Inundation due to Rising Sea Levels in the San Francisco Bay Region. Last Revised: December 14, 2012. Available: <http://cascade.wr.usgs.gov/data/Task2b- SFBay/>. Accessed: April 9, 2015. Kirk, Alison. Senior Environmental Planner. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. San Francisco, CA. April 15, 2015—email message to Laura Yoon of ICF International with railway data for HRA. 6.5 Section 3.3, Land Use and Planning City of Richmond. 2015. City of Richmond Zoning Information. Available: http://geoweb.ci.richmond.ca.us/SilverlightViewer_1_x/Viewer.html?ViewerConfig=http://geo web.ci.richmond.ca.us/Geocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/ZoningInfoINTERNET/viewers/Zonin gInfoINTERNET/virtualdirectory/Config/Viewer.xml. Accessed: February 2, 2015. 6.6 Section 3.4, Noise California Department of Transportation. 2013. Technical noise supplement to the Caltrans traffic noise analysis protocol. Sacramento, CA. Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway noise construction model user guide. Washington, D.C. Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit noise and vibration impact assessment. Washington, D.C. Hoover and Keith. 2000. Noise control for buildings, manufacturing plants, equipment, and products. 6.7 Section 3.5, Public Services and Utilities CalRecycle. Facility/Site Summary Details: Keller Canyon Landfill (07-AA-032). Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/07-AA-0032/Detail/. Accessed April 1, 2015. City of Richmond Ordinance No. 24-13 N.S. 2013. Available: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/5564. East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2011. Urban Water Management Plan 2010. Available: https://www.ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/UWMP-2010-2011-07-21-web-small.pdf June. East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2012. Water Supply Management Program 2040. Available: https://ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/WSMP%202040%20Final%20Revised%20PEIR% 20Response%20to%20Comments.pdf. April. Harris, Terry. Fire Marshall. City of Richmond. Richmond, CA. Telephone communication with Brad Norton, ICF project manager, regarding ability to provide fire services. Contra Costa County Public Works Department References West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-4 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Rehnstrom, David. e-mail communication with Brad Norton, ICF project manager, regarding review of the NOP, ability to provide service, and future water supply conditions. April 16, 2015. Savannah, Michael. Senior Engineering Technician. West County Wastewater District. Richmond, CA. e-mail communication with Matilda Evoy-Mount, ICF project coordinator, regarding wastewater capacity. West County Wastewater District. 2013. District-Wide Master Plan. January. 6.8 Section 3.6, Transportation and Traffic City of Richmond. 2011. City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan. Prepared by Fehr & Peers in association with Eisen/Letunic. October. Contra Costa County Transportation Authority. 2014. Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Public Review Draft. August 1. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2012. Trip Generation Manual. 9th Edition. Washington, D.C. Transportation Research Board. 2000. 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, D.C. 6.9 Chapter 4, Alternatives None. 6.10 Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations City of Richmond. 2012b. Resolution Number 51-12. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Richmond Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2008022018) for the Richmond General Plan 2030 and Adopting a Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). PHA Transportation Consultants. 2014. Atlas Road Warehouse/Distribution Center Traffic Impact Study. Prepared for the City of Richmond. Berkeley, CA. West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Chapter 7 List of Preparers 7.1 Contra Costa County Hillary Heard—Public Works Department, Environmental Services, Project Manager Leigh Chavez—Public Works Department, Environmental Services, Division Manager Telma Moreira—Department of Conservation and Development, Principal Planner 7.2 ICF International Sally Zeff—Project Director, document review, Land Use Brad Norton—Project Manager, document review, Aesthetics Matilda Evoy-Mount—Project Coordinator, Public Services, Alternatives, Other CEQA Laura Yoon—Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Dave Buehler—Noise Paul Shigley—Editor, Transportation and Traffic Senh Saelee—Graphics Deborah Jew—Document production 7.3 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Brett Walinski—Principal, document review Eric Tse—Traffic Engineer, Transportation Impact Analysis Appendix A Air Quality Modeling Results West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report A-1 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 Appendix A. Supporting Air Quality Data Project Generated Emissions and Potential Health Effects The May 27, 2014 Fifth Appellate District Court decision Sierra Club et al. v. County of Fresno County et al. concludes that an EIR should disclose and evaluate the public health consequences associated with increasing air pollutants.1 While all criteria pollutants are associated with some form of health risk (e.g., asthma, asphyxiation), adverse health effects associated with criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, the number and character of exposed individuals [e.g., age, gender]). Moreover, ozone precursors (ROG and NOX) affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to ozone are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and as such, translating project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects would produce meaningless results. In other words, minor increases in regional air pollution from project-generated ROG and NOX would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health.2 As such, an analysis of impacts to human health associated with project-generated regional emissions is not included in the analysis. Increased emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOX) generated by the project could increase photochemical reactions and the formation of tropospheric ozone, which at certain concentrations, could lead to respiratory symptoms (e.g., coughing), decreased lung function, and inflammation of airways. While these health effects are associated with ozone, the impacts are a result of cumulative and regional ROG and NOX emissions, and that the incremental contribution of the project to specific health outcomes from criteria pollutant emissions would be limited and cannot be solely traced to the project. Since localized pollutants generated by a project can directly affect adjacent sensitive receptors, the analysis of project-related impacts to human health focuses only on those localized pollutants with the greatest potential to result a significant, material impact on human health. This is consistent with the current state-of-practice and published guidance by BAAQMD (2011), CAPCOA (2009), OEHHA (2003), and ARB (2000). The pollutants of concern include 1) DPM and 2) locally concentrated CO. 1 On October 1, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted the Real Party in interest and respondent Friant Ranch, L.P.’s petition for review. 2 As an example, the BAAQMD’s Multi-Pollutant Evaluation Method (MPEM) requires a 3 to 5 percent increase in regional ozone precursors to produce a material change in modeled human health impacts. Based on 2008 ROG and NOX emissions in the Bay Area, a 3 to 5 percent increases equates to over 20,000 pounds per day or ROG and NOX. West County Detention Facility Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report A-2 May 2015 ICF 00026.15 References Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. June. San Francisco, CA. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2009. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects. July. California Air Resources Board. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October. Sacramento, CA. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August. CalEEMod Outputs CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 4/7/2015 7:35 AM West County Jail Expansion Contra Costa County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population University/College (4Yr)480.00 Student 2.30 151,000.00 480 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)58 Climate Zone 2 Operational Year 2019 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity 307 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - Updated PG&E 2019 emission factor Land Use - No jail land use code; adopted 4 year university as it is the most similar given the diversity of uses. Lot acrage and square footage from PD Construction Phase - Construction schedule provided by client (coatings would occur as part of Building Construction) Grading - Acreage from PD Architectural Coating - BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3 Table 2 Vehicle Trips - No incresae in inmate, visitor, court, employee, or attorney trips Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 30.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 480.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 30.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 30.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/27/2019 2/13/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/9/2017 4/5/2017 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/20/2019 2/13/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/14/2019 1/3/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/12/2017 3/9/2017 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/7/2019 1/3/2019 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 2.30 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 45.00 2.30 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 1,000.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 88,222.78 151,000.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.03 2.30 tblLandUse Population 0.00 480.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 307 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2019 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.30 0.00 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Ttl tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.38 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) NBio- CO2 Total CO2 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 2017 6.4643 57.9445 40.5635 0.0661 6.4715 2.9673 9.4388 3.3976 2.7318 6.1276 0.0000 6,344.237 8 6,344.2378 1.4028 0.0000 6,373.6959 2018 3.3422 22.7800 21.0320 0.0382 0.7599 1.2849 2.0448 0.2049 1.2303 1.4352 0.0000 3,468.800 9 3,468.8009 0.5289 0.0000 3,479.9083 2019 33.6995 35.1574 34.9373 0.0621 1.0239 1.9694 2.9933 0.2749 1.8653 2.1402 0.0000 5,671.161 2 5,671.1612 1.0750 0.0000 5,693.7353 Total 43.5060 115.8819 96.5327 0.1664 3.0067 0.0000 15,547.339 5 8.2553 6.2216 14.4769 3.8774 5.8275 9.7030 0.0000 15,484.19 99 15,484.199 9 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Area 3.6675 4.6000e- 004 0.0495 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 0.1051 0.1051 2.8000e- 004 0.1110 Energy 0.1918 1.7436 1.4646 0.0105 0.1325 0.1325 0.1325 0.1325 2,092.341 7 2,092.3417 0.0401 0.0384 2,105.0753 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.8593 1.7441 1.5141 0.0105 0.0404 0.0384 2,105.18630.0000 0.1327 0.1327 0.0000 0.1327 0.1327 2,092.446 7 2,092.4467 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/1/2017 4/11/2017 5 30 2 Grading Grading 3/9/2017 4/5/2017 5 20 30 3 Building Construction Building Construction 4/6/2017 2/6/2019 5 2/13/2019 5 480 4 Paving Paving 1/3/2019 2/13/2019 5 305Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/3/2019 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 361 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 226 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 125 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 130 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment C Worker Trip Nb Vendor Trip Nb Hauling Trip Nb Worker Trip Lh Vendor Trip Lh Hauling Trip Lh Worker Vehicle Cl Vendor V hi l Cl Hauling V hi l ClSite Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 125.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 63.00 25.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTArchitectural Coating 1 13.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 7.30 20.00 Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 3.2 Site Preparation - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Exhaust PM10 PM10 Ttl Fugitive Dust 0.0851 0.0000 0.0851 9.3500e- 003 0.0000 9.3500e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5289 28.6230 17.1310 0.0238 1.3967 1.3967 1.2850 1.2850 2,439.436 0 2,439.4360 0.7474 2,455.1322 Total 2.5289 28.6230 17.1310 0.0238 0.7474 2,455.13220.0851 1.3967 1.4818 9.3500e- 003 1.2850 1.2943 2,439.436 0 2,439.4360 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Hauling 0.0841 1.0812 0.8081 3.1200e- 003 0.0726 0.0143 0.0869 0.0199 0.0131 0.0330 309.8617 309.8617 2.2400e- 003 309.9087 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0297 0.0353 0.4224 9.4000e- 004 0.0754 5.7000e- 004 0.0760 0.0200 5.2000e- 004 0.0205 75.9660 75.9660 3.6700e- 003 76.0430 Total 0.1138 1.1165 1.2305 4.0600e- 003 5.9100e- 003 385.95170.1480 0.0149 0.1629 0.0399 0.0137 0.0535 385.8277 385.8277 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.3 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Fugitive Dust 6.1440 0.0000 6.1440 3.3234 0.0000 3.3234 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6973 28.1608 18.9679 0.0206 1.5550 1.5550 1.4306 1.4306 2,104.573 7 2,104.5737 0.6448 2,118.1153 Total 2.6973 28.1608 18.9679 0.0206 0.6448 2,118.11536.1440 1.5550 7.6991 3.3234 1.4306 4.7540 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 2,104.573 7 2,104.5737 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0371 0.0442 0.5280 1.1800e- 003 0.0943 7.1000e- 004 0.0950 0.0250 6.5000e- 004 0.0257 94.9575 94.9575 4.5800e- 003 95.0538 Total 0.0371 0.0442 0.5280 1.1800e- 003 4.5800e- 003 95.05380.0943 7.1000e- 004 0.0950 0.0250 6.5000e- 004 0.0257 94.9575 94.9575 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.4 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Off-Road 3.3275 22.8585 16.2492 0.0249 1.4621 1.4621 1.3998 1.3998 2,334.850 3 2,334.8503 0.5189 2,345.7479 Total 3.3275 22.8585 16.2492 0.0249 0.5189 2,345.74791.4621 1.4621 1.3998 1.3998 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 2,334.850 3 2,334.8503 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2607 2.1726 2.6265 5.9300e- 003 0.1659 0.0319 0.1977 0.0473 0.0293 0.0766 585.8914 585.8914 4.4600e- 003 585.9851 Worker 0.2335 0.2783 3.3262 7.4100e- 003 0.5941 4.4500e- 003 0.5986 0.1576 4.1000e- 003 0.1617 598.2325 598.2325 0.0289 598.8390 Total 0.4942 2.4509 5.9528 0.0133 0.0333 1,184.82410.7600 0.0363 0.7963 0.2049 0.0334 0.2383 1,184.123 9 1,184.1239 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Off-Road 2.9004 20.5600 15.6637 0.0249 1.2511 1.2511 1.1992 1.1992 2,317.208 9 2,317.2089 0.4980 2,327.6664 Total 2.9004 20.5600 15.6637 0.0249 0.4980 2,327.66641.2511 1.2511 1.1992 1.1992 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 2,317.208 9 2,317.2089 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2322 1.9691 2.3779 5.9200e- 003 0.1658 0.0295 0.1953 0.0473 0.0271 0.0744 575.5680 575.5680 4.3800e- 003 575.6600 Worker 0.2096 0.2508 2.9904 7.4100e- 003 0.5941 4.3100e- 003 0.5984 0.1576 3.9800e- 003 0.1616 576.0240 576.0240 0.0266 576.5818 Total 0.4418 2.2199 5.3683 0.0133 0.0309 1,152.24180.7599 0.0338 0.7937 0.2049 0.0311 0.2360 1,151.592 0 1,151.5920 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Off-Road 2.5471 18.7802 15.2049 0.0249 1.0846 1.0846 1.0399 1.0399 2,299.781 6 2,299.7816 0.4771 2,309.8005 Total 2.5471 18.7802 15.2049 0.0249 0.4771 2,309.80051.0846 1.0846 1.0399 1.0399 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 2,299.781 6 2,299.7816 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.2166 1.7978 2.2557 5.9100e- 003 0.1658 0.0274 0.1932 0.0473 0.0252 0.0725 565.6131 565.6131 4.2800e- 003 565.7029 Worker 0.1914 0.2284 2.7239 7.4100e- 003 0.5941 4.2100e- 003 0.5983 0.1576 3.9000e- 003 0.1615 555.2931 555.2931 0.0247 555.8116 Total 0.4080 2.0262 4.9796 0.0133 0.0290 1,121.51450.7599 0.0316 0.7915 0.2049 0.0291 0.2340 1,120.906 1 1,120.9061 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.5 Paving - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Off-Road 1.2310 12.4141 11.7009 0.0176 0.7225 0.7225 0.6658 0.6658 1,722.228 5 1,722.2285 0.5342 1,733.4458 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2310 12.4141 11.7009 0.0176 0.5342 1,733.44580.7225 0.7225 0.6658 0.6658 1,722.228 5 1,722.2285 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0456 0.0544 0.6486 1.7600e- 003 0.1415 1.0000e- 003 0.1425 0.0375 9.3000e- 004 0.0385 132.2126 132.2126 5.8800e- 003 132.3361 Total 0.0456 0.0544 0.6486 1.7600e- 003 5.8800e- 003 132.33610.1415 1.0000e- 003 0.1425 0.0375 9.3000e- 004 0.0385 132.2126 132.2126 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Archit. Coating 29.1619 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2664 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e- 003 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 281.9473 Total 29.4283 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e- 003 0.0238 281.94730.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 281.4481 281.4481 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0395 0.0471 0.5621 1.5300e- 003 0.1226 8.7000e- 004 0.1235 0.0325 8.1000e- 004 0.0333 114.5843 114.5843 5.0900e- 003 114.6913 Total 0.0395 0.0471 0.5621 1.5300e- 003 5.0900e- 003 114.69130.1226 8.7000e- 004 0.1235 0.0325 8.1000e- 004 0.0333 114.5843 114.5843 CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Exhaust PM10 PM10 Ttl Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT University/College (4Yr)0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C- W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by University/College (4Yr)9.50 7.30 7.30 6.40 88.60 5.00 91 9 0 LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY 0.006444 0.002023 0.002051 5.0 Energy Detail SBUS MH 0.527262 0.065466 0.176679 0.144674 0.001228 0.0014810.036160 0.004831 0.009746 0.021956 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2 5 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated NaturalGa U ROG NOx Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 University/College (4Y ) 17784.9 0.1918 1.7436 1.4646 0.0105 0.1325 0.1325 0.1325 0.1325 2,092.3417 2,092.341 7 0.0401 0.0384 2,105.0753 Total 0.1918 1.7436 1.4646 0.0105 2,092.341 7 0.0401 0.0384 2,105.07530.1325 0.1325 0.1325 0.1325 2,092.3417 6.0 Area Detail SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Architectural C ti 0.4314 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Pdt 3.2314 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 4.6900e- 003 4.6000e- 004 0.0495 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 0.1051 0.1051 2.8000e- 004 0.1110 Total 3.6675 4.6000e- 004 0.0495 0.0000 2.8000e- 004 0.11101.8000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 0.1051 0.1051 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 1 Date: 4/7/2015 7:36 AM West County Jail Expansion Contra Costa County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population University/College (4Yr)480.00 Student 2.30 151,000.00 480 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)58 Climate Zone 2 Operational Year 2019 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity 307 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - Updated PG&E 2019 emission factor Land Use - No jail land use code; adopted 4 year university as it is the most similar given the diversity of uses. Lot acrage and square footage from PD Construction Phase - Construction schedule provided by client (coatings would occur as part of Building Construction) Grading - Acreage from PD Architectural Coating - BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3 Table 2 Vehicle Trips - No incresae in inmate, visitor, court, employee, or attorney trips Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 30.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 480.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 30.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 30.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/27/2019 2/13/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/9/2017 4/5/2017 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/20/2019 2/13/2019 22.2773 570.7319 593.0092 1.5405 0.0216 632.0659 4.4953 10.6765 15.1718 0.4627 0.0111 28.3331 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/14/2019 1/3/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/12/2017 3/9/2017 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/7/2019 1/3/2019 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 2.30 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 45.00 2.30 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 1,000.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 88,222.78 151,000.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.03 2.30 tblLandUse Population 0.00 480.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 307 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2019 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.30 0.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.38 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Ttl CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 2017 0.4345 3.1688 2.6510 4.2400e- 003 0.1363 0.1806 0.3169 0.0533 0.1714 0.2247 0.0000 360.2716 360.2716 0.0642 0 361.6207 2018 0.4364 2.9852 2.8118 4.9100e- 003 0.0959 0.1677 0.2636 0.0259 0.1606 0.1865 0.0000 404.8467 404.8467 0.0626 0.0000 406.1618 2019 0.5009 0.4975 0.4990 8.6000e- 004 0.0137 0.0279 0.0416 3.7000e- 003 0.0264 0.0301 0.0000 71.6601 71.6601 0.0139 0.0000 71.9528 Total 1.3718 6.6515 5.9618 0.0100 0.1408 0.0000 839.73530.2459 0.3762 0.6221 0.0829 0.3583 0.4412 0.0000 836.7784 836.7784 2.2 Overall Operational PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Area 0.6689 4.0000e- 005 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.5800e- 003 8.58E-03 2.00E-05 0.0000 9.0700e- 003Energy0.0350 0.3182 0.2673 1.9100e- 003 0.0242 0.0242 0.0242 0.0242 0.0000 560.0468 560.0468 0.0268 0.0105 563.8731 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 17.7820 0.0000 17.782 1.0509 0.0000 39.8506 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.7039 0.3183 0.2718 1.9100e- 003 0.0000 0.0242 0.0242 0.0000 0.0242 0.0242 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Nb Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Wk Num Days Phase Description 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/1/2017 4/11/2017 5 30 2 Grading Grading 3/9/2017 4/5/2017 5 20 30 3 Building Construction Building Construction 4/6/2017 2/6/2019 5 2/13/2019 5 480 4 Paving Paving 1/3/2019 2/13/2019 5 305Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/3/2019 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 361 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 226 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 125 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 130 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment C Worker Trip Nb Vendor Trip Nb Hauling Trip Nb Worker Trip Lh Vendor Trip Lh Hauling Trip Lh Worker Vehicle Cl Vendor V hi l Cl Hauling V hi l ClSite Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 125.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 63.00 25.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT HDT_Mix HHDTArchitectural Coating 1 13.00 0.00 0.00 12.40 7.30 20.00 Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 LD_Mix 3.2 Site Preparation - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Exhaust PM10 PM10 Ttl NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Fugitive Dust 1.2800e- 003 0.0000 1.2800e- 003 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0379 0.4293 0.2570 3.6000e- 004 0.0210 0.0210 0.0193 0.0193 0.0000 33.1953 33.1953 0.0102 0.0000 33.4089 Total 0.0379 0.4293 0.2570 3.6000e- 004 0.0102 0.0000 33.40891.2800e- 003 0.021 0.0222 1.4000e- 004 0.0193 0.0194 0.0000 33.1953 33.1953 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Hauling 1.3700e- 003 0.0168 0.0151 5.0000e- 005 1.0600e- 003 2.1000e- 004 1.2700e- 003 2.9000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 4.2124 4.2124 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.2130 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.7600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 2.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.9490 0.9490 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9501 Total 1.7700e- 003 0.0174 0.0208 6.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 5.16312.1500e- 003 2.2000e- 004 2.3700e- 003 5.8000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.1614 5.1614 3.3 Grading - 2017 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Fugitive Dust 0.0614 0.0000 0.0614 0.0332 0.0000 0.0332 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0270 0.2816 0.1897 2.1000e- 004 0.0156 0.0156 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 19.0924 19.0924 5.8500e- 003 0.0000 19.2152 Total 0.0270 0.2816 0.1897 2.1000e- 004 5.8500e- 003 0.0000 19.21520.0614 0.0156 0.0770 0.0332 0.0143 0.0475 0.0000 19.0924 19.0924 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.3000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 4.8000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 9.2000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.7908 0.7908 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7917 Total 3.3000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 4.8000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.79179.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 9.2000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.7908 0.7908 3.4 Building Construction - 2017 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Off-Road 0.3194 2.1944 1.5599 2.3900e- 003 0.1404 0.1404 0.1344 0.1344 0.0000 203.3415 203.3415 0.0452 0.0000 204.2906 Total 0.3194 2.1944 1.5599 2.3900e- 003 0.0452 0.0000 204.29060.1404 0.1404 0.1344 0.1344 0.0000 203.3415 203.3415 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0279 0.2155 0.3286 5.7000e- 004 0.0155 3.0700e- 003 0.0185 4.4300e- 003 2.8200e- 003 7.2500e- 003 0.0000 50.8602 50.8602 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 50.8685 Worker 0.0201 0.0300 0.2902 6.5000e- 004 0.0551 4.3000e- 004 0.0555 0.0146 3.9000e- 004 0.0150 0.0000 47.8300 47.8300 2.5200e- 003 0.0000 47.8828 Total 0.0480 0.2455 0.6188 1.2200e- 003 2.9100e- 003 0.0000 98.75130.0705 3.5000e- 003 0.0740 0.0191 3.2100e- 003 0.0223 0.0000 98.6902 98.6902 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Off-Road 0.3785 2.6831 2.0441 3.2500e- 003 0.1633 0.1633 0.1565 0.1565 0.0000 274.3288 274.3288 0.0590 0.0000 275.5669 Total 0.3785 2.6831 2.0441 3.2500e- 003 0.0590 0.0000 275.56690.1633 0.1633 0.1565 0.1565 0.0000 274.3288 274.3288 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0335 0.2655 0.4149 7.7000e- 004 0.0210 3.8700e- 003 0.0249 6.0200e- 003 3.5600e- 003 9.5800e- 003 0.0000 67.9192 67.9192 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 67.9302 Worker 0.0244 0.0367 0.3528 8.9000e- 004 0.0749 5.6000e- 004 0.0754 0.0199 5.2000e- 004 0.0204 0.0000 62.5986 62.5986 3.1400e- 003 0.0000 62.6647 Total 0.0579 0.3022 0.7677 1.6600e- 003 3.6600e- 003 0.0000 130.59490.0959 4.4300e- 003 0.1003 0.0259 4.0800e- 003 0.0300 0.0000 130.5179 130.5179 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Off-Road 0.0344 0.2535 0.2053 3.4000e- 004 0.0146 0.0146 0.0140 0.0140 0.0000 28.1654 28.1654 5.8400e- 003 0.0000 28.2881 Total 0.0344 0.2535 0.2053 3.4000e- 004 5.8400e- 003 0.0000 28.28810.0146 0.0146 0.0140 0.0140 0.0000 28.1654 28.1654 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.2200e- 003 0.0251 0.0411 8.0000e- 005 2.1700e- 003 3.7000e- 004 2.5500e- 003 6.2000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 9.6000e- 004 0.0000 6.9046 6.9046 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.9057 Worker 2.2900e- 003 3.4500e- 003 0.0331 9.0000e- 005 7.7400e- 003 6.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 003 2.0600e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.1100e- 003 0.0000 6.2421 6.2421 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 6.2484 Total 5.5100e- 003 0.0285 0.0742 1.7000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 0.0000 13.15419.9100e- 003 4.3000e- 004 0.0104 2.6800e- 003 3.9000e- 004 3.0700e- 003 0.0000 13.1466 13.1466 3.5 Paving - 2019 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Off-Road 0.0185 0.1862 0.1755 2.6000e- 004 0.0108 0.0108 9.9900e- 003 9.9900e- 003 0.0000 23.4357 23.4357 7.2700e- 003 0.0000 23.5883 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0185 0.1862 0.1755 2.6000e- 004 7.2700e- 003 0.0000 23.58830.0108 0.0108 9.9900e- 003 9.9900e- 003 0.0000 23.4357 23.4357 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.1000e- 004 9.1000e- 004 8.7600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.0500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.0600e- 003 5.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6513 1.6513 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.6530 Total 6.1000e- 004 9.1000e- 004 8.7600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.65302.0500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.0600e- 003 5.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6513 1.6513 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Archit. Coating 0.4374 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.0000e- 003 0.0275 0.0276 4.0000e- 005 1.9300e- 003 1.9300e- 003 1.9300e- 003 1.9300e- 003 0.0000 3.8299 3.8299 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 3.8367 Total 0.4414 0.0275 0.0276 4.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 3.83671.93E-03 1.9300e- 003 1.9300e- 003 1.9300e- 003 0.0000 3.8299 3.8299 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.3000e- 004 7.9000e- 004 7.5900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.7800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7900e- 003 4.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.4312 1.4312 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4326 Total 5.3000e- 004 7.9000e- 004 7.5900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.43261.7800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7900e- 003 4.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.4312 1.4312 Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Exhaust PM10 PM10 Ttl Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT University/College (4Yr)0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by University/College (4Yr)9.50 7.30 7.30 6.40 88.60 5.00 91 9 0 LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY 0.006444 0.002023 0.002051 5.0 Energy Detail SBUS MH 0.527262 0.065466 0.176679 0.144674 0.001228 0.0014810.036160 0.004831 0.009746 0.021956 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N SO2 Fugitive PM10 PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 Unmitigated NaturalGa U ROG NOx CO NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Exhaust PM10 University/College (4Y ) 6.49149e+ 006 0.0350 0.3182 0.2673 6.6400e- 003 6.3500e- 003 1.9100e- 003 0.0242 0.0242 0.0242 0.0242 0.0000 346.4106 346.4106 0.0000 346.4106 348.5188 Total 0.0350 0.3182 0.2673 1.9100e- 003 346.4106 6.6400e- 003 6.3500e- 003 348.51880.0242 0.0242 0.02420.0242 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity U Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr t MT/yr University/College (4Y ) 1.53416e+ 006 213.6362 0.0202 4.1800e- 003 215.3543 Total 213.6362 0.0202 4.1800e- 003 215.3543 6.0 Area Detail PM2.5 Ttl Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Ttl Fugitive PM2 5 Exhaust PM2 5 Architectural C ti 0.0787 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Pdt 0.5897 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 28.3331 15.1718 0.4627 0.0111 28.3331 14.1693 / 0 15.1718 0.4627 0.0111 Landscaping 4.2000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.5800e- 003 8.5800e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0700e- 003Total0.6689 4.0000e- 005 4.4500e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.5800e- 003 8.5800e- 003 7.0 Water Detail Unmitigated Indoor/Out d U Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal t o MT/yr University/College (4Y )Total 8.0 Waste Detail Unmitigated Waste Di d Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons t MT/yr University/College (4Y ) 87.6 17.7820 1.0509 0.0000 39.8506 Total 17.7820 1.0509 0.0000 39.8506 Appendix B Transportation Study Results West County Detention Facility Expansion at 555 Giant Highway (Draft) Transportation Impact Analysis Prepared for: ICF International April 3, 2015 Hexagon Office: 7901 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 202 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Hexagon Job Number: 15BW05 Phone: 925.225.1439 West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA i | Page Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... ii 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 8 3. Project Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 16 4. Existing Plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................... 19 5. Cumulative Conditions .................................................................................................................. 22 6. Other Transportation Issues ......................................................................................................... 26 Appendices Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: Intersection Level of Service Calculations Appendix C: Signal Warrant Calculations List of Tables Table ES- 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary ............................................................................ v Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay .................... 5 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay .............................. 6 Table 3 AC Transit Service .............................................................................................................. 12 Table 4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................... 12 Table 5 Project Trip Generation Estimates ..................................................................................... 17 Table 6 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................... 20 Table 7 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service .......................................................................... 23 Table 8 Vehicle Queuing Analysis ................................................................................................... 27 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections .................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4 Existing Transit Service ...................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations .............................................................................................. 13 Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................... 14 Figure 7 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ........................................................................... 18 Figure 8 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................................. 21 Figure 9 Cumulative With No Project Traffic Volumes ...................................................................... 24 Figure 10 Cumulative With Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................... 25 West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA ii | Page Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to analyze the transportation impacts of the proposed expansion of the West County Detention Facility (WCDF) in Richmond, California. The project would consist of the addition of 480 beds, a mental health treatment facility, and educational and vocational program facilities. It would also include facilities to support outpatient medical services, recreational activities, and minor administrative functions of the existing WCDF. New construction would add an estimated 150,000 square feet of building area. Access to the site would be provided via two existing driveways on Giant Highway. The County expects construction to begin in spring 2016 and occupancy begins in spring 2018. The City of Richmond does not have a level of service policy for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Therefore, the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed facility expansion were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA). Since the project is expected to generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips, a Congestion Management Program (CMP) analysis is not required. Potential traffic impacts due to the project were determined based on AM and PM peak hour levels of service for three signalized intersections, one unsignalized intersection, and two project site driveways. Project Trip Generation & Assigment Project trip generation is typically estimated by applying to the size and uses of the development the appropriate rates in the publication Trip Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). However, Trip Generation only has two studies for the land use code “Prison,” and the range between the rates is very large. Thus, ITE data could not be used to determine the trip generation for the West County Detention Facility expansion. Instead, the West County Detention Facility was surveyed on in February during a typical weekday to determine its existing trip generation rates. Because ITE used “beds” as the independent variable that most closely correlates with trip generation, the trip generation rate was calculated based on the current average occupancy of 574 beds. The trip generation rate per bed was determined to be 0.05 trips per bed during the AM peak hour and 0.06 trips per bed during the PM peak hour. Using these rates, the proposed project, which would add 480 beds, would generate 24 additional trips during the AM peak hour and 29 additional trips during the PM peak hour. The assignment of site-generated traffic to and from intersections in the project area was determined based on existing travel patterns, the locations of complementary land uses, and a previous traffic impact analysis (Atlas Road Warehouse/Distribution Center Traffic Study dated October 2014 by PHA Transportation Consultants) in the project vicinity. Project trips were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the trip distribution. West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA iii | Page Intersection Level of Service Impacts Table ES-1 summarizes the results of the intersection level of service analysis under Existing, Existing plus Project, and Cumulative with and without Project conditions. Under the Existing and Existing plus Project scenarios, all of the study intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. As a result, no significant impacts would be caused by the project at the study intersections. Under Cumulative with and without Project scenarios, all study intersections would operate at LOS D or better, with two exceptions. The signalized intersection of Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway would operate at LOS F with or without project during the PM peak hour. The signalized intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway would operate at LOS F with and without the project during both AM and PM peak hours. However, the proposed project would not cause a significant impact at either location because it would not add more than 5 seconds of control delay. Queueing Analysis The analysis indicated that the estimated maximum vehicle queues would exceed the vehicle storage capacity at two locations. The following findings and recommendations were noted: • It is recommended that the outer eastbound left turn lane be lengthened west to the upstream intersection at Atlas Road. This would add approximately 300 feet of additional queuing space at the intersection. However, this would require narrowing the existing landscaped median. In addition, possible traffic signal timing and phasing improvements could be explored at the intersection of Kay Road and San Pablo Avenue. Because this issue occurs under existing conditions, and the project only adds a maximum of one vehicle to the queue, the project sponsor would typically not be responsible for this improvement. • It is recommended that by Year 2030, the southbound through lane at the intersection of Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway be converted to a second left turn lane in order to accommodate the calculated 95th percentile queues of 950 feet under cumulative conditions during the PM peak hour. This would double the existing queuing space to 800 feet from the existing 400 feet at the intersection. The existing right turn lane would be converted to a shared through/right lane. Impacts to the through and right turn movements would be minimal due to their low traffic demand. Field observations indicate the existing storage is adequate in accommodating the left turn queue. Because this issue occurs under cumulative without project conditions, and the project only adds a maximum of one vehicle to the queue, the project sponsor would typically not be responsible for this improvement. Site Access and On Site Circulation The site access and onsite circulation were evaluated for the proposed project. Because the site plan is conceptual, it lacks many details of a typical site layout plan such as drive aisle widths, stall widths, curb radii, etc. The following findings and recommendations were noted: • According to the level of service and queuing calculations, both site driveways would operate at LOS B with queues of one or two vehicles for most of the peak hours under all study scenarios. These queues could be accommodated in the existing storage space provided. • The corner sight distances at the project driveways were checked in the field and determined to be adequate. • Because the site plan for the proposed new building is conceptual, access to the site for trucks cannot be assessed. Prior to final design, the project applicant should submit an exhibit showing the feasibility of truck access to the new building. West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA iv | Page Other Transportation Modes The project’s impacts to pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities were evaluated. Based on this analysis, the project would not create an adverse significant impact to any of these facilities. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted pedestrian, bicycle and transit plans nor preclude any future expansion of pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. The following findings and recommendations were noted: • Given the remote location of the project and the fact that there is an existing bus stop inside the facility, very few pedestrian trips to/from the facility are anticipated. Most trips to/from the site would occur via motor vehicle, bus, or bicycle. • The County currently does not have a bike parking requirement policy for prisons. However, it is recommended that the project sponsor consider bike parking as needed to support its proposed expansion. • AC Transit currently provides bus service in the project vicinity, which includes Routes 71 and 376. There is an existing bus stop within the detention facility with a bus pullout and shelter. The volume of riders generated by the project would not exceed the carrying capacity of the existing bus service near the project site. Therefore, no improvements to the existing transit facilities would be necessary in conjunction with the proposed project. Construction Traffic Construction of the West County Detention Facility expansion is expected to begin in spring 2016 and would require approximately 24 months. Construction staff is expected to work between 6 AM and 6 PM five days a week. The number of construction staff onsite is expected to average 20 people per day, with a maximum daily onsite workforce of approximately 40 people. For estimating traffic generated by the construction staff, trip generation rates under General Light Industrial (ITE category 110) Category of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition are used. Based on a maximum of 40 onsite staff and the applicable ITE trip generation rates of 0.44 AM peak hour trips and 0.42 PM peak hour trips per employee, the construction staff would generate approximately 18 AM and 17 PM peak hour trips. As the construction generated traffic would be less than that of the facility expansion project traffic, no significant impacts would be caused by the traffic generated by the construction of the facility expansion project West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA v | Page Table ES- 1 Intersection Level of Service Summary Existing Study Traffic Peak Avg.Avg.Incr. In Avg.Avg.Incr. In Number Intersection Control Hour Delay1 LOS1 Delay1 LOS1 Avg. Delay Delay 1 LOS1 Delay 1 LOS1 Avg. Delay 1 Site Driveway (North) and Giant Highway SSSC2 AM 0.3/9.3 A/A 0.7/9.4 A/A 0.4/0.1 0.4/9.4 A/A 0.4/9.5 A/A 0.0/0.1 PM 9.2/9.9 A/A 9.3/10.1 A/B 0.1/0.2 9.4/10.4 A/B 9.5/10.6 A/B 0.1/0.2 2 Site Driveway (South) and Grant Highway SSSC2 AM 0.8/9.0 A/A 1.3/9.0 A/A 0.5/0.0 0.6/9.2 A/A 1.0/9.3 A/A 0.4/0.1 PM 8.7/9.6 A/A 8.5/9.8 A/A -0.2/0.2 8.9/9.9 A/A 8.8/10.1 A/B -0.1/0.2 3 Atlas Road and Giant Highway AWSC3 AM 7.9 A 8.1 A 0.2 9.0 A 9.1 A 0.1 PM 7.9 A 8.1 A 0.2 9.3 A 9.5 A 0.2 4 Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway Signal AM 19.0 B 19.2 B 0.2 29.1 C 29.5 C 0.4 PM 26.2 C 27.2 C 1.0 107.0 F 110.0 F 3.0 5 San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway Signal AM 33.3 C 33.4 C 0.1 103.7 F 104.7 F 1.0 PM 49.1 D 49.1 D 0.0 94.6 F 95.2 F 0.6 6 Giant Highway and Richmond Parkway Ramps Signal AM 13.8 B 13.9 B 0.1 14.2 B 14.2 B 0.0 PM 12.0 B 12.2 B 0.2 12.7 B 12.8 B 0.1 1 Signalized and AWSC intersection levels of service and delays reported are for overall average delay. SSSC intersection levels of service and delays reported are for both the overall average delay and the approach with highest delay. 2 SSSC - Side Street Stop Control 3 AWSC = All Way Stop Control Existing + Project With Project Cumulative No Project West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 1 | Page 1. Introduction The purpose of this report is to analyze the transportation impacts of the proposed expansion of the West County Detention Facility (WCDF) in Richmond, California. The project would consist of the addition of 480 beds, a mental health treatment facility, and educational and vocational program facilities. It would also include facilities to support outpatient medical services, recreational activities, and minor administrative functions of the existing WCDF. New construction would add an estimated 150,000 square feet of building area. Access to the site would be provided via two existing driveways on Giant Highway. The project site location and the surrounding study area are shown on Figure 1. The site plan is shown in Figure 2. Scope of Study The City of Richmond does not have a level of service policy for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Therefore, the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed facility expansion were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA). Since the project is expected to generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips, a Congestion Management Program (CMP) analysis is not required. Potential traffic impacts due to the project were determined based on AM and PM peak hour levels of service for three signalized intersections, one unsignalized intersection, and two project site driveways. The following study intersections were analyzed for this project: 1. North Site Access Driveway and Giant Highway (Unsignalized) 2. South Site Access Driveway and Giant Highway (Unsignalized) 3. Atlas Road and Giant Highway (Unsignalized) 4. Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway 5. San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway 6. Giant Road and Richmond Parkway Ramps Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The AM peak hour is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average day. West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 4 | Page Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes, except at the project site driveways, are based on traffic counts (collected in August 2014) used in the previously approved TIA dated October, 2014 for the Atlas Road Warehouse/Distribution Center at 2995 Atlas Road. New turning movement counts were conducted at the project site driveways by Hexagon in February, 2015. Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing plus project conditions were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine potential project impacts. Scenario 3: Future Year Cumulative No Project Conditions. Traffic volumes were obtained from the CCTA Countywide Traffic Model through the previously approved “Atlas Road Warehouse/Distribution Center Traffic Study” dated October 2014. The Cumulative no project traffic volumes reflect all approved and pending development in the city. The CCTA Countywide Traffic Model predicts future travel patterns for the region based on population and economic growth projections for the County. Scenario 4 Future Year Cumulative With Project Conditions. Traffic generated by the project was added to the traffic volumes from the CCTA Countywide Traffic Model. Future year cumulative with project conditions were evaluated relative to future year cumulative without project conditions in order to determine potential far-term project impacts. Methodology This section describes the methods used to determine the traffic operations for each scenario. It includes the methods used for data collection, level of service calculations, and describes the various level of service standards as well as the criteria for project impacts. Data Requirements The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, previous traffic studies, the City of Richmond, field observations, and published information from various transportation agencies. The following data were collected from these sources: • existing traffic volumes • lane configurations • signal timing and phasing (for signalized intersections) • approved and pending developments (size, use, and location) • existing bicycle facilities • existing transit service Analysis Methodologies and Level of Service Standards Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are described below. West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 5 | Page City of Richmond evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology. The HCM method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Control delay is the amount of delay that is attributed to the particular traffic control device at the intersection, and includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The correlation between average delay and level of service is shown in Table 1. TRAFFIX software was used to apply the HCM operations method for evaluation of conditions at signalized intersections. Signalized Intersections Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16. This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels. greater than 80.0F The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lenghts, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 35.1 to 55.0D This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume- to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently. 55.1 to 80.0E B Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay. 10.1 to 20.0 Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping. 20.1 to 35.0C Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (sec.) Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay. 10.0 or lessA City of Richmond does not have a level of service policy for signalized intersections. Based on discussion with City of Richmond staff, the CCTA’s West County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance governs the level of service policy for signalized intersections within the West County Area. Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. A development is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection if for either peak hour: 1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F under project conditions, or 2. If the intersection is already operating at an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F under no project conditions, and the project is expected to increase the average control delay by more than 5 seconds. West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 6 | Page A significant impact at a signalized intersection is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection levels of service to an acceptable LOS or restore the intersection to operating levels that are better than no project conditions. Level of service at unsignalized intersections also was based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method. TRAFFIX software was used to apply the HCM operations method for evaluation of conditions at unsignalized intersections. This method is applicable for one-way, two-way, and all-way stop-controlled intersections. The delay and corresponding level of service at unsignalized, stop-controlled intersections is presented in Table 2. For side-street stop controlled intersections, the LOS was reported for the overall intersection average delay and the average delay on the worst approach. The City of Richmond does not have a level of service policy for vehicular traffic at unsignalized intersections. Unsignalized Intersections The project is said to create a significant impact at an unsignalized intersection if: 1. Its operations would decline significantly with the addition of project traffic, and 2. A traffic signal would be warranted based on the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) peak hour signal warrant (Warrant 3). Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2. Level of Service Description Average Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.) The level of service analysis for unsignalized intersections was supplemented with an assessment of the need for signalization of the intersections. For this study, the need for signalization was assessed on the basis of the operating conditions at the intersections (i.e., level of service) and on the peak hour volume signal warrant – W arrant #3 – described in the 2012 CA MUTCD. This method provides an indication of whether traffic conditions and peak hour traffic levels are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. Traffic Signal Warrant Methodology West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 7 | Page A vehicle queuing analysis was evaluated for high-demand turn movements at intersections. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of “n” vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula: Vehicle Queuing Analysis P (x=n) = λn e – (λ) P (x=n) = probability of “n” vehicles in queue n! Where: n = number of vehicles in the queue λ = Average number of vehicles in the queue per lane (vehicles per hour /signal cycles per hour) The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the movement. Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into six chapters. Chapter 2 describes the existing roadway network, transit service, and existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 describes the method used to estimate project traffic. Chapter 4 describes the project impacts under existing plus project conditions on the transportation system . Chapter 5 presents the intersection operations under cumulative traffic conditions. Chapter 6 describes non-level of service transportation issues associated with the proposed project. West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 8 | Page 2. Existing Conditions This chapter describes the existing conditions for all of the major transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network, transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Existing Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided via Interstate 80 (I-80). Local access to the site is provided via Richmond Parkway, Atlas Road, and Giant Highway. These roadways are described below. • I-80 is primarily an east-west freeway with four mixed-flow lanes in the eastbound direction and four mixed-flow lanes in the westbound direction within the project vicinity. I-80 provides regional access from San Francisco via East Bay cities to Sacramento. Access to the project study area is provided via its interchange with Richmond Parkway/Fitzgerald Drive. • Richmond Parkway is predominantly a north-south major arterial roadway that extends north from Ohio Avenue, where it connects with I-580 via Canal Boulevard, to I-80 where it becomes Fitzgerald Drive and continues into the City of Pinole. It is four lanes wide from Ohio Avenue to Giant Highway, six lanes wide from Giant Highway to San Pablo Avenue, and four lanes wide from San Pablo Avenue to I-80. Richmond Parkway provides access to the project site via Giant Highway. Richmond Parkway is an existing truck route in the City of Richmond. • San Pablo Avenue is a north-south, four-lane, major arterial that connects northern cities of Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo with cities of Oakland, Berkeley and Albany to the south. It is designated as a route of regional significance by the CCTA since it provides connections to a number of cities in the West County area. • Atlas Road is a four-lane divided collector roadway that extends north from Richmond Parkway and terminates at its intersection with Giant Highway/Giant Road. Atlas Road provides access to the project site via Giant Highway. Atlas Road is an existing truck route in the City of Richmond. • Giant Highway is a north-south, two-lane, collector that extends from Richmond Parkway in the south to Atlas Road in the north. It has a speed limit of 35 mph. Giant Highway provides direct access to the project site. Giant Highway is an existing truck route in the City of Richmond. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Bicycle facilities are divided into three classes. Class I bikeways are separate bike paths that are physically separated from motor vehicles and offer two-way bicycle travel on a separate path. Class II bikeways are striped bike lanes on roadways that are marked by signage and pavement markings. Class West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 9 | Page III bikeways are bike routes and only have signs to help guide bicyclists on recommended routes to certain locations. The 2011 City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan describes the existing bicycle network in the City of Richmond. The existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site are described below and shown on Figure 3. • Richmond Parkway has an existing Class I two-way bicycle path between San Pablo Avenue and Atlas Road. The Class I bicycle path is located only on the north side of Richmond Parkway, which is separated from the vehicular travelled way by a landscaping strip. • San Pablo Avenue is designated as an existing Class III bike route between Kay Road and Tara Hills Drive. A short segment of Class II bike lane is also present on southbound San Pablo Avenue between Kay Road and Shamrock Drive. • Atlas Road has an existing Class I two-way bicycle path connecting the bicycle path on Richmond Parkway with the western end of Atlas Road at the Union Pacific railroad tracks. • The Point Pinole Region Shoreline Trails form part of the San Francisco Bay Trail Network that runs along the bay shores of the San Francisco and San Pablo bays. It is located on the northwest side of the project site west of the Union Pacific railroad tracks. Currently, there are no bike facilities on Giant Highway. According to the 2011 City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan, there are Class III bike routes with bike signs and sharrow pavement markings proposed along Giant Highway between Atlas Road to the north and Brookside Drive to the south. This proposed bike route on Giant Highway will connect the existing Class I bike path on Atlas Road with the future planned Class I bike path alongside the existing Union Pacific railroad tracks. There are no existing sidewalks on Giant Highway within the project site vicinity. According to the 2011 City of Richmond Pedestrian Plan, no future sidewalks are proposed along Giant Highway as the study area expereinces very little pedestrian activitiy. The predominate modes of travel in the project area are motor vehicles and buses. There are existing sidewalks on Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway within the study area. Existing Transit Service Existing transit service in the project vicinity is provided by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit). The transit service provided in the study area is described below and shown on Figure 4. AC Transit provides transit service for East Bay Cities in the Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, which includes local, regional, and paratransit bus service. In addition, AC Transit provides connections to BART and the Central Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (County Connection) services. There is an existing bus stop within the West County Detention Facility adjacent to the general parking lot, which is located immediately south of the proposed expansion. Table 3 summarizes the service frequencies for the transit routes in the study area. Existing Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were determined by observations in the field. The existing intersection lane configurations are shown on Figure 5. Existing peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from recent manual turning-movement counts at the study intersections. The existing peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Figure 6. New traffic count data are included in Appendix A. West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 12 | Page Table 3 AC Transit Service Route Route Description Weekday Hours of Operation Headway 1 (min) 71 Richmond Parkway Transit Center to El Cerrito Plaza BART 5:00 AM to 8:43 PM 30 376 Clockwise to El Cerrito Del Norte BART 8:00 PM to 3:55 AM 30 1 Approximate headways during commute periods, in minutes Existing Signalized Intersection Levels of Service The results of the signalized intersection levels of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 4. The results show that, measured against the applicable level of service standards described in Chapter 1, all of the signalized study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Existing Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service The results of the unsignalized intersection levels of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 4. The results show that all of the unsignalized study intersections currently operate at LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. None of the unsignalized study intersections currently meet peak hour signal warrant checks. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B and the traffic signal warrant sheets are included in Appendix C. Table 4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Existing Study Traffic Peak Avg. Number Intersection Control Hour Delay 1 LOS1 1 Site Driveway (North) and Giant Highway SSSC2 AM 0.3/9.3 A PM 9.2/9.9 A 2 Site Driveway (South) and Grant Highway SSSC2 AM 0.8/9.0 A PM 8.7/9.6 A 3 Atlas Road and Giant Highway AWSC3 AM 7.9 A PM 7.9 A 4 Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway Signal AM 19.0 B PM 26.2 C 5 San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway Signal AM 33.3 C PM 49.1 D 6 Giant Highway and Richmond Parkway Ramps Signal AM 13.8 B PM 12.0 B 1 Signalized and AWSC intersection levels of service and delays reported are for overall average delay. SSSC intersection levels of service and delays reported are for both the overall average delay and the approach with highest delay. 2 SSSC - Side Street Stop Control 3 AWSC = All Way Stop Control West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 15 | Page Observed Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the LOS calculation does not accurately reflect level of service in the field. Overall, the study intersections operate adequately during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, and the level of service analysis appears to accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions. However, field observations revealed the following operational issue near the project site: • San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway. During the PM peak hour, the queue for the eastbound Richmond Parkway left turn consistently spills out of the turn pocket into the through lanes. It often extends beyond the upstream intersection at Atlas Road. It was observed that some eastbound left turning vehicles take 2 to 3 signal cycles to clear the intersection. During the most congested period, between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM, the signal is operating on a 160 to 180- second cycle and the allocated green time for the eastbound left turn is almost at 60 seconds. However, due to the close proximity of the downstream intersection at San Pablo Avenue and Kay Road, northbound traffic on San Pablo Avenue occasionally backs up to Richmond Parkway from Kay Road. This prevents the subject eastbound left turning traffic from clearing the intersection (even though a green left turn arrow is activated). West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 16 | Page 3. Project Traffic Characteristics This chapter describes the method by which project traffic is estimated. The project would consist of the addition of 480 beds, a mental health treatment facility, and educational and vocational program facilities. It would also include facilities to support outpatient medical services, recreational activities, and minor administrative functions. New construction would add an estimated 150,000 square feet of building area. Access to the site would be provided via two existing driveways on Giant Highway. The magnitude of traffic produced by the proposed development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated by (1) calculating the project trip generation and (2) assigning project traffic to the roadway segments and intersections around the project site. These procedures are described below. Project trip generation is typically estimated by applying to the size and uses of the development the appropriate rates in the publication Trip Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). However, Trip Generation only has two studies for the land use code “Prison,” and the range between the rates is very large. Thus, ITE data could not be used to determine the trip generation for the West County Detention Facility expansion. Instead, the West County Detention Facility was surveyed on in February during a typical weekday to determine its existing trip generation rates. Because ITE used “beds” as the independent variable that most closely correlates with trip generation, the trip generation rate was calculated based on the current average occupancy of 574 beds. The trip generation rate per bed was determined to be 0.05 trips per bed during the AM peak hour and 0.06 trips per bed during the PM peak hour. Using these rates, the proposed project, which would add 480 beds, would generate 24 additional trips during the AM peak hour and 29 additional trips during the PM peak hour. The project trip generation estimates are presented below in Table 5. The assignment of site-generated traffic to and from intersections in the project area was determined based on existing travel patterns, the locations of complementary land uses, and a previous traffic impact analysis (Atlas Road Warehouse/Distribution Center Traffic Study dated October 2014 by PHA Transportation Consultants) in the project vicinity. Project trips were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the trip distribution. The trip distribution and project trip assignment are shown on Figure 7. West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 17 | Page Table 5 Project Trip Generation Estimates Total Total Land Use Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out Proposed Use West County Detention Facility Expansion 1 480 beds 0.05 24 14 10 0.06 29 10 19 1 Rates based on Trip Generation Study conducted at the West County Detention Facility in February, 2015. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 19 | Page 4. Existing Plus Project Conditions This chapter describes existing plus project traffic conditions. Existing plus project traffic conditions could potentially exist if the project were constructed and occupied prior to other approved projects in the area. This scenario isolates the impacts of the project on transportation network. Existing plus project conditions do not include any planned roadway improvements. Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes To estimate traffic volumes for existing plus project conditions, the project trip generation estimates were added to the existing traffic volumes on the roadway network. The existing plus project traffic volumes at the study intersections are shown graphically on Figure 8. Existing Plus Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service The results of the signalized intersection level of service analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table 6. The results show that all of the signalized intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under existing plus project conditions. Therefore, no significant impacts would be casued by the project at the signalized study intersections. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Existing Plus Project Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service The results of the unsignalized intersection level of service analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table 6. The results show that the unsignalized intersections would operate at LOS B or better during both the AM and PM peak hours under existing plus project conditions. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. The level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections was supplemented with an assessment of the need for signalization of the intersections. The results of the traffic signal warrant analysis shows that, under existing plus project conditions, none of the unsignalized intersections would meet traffic signal warrants. Therefore, no significant impacts would be caused by the project at the unsignalized study intersections. The traffic signal warrant sheets are included in Appendix C. West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 20 | Page Table 6 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Existing Study Traffic Peak Avg.Avg.Incr. In Number Intersection Control Hour Delay 1 LOS1 Delay LOS Avg. Delay 1 Site Driveway (North) and Giant Highway SSSC2 AM 0.3/9.3 A/A 0.7/9.4 A/A 0.4/0.1 PM 9.2/9.9 A/A 9.3/10.1 A/B 0.1/0.2 2 Site Driveway (South) and Grant Highway SSSC2 AM 0.8/9.0 A/A 1.3/9.0 A/A 0.5/0.0 PM 8.7/9.6 A/A 8.5/9.8 A/A -0.2/0.2 3 Atlas Road and Giant Highway AWSC3 AM 7.9 A 8.1 A 0.2 PM 7.9 A 8.1 A 0.2 4 Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway Signal AM 19.0 B 19.2 B 0.2 PM 26.2 C 27.2 C 1.0 5 San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway Signal AM 33.3 C 33.4 C 0.1 PM 49.1 D 49.1 D 0.0 6 Giant Highway and Richmond Parkway Ramps Signal AM 13.8 B 13.9 B 0.1 PM 12.0 B 12.2 B 0.2 1 Signalized and AWSC intersection levels of service and delays reported are for overall average delay. SSSC intersection levels of service and delays reported are for both the overall average delay and the approach with highest delay. 2 SSSC - Side Street Stop Control 3 AWSC = All Way Stop Control Existing + Project West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 22 | Page 5. Cumulative Conditions This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under cumulative conditions both with and without the proposed project. For this analysis, cumulative traffic conditions consider future developments within the City of Richmond as described in the Richmond General Plan 2030. Future Transportation Network A review of the City of Richmond Capital Improvement Plan (FY 2013-2018) did not identify any specific planned improvements in the study area. The review found street paving and traffic safety improvements, but no improvements that would directly affect this traffic analysis. As a result, it is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network in the project vicinity under cumulative conditions, including all study roadways and intersection lane configurations, would be the same as that described under existing conditions. Future Traffic Volumes Cumulative no project traffic volumes were obtained from the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) Countywide Traffic Model through the previously approved “Atlas Road Warehouse/Distribution Center Traffic Study” dated October 2014. The CCTA model predicts future travel patterns for the region based on population and economic growth projections for the County. It includes all approved and pending development in the study area. The Cumulative with and without project traffic volumes are shown on Figures 9 and 10, respectively. Cumulative Signalized Intersection Levels of Service The signalized intersection level of service results under cumulative conditions are summarized in Table 7. The results show that, with the exception of the Atlas Road/Richmond Parkway and San Pablo Avenue/Richmond Parkway intersections, all intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better under cumulative conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway would operate at LOS F with and without the project during the PM peak hour. The intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway would operate at LOS F with and without the project during both AM and PM peak hour. However, according to the impact criteria described in Chapter 1, the proposed project would not cause a significant impact at either location because it would not add more than 5 seconds of control delay. The detailed level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 23 | Page Cumulative Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service The results of the unsignalized intersection level of service analysis under cumulative conditions are summarized in Table 7. The results show that all unsignalized intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS B or better during both the AM and PM peak hours under cumulative conditions. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. The results of the traffic signal warrant analysis shows that, under cumulative conditions, none of the unsignalized intersections would meet traffic signal warrants during the AM and PM peak hours. The traffic signal warrant sheets are included in Appendix C. Table 7 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service No Project Study Traffic Peak Avg.Avg.Incr. In Number Intersection Control Hour Delay 1 LOS1 Delay LOS Avg. Delay 1 Site Driveway (North) and Giant Highway SSSC2 AM 0.4/9.4 A/A 0.4/9.5 A/A 0.0/0.1 PM 9.4/10.4 A/B 9.5/10.6 A/B 0.1/0.2 2 Site Driveway (South) and Grant Highway SSSC2 AM 0.6/9.2 A/A 1.0/9.3 A/A 0.4/0.1 PM 8.9/9.9 A/A 8.8/10.1 A/B -0.1/0.2 3 Atlas Road and Giant Highway AWSC3 AM 9.0 A 9.1 A 0.1 PM 9.3 A 9.5 A 0.2 4 Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway Signal AM 29.1 C 29.5 C 0.4 PM 107.0 F 110.0 F 3.0 5 San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway Signal AM 103.7 F 104.7 F 1.0 PM 94.6 F 95.2 F 0.6 6 Giant Highway and Richmond Parkway Ramps Signal AM 14.2 B 14.2 B 0.0 PM 12.7 B 12.8 B 0.1 1 Signalized and AWSC intersection levels of service and delays reported are for overall average delay. SSSC intersection levels of service and delays reported are for both the overall average delay and the approach with highest delay. 2 SSSC - Side Street Stop Control 3 AWSC = All Way Stop Control With Project Cumulative West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 26 | Page 6. Other Transportation Issues This chapter presents an analysis of other transportation issues associated with the project site, including: • Vehicle queuing and storage at selected intersections • Onsite circulation and access • Potential impacts to transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities Unlike the level of service impact methodology, which are adopted by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agencies, , the analyses in this chapter are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by the traffic engineering community. Although operational issues are not considered CEQA impacts, they do describe traffic conditions that are relevant to describing the project environment. Queuing Analysis A vehicle queuing analysis was conducted for the high demand turn movements where the project would add traffic. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution. The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future storage requirements at intersections. The vehicle queuing estimates and a tabulated summary of the findings for the study intersections are provided in Table 8. The analysis indicated that the estimated maximum vehicle queues would exceed the vehicle storage capacity at the following locations: • Eastbound left turn at San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway under existing, existing plus project, cumulative without project and cumulative with project conditions during the PM peak hour. • Southbound left turn at Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway under cumulative with and without project conditions during the PM peak hour. West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 27 | Page Table 8 Vehicle Queuing Analysis Measurement AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)120 160 80 120 80 120 8.8 8.7 Volume (vph)157 876 237 173 115 109 67 39 Avg. Queue (veh)5.2 38.9 5.3 5.8 2.6 3.6 0.2 0.1 Avg. Queue (ft.) 2 131 973 132 144 64 91 4 2 95th %. Queue (veh)9 49 9 10 5 7 1 1 95th %. Queue (ft.) 2 225 1225 225 250 125 175 25 25 Storage 800 800 400 400 450 450 135 135 Adequate (Y/N)Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Existing + Project Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)120 160 80 120 80 120 9.0 8.8 Volume (vph)159 880 244 187 125 117 77 47 Avg. Queue (veh)5.3 39.1 5.4 6.2 2.8 3.9 0.2 0.1 Avg. Queue (ft.) 2 133 978 136 156 69 98 5 3 95th %. Queue (veh)9 50 9 11 6 7 1 1 95th %. Queue (ft.) 2 225 1250 225 275 150 175 25 25 Storage 800 800 400 400 450 450 135 135 Adequate (Y/N)Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Cumulative with No Project Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)180 180 120 180 120 180 9.7 9.7 Volume (vph)184 1030 306 572 233 153 77 45 Avg. Queue (veh)9.2 51.5 10.2 28.6 7.8 7.7 0.2 0.1 Avg. Queue (ft.) 2 230 1288 255 715 194 191 5 3 95th %. Queue (veh)14 64 16 38 13 12 1 1 95th %. Queue (ft.) 2 350 1600 400 950 325 300 25 25 Storage 800 800 400 400 450 450 135 135 Adequate (Y/N)Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Cumulative with Project Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)180 180 120 180 120 180 9.9 10.0 Volume (vph)186 1034 313 586 243 161 87 53 Avg. Queue (veh)9.3 51.7 10.4 29.3 8.1 8.1 0.2 0.1 Avg. Queue (ft.) 2 233 1293 261 733 203 201 6 4 95th %. Queue (veh)15 64 16 38 13 13 1 1 95th %. Queue (ft.) 2 375 1600 400 950 325 325 25 25 Storage 800 800 400 400 450 450 135 135 Adequate (Y/N)Y N Y N Y Y Y Y 1 Vehicle queue calculations based on cycle length for signalized intersections. 2 Assumes 25 feet per vehicle queued San Pablo Ave /Richmond Pkwy Westbound Right Turn Atlas Road /Richmond Parkway Atlas Road /Giant Highway Westbound Left TurnEastbound Left Turn Southbound Left Turn West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 28 | Page San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway – Eastbound Left turn Under existing conditions, there is approximately 800 feet of storage capacity for the westbound left turn lanes at the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway. The storage capacity is measured as the distance between the intersection crosswalk and the taper of the left turn pocket. Beyond this, vehicles would queue west into the through lane. During the PM peak hour, under existing and existing plus project conditions, the calculated 95th percentile queues are 1,225 feet and 1,250 feet, respectively. Under the cumulative without project and with project conditions, the calculated 95th percentile queues are both 1,600 feet. Field observations also indicate that the traffic volumes for the subject movement are heavy under existing conditions. The eastbound left turning queues consistently spillover into the through lanes and sometimes beyond the intersection at Atlas Road. Traffic from the proposed project would only add 25 feet (or one vehicle) to the 95th percentile queue relative to no project conditions during the PM peak hour. Recommendation: At the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway, it is recommended that the outer eastbound left turn lane be lengthened west to the upstream intersection at Atlas Road. This would add approximately 300 feet of additional queuing space at the intersection. However, this would require narrowing the existing landscaped median. In addition, possible traffic signal timing and phasing improvements could be explored at the intersection of Kay Road and San Pablo Avenue (for a full explanation of the subject queuing issue, see also Chapter 2 – Observed Existing Traffic Conditions Section). Because this issue occurs under existing conditions, and the project only adds a maximum of one vehicle to the queue, the project sponsor would typically not be responsible for this improvement. Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway – Southbound Left turn Under existing conditions, there is approximately 400 feet of storage capacity for the southbound left turn lane at the intersection of Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway. The storage capacity is measured as the distance between the intersection crosswalk and the taper of the left turn pocket. Beyond this, vehicles would queue north into the through lane. Field observations indicate that the maximum vehicle queue for the subject movement is in the order of 10 to 11 vehicles under existing conditions, which can be accommodated by the existing storage capacity of 400 feet. The observed queue also matches the calculated 95% percentile queue of 250 feet under existing conditions during PM peak hour. Traffic from the proposed project would add 25 feet (one vehicle) to the 95th percentile queue relative to no project conditions during the PM peak hour. Under cumulative with and without project conditions, the calculated 95th percentile queues are both 950 feet during the PM peak hour. Recommendation: At the intersection of Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway, it is recommended that by Year 2030, the southbound through lane at the intersection of Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway be converted to a second left turn lane in order to accommodate the calculated 95th percentile queues of 950 feet under cumulative conditions during the PM peak hour. This would double the existing queuing space to 800 feet from the existing 400 feet at the intersection. The existing right turn lane would be converted to a shared through/right lane. Impacts to the through and right turn movements would be minimal due to their low traffic demand. Field observations indicate the existing storage is adequate in accommodating the left turn queue. Because this issue occurs under cumulative without project conditions, and the project only adds a maximum of one vehicle to the queue, the project sponsor would typically not be responsible for this improvement. Site Access and Circulation This section describes the site access and onsite circulation for the proposed project. This review is based on the conceptual site plan provided to Hexagon (See Figure 2). Because the site plan is conceptual, it lacks many details of a typical site layout plan such as drive aisle widths, stall widths, curb radii, etc. West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 29 | Page Site Access As the proposed expansion is located within the existing fenced area of the detention facility, access to the project site to the public street network would be provided via the two existing driveways on Giant Highway. Both driveways give direct access to the main parking lot in front of the main administration building which serves the entire facility. According to the project sponsor, no improvements are proposed to the existing site access driveways and internal drive aisles as part of this project and project construction will be confined within the fenced detention area. The north site driveway (Intersection #1) is the primary site driveway for public and employee access. This driveway has one inbound lane and one outbound lane and it is located closest to the existing gate to the detention compound. Under project conditions, it is anticipated that this driveway would serve approximately 10 additional AM peak hour project trips (8 inbound/2 outbound) and 12 additional PM peak hour project trips (6 inbound/6 outbound). The driveway currently has approximately 13 AM peak hour trips (9 inbound/4 outbound) and 42 PM trips (11 inbound/31 outbound). The south site driveway is located approximately 400 feet south of the north site driveway. This north driveway has one inbound lane, one outbound lane, and provides direct access to the loading areas and sheriff vehicles at the back of the existing main administration building. Under project conditions, it is anticipated that this south driveway would serve approximately 14 additional AM peak hour project trips (6 inbound/8 outbound) and 17 additional PM project trips (4 inbound/13 outbound). The driveway currently has approximately 16 AM peak hour trips (8 inbound/8 outbound) and 24 PM trips (6 inbound/18 outbound). According to the level of service and queuing calculations, both site driveways would operate at LOS B or better with queues of one or two vehicles for most of the peak hours under all study scenarios. These queues could be accommodated in the existing storage space provided. The corner sight distances at the project driveways were checked in the field and determined to be adequate. Onsite Circulation The new facility building would be located in the detention compound, which is entirely within the existing fenced secure area of the facility. The detention compound has only one gated access road connected to the main parking lot and the north driveway (See Figure 2). There are two layers of fencing surrounding the detention compound. Due to the secure nature of the detention facility, any vehicles or personnel entering or exiting the compound must go through two sets of gates. An existing circular road that forms a loop around six other facility buildings would provide access to the new building as part of the proposed expansion. There is no sidewalk or bicycle facilities present on the detention compound access road. However, the traffic volumes and vehicle speeds on the roadway are very low such that shared use between vehicles and pedestrians is feasible. The site also includes a bus stop pull out for AC Transit Lines 71 and 376. The stop is located directly in front of the main administration building where visitors will check-in inside the building. Field observations at the existing site revealed no existing problems for buses, motor vehicles, bikes or pedestrians. Recommendation: Because the site plan for the proposed new building is conceptual, access to the site for trucks cannot be assessed. Prior to final design, the project applicant should submit an exhibit showing the feasibility of truck access to the new building. Other Transportation Modes Given the remote location of the project and the fact that there is an existing bus stop inside the facility, very few pedestrian trips to/from the facility are anticipated. During the trip generation survey of the existing site, there was only one pedestrian observed walking along Giant Highway during the AM and PM commute hours. Thus, the predominant modes of travel would be private vehicles and transit. Overall, the volume of pedestrian trips generated by the project would not exceed the carrying capacity of the existing sidewalks and crosswalks on neighboring streets such as Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway near the project vicinity. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted plans or preclude any future expansion of pedestrian facilities. West County Detention Facility Expansion TIA 30 | Page According to the U.S. Census, the bike mode share in Richmond is approximately 1%. For the proposed project, this would equate to approximately one or two new bike trips during the commute hours. The low volume of bicycle trips generated by the project would not exceed the bicycle-carrying capacity of streets surrounding the site, and the increase in bicycle trips would not by itself require new off-site bicycle facilities. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted plans or preclude any future expansion of bicycle facilities. Currently, there are no bike facilities on Giant Highway. According to the 2011 City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan, there are Class III bike routes with bike signs and sharrow pavement markings proposed along Giant Highway between Atlas Road to the north and Brookside Drive to the south. This proposed bike route on Giant Highway will connect the existing Class I bike path on Atlas Road with the future planned Class I bike path alongside the existing Union Pacific railroad tracks. Provisions for bike parking are not shown on the current site plan. The County currently does not have a bike parking requirement policy for prisons. Recommendation: It is recommended that the project sponsor consider bike parking as needed to support its proposed expansion. AC Transit currently provides bus service in the project vicinity, which includes Routes 71 and 376. There is an existing bus stop within the detention facility with a bus pullout and shelter. According to the AC Transit staff, most vehicles in the fleet have a seating capacity of 36 riders with additional capacity for standees. Based on ridership data provided by AC Transit staff, the bus routes that serve the project area have maximum loads of approximately 30 passengers per bus during the peak demand periods. The data also imply typical demand of 2 to 5 passengers boarding and alighting each bus at the existing site during peak periods. Based on the existing inmate population of 574 and the proposed expansion which will add approximately 480 beds to the facility, it is estimated that the bus demand could increase by up to 3 additional passengers during peak periods. Thus, the volume of riders generated by the project would not exceed the carrying capacity of the existing bus service near the project site. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted transit plans nor preclude any future expansion of transit facilities. Therefore, no improvements to the existing transit facilities would be necessary in conjunction with the proposed project. Construction Traffic Construction of the West County Detention Facility expansion is expected to begin in spring 2016 and would require approximately 24 months. Construction staff is expected to work between 6 AM and 6 PM five days a week. The number of construction staff onsite is expected to average 20 people per day, with a maximum daily onsite workforce of approximately 40 people. For estimating traffic generated by the construction staff, trip generation rates under General Light Industrial (ITE category 110) Category of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition are used. Based on a maximum of 40 onsite staff and the applicable ITE trip generation rates 1 of 0.44 AM peak hour trips and 0.42 PM peak hour trips per employee, the construction staff would generate approximately 18 AM and 17 PM peak hour trips. As the construction generated traffic would be less than that of the facility expansion project traffic, no significant impacts would be caused by the traffic generated by the construction of the facility expansion project. 1 These rates reflect the actuality that not all staff will arrive in the same AM or PM peak hour. West County Detention Facility Expansion West County Detention Facility Expansion Technical Appendices West County Detention Facility Expansion Appendix A Traffic Counts File Name : 1 GIANT&DWY1AM Site Code : Start Date : 2/24/2015 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- VEHICLES GIANT HWY Southbound Westbound GIANT HWY Northbound DRIVEWAY 1 Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Int. Total 07:00 AM 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 3 0 22 07:15 AM 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 1 0 24 07:30 AM 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 2 0 26 07:45 AM 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 2 0 41 Total 15 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 1 0 0 0 8 0 113 08:00 AM 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 1 0 37 08:15 AM 2 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 0 0 1 0 35 08:30 AM 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 08:45 AM 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 33 Total 10 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 2 0 0 0 2 0 135 Grand Total 25 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 3 0 0 0 10 0 248 Apprch %22.7 77.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97.7 2.3 0 0 0 100 0 Total %10.1 34.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.4 1.2 0 0 0 4 0 GIANT HWY DRIVEWAY 1 GIANT HWY Right 25 Thru 85 Left 0 Peds 0 InOut Total 135 110 245 Right0 Thru0 Left0 Peds0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Left 3 Thru 125 Right 0 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 85 128 213 Left10 Thru0 Right0 Peds0 TotalOutIn28 10 38 2/24/2015 07:00 AM 2/24/2015 08:45 AM VEHICLES North All Traffic Data Services,Inc. 9660 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 www.alltrafficdata.net File Name : 1 GIANT&DWY1AM Site Code : Start Date : 2/24/2015 Page No : 2 GIANT HWY Southbound Westbound GIANT HWY Northbound DRIVEWAY 1 Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 3 11 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 2 0 2 41 08:00 AM 1 9 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 26 0 0 1 0 1 37 08:15 AM 2 17 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 15 0 0 1 0 1 35 08:30 AM 2 13 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 30 Total Volume 8 50 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 1 0 81 0 0 4 0 4 143 % App. Total 13.8 86.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98.8 1.2 0 0 0 100 0 PHF .667 .735 .000 .000 .763 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .769 .250 .000 .779 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .872 GIANT HWY DRIVEWAY 1 GIANT HWY Right 8 Thru 50 Left 0 Peds 0 InOut Total 84 58 142 Right0 Thru0 Left0 Peds0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Left 1 Thru 80 Right 0 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 50 81 131 Left4 Thru0 Right0 Peds0 TotalOutIn9 4 13 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM VEHICLES Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services,Inc. 9660 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 www.alltrafficdata.net File Name : 1 GIANT&DWY1PM Site Code : Start Date : 2/24/2015 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- VEHICLES GIANT HWY Southbound Westbound GIANT HWY Northbound DRIVEWAY 1 Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Int. Total 04:00 PM 1 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 1 0 3 0 38 04:15 PM 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 22 0 45 04:30 PM 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 4 0 34 04:45 PM 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 0 0 0 1 0 38 Total 8 47 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 65 3 0 1 0 30 0 155 05:00 PM 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 28 05:15 PM 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 0 0 3 0 36 05:30 PM 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 1 1 41 05:45 PM 2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 40 Total 5 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 2 0 0 0 5 1 145 Grand Total 13 98 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 146 5 0 1 0 35 1 300 Apprch %11.6 87.5 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 96.7 3.3 0 2.7 0 94.6 2.7 Total %4.3 32.7 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 48.7 1.7 0 0.3 0 11.7 0.3 GIANT HWY DRIVEWAY 1 GIANT HWY Right 13 Thru 98 Left 0 Peds 1 InOut Total 181 112 293 Right0 Thru0 Left0 Peds0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Left 5 Thru 146 Right 0 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 99 151 250 Left35 Thru0 Right1 Peds1 TotalOutIn18 37 55 2/24/2015 04:00 PM 2/24/2015 05:45 PM VEHICLES North All Traffic Data Services,Inc. 9660 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 www.alltrafficdata.net File Name : 1 GIANT&DWY1PM Site Code : Start Date : 2/24/2015 Page No : 2 GIANT HWY Southbound Westbound GIANT HWY Northbound DRIVEWAY 1 Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 1 13 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 19 1 0 3 0 4 38 04:15 PM 2 9 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 12 0 0 22 0 22 45 04:30 PM 2 14 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 4 0 4 34 04:45 PM 3 11 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 0 23 0 0 1 0 1 38 Total Volume 8 47 0 1 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 3 0 68 1 0 30 0 31 155 % App. Total 14.3 83.9 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 95.6 4.4 0 3.2 0 96.8 0 PHF .667 .839 .000 .250 .875 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .739 .750 .000 .739 .250 .000 .341 .000 .352 .861 GIANT HWY DRIVEWAY 1 GIANT HWY Right 8 Thru 47 Left 0 Peds 1 InOut Total 95 56 151 Right0 Thru0 Left0 Peds0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Left 3 Thru 65 Right 0 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 48 68 116 Left30 Thru0 Right1 Peds0 TotalOutIn11 31 42 Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM VEHICLES Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services,Inc. 9660 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 www.alltrafficdata.net File Name : 2 GIANT&DWY2AM Site Code : Start Date : 2/24/2015 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- VEHICLES GIANT HWY Southbound Westbound GIANT HWY Northbound DRIVEWAY 2 Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Int. Total 07:00 AM 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 17 07:15 AM 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 1 0 18 07:30 AM 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 2 0 1 0 23 07:45 AM 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 1 0 0 0 1 0 37 Total 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 1 0 5 0 3 0 95 08:00 AM 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 1 0 2 0 35 08:15 AM 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 2 0 1 0 2 0 34 08:30 AM 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 0 0 1 0 28 08:45 AM 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 2 0 1 0 31 Total 3 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 3 0 4 0 6 0 128 Grand Total 13 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 4 0 9 0 9 0 223 Apprch %15.9 84.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96.7 3.3 0 50 0 50 0 Total %5.8 30.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53.4 1.8 0 4 0 4 0 GIANT HWY DRIVEWAY 2 GIANT HWY Right 13 Thru 69 Left 0 Peds 0 InOut Total 128 82 210 Right0 Thru0 Left0 Peds0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Left 4 Thru 119 Right 0 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 78 123 201 Left9 Thru0 Right9 Peds0 TotalOutIn17 18 35 2/24/2015 07:00 AM 2/24/2015 08:45 AM VEHICLES North All Traffic Data Services,Inc. 9660 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 www.alltrafficdata.net File Name : 2 GIANT&DWY2AM Site Code : Start Date : 2/24/2015 Page No : 2 GIANT HWY Southbound Westbound GIANT HWY Northbound DRIVEWAY 2 Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 1 10 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 1 0 25 0 0 1 0 1 37 08:00 AM 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 24 1 0 2 0 3 35 08:15 AM 0 16 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 2 0 15 1 0 2 0 3 34 08:30 AM 3 9 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 15 0 0 1 0 1 28 Total Volume 4 43 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 4 0 79 2 0 6 0 8 134 % App. Total 8.5 91.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94.9 5.1 0 25 0 75 0 PHF .333 .672 .000 .000 .734 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .781 .500 .000 .790 .500 .000 .750 .000 .667 .905 GIANT HWY DRIVEWAY 2 GIANT HWY Right 4 Thru 43 Left 0 Peds 0 InOut Total 81 47 128 Right0 Thru0 Left0 Peds0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Left 4 Thru 75 Right 0 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 45 79 124 Left6 Thru0 Right2 Peds0 TotalOutIn8 8 16 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM VEHICLES Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services,Inc. 9660 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 www.alltrafficdata.net File Name : 2 GIANT&DWY2PM Site Code : Start Date : 2/24/2015 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- VEHICLES GIANT HWY Southbound Westbound GIANT HWY Northbound DRIVEWAY 2 Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 3 0 0 0 5 0 35 04:15 PM 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 5 0 2 0 28 04:30 PM 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 31 04:45 PM 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 1 0 3 0 34 Total 3 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 7 0 6 0 10 0 128 05:00 PM 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 28 05:15 PM 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 3 0 0 0 34 05:30 PM 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 1 0 2 0 5 1 43 05:45 PM 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 3 0 3 0 40 Total 4 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 0 10 0 8 1 145 Grand Total 7 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 9 0 16 0 18 1 273 Apprch %7.1 92.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93.6 6.4 0 45.7 0 51.4 2.9 Total %2.6 33.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 3.3 0 5.9 0 6.6 0.4 GIANT HWY DRIVEWAY 2 GIANT HWY Right 7 Thru 91 Left 0 Peds 0 InOut Total 149 98 247 Right0 Thru0 Left0 Peds0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Left 9 Thru 131 Right 0 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 107 140 247 Left18 Thru0 Right16 Peds1 TotalOutIn16 35 51 2/24/2015 04:00 PM 2/24/2015 05:45 PM VEHICLES North All Traffic Data Services,Inc. 9660 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 www.alltrafficdata.net File Name : 2 GIANT&DWY2PM Site Code : Start Date : 2/24/2015 Page No : 2 GIANT HWY Southbound Westbound GIANT HWY Northbound DRIVEWAY 2 Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 1 13 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 2 0 0 0 2 28 05:15 PM 1 11 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 19 3 0 0 0 3 34 05:30 PM 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 1 0 26 2 0 5 1 8 43 05:45 PM 2 12 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 3 0 3 0 6 40 Total Volume 4 45 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 0 77 10 0 8 1 19 145 % App. Total 8.2 91.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97.4 2.6 0 52.6 0 42.1 5.3 PHF .500 .865 .000 .000 .875 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 .500 .000 .740 .833 .000 .400 .250 .594 .843 GIANT HWY DRIVEWAY 2 GIANT HWY Right 4 Thru 45 Left 0 Peds 0 InOut Total 83 49 132 Right0 Thru0 Left0 Peds0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Left 2 Thru 75 Right 0 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 55 77 132 Left8 Thru0 Right10 Peds1 TotalOutIn6 19 25 Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM VEHICLES Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services,Inc. 9660 W 44th Ave Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 www.alltrafficdata.net West County Detention Facility Expansion Appendix B Intersection Level of Service Calculations COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-1 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Base Volume Alternative) Existing (AM) Intersection #1: Driveway 1/Giant Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 8 50 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 4 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.005 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.3 0 0 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 1 80 0 Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 80 0 0 50 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 80 0 0 50 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume: 1 92 0 0 57 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 1 92 0 0 57 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 67 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 156 xxxx 62 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1548 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 840 xxxx 1009 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1548 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 840 xxxx 1009 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.3 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-2 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 1 80 0 0 50 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.3 xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=4] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=143] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 1 80 0 0 50 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 139 Minor Approach Volume: 4 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1223 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-3 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Base Volume Alternative) Existing (PM) Intersection #1: Driveway 1/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 8 47 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 30 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.094 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.2 0 1 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.2 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 3 65 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 65 0 0 47 8 30 0 1 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 65 0 0 47 8 30 0 1 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 3 75 0 0 55 9 35 0 1 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 3 75 0 0 55 9 35 0 1 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 xxxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 xxxxx xxxxx 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 97 70 xxxxx xxxx 71 0 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 890 825 xxxxx xxxx 824 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 823 807 xxxxx xxxx 806 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.09 xxxx xxxx 0.07 0.01 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 0.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.4 9.9 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A A * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 838 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * A * * * * * * ApproachDel: 9.9 9.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: A A * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-4 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 3 65 0 0 47 8 30 0 1 0 0 0 ApproachDel: 9.9 9.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=68] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=154] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=55] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=154] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 3 65 0 0 47 8 30 0 1 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 31 Minor Approach Volume: 68 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1868 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-5 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Base Volume Alternative) Existing (AM) Intersection #2: Driveway 2/Giant Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 4 43 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 6 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.007 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.8 0 2 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.8 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 4 75 0 Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 2 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 4 75 0 0 43 4 6 0 2 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 4 75 0 0 43 4 6 0 2 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 4 75 0 0 43 4 6 0 2 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 4 75 0 0 43 4 6 0 2 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 47 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 128 xxxx 45 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1573 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 871 xxxx 1031 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1573 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 870 xxxx 1031 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.2 xxxx 8.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * A * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.0 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-6 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 4 75 0 0 43 4 6 0 2 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.0 xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=8] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=134] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 4 75 0 0 43 4 6 0 2 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 126 Minor Approach Volume: 8 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 944 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-7 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Base Volume Alternative) Existing (PM) Intersection #2: Driveway 2/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 4 45 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 8 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.102 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.7 0 10 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 8.7 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 2 75 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 2 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 2 75 0 0 45 4 8 0 10 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 75 0 0 45 4 8 0 10 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 PHF Volume: 2 89 0 0 53 5 9 0 12 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 2 89 0 0 53 5 9 0 12 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 xxxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 xxxxx xxxxx 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 46 19 xxxxx xxxx 31 0 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 961 879 xxxxx xxxx 866 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 907 874 xxxxx xxxx 861 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.10 xxxx xxxx 0.06 0.00 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: 875 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 876 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 9.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * A * * * * * * ApproachDel: 9.6 9.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: A A * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-8 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 2 75 0 0 45 4 8 0 10 0 0 0 ApproachDel: 9.6 9.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=77] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=144] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=49] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=144] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 2 75 0 0 45 4 8 0 10 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 18 Minor Approach Volume: 77 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1669 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-9 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Base Volume Alternative) Existing (AM) Intersection #3: Atlas/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 0 3 7*** Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 10 1 Loss Time (sec): 0 1 5*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.135 1 21 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 7.9 0 3 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 7.9 1 67*** LOS: A Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 2 2 70*** Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Atlas Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 2 2 70 7 3 0 0 5 3 67 21 10 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 2 70 7 3 0 0 5 3 67 21 10 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.74 0.74 0.74 PHF Volume: 3 3 88 10 4 0 0 7 4 91 28 14 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 3 3 88 10 4 0 0 7 4 91 28 14 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 3 3 88 10 4 0 0 7 4 91 28 14 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.03 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.75 1.00 1.35 0.65 Final Sat.: 654 23 810 646 708 0 0 925 605 668 1025 524 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 8.1 7.4 7.4 8.2 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.5 7.1 8.8 7.5 7.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.1 7.4 7.4 8.2 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.5 7.1 8.8 7.5 7.1 LOS by Move: A A A A A * * A A A A A ApproachDel: 7.4 8.0 7.3 8.3 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 7.4 8.0 7.3 8.3 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Atlas/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-10 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Initial Vol: 2 2 70 7 3 0 0 5 3 67 21 10 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 106 Minor Approach Volume: 74 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1339 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-11 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Base Volume Alternative) Existing (PM) Intersection #3: Atlas/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 1 1 9*** Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 1*** 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 3 1 Loss Time (sec): 0 1 42 0 Critical V/C: 0.188 1 4 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 7.9 0 5 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 7.9 1 39*** LOS: A Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 2 2 96*** Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Atlas Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 2 2 96 9 1 1 1 42 5 39 4 3 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 2 96 9 1 1 1 42 5 39 4 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 3 3 157 16 2 2 1 56 7 44 5 3 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 3 3 157 16 2 2 1 56 7 44 5 3 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 3 3 157 16 2 2 1 56 7 44 5 3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.02 0.98 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.04 1.75 0.21 1.00 1.14 0.86 Final Sat.: 664 17 835 650 384 384 29 1244 151 625 794 661 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 8.0 7.8 7.8 8.2 7.3 7.3 7.9 7.8 7.7 8.7 7.7 7.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.0 7.8 7.8 8.2 7.3 7.3 7.9 7.8 7.7 8.7 7.7 7.2 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 7.8 8.1 7.8 8.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 7.8 8.1 7.8 8.5 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Atlas/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-12 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Initial Vol: 2 2 96 9 1 1 1 42 5 39 4 3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 111 Minor Approach Volume: 48 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1319 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-13 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative) Existing (AM) Intersection #4: Atlas/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 49 35 237*** Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 25*** 2 Cycle Time (sec): 80 1 115 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 582 3 Critical V/C: 0.583 3 1408*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 18.7 0 97 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 19.0 1 62 LOS: B Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Initial Vol: 90 13 98*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Atlas Road Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 13 98 237 35 49 25 582 97 62 1408 115 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 90 13 98 237 35 49 25 582 97 62 1408 115 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 95 14 103 249 37 52 26 613 102 65 1482 121 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 95 14 103 249 37 52 26 613 102 65 1482 121 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 95 14 103 249 37 52 26 613 102 65 1482 121 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.14 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.29 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.39 0.39 0.12 0.49 0.49 Volume/Cap: 0.24 0.07 0.58 0.58 0.15 0.24 0.58 0.31 0.16 0.31 0.58 0.15 Delay/Veh: 26.3 32.1 38.8 29.1 31.1 31.8 57.2 17.2 16.3 33.1 14.9 11.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 26.3 32.1 38.8 29.1 31.1 31.8 57.2 17.2 16.3 33.1 14.9 11.3 LOS by Move: C C D C C C E B B C B B HCM2kAvgQ: 2 0 3 6 1 1 1 4 2 2 10 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-14 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative) Existing (PM) Intersection #4: Atlas/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 30 26 173*** Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 39 2 Cycle Time (sec): 110 1 109 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 2701*** 3 Critical V/C: 0.886 3 515 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 29.6 0 218 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 26.2 1 67*** LOS: C Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Initial Vol: 52 8 155*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Atlas Road Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 52 8 155 173 26 30 39 2701 218 67 515 109 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 52 8 155 173 26 30 39 2701 218 67 515 109 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 55 8 163 182 27 32 41 2843 229 71 542 115 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 55 8 163 182 27 32 41 2843 229 71 542 115 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 55 8 163 182 27 32 41 2843 229 71 542 115 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.55 0.14 0.04 0.10 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.62 0.62 0.04 0.60 0.60 Volume/Cap: 0.22 0.04 0.89 0.89 0.16 0.22 0.18 0.89 0.23 0.89 0.18 0.12 Delay/Veh: 42.5 43.4 84.3 81.6 46.7 47.3 48.8 21.0 9.4 116.2 10.0 9.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.5 43.4 84.3 81.6 46.7 47.3 48.8 21.0 9.4 116.2 10.0 9.7 LOS by Move: D D F F D D D C A F B A HCM2kAvgQ: 2 0 8 9 1 1 1 33 3 5 3 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-15 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative) Existing (AM) Intersection #5: San Pablo/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 619*** 759 268 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Initial Vol: 157*** 2 Cycle Time (sec): 120 1 276 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 697 2 Critical V/C: 0.746 3 981*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 39.9 0 29 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 33.3 2 114 LOS: C Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Initial Vol: 37*** 250 43 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: San Pablo Avenue Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 37 250 43 268 759 619 157 697 29 114 981 276 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 37 250 43 268 759 619 157 697 29 114 981 276 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 39 263 45 282 799 652 165 734 31 120 1033 291 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 263 45 282 799 652 165 734 31 120 1033 291 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 39 263 45 282 799 652 165 734 31 120 1033 291 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.88 0.12 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 3502 4950 206 3502 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.16 0.22 0.40 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.20 0.18 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.39 0.54 0.54 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.27 0.66 Volume/Cap: 0.75 0.40 0.15 0.40 0.41 0.75 0.75 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.27 Delay/Veh: 101.9 43.8 41.6 27.0 16.4 24.7 68.2 38.2 38.2 57.7 42.5 8.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 101.9 43.8 41.6 27.0 16.4 24.7 68.2 38.2 38.2 57.7 42.5 8.8 LOS by Move: F D D C B C E D D E D A HCM2kAvgQ: 3 5 1 7 9 19 5 9 9 3 14 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-16 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative) Existing (PM) Intersection #5: San Pablo/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 137 287 156*** Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Initial Vol: 876*** 2 Cycle Time (sec): 160 1 322*** 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 1504 2 Critical V/C: 0.770 3 536 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 55.5 0 19 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 49.1 2 95 LOS: D Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Initial Vol: 24 819*** 107 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: San Pablo Avenue Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 819 107 156 287 137 876 1504 19 95 536 322 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 24 819 107 156 287 137 876 1504 19 95 536 322 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 25 862 113 164 302 144 922 1583 20 100 564 339 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 862 113 164 302 144 922 1583 20 100 564 339 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 25 862 113 164 302 144 922 1583 20 100 564 339 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.96 0.04 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 3502 5112 65 3502 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.24 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.26 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.11 0.21 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.12 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.45 0.45 0.04 0.15 0.27 Volume/Cap: 0.24 0.77 0.22 0.77 0.23 0.24 0.77 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.70 0.77 Delay/Veh: 73.2 53.3 41.1 84.1 34.7 35.0 50.1 35.3 35.3 87.9 67.0 61.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 73.2 53.3 41.1 84.1 34.7 35.0 50.1 35.3 35.3 87.9 67.0 61.6 LOS by Move: E D D F C D D D D F E E HCM2kAvgQ: 1 21 4 9 5 5 22 23 23 4 11 17 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-17 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative) Existing (AM) Intersection #6: Giant/Richmond Ramps Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 0 63 88*** Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec): 60 1 32 0 Loss Time (sec): 6 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.209 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 15.5 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 13.8 1 95*** LOS: B Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 37*** 96 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Rd Richmond Parkway Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 37 96 88 63 0 0 0 0 95 0 32 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 37 96 88 63 0 0 0 0 95 0 32 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 39 101 93 66 0 0 0 0 100 0 34 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 39 101 93 66 0 0 0 0 100 0 34 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 39 101 93 66 0 0 0 0 100 0 34 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.28 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 477 1238 1805 1900 0 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.25 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.08 Delay/Veh: 0.0 12.3 12.3 18.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 16.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 12.3 12.3 18.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 16.6 LOS by Move: A B B B A A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:37:22 2015 Page 2-18 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative) Existing (PM) Intersection #6: Giant/Richmond Ramps Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 0 43 37*** Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec): 60 1 51 0 Loss Time (sec): 6 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.195 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 12.1 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 12.0 1 77*** LOS: B Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 82*** 100 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Rd Richmond Parkway Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 82 100 37 43 0 0 0 0 77 0 51 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 82 100 37 43 0 0 0 0 77 0 51 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 86 105 39 45 0 0 0 0 81 0 54 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 86 105 39 45 0 0 0 0 81 0 54 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 86 105 39 45 0 0 0 0 81 0 54 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.45 0.55 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 793 967 1805 1900 0 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.11 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.14 Delay/Veh: 0.0 6.7 6.7 24.7 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 18.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 6.7 6.7 24.7 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 18.6 LOS by Move: A A A C A A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-1 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + Project (AM) Intersection #1: Driveway 1/Giant Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 15 53 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 10 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.014 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.7 0 0 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.7 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 2 85 0 Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 80 0 0 50 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 80 0 0 50 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 1 5 0 0 3 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 2 85 0 0 53 15 10 0 0 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume: 2 97 0 0 61 17 11 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 2 97 0 0 61 17 11 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 78 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 171 xxxx 69 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1533 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 823 xxxx 999 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1533 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 822 xxxx 999 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.4 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-2 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 2 85 0 0 53 15 10 0 0 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.4 xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=10] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=165] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 2 85 0 0 53 15 10 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 155 Minor Approach Volume: 10 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1176 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-3 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + Project (PM) Intersection #1: Driveway 1/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 13 50 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 36 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.107 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.3 0 1 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.3 0 0 LOS: B Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 4 73 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 65 0 0 47 8 30 0 1 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 65 0 0 47 8 30 0 1 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 1 8 0 0 3 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 4 73 0 0 50 13 36 0 1 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 5 85 0 0 58 15 42 0 1 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 5 85 0 0 58 15 42 0 1 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 xxxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 xxxxx xxxxx 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 113 84 xxxxx xxxx 85 0 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 870 810 xxxxx xxxx 809 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 794 790 xxxxx xxxx 789 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.01 0.11 xxxx xxxx 0.07 0.01 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 0.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.6 10.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A B * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 836 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * A * * * * * * ApproachDel: 10.1 9.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B A * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-4 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 4 73 0 0 50 13 36 0 1 0 0 0 ApproachDel: 10.1 9.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=77] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=177] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=63] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=177] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 4 73 0 0 50 13 36 0 1 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 37 Minor Approach Volume: 77 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1792 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-5 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + Project (AM) Intersection #2: Driveway 2/Giant Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 7 43 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 11 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.013 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.3 0 5 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.3 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 7 76 0 Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 2 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 4 75 0 0 43 4 6 0 2 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 4 75 0 0 43 4 6 0 2 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 3 1 0 0 0 3 5 0 3 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 7 76 0 0 43 7 11 0 5 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 7 76 0 0 43 7 11 0 5 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 7 76 0 0 43 7 11 0 5 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 50 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 137 xxxx 47 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1570 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 862 xxxx 1029 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1570 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 859 xxxx 1029 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.2 xxxx 8.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * A * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.0 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-6 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 7 76 0 0 43 7 11 0 5 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.0 xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=16] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=149] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 7 76 0 0 43 7 11 0 5 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 133 Minor Approach Volume: 16 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 927 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-7 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + Project (PM) Intersection #2: Driveway 2/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 7 45 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 16 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.106 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.5 0 15 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 8.5 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 3 76 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 2 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 2 75 0 0 45 4 8 0 10 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 75 0 0 45 4 8 0 10 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 1 1 0 0 0 3 8 0 5 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 76 0 0 45 7 16 0 15 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 PHF Volume: 4 90 0 0 53 8 19 0 18 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 4 90 0 0 53 8 19 0 18 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 xxxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 xxxxx xxxxx 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 65 38 xxxxx xxxx 56 0 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 934 858 xxxxx xxxx 839 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 874 848 xxxxx xxxx 830 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.11 xxxx xxxx 0.06 0.01 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: 849 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 857 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 9.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * A * * * * * * ApproachDel: 9.8 9.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: A A * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-8 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 3 76 0 0 45 7 16 0 15 0 0 0 ApproachDel: 9.8 9.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=79] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=162] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=52] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=162] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 3 76 0 0 45 7 16 0 15 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 31 Minor Approach Volume: 79 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1482 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-9 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + Project (AM) Intersection #3: Atlas/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 0 3 7*** Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 10 1 Loss Time (sec): 0 1 5*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.156 1 21 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.1 0 3 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 8.1 1 77*** LOS: A Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 2 2 77*** Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Atlas Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 2 2 70 7 3 0 0 5 3 67 21 10 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 2 70 7 3 0 0 5 3 67 21 10 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 Initial Fut: 2 2 77 7 3 0 0 5 3 77 21 10 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.74 0.74 0.74 PHF Volume: 3 3 96 10 4 0 0 7 4 104 28 14 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 3 3 96 10 4 0 0 7 4 104 28 14 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 3 3 96 10 4 0 0 7 4 104 28 14 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.03 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.75 1.00 1.35 0.65 Final Sat.: 649 21 804 639 700 0 0 916 599 666 1017 520 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 8.1 7.5 7.5 8.3 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.5 7.1 9.0 7.5 7.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.1 7.5 7.5 8.3 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.5 7.1 9.0 7.5 7.2 LOS by Move: A A A A A * * A A A A A ApproachDel: 7.5 8.1 7.4 8.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 7.5 8.1 7.4 8.5 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Atlas/Giant ******************************************************************************** COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-10 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Initial Vol: 2 2 77 7 3 0 0 5 3 77 21 10 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 116 Minor Approach Volume: 81 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1300 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-11 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + Project (PM) Intersection #3: Atlas/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 1 1 9*** Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 1*** 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 3 1 Loss Time (sec): 0 1 42 0 Critical V/C: 0.217 1 4 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.1 0 5 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 8.1 1 47*** LOS: A Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 2 2 110*** Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Atlas Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 2 2 96 9 1 1 1 42 5 39 4 3 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 2 96 9 1 1 1 42 5 39 4 3 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 Initial Fut: 2 2 110 9 1 1 1 42 5 47 4 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 3 3 180 16 2 2 1 56 7 53 5 3 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 3 3 180 16 2 2 1 56 7 53 5 3 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 3 3 180 16 2 2 1 56 7 53 5 3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.02 0.98 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.04 1.75 0.21 1.00 1.14 0.86 Final Sat.: 661 15 831 644 379 379 29 1222 148 617 782 650 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 8.1 8.0 8.0 8.3 7.3 7.3 8.0 7.9 7.8 8.8 7.8 7.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 8.1 8.0 8.0 8.3 7.3 7.3 8.0 7.9 7.8 8.8 7.8 7.2 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 8.0 8.1 7.9 8.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 8.0 8.1 7.9 8.7 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Atlas/Giant ******************************************************************************** COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-12 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Initial Vol: 2 2 110 9 1 1 1 42 5 47 4 3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 125 Minor Approach Volume: 54 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1268 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-13 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + Project (AM) Intersection #4: Atlas/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 49 35 244*** Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 25*** 2 Cycle Time (sec): 80 1 125 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 582 3 Critical V/C: 0.588 3 1408*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 19.0 0 97 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 19.2 1 62 LOS: B Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Initial Vol: 90 13 98*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Atlas Road Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 13 98 237 35 49 25 582 97 62 1408 115 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 90 13 98 237 35 49 25 582 97 62 1408 115 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Initial Fut: 90 13 98 244 35 49 25 582 97 62 1408 125 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 95 14 103 257 37 52 26 613 102 65 1482 132 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 95 14 103 257 37 52 26 613 102 65 1482 132 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 95 14 103 257 37 52 26 613 102 65 1482 132 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.14 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.29 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.12 0.49 0.49 Volume/Cap: 0.24 0.07 0.59 0.59 0.15 0.24 0.59 0.31 0.17 0.31 0.59 0.17 Delay/Veh: 26.1 32.1 39.1 28.9 30.9 31.7 58.0 17.4 16.4 33.2 15.1 11.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 26.1 32.1 39.1 28.9 30.9 31.7 58.0 17.4 16.4 33.2 15.1 11.6 LOS by Move: C C D C C C E B B C B B HCM2kAvgQ: 2 0 3 6 1 1 1 4 2 2 10 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-14 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + Project (PM) Intersection #4: Atlas/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 30 26 187*** Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 39 2 Cycle Time (sec): 110 1 117 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 2701*** 3 Critical V/C: 0.895 3 515 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 30.9 0 218 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 27.2 1 67*** LOS: C Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Initial Vol: 52 8 155*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Atlas Road Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 52 8 155 173 26 30 39 2701 218 67 515 109 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 52 8 155 173 26 30 39 2701 218 67 515 109 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Initial Fut: 52 8 155 187 26 30 39 2701 218 67 515 117 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 55 8 163 197 27 32 41 2843 229 71 542 123 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 55 8 163 197 27 32 41 2843 229 71 542 123 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 55 8 163 197 27 32 41 2843 229 71 542 123 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.55 0.14 0.04 0.10 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.61 0.61 0.04 0.59 0.59 Volume/Cap: 0.21 0.04 0.89 0.89 0.16 0.21 0.18 0.89 0.23 0.89 0.18 0.13 Delay/Veh: 42.1 43.6 86.7 81.4 46.4 47.0 48.9 22.0 9.7 119.3 10.4 10.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.1 43.6 86.7 81.4 46.4 47.0 48.9 22.0 9.7 119.3 10.4 10.1 LOS by Move: D D F F D D D C A F B B HCM2kAvgQ: 2 0 8 10 1 1 1 33 3 5 3 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-15 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + Project (AM) Intersection #5: San Pablo/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 622*** 759 268 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Initial Vol: 159*** 2 Cycle Time (sec): 120 1 276 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 701 2 Critical V/C: 0.751 3 987*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 40.1 0 30 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 33.4 2 114 LOS: C Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Initial Vol: 38*** 250 43 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: San Pablo Avenue Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 37 250 43 268 759 619 157 697 29 114 981 276 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 37 250 43 268 759 619 157 697 29 114 981 276 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 4 1 0 6 0 Initial Fut: 38 250 43 268 759 622 159 701 30 114 987 276 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 40 263 45 282 799 655 167 738 32 120 1039 291 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 40 263 45 282 799 655 167 738 32 120 1039 291 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 40 263 45 282 799 655 167 738 32 120 1039 291 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.88 0.12 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 3502 4944 212 3502 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.16 0.22 0.41 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.20 0.18 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.39 0.54 0.54 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.27 0.66 Volume/Cap: 0.75 0.40 0.15 0.40 0.41 0.75 0.75 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.75 0.27 Delay/Veh: 102.3 43.8 41.6 27.0 16.4 25.0 68.5 38.2 38.2 57.9 42.7 8.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 102.3 43.8 41.6 27.0 16.4 25.0 68.5 38.2 38.2 57.9 42.7 8.8 LOS by Move: F D D C B C E D D E D A HCM2kAvgQ: 3 5 1 7 9 20 5 9 9 3 14 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-16 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + Project (PM) Intersection #5: San Pablo/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 139 287 156*** Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Initial Vol: 880*** 2 Cycle Time (sec): 160 1 322*** 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 1513 2 Critical V/C: 0.771 3 541 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 55.5 0 20 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 49.1 2 95 LOS: D Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Initial Vol: 25 819*** 107 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: San Pablo Avenue Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 819 107 156 287 137 876 1504 19 95 536 322 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 24 819 107 156 287 137 876 1504 19 95 536 322 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 9 1 0 5 0 Initial Fut: 25 819 107 156 287 139 880 1513 20 95 541 322 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 26 862 113 164 302 146 926 1593 21 100 569 339 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 26 862 113 164 302 146 926 1593 21 100 569 339 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 26 862 113 164 302 146 926 1593 21 100 569 339 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.96 0.04 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 3502 5109 68 3502 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.24 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.26 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.11 0.21 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.12 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.46 0.46 0.04 0.15 0.27 Volume/Cap: 0.25 0.77 0.23 0.77 0.23 0.25 0.77 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.71 0.77 Delay/Veh: 73.0 53.4 41.2 84.2 34.9 35.3 50.1 35.3 35.3 88.2 67.3 61.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 73.0 53.4 41.2 84.2 34.9 35.3 50.1 35.3 35.3 88.2 67.3 61.8 LOS by Move: E D D F C D D D D F E E HCM2kAvgQ: 1 21 4 9 5 5 22 23 23 4 11 17 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-17 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + Project (AM) Intersection #6: Giant/Richmond Ramps Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 0 64 90*** Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec): 60 1 35 0 Loss Time (sec): 6 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.211 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 15.5 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 13.9 1 95*** LOS: B Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 38*** 96 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Rd Richmond Parkway Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 37 96 88 63 0 0 0 0 95 0 32 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 37 96 88 63 0 0 0 0 95 0 32 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Initial Fut: 0 38 96 90 64 0 0 0 0 95 0 35 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 40 101 95 67 0 0 0 0 100 0 37 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 40 101 95 67 0 0 0 0 100 0 37 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 40 101 95 67 0 0 0 0 100 0 37 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.28 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 487 1229 1805 1900 0 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.25 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.09 Delay/Veh: 0.0 12.4 12.4 18.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 16.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 12.4 12.4 18.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 16.8 LOS by Move: A B B B A A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 11:38:22 2015 Page 2-18 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose West County Detention Facility Expansion Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing + Project (PM) Intersection #6: Giant/Richmond Ramps Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 0 44 41*** Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec): 60 1 52 0 Loss Time (sec): 6 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.198 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 12.3 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 12.2 1 77*** LOS: B Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 83*** 100 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Rd Richmond Parkway Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 82 100 37 43 0 0 0 0 77 0 51 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 82 100 37 43 0 0 0 0 77 0 51 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Initial Fut: 0 83 100 41 44 0 0 0 0 77 0 52 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 87 105 43 46 0 0 0 0 81 0 55 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 87 105 43 46 0 0 0 0 81 0 55 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 87 105 43 46 0 0 0 0 81 0 55 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.45 0.55 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 798 961 1805 1900 0 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.12 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.15 Delay/Veh: 0.0 6.8 6.8 24.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 18.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 6.8 6.8 24.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 18.8 LOS by Move: A A A C A A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-1 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Base Volume Alternative) Cumulative (AM) Intersection #1: Driveway 1/Giant Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 8 96 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 4 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.006 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.4 0 4 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.4 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 1 115 0 Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 115 0 0 96 8 4 0 4 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 115 0 0 96 8 4 0 4 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume: 1 132 0 0 110 9 5 0 5 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 1 132 0 0 110 9 5 0 5 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 119 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 249 xxxx 115 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1481 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 744 xxxx 943 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1481 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 744 xxxx 943 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.9 xxxx 8.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * A * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.4 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-2 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 1 115 0 0 96 8 4 0 4 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.4 xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=8] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=228] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 1 115 0 0 96 8 4 0 4 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 220 Minor Approach Volume: 8 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-3 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Base Volume Alternative) Cumulative (PM) Intersection #1: Driveway 1/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 8 73 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 30 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.178 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.4 0 12 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.4 0 0 LOS: B Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 3 124 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 124 0 0 73 8 30 0 12 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 124 0 0 73 8 30 0 12 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 3 144 0 0 85 9 35 0 14 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 3 144 0 0 85 9 35 0 14 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 xxxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 xxxxx xxxxx 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 112 70 xxxxx xxxx 84 0 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 870 825 xxxxx xxxx 810 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 780 807 xxxxx xxxx 793 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.18 xxxx xxxx 0.11 0.01 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 0.6 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.6 10.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A B * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 815 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.0 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * A * * * * * * ApproachDel: 10.4 10.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B A * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-4 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 3 124 0 0 73 8 30 0 12 0 0 0 ApproachDel: 10.4 10.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.4] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=127] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=250] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=81] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=250] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 3 124 0 0 73 8 30 0 12 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 42 Minor Approach Volume: 127 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1737 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-5 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Base Volume Alternative) Cumulative (AM) Intersection #2: Driveway 2/Giant Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 4 100 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 6 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.008 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.6 0 6 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.6 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 4 109 0 Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 2 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 4 109 0 0 100 4 6 0 6 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 4 109 0 0 100 4 6 0 6 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 4 109 0 0 100 4 6 0 6 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 4 109 0 0 100 4 6 0 6 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 104 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 219 xxxx 102 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1500 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 774 xxxx 959 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1500 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 772 xxxx 959 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.7 xxxx 8.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * A * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.2 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-6 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 4 109 0 0 100 4 6 0 6 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.2 xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=12] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=229] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 4 109 0 0 100 4 6 0 6 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 217 Minor Approach Volume: 12 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 773 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-7 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Base Volume Alternative) Cumulative (PM) Intersection #2: Driveway 2/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 4 85 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 8 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.157 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.9 0 21 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 8.9 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 2 116 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 2 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 2 116 0 0 85 4 8 0 21 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 116 0 0 85 4 8 0 21 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 PHF Volume: 2 138 0 0 101 5 9 0 25 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 2 138 0 0 101 5 9 0 25 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 xxxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 xxxxx xxxxx 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 69 19 xxxxx xxxx 44 0 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 928 879 xxxxx xxxx 852 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 836 874 xxxxx xxxx 847 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.16 xxxx xxxx 0.12 0.00 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: 873 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 856 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 9.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * A * * * * * * ApproachDel: 9.9 9.8 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: A A * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-8 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 2 116 0 0 85 4 8 0 21 0 0 0 ApproachDel: 9.9 9.8 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=118] SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=236] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=89] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=236] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 2 116 0 0 85 4 8 0 21 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 29 Minor Approach Volume: 118 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1505 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-9 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Base Volume Alternative) Cumulative (AM) Intersection #3: Atlas/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 1 7 30*** Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 58 1 Loss Time (sec): 0 1 60*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.201 1 142*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.0 0 12 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.0 1 77 LOS: A Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 24 10 81*** Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Atlas Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 10 81 30 7 1 0 60 12 77 142 58 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 24 10 81 30 7 1 0 60 12 77 142 58 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.74 0.74 0.74 PHF Volume: 30 13 101 43 10 1 0 90 18 104 192 78 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 30 13 101 43 10 1 0 90 18 104 192 78 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 30 13 101 43 10 1 0 90 18 104 192 78 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.11 0.89 1.00 0.87 0.13 0.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 1.42 0.58 Final Sat.: 549 73 592 537 514 73 0 1071 220 602 954 411 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.02 0.02 xxxx 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.20 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 9.3 8.8 8.8 9.5 8.5 8.5 0.0 8.5 8.3 9.7 9.2 8.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 9.3 8.8 8.8 9.5 8.5 8.5 0.0 8.5 8.3 9.7 9.2 8.7 LOS by Move: A A A A A A * A A A A A ApproachDel: 8.9 9.3 8.5 9.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 8.9 9.3 8.5 9.2 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Atlas/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-10 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Initial Vol: 24 10 81 30 7 1 0 60 12 77 142 58 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 349 Minor Approach Volume: 115 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 827 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-11 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Base Volume Alternative) Cumulative (PM) Intersection #3: Atlas/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 1 10 61*** Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 1*** 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 26 1 Loss Time (sec): 0 1 117 0 Critical V/C: 0.272 1 61 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.3 0 29 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.3 1 45*** LOS: A Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 13 6 110*** Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Atlas Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 13 6 110 61 10 1 1 117 29 45 61 26 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 13 6 110 61 10 1 1 117 29 45 61 26 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 21 10 180 111 18 2 1 156 39 51 69 30 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 21 10 180 111 18 2 1 156 39 51 69 30 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 21 10 180 111 18 2 1 156 39 51 69 30 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.05 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.09 0.01 1.60 0.39 1.00 1.40 0.60 Final Sat.: 567 36 663 561 556 56 8 994 254 533 824 369 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.10 0.08 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 9.0 9.3 9.3 10.3 8.4 8.4 9.3 9.1 8.9 9.7 9.0 8.6 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 9.0 9.3 9.3 10.3 8.4 8.4 9.3 9.1 8.9 9.7 9.0 8.6 LOS by Move: A A A B A A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 9.3 10.0 9.1 9.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 9.3 10.0 9.1 9.2 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Atlas/Giant ******************************************************************************** Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-12 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Initial Vol: 13 6 110 61 10 1 1 117 29 45 61 26 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 279 Minor Approach Volume: 129 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 923 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-13 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative) Cumulative (AM) Intersection #4: Atlas/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 62 42 306*** Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 42*** 2 Cycle Time (sec): 120 1 233 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 815 3 Critical V/C: 0.835 3 2252*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 30.8 0 136 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 29.1 1 99 LOS: C Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Initial Vol: 90 13 98*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Atlas Road Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 13 98 306 42 62 42 815 136 99 2252 233 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 90 13 98 306 42 62 42 815 136 99 2252 233 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 100 14 109 340 47 69 47 906 151 110 2502 259 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 100 14 109 340 47 69 47 906 151 110 2502 259 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 100 14 109 340 47 69 47 906 151 110 2502 259 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.19 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.17 0.09 0.06 0.48 0.16 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.23 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.44 0.44 0.15 0.58 0.58 Volume/Cap: 0.32 0.09 0.84 0.84 0.18 0.32 0.84 0.40 0.21 0.40 0.84 0.28 Delay/Veh: 44.0 51.4 89.3 58.2 46.6 47.9 123.2 22.9 20.9 46.7 22.8 12.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 44.0 51.4 89.3 58.2 46.6 47.9 123.2 22.9 20.9 46.7 22.8 12.9 LOS by Move: D D F E D D F C C D C B HCM2kAvgQ: 3 1 6 14 2 3 2 8 3 4 29 5 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-14 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative) Cumulative (PM) Intersection #4: Atlas/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 97 78 572*** Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 50 2 Cycle Time (sec): 180 1 153 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 2692*** 3 Critical V/C: 1.162 3 618 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 134.5 0 283 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 107.0 1 80*** LOS: F Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Initial Vol: 52 8 155*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Atlas Road Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 52 8 155 572 78 97 50 2692 283 80 618 153 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 52 8 155 572 78 97 50 2692 283 80 618 153 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 58 9 172 636 87 108 56 2991 314 89 687 170 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 58 9 172 636 87 108 56 2991 314 89 687 170 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 58 9 172 636 87 108 56 2991 314 89 687 170 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.35 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.58 0.19 0.05 0.13 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.30 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.04 0.48 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.25 0.05 1.16 1.16 0.17 0.25 0.28 1.16 0.39 1.16 0.28 0.22 Delay/Veh: 71.3 74.7 205.9 154.5 50.9 52.2 82.0 123 28.7 239.4 28.0 27.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 71.3 74.7 205.9 154.5 50.9 52.2 82.0 123 28.7 239.4 28.0 27.2 LOS by Move: E E F F D D F F C F C C HCM2kAvgQ: 3 0 15 48 4 5 2 79 10 9 8 5 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-15 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative) Cumulative (AM) Intersection #5: San Pablo/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 879*** 1062 375 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Initial Vol: 184*** 2 Cycle Time (sec): 180 1 524 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 807 2 Critical V/C: 1.223 3 1892*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 169.9 0 36 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 103.7 2 216 LOS: F Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Initial Vol: 118*** 750 129 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: San Pablo Avenue Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 118 750 129 375 1062 879 184 807 36 216 1892 524 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 118 750 129 375 1062 879 184 807 36 216 1892 524 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 131 833 143 417 1180 977 204 897 40 240 2102 582 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 131 833 143 417 1180 977 204 897 40 240 2102 582 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 131 833 143 417 1180 977 204 897 40 240 2102 582 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.87 0.13 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 3502 4936 220 3502 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.23 0.09 0.23 0.33 0.60 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.41 0.36 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.49 0.49 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.33 0.61 Volume/Cap: 1.22 0.83 0.32 0.83 0.66 1.22 1.22 0.66 0.66 0.66 1.22 0.59 Delay/Veh: 243.1 67.3 52.0 72.6 35.1 156.8 227.6 58.9 58.9 82.0 166 22.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 243.1 67.3 52.0 72.6 35.1 156.8 227.6 58.9 58.9 82.0 166 22.5 LOS by Move: F E D E D F F E E F F C HCM2kAvgQ: 12 24 6 23 25 76 10 17 17 8 60 19 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-16 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative) Cumulative (PM) Intersection #5: San Pablo/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 280 574 312*** Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Initial Vol: 1030*** 2 Cycle Time (sec): 180 1 418 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 1776 2 Critical V/C: 1.096 3 705*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 127.2 0 29 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 94.6 2 124 LOS: F Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Initial Vol: 36 1146*** 150 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: San Pablo Avenue Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 36 1146 150 312 574 280 1030 1776 29 124 705 418 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 36 1146 150 312 574 280 1030 1776 29 124 705 418 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 40 1273 167 347 638 311 1144 1973 32 138 783 464 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 40 1273 167 347 638 311 1144 1973 32 138 783 464 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 40 1273 167 347 638 311 1144 1973 32 138 783 464 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.95 0.05 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 3502 5093 83 3502 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.35 0.10 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.33 0.39 0.39 0.04 0.15 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.18 0.45 0.45 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.04 0.14 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.43 1.10 0.32 1.10 0.40 0.43 1.10 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.10 0.92 Delay/Veh: 86.1 118 46.5 152.9 33.7 34.6 120.9 68.7 68.7 155.4 140 81.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 86.1 118 46.5 152.9 33.7 34.6 120.9 68.7 68.7 155.4 140 81.4 LOS by Move: F F D F C C F E E F F F HCM2kAvgQ: 3 47 7 26 12 11 42 45 45 6 22 28 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-17 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative) Cumulative (AM) Intersection #6: Giant/Richmond Ramps Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 0 76 110*** Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec): 60 1 58 0 Loss Time (sec): 6 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.251 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 15.7 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 14.2 1 109*** LOS: B Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 51*** 110 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Rd Richmond Parkway Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 51 110 110 76 0 0 0 0 109 0 58 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 51 110 110 76 0 0 0 0 109 0 58 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 54 116 116 80 0 0 0 0 115 0 61 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 54 116 116 80 0 0 0 0 115 0 61 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 54 116 116 80 0 0 0 0 115 0 61 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.32 0.68 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 546 1179 1805 1900 0 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.26 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.15 Delay/Veh: 0.0 12.5 12.5 18.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 17.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 12.5 12.5 18.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 17.6 LOS by Move: A B B B A A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:53:27 2015 Page 2-18 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Base Volume Alternative) Cumulative (PM) Intersection #6: Giant/Richmond Ramps Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 0 62 63*** Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec): 60 1 67 0 Loss Time (sec): 6 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.247 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 13.0 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 12.7 1 89*** LOS: B Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 110*** 115 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Rd Richmond Parkway Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 110 115 63 62 0 0 0 0 89 0 67 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 110 115 63 62 0 0 0 0 89 0 67 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 116 121 66 65 0 0 0 0 94 0 71 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 116 121 66 65 0 0 0 0 94 0 71 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 116 121 66 65 0 0 0 0 94 0 71 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.49 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 865 904 1805 1900 0 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.15 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.21 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.21 Delay/Veh: 0.0 7.4 7.4 23.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 19.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 7.4 7.4 23.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 19.9 LOS by Move: A A A C A A A A A C A B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-1 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Cumulative Project (AM) Intersection #1: Driveway 1/Giant Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 15 99 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 6 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.009 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.4 0 4 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.4 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 2 120 0 Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 115 0 0 96 8 4 0 4 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 115 0 0 96 8 4 0 4 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 1 5 0 0 3 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 2 120 0 0 99 15 6 0 4 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume: 2 138 0 0 114 17 7 0 5 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 2 138 0 0 114 17 7 0 5 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 131 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 264 xxxx 122 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1467 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 729 xxxx 934 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1467 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 728 xxxx 934 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 10.0 xxxx 8.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * A * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.5 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-2 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 2 120 0 0 99 15 6 0 4 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.5 xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.0] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=10] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=246] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 2 120 0 0 99 15 6 0 4 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 236 Minor Approach Volume: 10 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 995 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-3 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Cumulative Project (PM) Intersection #1: Driveway 1/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 13 76 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 36 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.194 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.5 0 12 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.5 0 0 LOS: B Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 Initial Vol: 4 132 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 124 0 0 73 8 30 0 12 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 124 0 0 73 8 30 0 12 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 1 8 0 0 3 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 4 132 0 0 76 13 36 0 12 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 5 153 0 0 88 15 42 0 14 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 5 153 0 0 88 15 42 0 14 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 xxxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 xxxxx xxxxx 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 128 84 xxxxx xxxx 98 0 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 850 810 xxxxx xxxx 796 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 751 790 xxxxx xxxx 776 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.01 0.19 xxxx xxxx 0.11 0.01 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 0.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.8 10.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A B * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 810 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * B * * * * * * ApproachDel: 10.6 10.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B B * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-4 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 4 132 0 0 76 13 36 0 12 0 0 0 ApproachDel: 10.6 10.1 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.4] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=136] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=273] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.2] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=89] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=273] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Driveway 1/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 4 132 0 0 76 13 36 0 12 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 48 Minor Approach Volume: 136 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1680 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-5 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Cumulative Project (AM) Intersection #2: Driveway 2/Giant Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 7 100 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 11 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.014 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.0 0 9 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.0 0 0 LOS: A Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 7 110 0 Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 2 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 4 109 0 0 100 4 6 0 6 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 4 109 0 0 100 4 6 0 6 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 3 1 0 0 0 3 5 0 3 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 7 110 0 0 100 7 11 0 9 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 7 110 0 0 100 7 11 0 9 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 7 110 0 0 100 7 11 0 9 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 107 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 228 xxxx 104 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1497 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 765 xxxx 957 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1497 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 762 xxxx 957 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.8 xxxx 8.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * A * A * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.3 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-6 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 7 110 0 0 100 7 11 0 9 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.3 xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 5 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=20] FAIL - Approach volume less than 150 for two or more lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=244] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 7 110 0 0 100 7 11 0 9 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 224 Minor Approach Volume: 20 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 763 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-7 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative) Cumulative Project (PM) Intersection #2: Driveway 2/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 7 85 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Signal=Uncontrol Signal=Uncontrol Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 16 1 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 0 0 Loss Time (sec): 0 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.164 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 8.8 0 26 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 8.8 0 0 LOS: B Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 3 117 0 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Driveway 2 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 2 116 0 0 85 4 8 0 21 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 116 0 0 85 4 8 0 21 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 1 1 0 0 0 3 8 0 5 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 117 0 0 85 7 16 0 26 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 PHF Volume: 4 139 0 0 101 8 19 0 31 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 4 139 0 0 101 8 19 0 31 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 7.1 6.5 xxxxx xxxxx 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 3.5 4.0 xxxxx xxxxx 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 88 38 xxxxx xxxx 69 0 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 902 858 xxxxx xxxx 826 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 803 848 xxxxx xxxx 816 1091 1636 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.16 xxxx xxxx 0.12 0.01 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * A * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: 847 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 832 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 10.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.0 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: B * * * * A * * * * * * ApproachDel: 10.1 10.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B A * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-8 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 3 117 0 0 85 7 16 0 26 0 0 0 ApproachDel: 10.1 10.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[northbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=120] SUCCEED - Approach volume greater than or equal to 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=254] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approach[southbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign] Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.3] FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=92] FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach. Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=254] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection with less than four approaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Driveway 2/Giant ******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 3 117 0 0 85 7 16 0 26 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 42 Minor Approach Volume: 120 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1377 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-9 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative) Cumulative Project (AM) Intersection #3: Atlas/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 1 7 30*** Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 58 1 Loss Time (sec): 0 1 60*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.202 1 142*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.1 0 12 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.1 1 87 LOS: A Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 24 10*** 88 Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Atlas Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 10 81 30 7 1 0 60 12 77 142 58 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 24 10 81 30 7 1 0 60 12 77 142 58 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 Initial Fut: 24 10 88 30 7 1 0 60 12 87 142 58 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.74 0.74 0.74 PHF Volume: 30 13 110 43 10 1 0 90 18 118 192 78 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 30 13 110 43 10 1 0 90 18 118 192 78 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 30 13 110 43 10 1 0 90 18 118 192 78 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.10 0.90 1.00 0.87 0.13 0.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 1.42 0.58 Final Sat.: 546 68 594 533 510 73 0 1060 217 599 949 409 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.08 0.02 0.02 xxxx 0.08 0.08 0.20 0.20 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 9.3 8.9 8.9 9.6 8.6 8.6 0.0 8.6 8.4 9.9 9.2 8.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 9.3 8.9 8.9 9.6 8.6 8.6 0.0 8.6 8.4 9.9 9.2 8.8 LOS by Move: A A A A A A * A A A A A ApproachDel: 9.0 9.4 8.5 9.3 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 9.0 9.4 8.5 9.3 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Atlas/Giant ******************************************************************************** COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-10 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Initial Vol: 24 10 88 30 7 1 0 60 12 87 142 58 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 359 Minor Approach Volume: 122 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 815 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-11 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop (Future Volume Alternative) Cumulative Project (PM) Intersection #3: Atlas/Giant Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 1 10 61*** Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 Signal=Stop Signal=Stop Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 1*** 0 Cycle Time (sec): 100 0 26 1 Loss Time (sec): 0 1 117 0 Critical V/C: 0.307 1 61 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 9.5 0 29 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 9.5 1 53*** LOS: A Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 13 6 124*** Signal=Stop/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Highway Atlas Road Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 13 6 110 61 10 1 1 117 29 45 61 26 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 13 6 110 61 10 1 1 117 29 45 61 26 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 Initial Fut: 13 6 124 61 10 1 1 117 29 53 61 26 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 21 10 203 111 18 2 1 156 39 60 69 30 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 21 10 203 111 18 2 1 156 39 60 69 30 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 21 10 203 111 18 2 1 156 39 60 69 30 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.05 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.09 0.01 1.60 0.39 1.00 1.40 0.60 Final Sat.: 564 32 663 554 550 55 8 976 249 527 812 363 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.09 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 9.0 9.7 9.7 10.4 8.5 8.5 9.4 9.2 9.0 10.0 9.1 8.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 9.0 9.7 9.7 10.4 8.5 8.5 9.4 9.2 9.0 10.0 9.1 8.7 LOS by Move: A A A B A A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 9.6 10.1 9.2 9.3 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 9.6 10.1 9.2 9.3 LOS by Appr: A B A A AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban] ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Atlas/Giant ******************************************************************************** COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-12 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Initial Vol: 13 6 124 61 10 1 1 117 29 53 61 26 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 287 Minor Approach Volume: 143 Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 911 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants). The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-13 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Cumulative Project (AM) Intersection #4: Atlas/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 62 42 313*** Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 42*** 2 Cycle Time (sec): 120 1 243 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 815 3 Critical V/C: 0.840 3 2252*** 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 31.3 0 136 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 29.5 1 99 LOS: C Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Initial Vol: 90 13 98*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Atlas Road Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 90 13 98 306 42 62 42 815 136 99 2252 233 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 90 13 98 306 42 62 42 815 136 99 2252 233 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Initial Fut: 90 13 98 313 42 62 42 815 136 99 2252 243 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 100 14 109 348 47 69 47 906 151 110 2502 270 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 100 14 109 348 47 69 47 906 151 110 2502 270 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 100 14 109 348 47 69 47 906 151 110 2502 270 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.19 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.17 0.09 0.06 0.48 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.23 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.44 0.44 0.15 0.57 0.57 Volume/Cap: 0.32 0.09 0.84 0.84 0.18 0.32 0.84 0.40 0.21 0.40 0.84 0.29 Uniform Del: 43.2 51.1 54.4 44.1 46.1 46.9 58.9 23.0 20.9 45.9 21.0 13.0 IncremntDel: 0.6 0.3 36.1 14.2 0.3 0.8 66.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 2.3 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 43.8 51.4 90.5 58.3 46.4 47.8 124.8 23.1 21.1 46.8 23.3 13.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 43.8 51.4 90.5 58.3 46.4 47.8 124.8 23.1 21.1 46.8 23.3 13.2 LOS by Move: D D F E D D F C C D C B HCM2kAvgQ: 3 1 6 15 2 3 2 8 3 4 29 5 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-14 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Cumulative Project (PM) Intersection #4: Atlas/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 97 78 586*** Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 50 2 Cycle Time (sec): 180 1 161 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 2692*** 3 Critical V/C: 1.171 3 618 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 138.6 0 283 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 110.0 1 80*** LOS: F Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 Initial Vol: 52 8 155*** Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Atlas Road Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 52 8 155 572 78 97 50 2692 283 80 618 153 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 52 8 155 572 78 97 50 2692 283 80 618 153 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Initial Fut: 52 8 155 586 78 97 50 2692 283 80 618 161 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 58 9 172 651 87 108 56 2991 314 89 687 179 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 58 9 172 651 87 108 56 2991 314 89 687 179 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 58 9 172 651 87 108 56 2991 314 89 687 179 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 3502 5187 1615 1805 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.36 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.58 0.19 0.05 0.13 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.31 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.49 0.49 0.04 0.48 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.25 0.05 1.17 1.17 0.17 0.25 0.28 1.17 0.40 1.17 0.28 0.23 Uniform Del: 70.5 74.7 81.8 62.3 50.3 51.4 81.3 45.7 28.8 86.2 28.4 27.7 IncremntDel: 0.6 0.1 127.7 95.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 81.7 0.3 156.8 0.1 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 71.0 74.8 209.5 157.3 50.5 51.7 82.0 127 29.1 243.0 28.4 27.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 71.0 74.8 209.5 157.3 50.5 51.7 82.0 127 29.1 243.0 28.4 27.8 LOS by Move: E E F F D D F F C F C C HCM2kAvgQ: 3 0 15 49 4 5 2 80 11 9 8 6 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-15 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Cumulative Project (AM) Intersection #5: San Pablo/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 882*** 1062 375 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Initial Vol: 186*** 2 Cycle Time (sec): 180 1 524 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 811 2 Critical V/C: 1.227 3 1898*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 172.0 0 37 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 104.7 2 216 LOS: F Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Initial Vol: 119*** 750 129 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: San Pablo Avenue Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 118 750 129 375 1062 879 184 807 36 216 1892 524 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 118 750 129 375 1062 879 184 807 36 216 1892 524 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 4 1 0 6 0 Initial Fut: 119 750 129 375 1062 882 186 811 37 216 1898 524 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 132 833 143 417 1180 980 207 901 41 240 2109 582 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 132 833 143 417 1180 980 207 901 41 240 2109 582 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 132 833 143 417 1180 980 207 901 41 240 2109 582 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.87 0.13 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 3502 4926 225 3502 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.23 0.09 0.23 0.33 0.61 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.41 0.36 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.49 0.49 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.33 0.61 Volume/Cap: 1.23 0.83 0.32 0.83 0.66 1.23 1.23 0.66 0.66 0.66 1.23 0.59 Uniform Del: 84.6 61.2 51.6 61.2 34.2 45.5 85.7 57.7 57.7 77.7 60.2 21.6 IncremntDel:160.0 6.1 0.4 11.4 0.9 113.4 143.5 1.2 1.2 4.6 108 1.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 244.7 67.3 52.0 72.6 35.1 158.9 229.2 58.9 58.9 82.2 168 22.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 244.7 67.3 52.0 72.6 35.1 158.9 229.2 58.9 58.9 82.2 168 22.6 LOS by Move: F E D E D F F E E F F C HCM2kAvgQ: 12 24 6 23 25 76 10 17 17 8 61 19 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-16 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Cumulative Project (PM) Intersection #5: San Pablo/Richmond Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 282 574 312*** Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Initial Vol: 1034*** 2 Cycle Time (sec): 180 1 418 0 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 1785 2 Critical V/C: 1.098 3 710*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 128.1 0 30 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 95.2 2 124 LOS: F Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 Initial Vol: 37 1146*** 150 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: San Pablo Avenue Richmond Parkway Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 36 1146 150 312 574 280 1030 1776 29 124 705 418 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 36 1146 150 312 574 280 1030 1776 29 124 705 418 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 9 1 0 5 0 Initial Fut: 37 1146 150 312 574 282 1034 1785 30 124 710 418 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 41 1273 167 347 638 313 1149 1983 33 138 789 464 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 1273 167 347 638 313 1149 1983 33 138 789 464 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 41 1273 167 347 638 313 1149 1983 33 138 789 464 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.95 0.05 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3610 1615 1805 3610 1615 3502 5086 85 3502 5187 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.35 0.10 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.33 0.39 0.39 0.04 0.15 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.17 0.44 0.44 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.04 0.14 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.44 1.10 0.32 1.10 0.40 0.44 1.10 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.10 0.92 Uniform Del: 82.7 61.1 46.2 74.3 33.8 34.5 63.1 53.6 53.6 86.3 77.5 59.6 IncremntDel: 3.2 57.5 0.4 79.6 0.2 0.4 58.7 15.7 15.7 70.2 63.6 21.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 86.0 119 46.6 153.8 34.0 35.0 121.8 69.3 69.3 156.5 141 81.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 86.0 119 46.6 153.8 34.0 35.0 121.8 69.3 69.3 156.5 141 81.3 LOS by Move: F F D F C C F E E F F F HCM2kAvgQ: 3 47 7 26 12 12 42 45 45 6 22 28 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-17 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Cumulative Project (AM) Intersection #6: Giant/Richmond Ramps Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 0 77 112*** Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec): 60 1 61 0 Loss Time (sec): 6 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.253 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 15.8 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 14.2 1 109*** LOS: B Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 52*** 110 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Rd Richmond Parkway Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 51 110 110 76 0 0 0 0 109 0 58 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 51 110 110 76 0 0 0 0 109 0 58 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Initial Fut: 0 52 110 112 77 0 0 0 0 109 0 61 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 55 116 118 81 0 0 0 0 115 0 64 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 55 116 118 81 0 0 0 0 115 0 64 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 55 116 118 81 0 0 0 0 115 0 64 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.32 0.68 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 554 1171 1805 1900 0 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.26 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.16 Uniform Del: 0.0 12.4 12.4 17.7 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 17.5 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 12.6 12.6 18.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 17.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 12.6 12.6 18.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 17.7 LOS by Move: A B B B A A A A A B A B HCM2kAvgQ: 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. COMPARE Fri Mar 27 13:54:42 2015 Page 2-18 Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Cumulative Project (PM) Intersection #6: Giant/Richmond Ramps Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Initial Vol: 0 63 67*** Lanes: 0 0 1 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Initial Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Initial Vol: 0 0 Cycle Time (sec): 60 1 68 0 Loss Time (sec): 6 0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.251 0 0 0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 13.2 0 0 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 12.8 1 89*** LOS: B Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 Initial Vol: 0 111*** 115 Signal=Protect/Rights=Include Street Name: Giant Rd Richmond Parkway Ramps Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 110 115 63 62 0 0 0 0 89 0 67 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 110 115 63 62 0 0 0 0 89 0 67 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project: 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Initial Fut: 0 111 115 67 63 0 0 0 0 89 0 68 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 117 121 71 66 0 0 0 0 94 0 72 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 117 121 71 66 0 0 0 0 94 0 72 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 117 121 71 66 0 0 0 0 94 0 72 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 0.00 0.49 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 869 900 1805 1900 0 0 0 0 1805 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.16 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.21 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.21 Uniform Del: 0.0 7.4 7.4 22.2 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.0 19.7 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 7.6 7.6 22.7 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 20.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 7.6 7.6 22.7 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 20.1 LOS by Move: A A A C A A A A A C A C HCM2kAvgQ: 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. West County Detention Facility Expansion Appendix C Signal Warrant Calculations Signal Warrant Atlas Rd-Giant Highway Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Atlas Road and Giant Highway Peak Hour Volume Warrant Per 2012 MUTCD- Under 40 MPH AM Peak Hour Volumes * NOTE: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with 2 or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with 1 lane. Approach Lanes Existing AMExisting + Project AMCumulative with Project AMCumulative AMOne 2 or More Major Street - Both Approaches Atlas Road x 106 116 349 359 Minor Street - Highest Approach Giant Highway x 74 81 201 122 Warrant Met?N N N N PM Peak Hour Volumes Approach Lanes Existing AMExisting + Project AMCumulative with Project AMCumulative AMCumulative with Project PMApproach Lanes Existing PMExisting + Project PMCumulative PMOne 2 or More Major Street - Both Approaches Atlas Road x 94 102 279 287 Minor Street - Highest Approach Giant Highway x 100 114 129 215 Warrant Met?N N N NCumulative with Project PMApproach Lanes Existing PMExisting + Project PMCumulative PM0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MINOR STREET - High Volume Approach (vph) MAJOR STREET - Total of Both Approaches (vph) PEAK HOUR VOLUME SIGNAL WARRANT - 2012 MUTCD (Under 40 MPH) Existing AM Existing + Project AM Cumulative AM Cumulative with Project AM Cumulative with Project AM Existing PM Existing + Project PM Cumulative PM Cumulative with Project PM Cumulative with Project PM * * 2 or morel lanes (major) & 2 or more lanes (minor) 2 or more lanes (major) & 1 lane (minor) or 1 lane (major) & 2 or more lanes (minor) 1 lane (major) & 1 lane (minor) Appendix C Initial Study, NOP, and Scoping Comments Initial Study West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study P R E P A R E D F OR: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Contact: Hillary Heard 925.313.2022 P R E P A R E D BY: ICF International 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Brad Norton 916.737.3000 March 2015 ICF International. 2015. West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study. Draft. March. (ICF 00026.15). Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, CA. West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study i March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contents List of Tables and Figures ...................................................................................................................... iii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... iv West County Detention Facility Expansion Project Description ............................................................ 1 Project Setting ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Background and Objectives ....................................................................................................... 1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 2 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 3 Project Design .................................................................................................................................. 3 Operations ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Construction ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Required Approvals ................................................................................................................................ 7 References Cited..................................................................................................................................... 7 Environmental Checklist ...................................................................................................................... 8 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......................................................................................... 9 Determination ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .................................................................................................. 10 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .............................................................................................. 14 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................... 17 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ........................................................................................ 20 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................... 23 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 27 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 29 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 33 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................... 35 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 37 Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 38 Population and Housing ................................................................................................................. 40 Public Services ................................................................................................................................ 42 Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 44 Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................................................. 45 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Contents West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study ii March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................................... 48 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................................... 51 XIX. Earlier Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 54 References ......................................................................................................................................... 55 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 55 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .............................................................................................. 55 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 55 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................... 55 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 55 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................... 55 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 56 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 56 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 56 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................... 57 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 57 Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 57 Population and Housing ................................................................................................................. 57 Public Services ................................................................................................................................ 57 Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 57 Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................................................. 57 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................................... 58 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................................... 58 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Contents West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study iii March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Tables and Figures Table Page 1 Summary of the Proposed Project Building Area ............................................................................ 3 2 Summary of Equipment Types Needed ........................................................................................... 6 3 Primary Soils in the Project Site ..................................................................................................... 24 4 Richmond and Contra Costa County Population Growth Forecast 2000–2030 ............................ 41 5 Richmond and Contra Costa County Household Growth Forecast 2000–2030 ............................. 41 Figure Follows Page 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 2 2 Project Site ....................................................................................................................................... 2 3 Aerial View and Preliminary Site Plan .............................................................................................. 4 4 Prtoject Site and Surrounding Zoning ............................................................................................ 36 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Contents West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study iv March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Acronyms and Abbreviations AB Assembly Bill ARB California Air Resources Board AT&SF Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMPs best management practices CAAQS California ambient air quality standard Caltrans California Department of Transportation CBC California Building Code CH4 methane CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide County Contra Costa County Public Works Department CRR Community and Regional Recreational District DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GHG greenhouse gas HFC hydrofluorocarbons MDF Martinez Detention Facility MLD Most Likely Descendant N2O nitrous oxide NAAQS national ambient air quality standard NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NO2 nitrogen dioxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Pb lead PFC perfluorinated carbons PM10 and PM2.5 particulate matter PRC Public Resources Code SERT Specialized Emergency Response Team SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SO2 sulfur dioxide SPTC Southern Pacific Transportation Company SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation WCCSL West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill WCDF West County Detention Facility WCWD West County Wastewater District West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 1 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 West County Detention Facility Expansion Project Description Contra Costa County Public Works Department (County) is working with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department to expand the West County Detention Facility (WCDF) as envisioned during the original planning for the facility. Project Setting The proposed project is located at 5555 Giant Highway in north Richmond, California, north of San Pablo and west of Pinole (Figure 1). The project site encompasses approximately 2.3 acres of an approximately 50-acre County-owned property (Figure 2) within the city limits of the City of Richmond that is developed and fenced consistent with its institutional use as a detention facility. The undeveloped portion of the site was previously graded to support future expansion, and the area is comprised of ruderal grassland with security lighting every 100 feet to 200 feet. It is surrounded by the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park on the west and south, the Pinole Point Business Park on the north, and a residential neighborhood and the Richmond Golf and Country Club on the east. Two railroad lines are located near the project site: the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTC) railroad on the west, and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe (AT&SF) railroad line on the east along the Giant Highway. Project Background and Objectives Background The original WCDF facility was designed and constructed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The site plan evaluated in the 1990 environmental impact report for the facility included housing for up to 1,536 inmates and 495 staff, and the existing facility was designed to include infrastructure scaled to support future housing expansion to that size. The proposed project would utilize existing infrastructure such as administration, kitchen, laundry, sewer and water, and maintenance facilities, to serve the proposed larger population. The facility opened in 1991, with housing capacity for a population of 1,196. A small expansion occurred in 1994. Changes in standards have affected the capacity of the facility, and the campus’ current population is 574 inmates with a total possible capacity of 1,096 inmates. Approximately 115 employees, including deputies, clerks, aides, cooks, teachers and medical staff, are assigned to work at the WCDF, and a typical shift consists of approximately 37 employees. Over the past 13 years there have been substantial changes in California’s criminal justice system. A series of court decisions, state laws, and voter initiatives have resulted in changes in the profile of those incarcerated and how the County must address their needs. The County Sheriff administers more than a dozen classifications of inmates, each requiring special needs and services, some of which need to be further separated for staff and inmate safety. The proposed expansion will help the County achieve its capacity, security, facility, and programming needs based on current standards and classifications. These are described briefly below. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 2 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 The County’s existing detention facilities are not equipped to properly and safely house all the classifications of inmates now in custody; consequently, the current operation presents a safety liability. According to a 2013 Needs Assessment, the County Sheriff currently must detain approximately 650 inmates classified as high security, but only has 53 beds that were designed and built for high security detainees (Grady Williams Associates 2013). Placing special inmates in inappropriate housing units on a temporary basis creates safety risks for both officers and inmates. Housing that was originally designed as disciplinary and intake housing units now serves as administrative segregation, protective custody, general population (including rival gangs), and mental health/medical inmates. Since the implementation of Assembly Bill (AB) 109, Contra Costa County has been housing higher level inmates previously housed in state facilities for much longer periods of time, requiring staff to regularly move inmates in an effort to minimize security risk. Currently, the only available housing for high security inmates is at the Martinez Detention Facility (MDF), which was not designed for high security inmates. Large concrete pillars obstruct views of inmates and angular sight lines make supervision of inmates outside of their cells difficult without extensive staffing. The facility design is soft—characterized by dry cells and rooms with shared lavatories. Flooring can be pried up and used to fabricate or hide makeshift weapons. Cells have wooden doors and furnishings that do not provide the adequate security for maximum security inmates. Similarly, because of the soft design, the dayroom areas at the MDF are not suitable for providing educational or behavioral programming. The County needs to provide educational and vocational programming for its high security inmates, but is limited by the lack of secure facilities. New high security educational and vocational facilities are needed in the WCDF because they do not currently exist for high security inmates. These facilities will provide staff with the opportunity to work with inmates and support their rehabilitation in a safe environment. Such facilities include new, hardened multipurpose classrooms. New programming could include educational classes, vocational classes, drug treatment/prevention classes, parenting classes, library programs and faith-based programs to improve inmates’ re-entry into society. This type of programming can only occur in facilities that are appropriate for the inmate classification. Similarly, the County has limited high security healthcare and mental health facilities; additional facilities are needed to support state requirements. Outpatient care facilities are essential to provide close-proximity outpatient medical services. The high-security classification, aging population and mental health needs of a large portion of the inmate population dictate the need for close-proximity outpatient medical services. Project Objectives The County’s objectives for this project are listed below. 1. Reduce overcrowding of high security inmates. 2. Replace non-secure housing with high security housing. 3. Provide facilities to support re-entry programming for high security inmates. 4. Provide facilities to support mental healthcare for high security inmates. 5. Expand facilities as efficiently as possible with the support of state grant funding. N APA S ONOMA M ARIN S OLANO C ONTRA C OSTA A LAMEDA 24 13 29 29 37 12 4 1 121 121 112 116 80 80 580 580 880 101 101 Faireld Novato Petaluma Sonoma San Rafael Mill Valley Tiburon Sausalito Corte Madera San Francisco Vallejo Richmond San Pablo Pinole Oakland Hayward Berkeley Albany El Cerrito Alameda San Leandro Concord Benicia Martinez Walnut Creek Napa San Pablo Bay San Francisco Bay Suisun BaySonoma CkPetaluma R.Pac i c OceanNapa R .Figure 1 Project Location Miles 50 Project Location Graphics … 0026.15 (1-26-2015) West County Detention Facility Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Parking San Pablo Bay Richmond Golf and Country Club Residential UPS Customer Center Pinole Point Business Park SOUTHERN PACIFIC RRAT&SF RR Giant HwyGiant RdAtlas RdLinks DrLi n k s D rFringe DrVista Dr At l a s R d Horizon DrMeadow View DrPark Ridge DrOakm o n t Dr Sobrante AveGraphics … 0026.15 (1-26-2015)Figure 2 Project Site Feet 200 6004000 Image: Google Inc. 2015. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.0. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: 1-22-2014. Legend Project Site Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 3 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Project Overview The proposed project entails the development of approximately 2.3 acres at the WCDF for a high- security detention facility with supporting reentry program facilities, and a mental health treatment facility. The new facility would provide high security housing, and educational and vocational facilities and programs to help prepare inmates for reentry into society. The location of the expansion is generally shown on Figure 3. The proposed project would result in essentially no increase of California Department of Corrections-rated beds in Contra Costa County. The 240 cells at the MDF that do not meet security and safety requirements would be repurposed for short-term housing of inmates for purposes of in- processing and release. The MDF would continue to be the booking facility for law enforcement agencies in the central and eastern areas of the County. Project Characteristics The proposed project would consist of construction of a new 150,000 square foot building containing approximately 240 double-occupancy cells (480 beds), a mental health treatment facility, and educational and vocational program facilities along with facilities to support outpatient medical services, recreational activities, and minor administrative functions of the existing WCDF. In addition, a small, single story, equipment or generator building would be located adjacent to the main building. Table 1 summarizes the proposed new project elements. Table 1. Summary of the Proposed Project Building Area Proposed Use Approximate Area (sf) Inmate Housing 70,000 Educational And Vocational Program Facilities 30,000 Healthcare and Mental Health Services 20,000 Central Control 2,000 Video Visitation 2,000 Administration 1,000 Mechanical and Circulation 25,000 Generator Building 1,000 Total Facility Construction 151,000 Intake, release, inpatient health care, central library services, food service, laundry, commissary, and maintenance/warehouse storage will continue to be provided in existing buildings and using existing infrastructure on the WCDF site. Project Design New Building Design The proposed new structure would consist of one 150,000 square foot building with several wings, and small, single story, equipment or generator building located adjacent to the main building. Most elements of the main building would be two stories with mezzanines, with a taller central building element at the main entrance. Building heights would range from approximately 32 to 45 feet. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 4 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Because the site proposed for the new building is relatively flat, only limited grading would be required to provide drainage away from the building, and the entire footprint of the main floor of the building would be at a single level. The roofs of the building elements would mostly be flat. The walls of the building would be plastered an off-white color to match the existing structures and would be predominantly flat with very little adornment. Along the west side of the building, where the entry would be located, there would be more architectural character involving windows, roof- line and trim features. The building design would include patios and courtyards including trellis forms to provide sun and wind protection. The service yard would be screened from view from other buildings on and off campus to prevent unauthorized inmate communication. Exercise yards would be situated in the interior of the building. The project design does not include guard towers. Landscaping and Lighting Landscaping would be consistent with other existing on-site landscaping. For security reasons, no landscaping would be installed adjacent to security fencing. Exterior lighting for the facility would be similar to existing lighting, directed downward with the minimum wattage to meet security needs. Fencing Adequate chain-link security perimeter fencing already exists onsite. The proposed new facility would be designed so that the exterior wall of the building serves as the primary security barrier. If necessary, additional security fencing may be added to control pedestrian access from the new building to the adjacent building. Operations Housing Housing would be designed for male inmates pending arraignment, during trial, and upon sentence of commitment to the county jail, (i.e., a Type II jail as defined by Title 24, California Code of Regulations, and Section 13-102 (a)). Female inmates currently have sufficient space on site. Housing would have double-occupancy cells, configured in approximately eight-internal housing units of approximately 60 beds each, with mezzanines. The housing units would be designed in a manner that allows for direct and indirect supervision. In addition to cells and a dayroom, each housing unit would have program space and visitation/ interview rooms and booths (see below). Each unit would have a pedestrian sally port, shower/ changing area, equipment storage, medical exam room, food cart storage, control room, staff toilet, and janitor closet. The housing units would be arranged in a modular configuration centered on a corridor and central control. There would be two floors of housing, each with an exercise yard and multipurpose room. Programs The new building would provide space in each housing unit, for vocational and rehabilitation programs. Four multipurpose classrooms and two vocational workshops dedicated to specific industries would be located in the building and accessible to each housing unit, along with supporting storage, a chaplain’s office and storage, a small in-house library with associated storage and book repair area, workspace for staff, and locker space for staff and trainers. West County Detention Facility Expansion Area Pinole Point Business Park Giant HwySobrante AveSOUTHERN PACIFIC RRPoint Pinole Regional Shoreline Parking Richmond Golf and Country ClubAT&SF RRFigure 3 Aerial View and Preliminary Site PlanGraphics … projectnumber (date) initialsFeet 100 3002000 Image: Google Inc. 2015. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.0. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: 1-26-2015. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 5 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Administration The new administrative space would comprise three staff offices, reception, two conference rooms, copy/layout room, records, and office supplies storage. Visitation The new building will have a centralized visiting for the new facility consisting of 10 video booths and 2 contact/confidential interview rooms, as well as a public toilet and janitor closet. In addition, three video visitation booths, one contact/confidential interview room, and two non- contact/confidential interview rooms would be located in each housing unit. Central Control Primary security would remain with the existing central control on campus. However, because the new high security expansion must be considered a separate security zone to comply with security requirements, the new facilities would be designed with the ability to operate independent control and security functions internally within the building. The new building will also contain an armory and Specialized Emergency Response Team (SERT) room. Staff Services The staff services facility would provide required nearby space for staff briefing, showering, and physical training. Male and female locker space would be provided for 25 and 15 users, respectively. A staff servery and a janitor closet would be included. Health Care The new building will also house health care administration facilities, including an outpatient clinic, reception, three staff offices, clerical workstation, conference room, staff break room and toilet. The outpatient clinic would consist of three exam rooms, two mental health interview rooms, a waiting area, two secure holding cells, officer’s station, reception/nurse’s station, medical records storage areas, staff and inmate toilets, equipment storage, clean utility storage, and soiled utility/hazardous storage spaces. Project Staffing and Hours of Operation The Sheriff’s Office estimates that an additional 12 staff—6 per 12-hour shift—would be needed to support the facility. Several may be new employees, but the majority may be reassigned from other County facilities to fully utilize existing staff. The facility is projected to employ a total of 12 staff members, of whom up to six may work onsite on any given day (including both day shift and night shift employees). The facility is a 24-hour facility. It is assumed that 12-hour shifts (6 a.m. to 6 p.m.) similar to those currently in place at the WCDF, would be standard. The educational and vocational reentry component of facility would involve approximately six employees and/or community volunteers providing various educational, vocational, and drug and alcohol counseling services throughout the day. Because these services would be offered from a Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 6 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 limited programming space, the persons involved would not all be arriving and leaving at the same time, but rather at various times throughout the day according to a programming schedule. Construction Construction Schedule The County expects to use a design-bid-build or design-build process for this project. Planning for this process was initiated in January 2015 and will be completed in late 2015. The County will be applying for state lease revenue bond financing in 2015. If the County’s application is successful, the County expects design to begin in spring 2016. Construction is then expected to begin in summer 2017. Construction is expected to require approximately 18 to 24 months to complete. Construction Equipment and Staffing Specific construction equipment and personnel are not yet known. However, based on the size and duration of construction as estimated in CalEEMod, an air quality model, it is expected that the following types of equipment would be needed during construction. Table 2. Summary of Equipment Types Needed Phase Equipment Type Site Preparation Grader Scraper Backhoe Grading Grader Rubber Tired Dozer Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Building Construction and Architectural Coating Crane Forklift Generator Set Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Welder Air Compressor Paving Cement Mixer Paver Paving Equipment Roller Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Construction staff is expected to work between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., 5 days per week. The number of construction staff onsite is expected to average 20 people per day, with a maximum daily onsite workforce of approximately 40 people. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 7 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Required Approvals Implementation of the project will require the following approvals. County review and approval. California Department of Corrections review and approval. State Water Resources Control Board will require a Construction General Permit for management of stormwater during construction activities. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) stormwater permit. Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. References Cited Grady Williams Associates 2013. Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff Jail Needs Assessment Update. September 2013. Prepared for the Contra Costa County Office of the Sherrif, in association with James C. Sida, Criminal Justice Consulting. Santa Barbara, CA. West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 8 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Environmental Checklist 1. Project Title: West County Detention Facility Expansion 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Hillary Heard Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 313-2022 4. Project Location: 5555 Giant Highway Richmond, CA 94806 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department 651 Pine Street, 7th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 6. General Plan Designation: Public, Cultural, and Institutional (Richmond General Plan 2030) 7. Zoning: Public and Civic Use 8. Description of Project: See attached project description. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See attached project description. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater permit State Water Resources Control Board – Construction Stormwater General Permit Bay Area Air Quality Management District – Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 10 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained if it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less-than-Significant Impact”. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level. (Mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses”, may be cross-referenced.) 5. Earlier analyses may be used if, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where earlier analyses are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, when appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 11 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 I. Aesthetics Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Aesthetics Affected Environment The project site is located within the existing West County Detention Facility (WCDF) property on Giant Highway. The site is visible from Giant Highway, from the Richmond Country Club golf course to the south-east, from the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park on the west and north, from the Pinole Point Business Park to the north, and a residential neighborhood to the east. Elevations on the project site range from 20 to 70 feet, and the site slopes gently to the west. The existing facility structures are one- and two-story buildings with flat roofs in a landscaped campus setting. The existing facility exteriors are textured concrete in neutral earth tones. The boundaries of the WCDF site are bermed to create a topographic barrier to views of the facility and have been landscaped with plants similar to the surrounding landscape including native plants and eucalyptus trees. Existing outdoor lighting fixtures are mounted on 30-foot poles on the perimeter of the secured area and throughout the site at 100 foot to 200 foot intervals. All lights are high pressure sodium using 250- or 400-watt bulbs which are recessed in a square box to direct light downward. Discussion Checklist items a and c: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?; Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? At the time of construction of the existing WCDF, effects of the project on existing views from the surrounding areas was an issue. Although the proposed building represents an internal expansion of the existing facility, and has been designed to visually blend in with the existing facility, the impact could be potentially significant and this issue will be evaluated in the EIR. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 12 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Checklist item b: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? The project site is not visible from State Route 24 or Interstate 680, which are the only designated scenic highways in Contra Costa County (California Department of Transportation 2015). The proposed project would be located on a previously graded site within the WCDF. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not require any tree removal. There are no rock outcroppings or historic building present. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. Checklist item d: Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Existing sources of light and glare near the project site include the existing facility and parking lot. The proposed project could create an additional source of light from exterior lighting associated with the project. Therefore, the impact could be potentially significant. Light and glare will be further evaluated in the EIR. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 13 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts on forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 14 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Agricultural and Forestry Resources Affected Environment The project site is currently developed and is located on land designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” on the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland map (California Department of Conservation 2012). Surrounding areas consist of additional Urban and Built-Up Land and “Other Land.” Discussion Checklist item a: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The proposed project would be located entirely within the WCDF property, which is previously graded and developed. Because the project site is not located on any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, there would be no impact. Checklist item b: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? The project site is within the WCDF property, which has been zoned for public and civic use (City of Richmond 2015) and is not under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract. There would be no impact. Checklist item c and d: Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) defines forest land as “land that can support percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” Timberland is defined as land “which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products.” No timber management activities occur on the project site or in adjacent areas, and the site is not designated for timberland uses. Because the project site is not zoned as forest land, timberland, or for timberland production, and there are no forest resources located on the project site, there would be no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 15 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Checklist item e: Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? As noted above, the project site does not contain any farmland or agricultural uses, and there are no agricultural uses in the vicinity. Therefore, there would be no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 16 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 III. Air Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact When available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Air Quality Affected Environment The proposed project would be located in Contra Costa County, which is in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Concentrations of ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are commonly used as indicators of ambient air quality conditions. These pollutants are known as “criteria pollutants” and are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (ARB) through national and California ambient air quality standards (NAAQS and CAAQS), respectively. The NAAQS and CAAQS limit criteria pollutant concentrations to protect human health and prevent environmental and property damage. According to EPA, sensitive receptors include hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. These facilities are called out because they have occupants who are more susceptible than other people to the adverse effects of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014). Discussion Because of the size of the construction project, the County has determined that an air quality study should be performed for the project, and the air quality impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 17 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 IV. Biological Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Biological Resources Affected Environment The project site is currently developed and within the gated property of the existing WCDF. The site has been entirely graded and does not contain habitat for sensitive plant or animal species. The WCDF is bordered on the western side by the 2,315-acre Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park, which is home to more than 100 species of birds, eucalyptus woodlands, and assorted wildlife (East Bay Regional Parks District 2015). Existing rail lines separated the project site from the park, and, because of the frequency of rail traffic (up to hourly) and the noise generated by the trains, the rail lines are considered to limit the site’s suitability for nesting birds. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 18 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 A site visit by ICF International confirmed the lack of suitable wildlife habitat because of the extensive grading, landscaping, and development on site. The potential for special-status wildlife or plant species to occur on the project site is extremely low because no natural communities remain onsite. Discussion Checklist item a: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS? The entirety of the proposed project would be constructed within the WCDF property consisting of existing facilities and developed land. The entire project site has been previously graded in anticipation of future expansion. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect either directly or through habitat modification for any candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on biological resources. Checklist item b: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS? The proposed project would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities because none is located on the project site and because the nearest natural area, the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park to the west and north of the project site, contains only Garrity Creek which would be unaffected. Expansion and operation of the jail would not to alter or impact the Regional Park. The proposed project would have no impact. Checklist item c: Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? There are no vernal pools or federally protected wetlands located within the project site; therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. Checklist item d: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The proposed project would have no impact on waterways and, therefore, no impact on native resident or migratory fish. Resident and migratory waterfowl would not be adversely affected by the construction of the facility because the site is already developed. Further, no breeding, nesting, or foraging habitat exists on the project site or in any area that would be affected by project construction; therefore, waterfowl behavior and movement patterns would remain unchanged. There are no native wildlife nursery sites in the project site. The proposed project would have no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 19 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Checklist items e and f: 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, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed project would be constructed entirely on the WCDF property, which does not contain any natural lands or the surrounding areas. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies (i.e., General Plan policies) or ordinances protecting biological resources. Also, no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans apply to this part of Contra Costa County. No conflict with local policies or any adopted conservation plan would result, and the proposed project would have no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 20 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 V. Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Cultural and Paleontological Resources Affected Environment The project site was graded when the original facility was constructed. No structures on the site are older than 50 years and no structures are considered potentially historic or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Archeo-Tec performed previous cultural resources surveys for the construction of WCDF in March 1986. These surveys found no archeological resources on the project site, and later site work uncovered no archeological finds. The project site was again investigated in 1989 by Jones & Stokes Associates. At that time, no archeological resources were found, and no records or previous findings of archaeological resources were identified (Contra Costa County 1990). Therefore, the County concluded that it is unlikely that there are any cultural resources on the project site. Discussion Checklist items a and b: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5? It is unlikely that any cultural or historical resources would be found during the construction of the proposed project because all construction would take place on previously developed and disturbed land. However, it is possible construction of the new facility would result in the discovery of buried cultural or historic resources, because the project site was graded but not the subject of excavation for new buildings. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 prohibits destruction of cultural resources. Following is the text of this requirement. A person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 21 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 archaeological paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands Therefore, to reduce potential impacts on potential undiscovered cultural resources, the following standard mitigation measure would be implemented if resources are found during construction. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Stop Work at Discovery of Cultural Resources If buried cultural resources such as chipped or ground stone, historic debris, or building foundations, are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within a 100-foot radius of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop a response plan, with appropriate treatment measures, in consultation with the County, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and other appropriate agencies. Preservation in place shall be the preferred treatment method pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b) (avoidance, open space, capping, easement). Data recovery of important information about the resource, research, or other actions determined during consultation, is allowed if it is the only feasible treatment method. Because there are no known historic or archaeological resources present on site, construction and operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical, archaeological, or paleontological resource. Therefore, with implementation of the above mitigation measure if necessary, the proposed project would result in an impact that is less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Checklist item c: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? There are no known unique paleontological resources, sites, or unique geologic features at the project site. Although the entire project site has been previously disturbed by construction of the existing facilities and grading of the proposed project site, it is possible construction of the new and expanded facilities would result in the discovery of paleontological resources or sites. To reduce potential impacts on undiscovered paleontological resources, the following mitigation measure would be implemented if resources are found during construction. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Stop Work at Discovery of Paleontological Resources The construction contractor and subcontractors shall stop all work in the area immediately in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during grading, construction, landscaping, or other construction-related activity. The Contra Costa Public Works Department shall be notified and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to evaluate the resources and recommend appropriate mitigation. Work may resume after the find has been mitigated appropriately. Because there are no known paleontological resources present on site, construction or operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to destroy any paleontological resources. Still, paleontological resources could be encountered. With implementation of the above mitigation measure, the proposed project would result in an impact that is less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 22 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Checklist item d: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? There are no known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, on the project site. The proposed project would be constructed on previously developed land in which no human remains were found during construction of existing facilities. Although the entire project site has been previously disturbed by construction of the existing facilities, it is possible construction of the new facilities would result in the discovery of human remains. To reduce potential impacts on undiscovered human remains, the following mitigation measure would be implemented if remains are found during construction. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Stop Work at Discovery of Human Remains If human skeletal remains are encountered, ground-disturbing activities will be stopped within a 100-foot radius of the discovery. The Contra Costa County coroner must be contacted immediately and is required to examine the discovery within 48 hours. If the county coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. A qualified archaeologist should also be contacted immediately. The coroner is required to notify and seek out a treatment recommendation of the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendant (MLD). If NAHC identifies an MLD, and the MLD makes a recommendation, and the landowner accepts the recommendation, then ground-disturbing activities may resume after a qualified archeologist verifies and notifies the County that the recommendations have been completed. If NAHC is unable to identify the MLD, or the MLD makes no recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation, and mediation pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) 5094.98(k) fails, then ground-disturbing activities may resume, but only after a qualified archeologist verifies and notifies the County that the landowner has completely reinterred the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property, and ensures no further disturbance of the site pursuant to PRC 5097.98(e) by County recording, open space designation, or a conservation easement. If the coroner determines that no investigation of the cause of death is required and that the human remains are not Native American, then ground-disturbing activities may resume after the coroner informs the County of such determination. According to state law, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (PRC Sections 21083.2, 5094.98, 5097.5, 5097.9; Health and Safety Code Sections. 7050.5, 7052). Because no human remains have been discovered during previous disturbance of the project site, and the site is not located in a known sensitive zone for the existence of such resources, with implementation of the above mitigation measure, the proposed project would result in an impact that is less than significant with mitigation. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 23 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 VI. Geology and Soils Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Geology and Soils Affected Environment Physiography and Soils As indicated in Table 3, the primary soil of the project site is classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015) as Tierra loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (TaC). Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 24 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Table 3. Primary Soils in the Project Site Soil Unit Soil Name Approx % of Project Site Linear Extensibility Erosion Factor (0 in – 12 in) Kw Kf T TaC Tierra loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes 100% 0.0 – 2.9 .28 .28 4 Kw = Erodibility of the whole soil Kf = Erodibility of the fine-earth fraction, or material less than 2 mm in size T = Estimate of maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind and/or water that can occur without affecting crop productivity over a sustained period (tons/acre/year) Erosion Factor: Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and Ksat. Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Custom Soil Resource Report, February 3, 2015 Bedrock below the project site consists of Orinda Formation. Orinda Formation is made of up soft, sheared siltstone and shale sedimentary rocks, interspersed among hard semi-coherent sandstones and conglomerates (Contra Costa County 1990). The project site is located in an area of high seismic activity. The nearest active fault is the Hayward Fault, which is approximately 0.1 mile southwest of the project site. The San Andreas Fault is approximately 19 miles west of the project site. A potentially active zone, the Pinole Fault, is located approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the project site. These faults are the principal sources of seismic activity affecting the project site. A major earthquake along any of these faults would produce strong ground shaking at the project site. Discussion Checklist item a: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) 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? 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4) Landslides? 1. The project site is not located on a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map (California Department of Conservation 2015). The closest active fault identified by an Alquist-Priolo map is the Hayward Fault to the southwest of the project site, approximately 0.1 mile away. The proposed project would be located outside of the Alquist-Priolo zone and designed in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972 and state earthquake codes. The impact would be less than significant. 2. Although the project site is not located on a known earthquake fault, it is in the immediate vicinity of the Hayward Fault. Contra Costa County faults include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Franklin, Concord, Antioch and Greenville faults, which could have earthquakes of magnitude 5.0–8.5 on the Richter Scale (Contra Costa County 2010). A major earthquake on the nearest faults (Hayward and San Andreas) would cause strong seismic ground shaking. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 25 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 This hazard cannot be avoided but the effects can be minimized by proper construction and implementation of required seismic requirements. The California Building Code (CBC) requires the implementation of engineering solutions for constraints to urban development posed by slopes, soils, and geology. The CBC and the California Division of Mines and Geology Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117, include design and construction requirements for safety. The Contra Costa County Public Works Department oversees all buildings and facilities subject to the CBC. Additionally, Contra Costa County requires geologic, seismic, and soil studies as necessary in areas of potential ground shaking in order to evaluate proposed development (Contra Costa County 2010). Contra Costa County staff review all applications to ensure the latest seismic design criteria is met. These requirements reduce risks on the project site from seismic ground shaking to levels considered acceptable for the state and region. Compliance with these existing standards would ensure impacts of strong seismic ground shaking are less than significant. 3. The project site is not susceptible to liquefaction as identified in the City’s general plan due to the underlying geology; however, the potential for liquefaction is very high to the north-east of the project and medium-high to the south (U.S. Geological Survey 2014). The project would be required to be built in accordance with existing building standards, which would reduce the risks associated with liquefaction. Compliance with these existing standards would ensure impacts of seismic-induced liquefaction are less than significant. 4. The site is nearly flat and is therefore not subject to landslide. This impact would be less than significant. Checklist item b: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The project site was previously graded and contoured. Project construction would result in temporary loss of minimal topsoil. Construction activities such as clearing, grading, and site preparation, which could contribute to the loss of topsoil, would be minimal because much of this work was done when the original facility was constructed. As described in Table 3, the soils that underlie the project site have a low to moderate erosion potential. Prior to the initiation of grading, the County would be required to obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (State Water Resources Control Board 2013). Compliance with the Construction General Permit would prevent erosion and loss of topsoil. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. For a discussion of erosion potential as it relates to water quality, see Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. Checklist item c: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? No liquefaction or lateral spreading issues have been identified by the U.S. Geological Survey (2014), and, because the project site is flat, there is no potential for landslides. Subsidence has not historically been an issue at the project site and is not anticipated to be in the future. Potential impacts from unstable soils would be reduced through compliance with building codes discussed under checklist item a. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 26 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Checklist item d: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Expansive soils shrink or swell depending upon water content and can cause damage to structures. Soils with a high clay content are more susceptible to swelling than sand or gravel soils are. The soils at the project site are silty loam soils that have a shrink-swell potential of 0.0%–0.29% (Table 3). Soils with a linear extensibility of less than 3% have a low potential for shrink-swell (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015). The existing facilities have had no impacts resulting from expansive soils, and it is anticipated that the proposed project would not either. In addition, potential effects from expansive soils would be minimized through design and construction compliance with CBC and Contra Costa County building codes. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Checklist item e: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The proposed project would connect to the existing on-site sewer system. Therefore, there would be no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 27 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Greenhouse Gas Emissions Affected Environment Climate change is a complex phenomenon that has the potential to alter local climatic patterns and meteorology. Increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been unequivocally linked to recent warming and climate shifts (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). Although modeling indicates that climate change will result globally and regionally, there remains uncertainty with regard to characterizing the precise local climate characteristics and predicting precisely how various ecological and social systems will react to any changes in the existing climate at the local level. Regardless of this uncertainty in precise predictions, it is widely understood that some degree of climate change is expected as a result of past and future GHG emissions. The most common GHGs resulting from human activity are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). State CEQA Guidelines also define GHGs to include perfluorinated carbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Unlike criteria air pollutants, which occur locally or regionally, the long atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs allow them to be well- mixed in the atmosphere and carried over distances. Within California, transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions (37% of emissions in 2012), followed by industrial sources (22%) (California Air Resources Board 2014). Although there is currently no federal law specifically related to climate change or the reduction of GHGs, EPA is developing proposed regulations under the Clean Air Act. California has adopted statewide legislation addressing various aspects of climate change and GHG emissions mitigation. Much of this establishes a broad framework for the state’s long-term GHG reduction and climate change adaptation program. Of particular importance is Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), which establishes a statewide goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The governor has also issued several executive orders related to the state’s evolving climate change policy. At the local level, BAAQMD has established GHG thresholds of significance to assist lead agencies in determining the level of significance of operational-related GHG emissions. Climate Change Effects on the Project Area The State CEQA Guidelines are currently silent on whether CEQA evaluations should address the potential impacts of climate change on a project. However, Guidelines Section 15126.2 (a) does note that the lead agency should “evaluate any potentially significant impacts of locating development in Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 28 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 other areas susceptible to hazardous conditions.” Accordingly, the County has evaluated the potential for climate change to affect the project. This discussion is provided for informational purposes only. Even though not yet approved, a Draft Climate Action Plan was completed and released for public comment in 2012. The Draft Climate Action Plan identified measures to achieve GHG reduction targets in the short and long term (Contra Costa County 2012). Discussion Because of the size of the construction project, the County has determined that a GHG study should be performed for the project, and the GHG and climate change impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 29 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be 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, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. Be located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Hazards and Hazardous Materials Affected Environment The WCDF has been in operation on the project site since 1990. Past and current operating activities involve the handling and storage of limited amounts of hazardous materials to support vehicle refueling, back-up generators, cleaning, and wastewater treatment plant operations. The County complies with all state and federally mandated transportation, handling, and storage requirements. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 30 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Discussion Checklist items a and b: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Construction of the proposed project would involve the use, transportation, storage, and disposal of gasoline, oil, diesel fuel, solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials required for construction. Any transportation of hazardous materials would comply with all California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Highway Patrol, and California State Fire Marshal regulations. In addition, handling and disposal of hazardous materials would be in accordance with all other federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Typical construction erosion control best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented and may include the following provisions. Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather. Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points. No cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles onsite, except in a designated area where washwater is contained and treated. Properly store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes to prevent contact with stormwater. Contractor will train and provide instruction to all employees and subcontractors on construction BMPs. Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediments, rinse water from architectural copper, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses. Compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulation and implementation of BMPs would ensure impacts on the public and the environment are less than significant. Checklist item c: Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There are no schools located, or proposed to be located, within a quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact. Checklist item d: Be 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, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The project site is not located on a hazardous materials sites list developed and maintained by DTSC pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2007). Therefore, the project site would pose no hazard to the public or the environment and the project would have no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 31 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Checklist items e and f: Be located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The closest airport to the project site is the San Rafael Airport, which is located more than 9 miles west of the project and across the San Francisco Bay. The project site is not located in an airport land use area and is not within 2 miles of a public or private airport. Therefore, there would be no safety hazard for people residing or working in the project site due to aircraft overflight and there would be no impact. Checklist item g: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The proposed project would not alter the project site in any way that would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Emergency response from fire and police protection would remain consistent with that of the existing facility because the response time and distance would remain the same. The emergency evacuation plan of the WCDF would be updated to reflect the changes in structures, personnel, and inmate population. There would be no impact. Checklist item h: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map designates the project site as “Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” (CAL FIRE 2009). Project implementation would not significantly increase the risk from wildland fires to urbanized areas or residences, and standard measures would be employed to reduce risk of fire during construction and operation. There would be a less-than- significant impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 32 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in 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 that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite? e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect floodflows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 33 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Hydrology and Water Quality Affected Environment Water in California is managed by a complex network of federal and state regulations. California administers rights to surface water at the state level, but not rights to groundwater, which is managed under a variety of authorities including local governments. In 2014, the state adopted the Groundwater Sustainability Management Act, which provides new direction for groundwater regulation. The project site is supplied with water by the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s (EBMUD’s) Central Pressure District. Wastewater service is provided by the West County Wastewater District (WCWD) through a gravity-flow system which drains wastewater to a wet well at the east corner of the project site, where two pumps operate alternately to discharge the wastewater into the force main. On site drainage facilities were sized to serve an expanded facility of a size that would include the proposed expansion. However, more recent regulations require development projects to implement low-impact development standards and ensure runoff is contained.. Discussion Checklist items a and f: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The project site is currently developed and contains mostly impervious surfaces. The proposed project would increase the impervious surfaces by approximately 1.5-2 acres, which would have the potential to generate additional stormwater runoff from the project site. Because the proposed project is anticipated to impact more than 1 acre of land, the project would be required to obtain a State Water Resources Control Board General Construction permit that would require the County to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This SWPPP would contain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect stormwater runoff that may impact water quality. The proposed project will abide by the BMPs and requirements of the SWPPP and is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact. Checklist item b: Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in 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 that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The project will not rely on groundwater; its water supply is expected to be provided from surface water provided by EBMUD (see Section XVII. Utilities and Service Systems, checklist item d). Because the project is not supplied from groundwater, the project will not result in a net deficit of aquifer volume or the lowering of the local groundwater table. Similarly, while the project would create 1.5-2 acres of impervious surfaces, this small acreage would not interfere with groundwater recharge because of the small size of the site and because the area is not locally important for groundwater recharge. Therefore, there this impact would be less than significant. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 34 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Checklist items c, d, and e: 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 onsite or offsite? 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 onsite or offsite? Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The majority of the proposed project construction would take place on previously graded, moderately pervious surfaces within the project site. The proposed project would convert approximately 1.5-2 acres of moderately pervious surfaces (such as compacted dirt) to impervious surfaces. The County would ensure the site is designed consistent with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Municipal Regional Permit requirements to minimize the area of new roofs and paving. The County would further ensure that the runoff from impervious areas is captured and used, or treated using bioretention by implementing low-impact development standards. . Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Checklist items g and h: 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? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect floodflows? The project site is not located within the FEMA 100-year floodplain and is designated as Zone X – Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2015). There would be no impact. Checklist item i: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The project site is not located within the California Department of Water Resources Levee Flood Protection Zones (California Department of Water Resources 2015). These zones represent the maximum area that would be prone to flooding should the levees on the San Joaquin or Sacramento River fail while water elevation is at the top of levees. The closest dams to the project site are the North Reservoir and Maloney Reservoir, approximately two and three miles away respectively. The Contra Costa County Hazards Mitigation Plan Update, 2011, identifies the project site as outside of the dam inundation zone (Contra Costa County 2011). Therefore, a dam failure would not pose a threat to people or structures at the project site. There would be no impact. Checklist item j: Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The project site is not within the California Department of Conservation tsunami inundation area and is not at risk of inundation by tsunami (California Emergency Management Agency 2009). The project site is located approximately 0.25 mile from the San Pablo Bay, but is well above any potential inundation area. The project site is located on generally flat ground and is not at risk of mudflows. Therefore, there would be no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 35 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 X. Land Use and Planning Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Land Use and Planning Affected Environment The project site is located within the existing WCDF on land owned by Contra Costa County but within the city limits of the City of Richmond. The City of Richmond general plan designation for the site is Public, Cultural, and Institutional and the site is zoned PC for Public and Civic uses, both of which allow for the site’s existing use as an institutional facility. Surrounding lands are designated for Community and Regional Recreational District (CRR), Regional Commercial District (C-3), Planned Area District (PA), Multifamily Medium Density Residential District (MFM-2) (see Figure 4) (City of Richmond, 2015). Discussion Checklist item a: Physically divide an established community? The proposed facilities would be located entirely within the WCDF property. The proposed project is consistent with the existing uses of the property and therefore would not divide an established community. Therefore, there would be no impact. Checklist item b: Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed facility would expand the existing facilities and would be consistent with the existing land use designations and zoning of the property. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. There would be no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 36 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Checklist item c: Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan covers the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. PA PA CRR CRR CRR PC MFR-2 M-3 C-3 M-2 Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Parking San Pablo Bay Richmond Golf and Country Club Residential UPS Customer Center Pinole Point Business Park SOUTHERN PACIFIC RRAT&SF RR Giant HwyGiant RdAtlas RdLinks DrLi n k s D rFringe DrVista Dr At l a s R d Horizon DrMeadow View DrPark Ridge DrOakm o n t Dr Sobrante AveWest County Detention Facility Graphics … 0026.15 (1-26-2015)Figure 4 Project Site and Surrounding Zoning Feet 200 6004000 Image: Google Inc. 2015. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.0. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: 1-22-2014. Zoning PA Planned Area District PC Public and Civic CRR Community and Regional Recreation District C-3 Regional Commercial District Zoning District Boundary M-2 Light Industrial District M-3 Heavy Industrial District MFR-2 Multifamily Medium Density Residential Legend Project Site Source: City of Richmond. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 37 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 XI. Mineral Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Mineral Resources Affected Environment The proposed project is not located in or near any of the aggregate resource or other mineral resource areas identified by the California Geological Survey (California Department of Conservation 2012). Discussion Checklist items a and b: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The proposed project is not located in an area of high likelihood of known significant aggregate or mineral resources (California Department of Conservation 2012). The proposed project would not limit the use of other mineral resources near the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 38 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 XII. Noise Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. Be located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Noise Affected Environment Noise Sensitive Land Uses and Ambient Noise Environment The project site is located on Giant Highway to the west of Interstate 580. It is surrounded by the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park on the west and north, the Pinole Point Business Park on the north, and a residential neighborhood and the Richmond Golf and Country Club on the east. Two railroad lines are located near the project site: the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTC) railroad on the west, and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe (AT&SF) railroad line on the east along the Giant Highway. The nearest residence is located approximately 0.1 miles from the project site. The majority of noise in the project area comes from the railroad lines as trains pass. Additional sources of noise include motor vehicle traffic, the existing business park, and the WCDF facility. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 39 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Discussion Checklist items a, b, c and d: Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Because of the size of the construction project, the County has determined that a noise study should be performed for the project, and noise impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. Checklist items e and f: Be located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels The closest airport to the project site is the San Rafael Airport, which is located more than 9 miles west of the project and across the San Francisco Bay. The project site is not located in an airport land use area and is not within 2 miles of a public or private airport. Because the proposed project would not expose inmates, employees, visitors, or construction workers to excessive noise levels related to aircraft overflight, there would be no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 40 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 XIII. Population and Housing Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace a substantial number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Population and Housing Affected Environment Contra Costa County and the City of Richmond’s population has grown steadily over the last decade. Richmond has historically grown at a slower pace than the County but is expected to grow at a faster pace over the next 20 years. As of 2010 Richmond’s population was 103,701 and it is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent over the next 15 years. Richmond’s total population is expected to reach 132,600 by 2030 (City of Richmond 2012). Population growth and growth projections within Richmond and Contra Costa from 2000 to 2030 is described in Table 4. Table 5 compares household growth in Richmond and Contra Costa from 2000 to 2030. Table 4. Richmond and Contra Costa County Population Growth Forecast 2000–2030 Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2030 Annual Growth Rate 2000 - 2010 Annual Growth Rate 2010 - 2030 Richmond 99,216 103,701 132,600 0.4% 1.2% Contra Costa 948,816 1,049,025 1,273,700 1.0% 1.0% Source: Richmond General Plan 2030 Table 5. Richmond and Contra Costa County Household Growth Forecast 2000–2030 Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2030 Annual Growth Rate 2000 - 2010 Annual Growth Rate 2010 - 2030 Richmond 34,625 36,940 47,320 0.6% 1.2% Contra Costa 344,129 392,680 461,330 1.4% 0.8% Source: Richmond General Plan 2030 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 41 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Discussion Checklist item a: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. As explained in the Project Description, the proposed project would result in essentially no increase of California Department of Corrections-rated beds in Contra Costa County because the 240 cells at the MDF that do not meet security and safety requirements would be repurposed for short-term housing of inmates for purposes of in-processing and release. The 12 additional employees anticipated to be required to staff the new facilities would also be transferred from the existing facility. The WCDF is located approximately 17 miles from MDF, and therefore it is not anticipated that the transferred employees would relocate closer to the project site. Even if some did, this would not be a substantial increase in the local population. The proposed project does not include construction of other new homes or businesses that would attract new residents. The project site is adequately served by existing infrastructure and therefore would not include any road or infrastructure improvements that would indirectly induce growth. Impacts would, therefore, be less than significant. Checklist items b and c: Displace a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace a substantial number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No housing will be removed as a part of the proposed project. There would be no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 42 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 XIV. Public Services Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Public Services Affected Environment Contra Costa County and the City of Richmond provides fire and police protection to the project site and surrounding area. The project site is located in the West Contra Costa Unified School District. Utility services, such as wastewater treatment and waste disposal, are discussed in more detail in Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems. Discussion Checklist item a: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities? Fire Protection. The project site is part of the Richmond Fire Department. Fire protection is provided by the Richmond Fire Department Station #68 which is 1.9 road miles away from the project site, Pinole Fire Department, which is 4.2 road miles away from the project site, and the San Pablo Fire Department, which is 3.0 road miles away from the project site. Although the proposed project would include a new building and increase the inmate population and number of employees at the project site, this increase is not anticipated to substantially affect the need for fire protection services. However, because the local water pressure in this portion of the city is low, additional pressure tests may be needed to ensure fire performance objectives are met (Harris, personal Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 43 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 communication). Although the new facility would be located on the same property as existing facilities, there would be no increase in response time, and the proposed project would be designed to fire standards, additional analysis of fire hazard risks and fire protection services is needed. The impact on fire protection services could be potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR. Police Protection. Police protection services are provided by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, which operates the WCDF. The proposed project is designed to facilitate improved management of inmates and to provide more secure facilities, reducing the burden on the Sherriff’s Office. Video services are also expected to make court hearings, attorney visits and family visits more efficient. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Richmond Police Department as well. The California Highway Patrol is responsible for traffic-related services in all the unincorporated areas of the County. Although the proposed project would increase the inmate population and require additional employees at the project site, the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially affect the level of police protection services. In fact, the County Sheriff’s Department has indicated that it will help their overall level of police protection services by providing better security for inmates and a safer situation for officers. There would be no increase in response time. The proposed project would not cause any substantial adverse impacts on existing police protection services. There would be a less-than-significant impact on police protection services. Schools. The project site is within the West Contra Costa Unified School District. As stated in the Project Description, the County intends to staff the new facility as much as possible with existing employees, including those currently employed at the existing MDF jail in downtown Martinez. Because of the short distance between the MDF and the WCDF, it is not anticipated that the new employees would relocate to the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact. Parks. The project is not expected to affect the use of Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park. Current detention facilities are within a fenced area that is not accessible from the park, and are not visually noticeable from the park; similarly, expanded facilities will not be visible from the park. Some trees were removed on park lands when the County installed solar above its parking lot; the County has mitigated these effects and is monitoring the restoration of new trees between the park’s parking lot and WCDF. The County is not aware of any other conflicts between the existing facility and existing park uses, and expansion of the WCDF is similarly not expected to alter the relationship between the facilities. The project would have a less than significant impact. Other Public Facilities. The proposed would not cause significant growth in the city of Richmond or Contra Costa County and would not significantly impact existing public facilities. There would be a less-than-significant impact on other public facilities. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 44 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 XV. Recreation Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Recreation Affected Environment Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park is located immediately north and west of the project site. Point Pinole consists of 2,315 acres of Bayfront wetland, grassland, and eucalyptus groves. Park activities include birdwatching, hiking, bicycle and horse riding, fishing, and camping (East Bay Regional Park District 2015). Discussion Checklist item a: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to increase the use of the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park. WCDF is a secure facility with its own internal recreational facilities and inmates will remain on-site. County staff working at the facility may visit the park before or after work hours, but these staff are already likely to live within the region and may currently be using the regional park. Overall, there the County expects that there will be no increase in use of the existing neighborhood or regional park due to the project. There would be no impact. Checklist item b: Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Recreational facilities for inmates incorporated into the secure facility, and the impacts of construction and operation of those facilities are a part of the impacts of the whole project. No other recreational facilities will be required to serve the project. There would be no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 45 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 XVI. Transportation/Traffic Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level-of-service standards and travel demand measures or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Transportation and Traffic Affected Environment The proposed project is located on the west side of Giant Highway. Giant Highway is a two lane road which provides access to the Point Pinole Business Park, Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park, a residential district south of Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park, and the WCDF. Giant Highway is reached in the north via Atlas Road and Richmond Parkway which is the main access from Interstate 80 to the East. Richmond Parkway is a well-used and typically congested road throughout the day. The WCDF parking lot consists of an entrance and exit for visitors and a separate entrance and exit for police vehicles and delivery. There is a left turn lane for those accessing the WCDF parking lot visitors entrance from the south. The intersection of Giant Highway with Atlas Road is controlled by stop signs with designated left turn lanes. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 46 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 There are no bicycle or pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the project site other than the paved shoulders of Giant Highway and pedestrian walking opportunities at the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park. However, future improvements the project vicinity are identified in the 2009 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2009). Regularly scheduled transit service on bus line 71 and 376, operated by AC Transit, provides direct access to the WCDF with a bus stop in the WCDF parking lot. Line 71 runs every 30 minutes on weekdays and hourly on weekends, and line 376 runs every 30 minutes on weekdays and weekends. Discussion Checklist item a and b: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The proposed project will increase the number of inmates and employees at the WCDF location. This has the potential to increase traffic to and from the project site. Construction traffic consisting of trucks and commuting construction workers would increase traffic to the project site during the construction phase. A traffic analysis will be conducted on nearby intersections to evaluate the impact of the proposed project and the impacts of the project evaluated in the EIR. This impact could be potentially significant. Checklist item c: Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? As discussed in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the nearest airport to the project site is the San Rafael Airport, which is located more than 9 miles west of the project and across the San Francisco Bay. The project site is not in an area covered by an airport compatibility land use plan. There would be no impact. Checklist item d: Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project would not change the nature or design of any roadways or intersections. Therefore, it is not expected to increase traffic hazards from a design or incompatible use perspective. Additional trucks and heavy equipment would slow and turn upon entering the site during construction, possibly creating a short-term hazard. The impact of such vehicles will be evaluated in the EIR. The impact could be potentially significant. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 47 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Checklist item e: Result in inadequate emergency access? As discussed in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would not alter the project site in a way that would impair emergency response or evacuations. Emergency response time and distance to the project site would remain unchanged. In the event of a county- wide emergency, the state highways would all serve as primary evacuation routes; the closest state highway is Interstate 80, which is 2 miles to the east. There would be no impact. Checklist item f: Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The proposed project would have no impact upon the existing public transit services to the project site. Regular service by AC Transit would continue as usual throughout construction and after the proposed project is completed. There are currently no pedestrian or bicycle facilities on the project site. Nevertheless, the proposed project would not preclude development of pedestrian or bicycle facilities on Giant Highway or in the project area as the proposed project is contained entirely within the WCDF. There would be no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 48 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Utilities and Service Systems Affected Environment The project site is supplied with water by the EBMUD’s Central Pressure District. Wastewater service is provided by the WCWD through a gravity-flow system which drains wastewater to a storage tank at the east corner of the project site, where two pumps operate intermittently to discharge the wastewater into the force main. A second pump and storage tank capacity provide backup service in the event of a primary pump failure. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 49 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Discussion Checklist item a and e: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The proposed project would utilize the wastewater infrastructure which already exists on the project site and serves the WCDF. The existing WCWD facility complies with wastewater treatment requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and it is anticipated that the wastewater treatment would continue to remain in compliance after implementation of the proposed project. However, the impacts of increased wastewater from the proposed project may exceed these requirements and WCWD’s existing commitments. The impact could be potentially significant and will be further evaluated to determine if there is sufficient wastewater collection and treatment capacity for the project. Checklist item b: Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The proposed project may require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Existing facility sizing and capacity is being evaluated in coordination with the West County Wastewater District (Savannah, personal communication). The impact could be potentially significant and will be further evaluated to determine if there is sufficient wastewater treatment facilities and capacity for the project. Checklist item c: Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? As discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, the existing stormwater drainage facilities have the capacity to accommodate any increase in stormwater drainage or runoff related to the proposed project. The proposed project would tie into the existing stormwater drainage systems and, because runoff and drainage are not anticipated to increase substantially, the existing systems would have the capacity for the increased runoff. No new drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be required. Therefore, the project would have no impact. Checklist item d: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed? Water supply at the project site currently comes from EBMUD’s Central Pressure District. A Water Supply Assessment will be obtained to confirm that EBMUD is capable of delivering a sufficient supply of water. There could be a potentially significant impact to water supplies. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 50 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Checklist item f: Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Construction of the project would involve some production of solid waste. Implementation of the project would result in some additional solid waste due to the increased number of inmates and employees. The project site is currently served by the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL). The WCCSL is located approximately 3.2 miles away from the project site. The WCCSL has two facilities, one for Composting and another for Large Volume Transfer/Processing. The Composting facility is permitted to accept 1,134 tons of waste per day. The Large Volume Transfer/Processing facility can accept 196 tons of waste per day and has a permitted capacity of 51,000 tons per year (Cal Recycle 2015). Waste from construction and the project would increase the use of landfill services and production of solid waste. There could be a potentially significant impact and the effects will be further evaluated in the EIR. Checklist item g: Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project would comply with Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 239–259 (regulations for solid waste), California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 3, Article 5, Solid Waste Storage and Removal Standards, and Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 92-105. Construction contractors would comply with all applicable statues and regulations during construction. After completion of construction, the existing facility would continue compliance with these statutes and regulations for the additional quantities of solid waste. There would be no impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 51 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Impact Less-than- Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Mandatory Findings of Significance Discussion Checklist item a: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on biological resources in the project site. The proposed project is unlikely to impact cultural resources; however, should cultural resources be encountered during project construction, mitigation measures contained in this initial study would reduce the impacts on these resources to a less-than-significant level. Compliance with existing regulations and standards and implementation of applicable mitigation measures would reduce any impact on biological and cultural resources throughout construction and operation of the proposed project. The impact of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 52 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Checklist item b: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) The project is not expected to contribute to cumulative impacts in the following resource topics: Agricultural and Forestry. There would be no impact to agriculture and forestry resources as a result of the project. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact. Biological Resources. There would be no impact to biological resources as a result of the project. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact. Cultural Resources. The impact to cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project would have measures in place to protect cultural resources and would not be expected to contribute to cumulative losses of these resources. Geology/Soils. Design and engineering standards would address potential geology and soil issues, and the potential impact to paleontological resource would be less than significant with mitigation. The project would have measures in place to protect paleontological resources and would not be expected to contribute to cumulative losses of these resources. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The project is not anticipated to exacerbate risk based on hazards or hazardous materials. The small potential for increased risk during construction would not be individually or cumulatively significant because the handling requirements ensure they are stored, transported and used correctly. Hydrology/Water Quality. The proposed project would not substantially alter existing hydrology or water quality. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact. Land Use/Planning. The proposed project would have no land use/planning impacts. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact. Mineral Resources. The proposed project would not adversely impact mineral resources. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact. Population/Housing. The project is not expected to substantially affect population or housing in the area, either individually or cumulatively. While, there would be an increase in the number of inmates locally, this growth was previously contemplated, and this number is very small in context of local growth and will be largely achieved from inmates being transferred. As the area was already identified for expansion, there would be no unanticipated cumulative impact. Public Services. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on public services as existing public service levels would remain similar to existing conditions. Any new incremental increase is not expected to exacerbate the cumulative conditions for public services and the master plans for these services indicate sufficient capacity to accommodate local growth. Recreation. The proposed project would have no impact on recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 53 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 As noted in this Initial Study, the proposed project has the potential to have impacts which degrade the quality of the environment. As a part of the evaluation of impacts in the following topical areas, the EIR will also evaluate the potential for the project to contribute to cumulative impacts. Aesthetics Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions Noise Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Checklist item c: Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? As noted in this Initial Study, the proposed project has the potential to have impacts which cause adverse effects on human beings related to areas including air quality and noise. These impacts and possible mitigation will be further evaluated in the EIR. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 54 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 XIX. Earlier Analysis Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impact adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are “potentially significant unless mitigated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21083.05. Reference: Section 65088.4, Government Code; Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988), 202 Cal. App. 3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656. Although the project’s previous EIR contemplated a facility expansion, this analysis does not rely on the previous EIR to ensure the information is up to date and reflects the current environmental setting. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 55 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 References Aesthetics California Department of Transportation. 2013. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Last Revised: October 14, 2013. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm. Accessed: February 2, 2015. Agricultural and Forestry Resources California Department of Conservation. 2014. California Important Farmland Finder. Available: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html. Accessed: February 2, 2015. City of Richmond. 2015. City of Richmond Zoning Information. Available: http://geoweb.ci.richmond.ca.us/SilverlightViewer_1_x/Viewer.html?ViewerConfig=http://geo web.ci.richmond.ca.us/Geocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/ZoningInfoINTERNET/viewers/Zonin gInfoINTERNET/virtualdirectory/Config/Viewer.xml. Accessed: February 2, 2015. Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. What are sensitive receptors? Available: < http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/uep/sensitivereceptors.html>. Accessed: December 9, 2014. Biological Resources East Bay Regional Park District. Point Pinole Regional Shoreline. Available: http://www.ebparks.org/parks/pt_pinole. Accessed: February 4, 2015. Cultural Resources Contra Costa County. 1990. West County Justice Center Draft Environmental Impact Report. April. Geology and Soils U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. Custom Soil Resource Report for Contra Costa County, California. February 3, 2015. California Department of Conservation, 2007. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Available: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm. Accessed February 2, 2015. Contra Costa County. 2010. Contra Costa County General Plan 2020. Available: http://ca- contracostacounty2.civicplus.com/4732/General-Plan. July. U.S. Geological Survey. 2014. Liquefaction Susceptibility KML Layer. Last Revised: July 23, 2014. Available: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/bayarea/liquefaction.php. Accessed: February 2, 2015. California State Water Resources Control Board. 2013. Construction Storm Water Program. Available: Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 56 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml. Accessed July 9, 2014. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. Available http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242. Accessed: February 3, 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emissions California Air Resources Board. 2014. California GHG Inventory for 2012 — by Economic Sector . Last Revised: May 12, 2014. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/graph/pie/pie_by_sector_2012.htm. Accessed: February 2, 2015. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller (eds.). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Greenhouse Gas Equivalency Calculator. Last Revised: April 16, 2014. Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html. Accessed: February 2, 2015. Contra Costa County. 2012. Draft Climate Action Plan. Available: http://ca- contracostacounty.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/9013. December. Hazards and Hazardous Materials California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2007. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?page=6&cmd=search&business_name=& main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&branch=&site_type= CSITES%2COPEN%2CFUDS%2CCLOSE&npl=&funding=&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AN D+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST&reporttype=CORTESE&federal_superfund=&state_response=&vol untary_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_act ion=&tiered_permit=&evaluation=&spec_prog=&national_priority_list=&senate=&congress=&as sembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&searchtype=&hwmp_site_type=&cleanup_t ype=&ocieerp=False&hwmp=False&permitted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&complaints=&or derby=county. Accessed: February 3, 2015. CAL FIRE. 2009. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Available: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/contra_costa/Richmond.pdf. Hydrology and Water Quality Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2015. Flood Map Service Center. Map Item ID 06013C02264. Available: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=5555%20Giant%20Highway%20Richmon d%2C%20california. Accessed: February 3, 2015. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 57 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 California Department of Water Resources. 2015. Levee Flood Protection Zone Maps. Available: http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/lrafmo/fmb/fes/levee_protection_zones/LFPZ_maps.cfm. Accessed: February 3, 2015. Contra Costa County. 2011. Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, Volume 1: Planning-Area-Wide Elements. Available: http://www.cccounty.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/6024. May. California Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Richmond Quadrangle/San Quentin Quadrangle. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/ContraCost a/Pages/ContraCosta.aspx. July 31. Land Use and Planning City of Richmond. 2015. City of Richmond Zoning Information. Available: http://geoweb.ci.richmond.ca.us/SilverlightViewer_1_x/Viewer.html?ViewerConfig=http://geo web.ci.richmond.ca.us/Geocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/ZoningInfoINTERNET/viewers/Zonin gInfoINTERNET/virtualdirectory/Config/Viewer.xml. Accessed: February 2, 2015. Mineral Resources California Department of Conservation. 2012. Aggregate Sustainability in California. Available: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mlc/Pages/Index.aspx. Accessed: February 3, 2015. Noise None. Population and Housing City of Richmond. 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030. Available: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=2608. April. Public Services Harris, Terry. Fire Marshall. City of Richmond. Richmond, CA. Telephone communication with Brad Norton, ICF International, regarding ability to provide fire services. Recreation None. Transportation and Traffic Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2009. 2009 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Pleasant Hill, CA. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Environmental Checklist West County Detention Facility Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion Initial Study 58 March 2015 ICF 00026.15 Utilities and Service Systems Savannah, Michael. Senior Engineering Technician. West County Wastewater District. Richmond, CA. E-mail communication with Matilda Evoy-Mount, ICF International, regarding wastewater capacity. Mandatory Findings of Significance None. Notice of Preparation N APA S ONOMA M ARIN S OLANO C ONTRA C OSTA A LAMEDA 24 13 29 29 37 12 4 1 121 121 112 116 80 80 580 580 880 101 101 Faireld Novato Petaluma Sonoma San Rafael Mill Valley Tiburon Sausalito Corte Madera San Francisco Vallejo Richmond San Pablo Pinole Oakland Hayward Berkeley Albany El Cerrito Alameda San Leandro Concord Benicia Martinez Walnut Creek Napa San Pablo Bay San Francisco Bay Suisun BaySonoma CkPetaluma R.Pac i c OceanNapa R .Figure 1 Project Location Miles 50 Project Location Graphics … 0026.15 (1-26-2015) West County Detention Facility Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Parking San Pablo Bay Richmond Golf and Country Club Residential UPS Customer Center Pinole Point Business Park SOUTHERN PACIFIC RRAT&SF RR Giant HwyGiant RdAtlas RdLinks DrLi n k s D rFringe DrVista Dr At l a s R d Horizon DrMeadow View DrPark Ridge DrOakm o n t Dr Sobrante AveGraphics … 0026.15 (1-26-2015)Figure 2 Project Site Feet 200 6004000 Image: Google Inc. 2015. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.0. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: 1-22-2014. Legend Project Site West County Detention Facility Expansion Area Pinole Point Business Park Giant HwySobrante AveSOUTHERN PACIFIC RRPoint Pinole Regional Shoreline Parking Richmond Golf and Country ClubAT&SF RRFigure 3 Aerial View and Preliminary Site PlanGraphics … projectnumber (date) initialsFeet 100 3002000 Image: Google Inc. 2015. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.0. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: 1-26-2015. PA PA CRR CRR CRR PC MFR-2 M-3 C-3 M-2 Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Parking San Pablo Bay Richmond Golf and Country Club Residential UPS Customer Center Pinole Point Business Park SOUTHERN PACIFIC RRAT&SF RR Giant HwyGiant RdAtlas RdLinks DrLi n k s D rFringe DrVista Dr At l a s R d Horizon DrMeadow View DrPark Ridge DrOakm o n t Dr Sobrante AveWest County Detention Facility Graphics … 0026.15 (1-26-2015)Figure 4 Project Site and Surrounding Zoning Feet 200 6004000 Image: Google Inc. 2015. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.0. Mountain View, CA. Accessed: 1-22-2014. Zoning PA Planned Area District PC Public and Civic CRR Community and Regional Recreation District C-3 Regional Commercial District Zoning District Boundary M-2 Light Industrial District M-3 Heavy Industrial District MFR-2 Multifamily Medium Density Residential Legend Project Site Source: City of Richmond. Scoping Comments FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WEST COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY EXPANSION S TATE C LEARINGHOUSE #2015042003 P REPARED FOR: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Contact: Hillary Heard P REPARED BY: ICF International 630 K Street Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Brad Norton July 2015 ICF International. July. Final Environmental Impact Report West County Detention Facility Expansion. 2015. (ICF 00026.15.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, CA. Contents Page List of Tables and Figures ....................................................................................................................... ii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... iii Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose of this Document ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Public Review Process ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 CEQA Requirements ......................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Use of this Document ...................................................................................................... 1-2 Chapter 2 Responses to Comments .......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Common Responses ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.3 Transportation of Inmates for Program Services ............................................................. 2-2 2.2 Letters No. 1. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (letter) and Letter No. 2. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (e-mail) ............................................. 2-3 2.2.1 Response to Letter No. 1 and No. 2 ................................................................................. 2-6 2.3 Letter No. 3. City of San Pablo ......................................................................................... 2-7 2.3.1 Response to Letter No. 3 ................................................................................................. 2-9 2.4 Letter No. 4. City of Richmond, Mayor Tom Butt .......................................................... 2-10 2.4.1 Response to Letter No. 4 ............................................................................................... 2-11 2.5 Letter No. 5. City of Richmond, Director of Planning and Building Services ................. 2-13 2.5.1 Response to Letter No. 5 ............................................................................................... 2-22 2.6 Letter No. 6. Contra Costa Interfaith Supporting Community Organization ................ 2-31 2.6.1 Response to Letter No. 6 ............................................................................................... 2-32 2.7 Letter No. 7. Faith Alliance for a Moral Economy (plus duplicate letter from same commenter on East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy letterhead) ..................................................................................................................... 2-34 2.7.1 Response to Letter No. 7 ............................................................................................... 2-36 2.8 Letter No. 8. Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition ........................................... 2-37 2.8.1 Response to Letter No. 8 ............................................................................................... 2-39 2.9 Letter No. 9. Richmond Progressive Alliance ................................................................. 2-40 2.9.1 Response to Letter No. 9 ............................................................................................... 2-42 West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report i July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Chapter 3 Text Changes to Draft EIR ......................................................................................... 3-1 Changes to the Draft EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 Changes to the List of Figures ............................................................................................................. 3-2 Changes to the Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 3-2 Chapter 1 Changes............................................................................................................................... 3-2 Chapter 2 Changes............................................................................................................................... 3-2 Chapter 3 Changes............................................................................................................................... 3-3 Section 3.2 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy ................................................. 3-3 Section 3.3 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................... 3-5 Section 3.6 Transportation and Traffic ......................................................................................... 3-5 Chapter 4 Changes............................................................................................................................... 3-8 Chapter 5 Changes............................................................................................................................... 3-8 Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ......................................................... 4-1 4.1 Purpose of and Need for Monitoring ............................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Requirements ....................................... 4-1 Chapter 5 List of Preparers ....................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Contra Costa County ........................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 ICF International .............................................................................................................. 5-1 List of Tables and Figures Tables Page 2-1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Comment Letters ................................................................ 2-1 3.2-9 Maximum Project-Level Health Risks during Construction .......................................................... 3-3 3.3-1 Public and Civic Zone Development Standards ............................................................................ 3-5 3.3-3 Richmond General Plan Policy Consistency .................................................................................. 3-5 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ........................................................................... 4-2 Figures Page 3.2-1 Areas Subject to Sea Level Rise ..................................................................................................... 3-4 3.6-3 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................ 3-6 3.6-4 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ..................................................................................... 3-7 West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report ii July 2015 ICF 00026.15 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMPs best management practices CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act dBA A-weighted decibels EIR Environmental Impact Report FAR floor area ration Ldn day-night sound level Lmax maximum sound level MDF Martinez Detention Facility MMRP Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan NOP Notice of Preparation WCDF West County Detention Facility West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report iii July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this Document This document is the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the West County Detention Facility (WCDF) Re-Entry and Treatment Expansion (proposed project). The purpose of this document is to summarize the process that has occurred to date, present comments received during the public comment period, provide responses to public comments, provide text changes to the Draft EIR where necessary for clarification or to make minor corrections in response to comments, and present the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) to be included with the proposed project. The information presented in this Final EIR is being provided in accordance with the requirements of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This Final EIR contains five chapters. Chapter 1, Introduction, discusses the purpose of this document, public review process, CEQA requirements, and use of this document. Chapter 2, Responses to Comments, contains copies of the comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR and the written responses to those comments. Chapter 3, Text Changes to the DEIR, contains changes to the text of the Draft EIR made in response to comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR or for purposes of clarification. Chapter 4, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, contains the program required by CEQA to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented. Chapter 5, List of Preparers, identifies the individuals who prepared the Draft and Final EIRs. 1.2 Public Review Process CEQA does not require formal hearings at any stage of the environmental review process (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15202[a]). However, CEQA does encourage “wide public involvement, formal and informal, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15201). Contra Costa County has conducted several public meetings throughout the environmental review process to help inform its environmental analysis. The County distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of intent to prepare a Draft EIR for the proposed project beginning on April 1, 2015. A 30-day public comment period for the NOP ended on April 30, 2015. Comments on the NOP were considered during the preparation of the Draft EIR. The Zoning Administrator conducted a public scoping session on April 20, 2015; however, there were no public comments on the scope of the EIR. The Draft EIR was made available for public comment May 15, 2015, and the 45-day public comment period ended on July 1, 2015. A public meeting was conducted by the Zoning Administrator on June 10, 2015; however, no public comments were received at the hearing. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Introduction The Sheriff’s Department also conducted outreach meetings to local city councils and community organizations. The Sheriff’s Department and County staff attended a Richmond City Council meeting on May 26, 2015, and a San Pablo City Council meeting on June 15, 2015. The Sheriff’s Department also conducted approximately four additional meetings with community groups. Written comments were received during the public comment period. 1.3 CEQA Requirements CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 requires that the Final EIR consist of: a. The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft. b. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. c. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. d. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. e. Any other information added by the Lead Agency. 1.4 Use of this Document This Final EIR will be used by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to decide on the proposed project and its implementation. The public may use this document to understand the public comments that were received and how the County responses to those comments, as well as changes to the EIR. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 1-2 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Chapter 2 Responses to Comments Table 2-1 lists the comment letters on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). Table 2-1. Draft Environmental Impact Report Comment Letters Comment Letter Number Commenter Date 1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (letter) May 21, 2015 2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (e-mail) May 18, 2015 3 City of San Pablo June 15, 2015 4 City of Richmond, Mayor Tom Butt June 30, 2015 5 City of Richmond, Director of Planning and Building Services June 30, 2015 6 Contra Costa Interfaith Supporting Community Organization July 1, 2015 7 Faith Alliance for a Moral Economy (plus duplicate letter from same commenter on East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy letterhead) July 1, 2015 8 Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition July 1, 2015 9 Richmond Progressive Alliance July 1, 2015 Many of the comment letters addressed common issues including the project description, aesthetics and transportation of inmates for program services. Comment letters from the non-governmental organizations appear to be a common form letter. Common responses were developed for these issues and are provided below. Common responses are followed by responses to the specific comment letters, which are ordered by letter number and comment number. 2.1 Common Responses 2.1.1 Project Description The County is confident that the project description includes sufficient information to allow for the meaningful evaluation of potential environmental effects as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project description in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR contains information on the project setting, project objectives and project overview. The project description identifies the location of the project (page 2-1 and Figure 2-1), existing conditions (page 2-1), surrounding land uses, the size of the project (page 2-2), the proposed increase in staff and inmates, the project design and characteristics, proposed operations, and construction methods and schedule (all described on pages 2-2 through 2-5). The description of the project and construction methods contained in Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Project Overview, of the Draft EIR provides the level of detail necessary for evaluation of potential impacts related to air quality, noise and other resources. The Draft EIR includes information on the precise location – within the fence line of the existing facility – on the southeastern most portion of the site (Figure 2-3). While the polygon shown in the West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-1 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments figure is conceptual, it represents the proposed building envelope. Final engineering plans with exterior and internal layouts are beyond what is required by CEQA or needed to conduct a complete analysis of the project. In addition, the identified range of potential facility heights, specifically, 32–45 feet (page 2-3), is sufficient to support an analysis of effects. 2.1.2 Aesthetics Chapter 3, Section 3.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR provides a thorough characterization of the project vicinity’s existing visual qualities and identifies the area’s existing viewer groups, specifically residents, business employees and patrons, roadway users, and recreational users. Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-6 provide representative views of the project site from areas adjacent to the project site. As explained under Impact AES-3 on pages 3.1-5 through 3.1-7 of the Draft EIR, the project would not change the character of existing visual resources. Because of topography, vegetation, and existing walls, viewers near the project site would have obscured sightlines and limited views of the project. Moreover, as explained in the Draft EIR, the project would be visually similar to existing buildings and would not alter the existing nature of views from nearby residences, businesses, and Giant Highway. As explained on pages 3.1-6 and 3.1-7, visitors to Point Pinole Regional Shoreline enjoy expansive views of San Pablo Bay, and the project would not affect these views. Park users currently have limited views of the West County Detention Facility (WCDF) and would be unlikely to see the project because of existing buildings in the foreground. In addition, as indicated on page 3.1-5, neither the City of Richmond nor the County has designated any area near the project site as a scenic vista, and there are no state- or County-designated scenic highways near the project site. No additional description of the environmental setting or analysis of the impacts of the project is required under CEQA. 2.1.3 Transportation of Inmates for Program Services The Sheriff does not propose to transport inmates from the Martinez Detention Facility (MDF) or the Marsh Creek Detention Facility to WCDF to attend programs in the proposed new building at WCDF. The objective of the project is to move inmates currently housed at the MDF and who need the program services to be offered at WCDF as a part of the proposed project. During project operations, inmates housed at WCDF including those currently in the medium security areas of WCDF would participate in programs onsite. As explained on page 2-5 of the Draft EIR, the Sheriff’s department already operates a bus system that circulates among the WCDF, MDF, and the courthouses. Implementation of the project would not change the number or timing of bus trips. Because the project would not alter the Sheriff’s existing bus system, the transportation of inmates during project operations could have no effect on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, or transportation and traffic. No changes are necessary to the Final EIR. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-2 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-3 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-4 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-5 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.2 Letters No. 1 and No. 2 2.2.1 Response to Letter No. 1 and No. 2 2.2.1.1 Letter No. 1, Comment #1 The May 21 letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is substantially the same as CDFW’s comment letter on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR. The County provided a response to that comment letter on page 1-5 of the Draft EIR, which included the County’s commitment to use of its standard best management practices (BMPs), including pre-construction surveys, to ensure that nesting birds would not be affected. As described on page 1-5 of the Draft EIR, the project would be located on a site that has previously been graded, is developed, and is within an existing fenced area of the West County Detention Facility (WCDF). Consequently, no endangered, threatened, or locally unique species or sensitive habitats would be impacted. 2.2.1.2 Letter No. 2, Comment #1 Regarding CDFW’s question “will this line of trees be retained after the Project is complete?” Yes, the trees will be retained. No trees are proposed to be removed as a result of construction or operation of the project. 2.2.1.3 Letter No. 2, Comment #2 Regarding CDFW’s concern that nesting birds in the tree line near the railroad line could be disturbed during construction: No impacts on nesting birds would result from construction noise, because the existing trees located along the rail line to the west are located more than 700 feet from the project construction site, and the existing trees located along the rail line to the east are located more than 150 feet away from the project construction site. In addition, birds are likely habituated to noise due to the location of the trees along an existing active rail line and, in the case of the trees to the east, along Giant Highway. As presented on page 3.4-7 of the Draft EIR, maximum construction noise was estimated at 88 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at 50 feet from the location of use of the identified equipment, which would be reduced to approximately 80 dB at the closest trees to the east. Because railroad noise is generally in the neighborhood of 83 dBA at 100 feet, and the trees are located along the rail line, noise levels from rail operations would exceed noise from project construction and the birds should be habituated to higher levels of noise. As noted in the response to Letter No. 1, however, the County provided its commitment on page 1-5 of the Draft EIR to use of its standard BMPs, including pre-construction surveys, to ensure that nesting birds would not be affected. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-6 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-7 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-8 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.3 Letter No. 3 2.3.1 Response to Letter No. 3 2.3.1.1 Comment #1 The Draft EIR analyzed a project with a maximum buildout of 240 double-occupancy cells with 480 beds for inmates within a 151,000-square-foot building. The Sheriff has continued to evaluate how to design the space of the proposed project to address the space needed in the most efficient manner. The Sheriff has been diligently working with the project’s design engineer to refine the internal space and use of the facility; additional changes and architectural design will be required prior to project construction, although the facility will not be larger than that analyzed in the Draft EIR, including in size, footprint, approximate height, and capacity of the facility. For these reasons, the analysis of the project described in the Draft EIR provides a reasonable worst-case assessment of potential environmental impacts, and no changes are necessary in the Final EIR in response to this comment. 2.3.1.2 Comment #2 The County does not propose to expand the WCDF beyond what is described in the Draft EIR. The County has limited funds to be able to expand this facility and will depend on grant funds to support the currently proposed expansion. For these reasons, expansion beyond the proposed project is not proposed. Future expansion would be speculative and cannot be analyzed at this time. Similarly, the program space would be designed for the proposed use and not for housing, and it would be speculative to discuss potential conversion of proposed program space to inmate housing. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-9 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-10 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.4 Letter No. 4 2.4.1 Response to Letter No. 4 2.4.1.1 Comment #1 The commenter states that there is no detailed description of the proposed project in the Draft EIR. In fact, the Draft EIR includes a project description with information on what is proposed on the site, including all of the information requested in this comment. This information is provided in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, which describes surrounding land uses (page 2-1) and the facility height (32–45 feet) (page 2-3). The setback from Giant Highway is generally illustrated in Figure 2-3 and would be greater than 100 feet. Distances from other land uses are specified in the Draft EIR, including on page 3.1-6, where it is stated, “The closest residence to the project site is approximately 450 feet to the northeast,” and “Businesses at the Pinole Point Business Park are approximately 600 feet north of the project site.” Chapter 3, Section 3.1, Aesthetics, includes a detailed analysis of potential aesthetic impacts, including an analysis of potential viewer groups including residents, business employees and patrons, roadway users, and recreational users. Chapter 3, Section 3.6, Transportation and Traffic, includes a detailed analysis of potential traffic impacts. Other potential environmental impacts are also described in Chapter 3. The Draft EIR provides sufficient information to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project. No changes are provided in the Final EIR in response to this comment. 2.4.1.2 Comment #2 The commenter states that the County is taking credit for energy reductions at the MDF. This is not correct. The Draft EIR indicates that operation and maintenance of the project would not increase the use of nonrenewable resources (including energy) because the same number of inmates would be housed in County facilities. Further, as indicated in Chapter 3, Section 3.2, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy, on page 3.2-26 in Impact EGY-1, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary usage of energy. On page 3.2-20, the County indicates, “It was conservatively assumed that emissions at the MDF would not change with implementation of the project. However, it is likely area source emissions at the MDF would decrease because 480 inmates would be transferred to the WCDF.” Because the question asked by the City of Richmond is already addressed in the Draft EIR, no changes in the Final EIR are necessary. 2.4.1.3 Comment #3 Program services offered at the WCDF would be conducted within the proposed building. No additional noise impacts are anticipated from offering these services. Implementation of these program services would require additional staff, and these staff positions were accounted for in the Draft EIR’s project description and in the Draft EIR analysis, including the traffic analysis. The Sheriff does not propose to transport inmates from MDF or the Marsh Creek Detention Facility to WCDF to attend programs in the proposed new building. Please see Common Response Section 2.1.3 Transportation of Inmates for Program Services. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-11 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.4.1.4 Comment #4 As described in detail in responses to Comments #1, #2 and #3, above, all of the questions raised by the City of Richmond in this letter have been responded to in the Final EIR, and any documentation referred to in the Draft EIR is readily available for public review. As noted in detail in the responses to comments, the Draft EIR is adequate, and does not need to be revised or recirculated to provide clarifications. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-12 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-13 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-14 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-15 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-16 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-17 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-18 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-19 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-20 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-21 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.5 Letter No. 5 2.5.1 Response to Letter No. 5 2.5.1.1 Comment #1 Please see the Section 2.1.1, Project Description, and the response to Comment #1 in Letter No. 4, also from the City of Richmond. For reasons explained in these responses, no changes to the project description are necessary in the Final EIR. 2.5.1.2 Comment #2 Distances to the nearest residences and businesses were measured and analyzed from the layout depicted on Figure 2-3 of the Draft EIR. Chapter 3, Section 3.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR provides a complete analysis of potential noise impacts, including identifying the distances between the proposed project and noise receptors. As described on page 3.4-5 of the Draft EIR, the nearest residence is approximately 450 feet from the proposed project site. Businesses in the Pinole Point Business Park are also approximately this distance from the project site. For these reasons, no changes are necessary in the Final EIR. 2.5.1.3 Comment #3 Building height information is provided in the Draft EIR based on preliminary design plans. The range of heights provided includes an upper range, which is sufficient to support the analysis. Chapter 3, Section 3.1, Aesthetics, provides a detailed analysis of potential aesthetic impacts, including an analysis of effects on residents, business employees and patrons, roadway users, and recreational users. The Draft EIR includes a detailed visual resource assessment based on established methods for evaluating aesthetic impacts (pages 3.1-1 through 3.1-4). Direct field observations, photographic documentation, and evaluation of the regional context are provided in the Draft EIR. From many viewpoints, the new building would not be visible at all. For sensitive viewpoints, such as those from Point Pinole Regional Shoreline, views of the project site are limited or unavailable, regardless of the design elements or style of the proposed buildings. As explained on pages 3.1-6 and 3.1-7 of the Draft EIR, visitors to Point Pinole Regional Shoreline enjoy expansive views of San Pablo Bay, and the project would not affect these views. Park users currently have limited views of the WCDF and would be unlikely to see the project because of existing buildings in the foreground. From other viewpoints, the existing views contain elements similar to the proposed facility, and the aesthetic design of the buildings would not be a factor in determining the effects of the project on these views. For these reasons, no changes are necessary in the Final EIR. Overall, the County is confident that there is sufficient information to evaluate the impacts of the project on visual resources, and the Draft EIR provides this evaluation. No changes are necessary in the Final EIR in response to this comment. Please also see Common Response Section 2.1.1 Project Description, and Section 2.1.2, Aesthetics. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-22 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.5.1.4 Comment #4 High-security housing includes facilities that greatly restrict movement of inmates. These facilities are flexible enough to accommodate all classifications of inmates, but are designed with greater engineering standards to regulate and control inmate movements, and to ensure that facilities are secure and less prone to inmate destruction. Non-secure facilities are those facilities that are prone to destruction and have management or operational control challenges. For this project, high-security housing would limit outdoor movement of inmates. This is represented in the project description as one large building that includes housing, educational and vocational programs, healthcare and mental health facilities, central control, video visitation, administration, and mechanical and circulation elements, as summarized in Table 2-1. 2.5.1.5 Comment #5 The commenter has identified an error in the Draft EIR regarding a missing word. The Sheriff would continue to access the site as described in the project description and the sentence previous to the one noted by the commenter. The text of the Draft EIR has been corrected to add the word “not” to the second sentence in Section 5.2.1, Remove Obstacles to Growth or Provide New Access, of the Draft EIR: The proposed project would not construct any new roads, infrastructure, or enhance access to the project site. The proposed project would be constructed entirely within the existing WCDF which, as a detention facility, does not require additional access in addition to the already established facility access points. 2.5.1.6 Comment #6 The project makes use of an existing site that is zoned for this type of use and was previously planned for an expansion. The intensity of the project is described as a 151,000-square-foot building to be constructed on a 2.3-acre portion of the 50-acre WCDF site. Please also see response to Comment #21 in this letter. 2.5.1.7 Comment #7 Information on programs is not essential to the characterization of potential environmental impacts. The Draft EIR presents the required information for environmental analysis, such as building size, the number of inmates, the number of staff, and the hours of operation. As the Sheriff has described in public meetings regarding the project, there is currently very limited program space for high-security inmates, and the proposed project is needed to be able to safely offer program space. 2.5.1.8 Comment #8 As described in Common Response Section 2.1.3 Transportation of Inmates for Program Services, the Sheriff does not propose to bring inmates from other facilities to participate in these programs. Inmates housed at WCDF including those currently in the medium security areas of WCDF would participate in these programs. For the reasons described in the common response, no additional environmental, traffic, or noise impacts are anticipated beyond those described, and no changes are necessary in the Final EIR. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-23 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments Recent Reentry Solutions Group meeting discussions are intended to help determine the content of programs and potential staffing; these discussions have not changed the underlying project analyzed in the Draft EIR. As presented on page 2-5 of the Draft EIR, the Sheriff already operates a bus system that circulates between its facilities daily, and no changes would be required in the existing bus system operations to support the proposed project. For this reason, there would be no increase in emissions of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases related to transportation of inmates as a result of the proposed project. 2.5.1.9 Comment #9 As described above, the County is confident the project description is complete and provides enough information to support the analysis of the project’s environmental impacts as required by CEQA. In response to comments, the County is making insignificant changes to the Draft EIR for clarification and, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, is not required to recirculate the Draft EIR. The County has disclosed potential impacts associated with all resource topics required under CEQA and disagrees that the document needs to be substantially revised or recirculated. 2.5.1.10 Comment #10 The County has accurately characterized the project setting in the Draft EIR. As stated on page 3.1-5 of the Draft EIR, there are no designated scenic vistas in the area. The County agrees that the views from the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park are scenic and has characterized them as “expansive, intact, and vivid” (see page 3.1-6 of the Draft EIR). The project is not proposed in an area that would obstruct or otherwise interfere with these views, as described on page 3.1-7 of the Draft EIR. Because the park entrance and parking lot are located approximately 20–40 feet below the project site, and because of midground vegetation plantings, and the existing background building, parking lot and solar panels, it would be impossible to view the project from the park. Figure 3.1.5 provides a representative view from the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park, and it is clear that views from this direction toward the project location would not be obstructed by the project. 2.5.1.11 Comment #11 Businesses in this area currently face the perimeter landscaping of the WCDF, a fenced substation, and electric transmission lines. These elements are difficult to discern but illustrated on Figure 3.1-2. As described on page 3.1-2 of the Draft EIR, “intactness” is defined in the Draft EIR as the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements. Similarly, “unity” is defined in the Draft EIR as visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole. In the business park, the existing utility lines and substation encroach on the visual integrity of the area and its overall harmony. Further, the project is unlikely to be visible from this location because of the topography and height of existing vegetation, as described in detail on page 3.1-6 of the Draft EIR. 2.5.1.12 Comment #12 Section 3.2-1.3 of the Draft EIR generally describes Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) rules related to criteria emissions (e.g., toxic air contaminates, particulate matter, reactive organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide). These emissions are described further in the environmental setting and the impact analysis, and analyzed in context of West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-24 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments these regulations. A health risk assessment was conducted for the project consistent with BAAQMD’s New Source Review regulations (see page 3.2-21 of the Draft EIR). 2.5.1.13 Comment #13 In Draft EIR Chapter 3, Section 3.2, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy, on page 3.2-20, the County indicates, “It was conservatively assumed that emissions at the MDF would not change with implementation of the project. However, it is likely area source emissions at the MDF would decrease because 480 inmates would be transferred to the WCDF.” As clearly stated in the Draft EIR, the County’s analysis assumed that area source emissions at the MDF would not change. 2.5.1.14 Comment #14 As noted on page 3.2-21 of the Draft EIR in the discussion of Impact AQ-3, “As discussed in Impact AQ-2, construction of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant air quality impact with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. All construction emissions would be short-term and would cease once construction is complete.” Project-level operational impacts, as discussed in Impact AQ-2, would be less than significant. The cumulative impact evaluated in Impact AQ-3 would be the operational impact. It is appropriately determined to be less than significant because operational impacts would be well below the relevant BAAQMD thresholds for a significant impact. 2.5.1.15 Comment #15 The County has corrected the heading on the first column of Table 3.2-9. Concentrations downwind of an emissions source generally decrease as a function of distance. However, vehicle exhaust release height, meteorology, and pollutant deposition influence dispersion. Often, concentrations directly adjacent to an emissions source are not the highest; rather, the highest concentrations can be several yards downwind of a source. After the maximum concentration is reached, concentrations dissipate as a function of distance and topography. 2.5.1.16 Comment #16 Both BAAQMD screening criteria (increase traffic volumes at intersections affected by project traffic to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour and increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical or horizontal mixing is substantially limited) were used to evaluate the project. The 24,000 criterion is referenced in the analysis since it is the more conservative of the two. The project would not add more than 100 vehicles; therefore, neither criteria would be exceeded and the project would result in a less than significant CO impact. 2.5.1.17 Comment #17 As discussed in the document, construction odors would be temporary and localized. Moreover, construction equipment is not considered by the air district as a significant “odor producing facility.” Construction activities are therefore not anticipated to result in nuisance odors that would result in complaints to the BAAQMD. 2.5.1.18 Comment #18 Please see response to Comment #13 in this letter. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-25 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.5.1.19 Comment #19 The figure was accidentally not included in the Draft EIR. It has been added to the Final EIR. The figure shows areas vulnerable to future sea level rise projections, which do not include the project site. This information was summarized in the text of the Draft EIR on page 3.2-26. 2.5.1.20 Comment #20 The County has modified Table 3.3-1 to correct this information. This revision clarifies the City’s minimum setbacks and does not alter the impact analysis because the revision reduces setback distances. 2.5.1.21 Comment #21 The County disagrees that the project would conflict with the site’s existing zoning designation and floor area ration (FAR). This site is clearly intended for this type of use, and WCDF expansion was previously contemplated and analyzed. The Draft EIR further analyzes the latest County-proposed expansion and appropriately concluded that it would not “conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.” The existing FAR at the WCDF site is 0.11:1 (249,342 square feet of existing building space on the 50-acre site). The addition of the proposed project would increase the FAR at the site to 0.18:1 (400,342 square feet on the 50-acre site), in compliance with the City zoning standard referenced in this comment. 2.5.1.22 Comment #22 As illustrated in Figure 3.1-6, residential views of the project area are obscured by a sound wall. There are three or four residences that have second story views of the project area, although vegetation screening would also obscure these views of the project site. The County has modified the text in Table 3.3-3, which summarizes the discussion in the land use section, to indicate that the project would not be visible from most residential areas. 2.5.1.23 Comment #23 Page 3.4-5 of the Draft EIR states, “For mobile construction equipment, the maximum sound level limit is 75 dBA at residences on weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.” This means that the maximum sound level (Lmax) from construction equipment cannot exceed 75 dBA. No changes to the Draft EIR are required. 2.5.1.24 Comment #24 Giant Highway carries fewer than 5,000 vehicles per day. The posted speed is 35 miles per hour. The new facility would be about 175 feet from the roadway at the closest point. Using these parameters and the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model, the day-night sound level (Ldn) from traffic noise level at the facility is estimated to be 52 dBA. This is well below the City’s noise compatibility standard of 65 dBA Ldn. Specific operation data on the nearby railroad operations are not available. However, the new facility would be about 265 feet from the tracks at the closest point. New two-story residences located along Links Drive at about 120 feet from the tracks have windows with a direct line of sight to the tracks. It is presumed that interior noise levels resulting from train operations at these residences meet the City’s interior sound level requirements. It can therefore be West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-26 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments readily concluded that interior noise levels at the new facility resulting from train operations would be in compliance with City noise compatibility standards. No changes to the Draft EIR are required. 2.5.1.25 Comment #25 The acoustical use factors shown in Table 3.4-2 of the Draft EIR are factors recommended by the Federal Highway Administration in the document entitled FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide dated January 2006. No changes to the Draft EIR are required. 2.5.1.26 Comment #26 As stated on page 3.4-2 of the Draft EIR, “Sound levels from isolated point sources of noise typically decrease by about 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the noise source.” Construction equipment is considered to be a point source, so the attenuation rate is 6 dB per doubling of distance, not 3 dB per doubling of distance as suggested in this comment. The attenuation rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance applies to line sources not point sources such as construction equipment. The calculations, sound level predictions, and impact conclusions reported in the Draft EIR are correct. No changes to the Draft EIR are required and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. 2.5.1.27 Comment #27 As discussed in response to Comment #23 in this letter, the outdoor construction noise level limit at residential uses is a maximum sound level of 75 dBA. The closest potential site for heavy equipment operation from existing outdoor use area used by inmates is about 150 feet. As stated on page 3.4-7 of the Draft EIR, the sound level associated with project construction is a maximum sound level of 88 dBA at 50 feet. At 150 feet, this sound level would attenuate to a maximum sound level of 78 dBA based on a point source attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The outdoor use area is completely surrounded by solid walls and building structures. A solid barrier (such as the existing walls and building structures) that breaks the line-of-sight between a noise source and a receiver will provide at least 5 dB of noise attenuation. The resulting construction sound level in the outdoor use area would then be 73 dBA (78 dBA minus 5 dBA). The potential construction noise level at the inmate outdoor use area is, therefore, not predicted to exceed the 75 dBA limit. There is no interior noise level limit for construction noise. However, exterior noise level limits for construction noise are typically set to provide an acceptable interior noise level assuming standard construction with windows closed. Accordingly, construction activity is not expected to result in excessive interior sound levels. No changes to the Draft EIR are required. 2.5.1.28 Comment #28 Please refer to response to Comment #26 in this letter. A packaged air handling unit is considered a point noise source, so the attenuation rate is 6 dB per doubling of distance, not 3 dB per doubling of distance. The calculation, sound level prediction, and impact conclusion reported in the Draft EIR are correct. No changes to the Draft EIR are required and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-27 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.5.1.29 Comment #29 Please refer to the responses to Comments #26 and #28 in this letter. The 6 dB point source attenuation rate assumed in the analysis of noise from construction and a packaged air handling unit is correct. The calculations, sound level predictions, and impact conclusions reported in the Draft EIR are correct. No changes to the Draft EIR are required and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. 2.5.1.30 Comment #30 Please refer to response to Comments #26, #27, and #28 in this letter. 2.5.1.31 Comment #31 Existing traffic volumes were determined based on field observations and data gathered for the project, as stated on page 3.6-4 of the Draft EIR. Field observations were made in February 2015, as shown on the traffic count data sheets in the technical appendices to Appendix B, Transportation Study Results, of the Draft EIR. The Final EIR text has been amended to clarify the date of collection of data already presented in Appendix B. The Final EIR also contains updated Figures 3.6-3 and 3.6-4 to include the full legends for those figures. The figures in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR are reproductions of the figures in the traffic study in Appendix B of the Draft EIR, but one legend item was accidentally cropped out in production of the figures for the Draft EIR chapter. As described above, all of this information has already been made available to the public for review as part of the Draft EIR. 2.5.1.32 Comment #32 Please see response to Comment #31 in this letter. This information was presented in Appendix B, Transportation Study Results, of the Draft EIR. 2.5.1.33 Comment #33 This category was used because it was most similar to the construction trips anticipated by the workforce described in the prior paragraph. Changes in the Final EIR clarify why this category was used. 2.5.1.34 Comment #34 Please see response to Comment #31 in this letter. This information was presented in Appendix B, Transportation Study Results, of the Draft EIR. 2.5.1.35 Comment #35 This alternative was included to address potential issues relating to visual impacts. Under this alternative, the project structures would be one story and would not be taller than the existing structures on the facility. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-28 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.5.1.36 Comment #36 The site has previously been graded and is unlikely to contain cultural resources. The commenter has pointed out an error in the Draft EIR that has been corrected in the Final EIR. The word “unavoidable” has been replaced with the correct word, “unlikely,” matching the text on page 20 (first sentence of the second paragraph) of the Initial Study presented in Appendix C, Initial Study, NOP, and Scoping Comments, of the Draft EIR, which describes the potential cultural resources as the project site. 2.5.1.37 Comment #37 The text on page 4-6 of the Draft EIR is not inconsistent with Table 4-1 of the Draft EIR. The text on page 4-6 notes that Alternative 3 would not entail a change of land use, and would have the same number of beds, but would be more spread out (less intense) than the proposed project. For this reason, the land use impact was considered to be “less” in Table 4-1. No change is necessary to the Final EIR. 2.5.1.38 Comment #38 The County will modify the text on page 4-7 of the Draft EIR to reflect the text on page 4-8 and Table 4-1 of the Draft EIR. The text change to Section 4.2.9.5 Noise, is as follows: Under this alternative there would be temporary increases in noise levels as a result of construction. Noise impacts from future operation of the facility under this alternative would be similar to existing operations and would be greater than the No Project Alternative. Under this alternative, impacts related to operational noise would be similar to those under the proposed project. Noise from construction would be greater than under the other alternatives because construction would take longer and the greatest amount of land would be developed under this alternative. 2.5.1.39 Comment #39 Please see response to Comment #5 in this letter. Additional access is not proposed. 2.5.1.40 Comment #40 Please see response to Comment #36 in this letter. Cultural resources are unlikely to be affected, but mitigation measures will be adopted to ensure that there would be no significant impacts in the event that unknown cultural resources are discovered. 2.5.1.41 Comment #41 The CEQA standard for determining a significant impact is significant and irreversible consumption of nonrenewable resources. The Draft EIR indicates that operation and maintenance of the project would not increase the use of nonrenewable resources because the same number of inmates would be housed in County facilities. Further, as indicated on Draft EIR page 3.2-26 in Impact EGY-1, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary usage of energy. Therefore, the County stands by its conclusion that project operation will not increase the use of nonrenewable resources. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-29 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.5.1.42 Comment #42 As detailed in the responses to all comments made by the City, the County is confident that the Draft EIR includes complete information and has fully disclosed the potential environmental impacts associated with the project with respect to air quality, land use, noise, and cultural issues. Minor and insignificant clarifications and typographical corrections do not prevent the public from understanding the impacts of the proposed project. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-30 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-31 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.6 Letter No. 6 2.6.1 Response to Letter No. 6 2.6.1.1 Comment #1 As described in the responses below, the information requested by the commenter is already provided in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the County believes it has adequately disclosed the impacts of the proposed project and changes are not required in the Final EIR. 2.6.1.2 Comment #2 The Draft EIR includes a project description with information on what is proposed on the site. This information is provided in Chapter 2, Project Description, and includes information on surrounding land use (page 2-1 of the Draft EIR) and the facility height of 32–45 feet (page 2-3 of the Draft EIR). Chapter 3, Section 3.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential aesthetic impacts. The section identifies potential viewer groups, specifically residents, business employees and patrons, roadway users, and recreational users, and analyzes potential effects on them. These viewer groups represent those described in the letter. Pages 3.1-1 through 3.1-4 of the Draft EIR provide a detailed visual resource assessment based on established methods for evaluating aesthetic impacts. Direct field observations, photographic documentation, and evaluation of the regional context are provided in the Draft EIR. The analysis was able to be conducted with height information and without an actual building rendering given the limited views of the site. Overall, the County is confident that there is sufficient information to evaluate the environmental visual impacts of the project, and that the Draft EIR provides this evaluation. No changes are proposed in the Final EIR in response to this comment. Please also see Common Response Section 2.1.1 Project Description, and Section 2.1.2, Aesthetics. 2.6.1.3 Comment #3 As explained in the response to Comment #2 in this letter and in Common Response Section 2.1.1, Project Description, the Draft EIR does contain a detailed project description. The County evaluated air quality impacts, including construction and operational impacts, in Chapter 3, Section 3.2, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy, noise impacts in Chapter 3, Section 3.4, Noise, and traffic impacts in Chapter 3, Section 3.6, Transportation and Traffic. The regulatory setting, environmental setting, and approach to impact analysis, including methods and impact thresholds of significance, are described in detail in these chapters. The potential impacts on inmates and surrounding neighborhoods are described and analyzed, and the County concluded based on the analysis that most of these impacts would be less-than-significant. In one instance, an air quality impact required mitigation to ensure impacts remain less than significant (page 3.2-18 of the Draft EIR). Because this information is already included in the Draft EIR, no changes are necessary in the Final EIR. 2.6.1.4 Comment #4 The Sheriff does not propose to transport inmates from MDF or the Marsh Creek Detention Facility to WCDF to attend programs in the proposed new building. Please see Common Response Section West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-32 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.1.3, Transportation of Inmates for Program Services. No additional environmental, traffic, or noise impacts are anticipated beyond those described, and no changes are necessary in the Final EIR. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-33 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-34 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments Duplicate letter from FAME West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-35 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.7 Letter No. 7 2.7.1 Response to Letter No. 7 The comments contained in Letter No. 7 are identical to Letter Nos. 6, 8, and 9. Please see the responses to Letter No. 6 for a response to these comments. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-36 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-37 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-38 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.8 Letter No. 8 2.8.1 Response to Letter No. 8 The comments contained in Letter No. 8 are identical to Letter Nos. 6, 7, and 9. Please see the responses to Letter No. 6 for a response to these comments. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-39 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-40 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-41 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Responses to Comments 2.9 Letter No. 9 2.9.1 Response to Letter No. 9 The comments contained in Letter No. 9 are identical to Letter Nos. 6, 7, and 8. Please see the responses to Letter No. 6 for a response to these comments. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 2-42 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Chapter 3 Text Changes to Draft EIR State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 provides that a Final EIR must include, among other things, the Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft EIR. This chapter identifies the text changes that have been made to the Draft EIR. This chapter contains revisions to the Draft EIR that have been made in response to the comments received or to otherwise make insignificant changes and corrections to the Draft EIR. The revisions are organized according to their order of appearance in the Draft EIR. Changes to the Draft EIR The text revisions are identified by Draft EIR page number and section number, as applicable. Where practical, revisions are included in the full paragraph where they are found in the Draft EIR. Deletions from the Draft EIR are shown as strikeout (e.g., strikeout) text; additions are underlined (e.g., addition). West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 3-1 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Text Changes to Draft EIR Changes to the List of Figures The list of figures on page v is corrected as follows. The figure was accidentally not included in the Draft EIR. It has been added to the Final EIR. The figure shows areas vulnerable to future sea level rise projections, which do not include the project site. This information was summarized in the text of the Draft EIR on page 3.2-26. Figures Follows Page 1-1 Average Annual Occupancy at West County Detention Facility ................................. on 1-1 2-1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2-2 Project Site .............................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2-3 Aerial View and Preliminary Site Plan ........................................................................................ 2-2 3.1-1 Representative Photo Locations ................................................................................................. 3.1-4 3.1-2 Representative Photograph 1 ...................................................................................................... 3.1-4 3.1-3 Representative Photograph 2 ...................................................................................................... 3.1-4 3.1-4 Representative Photograph 3 ...................................................................................................... 3.1-4 3.1-5 Representative Photograph 4 ...................................................................................................... 3.1-4 3.1-6 Representative Photograph 5 ...................................................................................................... 3.1-4 3.2-1 Areas Subject to Sea Level Rise ................................................................................................ 3.2-26 3.3-1 Project Site and Surrounding Zoning ........................................................................................ 3.3-2 3.4-1 Contra Costa Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ........................................... 3.4-4 3.4-2 City of Richmond Noise Exposure Land Use Compatibility Standards ................ on 3.4-5 3.6-1 Existing Road Network and Study Locations ........................................................................ 3.6-2 3.6-2 Existing Lane Configurations ....................................................................................................... 3.6-4 3.6-3 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................ 3.6-4 3.6-4 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment .......................................................................... 3.6-10 Changes to the Executive Summary No changes are necessary or proposed. Chapter 1 Changes No changes are necessary or proposed. Chapter 2 Changes No changes are necessary or proposed. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 3-2 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Text Changes to Draft EIR Chapter 3 Changes Section 3.2 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Table 3.2-9 on page 3.2-22 of the Draft EIR is corrected as follows: Table 3.2-9. Maximum Project-Level Health Risks during Construction Receptor Distance from Project (meters) Cancer Risk (per million) Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard Impacts Annual PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) Nearest Receptor ~5 0.27 0.007 0.03 Maximum Concentration 31 0.28 0.007 0.04 Threshold - 10 1.0 0.3 Note: Analysis assumes implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. PM2.5 = fine particulate matter µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Figure 3.2-1 as presented on the following page has been added. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 3-3 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 3-4 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis Section 3.3 Land Use and Planning Table 3.3-1 on page 3.3-2 of the Draft EIR is corrected as follows: Table 3.3-1. Public and Civic Zone Development Standardsa Min. Lot Area (square feet) Maximum Building Height (feet) Floor-to-Area Ratio Minimum Setbacks and Yards (feet) Front Side Rear 10,000 45 0.6:1 51 5 15 a When abutting R-district same as standards for the adjacent R-district. Table 3.3-3 on page 3.3-4 of the Draft EIR is corrected as follows: Table 3.3-3. Richmond General Plan Policy Consistency Policy Project Consistency LU5.3 Land Use Compatibility: Minimize conflicts between land uses to protect wetlands, marshlands, and creeks, humans and environmental health and safety, preserve community character and retain job generating activities that have long term viability. The proposed project would be entirely within the fence of the existing WCDF. Existing fencing and landscaping reduce the potential conflict with the adjacent recreational and business park uses, and with the nearby residential uses. Although the population of the WCDF may increase as a result of the proposed project, the activities taking place at the facility would be the same or similar to those currently taking place. Activities outside of the fence, such as buses transporting inmates to offsite facilities, would not occur more frequently, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description, because these activities occur on a schedule that can accommodate the increased population. Existing parking facilities have substantial additional capacity to serve all vehicles that may come to the site during operation of the proposed project; therefore, project parking demand would result in no effects on surrounding land uses. LU5.B Design Guidelines: Develop design guidelines and standards for all land uses and development prototypes. The guidelines would build on zoning codes to promote high quality design. Guidelines should also address compatibility between new and existing historic structures and districts, residential and adjacent non residential uses and urban and natural areas. As noted above, the proposed project would be entirely within the fence of the existing WCDF. Aesthetic effects are addressed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics. As discussed in that section, the proposed project would not have significant impacts related to aesthetics and visual quality. Changes in views from adjacent areas would be minimal and would not result in adverse impacts. The proposed project would not be visible from most the residential areas. Section 3.6 Transportation and Traffic The sixth paragraph on page 3.6-3 of the Draft EIR is modified as follows: 3.6.2.4 Existing Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes Existing intersection lane configurations (Figure 3.6-2) and A.M. and P.M. peak traffic volumes (Figure 3.6-3) are depicted in Figures 3.6-2 and 3.6-3 and are based on observations and data gathered for the project in February 2015 (see Appendix B). West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 3-5 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis Figures 3.6-3 and 3.6-4 have been replaced because a legend item was inadvertently cropped from the original figures in Appendix B and are presented on the following pages. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 3-6 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 3-7 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis The fourth and fifth paragraphs in the discussion of Impact TRA-1 on page 3.6-9 of the Draft EIR are modified as follows: Construction of the proposed project would last for approximately 24 months beginning in spring 2016. Construction is anticipated from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays, with an average onsite construction staff of 20 people per day and a maximum onsite workforce of 40 people. Based on these numbers, tThe trip generation rates under the general light industrial category in the ITE Trip Generation Manual are most similar to construction trips, which are 0.44 trips per worker during the A.M. peak hour and 0.42 trips per worker during the P.M. peak hour. These rates would equate to 18 A.M. peak hour trips and 17 P.M. peak hour trips by the proposed project’s maximum onsite construction staff, which would be fewer peak hour trips than during project operation. Chapter 4 Changes The first and second paragraphs on page 4-7 of the Draft EIR are corrected as follows: 4.2.9.4 Cultural Resources This alternative would involve ground-disturbing activities which would have the potential to disrupt historic and archaeological resources. No cultural or historical resources are known to be present at the project site; however, if they are to be discovered mitigation measures are identified in this EIR that would reduce potential cultural impacts to a less-than-significant level. The acreage that would be disturbed to build two buildings increases the chances of this discovery. However, because there are no known resources, this impact is unlikelyunavoidable. Because of this alternative’s larger footprint, impacts on cultural resources have the potential to be greater than under the proposed project if cultural or historical resources are discovered. 4.2.9.5 Noise Under this alternative there would be temporary increases in noise levels as a result of construction. Noise impacts from future operation of the facility under this alternative would be similar to existing operations and would be greater than the No Project Alternative. Under this alternative, impacts related to operational noise would be similar to those under the proposed project. Noise from construction would be greater than under the other alternatives because construction would take longer and the greatest amount of land would be disturbed under this alternative. Chapter 5 Changes The second paragraph on page 5-7 of the Draft EIR is corrected as follows: The proposed project would not construct any new roads, infrastructure, or enhance access to the project site. The proposed project would be constructed entirely within the existing WCDF which, as a detention facility, does not require additional access in addition to the already established facility access points. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 3-8 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4.1 Purpose of and Need for Monitoring In compliance with CEQA, a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) has been prepared for the proposed project. The Final EIR identified potentially significant impacts in the resource areas listed below and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Project-level significant impacts pertaining to the following resource areas would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Air Quality Cultural Resources Public Services and Utilities CEQA requires that a lead agency adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the measures the agency has proposed to avoid or mitigate significant environmental effects (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR are implemented and to identify who is responsible for their implementation. Table 4-1, which follows this introductory section, identifies the mitigation measures for the proposed project, the parties responsible for implementing and monitoring the measures, the timing of each measure, and a summary of the actions necessary to implement and monitor each measure. 4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Requirements This MMRP has been prepared for the proposed project in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, which specifies that when a public agency makes findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081, it “shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 further specifies that the MMRP will “ensure compliance during project implementation.” This MMRP is intended to ensure the effective implementation of mitigation measures that are within Contra Costa County’s authority to implement, including monitoring where identified, throughout the phases of development and operation of the proposed project. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 4-1 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure Timing Implementing Party Monitoring Party Monitoring Actions Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction- Related Dust and Equipment Exhaust Emissions The County will require all construction contractors to implement the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to reduce fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures. Additional measures may be identified by BAAQMD or contractor as appropriate. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure in 13 California Code of Regulations Section 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. At least 30 days prior to construction and during construction Construction contractor Contra Costa County A dust control plan will be required in grading and building permits. Compliance with the dust control plan will be verified periodically during construction by Contra Costa County. The construction contractor will provide an approved plan to reduce equipment exhaust emissions including, but not limited to, the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by BAAQMD. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 4-2 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Timing Implementing Party Monitoring Party Monitoring Actions Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction- Related Equipment Exhaust Emissions The County will require all construction contractors to implement the Additional Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by BAAQMD to reduce equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures. Additional measures may be identified by BAAQMD or contractor as appropriate. Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes. Develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20% nitrogen oxides (NOX) reduction and 45% particulate matter (PM) reduction compared with the most recent California Air Resources Board (ARB) fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM. Require that all contractors use equipment that meets ARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. At least 30 days prior to construction and during construction Construction contractors Contra Costa County Construction contractor compliance with the emission control plan will be verified periodically during construction by Contra Costa County. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Stop Work at Discovery of Cultural Resources If buried cultural resources such as chipped or ground stone, historic debris, or building foundations, are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within a 100-foot radius of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop a response plan, with appropriate treatment measures, in consultation with the County, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and other appropriate agencies. Preservation in place shall be the preferred treatment method pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b) (avoidance, open space, capping, easement). Data recovery of important information about the resource, research, or other actions determined during consultation is allowed if it is the only feasible treatment method. During construction Construction contractors Contra Costa County, construction contractors, and subcontractors Construction contractor and subcontractors shall perform visual inspections of the site during construction. Contra Costa County will perform a site inspection in consultation with a qualified archaeologist in the event cultural resources are discovered. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 4-3 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Timing Implementing Party Monitoring Party Monitoring Actions Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Stop Work at Discovery of Paleontological Resources The construction contractor and subcontractors shall stop all work in the area immediately in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during grading, construction, landscaping, or other construction-related activity. The Contra Costa Public Works Department shall be notified and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to evaluate the resources and recommend appropriate mitigation. During construction Construction contractors Contra Costa County, construction contractors, and subcontractors Construction contractor and subcontractors shall perform visual inspections of the site during construction. Contra Costa County will perform a site inspection in consultation with a qualified archaeologist in the event paleontological resources are discovered. Public Services and Utilities Mitigation Measure PUB-1a: Incorporate design measures or contribute to improvements to ensure adequate water pressure for fire suppression needs The County will coordinate with the Richmond Fire Department to ensure that pressure tests will be performed to ensure water pressure fire performance objectives are met for the proposed project. If tests indicate that the pressure is insufficient, the County will incorporate design measures or contribute to improvements to ensure adequate water pressure for fire suppression needs. Before and during construction Contra Costa County, City of Richmond Fire Department Contra Costa County Contra Costa County will ensure appropriate pressure tests are performed and incorporate appropriate design measures if required. Mitigation Measure PUB-1b: Comply with all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements, subject to review and approval by the City of Richmond Planning and Building Services The County will ensure the design and construction of the proposed project complies with all building and fire code requirements as established by Chapter 8.16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Richmond and the 2013 California Administrative Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1 (California Building Code). Before, during, and after construction Contra Costa County Contra Costa County, City of Richmond Planning Department Contra Costa County will ensure designs comply with all code requirements prior to, and during, construction. The City of Richmond will issue a building permit prior to construction and will perform a building inspection once construction is complete. West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 4-4 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 Chapter 5 List of Preparers 5.1 Contra Costa County Hillary Heard—Public Works Department, Environmental Services, Project Manager Leigh Chavez—Public Works Department, Environmental Services, Division Manager Telma Moreira—Department of Conservation and Development, Principal Planner Aruna Bhat—Department of Conservation and Development, Deputy Director 5.2 ICF International Sally Zeff—Project Director Brad Norton—Project Manager Matilda Evoy-Mount—Project Coordinator Laura Yoon—Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Dave Buehler—Noise Paul Shigley—Editor Senh Saelee—Graphics Deborah Jew—Document production West County Detention Facility Expansion Final Environmental Impact Report 5-1 July 2015 ICF 00026.15 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code. G:\engsvc\ENVIRO\Capital Projects-Facilities\WCDC Facility Expansion\Final EIR\NOD\Final NOD_7-21-15.doc Form updated December 2014 To: Office of Planning and Research From: Contra Costa County P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 Dept. of Conservation & Development Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 County Clerk County of: Contra Costa State Clearinghouse Number: 2015042003 Project Title: West County Detention Center Expansion Project CP#: 15-14; WO#:0845 Project Applicant: Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Location: 5555 Giant Highway in Richmond, California Project Description: The proposed project entails the development of approximately 2.3 acres within the existing West County Detention Facility (WCDF) for a high-security detention facility with supporting reentry program facilities, and a mental health treatm ent facility. The new facility would provide high security housing, and educational and vocational facilities and programs to help prepare inmates for reentry into society. The proposed project would result in essentially no increase of California Department of Corrections rated beds in Contra Costa County. The 240 cells at the Martinez Detention Facility (MDF) that do not meet security and safety requirements would be repurposed for short-term housing of inmates for purposes of in-processing and release. The MDF would continue to be the booking facility for law enforcement agencies in the central and eastern areas of the County. The project consists of construction of a new 150,000 square foot building containing approximately 240 double -occupancy cells (480 beds), a mental health treatment facility, and educational and vocational program facilities along with facilities to support outpatient medical services, recreational activities, and minor administrative functions of the existing WCDF. In addition, a 1,000 square foot, single story, equipment or generator building would be located adjacent to the main building. Intake, release, inpatient health care, central library services, food service, laundry, commissary, and maintenance/warehouse storage will continue to be provided in existing buildings and using existing infrastructure on the WCDF site. In order to proceed with the proposed project, the applicant must obtain approval from the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, State Department of Corrections, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the State Water Resources Control Board will require a Construction General Permit for management of storm water during construction activities and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) storm water permit. The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant environmental impacts in the following areas: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, and Public Services and Utilities. Potentially significant impacts will be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. The project was approved on: 1. The project [ will will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures [ were were not] made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan [ was was not] adopted for this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations [ was was not] adopted for this project. 6. Findings [ were were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Notice of Determination was sent to Office of Planning and Research.* This is to certify that the final Draft Environmental Impact Report with comments and responses and record of project approval, or the Negative Declaration, is available to the General Public at: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 Signature (Contra Costa County): Title: Date: Date Received for filing at OPR: AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on ____________________________________________ I rece ived and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title: Applicant: Department of Fish and Game Fees Due Public Works Department EIR - $3,069.75 Total Due: $ 3,144.75 255 Glacier Drive Neg. Dec. - $2,210.00 Total Paid $ Martinez, CA 94553 DeMinimis Findings - $0 Attn: _Hillary Heard_____ County Clerk - $50 Receipt #: Environmental Services Division Conservation & Development - $25 Phone: (925) 313-2022 *Notice of Determination may be sent by fax to (916) 323-3018, if followed up with a duplicate mailed copy. Senate Bill No. 863 CHAPTER 37 An act to amend Sections 15820.92, 15820.921, and 15820.924 of, and to add Chapter 3.131 (commencing with Section 15820.93) to Part 10b of Division 3 of Title 2 of, the Government Code, relating to correctional facilities, and making an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, bill related to the budget. [Approved by Governor June 20, 2014. Filed with Secretary of State June 20, 2014.] legislative counsel’s digest SB 863, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review. Correctional facilities: construction. (1) Existing law authorizes the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), a participating county, as defined, and the State Public Works Board to acquire, design, and construct an adult local criminal justice facility, as specified, and requires them to enter into an agreement for each facility that provides related performance expectations of the parties, guidelines and criteria for the use and application of the financing instruments used to pay for the facility, and ongoing maintenance and staffing responsibilities for the term of the financing. Existing law also authorizes the State Public Works Board and the BSCC to borrow funds from the Pooled Money Investment Account or from another appropriate source for project costs of an adult local criminal justice facility. Existing law authorizes the BSCC and a participating county, with the consent of the State Public Works Board, to enter into leases, contracts, or other agreements for property use, maintenance, or operation of an adult local criminal justice facility. This bill would also authorize the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to participate in the financing program with participating counties and the State Public Works Board for the acquisition, design, and construction of adult local criminal justice facilities, to enter into the required agreements, to borrow funds, and to enter into leases, contracts, or other agreements for these purposes, as specified. (2) Existing law authorizes the Board of State and Community Corrections, the State Public Works Board, and a participating county, as defined, to acquire, design, and construct an adult local criminal justice facility approved by the Board of State and Community Corrections, or to acquire a site or sites owned by, or subject to a lease option to purchase held by, a participating county. Existing law authorizes the State Public Works Board to issue up to $500,000,000 in revenue bonds, notes, or bond anticipation notes to finance the acquisition, design, and construction of approved adult local criminal justice facilities. The funds derived from those 94 revenue bonds, notes, or bond anticipation notes are continuously appropriated for those purposes. Existing law establishes the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to oversee the state prison system. Existing law authorizes the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to design, construct, or renovate housing units, support buildings, and programming space in order to add capacity to facilities under its jurisdiction. This bill would enact provisions similar to the provisions described above authorizing the Board of State and Community Corrections or the department, the State Public Works Board, and a participating county, as defined, to acquire, design, and construct an adult local criminal justice facility, as defined. The bill would authorize the State Public Works Board to issue up to $500,000,000 in revenue bonds, notes, or bond anticipation notes to finance the acquisition, design, and construction of approved adult local criminal justice facilities, and would continuously appropriate the funds for those purposes. The bill would establish procedures for approving and funding these projects. (3)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill. Appropriation: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 15820.92 of the Government Code is amended to read: 15820.92. For purposes of this chapter, “participating county” means any county, or regional consortium of counties, within the state that has been certified to the State Public Works Board (the board) by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) as having satisfied all of the requirements set forth in Section 15820.925 for financing an adult local criminal justice facility pursuant to this chapter. For purposes of this chapter, an adult local criminal justice facility may include any custodial housing, reentry, program, mental health, or treatment space necessary to manage the adult offender population consistent with the legislative intent described in Sections 17.5 and 3450 of the Penal Code under the jurisdiction of the sheriff or county department of corrections, as may be applicable, to be further defined by the BSCC in duly adopted regulations. (a) The BSCC or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), a participating county, and the board are authorized to acquire, design, and construct an adult local criminal justice facility approved by the BSCC pursuant to Section 15820.925, or to acquire a site or sites owned by, or subject to a lease or option to purchase held by, a participating county. For the purposes of this chapter, acquisition shall include, but is not limited to, acquisition of completed facilities through a build-to-suit purchase. Facilities financed pursuant to this chapter may be delivered through either a design-bid-build or a design-build process. The ownership interest of a 94 — 2 —Ch. 37 participating county in the site or sites for an adult local criminal justice facility shall be determined by the board to be adequate for purposes of its financing in order to be eligible under this chapter. (b) Notwithstanding Section 14951, the participating county may assign an inspector during the construction of the adult local criminal justice facility. (c) The BSCC or the CDCR, a participating county, and the board shall enter into an agreement for each adult local criminal justice facility that shall provide, at a minimum, performance expectations of the parties related to the acquisition, design, and construction, including, without limitation, renovation, of the adult local criminal justice facility; guidelines and criteria for use and application of the proceeds of revenue bonds, notes, or bond anticipation notes issued by the board to pay for the cost of the approved adult local criminal justice facility; and ongoing maintenance and staffing responsibilities for the term of the financing. (d) The agreement shall include a provision that the participating county agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State of California for any and all claims and losses arising out of the acquisition, design, and construction of the adult local criminal justice facility. The agreement may also contain additional terms and conditions that facilitate the financing by the board. (e) The scope and cost of the adult local criminal justice facilities shall be subject to approval and administrative oversight by the board. (f) For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), the board, BSCC and the CDCR, are not a lead or responsible agency, but the participating county is the lead agency. SEC. 2. Section 15820.921 of the Government Code is amended to read: 15820.921. Upon a participating county’s receipt of responsive construction bids or design-build proposals, or a participating county’s notification to the board of its intent to exercise a purchase option, the board and the BSCC or the CDCR may borrow funds for project costs after the adult local criminal justice facility has been certified pursuant to Section 15820.92 from the Pooled Money Investment Account pursuant to Sections 16312 and 16313, or from any other appropriate source. In the event any of the revenue bonds, notes, or bond anticipation notes authorized by this chapter are not sold, the BSCC or the CDCR shall commit a sufficient amount of its support appropriation to repay any loans made for an approved adult local criminal justice facility. SEC. 3. Section 15820.924 of the Government Code is amended to read: 15820.924. With the consent of the board, the BSCC or the CDCR and a participating county are authorized to enter into leases or subleases, as lessor or lessee, for any property or approved adult local criminal justice facility and are further authorized to enter into contracts or other agreements for the use, maintenance, and operation of the adult local criminal justice facility in order to facilitate the financing authorized by this chapter. In those leases, subleases, or other agreements, the participating county shall agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the State of California for 94 Ch. 37— 3 — any and all claims and losses accruing and resulting from or arising out of the participating county’s use and occupancy of the adult local criminal justice facility. SEC. 4. Chapter 3.131 (commencing with Section 15820.93) is added to Part 10b of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, to read: Chapter 3.131. Financing of Local Criminal Justice Facilities 15820.93. (a) For purposes of this chapter, “participating county” means a county, city and county, or regional consortium of counties, within the state that has been certified to the State Public Works Board (board) by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) as having satisfied all of the requirements set forth in Section 15820.935 for financing an adult local criminal justice facility pursuant to this chapter. (b) (1) For purposes of this chapter, an adult local criminal justice facility may include improved housing with an emphasis on expanding program and treatment space as necessary to manage the adult offender population consistent with the legislative intent described in Sections 17.5 and 3450 of the Penal Code under the jurisdiction of the sheriff or county department of corrections, as may be applicable, to be further defined by the BSCC in duly adopted regulations. (2) For purposes of this chapter, an adult local criminal justice facility may also include custodial housing, reentry, program, mental health, or treatment space necessary to manage the adult offender population, consistent with the legislative intent described in Sections 17.5 and 3450 of the Penal Code, under the jurisdiction of the sheriff or county department of corrections, as may be applicable, to be further defined by the BSCC in duly adopted regulations. 15820.930. (a) The BSCC or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), a participating county, and the board are authorized to acquire, design, and construct an adult local criminal justice facility approved by the BSCC pursuant to Section 15820.935, or to acquire a site or sites owned by, or subject to a lease or option to purchase held by, a participating county. For the purposes of this chapter, acquisition shall include, but is not limited to, acquisition of completed facilities through a build-to-suit purchase. Facilities financed pursuant to this chapter may be delivered through either a design-bid-build or a design-build process. The ownership interest of a participating county in the site or sites for an adult local criminal justice facility shall be determined by the board to be adequate for purposes of its financing in order to be eligible under this chapter. (b) Notwithstanding Section 14951, the participating county may assign an inspector during the construction of the adult local criminal justice facility. (c) The BSCC or the CDCR, a participating county, and the board shall enter into an agreement for each adult local criminal justice facility that shall provide, at a minimum, performance expectations of the parties related to the acquisition, design, and construction, including, without limitation, 94 — 4 —Ch. 37 renovation, of the adult local criminal justice facility; guidelines and criteria for use and application of the proceeds of revenue bonds, notes, or bond anticipation notes issued by the board to pay for the cost of the approved adult local criminal justice facility; and ongoing maintenance and staffing responsibilities for the term of the financing. (d) The agreement shall include a provision that the participating county agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State of California for any and all claims and losses arising out of the acquisition, design, and construction of the adult local criminal justice facility. The agreement may also contain additional terms and conditions that facilitate the financing by the board. (e) The scope and cost of the adult local criminal justice facilities shall be subject to approval and administrative oversight by the board. (f) For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), the board, BSCC, and the CDCR are not a lead or responsible agency, the participating county is the lead agency. 15820.931. Upon a participating county’s receipt of responsive construction bids or design-build proposals, or a participating county’s notification to the board of its intent to exercise a purchase option, and after the adult local criminal justice facility has been certified pursuant to Section 15820.93, the board and the BSCC or the CDCR may borrow funds for project costs from the Pooled Money Investment Account pursuant to Sections 16312 and 16313, or from any other appropriate source. In the event any of the revenue bonds, notes, or bond anticipation notes authorized by this chapter are not sold, the BSCC or the CDCR shall commit a sufficient amount of its support appropriation to repay any loans made for an approved adult local criminal justice facility. 15820.932. (a) The board may issue up to five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) in revenue bonds, notes, or bond anticipation notes, pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 15830) to finance the acquisition, design, and construction, including, without limitation, renovation, and a reasonable construction reserve, of approved adult local criminal justice facilities described in Section 15820.930, and any additional amount authorized under Section 15849.6 to pay for the cost of financing. (b) Proceeds from the revenue bonds, notes, or bond anticipation notes may be used to reimburse a participating county for the costs of acquisition, design, and construction, including, without limitation, renovation, for approved adult local criminal justice facilities. (c) Notwithstanding Section 13340, funds derived pursuant to this section and Section 15820.931 are continuously appropriated for purposes of this chapter. 15820.933. In support of this state financing, the Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) California’s current challenges in managing jail populations follow decades of overcrowded and aging jails, and piecemeal, erratic, and incomplete responses to dealing with these problems. Reversing course will 94 Ch. 37— 5 — require sustainable solutions that must include sound planning and implementation, and must be grounded in the principle that jail resources must be well-planned and employed efficiently and effectively to prevent overcrowding and promote public safety through the broader use of evidence-based practices and policies in the criminal justice system. (b) California needs a long-term, statewide strategy to effectively manage its jail population and jail resources. Without an ongoing analytical framework for taking into account factors such as population growth, criminogenic needs of the current and future jail populations, crime rates, custodial housing needs, and additional changes to realignment or sentencing laws and practices, California will continue to resort to reactive, fragmentary fixes to its jail condition and capacity problems instead of being fully prepared to develop an effective and sustainable system of local custodial facilities. (c) The county adult criminal justice system needs improved housing with an emphasis on expanding program and treatment space to manage the adult offender population under its jurisdiction. (d) Improved county adult criminal justice housing with an emphasis on expanding program and treatment space will enhance public safety throughout the state by providing increased access to appropriate programs or treatment. (e) By improving county adult criminal justice housing with an emphasis on expanding program and treatment space, this financing will serve a critical state purpose by promoting public safety. (f) This purpose represents valuable consideration in exchange for this state action. 15820.934. With the consent of the board, the BSCC or the CDCR and a participating county are authorized to enter into leases or subleases, as lessor or lessee, for any property or approved adult local criminal justice facility and are further authorized to enter into contracts or other agreements for the use, maintenance, and operation of the adult local criminal justice facility in order to facilitate the financing authorized by this chapter. In those leases, subleases, or other agreements, the participating county shall agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State of California for any and all claims and losses accruing and resulting from or arising out of the participating county’s use and occupancy of the adult local criminal justice facility. 15820.935. (a) The BSCC shall adhere to its duly adopted regulations for the approval or disapproval of adult local criminal justice facilities. The BSCC shall also consider cost-effectiveness in determining approval or disapproval. No state moneys shall be encumbered in contracts let by a participating county until one of the following occur: (1) Final architectural plans and specifications have been approved by the BSCC, and subsequent construction bids have been received. (2) Documents prepared by a participating county pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 20133 of the Public Contract Code have 94 — 6 —Ch. 37 been approved by the BSCC, and subsequent design-build proposals have been received pursuant to that section. (3) The participating county has notified the board of its intent to exercise an option to purchase the completed facility pursuant to Section 15820.931. (b) The review and approval of plans, specifications, or other documents by the BSCC are for the purpose of ensuring the proper administration of moneys and the determination of whether the adult local criminal justice facility specifications comply with law and regulation. The BSCC may require changes in construction materials to enhance safety and security if materials proposed at the time of final plans and specifications are not essential and customary as used statewide for facilities of the same security level. Participating counties are responsible for the acquisition, design, construction, staffing, operation, repair, and maintenance of the adult local criminal justice facility. (c) The BSCC shall establish minimum standards, funding schedules, and procedures, which shall take into consideration, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Certification by a participating county of control of the adult local criminal justice facility site through either fee simple ownership of the site or comparable long-term possession of the site, and right of access to the adult local criminal justice facility sufficient to ensure undisturbed use and possession. (2) Documentation of the need for improved adult local criminal justice facility housing with an emphasis on expanded program and treatment space. (3) A written adult local criminal justice facility proposal. (4) Submission of a staffing plan for the adult local criminal justice facility, including operational cost projections and documentation that the adult local criminal justice facility will be able to be safely staffed and operated within 90 days of completion, as may be applicable. (5) Submission of architectural drawings, which shall be approved by the BSCC for compliance with minimum adult detention facility standards and which shall also be approved by the State Fire Marshal for compliance with fire safety and life safety requirements. (6) Documentation evidencing compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (7) Provisions intended to maintain the tax-exempt status of the bonds, notes, or bond anticipation notes issued by the board. 15820.936. (a) The participating county contribution for adult local criminal justice facilities financed under this chapter shall be a minimum of 10 percent of the total project costs. The BSCC may reduce contribution requirements for participating counties with a general population below 200,000 upon petition by a participating county to the BSCC requesting a lower level of contribution. (b) The BSCC shall determine the funding and scoring criteria. The BSCC may consider award history in Chapters 3.11 to 3.13, inclusive, in its scoring of adult local criminal justice facilities applications. The funding criteria shall include, as a mandatory criterion, documentation of the 94 Ch. 37— 7 — percentage of pretrial inmates in the county jail from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2013, inclusive, and a description of the county’s current risk-assessment-based pretrial release program. Funding preference shall also be given to counties that are most prepared to proceed successfully with this financing in a timely manner. The determination of preparedness to proceed shall include the following: (1) Counties providing a board of supervisors’ resolution authorizing an adequate amount of available matching funds to satisfy the counties’ contribution and approving the forms of the project documents deemed necessary, as identified by the board to the BSCC, to effectuate the financing authorized by this chapter, and authorizing the appropriate signatory or signatories to execute those documents at the appropriate times. The identified matching funds in the resolution shall be compatible with the state’s lease revenue bond financing. (2) Counties providing documentation evidencing CEQA compliance has been completed. Documentation of CEQA compliance shall be either a final Notice of Determination or a final Notice of Exemption, as appropriate, and a letter from county counsel certifying the associated statute of limitations has expired and either no challenges were filed or identifying any challenges filed and explaining how they have been resolved in a manner that allows the project to proceed as proposed. (c) Funding consideration shall be given to counties that are seeking to replace compacted, outdated, or unsafe housing capacity or are seeking to renovate existing or build new facilities that provide adequate space for the provision of treatment and rehabilitation services, including mental health treatment. (d) A participating county may replace existing housing capacity, realizing only a minimal increase of capacity, using this financing authority if the requesting county clearly documents an existing housing capacity deficiency. SEC. 5. This act is a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 12 of Article IV of the California Constitution, has been identified as related to the budget in the Budget Bill, and shall take effect immediately. O 94 — 8 —Ch. 37