HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10111994 - 1.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: October 11, 1994
SUBJECT: Approve Brookside Drive Realignment Project,
North Richmond Area.
Project No. 0662-6R4059-93, CDD-CP # 94 - 30
Specific Request(s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPROVE Project, and
FIND that the final EIR for the North Richmond Redevelopment Plan (the custodian of which is
the Public Works Director and is located at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez), which was certified on
July 14, 1987, adequately covered the environmental effects of the proposed project (per Section
15168(c)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines),
DIRECT the Public Works Director to begin right-of-way acquisition and to prepare contract
plans and specifications for construction,
DIRECT the Director of Community Development to file a Notice of Determination and a
Certificate of Fee Exemption: De Minimis Impact Finding with the County Clerk.
DIRECT the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of the $25.00 handling fee to the
County Clerk.
II. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The estimated project cost is$900,000 funded by Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency (100%).
Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON UU I .I I 1991t APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED�L OTHER_
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 1
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
:mat
c:brooksde.bo
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Orig. Div: Public Works(Design Division) an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Contact: Christopher Bailey(313-2339) Board of SupeVL7 op3 IT �!}$hown.
cc: County Administrator ATTESTED:
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
Attn: E. Kuevor of Supervisors and County Administrator
Auditor-Controller /�Accounting
Design-V.Germany By—]I?QdLAA i• �m ,Deputy
De
Construction
Community Development
Approve' Brookside Drive Realignment Project A o2-
October 11; 1994
Page 2
III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
The project includes the realignment of two existing curves (90 and 110 degrees) on Brookside
Drive, from the SPRR, westerly for approximately 1,105 linear feet toward 3rd Street. The
proposed project will increase the current pavement width/right-of-way section from 22 ft./40
ft. to a 32 ft./52 ft. road section. The 32-ft. pavement width includes two 12-ft. lanes and 4-ft.
shoulders.
The proposed project is needed to improve circulation and promote business development in
the project area, as well as, to mitigate circulation impacts created by the North Richmond
Bypass (State Route 93).
This project has been determined to be in compliance with the General Plan. The Final
Environmental Impact Report pertaining to this project was considered by the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors and found to be complete and prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and State and County Guidelines (Resolution No. 87/431
and RA 87-16) on July 14, 1987. The attached written checklist was used to evaluate the
proposed project and the North Richmond Redevelopment Plan Initial Study and EIR for the
purpose of determining whether the environmental effects of the proposed project were
addressed in the program EIR, per Section 15168(c)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines. As documented
by the written checklist per CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4), the proposed project does
not have effects that were not examined in the program EIR. The "Notice of Intent to Use a Prior
Enivironmental Impact Report" was published on August 15, 1994, with the attached protest
received, and the Board has considered the environmental documents along with all comments
received during the public review period.
IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Delay in approving the project will result in a delay of design and construction and may
jeopardize funding.
• ,. _. #:
Harvey oBragdon
Community Contra of
Development Director f Community Development
Department Costa
County Administration Building County
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
.Martinez, California 945530095 _= '
Phone: (510) 646-2031 - August 15, 1994
:oa
A C UNfi +
NOTICE OF INTENT
TO USE A PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
BROOKSIDE DRIVE REALIGNMENT PROJECT, County He 1194-30: The proposed
project involvesthe realignment of two existing curves (90 and.-110:degrees) on Brookside
Drive, from the SPRR, westerly for approximately 1,105 linear feet.toward 3rd Street. The
proposed project will increase the current pavement width/right-of-way section from 22 ft./40
ft. to a 32 ft./52 ft. road section. The 32-ft. pavement width includes two 12-ft: lanes and 4-ft.
shoulders.
The roadway is currently drained by earthen swells within the existing right-of-way. The
proposed project includes-the-installation of an 18- to 24-inch pipe for road drainage along the
estimated 1,100 foot alignment. Utility poles and overhead lines currently located along the
roadway will be relocated.
Six property owners within the project limits will be affected by the proposed project. A total
of approximately 35,500square feet of right-of-way will be acquired for the proposed
realignment project, including the .75 acre General American Tank parcel which will be
purchased and the (5) large storage. tanks (approximately 45 ft. diameter and 40 ft. high) will
be removed.
Project Location: The proposed project is located on Brookside Drive, between the Southern
Pacific Railroad (SPRR) and 3rd Street, in the North Richmond area of west Contra Costa
County. The project area is within the North Richmond Redevelopment Plan area and is zoned
as a mix of heavy industrial and agricultural uses.
As the owner of abutting property, or as an otherwise interested person or organization, you are
invited to submit any comments you may have on this project,; and raise any significant
environmental issues of which you are aware so that they can be considered in the environmental
review process.
This letter plus enclosures will constitute a Notice of Intent to use a prior Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). As documented by the written checklist per CEQA Guidelines Section
15168(c)(4), the proposed project does not have effects that were not examined in the North
Richmond Redevelopment Plan Initial Study and program EIR (a copy of which is located at the
Public Works Department, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553) per CEQA Guidelines
NOI TO ADOPT A PRIOR EIR August 15, 1994
Brookside Drive Realignment Project
Page -2-
Section 15168(c)(1); feasible mitigation measures from the program EIR shall be incorporated
into the proposed project per CEQA Guidelines.Section 15168(c)(3); and, pursuant to Section
15162, no new mitigation measures are required for the proposed project. Please circulate this
information to the appropriate persons and agencies as soon as possible. I would encourage
those interested to contact the Public Works Department,Design Division, Attention:Vickie
Germany, 255 Glacier Drive,Martinez,.CA 94553 directly by letter to convey any concerns
they may have about the environmental review for the project no later than Thursday.
SeRtember 29. 1994. at 5:00 Rm.
If you require further information regarding the proiecr itself, please contact Mr. Chris Bailey
of the Public Works Department at (510) 313-2339. If you have any comments regarding the
environmental review of this Notice of Intent to use a prior EIR, please contact Ms. Germany
at (510) 313-2296.
Sincerely yours,
Debbie Chamberlain
Senior Planner
:aw
CP7/%-30voa.rw
Enclosures
cc: file
, I
t
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BROOKSIDE DRIVE REALIGNMENT PROJECT
Project #0662-6R4059-93
CP # 86-103
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Location: The proposed project is located on Brookside Drive, between the Southern Pacific
Railroad (SPRR) and 3rd Street, in the North Richmond area of west Contra Costa County (see
Figure 1). The project area is within the North Richmond Redevelopment Plan area and is zoned
as a mix of heavy industrial and agricultural uses.
2. Project Description: The proposed project involves the realignment of two existing curves (90
and 110 degrees) on Brookside Drive, from the SPRR, westerly for approximately 1,105 linear
feet toward 3rd Street (see Figure 2). The proposed project will increase the current pavement
width/right-of-way section from 22 ft./40 ft. to a 32 ft./52 ft. road section. The 32-ft. pavement
width includes two 12-ft. lanes and 4-ft. shoulders.
The roadway is currently drained by earthen swales within the existing right-of-way. The
proposed project includes the installation of an 18- to 24-inch pipe for road drainage along the
estimated 1,100 ft. alignment. Utility poles and overhead lines currently located along the
roadway will be relocated.
Six property owners within the project limits will be affected by the proposed project. A total of
approximately 35,500 square feet of right-of-way will be acquired for the proposed realignment
project, including the .75 acre General American Tank parcel which will be purchased and the
five large storage tanks (approximately 45 ft. diameter and 40 ft. high) will be removed.
3. California Environmental Quality Act Determination: For the purpose of determining whether the
environmental effects of the proposed project were addressed in the North Richmond
Redevelopment Plan Initial Study and EIR (herein after referred to as program EIR), the attached
written checklist was used to evaluate the proposed project, per Section 15168(c)(4) of the
CEQA Guidelines.
As documented by the written checklist per CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4),the proposed
project does not have effects that were not examined in the program EIR per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15168(c)(1); feasible mitigation measures from the program EIR shall be incorporated
into the proposed project per CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(3); and, pursuant to Section
15162, no new mitigation measures are required for the proposed project.
Since the proposed project will have no effects beyond those analyzed in the program EIR and
the proposed project is merely part of the program which had been approved earlier, no further
CEQA compliance is required.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. Background
1. Name of Proponent: Contra Costa County Public Works Department,
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553-4897
(510) 313-2000
3. Date of Checklist Submitted: June 28, 1994
4. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Brookside Drive Realignment Project
I
ll. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all significant, (S), answers are required on attached sheets.)
*S *1
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ ✓
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcoverin of the
P P P 9 �
soil? I ✓
�I
C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? I ✓
i
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic
or physical features? ✓
i
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on j
or off the site? I ,/
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet
or lake? I ✓
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such j
as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or
similar hazards? ✓
The initial study for the program EIR determined that the redevelopment plan (which
includes the proposed project) will not result in significant effects on soil, therefore further
discussion in the program EIR was not warranted.
i
I
*Please Note: "S" is for significant, "P is for insignificant
The proposed project wee not have any new effects which hav not been discussed.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ ✓
b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ ✓
C. Alternation of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change
in climate, either locally or regionally? _ ✓
The initial study for the program EIR states that the redevelopment plan (which includes
the proposed project) will not result in the deterioration of the existing air quality. It is
also noted under Unavoidable and Irreversible Adverse Impacts of the program EIR (pg.
106) that project-induced construction could be expected to create temporary increases
in flotation and water pollutants carried into local streams via construction runoff, as well
as localized air pollution emissions and noise from construction equipment and
processes.
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh waters? ✓
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount
of surface runoff? ✓
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ ✓
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ ✓
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity? _ ✓
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ ✓
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations? _ ✓
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies? _ ✓
*Please Note: "S" is for significant; or is for insignificant.
L Exposure of peon or property to water related hazatis such as
flooding or tidal waves? ✓
The program EIR adequately addressed impacts to water quality (pg. 79-83), including
during construction. In addition, as mentioned under#2-Air,the program EIR states the
water quality degradation resulting from construction practices can be expected and are
Unavoidable and Irreversible Adverse impacts (pg. 106).
The following suggested mitigation measures from the program EIR (pg. 82) shall be
followed during construction:
Minimizing Construction Period Water Quality Impacts l
(1) Temporary sedimentation traps should be installed onsite to reduce
intrusion of construction sediments into the creeks and salt marsh;
(2) Construction operations, particularly grading activities, should be
conducted, as much as possible, during the dry season to avoid erosion
of disturbed soils;
(3) Construction of all Project Area development projects and related
infrastructure should be carefully staged to minimize the amount of bare soil
and, therefore, erosion during construction.
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ ✓
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,ue, rare or
endangered species of plants? ✓
I
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of existing species? ✓
1i
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? I ✓
The program EIR adequately addressed impacts to plant life (pg. 87-97). In addition,
under Unavoidable and Irreversible Adverse Impacts of the program EIR (pg. 106); the
cumulative losses of open-field and disturbed grassland habitat is mentioned.
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
5. Animal Vfe. Will the proposal result in:
1 I
i
I
*Please Note: "S" is for significant; "In is for insignificant.
a.. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any pecies of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)? _ ✓
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
species of animals? ✓
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ✓
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ✓
The program EIR adequately addressed impacts to animal life (pg. 87-97). In addition,
under Unavoidable and Irreversible Adverse Impacts of the program EIR (pg. 106), the
cumulative losses of open-field and disturbed grassland habitat (wildlife habitat) is
mentioned.
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ ✓
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ ✓
The program EIR adequately addressed cumulative noise impacts (pg. 85-86) of the
redevelopment plan (which includes the proposed project), as well as, construction noise
impacts under Unavoidable and Irreversible Adverse Impacts (pg. 106).
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ ✓
The initial study for the program EIR determined that the redevelopment plan (which
includes the proposed project) will not result in significant increase of light and glare,
therefore further discussion in the program EIR was not warranted.
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area? _ ✓
The program EIR adequately addressed impacts to land use (pg. 31-44).
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
*Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant.
9. Natural Resources. Will uie proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ ✓
The initial study for the program EIR determined that the redevelopment plan (which
includes the proposed project) will not result in significant impacts to natural resources,
therefore further discussion in the program EIR was not warranted.
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? ✓
j
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergence evacuation
plan? ✓
The initial study program for the ram EIR states that the risks of upset are unknown, howl ever
9
specific industrial uses will be evaluated at the project evaluation stage, therefore further
discussion in the program EIR was not warranted.
The proposed project does not involve a risk of upset (see the project description attached).
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of an area?. _ ✓
The program EIR adequately addressed the impacts to population (pg. 45-48).
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing? ✓
I
The program EIR adequately addressed the impacts to housing (pg. 45-48).
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
i
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
II
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? �i ✓
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _ ✓
I
I
*Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant.
C.. Substantial impact upon existing transportation system I ✓
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement
of people and/or goods? _ ✓
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ ✓
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ ✓
The program EIR adequately addressed the project impacts to circulation (pg.49-70) and
addressed the proposed project as a part of the redevelopment plan.
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? — ✓
b. Police protection? ✓
C. Schools? ✓
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ✓
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ✓
f. Other governmental services? _ ✓
The program EIR adequately addressed impacts to public services (pg.71-78).
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ ✓
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy? _ ✓
The initial study for the program EIR states that the redevelopment plan (which includes
the proposed project) will result in a cumulative effect on the use of energy. Impacts to
energy were adequately addressed in the program EIR (pg. 77).
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
*Please Note: "S" is for significant; "r' is for insignificant.
16. Utilities/Service Systems: Will the proposal result in a need f6v new systems, or substantial .
alterations to the following utilities?
a. Power or natural gas? ✓
b. Communications systems? ✓
C. Water? ✓
d. Sewer or septic tanks? ✓
e. Storm water drainage? ✓
f. Solid waste and disposal? ✓
The program EIR adequately addressed impacts to public services.
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? ✓
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ✓
The initial study for the program EIR states that the impacts to human health are
Unknown, however specific industrial uses will be evaluated at the project evaluation
stage, therefore further discussion in the program EIR was not warranted.
The proposed project is not expected to result in the creation of any health hazard or the
exposure of people to potential health hazards (see project description, attached).
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ✓
The initial study for the program EIR determined that the redevelopment plan (which
includes the proposed project) will not have a significant impact to aesthetics, therefore
further discussion in the program EIR was not warranted.
The proposed project will not have any effects which have not been discussed.
I
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities? ✓
*Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificarrt.
Impacts to recreation we,a adequately addressed in the prog am EIR (pg. 75-76).
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ ✓
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure, or abject? _ ✓
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ ✓
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? _ ✓
Impacts to Cultural Resources were adequately discussed in the program EIR, including
construction period impacts and mitigation measures.
The following suggested mitigation measures from the program EIR (pg. 99-100) shall be
followed during construction:
(1) In the event that subsurface cultural resources are encountered during
approved ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity must
be stopped and a qualified archaeologist contacted to evaluate the finds;
(2) The discovery or disturbance of any cultural resources should also be
reported to the American Indian Council, San Pablo, and the California
Archaeological Inventory; and
(3) Mitigation measures prescribed by these groups and required by the
County should be undertaken prior to resumption of construction activities.
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? _ ✓
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
*Please Note: "S" is for significant; 111" is for insignificant.
the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brie, definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ✓
C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) _ ✓
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ✓
The initial study for the program EIR determined that the redevelopment plan (which includes
the proposed project) will not significantly effect plant life, animal life, or cultural resources. In
addition, impacts to plant life, animal life, and cultural resources were adequately addressed in
the program EIR (pg. 87-97, and 99-100). Short-term versus long-term environmental goals of
the redevelopment plan (which includes the proposed project) were determined not to be
significant in the initial study, and were adequately addressed in the program EIR (pg. 106). The
environmental effects on human beings were determined not to be significant in the initial study,
and were adequately discussed in the Population, Housing, and Employment, Municipal
Services, and Noise sections of the program EIR. The cumulative effects of the redevelopment
plan (which includes the proposed project) were adequately addressed in the Land Use,
Circulation, Drainage, and Noise sections of the program EIR.
The proposed project will not have any new effects which have not been discussed.
III. Determination
On the basis of this Checklist per CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4), I find that the
environmental effects of the proposed project (i.e., the site specific operation) were covered in
the program EIR.
Date nature
",d .A m
ie a y:
i
VG:mat
c:brooksid\is
*Please Note: "S" is for significant; ,r is for insignificant.
• CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Proponent: Contra Costa County Public Works Department
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553-4897
(510) 313-2000
Project Name: Brookside Drive Realignment Project
I. Location: The proposed project is located on Brookside Drive, between the Southern Pacific
Railroad (SPRR) and 3rd Street, in the North Richmond area of west Contra Costa County.
2. Project Description: The proposed project involves the realignment of two existing curves (90
and 110 degrees) on Brookside Drive, from the SPRR, westerly for approximately 1,105 linear feet
toward 3rd Street. The proposed project will increase the current pavement width/right-of-way
section from 22 ft./40 ft.to a 32 ft./52 ft. road section. The 32-ft. pavement width includes two 12-ft.
lanes and 4-ft. shoulders.
Findings of Exemption: Per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168 (c)(4), a written checklist was used
to document the evaluation of the site and considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence
that the proposed project will have a potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based on substantial evidence, the County of Contra
Costa rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as listed at subsection (d) of Section 753.5 of the
Fish and Game Code.
Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that
based upon the written checklist and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively
have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game
Code.
_GG1iu�4 (SLI! y
Environmental Planner (Chief Planning Official)
Public Works Department
Tile:
Lead Agency: County of Contra Costa
Date:
Mmat
c:brooksid\deminims.
SEP-27-1994 09:16 FRCM CCC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO PUBLIC WORKS P!001/001
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COAUdUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: g'• (�'''7 t�
TO: Development Engineer/Architect
FROM: lames W. Cutler, Chief of Comprehensive Planning �W
By: Matt Tomas, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: MANDATORY REFERRAL FOR GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Community Development staff has reviewed the attached project CPRS- Afa-30 to determine if
mandatory referral for General Plan Conformance, as required by Section 65402 of the Government
Code, is necessary.
The project needs no further mandatory referral clearance from County staff subject to the following
actions:
( } ?his project has been determined to be exempt from 65402 review.
(e) This project has been determined to be exempt from 65402 review in accordance with
the Board of Supervisors Resolution 81/522 because the project involves a road alignment
project of a minor nature.
O This project should be referred to the City of for 65402 review.
( ) Community Development staff makes the following attached recommendation which
should be incorporated into the staff report on this matter.
The project needs mandatory referral and County staff will process this project in the following manner:
( } 6540^' review is required. Community Development staff will carry this matter before
the appropriate Planning Commission. i
( ) 65402 review must be withheld until completion of an Environmental Impact
Report on this project.
( ) Other procedures.
JWC/rw
/gen/mandatry.mem
Rosi.: '"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 A of pages D.
Tb 1.; From
Co. CO.
Dept. Phan
Fax 0 � �r� Fax#
TOTAL P.001
Contra Public Works De p artment P Michael Watford
Public Works Director
Costa 255 Glacier Drive
County Martinez, California 94553-4897 -Milton F. Kubicek
FAX: (510)313-2333 Deputy-Engineering
Telephone: (510)313-2000 Patricia R. McNamee
Deputy-Operations
Maurice M. Shiu
September 20, 1994 Deputy-Transportation
S. Clifford Hansen
Deputy-Administration
City of San Pablo
D. Michael Chadwick
One Alvarado Square
San Pablo, CA 94806
Dear Mr. Chadwick:
Thank .you for your response to the August 15, 1994, "Notice of Intent to Use A Prior
Environmental Impact Report" for the proposed Brookside Drive Realignment Project,
CP# 9430.
Per Section 15168(c)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, a written checklist was used•to evaluate
the proposed project and determine whether the environmental effects were addressed .
in the North Richmond Redevelopment Plan Initial Study-and Program EIR (herein after
referred to as program EIR). As documented by the written checklist, the proposed
project does not have effects:that were not examined in the program EIR, including
effects to #13 Transportation and Circulation.
The proposed project involves realigning two existing curves (90 and 110 degrees) on
Brookside Drive, from the SPRR, westerly for approximately 1,105 linear feet toward 3rd
Street. The proposed project willincrease the current pavement width/right-of-way
section from 22 ft./40 ft. to a 32 ft./52 ft. road section. The 32-ft. pavement width includes
two 12-ft. lanes and 4-ft. shoulders. Improvements to Brookside Drive are part of the
North Richmond Redevelopment Plan and are needed to improve circulation and safety.
Per your comment that the proposed project is creating a two-lane industrial collector
connection to the Richmond Parkway, according to the Circulation Element of the County
General Plan, Brookside Drive, west of Giant Road is already designated as a 2-lane
industrial collector (48 ft. pavement/68 ft. ROW). Brookside Drive does not connect with
the Richmond Parkway. In addition, according to the Transportation Map in the County
General Plan, the San Pablo portion of Brookside Drive, between Giant Road and Rumrill
Boulevard, is already designated as an arterial roadway. The Richmond city limits are
between the County and the San Pablo city limits. Unless Richmond improves vertical
curves over both railroad tracks and widens Brookside Drive within their limits, Brookside
Drive will have a capacity and speed constriction of traffic eastbound to San Pablo.
Maintenance Division:2475 Waterbird Way - Martinez,California 94553-4897 - Telephone:(510)313-7000 - FAX:(510)313-7014
City of San Pablo
September 20, 1994
Page 2
The program EIR states that the existing daily traffic volume is 2,400 on Brookside Drive
between Southern Pacific Railroad and the Santa Fe Railroad and is at a level of service
"K. The build-out daily traffic volume is estimated at 2,600, with no change in the level
of service, therefore impacts were determined to be insignificant (pg. 64 of the program
EIR).
Based on the checklist, there is no substantial evidence that realigning Brookside Drive
will result in any significant effects to transportation and circulation in the area, including
San Pablo, that were not examined in the program EIR. No substantial evidence has
been submitted to counter our determination. The project is scheduled to go before the
Board of Supervisors in October. If you have any questions, please contact me at (51 0)
313-2296.
Very truly yQurs,
Vickie Germany
Environmental Planner
Design Division
I
VO:mat
cc: M.Hollingsworth, Design
C.Bailey, Design
-J.Bueren,Transportation Engineering
J. Kennedy,Redevelopment
cAbrooksiftomrev
i
- I
CITY OF SAN PABLO
One Alvarado Square, San Pablo, CA 94806
(510)215-3030 Fax#(510)235-7059
Community Development/Redevelopment August 22, 1994
Building and Code Enforcement
Public Works and Engineering
Recreation and Senior Services
Housing Authority
Housing
Planning FMI=
CEIVED
Contra Costa County G 2 199
Public Works Department DESIGN
Design Division � .
255 Glacier Drive'
Martinez, CA 94553
Attn: Vickie Germany
Dear Ms. Germany,
I am in receipt of the Notice of Intent for the Brookside Drive Realignment Project, County
File # 94-30. I have read the CEQA Environment Checklist Form, in particular Section 13 which
indicates an "Insignificant" mark for the Transportation/Circulation elements of this document.
I disagree with the assumption that these improvements will have little or no impact to the
City of San Pablo. It would appear to me that these improvements are creating a two-lane industrial
collector connection with the Richmond Parkway. This roadway improvement project, combined with
the fact that Brookside Avenue is now serving as a collector to the Richmond Parkway, is converting
the San Pablo portion of Brookside Avenue into a major collector roadway between Rumrill
Boulevard and areas west of Giant Road.
As areas within North Richmond and Richmond are economically enhanced as a result of the
incorporation of such projects as the Richmond Parkway, the County Transfer Station, and this
project, the impact of such economic and roadway improvements will have an increasing effect on
the volume and nature of traffic using Brookside Avenue in San Pablo. For this reason, I recommend
that you contact me to discuss the impacts of this project and the possible mitigation measures
necessary to alleviate these impacts.
Sincerely,
Michael Cha wick
Public Works Administrator
Fi1e:MC(wpfi1es0rksde I.let)
cc: Gordon Anderson
Craig Monroe' Recycled Paper