Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01101995 - 1.10 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: January 10, 1994 SUBJECT: Approve Pittsburg Avenue Extension Project, North Richmond Area Project No.: 0662-6R4237-93, CDD-CP #94-63 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: APPROVE Project and FIND, on the basis of the initial study and all comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, ADOPT the Negative Declaration in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, (the custodian of which is the Public Works Director who is located at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez) and 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. Financiallmpact: The estimated project cost is $565,000, funded by North Richmond Area of Benefit (100%). Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: _'6 _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE —OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON JAN 1 01995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS t UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JE:JF:drg g\design:BO\bo10.t1 Orig.Div: Public Works(Design) Iheretnrcertify that this isatrue and correctcopy 01 an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Contact: Jerry Fahy,313-2283 Board of Supe Iii on the date shown. cc: CAO--E.Kuevor ATTESTED: 1 1) 100C Auditor-Controller PHIL BA CHL R,CI the Board Community Development of Supervisors and County Administrator PW Accounting ,Q Design-V.Germany By—A&SadA ,Deputy Construction Trans.Engineering--H.Ballenger i Approve Pittsburg Avenue Extension Project Jan,uary 1b, 1994 A �� Page Two III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: The project includes construction of an extension of Pittsburg Avenue between Central Street and Third Street. It is needed to improve traffic circulation in the area. The project has been determined to be in compliance with the General Plan. A Negative Declaration of environmental significance pertaining to this project was published November 22, 1994, with no protest, and the Board has considered the negative declaration together with all comments received during the public review period. This project has been found to be de minimis in its effect on the environment and is exempt from the $1,250.00 Fish and Game filing fee. IV. Consequences of Negative Action: Delay in approving the project will result in a delay of design and construction and may jeopardize funding. Community Contra Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development Development CYepartment COStaTE rRrE- ity Administration Building County 6o1 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing L \. Martinez, California 94550095 � :.� •� 646-4202 J ' November 22, 1994 Phone: ` NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PITTSBURG AVENUE EXTENSION County File #CP 94-63: The project involves the extension of Pittsburg Avenue, approximately 850 feet, between Central Street and Third Street (Figure 3) to improve circulation in the area. The project's features include the following: . 1. The proposed roadway cross section will consist of two 12-foot lanes, two 2-foot shoulders, a 7 to 10 foot border on the south side of the roadway, and a 5 to 10 foot border on the north side of the roadway. 2. The transition between the existing Pittsburg Avenue and the proposed extention will begin approximately 380 feet west of the-Pittsburg Avenue/Central Street intesection and continue in an eastward direction to align with the proposed Pittsburg Road Extension. The transition will require approximately 380 feet of the roadway to be widened up to approximately 30 feet on the south side of the roadway. 3. Approximately 850 feet of storm drain, along with a curb and gutter, will be installed on the south side of the Pittsburg Avenue Extension. 4. Culverting the existing drainage ditch at the intersection of Third Street and the extended Pittsburg Avenue. 5. Utilities in the project area will be relocated. 6. Landscaping will be installed along the north side of the Pittsburg Avenue.Extension. 7. Items 5 - 9 from the Summary of the Environmental Evaluation. The property location is described as follows: The project limits begin approximately 380 feet west of the intersection of Pittsburg Avenue and Central Street and extend approximately 825 feet east of the intersection at Third Street in the North Richmond area of west Contra Costa County (Figures 1 and 2). The existing land uses in the project area include a vacant parcel which is the future site of the Integrated Resource Recovery Facility, commercial nursuries, a horse boarding stable, and other industrial uses. � r To Interested Agencies/Districts Pittsburg Avenue Extension `T November 22, 1994 Page Two 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. 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. December 22. 1994 at 5:00 p.m. The Notice of Intent is available for review at the Public Works Department (address is listed above). If you require further information regarding the project itself, please contact Ms. Teri Rie of Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Construction Division, at (510) 313-2255. If you have any comments regarding the environmental review of this Notice of Intent, please contact Ms. Germany at (510) 313-2296. Sincerely yours, Debbie Chamberlain :gms Senior Planner cp8:94-63noi.1Yw Enclosures CONTRA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COSTA INITIAL STUDY COUNTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT#: 0662-6114237 CP#•: 4-U 3 PROJECT NAME: Pittsburg Avenue Extension PREPARED BY. Maureen Toms` DATE: October 19, 1994 REVIEWED By.,D u,) DATE: a�pz�u d�P�/ � RECOMMENDATIONS: () Categorical Exemption (ClassNegative Declaration () Environment Impact Report Required () Conditional Negative Declaration The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The recommendation is based on the following summary of the Environmental Evaluation: i. The project will not create unstable earth conditions, changes in geologic substructures or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic or water related hazards. 2. There are no rare or endangered species of plants in the project area. The trees to be removed from the right-of way do not constitute a significant impact to plant life. 3. The project will not encroach upon habitat of any unique, threatened or endangered species of animals. No new species of animals will be introduced into the area as a result of the project. In addition, there will be no removal of fish or wildlife habitat. 4. No significant negative long-term aesthetics will result from the project. Construction of road improvements will create minor, short-term, temporary impacts. But no significant impacts will occur since the following best management practices are incorporated into the project and in project specifications: 5. There will be no significant change in the air quality in the project area. Construction machinery and vehicles will emit exhaust fumes and possibly objectionable odors during construction which may temporarily deteriorate air quality. To minimize the impact, contract specifications shall stipulate the use of properly tuned and muffled equipment. Air quality impacts will also be reduced by eliminating unnecessary idling of machines when not in use. Dust palliatives or water may be applied to minimize fugitive dust during construction, if warranted. Conservation measures shall be observed If the application of water or dust palliatives are necessary. 6. Water quality impacts will be reduced through the use of such measures as sediment traps and/or filters at storm drain inlets. Construction in the drainage ditch shall occur during periods of low flow or no flow to avoid water quality impacts. Standard construction safety practices shall be followed in order to reduce the possibility of a spill of gasoline, oil,or other pollutants which may have a significant impact on water quality. 7. Standard construction safety practices will be followed to ensure no accidental release of hazardous substances or increase the potential for exposure to these substances. The County Resource Mapping System for the project area did not identify any petroleum pipelines or electric transmission lines. The project has the potential for interfering with an emergency response, but emergency response agencies in the area shall be notified prior to the onset of construction. 8. During construction, traffic will be diverted within the proposed right-of-way. This will create a temporary inconvenience, which will be minimized by installing sufficient signs warning of construction. Initial Study Pittsburg Avenue Extension October 19, 1994 Page 2 9. Best management practices mentioned in#6,and limiting work hours to 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless modified upon written approval, will reduce construction noise levels and shall be incorporated as part of the construction contract. What changes to the project would mitigate the identified impacts. N/A USGS Quad Sheet: Richmond, CA Base Map Sheets: J4 Parcel#408-203-002 408-203-005 408-203-007 409-300-024 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Location: The project limits begin approximately 380 feet west of the intersection of Pittsburg Avenue and Central Street and extend approximately 825 feet east of the intersection at Third Street in the North Richmond area of west Contra Costa County (Figures 1 and 2). The existing land uses in the project area include a vacant parcel which is the future site of the Integrated Resource Recovery Facility, commercial nursuries, a horse boarding stable, and other industrial uses. 2- Project Description: The project involves the extension of Pittsburg Avenue, approximately 850 feet, between Central Street and Third Street (Figure 3) to improve circulation in the area. The project's features include the following: 1. The proposed roadway cross section will consist of two 12-foot lanes, two 2-foot shoulders, a 7 to 10 foot border on the south side of the roadway, and a 5 to 10 foot border on the north side of the roadway. 2. The transition between the existing Pittsburg Avenue and the proposed extention will begin approximately 380 feet west of the Pittsburg Avenue/Central Street intesection and continue in an eastward direction to align with the proposed Pittsburg Road Extension. The transition will require approximately 380 feet of the roadway to be widened up to approximately 30 feet on the south side of the roadway. 3. Approximately 850 feet of storm drain, along with a curb and gutter, will be installed on the south side of the Pittsburg Avenue Extension. 4. Culverting the existing drainage ditch at the intersection of Third Street and the extended Pittsburg Avenue. 5. Utilities in the project area will be relocated. 6. Landscaping will be installed along the north side of the Pittsburg Avenue Extension. 7. Items 5-9 from the Summary of.the Environmental Evaluation. 3. Does it appear that any feature of the project will generate significant public concern? [] yes no [l maybe: 4. Will the project require approval or permits by other than a County agency? [l yes [4 no, Agency Name(s): 5. Is the project within the Sphere of Influence of any city? Yes, Richmond Wr:mst c:pittsbrglpitts M fs r ti.. Z u n v d � LU w J s .J UJ J.Li �. V - . . 1 �1 r � V V,m• �- ) • r• Figure 2 Pittsburg Avenue Extension NORTH SCALE SOURCE:CSAR(1992) . rtdT o Soo leoo :000 a000 .000 szeo r[[T aRae o e.[ o.: o.a o.• o.s o.e o.T 0.0 09 f.o MR.e MaTeae o Soo Aoo- e'oo Soo—loon Y[Tcln . I .. V' RIC.- ATLASRICHMOND CO L_ / Q IYt•N40M0 COUNTRYCLUB -- 4 1 (PRIVATE) ` r a, M � �� � I @�Y p•. EC %Oaf Yllf Cn l! Vs o - ' E Tyr N ��p• MLLq ♦ �''Y pll. � - i te•Iv�E�q'a"f' �� �z r + ,e•.+" •,R,•l. o•' Toe '. l —!� AAA-. AY. ._17 nr... we4wr NJr..t• "i Ff .LY[YA pR. A.. �p(4S r i / E SS � of- SY[p• MEF[Nr W eLw. � ti O s ( J a 4 d' -r4•l u CITY 1`• �PROT[CrOMAT_ LR. I< o RR= a /• „ r d y j\'erfh ..I g s d•, cr pa o - Raarair g to IN p J Z •. cJe. $ WARY NES[CO4TM COSTA yt Y y �. R �� m Aor$ �i � ,df`w�.•,�...P '• � 1rr I I f Marro a At �•o+r. CONIILA`p oti O a'�..awlSo[.•�r " ra SAN MV LAND FILL ; 'p., = " ,� '•a j - , 4 _ - P PARR ,Ip• t -PROJECT LOCATION Rw --7 j T IDE �r�� *Ave;lam . �• � '�� �+u _C 3>>r� �� �lr �� •�+�z = e nn4. selmt Av N i� r cr fr wor L 1 ROAD m M � fpr[ \ _ I l eJ • •M '^ 6 l Avrt _ __ C I 'B tri-� YM.R P' L cepryff" 4810 AYe m `aTR �• i A .r f V� ___ __ 401tW.• NIL; AV ' •^e5 Yq Ar r`~ ~ks,} c v,`: �4 v/ fRIOGE RD M1 4 aP� I Aar � � s^Af i le k[RRFF �Yh ; 4 YRci _(�,f/dc0l ��~SIGrFR � AY. I" A Av -.!w �a` r �8� ��.4 �� •pR `p' �:� aOYF = $ Y cwn i : e L - tl �Y I n .r Av � Y » Y •=.� rr �r1 m prtstfr« ^_' '^u I [r LC rar[xs oMar•L'`a s Z •'i� ��Q 4. _. XFORUM r. I ALAMO I � •Cnl AY ,�., IT p.'A e un dplvn" AV.- =0 M .`n Av ` Davo.o [r RRmS Av. � lURp1 «AY SAflfORO Rl. N \ •M as ' � WR1COie _ ,p'•. �. Rx[[N « k G M. 'LOWLL N I AV, .•\ f�p �!•' tp Eir OUNN AV. m W."RET �' I' .�. '•n S •elf ' KU AV I P S CWIIRGA AY :r AY �eN of AV LMMK ICS :NFMSI[Y llrCfaM ar AY. `1 -IIN�LN AY Y�MMLL"r�� 4o SN,Ow �\ l n. ar s4oao' « GA— (NRYIN N • �.6lRrIN 2 w ^ AY. xRAap N _ ► O i P'. iENNSVLwY4 ° AV CYIMLOx / rt[Mn Tutu PENMTLVANIA F. AV 91 TiRANT B 1 AY, F NT •t '4 I ��• ! r 1N 3 I nonan -Ar - RIPLEY •�[AV. 4r AYbS UL' a+aro n = _ .�•orq SEVELT. N AV. ' NIW� ROO NINNETT s • AVI RANR[TT I _7 LT —-—-—-—-—- - ........... r^--- - • HOJJa b�- r ♦ : >t--.ter ♦__ - _..... _......_ _.. 15 :. .......� .......... _ co cc 1p Op \\'I 1111 11 \� i t lQ l 1 11 111 /.1 1 ' ll 111 .�lt ' I 1 1 KVI 11 11 \ r'��♦♦ I 1 � 11 111 1 1 1 1 ` 111 1111 1 \. ' ♦ ♦111 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 11 w cc T N w w \ a a v O p"a 1 . n- w U�.. WO 1 � \ � O Q Z Q0 a W 0 cn N a w O C7 O Q 1 CL CC8 Z W a N U Owj 3 1 a O QW 1 CL a ¢ I T 1. 1 M � 1 O) W M ` - N ` l UJ1 N (D -� Z O w 4 1\. h N W o •;, CL 1 1 Is IM-N30 ,", -_- (031VDVA) "19 -IdH1N30 �1 ~\ • Z W Qm m CL U Z I- 4y c) a >' it Cl) F-- 0 SQ LL 83 caQ U) u U 0 q = 0 (L F- Z aQ Z DC7 Oa n, n. oC W U) 5'1 / W1 7 w zLL y Q 1 cc w W I � Z I > O 0 i 0 ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM .. 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: October 19, 1994 4. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Pittsburg Avenue Extension II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all significant, (S), answers are required on attached sheets.) *S *I 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ ✓ b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? e ✓ C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ✓ d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ✓ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ✓ 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? _ ✓ g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ ✓ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ ✓ b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ ✓ 2 *S *I C. Alternation of air movement,moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ ✓ 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? _ ✓ L Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _. ✓ 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, rare or endangered species of plants? ____ ✓ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ✓ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? i ✓ *Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. 3 *S *I 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species 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? _ ✓ 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ✓ b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ ✓ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ ✓ i 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? _ ✓ 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ ✓ 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? _ ✓ b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? _ ✓ '1. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ ✓ *Please Note; "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. 4 *S *I 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ ✓ 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _ ✓ b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _ ✓ C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? of 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? ✓ 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? _ ✓ 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? _ ✓ *Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. • 1 I 5 *S *I 16. Utilities/Service Systems. Will the proposal result in a need for 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? _ ✓ 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? _ ✓ 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? _ ✓ 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? _ ✓ 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 object? _ ✓ 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? _ ✓ *Please Note: °is" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. 6 *S *I 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 anima! community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California.history or prehistory? ✓ b. Does the project have impacts 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.) ✓ C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either,directly or indirectly? _ ✓ III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. (see attachment) IV. Determination On the basis of this Checklist and Environmental Evaluation: 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. F I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL-BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Dateignature � � . MT:mat Reviewed By: c:pittsbrg\0eck.13t *Please Note: ."8" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Pittsburg Avenue Extension The project involves the extension of Pittsburg Avenue, approximately 850 feet, between Central Avenue and Third Street to improve circulation in the area. Approximately 380 feet of Pittsburg Avenue, west of Central Avenue will be widened to create a transition to the new roadway. In the process of preparing the Checklist and conducting the evaluation, the following references (which are available for review at the Public Works Department located at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, except where otherwise noted) were consulted: 1. Contra Costa Resource Mapping System (available at the Community Development Department). 2. The County General Plan and. EIR on the General Plan.(January 1991) 3. North Richmond Redevelopment Plan EIR (July 1987) 4. West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (IRRF) Draft EIR (September 1991) 5. Cultural Resources Evaluation for the West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility Project (May 1991) 6. RAREFIND - California Natural Diversity Data Base (August 3, 1994) 7. Field Review (January 6, 1994) 1. Earth (A - G) According to the County Resource Mapping System, Sycamore silty clay loam is found in the project area. Soil runoff is slow and the hazard of erosion is none to slight. Grading of the project area will result in a minor change in topography and temporarily increase. the exposure of soils to water and wind erosion. Adherence to standard dust control and erosion control practices including, but not limited to, general watering of exposed areas and/or use of chemical stabilizers will minimize this impact. Conservation measures:shall be observed in the application of water or,dust palliatives' are necessary. These measures shall be incorporated into the construction contract. Grading of the surface will not result in unstable earth conditions or changes to the geologic substructure, nor will it increase the exposure to geologic hazards. No unique geologic features are present within the project limits. 2. Air (A- B) Short-term emissions and objectionable odors are generated during construction activities, but they are minor and temporary. To minimize this impact, contract specifications shall stipulate the use of property tuned and muffled equipment, and eliminating unnecessary idling of machines when not in use. Implementation of dust control practices noted in #1 - Earth (A - G) will also reduce air quality impacts. (C) Minor widening and extending Pittsburg Avenue will not result in the alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate. Environmental Evaluation Pittsburg Avenue Extension Project October 19, 1994 - Page 2 3. Water (A - 1) According to the Contra Costa Resource Mapping System, the project area is .within a flood hazard and the San Pablo Dam inundation area. The project area is near the south shore of San Pablo Bay, between Wildcat and San Pablo creeks (see Figure 2). However,'extending Pittsburg Avenue will not affect any marine or fresh waters, groundwater or flood waters. There are no public water supplies in the vicinity of the proposed project. The rate and amount of runoff is not expected to substantially increase due to the project's,impervious surface area. The project includes the installation of a storm drain line along the length of the extended roadway, therefore, the project will not result in significant changes to drainage patterns in the project area. Water quality impacts will be reduced by the use of sediment traps and/or filters at storm drain inlets. The human-made drainage ditch along the west side of 3rd Street will be culverted under the Pittsburg Avenue intersection. Construction in the human-made drainage ditch shall occur during periods of low flow or no flow to avoid water quality impacts. If water is present, the construction area shall be dewatered by pumping water through a diversions pipe to be discharged down stream in a non-erosive manner. As mentioned in#10-Risk of Upset,standard construction safety practices shall be followed in order to reduce the possibility of a spill of gasoline, oil, or other pollutants which may have a significant impact on water quality. 4. Plant (A & D) The project is within the boundary of the San Francisco Bay Wildlife Habitat Boundary, however, the project area encompasses lands that have been altered substantially by agriculture, industrial, and urban development (see #8-Land Use). In addition, vegetation is predominately non-native grassland, therefore the project area does not contain significant habitat. Several pine trees (non-native/non-heritage) along the south side of Pittsburg Avenue near the intersection with Central Avenue will be removed as a result of the proposed project. According to the IRRF EIR, removing the non-heritage trees would result in a loss of wildlife habitat (i.e., forage, roosting, and nesting), but was not considered significant. In addition, the IRRF EIR and the North Richmond Redevelopment EIR state the loss of non-native grassland (associated with the vacant parcel) is not significant. (B & C) According to the County Resource Mapping System, RAREFIND, field review, North Richmond Redevelopment Plan EIR, and the IRRF EIR no unique, threatened, or endangered species of plants are in the project area. Landscaping will be installed in the right-of-way along the north side of the extended roadway. The project will not create a barrier to the normal,replenishment of existing species. Environmental Evaluation Pittsburg Avenue Extension Project October 19, 1994 Page 3 5. Animal Life (A - D) The project area encompasses lands that have been altered substantially by agriculture, industrial, and urban development (see #8-Land Use), and vegetation is predominately non-native grassland (see #4- Plant Life), therefore the project area does not contain significant habitat. The project will not encroach upon habitat of any unique, threatened or endangered species of animals according to the County Resource Mapping System, RAREFIND,field review, North Richmond Redevelopment Plan EIR, and the IRRF EIR. As mentioned in #4-Plants, removing several trees would result in a loss of wildlife habitat, but was not considered significant. Landscaping will be installed in the right-of- way along the north side of the extended roadway. Areas left exposed after grading will be seeded, providing nominal habitat for animals. No new species of animals will be introduced into the area as a result of the project. 6. Noise (A & B) Transportation-related noise sources, primarily automobiles, buses, trucks, and trains determine the ambient noise levels over most of the project area. According to the IRRF EIR, the major sources of noise in the project area include traffic along Richmond Parkway, Parr Boulevard, other local roads, and the Southern Pacific and Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe railroad lines., The existing noise level on Pittsburg Avenue is 64 dBA and calculated to be at 68 dBA and 69 dBA for the years 1995 and 2005, respectively, with the IRRF project. According to the County General Plan, a noise level ranging from 50 - 75 dB is normally acceptable for industrial, manufacturing, utilities, and agricultural uses. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on any sensitive receptors (i.e., residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, parks and outdoor recreation areas) since no sensitive receptors are in the project area (see Figures 2 and 3). In general, construction activities produce noise levels of 86 dBA at 50 feet which is well below the threshold of pain of 120-140 dBA. Caltrans Standard Specifications will apply regarding construction noise. Best management practices noted in #2-AIR (A& B), and limiting work hours to 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless modified upon written approval, reduce construction noise levels and shall be incorporated as part of the construction contract. t Environmental Evaluation Pittsburg Avenue Extension Project October 19, 1994 .Page 4 7. Light and Glare The Pittsburg Avenue Extension project will produce new light or glare, however, it would have an insignificant impact since the amount of light and glare produced by the project is only a fraction of that produced by the surrounding land uses (see #8-Land Use). 8. Land Use The existing land use within the project limits include a vacant parcel (site of the future IRRF, which will include a materials recovery facility, a transfer station, a public buyback center, and an optional household-hazardous-waste collection facility), nurseries, and horse boarding stables (see Figure 3). Land uses beyond the project limits include a vacant parcel (proposed City park), industrial uses, a trucking company, stables and pasture land, agricultural and the proposed East Bay Regional Park District trail along Wildcat Creek. The IRRF project will dedicate most of the right-of-way needed for the roadway (approximately 27,880 sq. ft.). In addition, acquisition of approximately 4,800 sq. ft. from the nursery and approximately 1,800 sq. ft. from the stable north of the proposed extension will be required. The extension project also includes a transition of approximately 380 ft.of the existing Pittsburg Avenue,west of the intersection with Central Avenue (see Figure 3). The transition will require approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of right-of-- way be acquired from the nursery at the southwest corner of the Central Avenue/Pittsburg Avenue intersection (see Figure 3). The acquisition of right-of-way will not significantly reduce the operations of the nurseries since the right-of-way needed represents less than 1.5% of each of the parcels. The Pittsburg Avenue Extension is Project #200 of the County General Plan (Appendix D) and is consistent with the North Richmond Redevelopment Plan's objective to improve circulation in the area. 9. Natural Resources During construction, the project will use paving materials (i.e. asphalt) which will not significantly impact this resource. The use of oil and gasoline to operate the machinery for construction purposes is negligible and of a short-term, temporary nature. Best management practices noted in #2 - Air (A - B) will minimize the consumption of natural resources. Smoother circulation (see #13 - Transportation and Circulation) would also conserve natural resources (i.e. petroleum products). Environmental Evaluation 'Pittsburg Avenue Extension Project October 19, 1994 Page 5 10. Risk of Upset (A) The proposed project has the potential to release hazardous substances, such as' accidental petroleum spills. Per specifications,standard construction safety practices will be followed during construction to ensure no accidental release of hazardous substances or increase the potential for exposure to these substances. . .The County Resource Mapping System for the project area did not identify any petroleum pipelines or electric transmission lines. (B) The project has the potential for interfering with an emergency response, but emergency response agencies in the area shall be notified prior to the onset of. construction. During construction, it may be necessary to close lanes and shift traffic. Standard specifications require installing sufficient signs warning about the construction. 11. Population The project will not result in a change in the location, distribution, density, orgrowth rate of human population in the area (see # 8 - Land Use). 12. Housing The project will not affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing (see # 8 - Land Use). 13. Transportation and Circulation (A- F) The site of the Pittsburg Avenue Extension is currently a vacant lot. The extended roadway will connect Central Street with 3rd Street. The existing local street network is not adequate (i.e., poor intersection geometry, low standards of roadway design, and indirect routing) to accommodate additional urban development. The project will not alter waterborne, rail or air traffic as no water, rail or air transportation and facilities are located in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Extending Pittsburg Avenue will not generate additional traffic, except during construction, however this is a minor, temporary impact. During construction, it may be necessary to close lanes .and shift traffic. Standard specifications require installing sufficient signs warning about the construction. As mentioned in #10 - Risk of Upset, the project has the potential for interfering with an emergency response, however emergency response agencies in the area.shall be notified prior to the onset of construction and any road closures. Extending Pittsburg Avenue will not cause any significant negative impacts to the transportation and circulation patterns of the area. When completed, the project will result in smoother circulation patterns in the North Richmond area. Environmental Evaluation Pittsburg Avenue Extension Project October 19, 1994 Page 6 14. Public Service (A - D, F) The proposed project will not increase the need for fire or police protection, schools, parks, or other governmental services (see #8-Land Use, #11-Population, and #12 - Housing). (E) Pittsburg Avenue is currently maintained by the County and periodic maintenance of the extension will also be performed by the County. 15. Energy (A & B) Minor amounts of non-renewable fuel resources will be consumed during construction, but this is a short-term, temporary, and minor impact. Eliminating unnecessary idling of machines when not in use and using properly tuned equipment, as mentioned in #2 - Air (A - B) and #9 - Natural Resources, will further minimize the consumption of energy resources. As mentioned in #9 - Natural Resources, smoother circulation (see #13-Transportation and Circulation) would also conserve natural resources (i.e. petroleum products). 16. Utilities The proposed project may require the relocation of various utilities, however this is not a significant impact. All relocation activities shall be coordinated with the appropriate utility agencies. 17. Human Health (A&_B) The proposed project has the potential to release hazardous substances during construction. Potential health hazards due to accidental petroleum spills shall be minimized. by following best management practices noted in #10 - Risk of Upset (A). Degradation of air quality, which could affect human health, can be minimized by the measures noted in #2 - Air. The proposed project will not create any known health hazard or increase the potential for exposure. 18. Aesthetics . Several pine trees on Pittsburg Avenue, near Central Avenue, in the project area, will be removed as a result of extending Pittsburg Avenue (see #4 - Plants). The .trees contribute to the scenic quality of the area, however, removing them will not be a significant impact, since landscaping will be installed on the north side of the extended Pittsburg Avenue. No significant negative long-term aesthetics will result from the project. Environmental Evaluation Pittsburg Avenue Extension Project October 19, 1994 Page 7 19. Recreation. The County Resource Mapping System and the field review did not identify any recreational opportunities in the project area, therefore no recreational opportunities are impacted due to the extension of Pittsburg Avenue. 20. Cultural Resources (A-D) The County Resource Mapping System did not categorize the sensitivity level of the project area. The Cultural Resources Report prepared for the IRRF Project (Chavez, 1991) indicates that the project site was surveyed in 1988 and in 1991 with negative results. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance (A - D) Due to construction equipment, air quality may be temporarily degraded at the project site. However, no permanent long-term impacts will result (see #2 - Air). No endangered species of plants or animals are within the project area. There will be no encroachment upon any habitat or elimination of any animal, fish, or wildlife community (see #'s 4 & 5 - Plant and Animal Life). The project does not have the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California History (see #20-Cultural Resources). There are no cumulative impacts associated with the project. In addition, there will be no adverse environmental effects on human beings (see #17 - Human Health). VG:mat c:pittsbrg\pittsbrg.sup CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: M 2 ; TO: Development Engineer/Architect FROM: James W. Cutler, Chief of Comprehensive Planning By: Matt Tomas, Senior Planner SUBJECT: MANDATORY REFERRAL FOR GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE Community Development staff has reviewed the attached project, CP 94-�03 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: ( ) This project has been determined to be exempt from 65402 review. (� 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. ( ) 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: ( ) 65402 review is required. Community Development staff will carry this matter before the appropriate Planning Commission. ( ) 65402 review must be withheld until completion of an Environmental Impact Report on this project. ( ) Other procedures. JWC/MT:gms c:sh11MR4gpc RESOURCE RECOVERY CONI..CG,,.[G W ,.. V .I,..a.b ximmau apwiosau RECEIVED November 27, 1994 2 9 W4 Public Works Department Design Division ESIGN Attn: Vickie Germany WORKS DE". Construction Division Attn: Teri Rie 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Ms . Germany and Rie : The following comments are in response to your November 22 , 1994 Notice and the information attached thereto: 1 . Notice of Intent, November 22, 1994, page 1, Item 6 . Landscaping will be installed along the north side of the Pittsburg Avenue Extension. Shadows from landscape plantings may cause a reduction of light to the adjacent nursery growing grounds thereby modifying the growing environment . The IRRF had planned to construct storage sheds along the same alignment but had to relocate the sheds because of the shadow problem to the nursery to the north. Further we question placement of landscape on the north side and recommend that landscape be placed on the south side . The ultimate north side right-of-way will not be` acquired at this time . Landscape planting should be placed on the south side right-of-way since it will. be at the ultimate alignment . 2 . Notice of Intent, November 22, 1994, .page 1, last paragraph. The IRRF parcel is described as "a vacant parcel which is the future site of etc . " The IRRF site is no longer vacant . Construction of the IRRF has begun and will be completed no later than October 1995 . 3 . Initial Study, GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS, Item 2 . 6 . See comments number l above . 3260 Blume Drive Suice 210 - Richmond. California 94806 - (510)262-1650 • Fax: (510)223-1591 4 . ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION, October 19, 1994, page 4, Item 8 . Land Use. See comment number 2 above and change Figure 3 by striking "proposed" from Integrated Resource Recovery .Facility. The following should be added to the first sentence of paragraph 2 . "in exchange for the abandonment of Central Street south of Pittsburg Avenue and the surplus right-of- way on the west side of Third Street south of Pittsburg Avenue" . 5 . ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION, October 19, 1994, page 6, Item 18 . Aesthetics . See comment number 1 above . 6 . ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION, October _19, 1994, page 7, Item 20 . Cultural Resource. The Chavez reports of 1988 and 1991 may have surveyed the site with negative results, however, the report did spell out a program to .be undertaken by the developer of the IRRF site to minimize adverse impacts on any Cultural Resources found on site' and was, made a Condition of Approval for the IRRF. That program as specified in the Chavez report of 1991 is being carried out by the IRRF contractor and developer at this: time . Copies of the program have been filed as part of the ,IRRF Final Development and Improvements Plan (FDIP) with Contra Costa County Community Development Department, Deidra Dingman. The IRRF FDIP Cultural Resource Protection Plan should be used for the Pittsburg Avenue Extension construction project;. Sincerely, TWilliams CC : Deidra Dingman „ Contra Public Works Department J. Michael Walf°rd 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 December 15, 1994 Maurice M. Shiu Deputy Transportation S. Clifford Hansen Deputy Administration John Williams West County Resource Recovery 3260 Blume Drive, Suite 210 Richmond, CA 94806 Our File: Pittsburg Avenue Extension Project No.: 0662-6R4237-93 Dear Mr. Williams: Thank you for your comments on the November 22, 1994, "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration"for the proposed Pittsburg Avenue Extension Project, CP# 94-30. Our responses to your comments are as follows: Comment#1, regarding shadows cast by landscape plantings causing a reduction of light to the adjacent nursery growing grounds, comment noted. The purpose of installing landscaping on the north side of the roadway is to contribute to the scenic quality of the roadway, however, this can be accomplished by installing landscaping in other areas which will not interfere with the growing environment of the nursery. We are currently evaluating alternatives. Comment #2, change Page 1 of Notice of Intent by striking "vacant" from the description of the parcel which is the future site of the Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (IRRF), comment noted. Comment#3, see response to Comment#1. Comment #4, regarding striking "proposed" from IRRF from Figure 3, and adding "in exchange for the abandonment of Central Street south of Pittsburg Avenue and the surplus right-of-way on the west side of Third Street south of Pittsburg Avenue" to the first sentance of the second paragraph in the Land Use section of the Environmental Evaluation, comments noted. Comment # 5,_see response to Comment #1. Mr. John Williams December 20, 1994 Page 2 Comment #6, regarding Cultural Resources, the County's Standard Plans and Specifications provide for a program to be undertaken by the Public Works Department in the event cultural resources are encountered during construction of the project. The County's program is in compliance with State and Federal regulations and.is comparable to the IRRF Cultural Resources Protection Plan. Based on the Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that extending Pittsburg Avenue wilt result in any significant effects on the environment. No substantial evidence has been submitted to counter our determination. The project is scheduled to go before the Board of Supervisors in January 1995. We will be in contact with you regarding landscaping alternatives. If you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 313-2296. Very truly yours, ickie Germany -.Environmental Planner Design Division VG:mat:jlg g:\design\env\jwilliams.t12 cc: M. Hollingsworth, Design D. Eckerson, Design M.Carlson,Design J. Fahy, Design J. Bueren,Transportation Engineering J. Kennedy,Redevelopment D. Dingman,Community Development FAST BAY HN .LAMPS MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT �����,p� F� rl:n NNING December 14, 1994 Y ��++ OEu %1 'G94 ' Ms. Vickie Germany DESIGN W©fig DEPT. Public Works Department PUgI}C Design Division 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 SUBJECT: Pittsburg Avenue Extension, Richmond Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Germany: Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject environmental document. The District has the following comments regarding the existing District facilities and possible future water service needs in the project area. A portion of the site for the proposed Pittsburg Avenue Extension contains an existing 8-inch water main installed in 1961 (see attached map). This pipeline, serving District customers in the North Richmond area, is critical to the operation of the District's water distribution system; therefore, measures to prevent any construction impacts to this pipeline, including those related to adequate pipeline cover and the construction equipment wheel loads, need to be addressed in the project design. The project sponsor should work closely with the District's Properties Section and Design Division to determine conditions for the work to protect this pipeline in the existing Pittsburg Avenue right-of-way. To accommodate future pipeline maintenance, the District requires a "minimum" vertical and horizontal clearance of one foot and three feet respectively from other underground utilities/improvements and a pipeline cover between 3-1/2 and 6 feet. If these requirements can not be met in the design of the proposed Pittsburg Avenue extension; relocation of this water main, at the project sponsor's expense, will be necessary. Existing water service and a hydrant in the project area, as shown in the attached drawing, may also need to be relocated by the District at the project sponsor's expense. A new location for this hydrant, if necessary, is to be determined and approved by the local fire agency, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. In order to determine the extent of the necessary relocations of the existing water main and other services, design plans for the proposed extension should be submitted to the District. The Pittsburg Road extension between Central Avenue and Third Street also provides new frontage to the private properties (land parcels) on both the north and south side of the proposed right-of-way. If these property owners require water service or new hydrants, installation of a water main in the proposed Pittsburg Road extension connecting existing 375 ELEVENTH STREET.OAKLAND. CA 94607-4140. (5101 835-3000 P.O.BOX14055.OAKLAND. CA 94623-1055 BOARD OF DIRECTORS KATHERINE McKENNEY.STUART FLASHMAN.ANDREW COHEN JOHN A.COLEMAN.JOHN M.GIO/A.. NANCY J.NADEL.KENNETH H.SIMMONS Ms. Vickie Germany December 14, 1994 Page 2 mains in Third Street and Central Avenue at this time would be economical if coordinated with the proposed project. This installation, if desired, would be at the property owners expense as provided for in the District's Water Service Regulations. The project sponsor and the adjacent property owners, if necessary, should contact the District's New Business Office to initiate a water service estimate to determine costs and conditions of the relocation work as well as a main extension, if any. Engineering and installation of water mains (new or relocated), hydrants, and water services often requires substantial lead time which should be provided for in the project schedule. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact Prab M. Jog, Senior Civil Engineer, Water Service Planning at (510) 287-1026. Very.truly yours, J . Lampe for of Water Planning JBL:DJR:dd 9419.wpb Attachment - 5 n , Rl HM o� -TR SITE I KDE ivi 91',11-i I4� { u u 1 163110 �� r'4s'•i'.•�' 1 N u M 1 , AV / S ,.•OLIN�: t R...'��;�.-+.•..•�� � << y M1A1100 . .1 S Z J i i R i . 2200 N --t p PITTSBURG AVENUE EXTENSION PROJECT LIMITS r113274 HYDRANTTHATMAY NEED TO BE_ RELOCATED 3s"o I G 1/00 R vE v1TT5BURc �Q wE M 8-INCH MAIN + SERVICE TO POSSIBLE WATER BE RELOCATED MAIN INSTALLATION N ----------------------- 6"6 47972 0:e60 -6062 OL6 74� s: t m Wv 4.1 L M N ' � AMId9 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT PITTSBURG AVENUE EXTENSION PROJECT-NEGATIVE DECLARATION F� SCALE: 1"=250' PREPARED BY: D.J. REHNSTROM "Au DATE: DEC. 5, 1994 WATER DISTRIBUTION PLANNING Contra Public Works Department J.Michael Walford Y Public Works Director Costa 255 Glacier Drive County Martinez, California 94553-4897 Milton F. Ifiubicek y FAX: (510) 313-2333 Deputy-Engineering Telephone:.(510) 313-2000 Patricia R. McNamee Deputy- Operations December 27, 1994 Maurice M. Shiu Deputy- Transportation S. Clifford Hansen Deputy-Administration Mr. John B. Lampe, Director of Water Planning East Bay Municipal Utility District 375 Eleventh Street Oakland, CA 94607-4240 Our File: Pittsburg Avenue Extension Project No.: 0662-6R4237-93 Dear Mr. Lampe: Thank you for your comments on the November 22, 1994, "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration" for the proposed Pittsburg Avenue Extension Project, CP# 94-30. Your comments have been forwarded to Jerry Fahy, Project Engineer, Design Division. The project`is scheduled to go before the Board of Supervisors on January 10, 1995. If you have any questions regarding the environmental review;.`please contact me at (510) 313-2296. If you have any questions regarding the project itself,-,please contact Mr. Fahy at (510) 313-2283. . z Sincerely, Vickie Germany Environmental Planner Design Division c:pitlsbrg\respons2.hr g:designlenv.ebmub.t12 VG:mat cc: M.Hollingsworth,Design D.Eckerson,Design. M.Carlson,Design J.Fahy,Design J.Sueren,Transportation Engineer CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651PINE STREET 4TH FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 Telephone: (510) 313-2296 Contact Person: Vickie Germany, Public Works Dept. Projed Description, Common Name(if any)and Location:PITTSBURG AVENUE EXTENSION County File#CP 94-63: The project involves the extension of Pittsburg Avenue, approximately 850 feet, between Central Street and Third Street to improve circulation in the area. The project's features include the following: (1)the proposed roadway cross section will consist of two 12- foot lases, two 2-foot shoulders, a 7 to 10 foot border on the south side of the roadway, and a 5 to 10 foot border on the north side of the roadway; (2) the transition between the existing Pittsburg Avenue and the proposed extention will begin approximately 380 feet west of the Pittsburg Avenue/Central Street intesection and continue in an eastward direction to align with the proposed Pittsburg Road Extension.The transition will require approximately 380 feet of the roadway to be widened up to approximately 30 feet on the south side of the roadway; (3)approximately 850 feet of storm drain, along with a curb and gutter,will be installed on the south side of the Pittsburg Avenue Extension; (4) culverting the existing drainage ditch at the intersection of Third Street and the extended Pittsburg Avenue; (5) utilities in the project area will be relocated; (6) landscaping will be installed along the north side of the Pittsburg Avenue Extension; and (7) Items 5 - 9 from the Summary of the Environmental Evaluation. The property location is described as follows: The project limits begin approximately 380 feet west of the intersection of Pittsburg Avenue and Central Street and extend approximately 825 feet east of the intersection at Third Street in the North Richmond area of west Contra Costa County. The existing land uses in the project area include a vacant parcel which is the future site of the Integrated Resource Recovery Facility, commercial nursuries, a horse boarding stable, and other industrial uses. The project was approved on Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: Q An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified. Q .The Project was encompassed by an Environmental Impact Report previously prepared for © A Negative Declaration was issued indicating that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report was not required. Copies of the record of project approval and the Negative Declaration or the final EIR may be examined at the office of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. The Project will not have a significant environmental effect. QThe Project will have a significant environmental effect. Mitigation measures were made a condition of approval of the project. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted. Findings were adopted pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Date: By: Community Development Department Representative AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING 1 declare that on I received 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 & Game Fees Due: County Public Works Department EIR-- $850 Total Due: $ 255 Glacier Drive Neg. Dec. - $1,250 Total Paid: $ Martinez, CA 94553- ,/ DeMinimis Findings - $0 Attn: Janet Frattini ,/ County Clerk- $25 Receipt #: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Proponent Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4897 (510) 313-2000 Project Name: Pittsburg Avenue Extension Project Location: The project is located between the intersection of Pittsburg Avenue and Central Avenue and extends approximately 850 feet to the east to Third Street in the North Richmond area of west Contra Costa County. Project Description: The project involves the extension of Pittsburg Avenue, approximately 850 feet, between Central Avenue and Third Street, including two 12-foot lanes, 2-foot shoulders, and a 7 to 10 foot boraer on the south side of the roadway, and a 5 to 10 foot border on the north side of the roadway. Improvements to approximately 380 feet of Pittsburg Avenue, west of the intersection with Central Avenue will also be necessary in order to provide a transition to the new roadway. A storm drain, along with a curb and gutter,will be installed on the south side of the roadway and join poles at the Pittsburg Avenue intersections with Central Street and Third Street intersection will be relocated. In addition, sewer manhole within the proposed roadway will be adjusted to grade. Findings of Exemption: An Initial Study was conducted to evaluate the potential for adverse impacts 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 Initial Study 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. - J. . &'7- 3��M� vi n ental Planner (Chief Planning Official) Public Works Department Title: Lead Agency: County of Contra Costa Date: VG:mat wpittsbrg\deminime Rev.8/11/93