Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12192000 - D2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSCONTRA FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COSTA COUNTY DATE: december 19, 2000 SUBJECT: APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR A NEW JUVENILE HALL ADDITION AND RELATED ACTIONS (0928-WH 228F) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION(Sl: ACKNOWLEDGE that on March 2, 1999 the Board of Supervisors authorized the County's participation in a competition to receive state or federal construction grant funds for the expansion of the juvenile hall on Glacier Road in Martinez. RECOGNIZE that this competitive proposal provided a minimum county match of$9,000,000 while seeking $22,239,425 in grant funds and included certain assumptions regarding the expansion size, estimated project cost, and project schedule. RECALL this competitive proposal ranked number one in the state of California based on the County's need for the facility, cost effectiveness to the state, and the County's ability to proceed with the project. ACKNOWLEDGE that the state unilaterally applied federal grant funds to the County's new construction proposal instead of state funds based on guidelines established by the federal government's VOUTIS grant program. These guidelines reserve federal funds for new construction projects whereas state grant funds do not contain this restriction. NOTE that at the time of grant award the Department of Justice informed the Mate Board of Corrections that National Environmental Protection Requirements (NEPA)were not applicable to federal grant recipients. Recommendations Continued CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: ---- RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR -_ - RECOMMENDATION F BO E DROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF SO SIV T��C 3 - - >Y APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER i VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES:_ NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ABSENT: _ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF *District V Seat Is Vacant SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED Dere cher_19- 2000 PHIL BANTCHELOR,C F HE B D OF SUP C+t I S BY � DEPUTY Contact: George Roemer, CAO- County Construction Administrator 5-1055) cc: Laura Lockwood, CAO Auditor/Controller GSD (Accounting) -Terry Mann Community Development Department O'Brien-Kreitzberg Inc. (via CAO) Contra Costa County J~Ile He Addltbn Initial Study SUMMARY: Mitigation Measure YI.B includes requirements for erosion control during construction. This would eliminate water quality problems associated with construction of the Juvenile IWI. No discharges that could affect water quality would occur with operation of the Juvenile Hall addition. The Juvenile Hall addition would be connected to public water supplies, as are surrounding land uses. The Contra Costa Water District sells water to the City of Martinez from supplies derived primarily from surface flows in the Delta and secondarily from groundwater sources. Groundwater would contribute to the overall supply available for use at the project, but such consumption would not represent a new use of groundwater supply, would not substantially deplete groundwater resources, and would result in no impact. No natural waterways are present on the project site. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site. Because there is no surface water on the project site the proposed project would not result in the alteration of the course of a stream or river. The project area currently is connected to existing stormwater drainage facilities. It is proposed to construct new stormwater drainage facilities on the project site to connect with the City's existing stormwater drainage system. 5tormwater drainage would flow by gravity to a new pump station on site. The storm drain would then connect to an existing catch basin on-site, near Gate 2, where stormwater would flow into an existing 24-inch line that crosses under Glacier Drive. The existing storm drain travels east, under the existing parking lot that serves the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works building. The storms drain then daylights into an existing earthen channel in an open space area. The drainage channel extends eastward from the storm drain outlet, at the base of the parking lot embankment, to the inlet of another 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain. This downstream storm drain system conveys stormwater from the project area and additional County facilities on the east side of Glacier Drive, as well as from existing residential subdivisions, to the Contra Costa Canal. The Canal is the regional stormwater outlet which conveys stormwater from the largely urbanized area to its outlet in Suisun Bay in the City of Martinez. The length of the off-site drainage channel is approximately 300 feet. lust downstream of the 24-inch storm drain oulet the channel is very wide (15 to 20 feet) and the bottom is overgrown with rule. This condition is maintained for roughly 100 feet downstream to the confluence with a similar open channel that enters from the north. That segment drains the County complex at the southeast corner of John Muir Road and Glacier Drive. Downstream of the confluence, the channel transitions to a slightly narrower configuration,although an extensive low terrace flanks it to either side. From the transition to the inlet of the downtream storm drain system, the more narrow channel bottom and terrace areas are vegetated with thick grasses. The wide terraces and the relatively mildly sloping (e.g. 3:1) upper banks combine to provide an extensive flow cross-section at raid- to high channel discharges. Since the local top of bank elevation is 12 to IS feet or more above the channel bottom, flood elevations would never reach local residences or adjacent County buildings. Pre- and post-project peak flows were computed for the design ten-year rainstorm by the project. 9. For this design rainstorm, the computed peak discharge was 11.1 cubic feet per second (cfs). On-site storm drain facilities were designed for the ten-year peak discharge based on an assumption of full flow in the 24-inch diameter Glacier Drive storm drain. For the accepted design of the site storm drain system, the 24-inch diameter storm drain under Glacier Drive passed the post-project ten-year peak discharge without any street flooding. Moreover, all of the proposed storm drain segments performed satisfactorily under 9 Clearwater Hydrology conversation with Andrew Lee,Telarnon Engineering,August 2000. -35- Contra Costa County Juvenile Nall Addition Initial Study the design flow condition without street flooding. Thus, the increase in post-project discharge for the design ten-year rainstorm would have a less than significant impact on the 24-inch Glacier Drive storm drain. For the downstream drainage channel an approximate ten-year flow depth was computed assuming a full flow condition in the 24-inch storm drain,at the lower end of the channel reach,and operating under inlet control. The total storm drain discharge was conservatively assumed at twice the post-project site peak flow, to account for the stormwater entering the channel from the northern tributary channel segment. Based on the resulting peak discharge of 22.2 cfs with inlet control,the required headwater at the storm drain entrance was computed to be 3.3 feet. This is far below the available headwater clearance, which was estimated at 12 to 15 feet or more. With this headwater clearance, even the 100-year peak discharge would be easily passed without any impact of local flooding. Thus,the project would not have a deleterious impact of downstream hydraulic structures within the immediate project area. Given the undeveloped condition of the earthen channel reach, and its relatively wide cross-section and floodplain, any future development within this presently open space parcel should be situated at least six to eight feet above the channel bottom. In addition, encroachment that would infringe upon this zone should be avoided. Adherence to these development constraints would maintain the local detention storage function for project area stormwaters during severe rainstorms. According to The Contra Costa County General Plan (Figure 10-8), the project site is not located in any 1043-year flood hazard zone. Therefore, no flooding is expected on the project site and furthermore, the proposed project would not place housing within a flood hazard area. The project site is not located downstream from or within the inundation area of any darn. Thus, the project would not be subject to potential public safety risks or property damage from a catastrophic dam failure. According to The Contra Costa County General Plan,tsunami run-up from the Golden Gate decreases to none at the head of Carquinez Strait and therefore would not affect the project site which is located inland. Moreover, it is not located in the vicinity of a closed water body where a seiche could occur. No hillsides are present that could create mudflows. Less Than Significant Potenti"y with Less'T han 1X. LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project: significant ;Mitigation Significant Impact incorporated Impact No Impact A. Physically divide an established community? (2, Sa) 1:1 0 0 0 B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 0 © 0 Rl regulation or an agency. with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?(la,2) .36- Contra Costa CountyJuwnile Nall Addibw Initial Study C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 plan or natural community conservation plan? (l c) SUMMARY: The Juvenile Hall project is located within a larger area that already has other similar uses —including the County's existing Juvenile Hall. As a result, project implementation would not physically divide an established community. The project site is designated PS (Public 1 Semi-Public) in the Contra Costa County General Plan and G (Governmental) in the Martinez General Plan. The County's Public J Semi-Public designation is applied to land owned by public governmental agencies and allows a wide variety of public and private (mainly transportation and utility) uses, including schools, libraries, fire stations, and public offices without explicitly providing for a use such as the Juvenile Hall. The designation only excludes private residential and private commercial uses and does not establish density or intensity limits. The proposed project would continue and complement an established use for which the project area is designated. Outside of the Central Martinez area the Martinez General Plan does not contain specific policies relevant to the Governmental designation. As required by Section 65402 of the Government Code the Juvenile Hall addition will be referred to the City of Martinez. The City of Martinez will have the opportunity to review the proposed project and report whether the location and purpose of the project is in conformity with its general plan. There is no evidence that the Juvenile Hall addition would conflict with the site's land use designation or policies of the Martinez General Plan,thus resulting in no impact. As noted in the discussion of Biological Resources (see Checklist Item IV), the proposed project would not conflict with any local, regional, State, or Federal Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other similar biological resource protection because of the absence of species of concern and/or sensitive habitat on or near the site,thus resulting in no impact. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than X. MINERAL RESOURCES—`Mould the project. Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporawd Impact No Impact A. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the State?(I a) B. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?(1 a) SUMMARY: The Contra Costa General Plan (Figure 8-4) identifies three mineral resources determined to be most important and currently mined in the County--crushed rock, shale, and sand and sandstone -- and shows their location in the County. None is located on the project site. Thus, construction of the Juvenile Hall addition on the project site would not result in the loss of known mineral resources of local or broader value and would result in no impact. Contra Costa County Juvenile Nall Addition Initial Study Less Than significant Potentially with Less Than XI. NOISE—Would the project result in: Significant Mitigation significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels Cl 0 Cl H in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?(t a,2) B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 0 Cl Cl H groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (5) C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise Cl 0 H ❑ levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project?(3) D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 0 H ❑ 0 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project?(t a,3) E. For a project located within an airport land use plan Cl Cl H d or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(la, $e) F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 0 0 Cl H would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(la) SUMMARY: The Noise Element of the Contra Costa General Plan contains the following policies which would be applicable to the Juvenile Hall project. 10 • Evaluate the noise impacts of a proposed project upon existing land uses in terms of the applicable federal,state and local codes and the potential for adverse community response based on a significant increase in existing noise levels. • New land uses should be compatible with the existing and projected on-site noise environment. Residential development should not be exposed to a Ld. in excess of 60 dB. Contra Costa County considers a noise impact upon existing and future residents to be significant if + Noise resulting from the project would increase average noise levels (Lu) by more than three dBA, and existing average noise levels would increase from below an L&of 60 dBA to above an Ld, of 60 dBA,or 10 See Appendix A for discussion of the fundamental concepts of noise measurement and analysis and a brief introduction and definitions of the technical terms used in this section. _3g_ Contra Costa County Juvenile Had Addfion Initial Study • Noise resulting from the project would increase average noise levels by more than three dBA where existing noise levels already exceed an L&of 60 dBA;or • Noise resulting from the project would increase average noise levels by at least five dBA and the resulting noise levels remain below a"of 60 dBA. The Noise Element of the City of Martinez General Plan does not contain quantitative policies or standards regarding the amount of increase in noise allowed for proposed projects. The Alai rtinez General Plan does contain the following noise and land use compatibility guideline: Residential development is compatible with an exterior L,,,,noise level not in excess of fry dB. Based on the noise levels measured on the project site the L&where the housing portion: of the Juvenile Hall project is proposed is less than 60 dB and the project would be compatible with the on-site noise environment The proposed project would not generate groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the single family homes located south of the Crate I driveway. These residences are screened from the existing Juvenile Hall site by an approximately five- foot high wood fence. The homes nearest Glacier Drive are opposite the existing playfield at the project site. The existing playfield extends up Glacier Drive. In the future, it would be turned 90 degrees and would extend approximately 60 feet farther down the Gate I driveway from Glacier Drive. The basketball courts, which are currently about 370 feet away from the nearest homes, would be moved closer to the homes but would be partially shielded by intervening buildings. The shielding provided by the buildings would render noise from the basketball courts, at most, barely audible outside the nearest residences. Since the largest portion of the playfield would remain near the intersection of Glacier Drive and the Gate I driveway, noise levels in the residential area to the south would not be significantly different than they are today. Activity in the extended portion of the playfield would be slightly louder at homes currently located away from the playfield. Background noise levels outside of the homes along the driveway were measured 11:00 AM to noon on Monday,May 15,2000. The average noise level was measured to be 48.6 dBA and the background noise level was measured to be 43 dBA. The background noise level, or I..90, is the noise level equal or exceeded 90 percent of the time. The background noise level at this location was dominated by the sound of distant traffic,mechanical equipment noise,aircraft,and birds. The playfield at the existing Juvenile Hall is used for physical education classes on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday between 10:30 AM and 11:45 AM and 1:15 PM and 2:30 PM. During physical education classes, the major noise source would be the sound of shouting. Measurements of activity of other playfields indicate that the sound level of shouts would range from 50 to 74 dBA at the nearest fence line. The existing fence would reduce noise levels by about five dBA resulting in maximum noise levels of 58 to 65 dBA in the backyards. The average noise level generated by the activity during the hours of use would be expected to be about ten decibels lower,or an average noise level of 40 to 55 dBA in the backyards. Since activity occurs only for two and one-half hours per day four days a week, the amount of time that noise levels would exceed the background noise level in the area would be minimal. -39- Confra Costa County Juvenile Hall Addition Initial Study Studies have shown that no significant adverse community response would be erected for these noise levels at this duration. 11 Trak noise on the gate 1 driveway would be expected to be about the same as it is now. However, since there are fewer parking spaces in this area, it is likely that there would be less traffic than currently exists. In summary, noise levels outside the existing single-Family homes would not be significantly different than they currently are and would not be expected to generate significant adverse community response. Pavement demolition, site grading, and building construction would result in a temporary increase in noise levels outside the nearest single family homes. The highest noise levels would be generated when a portion of the existing parking lot opposite the residents along the Gate 1 driveway is removed. Jack harnmers would be expected to generate noise levels which could reach 85 dBA outside the nearest homes. After this activity is completed,the highest noise levels would be associated with construction of the buildings,the closest of which would be approximately 150 feet away. During building construction, sound levels could be expected to reach maximum levels of 75 dBA outside of the closest homes, with average noise levels on the order of 65 to 70 dBA. During periods of time,noise levels would exceed an average level of 60 dBA outside of the nearest homes and this could result in difficulty in communicating in the backyards. Inside these homes, assuming the windows are closed, construction noise levels would not be expected to interfere with conversation. Construction noise would be a short-term significant impact. Mitigation Measure V.D The County's construction contracts shall require implementation of the following control measures to reduce temporary construction noise impacts primarily on nearby residents: • Comply with all applicable state and local laws, ordinances, and regulations relative to noise control. Equipment to be employed on the project site shall not produce a noise level exceeding the following limits in dBA at a distance of fifty feet from the equipment cinder test. Earthmoving Equipment } Materials Handling Equipment Front loader 79 Concrete Mixer 85 I Backhoes 85 Concrete Pump ! 82 Dozers t 80 t Crane 83 Tractors 80 Derrick 88 � Scrapers 88 InWaet Equipment Graders 85 Pile Drivers—Not permitted ' Truck 91 Jack Hammers ' 88 Paver 89 Rock Drills 98 ,Stationery Equipment Pneumatic Tools 86 Pumps 76 Other Equipment Generators 78 Saws 78 Assessment of Noise with Respect to Community Response,ISO R-1996-19971,International Standards Organization, Geneva. -40- Contra Costa County Juvenile Rall Addition !nidal Study Compressors $I i�ibratars 7(t • This equipment shall not be operated before 8:00 Ali or after 5:30 PM. • Equipment and impact tools shall have intake and exhaust mufflers. • Secure written permission from the Owner`s Representative at least three working days prior to using noisy and vibratory equipment, such as jack hammers, concrete saws, impact tools, and high- frequency electrical equipment. • Cooperate with Owner if the use of noisy equipment becomes objectionable. • Idling diesel engines shall be turned off. • At least one week prior to commencement of construction the contractor shall post the site and mail to owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, telephone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and a 24- hour emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction activity. Implementation of these measures would reduce the severity of short-term construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Juvenile Hall addition would be located within two miles of Buchanan Field Airport. The project noise contours for Buchanan Field indicate that the 60 L&contour is located on the east side of Interstate 680 and, therefore, aircraft noise does not impact the Juvenile Hall site. 12 Therefore, this would be a less-than-significant impact. This project is not located in the vicinity of a private air strip. Thus, there would be no impact. 12 Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment(DEIR/E,4):Airport Master Plan Update,Airport Access Plan Amendment, Golf Course Lease, General Plan Amendment, Circulation Improvements, and Related Implementation for Buchanan Field Airport Concord, California, 1989. -41 - Contra Costa County Juvenile Haft Add7tfon lnWal Study Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than XH. POPULATION AND HOUSING --Would the Significant Mitigation Significant project: imps €ncorpomw €mpaet No€tnpact A. Induce substantial population growth in an area, 0 Q CI 0 either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?(5a) B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, d © ❑ El necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(3,5a) C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating 0 Cl 0 21 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (3,Sa) SUMMARY: Implementation of the Juvenile Hall project would provide a minor boost in construction work in the area and the creation of new full-tithe jobs thus potentially resulting in new workers moving to the area, and an increase in the demand for more housing. Construction of the Juvenile Hall addition would result in a minor increase in the number of full-time employees at the facility. The magnitude of these increases would not induce substantial population growth into the area. The increase in construction work would be short-term, and the increase in demand for housing as a result of new permanent employment could likely be accommodated by the normal turnover in rental housing and increase in housing construction in the unincorporated area plus the City of Martinez and other nearby cities. Construction on the project site presently served by infrastructural facilities similarly would not induce or facilitate unplanned or premature population growth. No housing units exist on the project site, thus none would be displaced by the project. The proposed project would not displace any existing housing. With the construction of the Juvenile Hall project the July 2000 capacity of 1.70 beds would be increased to 290 beds. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered Less Than Significant governmental facilities, the construction of which could Potentia€iy with Less Than cause significant environmental impacts, in order to significant Mitigation Significant maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or Impact Incorporated Impact No:maact other performance objectives for any of the public services: A. Fire protection(8I) 0 0 8 0 B. Police protection?(8c) 0 0 0 0 C. Schools?(8h) D © l� -42- Contra Costa County Jumnife Hall Addition Initial Study D. Parks?(ta,2) E. Other public facilities?(3) SUMMARY: The Contra Costa County Fire District (CCCFD) provides fire protection and responds to fire and hazardous materials' calls in a 270-square mile area. The service area encompasses Martinez and nine other cities, has a population of 300,000 people, and includes the County's oil refineries. For fire emergencies at the Juvenile Hall Fire Station 9 located at 209 Center Avenue in Pacheco would respond. Station 9 is about two and one-half to three miles away. The Juvenile Hall addition would be a Type LI, Fire Resistive, fully sprinkled building. The CCCFD has indicated that the likely increase in call volumes would not result in the need for additional staffing of firefighter with construction of the proposed project. Current facilities, equipment, staffing and emergency vehicle response times are sufficient to accommodate the anticipated increases in annual calls associated with the proposed project. Therefore, construction of the Juvenile Hall addition would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. This would be a less-than- significant impact. The project site is located within the City of Martinez where the City's Police Department provides police protection, including street patrol,traffic control, and parking enforcement. Given the increased intensity of use on the project site the proposed project would generate additional calls for police protection service. 13 However, operation of the Juvenile Hall project would not require an increased demand for police staffing or equipment, nor would it affect police response times to the Site. 14 Therefore, the proposed project would not lead to the need for other new or physically altered police protection facilities. As a law enforcement project, construction of the Juvenile Hall addition is responding to a demand on police services county-wide. With improved facilities(such as improved booking facilities and additional beds)the project would result in a benefit to police protection in Contra Costa County. The Contra Costa County Office of Education operates the Mt. McKinley School within the existing Juvenile Hall. In addition to the existing Juvenile Hall the Mt. McKinley school includes facilities in the Summit Center and the Chris Adams Girls Center. Within the existing Juvenile Hall there are eight classrooms plus the gymnasium and two special education rooms. Construction of the Juvenile Hall addition includes the construction of new classrooms. The number of classrooms to be constructed would be based on the State Board of Corrections standard of a maximum of 20 students per classroom. It is proposed to construct one classroom for each of the eight housing units plus four additional classrooms for a total of 12 classrooms. In addition a special education classroom, a Title I classroom and a library would be constructed. Construction of the Juvenile Hall addition would result in the need for new school facilities. These new facilities have, however, been incorporated into the design of the Juvenile Hall project. Any potential adverse physical effects on the environment as a result of these school facilities are considered in this Initial Study as a part of construction of the Juvenile Hall project. 13 Nichols Berman conversation with Police Chief Dave Cutaia,City of Martinez,June,2000. 14 Nichols Berman conversation with Police Chief Dave Cutaia,City of Martinez,June,2000. -43- Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall Addition Initial Study Implementation of the Juvenile Halt project would not directly result in increased demands for public parklands(see discussion of Checklist Item XIV below). Other public facilities are discussed in Checklist Item XVI.(Utilities and Service System)below. Less Than signi&ant Potentially with Less Than XIV. RECREATION Significant Mitigation significant impact incorporated impact No Impact A. Would the project increase the use of existing 13 C{ Q l?l neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?(I a,2) B. Does the project include recreational facilities or C! 17 Cl El require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?(I a, 2, 5) SUMMARY: As discussed in the project description above, the Juvenile Hall project would include outside and inside recreation areas. The outside playfield would be enclosed with a security fence (similar to the existing playfield), and would be used for outside recreational activities such as baseball and field sports. Eight indoor recreation areas would be located along the southern side of the housing area, four of which would have openings onto the outside recreation area for emergency egress. An internal courtyard (which could not be seen from outside the building) would be located between the housing/cells area and existing Sierra Building. An additional basketball.court would be constructed in the existing outdoor courtyard surrounded by the gymnasium., Mt. McKinlely school, Diablo and Tamalpais units of the existing Juvenile Mall. This location is revised from the location shown in Exhibit 5. This will replace the playfield currently located along Glacier Drive during construction,and would also be used after construction. Operation of the Juvenile Hall addition would not directly increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Thus, there would be no impact. Any potential adverse physical effects on the environment as a result of the recreation facilities proposed as apart of the project are considered in this Initial Study as a part of construction of the Juvenile Hall addition. It is possible that future employees of the Juvenile Hall would utilize local recreational facilities, especially in the City of Martinez, such as Hidden Valley Parr located on the south side of Center Avenue at Redwood Drive. Although use of existing City of Martinez facilities would likely be expected to increase, the use would not require the expansion or renovation of existing facilities at Hidden Valley Park, nor require the development of new parrs or recreation facilities to accommodate the proposed project since the number of employee would not constitute a substantial increase in the local resident population. -44- 00nfn3 Costa County Juvenile Hall Addison Initial Study Less"Than significant XV.TRANSPORTATION f TRAFFIC—Would the Potentially With Less Than protect- significant mitipation significant WVact Inowponswd Impact No impact A. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in C 13 EI relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?(3) B. Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of 0 Cl 0 EZ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?(3) C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including 0 0 0 Cl either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?(I a) D. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature 0 0 ❑ 0 (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)?(3) E. Result in inadequate emergency access?(l a, 3) 0 0 d g F. Result in inadequate parking capacity?(3,8f) 0 l:l 0 Q G. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 0 Cl 0 0 supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?(I a) SUMMARY: Glacier Drive is a two-lane roadway that extends south from Muir Road to Spring Lake Drive. It has curb, gutter and sidewalk and signed, striped, bicycle lanes on both sides. The roadway carries an average of 5,500 vehicles per day. IS The Muir Road/Glacier Drive intersection is all-way step sign controlled. Operation of the Juvenile Hall addition would be expected to generate no more than 160 two-way average daily trips(ADT), and no more than eight to ten two-way trips during the afternoon PM peak traffic hour (4:3€3 PM to 5:30 PM) on Glacier Drive. The project would add less than three percent to the existing daily two-way traffic on Glacier Drive (a roadway carrying approximately 5,500 ADT). The impact would be less than significant. Glacier Drive is not a designated roadway in the Contra Costa County Congestion Management Agency's (CMA) Congestion Management Plan (CMP), and would not generate enough PM peak hour trips to trigger a CMA traffic analysis or review. Thus, it would have no impact. 15 Crane Transportation group conversation with Nabil Tonna,Engineer,City of Martinez,May 2000. _4j_ Contra Costar County Juvenile Haff Addition Initial Study The project would not result in impacts to air traffic. The proposed design of on-site roadways does not raise safety concerns, and would only minimally increase off-site traffic on glacier Drive. It would result in a less-than-significant impact. The proposed project would not alter the existing emergency access within the Juvenile Hall complex. It would result in a less-than-significant impact. PARKING Septng In addition to the existing Juvenile Hall the project area houses numerous programs, including Office of Education training classes for juveniles, courtrooms, residence programs, and a transition center serving juveniles upon release from the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility. Exhibit 4 lists these uses, grouped by location within the project area. Exhibit 13 shows the number of parking spaces within each parking area on the north, south and west sides of the existing Juvenile Mall and the existing weekday afternoon parking demand. All parking spaces can be accessed by either gate 1 or 2 via on-site driveways(see Exhibit 3). Gate 1 provides direct access to the Juvenile Hall, courts, Girls Residential Program, and the 93 parking spaces on the south side of the project area. Gate 2 provides direct access to the Edgar Transition Center, Office of Education, Classrooms, Administration, Grounds and Maintenance, Recycle, and the 132 parking spaces on the north side of the project area. The Summit Center- Boys Residential Facility, and 56 parking spaces located on the west side of the project area,is equidistant between the two gates. Parking is generally considered to be near capacity on the north side parking lot (primarily used by County staff) Monday through Thursday and along the westside perimeter road where parallel parking is permitted. Staff parking demand is slightly less on Fridays when the Grounds Maintenance and Recycle Program is closed. Parking in the south side lot is rarely full. 16 Parking Surveys To determine existing parking demand,Crane Transportation Group(CTG)conducted parking surveys to record the actual use of each parking lot on a single sample day. Mr. Jim Matheron, Operations Chief, Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall, provided information on weekday peak demand periods. Parking demand is greatest weekdays between 2:30 PM and 3:30 PM when staffing is at a maximum at the county facilities,courts are in session,and a shift change overlap occurs(the shift change time is 3:00 PM when the day shift ends and the night shift begins). 17 Exhibit 13 provides parking survey results. As shown, parking demand is greatest 3:00 PM to 3:10 PM when 205 of the 281 parking spaces are occupied. At this time the north side lot is near capacity, with 122 of the 132 parking space occupied. By 3:30 PM,the total demand drops to 169 spaces,and by 4:30 PM,total demand is 129 spaces. Ib Crane Transportation Group conversation with Jim Matheron,Operations Chief Lien's Gate Juvenile Hall,April 2000. 17 Crane Transportation Group conversation with Jim Matheron,Operations Chiu Lion's Gate Juvenile Hall,April 2000 .qg_ Exhibit 13—Existing Parking Spaces and Existing Weekday Afte moon Parking Demand Parking Area1sdnnggr uteri[ Weekday Afternoon Par*ing Demand& g Spaces 2.30-3:40 PM 3:00-3.10 PM 3.30.3.40 PM 4:30.4 40PM North Side Pig Lot (includes some 132 118 122 102 63 parallel parking along driveway aisle) South side 93 59 62 46 35 parking lot West side parking lot, including pig in 56 21 21 29 31 landscaped area adjacent to striped spaces, and parallel parking along driveway Total 281 198 205 169 129 Source:Crane'Transportation Group a Based on surveys conducted by Crane Transportation Group,Thursday,May 11,2000. Contra Costa County Juvenile Hatt Addition Initial Study Projected Parking Demand for the Expanded Juvenile Hull Facility The Juvenile Hall project would result in the expansion of the facility from a 160-bed facility to a 290-bed facility (an 81 percent expansion in bed capacity). 18 Staffing would be increased (61 additional day shift,and ten additional swing shift staff)and visitors would increase(up to 15 additional visitors during the weekday PM peak parking demand period). The net new parking capacity would be 69 spaces (i.e., loss of 60 spaces in the south side lot and construction of 129 new spaces on the north and east sides, east of the existing parking areas). Visitor parking would be redirected to Cate 2 on the north side of the complex (currently used primarily by employees) where most of the new parking would be located. A new driveway connection to Glacier Drive would be located between the two existing driveways to provide a loading dock and seven restricted parking for security and maintenance. Exhibit 14 shows the projected weekday peak parking demand for the expanded Juvenile Hall. As shown, the project would increase parking demand by as much as 101 spaces. This would be expected to occur for a 30 minute period,starting at 3.00 PM when the day and swing shifts would overlap(assumes a total overlap,with all new day shift employees[61]and all new swing shift employees [ten] on the premises at the same time), and the visitor increase (primarily court attendance) would be at an estimated maximum of 30 visitors. Conclusion The existing parking supply (281 spaces) would not accommodate the projected parking demand (316 spaces) after completion of the Juvenile Hail addition. However, the planned net new 68 parking spaces would be adequate to accommodate the projected increased parking demand of 101 spaces. However, if for any reason it is found that parking is in short supply, additional on-site parking could likely be provided within the landscaped area (under the overhead electric transmission line easement) bordering the west side driveway and parking lot. Assuming that the County has the ability to develop within the easement,this area could likely accommodate 30 or more additional parking spaces.20 18 As discussed in the project description a ten-bed expansion is currently under construction and expected to be occupied this summer. For the purposes of the parking evaluation the ten bed expansion is included in the future parking demand. 19 Crane Transportation Group conversation with Jim Matheron,Operations Chief,Lion's Gate Juvenile Hall,Aprii 2400. 24 Crane Transportation Group conversation with Michael"Yang,Kaplan and McLaughlin,Project Architects,May 2000. 8 Exhibit 14-Planned Parking Supply and Projected Weekday Afternoon Parking Demand Parking Supply Parking Demand with Project Parking Area Planned Tate!Parking incremental Increase Total Demand Project Supply after new In Parking Demand Peak Weekday Juvenile Hall project Due to Project a Aftemoon Parking Demand" 3:00-3:10 PM('shift change time) Future north side parking supply(includes parallel 254 spaces b 71spaces c 193 spaces d parking currently used along driveway aisle) East side secure parking 7 spaces 0 spaces 0 spaces South side parking 33 spaces a 30 spaces f 92 spaces g West side parking, including Parking in landscaped area adjacent 56 spaces h 0 spaces i 31 spaces j to striped spaces,and parallel parking along driveway Total 350 spaces 101 spaces 316 spaces Sources:lira Matheron,Operations Chief,Juvenile Hall,compiled by Carne Transportation Group. a Crane Transportation Group conversations with Jim Matheron,Juvenile Hall,April and May 2000. b Includes new 12.2 space parking lot adjacent to Gate 2 and 132 existing spaces in the north side lot, c Total projected increase in day shift staffing(61)and swing shift staffing(10). d used on maximum project increase in weekday afternoon(71)plus existing demand(122). e Reflects loss of 600 existing spaces in the south side lot. f Estimated maximum visitor increase:eight parents(or other family or guardian)attending court hearings and seven other visitors at one person per vehicle. Mote: All parking demand increase for the Courts(presumably the source of some of the west side parking demand)is shown as part of the southside parking demand. S After the 33 south side spaces are filled,visitors will be directed to available parking in the west side and north side parking areas. h No change in existing parking spaces. e No increased demand. Note: All parking demand increase for the Courts(presumably the source of the Westside parking demand)is shown as part of the south side parking demand. 1 No change in existing demand Conga Costa County Juvenile Nall Addrtion 1nHral Study Less Than significant Potentially With Less Than XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the significant Mitigation siptitttant project. IMP= lwocpor w Jmpsa No Impact A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 0 0 D H applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (8a) B. Require or result in the construction of new water or D © Cl 0 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?(8a,8j) C. Require or result in the construction of new storm 0 D Cl 0 water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental erects?(5c, 8b,) D. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 01 0 0 0 project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?(8j) E. Result in the determination by the wastewater 0 0 0 Q treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?(8a) F. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 0 Cl 0 0 capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(8k) G. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 0 0 21 0 regulations related to solid waste?(8k) The project site is located within the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and currently is served by the District's wastewater collection and treatment facilities. An eight-inch sewer main is located in Glacier Drive where it Bows to the southeast (through the County Department of Public Works property) to Olympic Drive. From there, sewage flows to the District's wastewater treatment plant located near the I- 680(highway 4 interchange. New sanitary sewers would be constructed on the project site to serve the Juvenile Hall addition. Due to changes in elevations the new sanitary sewers would flow by gravity to a new pump station where sewage would flow via a force main(approximately 70 feet in length)to a new manhole where it would then flow via gravity to an existing manhole near Glacier Drive and Gate 2. The new sanitary sewer would be connected to the existing sewer main in Glacier Drive. The existing sewage mains have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed project.21 21 Nichols Berman conversation with Russ Levitt,Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,June 2000. -50- Contr6 os County Juvenile Hall AddiVon Initial Study With the increase in the number of beds and the increased number of staff the project would slightly increase wastewater demand of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater treatment plant has a design capacity of 45 million gallons per day (mgd) and average flows of 42 mgd in 1998, an increase from 37 mgd in 1997 attributable to groundwater infiltration. The plant would be capable of accommodating flows generated by the Juvenile Hall addition, and the project would have no impact on the District, its facilities, or wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project site is located in the water service area of the City of Martinez and connected to existing water distribution facilities. The City purchases water supply from the Contra Costa County Water District. Existing facilities are adequate to provide sufficient water to the existing Juvenile Water and to provide sufficient water for the Juvenile Hall addition. Operation of the Juvenile Hall addition would result in a net increase in water consumption, as the occupancy of the Juvenile Hall would result in an increased onsite population over existing conditions. This would.not however resultin a significant new water demand would result in no impact. The project would not require construction of new or expansion of existing water treatment facilities,thus representing no impact. The existing Juvenile ball is connected to a 16-inch water main in Glacier Drive. New water lines would be constructed on the project site to serve the Juvenile ball project, It is proposed to make two connections to the existing water main in Glacier Drive--a new eight-inch fire water main and a new six- inch domestic water train. The project would not require the construction of new off-site water lines to serve the Juvenile Fall project. Impact to the City's storwater drainage facilities is discussed in response to Checklist Item VIII,above. "Conventional" or "unregulated" solid waste generated in the City of Martinez is collected by a private company (BFI), taken to its Waste Recovery and Transfer Station near Martinez, and transported to the Keller Canyon landfill facility, located near Bay Point in Contra Costa County or Solano County for disposal. Operation of the Juvenile Mall addition would lead to a small increase the amount of solid waste generated in the City of Martinez. However, the proposed project would not violate national, state or local standards for solid waste or litter control. Furthermore, the Keller Canyon has adequate future capacity without immediate constraints. Based on the availability of sufficient landfill capacity the increase in solid waste would be a less-than-significant impact. The proposed project would generate short-term construction and demolition debris during construction. Contra Costa County would require the construction contractor to file a Debris Recovery Plan prior to start of construction. Such a plan would discuss the disposal of construction and demolition debris. Prior to occupancy the construction contractor would be required to file a Debris Recovery Report documenting the final disposal of the construction and demolition debris. Conua Costa County Juvenile Hall Addition Initial Study Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Then XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE significant Mitigation. significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ Q ❑ ❑ quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of 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? As described in response to Checklist Items I through XVI the project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of 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. The Initial Study does, however, identify potential short-term air impacts, impacts to cultural resources, short-term soil erosion, and short-term noise. Mitigation incorporated into the proposed project would reduce the potential significance of these impacts to a less-than-significant level. B. Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As discussed above, implementation of the proposed project may result in certain impacts, however, mitigation incorporated into the proposed project would reduce the potential significance of these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Incorporation of these measures into the proposed project would also eliminate any contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts. C. Does the project have the environmental effects ❑ E1 ❑ 0 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? The Initial Study did identify a number of adverse short- and/or long-term impacts on people. Without mitigation these impacts include short-term air quality and noise impacts, and potential disturbance of cultural resources. Mitigation 'incorporated into the proposed project would reduce the potential significance of these impacts to a less-than-significant level. .52- RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED: ACKNOWLEDGE that the County design team, Administrators Office, and Probation Department proceeded expeditiously with the project design, meeting all milestones established by the grant proposal and secured project approvals from the County Board of Education, state Board of Corrections, and County Fire Marshal. ACCEPT a recent department of Justice ruling that federal grant recipients must now comply with both local (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)) and NEPA environmental analysis requirements. The Department of Justice filed their interim final rule implementing this new directive in the Federal Register on August 8, 2000. NOTE that the County published the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration on September 28, 2000 and the Board has considered community comments before adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration. However, the NEPA analysis is not complete due to delays in federal reviews and guidance. ACKNOWLEDGE a two-month delay occurred while waiting for federal guidance on environmental analysis requirements and it could tape another two months to secure federalapproval of the NEPA analysis, The Department of Justice and the state Board of Corrections will not supplement grants for project delay costs. CONSIDER Department of Justice correspondence dated October 20, 2000 indicating that it will rely on the County's Negative Declaration to prepare a Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI). ACKNOWLEDGE that the County Administrators Office and the Probation Department hosted five separate community meetings at the juvenile hall. RECOGNIZE that approval of project plans and specifications and a solicitation for construction bias does not constitute an irrevocable action on the part of the Board of Supervisors since the Board must authorize a construction contract at a future date. ACCEPT that time is of the essence for this project because construction costs in the San Francisco Bay Area are rapidly escalating and materials and labor are in short supply. AGREE that approval of project bidding before completion of the FONSI is in the best interest of the project and the citizens of Contra Costa County. CONSIDER the comments received on the proposed Negative Declaration and the response to these comments herein. ADOPT by Resolution the Mitigated Negative Declaration that assessed potential environmental effects resulting from the construction and occupancy of the new Juvenile Hall'Addition. ADOPT Resolution approving plans and specifications for the construction of a new Juvenile Hall Addition at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall, 202 Glacier Drive, Martinez, California. DIRECT Staff to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program included with this Board Carder. FINANCIAL IMPACT. The Architect estimates the initial construction contract cost at $24,548,410. The County received a commitment of $22,239,425 State Board of Corrections (BOC) grant funds and committed $9,000,000 in matching (hard)funds to use for eligible project costs. BACKGROUND: On March 2, 1999, the County Administrator made a presentation to the Board of Supervisors and the Board approved the submission of a grant application to the State Boardof Corrections (BOC)for a 240 bed expansion of the juvenile hall. O'Brien Kreitzberg Inc. (CCK) assisted the County in preparing the juvenile hall grant proposal that was submitted to the BOC. This proposal was the highest ranked proposal in the state. The BOC approved the award of $22,239,425 in federal funds to the County for construction of the juvenile hall expansion, subject to completion of an approved design and completion of construction by September 30, 2003. As part of the approved grant award for the juvenile hall expansion, the County committed $9,000,000 in matching funds. Included in the March 2, 1999 presentation to the Board of Supervisors was the County Administrator's intention to select an architect for the design of the juvenile hall expansion. O'Brien Kreitzberg, as agent for the County, developed a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Architect/Engineer services dated January 21, 1999. An advertisement regarding this RFQ appeared in the Contra Costa Times on January 30, 1999 to encourage participation 'from qualified architects throughout the San Francisca Bay Area. Notices advertising the availability of an RFQ were also sent to the San Francisco, Oakland, and Sacramento chapters of the American Institute of Architects. Of the architects that responded, the Architect Selection Committee ranked Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz (KMD) as the top firm. On June 22, 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved and authorized the County Construction Administrator for the Board of Corrections grant 'program to execute a consulting service agreement with KMD for architectural and engineering services. KMD prepared the Construction drawings and Specifications with milestones of October 1,1999 for Schematic Design, February 15, 2000 for Design Development and August 15, 2000 for Construction Documents. At each of these milestones, the documents were submitted to the BOC and various county departments for their review and comment. The Board of Corrections approved the design for compliance with Title 24 requirements on September 11, 2000. The County Construction Administrator, having the Board's approval, contracted with Nichols-Berman Environmental Planning to prepare an Initial Study/Negative Declaration Report for the Juvenile Hall Expansion on October 25, 1999. Following the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, Nichols-Berman prepared the Negative Declaration and submitted it to the Community Development Department (CDD) for approval. After acceptance of the Negative Declaration, the CDD filed the Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration on September 28, 2000. The public review closed at 5:00 p.m., October 30, 2000. Since the project is receiving federal grant funds, the U.S. Department of Justice required additional analysis to comply with National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). In order for the Department of Justice to determine if a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) could be issued for public comments, they required consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPQ). That office concluded that the project hoes not adversely impact historic resources. As a result of this clearance, we understand that the U.S. Department of .Justice is proceeding with the FONSI. Anticipating a positive response, the County Construction Administrator recommends proceeding with project bidding. Award of construction contracts will be subject to the State Board of Corrections approval after authorization by the Board of Supervisors. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Carder of December 19, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Uilkema, DeSaulnier and Gerber NOES: Mone ABSENT: District V Seat Is Vacant ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 2000/5J9 SUBJECT: Approving Plans and Specifications for the Juvenile Hall Addition, 202 Glacier Chive, Martinez, California (CDD-CP#0081) Budget Line Item No. 4413.4228 Authorization No. 0928-WH 228F WHEREAS plans and specifications for the Juvenile Hail Addition, 202 Glacier Drive, Martinez have been filed with the Clerk of the Board this day by the Office of the County Administrator; and WHEREAS plans and specifications were prepared by Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz Architects, San Francisco; and WHEREAS the Architect's cost estimate for the initial construction contract is $24,543,416 and WHEREAS the Board has obtained the general prevailing rates of wages, which shall be the minimum rates paid on this project; and WHEREAS the Board has reviewed and considered the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the project, together with comments received during the public review process; and WHEREAS the Board finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and IT IS RESOLVED BY THE BOARD that the mitigated negative declaration is hereby adopted, that the custodian of the documents and other material pertaining to the adopted declaration shall be the Community Development Department, and that such documents shall be maintained at the offices of the director in Martinez; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the programs set forth in exhibits and hereto for reporting on or monitoring the changes which are required to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects are hereby adopted; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that said plans and specifications are hereby approved. Bids for this work will be received on February 15, 2001 at 2:00 p.m., and the Clerk of this Board is directed to publish a Notice to Contractors in accordance with Section 22037 of the Public Contract Code, inviting bids for said work, said Notice to be published in the Contra Costa Times. The County Administrator, or his designee, is directed to mail notices to the construction trade journals specified in Section 22036 of the Public Contract Code at least 30 days before the date of opening the bids; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator, or his designee, is authorized to issue bid Addenda, as needed, for clarification of the contract bid documents, provided the involved changes do not significantly increase the cost estimate for the initial construction contract. :rs aRora os crs\ oauuvra moo , A,DOC I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Su ors on tha ate shown. ATTESTED: PHi BATCHELOR,C�of the Board of u ervscrs cuntyAdmiristra#or By Deputy i O'BRIEN K.REITZBERG A DAMES&MOORS GROUP COMPANY 2500 Alhambra Avenue Martinez, California 44553 925 370 5371 Tel MEMORANDUM 925 370 5378 Fax DATE: December 4, 2000 TO: George Roemer County Construction Administrator FROM: Randy 011mann 0 SUBJECT: Juvenile Hall Addition, Mitigated Negative Declaration Attached is Nichols-Berman's response to community letters (copies attached), received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Several revisions to the original Negative Declaration were required when responding to the comments of Mike Carpenter. These revisions were noted by underlining or strike-through. See responses to comments 9 and 16. The Community Development Department takes no exception to the Nichols-Berman response. With your approval, we will prepare a Board Order referencing the amended Mitigated Negative Declaration and Nichols-Berman's response to the community comments. cc; Joe McCormack d Mark Tortorich / ;;� p d '�D i 601033-A16 offices Worldwide Nichols . Berman 142 Minna Street Environmental Planners San Francisco,CA 94105 +115.957.1982 Phone 415.957.1381 FAX st c@nicholsberman.com 110 East D Street—Suite E Benicia,CA 94510 707.7455845 Phone 707.745.5856 FAX bob@nicholsberrnan.com N1 E M, 0 R A N D U Vi DATE: November 30, 2000 TO: Randy 011mann REGARDING: Juvenile Hall Addition I'°ROM. Bob Berman MESSAGE: Enclosed is the revised Response to Comments for the Juvenile Hall addition project. 1727Teakwood Dr. ply Martinez,CA 94553 13 4ct.24, 2000 Catherine K.utsuris, Deputy Director Community Development Department Re: Environmental Checklist on Juvenile Hall Addition Dear Ms. Kutsuris: We have lived on Teakwood Drive for 36years and when we moved here, there was no fence, after a year,we built a 5 ft. fence and when that rotted out a few years ago, we built a 6 ft. fence. While we have had the occasional runaway jump the fence, as long as they kept going, that was fine and sometimes we would call the Juvenile Hall and tell them"they headed down Teakwood". other times, we have had children from.the Childrens home - one eight year old comes to mind who was seeking refuge from his playmates, I gave him juice and listened to his story and then called Juvenile Hall and they came and got him.. That was years ago•Times have changed and the severity of crimes committed by children has worsened. When children who have committed murders are placed in Juvenile Hall which is in a residential area, we all have to take precautions and that is why we are asking you to please consider putting a 7 ft, high chain link fence with the razor ribbon all along the outer property line of the whole complex. If you are going to double the number of occupants,you should be good neighbors and install a better security fence than the 6 ft. wooden fences,your all retired and voting neighbors have installed on their property lines. County and city governments tend , sometimes,to be reactive, not proactive, and wouldn't it be better to install measures now before someone in the neighborhood is raped or killed and Juvenile Hall starts-bbing referred to as Juvenile Prison? Thank you for giving this matter your attention. Yours truly, Dennis & Ether furrier Department of Toxic Substances Control . .... .. (t Edwin F. Lowry, Director 700 Heinz Avenue, Bldg. F, Suite 200 ' �j*• Winston H. Hickox Berkeley, California 94710-2721 36 Gray Davis Secretary for ' Governor Environmental Protection October 23, 2000 Ms. Catherine Kutsuris Contra Costa County Community Development Department 351 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Dear Ms. Kutsuris: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Negative Declaration for the Contra Costa County .Juvenile Hall Addition (SCH #2040092084). As you may be aware, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) oversees the cleanup of sites where hazardous substances have been released pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.8. As a resource agency, DTSC is submitting comments to ensure that the environmental documentation prepared for this project to address the California environmental Quality Act (CEQA) adequately addresses any required remediation activities which may be required to address any hazardous substances release. The Negative Declaration states that Contra Costa County proposes to construct a 160 room facility. An existing parking lot and recreation field, underground utility connections and a small outbuilding east of the existing Sierra building will be also demolished. If the outbOTtding was erected prior to 1976, it may contain lead-based paint and asbestos. If this is the case, we recommend that a structural assessment of the building be conducted to determine if these substances are present at the site. In addition, we recommend that a historical assessment be conducted if previous land uses at the site are unknown. If hazardous substances have been released, they will need to be addressed as part of this project. For example, if the remediation activities include the need for soil excavation, the CEQA document should include: (1) an assessment of air impacts and health impacts associated with the excavation activities; (2) identification of any applicable local standards which may be exceeded by the excavation activities, including dust levels and noise; (3) transportation impacts from the removal or remedial activities; and (4) risk of upset should be there an accident at the Site. California Environmental Protection Agency Printed on Recycled Paper 2�:-, s DTSC can assist your agency in overseeing characterization and cleanup activities through our Voluntary Cleanup Program. A fact sheet describing this program is enclosed. We are aware that projects such as this one are typically on a compressed schedule, and in an effort to use the available review time efficiently, we request that DISC be included in any meetings where issues relevant to our statutory authority are discussed. Please contact me at (510) 540-3843 if you have any questions or would like to schedule a meeting. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, J5" Barbara J. Cook, P.E., Chief Northern California - Coastal Cleanup Operations Branch Enclosures cc: (without enclosures) Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P. O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Guenther Moskat CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P. O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 October 13,2000 F 00 OCT 26 PM 3: 48 Mike Carpenter P 4 Box 2313 - Martinez,CA 94553 Catherine K.utsuris,Deputy Director Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North Wing,2'Floor Martinez,CA 94.553 Ms. Kutsuris; I am writing to object to the mitigated negative declaration for the proposed.County Juvenile Hall construction. The report significantly under rates impacts to the adjacent residential area and minimizes impacts to local utilities. Impacts to residents on the southern and western residential area fall into the classification of Potentially Significant Impact especially during construction. Residents on the southern border will have significant negative impacts when construction is complete. Specific comments that need to be addressed are; 1. Page 6,demolition—Trees to be removed need to be identified. Exhibit 8,the landscape plan shows no screening on the southern border where all trees are being removed. 2. Page 7,construction—Fencing,exhibit 5 does not include any perimeter fencing. Residents to the south have reported escapees coming into their yards to the project team at meetings. No mention of fencing and security for the adjacent residential areas is addressed in this document 3. Construction,Exhibit 6,first floor--The preliminary meetings discussed a significant excavation to minimize structure height No mention of the excavation size,the amount of soil to be removed, amount of truck trips,impacts to local streets,is mentioned in this document How will the impact be mitigated? 4. Construction,Exhibit<7,second floor—No discussion of structure height This is a significant impact to the southern border residential area.How will it be mitigated? 5. Page 12,Parr—Where is the loading dock,and how is it accessed? 6. Page 9, Surrounding Land Uses and Setting--The adjacent homes do not have fencing that is maintained by the county. The county completely ignores its responsibility to maintain perimeter fencing to the Juvenile Hall.. T Page 16,Environmental factors potentially affected—should include Aesthetics,land use/planning, and transportation/traffic. 8. Page 16,Determination—An environmental impact report should be done on the impacted areas. 9. Page 18,Aesthetics—Should include C&D as potentially significant impacts.Residents on the southern border will see the residential units. Who wants a view of a jail? How will the County mitigate the view? Lighting—A study of lighting and lighting impacts needs to be done to determine the impacts to all adjacent residential properties. 10. Page 21---This document states that views will be more intense,especially from the south. The south will also view the razor wire security fence. New security lighting will illuminate backyards to the south. How will that be mitigated? 11. Page 23,Air(duality,B.—Should be less than significant with mitigation. Construction will cause significant air duality problems.How will it be mitigated? 12. Page 24,Air Quality,E. -Should be less than significant with mitigation. Construction will cause significant fuel and exhaust odors.How will they be mitigated? Mike Carpenter Juvenile Hall October 13,2000 Page 2 13. Page 24,Summary–discusses air quality due to excavation.Page 31 states that the project is on bedrock,which would cause significant effort creating noise,vibration and dust.How will it be mitigated? 14. Page 25,Mitigation Measures–What is the traffic pattern? The construction site is near a school that generates significant vehicle and foot traffic in the area a few times per day.How will that be mitigated? 15. Page 27,Cultural resources,D–I find it interesting that the county must pay more attention too dead people than the people living in the area. 16. Page 34,Hydrology and Water Quality,A&F–Should be listed as a potentially significant impact.Page 35 states that the stormwater is diverted into the Contra Costa Canal,which is a drinking water conduit for much of Contra Costa County. This violates both stormw~ater runoff regulations,and state water quality regulations. The discharge point must be moved. All types of toxic substances could be accidentally dumped into the drinking water supply.How will this be mitigated? 17. Page 36—Discusses 10-year flows into a 24-inch pipe,but discusses 100-year flows separately. How do 100 year flows impact the 24-inch pipe,and will they create a backup and flooding Where is the study and mitigation? 18. Page 38,noise,A,B,C,D,&E–Should all be rated as a potentially significant. Construction impacts do not address excavation of significant amounts of bedrock,which will cause significant noise,dust and vibration. The new facility will create significant noise from utility equipment and noise reflected off the building into adjacent residential areas. How will this be mitigated? 19. page 39,-States that the project will not generate groundborne vibration or noise. This is absurd Excavation will create significant vibration and noise. Facility utilities like heating and air conditioning will most likely create additional noise. Where is the study that shows it wont? How will it be mitigated? 20. Page 42&43,Public services A,B,C,&D–Should all be Potentially significant impacts. How are local water pressure and flow impacted by estimated fire flows for the facility? What hydraulic study verifies the information? How will it be mitigated?How will increased traffic flow to the facility be addressed-and what are the impacts on local crime?How does the Martinez Police Department plant to mitigate the increased risks? What is the impact to the local school and how will it be mitigated? How will local parks be impacted and how will that be mitigated? Stating that there is no impact is reasonable as the facility currently uses the local parks adjacent to the school. 21. Page 44,Recreation–Juvenile Hall uses local parks. There is an impact How will this change and how will the change be mitigated? 22. Page 45,transportation,A–The trips in off hours will increase causing more noise problems for the adjacent southern residents. How will this be mitigated? 23. Page 50 Utilities and service systems,B–Where is the hydraulic study that shows that water mains in the area are adequate? There is a potential impact here. 24. Page 50,Utilities and service systems,C–The existing storm discharge into a drinking water source. This is a significant impact that must be mitigated 25. Page 52,mandatory findings,C–There are potentially significant impacts here that must be mitigated Mike Carpenter Juvenile Miall October 13,2000 Page 3 I am requesting a complete EIR to evaluate impacts of this project on the adjacent residential area-_.._ zN ike Carpenter RESPONSE TO COMMENTS OF DENNIS &ETHEL PURRIER Response to Comment i Comment noted. This is a response on the merits of the project and not on the adequacy of the Negative Declaration: No additional response is necessary. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL Response to Comment 1 It should be noted that the"Small outbuilding east of the existing{"Sierra"}building„to be removed is actually an existing trailer that would be removed by the contractor. The trailer was built in 1978. Since it is anticipated that the trailer would be relocated offsite it is not expected that hazardous substances would be released as a result of the proposed Juvenile Hall addition project. Section 35 Toxic and Hazardous Materials and Waste of the County's Specifications Section Division F provides direction to the selected contractor regarding toxic and hazardous materials and waste. Adherence to these procedures would reduce the risk of any hazardous substances release during construction to a less-than-significant level. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS OF MIKE CARPENTER Response to Comment 1 A discussion of the trees to be removed as a part of the project is provided in Section IV- Biological Resources in the Initial Study. As discussed in Section IV project implementation would result in the removal of 40 trees growing on the project site. The majority of the trees to be removed are located in the existing parking lot adjacent to the Gate 1 driveway. The preliminary landscape plan identifies the planting of 77 trees, thus a replacement ratio of slightly less than two trees planted for each one tree removed. In addition to this comment, neighbors attending community meetings I regarding the proposed Juvenile Hall addition requested improvements to the visual and security barrier along the southern property line of the project site. These residents expressed varied opinions regarding the design of these improvements. Options included a 12-foot high security fence, an eight-foot high concrete wall, improvements to the existing redwood fence, or dense landscaping. At the most recent community meeting, the County agreed to prepare landscape design options that hide the proposed project from view of adjacent residents. The County will present these options to the residents at an upcoming community meeting. 2 1 Community meetings to discuss the Juvenile He addition project were held April 22, 1999,July 14, 1999,November 3. 1999,and March 22,2000. 2 Memo to Bob Berman,Nichols Berman from George Roemer,County Construction Administrator,November 7,2000. Response to Comment Contra Costa County Juvenile Haft Addition Initial Study In summary, the County is committed to improving the visual barrier along the southern property line of the project site and considers these improvements to be a part of the proposed project. However, the final design for these improvements is subject to a consensus approval of residents sharing this border with the County. 3 Response to Comment 2 It is not clear what the commentor is referring to in regard to perimeter fencing. The proposed project does include both new security fencing and sections of chain-link fence. As shown in Exhibit 5 in the Initial Study security fencing will enclose the playfield. Response to Comment 3 Eased on the preliminary grading plan for the proposed project, it is estimated that construction of the Juvenile Hall addition would result in the export of approximately 13,400 cubic yards of soil. 4 A trailer dump truck can hold approximately 16.5 cubic yards of soil. Therefore, the off-site export of 13,400 cubic yards of soil would require approximately 812 two-way truck trips. It is estimated that four trucks can be loaded in an hour. 'Therefore, assuming an eight-hour workday the project would result in 32 trailer dump trucks leaving the project site for approximately 25 days. This level of truck activity should not result in significant impacts to the pavement of Glacier Drive or other nearby streets. Response to Comment 4 As shown on Exhibit 10 in the Initial Study the height of the south elevation of the two story housing unit is 34 feet and the parapet wall surrounding roof-top equipment would be an additional four feet. As discussed in Section I-Aesthetics in the Initial Study views from the south would change with the construction of the Juvenile Hall addition. From the south the view would primarily be of the new housing area. however, the housing area would be approximately 120 feet away from the existing southern boundary. Due to the distance from the property line, the existing fence and existing landscaping the view of the Juvenile Hall addition from the south would be limited and less-than- significant. Response to Comment 5` As shown in Exhibit 5 in the Initial Study access to the loading dock would be from Glacier Drive, approximately half way between Gate 1 and Gate 2. Response to Comment 6 Comment noted. This is a comment on the merits of the project and not on the adequacy of the Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration. However, see Response to Comment I regarding the County's commitment to develop a visual barrier along the southern property line. 3 Ibid. 4 Nichols Berman conversation with Randy Oilmann,O'Brien Kreitzberg,November,2000. -2- Response to Comment Contra Costa County Juvenile Hell Addition Initial Study Response to Comment 7 The Checklist on page 16 of the Initial Study is a summary of those environmental factors that would be potentially affected by the Juvenile Hall addition based on the analyses on pages 17 through 52 of the Initial Study. Based on these analyses the proposed project will not result in potential significant impacts on aesthetics, land use/planning and transportation/traffic as suggested by the commentor. Response to Comment 8 The"determination"on page 16 of the Initial Study is based on the analyses conducted for this project and discussed in the Initial Study. The determination that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent is correct based on the analyses conducted for this project. The analyses support a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Response to Comment 9 It is correct that residents 'immediately south of the project site would see the new housing area. However, as explained on page 21 of the Initial Study the construction of the Juvenile Fall addition would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of quality of the project site and its surroundings. The Initial Study, on page 21, discusses proposed exterior lighting and the impact to the adjacent residential neighborhood to the south. In response to this comment the proposed lighting along the Gate I driveway and in the southern parking lot has been revised. Previously 30-foot pole mounted 400 watt metal halide lights were proposed for the parking area located off the Crate I driveway. It is now proposed to locate 16-foot pole mounted 100-watt metal halide lights in the southern parking lot. Complaints about night lighting are usually directed at "light trespass" impacts. Light trespass is usually classified into three categories: light shining into windows, light shinning onto adjacent property, and excessive brightness (glare). Based on an analysis of the lighting plan it has been calculated that there would be no light trespass impacts from either the proposed wall lights on the building or the proposed pole lights in the parking lot to the residential properties to the south. 5 Lighting output is treasured as footcandles. Immediately adjacent to the light pole in the southern parking lot at the ground there would be 5.9 footcandles, this would drop off further away from the light pole and is calculated be 0.0 footcandles at the southern property line. 6 Based on this comment the fifth paragraph on page 21 of the Initial Study is revised to read as follows: Project plans indicate that exterior lighting would consist of metal halide wall lights on the building, and Opole mounted single or double metal halide lights for the parking lots. Three 32-foot hijah double arm pole lights would be located in each of the proposed parking lots located at the north side of the proposed building, 16-foot high PA'e-single-arm pole lights would be located in the parking area located off the Gate I driveway to the south and one 32-foot high single arm pole light would be located at the entrance to the loading dock at Glacier Drive. The pole Tights in the parking area located off of the Gate I driveway would be the closest new 5 Nichols Berman conversation with Tavi Dragos,Ted Jacob Engineering,electrical engineer for proposed Juvenile}-Tall addition project,November,2000. 6 Ibid. -3- Response to Comment Contra Costa County Juvenile Neil Addition Initial Study lights to the existing residences to the`south. The lighting has been designed so that lighting does not spill over onto adjacent properties. Exterior building materials would not introduce new sources of reflected light and glare on the project site or in the adjacent residential neighborhood. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Response to Comment 10 As shown in Exhibit 5 in the Initial Study a security fence would enclose the playfield. The security fence proposed is revised from the security fence shown in .Exhibit 9 in the Initial Study. Details of the revised fence are shown in Revised Exhibit 9 on the following page. As can be seen in the revised exhibit the security fence would be 14 feet tall, the bottom half of the fence would have a galvanized chainlink fence fabric and the top half the fence would have a galvanized non-climb fence fabric. It is acknowledged that portions of the new security fence would be visible from the south, however this view would be similar to the existing views of the security fence. The Initial Study concludes that this impact would be less-than-significant. As discussed in Response to Comment 9 based on the proposed lighting plan calculations show that the lighting has been designed so that light does not spill over onto the adjacent residential properties to the south. Response to Comment 11 It is agreed that construction activities may result in short term air quality impacts. Based on this conclusion item D (Exposed sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations) is checked Potentially Significant Impact and a mitigation measure requiring a dust emissions abatement program is provided. Response to Comment 12 Standard construction activities as anticipated for the Juvenile Hall addition would not result in significant fuel and exhaust odors. There is no evidence that this project would require other than standard construction activities resulting in significant fuel and exhaust odors. Response to Comment 13 Construction of the Juvenile Hall addition would not require any pile driving thus no groundborne vibrations would be generated by-construction activity. Construction of the project would, however, including the drilling of 12 piers, 24-inches in diameter about 12 feet deep. The drilling of the holes for the piers would last about one week. The drilling should not result in any significant vibration. The Initial Study already includes mitigation measures for construction dust(see Mitigation Measure IIID) and for construction noise(see Mitigation Measure V.D). Response to Comment 14 The Hidden Valley Elementary School is located approximately one-half mile south of the Juvenile Hall. Given the distance between the two facilities it is unlikely that there will be any direct conflict between traffic generated by each facility. Response to Comment 15 Comment noted,no additional response necessary. -4- i E( LOOP CW. c WARE TE FABRIC TO TOP RAIL 1 � i W TEhWN WIRE ( 3/6'GALV. I NON-Lt me FENCE FABRIC f 1 e ( j w �I I G&V.CKMNUNK t FENCE FABRIC � f W I 4'0.0.POST 1 4 t a 4'O.D. f t BOTTOM RAM. SECIAW WE FASTENER 8 C O.C.MAX. s f e I.. FENCE FABRIC EMBEDDED ( ! • 0 MOM STRIP,B'OEEP jPRM s2"WADE X 12'am { j{ STRIP AFAM Etas '1. 1 OF PEAR FENCE I •'% 12•DtA CONCRETE w/2w13 REUR DOWELED FOOTWG WM EACH FENCE POST � I,. � ! m PRM I WXO-TOOLM CONTROL JOINTS a r—O'O.C..FULL '' 1' EXPANSION JOM •3O'-c•O.C. �. �. j EXHIBIT 5(R'EWS>i D) SECUR17YFENCE � Centra Costa County Juvenile Hall Addition North Source:Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz Response to Comment Contra Costa County Juvenile Hell Addition initial study Response to Comment 16 The commentor is correct that the Contra Costa Canal is the regional potable water conduit for the County. Grayson Creek is the drainageway that receives local stormwater drainage from the project area. Based on this comment the last two sentences in the fourth paragraph on page 35 of the Initial Study is revised to read as follows: This downstream storm drain system conveys stormwater from the project area and additional County facilities on the east side of Glacier Drive, as well as from existing residential subdivisions, to the Gentfa GoAa Canal Grayson Creek. 44e-Ga Gra son Creek is the regional stormwater outlet which conveys stormwater from the largely urbanized area to its outlet in Suisun Bay in the City of Martinez. Response to Comment 17 The City of Martinez and Contra Costa County Department of Public Works share the same design criteria for storm drain systems. All systems that drain watershed areas of less than one square mile must pass the ten-year design flow without backwater flooding. Thus, minor street flooding is permitted for new facilities during the 100-year rainstorm. The hydraulic analysis prepared for the proposed project by the Telamon Engineering demonstrated that the ten-year design condition would be met for the 24-inch pipe under Glacier Drive. Mitigation of project-related increases in design storm peak flow rates is required only in cases where downstream flooding in the receiving drainageway is deemed a problem, i.e. has historically been subject to significant flooding and property damage. Alhambra Creek in Martinez is such a critical drainageway. According to County Public Works staff, Grayson Creek does not exhibit these floodprone characteristics. Thus, no mitigation of post-project peak flow increases is required by the County. 7 Response to Comment 16 See Response to Comment 13. In regard to "noise from utility equipment" the existing boilers and cooling tower which serve the existing Juvenile Fall would continue to be used to serve the Juvenile Hall addition. Some minor modifications may be necessary- to the existing heating and air conditioning system but these changes would not result in new noise sources. Noise associated with the operation of roof-top mechanical equipment would be primarily due to Air Handling Units which are electric fans that push air over coils. These units would be operated by a five or ten horsepower electric motor. Noise generated by the electric motors would not substantially increase the existing noise environment at the existing residences south of the project site. Response to Comment 19 See Responses to Comment 13 and 18. 7 Clearwater Hydrology conversation with Slays Gospodchikov,Contra Costa County Department of Public Works, November,2000. -6- Response to Comment Cow Costa County Juvenile Hall Addition Initial Study Response to Comment 20 It is proposed to make two connections to the existing water line in Glacier Drive—a new eight-inch fire water main and a new six-inch domestic water main. City of Martinez 'staff is not aware of existing water pressure problems in the immediate area of the project site. 8 It is correct that should a fire occur at the Juvenile Hall addition it is likely that water pressure in the immediate area would substantially drop during the time that water was being used to fight the fire. The water pressure would, however, pickup immediately after the fire fighting efforts ended. It is assumed that a fire at the Juvenile Hall addition would be a rare occurrence. In Section XV Transportation/Trafc in the Initial Study it is stated that operation of the Juvenile Hall addition would be expected to generate no more than 160 two-way average daily trips and no more than eight to ten two-way trips during the afternoon PM peak traffic hour on Glacier Drive. The increase in daily traffic would be less-than-significant and therefore would not require any mitigation, There does not appear to be any relationship between this slight increase in traffic and crime in the City of Martinez,as asserted by the commentor. As discussed in Section XIII - Public Services in the Initial Study operation of the Juvenile Hail addition would have no direct impact on the Martinez Unified School District. Furthermore, the Contra Costa County Office of Education operates school facilities within the existing Juvenile hall and construction of the Juvenile Hall addition includes the construction of new classrooms. Operation of the existing Juvenile Hall does not include the use of existing City of Martinez parks. 9 Juveniles housed at the Juvenile Hall are not taken on supervised field trips to existing City of Martinez parks. This situation would not change with the construction of the Juvenile Hall addition, l()thus there would be no impact on existing City of Martinez parks. Response to Comment 21 See Response to Comment 20. Response to Comment 22 It is not clear why "trips in off hours will increase causing more; noise problems for the adjacent southern residents" as stag by the commentor. As shown in Exhibits 5 and 14 in the Initial Study the majority of the Juvenile Mall parking would be on the northside of the site and would be accessed by Gate 2. The proposed projec#would reduce the number of parking spaces (from 9 to 33)that would be accessed by Gate 1. Therefore the amount of traffic on the Gate I driveway may decrease with the proposed project over the existing condition. The project would not increase the volume of traffic on the Gate I driveway resulting in a.significant increase in noise Ievels to the existing residents south of the project site. 8 Nichols Berman conversation with Larry Stilley,Maintenance Supervisor,Martinez Water Department,November,2000. 9 Randy 011mann,O'Brien Kreitzberg conversation with Gemma Pasto and Cynthia Haven,Juvenile Hall Supervisor Staff, November,2000. 10 Ibid. Response to Comment Contra Costa County Juvenile Nall Addition Initial Study As stated in Section U— .Noise in the Initial Study traffic noise on the Gate 1 driveway would be expected to be about the same as it is now. However, since there are fewer parking spaces in this area, it is likely that there would be less traffic than currently exists. Noise levels outside the existing single-family homes would not be significantly different than they currently are. Response to Comment 23 The information regarding the City of Martinez water service was based on Nichols • Berman conversations with Jim Zumwalt,Community Development Department,City of Martinez. Response to Comment 2.4 See Response to Comment 16. Response to Comment 25 As stated on page 52 of the Initial Study mitigation incorporated into the proposed project would reduce the potential significance of the identified short-term air quality and noise impacts, and potential disturbance of cultural resources to a less-than-significant level. -s- Nichols . Berman 142 Minna street Environmental Planners San Francisco,CA 94105 416.067.1082 Phone 415.957.1381 FAX W SEP 2 2 9Li1M c sfanicholsberman. orn r L 110 East 0 stmt-suite E O'BRIEN-KREITZBERG Benicia,CA 94510 707745.6845 Phone 707.7455856 FAX bob(Mnicholsberman.com MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20,2000 TO. Catherine K.utsuris--Community Development Department Randy 011mann-O'Brien Kreitzberg REGARDING. Juvenile Hall Addition--initial Study FROM. Bob Berman MESSAGE: Randy 011mann painted out two mistakes in the noise mitigation measure in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Flan. Enclosed is a revised original for your use. Sorry-about that. OK.CONTRA COSTA CO- Ri sswoNststLJT�ACTION *NFo PM PE i ADM CORS. I c,Ug,IECT is-SUE y11� �'S1 t it, 1 � • G� a 7z � y tw r • N •ry, Cb 0. d p. , �''J..,,�u+' O � y��+iS �P�� '�SSR •"y+ ��" ` j^Y,rk,�!.j i3 CC33 `•w71G Oro 00 Y -a is a � °a skiers 1 i t �Cwi i r as > Co AV; y yg� W 1Y S"+ U Y t�3 rr. 1 '+r. � is r a c� �„'� y"" rut+ ami a "fix ds +� u a� s w•'C a>'� ctrl •Staj� ;.�`" � �'� � ����� � ����r� ��o ���, r3 . �Ft�� �' � ;^''' ` �„ "+� °' r c `� '� CY * "a •. 'Sill Y`�' ,��.'"'. w`•"' ' \ OD�,,+ U �.�� ��.V,.TMJ may' •r, 4iy a r� V+ ay .mow..�yy S''�+ � ✓'.'�d�w" a'�t, � .+ �, � y .. �',�� � "�:, � � �.p •r� yg.� O� r �+ ffi y� �rrt+�.�-> e>+T'ri��G4 �`"y �4! t 41 0 15 0 Vat G e fs Its I O mil '���„+•ii � ��fig.�i ` � 't 5 T^ 1 1 •` " a` I at 14 Via' • ° �.\lam �� � 1 i t v"� 1 r .t rn ! ig � :3 1 Z 1 i - � Wit. 1 c � ! n �e o , � 1 4 7 T O to Y 4 Is t va RL °a tai t 'Ci• ,'ti G;,.� � Y.+ ,fin �.y ii as: C3 •is •- 4 At a� � t is Sa G "� 1a , � 1 •�" 1 4 ii k �f 4i V '6 iA + 1 i t 1 } i ta- t III -�� � I I. o o ` st 2� +ten `s q i S y g ^� • y � " few • All, lW tli i E qx s s i � R • E yv„ i f i w jS c y = E � a C i { u ' I z 44 > v # a L1 an ,S, q'�fs. ttS �1 w � � f � E J � i U o ��i .�rT I rrl n l �.1� ' DennisM. harry,AICP for Development Costa ` Department County 0 County Administration Building ��.�._..;:�, SEP Z 8 MOO 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing ,F; ' x S.L. WEIR, COUNTY CLERK Martinez,California 94553-0095 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ,OEPUTY Phone:(925) 335-1210 p S tember 2 ,2000 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County File #CDD-CP 0081 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date,this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project: Project Name: Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall Addition Description: It is proposed to construct a 160-room addition to the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall, located at 202 Glacier Drive,Martinez, California 94553. The addition would consist of eight 20-room housing units located on two floors. The maximum. facility capacity would be 24.0 beds. The project includes parking, a reconfigured playfield, fencing and a secure walkway connecting the Juvenile Hall addition to the existing gym. Location: Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall, 202 Glacier Drive, Martinez, California 94553. The proposed development will result in potentially significant impacts which the project sponsor will mitigate to less-than-significant levels by incorporating the measures summarized below into the construction and operation of the project. Impact: Affect sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Mitigation: Implement measures (such as watering construction area and suspending grading activity when strong winds cause visible dust clouds to affect nearby sensitive land use) during construction to reduce dust emissions. Impact: Affect an archaeological resource or disturb human remains. Mitigation: Halt construction in the vicinity of cultural materials or human remains accidentally discovered, consult with a qualified archaeologist,the County coroner, and or Most Likely Descendant, and implement their recommendations. Impact: Result in soil erosion. Mitigation: Implement erosion control methods during site excavation and grading. -1- Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Impact: Increase noise levels temporarily. Mitigation: Perform noise generating activities between 8:00 AM and 5:30 PM, and muffle and maintain equipment properly. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all documents referenced in the Negative Declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building,North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street,Martinez,during normal business hours. Public Comment Period-The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5:00 P.M., October 30, 2000. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Catherine K.utsuris,Deputy Director Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North Wing, 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Catherine Kutsuris Deputy Director cc: County Clerk`s office(2 copies) t 1 -2- .................................................................................._... -. Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall Addition 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Community Development Department Contra Costa County Administration Building,2d Floor North Wing 651 Pine Street Martinez,California 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Environmental Review: Project Review: Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director Randy 011mann,Project Manager,O'Brien Community Development Department Kreitzberg 925-335-1231 County Capital Programs 925-370-5371 4. Project Location: 202 Glacier Drive, Martinez,California The Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall is located at 202 Glacier Drive, approximately 0.3-mile south of Muir Road in the City of Martinez(see Exhibits I and 2). The existing Juvenile Hall is located on a portion of Assessors Parcel Number 155-280-011. The entire parcel is approximately 22.3 acres. In addition to the Juvenile Hall the parcel houses numerous programs, including Office of Education training classes for juveniles, courtrooms, residence programs, and a transition center serving juveniles upon release from the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility(which is located in Byron). In addition to Juvenile Hall and related facilities the parcel includes other Contra Costa County facilities including the Office of Emergency Services (50 Glacier Drive), the Sheriffs Communication Division (40 Glacier Drive) and the County Recycling Center (220 Glacier Drive) (see Exhibit 3). There are two access driveways to the existing Juvenile Hall intersecting Glacier Drive. Gate 2, the northernmost driveway, primarily used by visitors and Gate 1, the southernmost driveway, primarily used by County staff. The Juvenile Hall court hearings draw the majority of visitors to the facility Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Visitor hours for friends and family of juveniles restricted to the facility are 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM. Staff and visitors may access the Juvenile Hall complex by either Gate I or Gate 2 and may park anywhere within the parking lots located on the north, south and west sides of the complex. A loop road provides internal access to all parking areas and both gates. The Office of Emergency Services and the Sheriffs Communications Division are accessed by separate driveways from Glacier Drive(see Exhibit 3). Exhibit 4 describes the various facilities on the parcel grouped by the closest access gate to Glacier Drive. A high voltage overhead electric transmission line is located along the western portion of the parcel. The overhead lines are support on green, single-pole towers. The towers are visible from a significant distance from the project site. Exhibit 4--Juvenile Hall Project Area Gate 1—Direct access to south side parking tats and Horne Supervision and Monitoring Program,and Girls residential Program and both Courts, one in Juvenile Hall and one In the Lion's Gate building • Courts: Two courts operate Monday through Friday, hours 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM Both courts combined total approximately 90 court hearings per day, with a total (for both courts) of 60 visitors in attendance(approximately 40 visitors during the morning hours and 20 visitors during the afternoon hours on My one da • Juvenile Hall Capacity: 160 beds. Staffing 50 daytime. Shift change: 3:00 PM (25 to 30 staff' change at his time), 11:00 PM, 7:00 Am. Visitors per day: Approximate total of 25,concentrated 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM.-- One of the two Courts is located inside the existing Juvenile Hall. • Lions's Gate Building Social Services Court—three days per week: operates Monday through Friday,hours 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM a Probation Court—two days per week Home Supervision and Monitoring (in same building as Social Services Court). 24-hour facility. Staffing one supervisor, and seven to eight other staff. Girls residential program, hours: 24-hour facility. 20 beds, staffing: eight to ten day and swing shift,two ve ard,No juveniles drive cars. Gate 2—Direct access to.north side parking lots and the Edgar Transition Center, Office of Education, Classrooms, Administration, County Grounds and Maintenance,and the County Recycle Facility • Edgar Transition Center(same building as Grounds Maintenance and Recycle), Monday through Friday; 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Staffing: four. Twenty juveniles arrive by van daily. No juveniles drive cars. • Office of Education County Day School Building Classroom, hours 8.30 Atari to 1:00 PM Staffing: five. Consists of two county-operated classrooms, 20 each (approximately 30 arrive by arent drop-off, and ten by bus.) No juveniles drive cars. • Office of Education — Administration, hours 5:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Staffing: 27 (approximately 18 to 20 use Gate 1). • Juvenile Community Services Program (includes County Day Schaal Building, weekends only), 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, Staffing: Monday and Tuesday: two, Wednesday and Thursday: none; Friday one; Saturday and Sunday: eight. Weekend work detail—seven work crews,consisting of seven vans with seven counselors. Parents drop off kids, Saturday and Sunday. No juveniles drive cars. West Side—Accessible by either Gate 1 or Gate 2 • Summit Center—Boys Residential Facility, hours: 24 hour facility, 20 beds. Staffing eight to ten d2Z and swing shift: one ave ard,No juveniles drive cars. Source. Bate:Jim Matheron,Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall,Compiled by:Cane Transportation Group Conks Costa CountyJt"nils Nall Addition Initial Study 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Conga.Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez,Ca 94533 6. General Plan Designation: G(Governmental)by the Martinez General Plan. 7. Zoning: OF(Government Facilities)(Martinez) 8. Description of Project: Contra Costa County proposes to construct an addition to the existing Juvenile Hall to alleviate chronically crowded conditions at its existing Juvenile Hall and to meet projected detention needs into the next decade. Proposed as a stand-alone project, the proposal would expand existing juvenile detention facilities at the project area. It is proposed to construct a 160-room facility that would consist of eight 20-room housing units located on two floors. The facility would be constructed so that half of the rooms in each unit are constructed at 70 square feet and half at 100 square feet, providing flexibility for double bunking up to 80 rooms. This would provide a maximum housing unit capacity of 30 beds. The maximum facility capacity would be 240 beds. In addition to providing 240 beds, the Juvenile Hall addition would have the necessary and associated support, program, and administrative space. The Juvenile Hall addition would have the following physical components: Admissions Home Supervision Education Visitung Central Control Admissions and Release Health Services Food Service Laundry Building& Staff Support General Services Each of the eight housing units would have a classroom and dining room, and an attached outdoor recreation area. Demolition The proposed project would remove an existing parking lot and recreation field, and underground utility connections. The existing parking lot along the Gate I driveway and any trees in this area would be removed and the,ground stripped and graded. The existing recreation field would be stripped and graded. As necessary, existing utilities would be removed or capped. In addition a small outbuilding east of the existing (`{Sierra") building, existing security fencing, curbs and gutters, and sidewalks would be removed. -6- Contra Costa County Ju+r de Hall Addition Initlei Study t;onstructfon The project consists of 116,480 square feet of new construction. in addition to the new building, the project includes parking, a reconfigured playfield, Fencing,and a secure walkway connecting the Juvenile Hall addition to the existing gym. A breakdown of new building square footage is as follows: Component Square Feet First Floor Mechanical 2,484 Vehicle Sallyport 1,794 First Floor Administration 10,974 First Floor Admissions/Visitation 13,944 First Floor Kitchen/Laundry 5,544 First Floor Housing 25,884 First Floor Cell Tier 6,.264 Second Floor Housing 25,880 Second Floor Cell Tier 6,254 Second Floor Education 12,434 Second Floor Clinic 5,090 Total 116,484 Source:Project Flans,Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz,February 15,2000. An outdoor fenced playfreld would be approximately one acre in size. A site plan is shown in Exhibit 5, showing proposed buildings, parking, and fencing. More detail on some of these structures is described below. A first floor plan is shown in Exhibit 6, and the second floor is shown in Exhibit 7. The police and public entrances would be relocated to the north end of the Sierra building during construction. This would move traffic from Gate 1 to Gate 2. occupancy The Juvenile Hall addition would have capacity of 244 beds. The existing Juvenile Hall has a capacity of 164 beds. Construction is currently underway to expand the 24-bed Tamalpais Unit for serious offenders to 30 beds. With the completion of this construction, in the summer of 2000,the existing Juvenile Hall will have a capacity of 170 beds. Because a portion of the existing facility does not meet current State of California Board of Corrections standards a number of beds would no longer be used after construction of the Juvenile Hall addition. J,. J J IdW CA Old l�t ly cz G t W L i?�� LQCA_r1ON Hall _ .s�'� ...!_ _ 1, n+J/!-,.''�,_ .�•.,: '` --w +1;. � :.�t>'6 E a f . 33 10OF Cemetery a PROJECT SITE AS —�.��, 1 ` 4�`J ✓ ,,R)r .,l r S I - r `. ..Y _ r, -•"arK '�\.y�C )w.zy,+C"s•�-" N .<"r :y�J.>. 7� � r 5 \ - � _;1, R�`f-%• �.� r ?�..1 '+c` ,�' I � � lYf"t ,� � •„ J� � t i .�\ -.:t i �Vd t`,,�, "'`. ..` rpt 1.a .{. �• E N •r Z r �`�..ti \ "fit � ✓ ' r _^� '",I, Y �'� _'--: `�. A J�.n � tC\ ,_'�:`"... ..: .t �'� f!.`.• -•":a. it �.r .(tom/,/y�. f�, Ct ,' �� •�.. }y' -j�•�......- Y ":,ya. �;�o ..�.�..y»' ,.,y ii; 4 -`.,tV �/t l ��'.\`:,•,�. „ ''.;° `.a ��•,;J+i,+t' -:.�,,,"y.... \ •q,�' CONTRA C0$TA .�\�•�.. ^\`♦�'r ... \ .•."w •� :CY� R'.'+1..�.\ ._�-'a.//I`\\�w.�_� ♦I �"'�. �` Nl:i l �'r j EXHIBIT 2 PROJECT SITE- TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP � Contra Costa County New Juvenile Hall North Source:U.S.Geological Survey tAulf Cm f I i � Y County j Parking Loran m t 3 i Yost s2a6a t G7 E I � t m t !E ! County Parking 1 SU—.& - 5tlwW ! Lli+bio r_ `? 3 euE t = ' Tis Wntlov" 1 Ptaytras n 1 , } ..,.- Tam i Depattm"m of Public Works 1 t Shattw E i 1 Ga00 t 3 _I EXHIBIT.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Shaded Region denotes driveway ares. � North Contra Costa County New Juvenile Nall Source:Contra Costa County Ccsntra Costa Caunty,iuvenlle He#Addition Initial Study Upon completion of the proposed project the Juvenile Hail would have a maximum capacity of 290 beds. The change in the number of beds in the Juvenile Hall is shown below: Facility Number of Beds Existing Capacity 160 beds Addition now under construction 10 beds Proposed Juvenile Hall Addition 240 beds Beds to be taken offline after construction of -120 beds Juvenile Hall addition l Capacity after completion of addition 290 beds Source:Jon Porterfield,O'Brien Treitzberg and Jim Matheron,Contra Costa County Juvenile Halt The Juvenile Hall is staffed 24-hours a day, with three shifts. The existing staff'is 116 persons, this will increase to 118 when the current construction is completed. When the Juvenile Hall addition is completed it is anticipated that it would operate at less than full occupancy, likely around 170 beds. At this level the staff is expected to be 134 persons increasing to a staff'of 186 persons at full operation. Staffing levels are summarized below: Number of Beds Number of Staff Day Shift Swing Shift Graveyard Shift Total 7:00 AM-- 3.00 PM 3:OO PM-- 11:air PM 11:00 PM— 7.00 AM Existing Facility(160 77 28 11 116 beds) Additional ten beds 78 29 l l j 118 now under construction (170 beds) .Juvenile Hall Addition 102 24 8 134 (130 beds) Juvenile Hall Addition 138 38 10 186 (290 beds) Source.Ion Porte-field,O'Brien Kreitzberg and.Jim Matheron,Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall Parfcing The number of existing panting spaces serving the existing.Juvenile Hall and related facilities is 281. The proposed project would result in the removal of 93 parking spaces. New parking would consist of if 1 l Reuse of existing beds would require further environmental review. _gyp_ Contra Costa County Juvenile Nell Addition Initial Study spaces. Two parking lots of 59 and 62 spaces respectively would be located at the north side of the proposed building with access from both Glacier Drive and the Gate 2 driveway. The loading dock would contain seven spaces (not including the loading area itself). Twelve spaces would be accessed off the Gate l driveway, and another 21 spaces would be located in an adjacent lot. The total change in the number of parking spaces would be a net gain of 68 parking spaces. Lighting Outside lighting would consist of metal halide wall lights, and 30-foot pole mounted single or double metal halide lights for the parking lot. Landscaping A variety of trees, shrubs, groundcovers and vines are planned. Exhibit 8 shows a preliminary landscaping plan. The landscape plan includes the planting of trees (such as Western and Eastern Redbud, Sweethay Magnolia, California Sycamore, California Bay Laurel), shrubs (including California Buckeye and Vine Hill Manzanita), groundcovers,and vines. Within and around the perimeter of the new parking lots near Gate 2 the landscaping plan shows the planting of Fern Pines and Honey Locust trees. Fern Pines are also proposed in the parking area off of the Gate 1 driveway. New landscaping is also shown along the project's Glacier Drive frontage. Along the Glacier Drive frontage Sycamore trees are planned. A grouping of 21 honey locust trees is shown just east of the parking area along the Gate I driveway,between the driveway and the new building. Fencing New security fencing and sections of chain-link fence are planned, as shown in Exhibit 5. Details of the perimeter security fence are shown in Exhibit 9. Building Materials The building would be constructed of a combination of materials. The predominate building material would be concrete masonry units (CMUs). Colors of the building would be Iargely neutral or earthtone palettes, with brighter colors used in architectural details. Recreation Areas The project would include outside and inside recreation areas. The outside playfield(shown in Exhibit 5) would be enclosed with a security fence, and would be used for outside recreational activities such as baseball and field sports. Eight indoor recreation areas would be located along the southern side of the housing area, four of which would have openings onto the outside recreation area for emergency egress. An internal courtyard(which could not be seen from outside the building) would be located between the housing/cells area and existing Sierra Building. An additional basketball court would be constructed in the existing outdoor courtyard surrounded by the gymnasium, Mt. McKinlely school, Diablo and Tamalpais units of the existing Juvenile Hall. This location is revised from the location shown in Exhibit 5. This area would be fenced. This would replace the playfield currently located along Glacier Drive during construction, and would also be used after construction. _ 12 ..................... ........................................ ................................................................................................................................................................... . ... ........... ....... ......... ......... ...._... .. .. ..... ......... ......... ......... ..........._ ..... ............. .................. ............. GAW 2 E 1 s � E i J rt M� ,1.' moi ' ✓i f 3 i GATE i i1 S E EXHIBITS PROPOSE©SITE PLAN ` Contra Costa County New Juvenile Hall North Source:Y4pian McLaughlin Diaz,February I S,2000 \ � yWr aiN M tiYC 1 ; YYS 1 4II Z a•n Ld �Y yaa 7 rxraas�xrn � �j � C ! k y y w rr i s EXHIBIT 6 FIRST FLOOR PLAN ., Contra Costa County New Juvenile Halt North Source:Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz,February 15,2000 sj I t v W""'�'tAISHT}CELL �r o xrxtrw�e m "- :m E mewrl+a arwrwmir ax�rixr a n as .m taaw.anie - m (D M f WR pi �y i t I'� �'4 �� 4 1M fl�M � �• ]�' )9tt y � � i F1 f q{ 6RIAne z gel !!ff U1'1 'ffit> CI�Od1 tl) I 4W AA6bY0.Mt t2M 0a0.5y dlCT +f;1i{ { S EXHIBIT T SECOND FLOOR PLAN � 'worth Contra Costa County New Juvenile Nal'! Source:Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz,February 15,2000 oueto 1 ¢ r a LAXWN ADM SWARA { * l 1 1 Mail L �� t t ray ( al � a i TREES SHRUBS GROUNDCOVERS VINES WESTERN REDBUD CALIFORNIA BUCKEYE DEER GRASS BLUE EYED GRASS MONTEREY CAST VIRGINIA CREEPER EASTERN REDSUO VINE HILL MANZANITA COFFEE FERN CARMEL CREEPER BOSTON IVY SWEETBAY MAGNOLIA BUSH ANENIOME COFFEESERRY BUSHBERRY CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE TUFTED HAIRGRASS MAnLiJA POPPY CALIFORNICA POPPY CALIFORNIA SAY LAUREL SKY LUPINE MEXICAN SAGE SWORD FERN i EXHIBM 8 LANDSCAPE PLAN .� Contra Costa County New Juvenile Hal! North Source:Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz,February 15,2000 z � Z-0"R. ( d } Z } } } } } } } X } m W ; > } } } RAZOR RIBBON J � ` 1 � r} f S EXHIBfT 9 PERIMETER SECURITY PENCE 1 Contra Costa County New Juvenile Hall Noah Source:Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz Contra Costs County Juvenile Half Addition Initial Study ut(fides Project implementation would involve construction of water,sewer, stormwater drainage, gas and electric facilities. New on-site facilities would be constructed to connect to existing water, sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage,electrical,and gas facilities. Some existing utility lines in the project area would be removed. As necessary all existing utility lines would be reconnected to the new utility lines to serve existing buildings. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: In addition to the existing Juvenile Hall and related facilities the project area includes other Contra Costa County facilities including the Office of Emergency Services (50 Glacier Drive), the Sheriffs Communication Division(40 Glacier Drive)and the County Recycling Center(220 Glacier Drive). The approximate 22 acre parcel which houses the existing Juvenile Hall and the other County facilities is bordered on the north by Muir Road, on the east by additional Contra Costa County buildings (including buildings housing numerous Sheriff facilities and the County Department of Public Works at 255 Glacier Drive)on the south by existing single family residences, and on the west by single family residences, the DSA Hall(1780 Muir Road)and the Hillview Nursing and Rehabilitation facility(1790 Muir Road). The single-family homes to the south are located on Olympic Drive, Lava Court, Klamath Court and Ophir Court. An approximate five foot high wood fence and a landscaped strip, containing primarily trees, separates the project area and the single family homes to the south. The single-family homes to the west are located on Deetwood Drive and Teakwood Drive. Landscaping and a fence also exist along the western property line. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: A. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). The County must submit project plans to the Plan Review Section for the Sanitary District and must also pay a sewer connection fee. B. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting program under the authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Construction activities of five acres or more must be covered under the State NPDES General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). This is accomplished by the filing of a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Contra Costa County Juvenile Haff Addition Initial Study 0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources E Air Quality H Biological Resources CI Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous g Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning Materials D Mineral Resources 0 Noise Q Population/Housing Q Public Services Cl Recreation 0 Transportation/Traffic 0 Utilities/Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: Cl I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 21 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment, but at least one effect(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Q 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 all potentially significant effects(1)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (1) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EM, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. Signature Date Printed Name For -16- Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall Addition Initial Study SOURCES In the process of preparing the checklist and conducting the evaluation, the following references (which are available for review at the Contra, Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,2nd Floor North Wing, Martinez)were consulted: i. The Contra Costa County General Plan 1995 - 2010 (July 1996) (1a), General Plan Land Use Element map (revised as of December 1997) (lb), and Contra Costa County General Plan EJR (January 199 1)(1c). 2. Martinez General Plan(amended as of January 1995)(2). 3. Field review,April and May 2000(3). 4. Report on the Geotechnical Investigation of the Planned New Juvenile Hall, Glacier Drive and Muir Road, Martinez, California,Jo Crosby&Associates,November 19, 1999(4). 5. Project Plans February 15, 2000, Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz (5a) and conversations with Michael Wang, Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz (Architects) (5b) Andrew Lee, Telamon Engineering Consultant, (civil engineers) (5c), Manuel Quintero, Merrill + Befu Associates (landscape architects) (5d), Octavian Dragos, Ted Jacob Engineering Group (electrical engineers) (5e), Jo Crosby, Jo Crosby & Associates(geotechnical consultants)(5f). 6. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California (September 1977), Soil Conservation Service (now called the Natural Resources Conservation Service),U.S. Department of Agriculture(6). 7. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (April 1996), Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)(7). 8. Conversations with Russ Levitt, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (8a), Nabil Toma, Engineering Division, Community Development Department, City of Martinez (8b), Greg Agresta, Chief, Martinez Police Department (8c), Bruce Penike, Hazardous Materials Specialist, County Hazardous Materials Division,(8d), Bob Drake, Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Community Development Agency (8e), Jim Matheron, Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall (8f), Eric Whan, Associate Civil Engineer, Contra Costa County (8g), Lindy Khan, Principal, Mt. Mckinley School(8h), Bill Lewis,Contra Costa County Fire Protection District,(8i),Jim Zumwalt, Community Development Department,City of Martinez, (8j), Deidra Dingman, Contra Costa County Community Development Department(8k). Less Than Sianificant Potentially with Less Than 1. AESTHETICS—Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact A. Have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vista?(1a, 11 Cl 0 El 2) B. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but 0 Cl 0 El not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?(1a, 2) -17- Contra Costa County Juvsen#e Hell Additlon Initial Study C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ R1 quality of the site and its surroundings?(3,5a,5d) D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ❑ 21 l_l which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?(5a,5e) Summary: The project site is not subject to specific open space and conservation policies of the.Martinez General Plan(Figure F 22.2). Furthermore, according to the Contra Costa County General Plan (Figure 9-1) the project site is not located near identified major scenic resources (including major ridges and scenic waterways). Construction of the Juvenile Hall addition would not interfere with or have an impact on County identified scenic resources. The State scenic highway law calls for careful coordination in planning, design, construction, and regulation of land use and development on the band of land "generally adjacent" to the freeway. Both Contra Costa County and the City of Martinez identify Highway 4 as a scenic highway. The project site is not visible from Highway 4, therefore the proposed project would not adversely affect scenic resources within a scenic highway. The project site has a low visual sensitivity. Views of the project site are available for motorists and pedestrians on Glacier Drive. Between Gate 2 and Gate I the most visible part of the site is the existing playfield, which fronts on Glacier Drive and the existing security fence enclosing the playfield. Portions of the existing Juvenile Hall and some of the other buildings on the site are also visible from Glacier Drive. The view from Glacier Drive is, however, screened by the existing vegetation. The view from the residential streets south of the project site, such as Olympic Drive, Lava Court, Klamath Court and Qphir Court, to the existing Juvenile Hall is generally screened by the existing single-family residences, the existing wood fence along the southern property line and the existing vegetation. Views from the west of the existing Juvenile Hall from the existing residential area,such as from Deerwood Drive and Teakwood Drive are also generally screened due to the existing single-family homes and vegetation. The view of the existing Juvenile Hall from the north, from Muir Road, is completely blocked by other existing Contra Costa County buildings, such as the County's Office of Emergency Services and the Sheriff's communications building. The existing high voltage electric transmission line and the single pole towers are a predominate visual landmark for viewers from the surrounding area. Overall, the project site is urbanized, surrounding by developed uses and is not located next to or within a scenic area or area of historic significance. Construction of the Juvenile Hall addition would intensify development on the project site. The building height of the Juvenile Hall addition would generally range from 31 feet to 37 feet. In contrast the height of the existing Tamalpais wing of the Juvenile Hall is approximately 20 feet. The gymnasium is approximately five to ten feet higher than the Tamalpais wing. The Juvenile Hall addition would be constructed of a combination of materials. The predominate building material would be concrete masonry units (CMUs). Colors of the building would be largely neutral or earthtone palettes, with brighter colors used in architectural details. Views from the south (to the housing and cells area.) would include security glass windows in metal frames, larger open steel tube grills (opening into internal courtyards) with security mesh, and concrete accent panels above these grills. An example of this viewpoint is shown on Exhibit 10. Views from the north (to the vehicle sallyport and administration area)would include a glass curtain wall in aluminum frames, metal paneling and siding, and metal louvers. An example of this viewpoint is shown on Exhibit 11. _rg_ i , s � 3 1 ci s ID ® , , cl 0 i14 � ❑ � V7 gow _ ( ( a int i all) i v a +b )0 lk , Contra Costa County J~116 Hall Additba In"StWy Views from the east(from Glacier Drive) would show a combination of project areas--housing and cell areas to the left, loading dock area in the middle, and administration area to the right. A mixture of materials including those described above would be used. An example of this viewpoint is shown on Exhibit 12. The proposed parking lots in the northeast corner of the project site would be visible from Glacier Drive, similar to existing Contra Costa County parking lots east of Glacier Drive. The view of the parking lots would be screened by the proposed landscaping along Glacier Drive. Also visible from Glacier Drive would be a portion of the housing area, the loading dock, and the administration area.. Although the existing view from Glacier Drive would change the overall visual appearance would be similar to ether views from Glacier Drive of other County Costa County buildings, such as the Department of Public Works building immediately to the east. This would be a less-than significant impact. Views from the south and west of the site would also change with the construction of the Juvenile Hall addition. Primarily the existing views would be of a more intense, urbanized site. From the south the views would primarily be of the new Dousing area. However, the housing area would be approximately 120 feet away from the existing southern boundary. Due to the distance from the property line, the existing fence and existing landscaping the view of the Juvenile Hall addition from the south would be limited. Due to the change in the configuration of the playfield the security fence would be extended further west along the Gate 1 driveway. It is likely that portions of the new security fence would be visible from the south, however, this view would be similar to the existing views of the security fence. This impact would be less than significant. Overall, the Juvenile Hall addition would primarily be visible from Glacier Road. Given the extensive amount of development already in the area the proposed project would not significantly alter the appearance of the site. The Juvenile Hall addition would be compatible with existing buildings on the project area and east of Glacier Drive. The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings Project plans indicate that exterior lighting would consist of metal halide wall lights on the building, and 30-foot pole mounted single or double metal halide lights for the parking lots. Three double arm pole lights would be located in each of the proposed parking lots located at the north side of the proposed building, two single-arm pale lights would be located parking area located of the Gate 1 driveway to the south and one single arm pole light would be located at the entrance to the loading dock at Glacier Drive. The two lights in the parking area located off of the Gate 1 driveway would be the closest new lights to the existing residences to the south. The lighting has been designed so that lighting does not spill over onto adjacent properties. Exterior building materials would not introduce new sources of reflected light and glare on the project site or in the adjacent residential neighborhood. This would be a less-than- significant impact. -21 - (Doe i .. t"1 S SSG Can&a Costa County Juvenile Had Addition Initial Study Less Than Significant Potentially With LASS Than 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project Significant Mitigation significant Impact Incorpmated Impact No Impact A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0 Cl 0 0 Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Department, to non-agricultural use?(la,6) B. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a El 13 13 El Williamson Act contract?(lb) C. Involve other changes in the existing environment 0 0 13 PT which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? (la, lb) SUMMARY: The project site is completely urbanized and neither currently nor recently used for agricultural production. Therefore, maps of the State's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program were not consulted. No Williamson Act contract is on the project site or in the immediate vicinity, and therefore no conflict would occur. Construction and operation of the Juvenile Hall addition would not change the existing environment in any way that could result in the conversion of farmland (such as by removing agricultural infrastructure.) No current agricultural zoning exists on the project site. No agricultural uses or zoning exists nearby the project site. No Williamson Act contract would be affected. The project would not involve any changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. As an infill project, no growth-inducing impacts would be created that could lead to the conversion of farmland. No portion of the current agricultural infrastructure of the area (farm and feed supply stores, veterinarians, and other agriculturally related businesses) would be relocated or affected. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than 111. AIR QUALITY—Would the project: Significant Mitigation significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0 0 0 0 applicable air quality plan?(7) B. Violate any air quality standard or contribute Cl 11 substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?(7) -23- Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall Addition Initial Study C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of Cl © d 121 any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?(7) D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 0 Cil 0 concentrations?(7) E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial Q 0 0 21 number of people?(7) SUMMARY. The project would not change county population or vehicle projections and would not interfere with implementation of transportation control measures. Therefore, the project would not deviate from longstanding assumptions about the project site used by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)to formulate and update its applicable Clean Air Plan for the Bay Area. The BAAQMD provides guidance for evaluating the significance of projects with respect to air quality impacts.2. The Juvenile Hall project would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact for localized carbon monoxide impacts,since traffic conditions associated with the project would be less than the screening criteria established by the BAAQMD. That is, the project would 1) result in daily carbon monoxide emissions less than 550 pounds, 2) traffic impacts would not be substantial at intersections operating at Level of Service D, E, or F now and in the future, and 3)traffic on nearby arterial roadways would increase by less than ten percent. The region has not attained state and federal standards for ground-level ozone and state standards for PM10. As a result, these are the air pollutants of primary concern when evaluating projects. Since these air pollutants are not directly emitted to the atmosphere,the significance of a project's impact is evaluated through comparison of overall project emissions to thresholds of significance established by the BAAQMD. The traffic study predicts an addition of less than 200 new daily trips resulting from build out of the project. Project screening thresholds contained in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (Section 2.4) indicate, that based on the size of the project, emissions of ground-level ozone precursor pollutants and PM;o would be well below significance thresholds. Therefore, a detailed air quality analysis of these impacts is not necessary. Demolition and construction would be a source of short-term air pollutant emissions that have the potential to result in both nuisance and health effects associated with dust generation. During demolition, grading, and construction activities, dust would be generated. Most of the dust would result during demolition and grading activities. The amount of dust generated would be highly variable and is dependent on the size of the area disturbed, amount of activity, soil conditions and meteorological conditions. Typical winds during late spring through summer are from the west-northwest. Occupants at the existing Juvenile Hall and other on-site County facilities as well as nearby residences could be adversely affected by dust generated during construction activities. Although demolition, grading and construction activities would be temporary, they would have the potential to cause both nuisance and health air quality impacts. PM,o is the pollutant of greatest concern 2 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines—Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, April 1996,revised December 1999. _24_ Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall Additxon IrWal Study associated with dust. If uncontrolled, PMIO levels downwind of actively disturbed areas could possibly exceed State standards. In addition,dust fall on adjacent properties could be a nuisance. If uncontrolled, dust generated by demolition, grading and construction activities represents a potentially significant impact. Mitlgadon M"sure /Cl.D. The County's construction contracts shall require implementation of a dust emissions abatement program. Elements of the program should include the following. • Conduct construction operations to prevent windblown dust and dirt from interfering with the progress of the work,ongoing Juvenile Hall operations,and vehicular traffic. • Periodically water construction area as required to minimize the generation of dust and dirt • Hauling equipment and trucks carrying loads of soil and debris shall have their loads sprayed with water or covered with tarpaulins. Trucks carrying such loads should maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Prevent dust and dirt from accumulating on walks, roadways, parking, areas, and plantings and from washing into sewer and storm drains. Additional measures shall also be included: • Enclose, cover,water twice daily,or apply non-toxic soil binders to all exposed stockpiles. • Limit traffic speeds an unpaved portions of the site to 15 mph. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Suspend grading,excavation or grading activity when strong winds cause visible dust clouds to affect nearby sensitive land uses(e.g.,residences). With the implementation of the above mitigation measure construction impacts would be reduced to less- than-significant. The project would not be a source of objectionable odors. Less Than significant Potentially with Less Than IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project. Significant Mitigation significant Impact incorporated impact No Impact A. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ CI 0 EI through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?(1c) Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall Addit n Initial Study $. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?(Ic) C. Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally ❑ ❑ ❑ Q protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including., but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?(€c,3) D. Interfere substantially with the movement of any Cl ❑ ❑ ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native nursery sites? (lc,3) E. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (3, 5a, 5d) F. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ El Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?(I c) SUMMARY: Development of the Juvenile Hall addition would not have a substantial adverse effect on any special-status species. The site is completely urbanized. Since initial development, the site has only supported ornamental landscaping and turf grass recreational fields. No special-status species are located on this already-developed site. Therefore, the project would result in no impact. Sensitive natural communities, such as riparian habitat,are absent from the project site, and no significant impacts on sensitive natural communities are anticipated. No wetland indicators or stream channels were observed on the project site during a field survey. Jurisdictional habitat is absent from the site, and no adverse impacts on wetlands or unvegetated "other waters of the U.S."are anticipated. The project site is surrounded by existing development and is isolated from major open space areas. As a heavily fenced and urbanized site already, no wildlife corridors are located on the site. Therefore the project would have no impact. Project implementation would result in the removal of 40 non-native trees growing on the site which would be classified as "protected trees" under the County's Tree Protection and Preservation ordinance. The project would remove 28 trees whose trunk circumference measures 20 inches or more 4.5 feet above the ground and 12 multisternmed trees where the sum of the circumferences measurers 40 inches or larger 4.5 feet above the ground, thus subject to the County's standard tree preservation conditions. Based on the site inventory there are I I multisternmed trees in the area southwest of the corner of Gate 2 and Glacier Drive plus 28 single trunk trees and one multistemmed trees in and around the existing parking lot off of the Gate I driveway that could be classified as "protected trees" and would be removed by the proposed project. The majority of trees to be removed are located in the existing parking lot adjacent to _y6. COntra COstg Guunty JUwnile Hall AdMon MOW Study the Gate I driveway. There is a Douglas Fir at the corner of the Gate 2 driveway and Glacier Drive that would be classified as a "protected tree". This tree would not be remEove& The County's tree preservation ordinance requires projects to assure protection of existing trees to be preserved or to provide reasonable replacement for trees to be lost. The preliminary landscape plan(see Exhibit 8) identifies the installation of trees, shrubs, and other landscape materials on the project site. The landscape plan identifies the planting of 77 trees. This would result in the replacement of slightly less than two trees planted for each one tree removed. In order to ensure at least a 95 percent survival rate for the replacement trees the landscape plan states that trees that are planted that do not survive three years will be replaced. Therefore, the purposed tree replacement ratio incorporated in the project's landscape plan would mitigate the loss of `protected trees"to a less-than-significant level. Due to the absence of species of concern and / or sensitive habitat on or near the site, project implementation would not conflict with any local, regional, State, or Federal Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Flan or other similar biological resource protection,thus resulting in no impact. Loss Than Significant Potentially With l..ess Than V. CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project: significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated impact No Impact A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the 17 0 0 0 significance of a Historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?(la, lc,2) B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the 11 0 Cl significance of an archaeological resource as pursuant to § 15064.5?(I a, I c,2) C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ Cl li 0 paleontological (fossil) resource or site or unique geologic feature?(I a, I c, 2) D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred 0 0 ® 0 outside of formal cemeteries?(la, lc, 2) SUMMARY: No known historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources exist on the project site. The,Martinez General Flan does not address cultural resources. The California Historical Resources Information System(Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University) reviewed records and literature for the project site. At the time of Euroamerican contact the Bay Miwok or Saclan occupied the eastern portions of Contra Costa County extending from Walnut Creek eastward. Native American archeological sites in this portion of the County tend to be situated on alluvial flats and terraces near sources of freshwater such as creeks. The project site is on a broad saddle between the headwaters of two ephemeral creeks. Given this setting, there is only a moderate potential For Native American sites in the project area. Review of historical literature and maps gave no indication -27- C a Costa County Juvenile Hall Addition Initial Study of historic resources on the project site.3 The main building of the existing Juvenile Hall is somewhat recent,and of no architectural or historic significance. No archeological resources of any kind are known on the project site and no human remains are known to be present on the project site. 4 However, it is impossible to be sure that there are no undiscovered archaeological resources buried on the project site. Such resources could be discovered during earthwork on the project site. Mfflgartf©n Measure VB and V.D In order to mitigate potential impacts on archaeological resources, if any are uncovered on the site during project implementation, the following mitigation would be required of the project sponsor: • In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition during project implementation of historical or archaeological deposits, construction in the vicinity should be hatted and a qualified archaeological consulted. The archeologist should independently review the find, with authorization and under direction of the County, and should promptly evaluate the significance and importance of the find(s), after which a course of action acceptable to all concerned parties should be adopted. If mitigation is required, the first priority shall be avoidance and preservation of the resource. If avoidance is not feasible, an alternative plan which may include excavation shall be prepared. All archaeological excavation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in accordance with prevailing professional standards and I or as outlined by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The Native American community shalt be consulted on all aspects of the mitigation program. • In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps should be taken as per CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(e): There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until(A)the coroner of the county is contacted to determine no investigation of the cause of death is required,and(B)the coroner determines the remains to be Native American. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NA.HC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of (with appropriate dignity) the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the event the NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent, or the most likely descendent failed to matte a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the NAHC, or the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, then the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. 3 Cultural Resources Records Search for Juvenile Hall Environmental Review,File No,99-801,Northwest Information Center, December 14, 1999. 4 Cultural Resources Records Search for Juvenile Ball Environmental Review,File No.99-801,:Northwest Information Center, December 14, 1999. -28- Cantr. ;osta C*unty Juvenile Haft Aedditlon Ird",Study This mitigation should be a condition of project approval and applied to all grading and construction: permits. No unique paleontological(Fossil)resources, sites, or geologic features are known on the project site. In the absence of such resources within the project site it is concluded that project implementation would result in no impact. Less TbM sipificwt Potw"Iy with Lass Than VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—Would the project: Signifiewt Mitiption signifimt Impact Incorpomcd Impact No Imp= A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving? 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as G7 ❑ l3 ❑ delineated on the most recent Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?(4) 2. Strong seismic ground shaking?(4) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ lz ❑ liquefaction?(4) 4. Landslides?(4) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ B. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ Gl Q topsoil?(4) C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable ❑ ❑ Ef ❑ or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?(4) D. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- ❑ ❑ l ❑ 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?(4, 5f) E. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?(5a) SUMMARY. The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. According to the geotechnical investigation prepared for the proposed project the three major right lateral, northwest trending fault systems, mapped in the San Francisco Bay Area are the San Andreas, the Hayward and the Calaveras Faults. Large earthquakes have been associated with movement along the three fault systems. Of major concern to the Juvenile Hall site are the Hayward Fault and its probable _29- Contra Costa County Juvenile Hatt Addiffon initial study continuation, the Rogers Creek Fault. These faults, listed as Class A in the current Uniform Building Code (UBC) maps of Known Faults, are within i I miles to the southwest of the project site. The Concord-Green Valley Fault,a Class B fault, is located two miles to the northeast. The project site is not known to be underlain by any active or potentially active faults, therefore surface rupture is not considered to be a significant impact. Faulting has been mapped in the area, but these faults are not considered capable of producing ground shaking of any consequence. According to the geotechnical investigation the project site is underlain by strong weathered rode. Because of this condition, and the relatively level terrain, the potential for liquefaction, ground displacement,ground lurching,differential settlement or lateral spreading during a major seismic event on the project site is nil. An earthquake originating along nearby active faults, however, could result in seismic ground shaking which could create damage to the Juvenile Hall addition. According to the Contra Costa County General Plan in regard to estimated seismic ground response (Figure 10-4) the project site is in the "lowest damage susceptibility zone". This means that sound structures sited on bedrock typically perform satisfactorily if foundation materials and critical slopes are stable. Furthermore, buildings would be designed under the UBC. While this would not eliminate potential damage that could be created by seismic shaking, it would reduce the risk to levels considered acceptable in earthquake-prone areas. Therefore,this is considered to be a less-than-significant impact. Earthmoving for site preparation would remove existing vegetation growing on the part of the site being disturbed for the construction of the Juvenile Hall and parking. The exposed ground surface then is susceptible to erosion by wind and water until protected by temporary erosion control materials, planted with landscaping,or covered by impervious surfaces. Airborne dust generated during construction would degrade air quality (see Checklist Item III), and waterborne material would contribute to downstream sedimentation and deterioration of water quality. Implementation of the proposed project would result in land disturbance of approximately 5.5 acres. This includes all parking areas of work and recreation fields but does not include the Gate I or Gate 2 driveway. It is estimated that the project would require approximately 17,000 cubic yards of excavation. This is based on overexcavating the foundations to approximately six feet outside of the building footprint. The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board (RWQCB) has jurisdiction over discharges affecting water quality. The RWQCB administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting program under the authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Construction activities of five acres or more must be covered under the State NPDES General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity(General Permit). This is accomplished by the filing of a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality. In addition a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is used to guide erosion control and water quality maintenance measures during and after project construction must be prepared for the proposed project. The S WPPP includes Best Management Practices (BPs) selected to fit the specific project area and the nature of the construction activities. Available BMPs are described in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks.5 Water quality monitoring under the NPDES permit continues until the project is completed and ongoing water quality protection measures are California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook,Construction Activity and Municipal, Stormwater Quality Task Force 1993. .30- Contra C,=a County Juwnlie fall Addition I tel Study deemed functional. At such time, the applicant submits a Notice of Termination to the RWQCB to indicate project completion. Mlttgadon Measure VI.B. As a part of the SWPP the County's construction contracts shall include implementation of the following erosion control measures: • Erosion control shall consist of,but not be limited to, constructing such facilities and taking such measures as are necessary to prevent, control, and abate water, mud, and erosion damage to public and private property as a result of the construction of this project, including the stockpiling of excavated material. The Contractor shall prepare and submit an erosion control plan within 30 days from the Notice to Proceed for approval by the appropriate County department. Temporary erosion control measures include,but are not limited to,the following: • The Contractor shall conduct his operations in such a mariner that stormwater runoff will be contained within the Project or channeled into the storrawater drain system which serves the runoff area. Stormwater runoff shall have all silt and mud removed prior to being released in a storm drainage system. • Temporary drainage structures and other devices shall be provided to channel stormwater runoff water into the respective permanent storm drainage systems during construction. Mud and silt shall be settled out of the stormwater runoff before said rano€€enters the stormwater drainage system.. • Embankment,graded,and excavation areas shall be protected from erosion and the resulting siltation of downstream facilities and adjacent areas by use of temporary erosion control measures. Implementation of these measures would reduce the project's potential short-term erosion impacts to a less-than-significant level. According to the Contra Costa County General Plan figure 10-4 the project would be located on hard bedrock, which is the lowest damage susceptibility zone in regard to estimated seismic ground response. Furthermore, according to the Contra Costa County General Plan Figure 10-6 the project site does not have any geological (landslides) hazards. As no hills are located around the proposed project, no risk of landslides would occur. This is a less-than-significant impact. Based on the geotechnical investigation prepared for the proposed project, project site soils are characterized as possessing low expansion potential, thus a less-than-significant risk to life or property from development. & As noted below in the discussion of Public Services (see Checklist Item X1H), the project would be connected to public services to convey wastewater for treatment and disposal,creating no impact in relation to the suitability of site soils for installing or operating on-site wastewater disposal systems. 6 Nichols Herman conversation with 10 Crosby,So Crosby&,associates,Geotechnical Consultants August,2000. -31 - Contra Costa County Juvenile Net!AddNon Initial Study Lgw Than sipirtoant VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS--- potentially With lass Thact Would the project: Significant Mitigation significant Impact Incorporated impact No Impact A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ l21 ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?(5) B. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ( ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?(5) C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ 0 Q acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mite of an existing or proposed school?(5) D. Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ lel hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?(t a, l c, 8d) E. For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ 0 � or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?(la, tc, 8e) F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?(I a, Ic, 8e) G. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ ❑ ❑ Q an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?(la, 1c) H. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wiidlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wiidlands?(l a, l c) SUMMARY: Hazardous materials are substances which can harm people or the environment. These materials can impair human health if contacted, ingested, or inhaled. Contacts which expose people and wildlife to harm occur when such substances are encountered in soil, groundwater, surface water,or air or when operations associated with specific land uses are deemed hazardous processes. Such processes are classified as hazardous because of materials they use or because of the potential for fires or explosions to occur at the facilities. -32- Contra costa County Juvenile He#Addition trade/study The project site is not located near either Buchanan Field(situated about two miles away in Concord) or the East County Airport (located farther away in Byron). Therefore, the project would represent no impact. Operation of the Juvenile Hall addition would not use the amounts of hazardous substances that would be considered .hazardous. The Juvenile Hall addition would include health services facilities (such as medical exam rooms, dental work morns, and a x-ray room). It is likely that the health services facilities would use small amounts of materials considered hazardous. Due to the small amounts of such materials and existing regulations which govern the use and handling of such materials no significant impact would occur. As discussed immediately above, hazardous materials that could create significant environmental impacts would not be present on or transported to and from the Juvenile Hall. Operation of the Juvenile Hall would not be expected to release such materials either,accidentally or in an emergency. Classrooms would be constructed as a part of the Juvenile Hall project and other educational facilities are located in close proximity to the proposed project. However, as explained above, no acutely hazardous materials, substances or wastes would be emitted from the Juvenile Hall addition. The Mate Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substances Site list compiled under Government Code Section 65962.5 (otherwise known as the Cortese list) was reviewed for this Initial Study. The most recent list reviewed at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department(dated 1998) indicated no hazardous materials site on the project site. The nearest identified site was at 50 Glacier Drive (the County's Sheriff's Communications facility), This was identified as a leaking underground storage tank. According to the County Hazardous Materials Division this site was a minor leakage and due to the distance to the Juvenile Hall site would pose no hazards to occupants or employees at the Juvenile Hall addition. 7 The project site is located within the Buchanan Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan planning area. Due to the distance from the airport and the fact that the proposed building would be less than 50 feet in height the construction of the Juvenile Hall addition would not result in any compatibility issues with the airport.8 Therefore, the Juvenile Hall addition would not result in a safety hazard for residents or employees. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact is expected. The proposed project would not interfere with any emergency evacuation plans. The project itself would improve circulation into the site and increase access points(such as the new proposed loading zone), and would therefore help emergency access and evacuation. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The project site is within the urbanized area of the City of Martinez. No wildlands are located on or near the project site,so there is little risk from wildfires. 7 Nichols Berman conversation with Bruce Penike, Hazardous Materials Specialist,County Hazardous Materials Division, June,2000. S Nichols Berman conversation with Bob brake,Principal Planner,Contra Costa County Community Development Agency, June 2000. -33- Contra Costa County Juvenile Niall Addition Initial Study Less Than Significant VITT. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-- p°ten"any with Less Than Significant Mitigation signific wt Would the project: Impact Incorporated bipact No Impact A. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 discharge requirements?(5a, 5c) B. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ g interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?(1 a,4, 5a,) C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site?(3, 5a, 5c) D. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ ❑ d site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?(2, 5a, Sc) E. Create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ ❑ ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?(5a, 5c, 8b) F. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?(lc) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q G. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 mapped on a federal. Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?(I a, I c,2) H. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ Cl Q which would impede or redirect flood flows? (la, le, 2) 1. Expose people or structures to a significant risk. of Cl ❑ ❑ Q loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (la, le) J. Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow?(la, Ic) ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 -34-