The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06221999 - C194 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSz CONTRA FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR., COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COSTA DATE: dune 22, 1393 COUNT`' Y. SUBJECT: APPROVE PIANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLINICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAB, AND RELATED ACTIONS (6971-4538-0927-WH538B) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ADOPT Resolution approving plans and specifications for the construction of a new Clinical and Public Health Service Laboratory at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center 2500 Alhambra Avenue Martinez, California. 2. ADOPT by Resolution the Mitigated Negative Declaration that assessed potential environment effects resulting from the construction and occupancy of the new Laboratory. 3. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator or his designee to execute the 7th Amendment to a Consulting Services Agreement with Fong and Chan Architects that increases the payment limit by $15,000 to a new payment limit of$631,125.00. 4. AUTHORIZE the County Administrator or his designee to issue written authorizations to the aforementioned Consulting Services Agreement for extra work, provided that the cumulative total extra cost for all such authorizations does not exceed $25,000. 5. DIRECT Staff to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk . 6. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program included with this Board Order. FISCAL IMPACT: The Architect estimates the initial construction contract cost at $5,900,000. The County previously borrowed sufficient funds to finance the construction and other incidental and related project costs. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _A APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON June APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT _ _ m ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTEDT n n a ?.9 y� 1 9 Q,9 PHIL BATCH LO ,CLERK OF T E BOARDM1,177 t DEPUTY Contact: cc: See Page 2 BACKGROUND: In March 1995 the County's Director of General Services authorized Fong and Chen Architects to begin a feasibility study for a new Clinical and Public Health Laboratory at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (formerly known as the Merrithew Memorial Hospital). The County authorized schematic designs for this new laboratory in June 1998 and by June of 1998 construction documents were sufficiently complete to begin the code and regulatory reviews mandated by California State law for essential facilities. OSHPD is the State regulatory agency responsible for these reviews. OSHPD approval is expected by the end of June 1999. The proposed 7` amendment to the Architect's contract acknowledges the extensive OSHPD review and the additional time spent by the Architect to incorporate these comments. This construction is subject to a review of environmental significance in conformance with Contra Costa County Guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The County contracted with Nichols Berman Environmental Planning in February 1999 to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for the project coincident with the OSHPD review of construction documents. The County distributed the negative declaration for public review and comment on May 27, 1999 and the review period extended through 5:00pm June 15, 1999. upon adoption of the attached resolution the Board authorizes mitigation of potential environmental consequences as described by the Negative Declaration and incorporated public comments. NOTE that the Negative Declaration mistakenly identified the County as the hearing body to determine the project's consistency with the General Plan. Since the project is within the legal boundaries of Martinez, the City would make that determination. Contact: Laura Lockwood, CAO—Capital Facilities and Debt Management 5-1093 cc: CAO Finance Auditor/Controller GSD (Accounting)---Terry Mann O'Brien-Kreitzberg Inc. (via CAO) Frank Puglisi, CCRMC Community Development THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order of June 22, 1999,by the following vote: AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA, UILKEMA, GERBER, DeSAULNIER and CANCIAMILLA NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE RESOLUTION NO. 2 g 1316 SUBJECT: Approving Plans and Specifications for Clinical and Public Health Laboratory,2500 Alhambra Avenue,Martinez,California (CP #99- 24) Budget Line Item No. 6971-4538 Authorization No.0927-WH538B WHEREAS plans and specifications for the Clinical and Public Health Laboratory, 2500 Alhambra Avenue, Martinez, have been filed with the Board this day by the Office of the County Administrator; and WHEREAS plans and specifications were prepared by Fong & Chan Architects, San Francisco; and WHEREAS the Architect's cost estimate for the initial construction contract is $5,900,000; 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 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 Director, 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 July 29, 1999 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 Page?Wion 931316 F:\SHARED\PROJECTS\LAB\BDORD\LABRESI.DOC IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator, or his designee, is AUTHORIZED to issue bid. Addenda, as needed, for clarification of the contract hid documents, ,provided the involved changes do not significantly increase the cost estimate for the initial construction contract. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 22 . 1999 PHIL1 CH LOR,Clark of the Board pp ofSupervi rs nd County Administrator )6 Sy m Dapuv Orig. Dept. CAO (L. Lockwood,335-1094) , cc: CAO General Services Accounting Auditor-Controller O'Brien I£reitzberg via CAD Community Development Resolution 99/316 Page 2 of 2 :.\S4 REI9\PROJECTSILAB\BI7ORD1LA8RBS t.€7OC e�eo" ! Director Community Contra ssenr i�r�.��, �, Development �} � ! �� Gomrrahity r epartment Lj i County l County Administration Building &, 651 Pine Street rk. 4th door, North`vying Martinez, California 94553-6095 �� _ �'` � v µ. ... DEIPUTY � _. w v Phone. (510) 335-1213 °Trh tiµ �v May 27, 1999 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County Pile # CDD-CP 99-24 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 dle following project: Project Name: Public Health Laboratory 1 Hospital Clinical Laboratory Description: Construction of a 17,870-square foot two-story plus penthouse laboratory building,a separate 660-square foot one-story mechanical shed,and 68 parking spaces on a previously developed site on the hospital campus(sites of the former"I"Ward,"I"Ward,and warehouse buildings and existing parking lots). Location: Contra Costa County Regional Medical Center(Merrithew Memorial Hospital), 2500 Alhambra Avenue,Martinez,California 94553. The proposed development will result in potentially significant impacts which the project sponsor will mitigated to less-than-significant levels by incorporating the measures summarized below into the construction and operation of the project. Impact: Contribute to existing or projected air quality violation. Mitigation:Implement basic construction practices to reduce dust emissions (PMio). 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: Expose people or structures to strong seismic shaking. Mitigation: Incorporate Uniform Building Code(CIBC)seismic design criteria in project design. Impact: Result in soil erosion. Mitigation: Implement erosion control methods during site excavation and grading. Impact: Create hazards to the public or environment involving hazardous materials. Mitigation: Incorporate relevant UBC,Uniform Fire Code, and Title 19 and 24 provisions in building design as required by Office of Statewide Health Planning and Contra Costa County Fire District. Impact: increase noise levels temporarily. Mitigation:Perform noise generating activities between 8 AM and 5 PM, and muffle and maintain equipment properly. Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays a;each month Impact. affect fire protection. Mitigation: Comply with relevant Contra Costa County Fire District requirements. Impact:Result in inadequate emergency access. IN+ii.tigation: Comply with relevant Contra Costa County Fire District requirements. 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 the 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., June 16 1999. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Debbie Chamberlain,Principal Planner Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,North Wing,2""Floor Martinez,CA 94553 It is anticipated that the proposed Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday,June 22, 1999. For confirmation regarding this date,please contact Dan Eggen, Project Manager,at(925)335-1040. cc:County Clerk`s Office(2 copies)-"-+--+- -2- Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project'Title: Public Health Laboratory/Hospital Clinical Laboratory Contra Costa County Regional Medical Center (Merrithew Memorial Hospital) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Community Development Department Contra Costa County Administration Building,2'a Floor North Wing 651 Pine Street Martinez,California 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Environmental Review: Project Review: Debbie Chamberlain,Principal Planner Dan Eggen,Project Manager,O'Brien Kreitzberg Community Development Department County Capital Programs 925-335-1231 925-335-1040 4. Project Location: 2500 Alhambra Avenue,Martinez,California The project site is located on the 13.2-acre campus of the Contra Costa County Regional Medical Center in Martinez. The 3.35-acre project site consists of the proposed location of the new laboratory building (0.53- acre) and existing and proposed parking lots (1.80-acre Lot 1, 0.81-acre Lot 2, and 0.21--acre Lot 4). The laboratory site is adjacent to (and immediately uphill from) the west side of the existing Merrithew Memorial Hospital building (also known as the "replacement hospital") on "Street Four". The main entrance to the hospital campus is located at Alhambra Avenue and B Street. The entrance provides access to the two existing parking lots(Lots 1 and 2)proposed to be modified as part of the project but not to the laboratory site and not to the third parking lot(Lot 4)proposed to be built as part of the project. Instead, access to the laboratory site and Lot 4 is from Alhambra Avenue, Berrellesa Street, and two neighborhood streets located north and south (respectively) of the train B Street entrance. From Alhambra Avenue, access to the site is via C Street (the south boundary of the hospital campus) and Street Five(on the hospital campus). (C Street and Street Five also serve as the hospital's emergency entrance.) From Berrellesa Street, access to the site is via Allen Street (the north boundary of the hospital campus) and Street Four (on the hospital campus) (see Exhibits I and 2 on the following pages). 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contra Costa County Hospitals and Health Centers 2500 Alhambra Avenue Martinez,California 94553 6. General Plan Designation: PS-Public/Semi-Public(The(Reconsolidated) Contra Costa County General Plan)and H-Hospital (Martinez General Plan and Central Martinez 5;necific Plan) 7. Zoning: General Facilities(Martinez) 8. Description of Project: The project would consolidate existing facilities in a proposed new laboratory building, including Merrithew Memorial Hospital's Clinical Laboratory, Pathology Laboratory, and Morgue W. presently located in "E" Ward on the hospital campus) and the County's Public Health Laboratory (presently located at 1111 Ward Street in downtown Martinez). The project also would build one new parking lot,expand an existing lot, and rebuild another existing lot. The laboratory site was previously developed with a 5,790-square foot one-story building("I"Ward), basketball court, and parking. The "I"Ward building housed Merrithew Memorial Hospital's psychiatric unit until March A. 4(A Tlee Ni t !7fFldly` k s AWON AM 3lQA^dYNiS.p 30 �{y � lei 1 aS5gny '"'- t � LA ani '•� 8'0 ��+�� iN ,•��`�' � t � gs�,4a !m 1 1 'lawn � "'��,� � �u'�� w�;c+�' �a a c >s �; �i�'�� Da� �,�•;'��o��. � ��. ` �+y� #o � } r 3a s ada t CMYC L � aas�vrx N - � �f t � + b+► �' gt �� l5 ex�,xua � u.�613N3d °{,,'�. S..j � g.tNti�'1 Alij ' Ar %• Ste» Sk. 004 � � t urates i `' x ...�._. Hwy + o tit ;fit , i +r7z' is A CA cr3 M-1 es s LAN xq*4 I bsJ Q C3 l5 li t i I -a: 4 II ,� a int rte+ _•:i+.aauaon^ Y "�^.: 9 +�± 4 when the unit was moved into the new "replacement hospital". The "I" Ward building remained vacant until demolished in March 1999. Parking Lot I is an existing lot proposed to be reconfigured through regrading, repaving, and restriping. Parking Lot 2 is comprised of the existing Physicians' Lot and is proposed to be expanded onto the footprint of the former "J"Ward building. Parking Lot 3 is proposed on the site of a former warehouse building. Both the"J"Ward and warehouse buildings were vacant until demolished in March 1999. Exhibit 3 on the following page summarizes project characteristics and compares existing and proposed building areas, footprint coverage, and other project features. Exhibit 4 shows proposed conditions on the hospital campus, Exhibits 5 and 6 show site plans for the laboratory building site under both existing and proposed conditions,and Exhibit 7 shows laboratory building elevations from two sides. Laboratory Building Characteristics: The project would involve construction of a 17,870-square foot laboratory building and separate 6613-square foot :mechanical shed, for a total of 18,530 square feet of new building area. The proposed 17,870-square foot laboratory building would be constructed at grade with a finished first floor elevation of 87 feet. It would be a 48.5-to 52.5-foot high steel frame structure consisting of: 0 A 14.0-foot high first story with a footprint of 7,855 gross square feet. 0 A 14.5-foot high second story with a floor area of 7,825 gross square feet. i A 12.0-to 16.0-foot high sloped-roofed mechanical penthouse with a floor area of 2,190 gross square feet. Three 8.0-foot high exhaust stacks, The 660-square foot mechanical shed would also be built at a finished grade elevation of 87 feet. This one- story sloped-roofed structure would have a maximum height of 14.0 feet plus two exhaust stacks extending above the roof. Exterior building materials for the laboratory structure would include cement plaster walls and segmented windows on the building fagade and metal panels on the face and roof of the mechanical penthouse. The separate mechanical shed would be a concrete block structure finished with cement plaster walls and a :petal panel roof. Four(4) trees and one (I) large sprue currently are growing on the laboratory building site, all of which would be removed during construction. The proposed planting plan envisages landscaping the site with trees, shrubs, vines,and ground covers, including 28 trees. Parking: Project implementation would also remove, replace, and provide new parking on the site, as summarized in Exhibit 8. • Six (6) parking spaces currently are provided on the laboratory building site. They would be removed during construction and replaced at project completion with ten (10) spaces, for a net increase of four (4) spaces. • Thirty-eight(38) new "Emergency Lot" spaces are proposed at the intersection of Allen Street and "Street Four"(the former site of a demolished warehouse building)(L.ot 4). • Twenty-six (26) new spaces are proposed to expand the "Physicians' Lot" located off the main "B" Street hospital campus entrance(the former site of the demolished 'J"Ward building)(Lot 2). • Another six to eight(6-8)additional spaces may be created in the existing Lower(Main)Lot when rebuilt. 5 Exhibit 3. Project Characteristics Site Summary Existingoverage Proposed Coverage Site e Area" Buildin s Parking Buildir� s Parkin Lab Building 0.53 0.13 0.40 0.18 0.35 Lot 1 1.80 0.00 1,80 0.00 1 1.80 Lot 2 0.81 0.41 ` 0.40 0.00 0.81 Lot 4 0.21 i 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.21 Total Site Area 3.35 0.75 2.60 0.18 3.17 Percent of Site!%) Y 22.4 77.6 5.4 94.6 Budding Summary' Proposed Laboratory Building: Area by Sto Dotal Area + Ground/First Story 7,855 + Second Story 7,825 + Penthouse2,190 Total Laboratory Building Area � 17,870 17,870 Proposed Mechanical Sated: + Ground/First Story 660 Total Mechanical Shed Area 660 660 Total Pro osed Builth Area 18,530 i 18,530 Internal Space Allocations ; Existing Conditions "` Proposed Project Hospital Clinical L.aborato : Clinical Laboratory 2,670 2,870 + Pathology Laboralmy 1,247 1,430 + Morgue 502 400 Hos ital Lab Subtotal 4,419 4,7011 Public Health Laborato a:` + DiMnosticTesting Areas 3,022 3,340 + Support Areas 1,555 Public Health Lab Subtotal 4,577 4,450 Either Area: i S aced S ace 0 930 + Buildin Su port S ace 0 440 i Other Area Subtotal 0 1,370 Total Building Area 8,996 110,520 a Area in acres. b Former"I"Ward footprint(5,790 square feet). c Former"J"Ward site. d Fortner warehouse site. e Conversation with Kris Tie,Fong&Chan Architects(project architect),March 9, 1999. ` Area in gross square feet. g Project Program, Public Health/Clinical Lab,Merrithew Memorial Hospital,Fong&Chan Architects,May 1996. h Currently located on-campus in existing"E"Ward. i Currently located off-campus at 111? Ward Street. J� + + > Ak AM VI cc _ .Ili G � � ep G lama* r d.1 /� G ' 77 15^' `1N&V �! ` II.L.HJUJIf 4H mm WO Gu � G .Cli fr^r E i if Cts � w / aJ �<�'moi'^��`..,�;•' .\ rte' t �� N� 7 f ��. • moi++ .... "r. +7.\�-�`" \� a IS At Ia- H. i. a n mz It iCnj Q 1 r�i v Awl CEO All Hi 1H1 I € f p z .i ..! I I I� ..I ! � I i i � �•` I 10 Exhibit 8. Existing and Proposed Parking Supply Number of Spaces Lot# Name f Location Existing Pro oseri.New Lan- os itai Cam us Supply' 1 Lower (Main2 Leat 201 2 Ph sicians'Lot 43 26 3 Old Emer ercv Lot ` 11 4 Emer enc Lot 12 38 5 Upper(Back)Lot 27 4 6 Rehab/Therapy Lot 18 7 Front/Specialty Clinics Driveway 9 8 B Street Hospital Entrance 8 9 Circle-Hospital Entrance 6 - - C Street Administrative LotJ 10 ?®ttti©n Carry us 3459 bS P -Hos ital Carp us Stu I Alhambra High School 119 Teamsters Union Hall 75 Total Off-Campus 194 Total On-and Off-Cam us Supply' 539 65 Source:Crane Transportation Group,Appendix A. a Accounts for all existing hospital campus parking. Bold italics denote parking proposed as part of the laboratory prgect. All other spaces are not part of laboratory project but are shown_for information only, b Restriping of Lot I when rebuilt may yield another six to eight spaces. c Nine(9)unreserved and two(2)reserved for County vehicles. d Eight(8)with 30-minute limit,two(2)reserved for sheriff/police,and two(2)reserved for County vehicles). e Includes six(6)existing spaces on the laboratory building site to be removed with construction of the building and replaced with ter.,(10)parking spaces for a net increase of four(4)new spaces. Except for these spaces,tae project proposes no changes to this lot. f Spaces in driveways of houses used for hospital administration. g Of these 345 spaces, 14 are reserved(for sheriff/police(2)and County vehicles(4)). Of the remaining spaces, 155 are designated for patients/visitors,and 175 are designated for employees(plus one unaccounted-for space). h Ail spaces leased in off-campus lots are designated for employees. i Substantial additional on-street parking occurs within the adjacent residential neighborhood by both patients/visitors and employees,as documented in Appendix A. ll Employees and Operations: Seventy-seven (77) employees would work at the proposed 'laboratory building when complete. All are existing employees of the facilities to be relocated to the project. Of those, 55 presently are employed on the hospital campus, and 22 would trove to the campus from the Public Health Laboratory: Not ail 77 employees would be present on-site at once due to shifts. The largest number (62 employees) would be present for the day shift during normal business hours. Of all proposed uses, only the hospital's Clinical Laboratory would operate 24-hours per day for which staffing would be 33 day shift,nine(9) afternoon shift, and six(6)night shift employees(see Exhibit 9 below): Exhibit 9. Project Employment' Use Day Shift E Afternoon7 Night Shift 'Total Hospital Pathology.1-aboratory 7 ' 0 €l I 7 Hospital Clinical Laboratory 33 9 6 48 Public health Laboratory 22 0 0 22 Total 62 9 d 77 a Conversation with Chris Grazzini,Merrithew Memorial hospital,March 10, 1999. c Presently work in"E"Ward on the hospital campus. c Includes morgue employees, (1 here are not separate morgue employees.) d Presently work at 1 i l i Ward Street and would be new to the hospital campus. Project Implementation: The project would be implemented in two phases which either could overlap (depending on when approvals to construct the laboratory building are received) or otherwise would be sequential. Laboratory building construction is estimated to require about one-and-one-half years (540 days). Parking improvements are scheduled to be completed by August or September 1999. Cumulative Conditions: Separate from the new laboratory building project is implementation of an overall Master flan for reorganization and redevelopment of the hospital campus. It is proposed to be carried out during the next ten to 15 years, depending on availability of funds. (The November 1998 Plan assumes completion of the laboratory project.) Pull implernentation of the flan would alter the location, function:, and organization of buildings on the hospital campus,except for the completed"replacement hospital"but including the amount and location of on-campus parking, flan goals and priorities are: Master Plan Goals Master Pian Priorities • Develop new replacement facilities a Medical Office Building + Consolidate scattered services • Support Service Building ® Improve operational efficiency Parking Improve Medical Center image • Minimal disruption of services • improve parking accessibility and quantity + Phasing of the implementation strategy s Improve way-finding The initial planning process undertaker} to formulate the Plan examined two projected space scenarios. Scenario I identified the space needed to bring existing facilities up to current community standards with no changes in workload or number of patients processed. Scenario 2 assumed increased patient volumes. Exhibit 10 on the following page compares Scenarios 1 and 2 space assumptions with existing conditions. The Plan ultimately formulated for the entire campus(and illustrated in Exhibit 4)used Scenario I projections. Therefore, cumulative conditions at full implementation would increase building areas over exist �g conditions as shown in Exhibit 10 but would not affect total on-sits activities in terms of the numbers of employees and patients using reorganized replacement facilities. According to the Plan, after the Hospital Clinical Laboratory relocates from the existing"E"Ward building to the project, the"E"Ward site would be redeveloped as the hospital's new kitchen and cafeteria which currently are located immediately south of"E"Ward. 12 After the Public Health Laboratory relocates from 1111 Ward Street to the proposed project, the County plans to reuse the vacated space. R would house another County function currently performed nearby in an existing area building. The specific use has not been identified yet but would occur as part of an overall effort to reorganize County workspace. This reorganization would not create new services or expand existing County services. Exhibit 10. Master Plan Space Summag' Use Dgsf 0 Bgsf b Existing b Scenario i` Scenario 2 d sf 38,183 80,095 90,303 Outpatient Services Block B9.. 97,716 110,170 Clinical Support d sf 5,364 15,110 15,110 1 B s 18,152 18,132 Administrative Services Block d sf 19,961 30,250 ; 30,250 Bgsf 36,300 36,300 d sf 24,767 24,000 24,000 Hospital General Support B sf 27,600 27,600 �600 Cather Maintenance d sf ; 10,588 11,800 i 11,800 Bgsf 1 13,57013,570 Total Bgsf 175,186 ' 187,640 i (Other County Fro ams: (15,74)0) (15,700) a Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Master Plan and Medical Office Building Final Report, SMF.SHG, November 1998. b Depar mental Gross Square Feet(dgsf)and Building Gross Square Feet(Bgsf). The master plan does not document existing Bgsf. Basis of the November 1998 MasterPlan, This environmental checklist focuses only on the on- and off-site effects of implementing the proposed new laboratory building project. It considers the project's potential impacts on existing and near-future conditions but not upon full implementation of the Master Flan. This is for a number of reasons. The Plan's ten- to 15- year buildout period would make an analysis of then prevailing baseline conditions speculative due partly to :uncertainties about the availability and timing of funding. In addition, the rapid pace of continued changes in medical technology, health care delivery, and other considerations can be expected to require refinements and adjustments to the.flan. Those factors will determine the extent to which the present Plan evolves in the future but which cannot be predicted in this analysis. More importantly, while the Flan would intensify the total amount of development on the hospital campus at buildout (an increase of departmental gross square feet of about 77 percent over existing departmental area), redevelopment and reorganization are not planned to expand the hospital campus boundaries, the activities performed there, or the employee or patient population accommodated there. In the meantime, the Plan clearly reveals the current goals for the campus to the public and indicates that implementation in some manner,ever if modified, is reasonably foreseeable. Consideration of the project and its potential environmental effects under existing and near-term conditions would not establish "irreversible momentum" in carrying out the Plan. Moreover, in view of tate Plan's assumption .fiat the project is complete already, evaluating the project alone would not constitute piecemeal analysis of a larger project. In these respects, assessing the proposed new laboratory project under cumulative Hospital campus buildout conditions ;but at a "planning level-of-detail„) would not provide sufficiently different quantifiable results to distinguish the magnitude of outcome compared with the project under existing and near-future conditions. Additional cumulative effects will require identification and analysis in environmental review when planned improvements are properly defined in order to determine sufficient mitigation,if required, at that time. 13 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is surrounded by the hospital campus which, in turn,is located at the interface of a predominantly residential neighborhood and a variety of other developed land uses. Both the site and surrounding area are virtually built out but adjoin undeveloped "environmentally sensitive land" which forms the western boundary of the city. The laboratory building site is bounded by Street Four, on-street parking pockets and lots, and assorted hospital support facilities (north, south, and west) and the "replacement hospital"building(east). Established residential neighborhoods are located primarily north and east of the hospital campus along Alhambra Avenue, Berrellesa Street, and their intersecting streets, including Allen Street, C Street, and Soto Street. Residential development there consists of single-family homes, small apartment buildings, and residential care facilities_ South of C Street, non-residential land uses predominate along Alhambra Avenue, including the Alhambra High School campus and commercial development. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: A. Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD). The laboratories must continue obtaining annual Operating Permits for the proposed project as currently is done for tete existing separate facilities. B. Contra Costa County Fire District (CCCFD). The Fire District must review project plans and determine their conformance with applicable building standards (Uniform .Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Title 19 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and compliance with requirements governing the handling and storage of hazardous materials, Plans were submitted in December 1998. The extent of CCCFD review will depend on the building occupancy classification approved by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development(OSHPD)(see below) in order to avoid duplicating OSHPD review. C Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). The County must submit project plans to the Plan Review Section for the Sanitary District to determine compliance with all source control requirements (such as for disposal of chemicals)and roust also pay a sewer connection fee. D. Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development(OSHPD). OSHPD trust determine the appropriate building occupancy classification for the project. The County has requested a Class B building occupancy classification. Building occupancy classification governs building design requirements in relation to the amounts and types of toxic and hazardous materials to be used and stored there. Review was underway in March 1999. E. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Due to the project site size of 0.53 acre,the County would not require a project-specific permit or coverage under the State's general permit for discharges of stormwater runoff associated with construction projects of five acres or larger(and would not be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)). 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. 0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources Q Air Quality 0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources Lel geology/Soils -21 Hazards c&Hazardous Materials 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning 0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population/Housing Q Public,Services 0 Recreation 21 Transportation/Traffic 0 Utilities/Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 14 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have significant effect or the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARA'T'ION will be prepared. 0 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ervironrnent, 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 T find that the proposed project MAY;have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is rewired. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on tate environment, but at least one effect(1) has beer, 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, 0 1 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 purse to applicable standards and(1)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier TR, i Avisi s r mitig tion:Measures that are imposed on tete proposed project. �1 �k 7 t / Bate . f , Printed Narrre For 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: 1. The (Reconsolidated) Contra Costa County General Plan (July 1996)(1a), General Plan Land Use Element snap(revised as of December 1997)(1b),and Contra Costa County General Plan EIR(January 1991)(1c)- 2. Martinez General Plan(amended as of January 2995). 3. Meld review March 4-5 and 16-17, 1999. 4. Final Geotechnical Investigation, Merrithew Hospital Replacement(August 1992)(4a) and Addendum to Final Geotechnical Investigation Report, Public Health / Clinical Laboratory, Merrithew Memorial Hospital (November 1996)(4b),Harding Lawson Associates. 5. Project Plans (January 1999)(5a) and Project Program, Public Health / Clinical Lab, Merrithew Memorial Hospital (May 1996)(5b), and conversations with loris Tie, Fong & Char Architects (project architects), and Aaron Nordal,Robert LaRocca&Associates(project landscape architects). 6. Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Master Plan and Medical Office Building, Final Report (November 19981), SMP SHG, and conversations with Virer.Ahuja and Simon.Bruce,SMP a SHG(hospital campus master planners). 15 7. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California (September 1977), Soil Conservation Service (now called the Natural Resources Conservation Service),U.S.Department of Agriculture. 8. EAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (April 1996), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)(8a), and conversation with Brian Bateman, Bay Area Air Quality Management District(8b). 9. Conversations with Russ Levitt, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (9a), Nabil Toma and .Joe Enke, Engineering Division, Community Development Department, City of Martinez (9b), Inspectors Carpenter and Woolridge, Contra Costa County Fire District (9c), Sharon Williams, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (9d), Rick Alexander, Director, Public Health Laboratory, Contra Costa County (9e), Richard Odegaard, Martinez Unified School (9r) District, and Mary Fleming, Contra Costa County Community Development Department(9g),and Greg Agresta,Chief,Martinez Police Department. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than significant Mitigation Significant I, AES'T'HETICS--Would the project: Impact Incorporation. Impact No Impact A. Have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vista?(la,2, C 0 0 L71 4a,5a) B. Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not 11 ll 0 l lizrzited to,trees,rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?(la,2) C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or Cl quality of the site and its surroundings?(3,4a,5a,6) D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which 0 0 0 C would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (5a) SUMMARY: The hillside site of the proposed laboratory building is located at an existing elevation of about 85 to 93 feet(5a). It is situated near the foot of a County-identified scenic ridge with a crest elevation uphill from the site of 748 feet. It is located more than a mile from the shoreline of Suisun Bay, the closest designated scenic waterway near the site. Project construction would not affect and, thus, would not interfere with or have an impact on scenic vistas to or from either of these scenic resources. The site also is located more than a mile from Highway 4, the nearest State highway, thus not situated near or within 'he viewshed of any State highway (including a scenic highway). In addition to resources identified by the County, the site is located in the "urban zone" defined by the City, near its western boundary with the Franklin Canyon Conservation Zone which also corresponds to a City "hillform conservation area". The City identifies Highway 4, Carquinez Scenic Drive, and Marina Vista as scenic roadways. The site is not visible from these designated roadways. The site of the proposed laboratory building is the former location of "I" Ward, a one-story building which was vacant between March 1998 and March 1999 (when demolished). Lot 4 is the former location of a warehouse building, and Lot 2 would be expanded onto the former footprint of"J"Ward, also one-story buildings which were demolished in March 1999. These, in turn, are surrounded by the "replacement hospital', streets and parking, and support facilities. Nearby residential uses are low-scale one- and two-story structures. Construction of the two- story plus penthouse laboratory project would intensify development on the site by increasing building height from less than an estimated 20 feet to about 49 to 53 feet. However, the six-story "split-level' hospital contiguous to the site is and, with project implementation, would remain the most visually prominent structure on the hospital campus and in the surrounding neighborhood. Other hospital campus facilities are predominantly one-story structures. The hospital's finished floor elevations range from about 50 (ground floor) to 83 feet (third story). Depending on viewing location, the hospital would block or provide a backdrop for views of the project. Project implementation would cluster these taller, higher density buildings in close proximity, thus not conflicting with the residential scale of the adjacent neighborhood. Implementation of parking improvements would convert former building sites to new 16 and expanded parking areas which would not differ visually from existing lots. For hese reasons, project implementation would have a less-than-significant impact on the visual character of the site and its surroundings. Project plans indicate that exterior street and pathway lights would be installed around the laboratory building, including street lights with approximately 14-foot tall standards, to replace existing outdoor lighting removed for project implementation. The proposed building would be located 45 feet or farther from any hospital campus property line (the western boundary) which would confine pools of light to the site. Exterior building materials would not introduce new sources of reflected light and glare on the site, on the hospital campus, or in the surrounding neighborhood. Tess Than Significant Potentially With Less Thar, Significant Mitigation Significant IT AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project: Imnact , Incorporation impact No impact A, Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland 1=i 0 0 of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources beparttnent, to non-agricultural use?(la,7) B. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a ® t El L7 Williamson Act contract?(lb) C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ® due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of farmland,to non-agricultural use? (la, Ib) SUMMARY: The project site is completely urbanized and neither currently nor recently used for agricult=ural production. Therefore, maps of the State's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring urogram were not consulted. Rather review of The (Reconsolidated) General Plans indicates that the site is composed of Upland Soil Association soils, Specific on-site soils are Los 0sos clay loam with 15 to 30 percent slopes(LhE). These soils are used for rangeland, wildlife habitat, watershed protection, and urban development, none of which meets the definitions of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Neither the site nor hospital campus is designated for agricultural use or meets the criteria necessary to obtain a Williamson Act contract. Undeveloped lands located immediately west of the project site are designated for open space, park, and recreation uses. An isolated area designated as agricultural land is located farther=uphill. Otherwise, the area of substantial agricultural land nearest to the site is located to 'he west in rangeland designated by the County primarily for grazing and in Franklin galley, south of Highway 4. The previously developed site is already served by public utilities and services, and project implementation would represent site redevelopment with a related hospital use. Consequently, construction and operation of the project would not contribute directly or indirectly to conversion of property designated as agricultural land. Less Than Significant Potentially With Tess Than Significart Mitigation Significant III, Alit QUALITY--Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact A, Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?(8a) B. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially Q 0 to an existing or projected air quality violation?(8a, 8b, 9d, 9e) C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any El C [ criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air 17 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?(8a) D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant El concentrations? (8a, 8b) E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number 11 C Q 0 of people?(8a, 8b) SUMMARY: The project would not charge the site's existing hospital land use and general plan designation of either the City or County. Therefore, the project would not deviate from longstanding assumptions about the site used by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQ.L'vM) to formulate and update its applicable Clean Air Plan for the Bay Area. Implementation would intensify on-site development by consolidating uses presently operating at separate locations it.Martinez. The project would generate the same number of vehicular trips per day combined as those from operation of the Public Health Laboratory and Hospital Clinical Laboratory, assumed to consist primarily of one one-way trip to and one one-way trip away from the site per employee per day (77 and 77 tips, respectively). Additional patient, delivery, and other trips similarly would be identical to the traffic volumes presently generated at the separate existing laboratory locations. Therefore, vehicular emissions of pollutants of concern in the Bay Area (ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate smatter (PMO, and lead) world not change with the project from existing or future cumulative conditions without the project, thus representing no impact. However, during the short-tern construction period, excavation and grading for site preparation would generate dust, and equipment operation would generate exhaust. (Although demolition of buildings generates PM-.o emissions, of particular concern if buildings contain asbestos-bearing materials,the former"I"Ward, "T'Ward, and warehouse buildings were removed in March 1999.) Without :mitigation and based on a generation rate of 51 pounds of PM#o per acre per day, earthmoving activities on the 3.35-acre site could generate uncontrolled emissions of about 171 pounds of PM10 per day. Merrithew Memorial Hospital, located adjacent to the laboratory building and parking lot sites, and the nearby Alhambra Convalescent Hospital and Alhambra High School are "sensitive receptors". Their presence raises concerns about possible generation of toxic air contaminants (TACs)or odors from future operations at the project and potential impacts related to such emissions. It is the BAAQMD's experience that emissions from research 'laboratory operations tend to be less-than-significant unless exhaust vents are located in close proximity to sensitive receptors (within approximately ten to 20 yards). In such cases, emissions may represent a nuisance but not environmental or health impacts. The BAAQMLD does not require laboratories to obtain permits if s=maller than 25,000 square feet and if they implement "Responsible Laboratory Management Practices". Nevertheless, both existing laboratories currently have annual Operating Permits. In addition, both operate under 1988 Clinical Laboratories Improvement Amendments, have Safety Plans which identify sensitive substances and disposal, and are inspected every two years. Therefore, consolidation at the project would not result in a significant impact or require additional mitigation. The laboratory building has been designed to obtain proposed Class B building occupancy classification from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). As of March 1999, OSHPD was reviewing proiect plans but had not yet approved the requested classification. (The alternative, Class H building occupancy classification, has more stringent 'building design requirements.) OSHPD reviews architectural, engineering (electrical, mechanical, structural), and fire and life safety aspects a project's design in relation to the types and amounts of toxic and hazardous materials to be used or stored in the building and examines such features as storage, venting, and fume hoods for flammable,combustible, and corrosive materials. The proposed building design of the laboratory structure is intended to prevent release of and to protect people inside and outside the laboratory from exposure to potentially harmful materials. Examples of design features include biosafety cabinets to protect users 18 working inside laboratory facilities and the project's mechanical system,designed in conformance with the Uniform Mechanical Code(U.MC), to fitter exhaust emissions before release. The County's contractor contracts require implementation of the following control measures to reduce the potential severity of construction emissions of PM10 to less-than-significant levels: • Conduct construction operations to prevent windblown dust and dirt frons interfering with the progress of the work, ongoing hospital 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. • Prevent dust and dirt from accumulating on walks, roadways, parking areas, and plantings and from washing into sewer and storm drains. • Fake special precautions to reduce dust and dirt and to provide the appropriate controls around the hospital area. • Fake special precautions to assure that dust and dirt do not affect the various communications and control systems. • Sweep streets 1 roads I walks surrounding construction area or areas used for construction at least once per day during the entire duration of work. .implementation of these measures would reduce construction period PM10 impacts to a less-than-significant level. Determination of the laboratory structure's building occupancy classification by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) would define the types and amounts of potentially toxic and hazardous materials permitted to be used or stored on-site. This, in turn, would reduce opportunities for accidental releases, including air emissions, of such materials. As noted in the discussions below of Hazards and .Hazardous Materials (V11) and Public Services (II), OSHPD is responsible for inspecting projects during construction, and the local fare district is responsible for inspecting projects after occupancy to determine that the types and amounts of materials stored there do not exceed the limits of the approved building classification. Project implementation depends upon approvals and 1 or receipt of necessary permits required by agencies other than the County. Granting of such approvals and permits to build and operate the project would be contingent on compliance with their respective, requirements. Therefore, implementation of those these measures would reduce potential toxic air contaminant and related odor impacts to a less-than-significant level. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES--Would the project: Impact incorporation Impact No Impact A. Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through 0 0 Cl 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?(lc) B. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 19 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation impact No impact other sensitive natural community identified in local or 0 0 regional plans,policies,or regulations or by the California of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?(Ie) C. Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected ® t' p 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?(lc) D. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 0 G lm? G 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) E. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ® ® , ?biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?(5a) F. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat C [ ® [ Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional, or state Habitat conservation plan?(lc) SUMMARY: The site is completely urbanized, having been developed with the former "I" Ward, "J" Ward, and warehouse buildings and paved for parking and a basketball court. Since initial development, the site has only supported ornamental landscaping which would be removed during construction and replaced as part of project implementation. The site is contiguous to grassland habitat (west) and urban land elsewhere on the hospital campus and adjacent residential neighborhood (north, south, and east). No special-status plants grow on the urbanized site. However, some special-status species associated with grasslands potentially could be growing uphill of the project site in adjacent open space areas, although any populations present there would not be affected by project implementation. No habitat suitable to support special-status animals is present on the previously developed site which is used only by species adapted to urban environments. In these respects,the project would result in no impacts. Alhambra Creek flows north from the Alhambra Valley (south of the site) to its discharge into the Carquinez Strait (north of the site) and drains a large watershed which receives contributions from both Alhambra and. Franklin Creeks. In the vicinity of the hospital campus, the creep flows on the east side of Alhambra Avenue beyond a residential neighborhood. The City defines Alhambra Creek and its tributaries as a riparian conservation zone. However, no riparian or wetland habitat is located on or immediately downhill from the site, and the site is not identified as located in or near any significant County-designated ecological area. Therefore, the project would result in no impacts. While the site is located at the western edge of the urban area of Martinez, beyond which wildlife movements occur unimpeded, conditions suitable or potentially appropriate for use by wildlife (other than species habituated to developed environments) do not exist on or elsewhere near the project site. For instance, there are no creeks or riparian corridors in the vicinity of the project site connecting to natural areas east of the site. In this context, the project would result in no impact. Project implementation would result in removal of four existing non-native trees and one non-native shrub growing on the laboratory building site. The trees' circumferences are estimated to exceed ten inches at a height of 4.5 feet 20 above ground, thus subject to the County's standard tree preservation conditions. Those conditions require projects to assure protection of existing trees to be preserved or to provide reasonable replacement for trees to be lost. The planting plan for the laboratory building identifies installation of 28 trees, 384 shrubs,and other landscape materials. This would result =:n replacement at a ratio of seven trees planted for each one tree removed (7:1). Therefore, the proposed tree replacement ratio incorporated in the project's landscaping 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 Plan or other similar biological resource protection,thus resulting in no impact. Loss Than Significant Potentially with t.ess Than Significant Mitigation Significant V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 0 ® 2 D historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?(1a, lc,2) E. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 0 0 G an archaeological resource as pursuant to§ 15064.5?(la, le,2) C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 0 C � Q resource or site or unique geologic feature?(la, lc, 2) D. Disturb any human remains,including those interred .0 21 outside of formal cemeteries?(la, 1c, 2) SUMMARY: No known historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources exist or formerly existed on the project site. The former "a" Ward, "J" Ward, and warehouse buildings, removed in March 1999, were neither known to be listed on nor eligible for inclusion on local or State registers of historical resources. T.he (Reconsolidated) General Plan indicates that the project site as part of the "largely urbanized area and publicly_ owned lands excluded from [the Plan's] archaeological sensitivity survey. Nevertheless, it f=urther states that`there also are significant archaeological resources within this area". The Plan and Plan EIR generally designate adjacent hillside land west of the site and urban area as "moderately sensitive areas". The Martinez General Plan does not address cultural resources. Previous development of the site for construction, operation, and maintenance of the former buildings and parking areas may have disturbed historical, archaeological, or geologic resources or human remains present im surface or subsurface Materials. Nevertheless, new excavation and additional grading, estimated to involve about eight feet of cut and fill, would occur to build the proposed laboratory project. Such earthmoving activity could uncover and, without mitigation,could damage or destroy,cultural:materials present on the site,possibly including human burials. n this regard, the October 1998 Final Text CEQA Guidelines Revisions emphasize the following (Section 15064.5(a)(4): The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources(pursuant to Section 5020.1(k)of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey(meeting the criteria in section of 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j)or 5024.1. In order to mitigate potential impacts on cultural resources, if any are uncovered on the site during project implementation, the following mitigation would be required of the project sponsor: 2= 0 In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition during project implementation of historical or archaeological deposits, construction in the vicinity should be halted and a qualified archaeologist consulted. The archeologist should independently review the Band, with authorization of and under direction of the County, and should promptly evaluate the significance and importance of the find(s), after which a course or'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 shall be consulted on all aspects of the mitigation program. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition during project implementation of any human remains on the site, there shall-be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until(Ibid., Section I5G64.5(e)(1)): A. The county coroner must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and R. If the county coroner determines the remains to be Native American: 1, The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. 1 Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person(s)it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. 3. 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. Implementation of these measures would reduce the project's potential impacts on cultural resources to a I level. Such mitigation would be included in the County's contractor contracts for the project, Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant VI: GEOLOGY AND SOILS--Would the project: impact Incorporation Impact No Impact A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss, injury,or death involving? 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on 0 � C� the most recent Alquist-r riolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?(4a) 2. Strong seismic ground shaking?(4a) C Q p 3. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 0 (4a} 4. Landslides? :4a) 0 0 El B. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 11 91 11 0 (4b) 22 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact C. Be'located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that C 13 [ would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse?(4a) D. Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of 0 G C the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property?(4b) B. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of 0 13 0 L septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?(5 a,6) SUMMARY: A geotechnical investigation was conducted for the "replacement" Merrithew Memorial Hospital in 1992, and addendum to the prior report was prepared for the laboratory building project in 1996. Work conducted for the Addendum included four test borings to obtain soil and rock samples, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. The borings revealed that about one to eight feet of artificial fill have been placed on the site which is underlain by native soils and bedrock. Fill generally consists of loose silty sand, and native materials consist of deeply weathered mudstone with relatively low expansion potential and friable to moderately hard sandstone. The Addendum concluded that, due to similar conditions on the laboratory and hospital sites, the findings of the prior Final Geotechnical Investigation were relevant and could be applied to the proposed laboratory building project (and its associated surface parking facilities). The Concord fault is the active fault trace closest to the site and is located three miles to the east. The 1992 Final Geotechnical Investigation estimated that the Concord fault is capable of generating a maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 6,5. It concluded that fault-related ground rupture at the site was unlikely due to the distance between the "replacement hospital" site and Concord fault. This conclusion represents a less-than-significant impact for the laboratory building(and parking)project. The Franklin fault(located west of the site) and two other"unnamed" faults(located 800 feet east and 700 feet west of the site) show no evidence of surface displacement during the past 11,000 years, and, thus, are considered to be inactive. (Two of the inactive faults are "unnamed" according to the Final Geotechnical:investigation, but Figure 117-2, Mapped Earthquake Faults of The (Reconsolidated) General Plan identifies the eastern trace as the "Southampton fault".) Other active traces of the San Andreas fault system located within the region are capable of generating intense groundshaking at the site at some time during the life of the project, a potentially significant impact, However, seismic design criteria for the "replacement hospital" were identified in compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and in response to review and comment by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) and OSHPD's Geologic/ Geotechnical Review Unit. Therefore, incorporation of UBC seismic design criteria in the design of the laboratory building would reduce the severity of impact to a level consistent with any new development throughout this seismically active region. The Final Geotechnicai Investigation determined that the potential for liquefaction at the site was low because loose, cohensionless, saturated sands, silts, and gravels most susceptible to this hazard related to earthquake- generated groundshaking are not present on the site. This conclusion represents a less-than-significant impact. Other hazards associated with seismically-induced groundshaking, including lurching, lateral spreading, and settlement, generally are associated with soft clay soils or liquifiable soils. Because such soils were not encountered on the hospital site, their impact on the laboratory or parking sites is considered to be low, thus a less-than- significant impact. 23 The examination of historical aerial photographs, site reconnaissance, and subsurface investigation for the "replacement hospital" revealed no unstable features and encountered no landslide deposits on or close enough to the hospital site to represent a risk of landsliding. The nearest mapped landslide is located about 350 feet southwest of the hospital site. Both the laboratory site and hillside parking lot (Lot 4) are located northwest of the "replacement hospital", and Lots 1 and 2 are located downhill from the hospital, in both cases confirming the site's low landslide hazard. The Addendum estimates that construction of the laboratory project would involve cuts and fills of up to eight feet deep, including recommended over-excavation and recompaction in some site locations, but would not require imported fill. Thus, reuse of cut material on-site would result in no loss of topsoil with project implementation. However, without standard erosion control practices during project implementation,exposed soils on the site would be susceptible to erosion from wind, water, or other construction activities. Even if all earthmoving were to occur simultaneously, less than five acres would be exposed during project implementation (3.35 acres). Upon project completion, the site would be completely covered by developed buildings, paved parking, "hardscape", and maintained landscaped areas which would not represent long-term sources of erosion impacts. 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 (XIII), the project would be connected to public sewers to convey wastewater for treatment and disposal, creating no impact in relation to the suitability of site sails for installing or operating on-site wastewater disposal systems. The County's contractor contracts require implementation of the following control measures to reduce potential erosion impacts during project implementation to a less-than-significant level, as automatically required of development projects by the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB): ® 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 34 days from the Notice to Proceed. Temporary erosion control measures include, but are not limited to, the following.. a The Contractor shall conduct his operations in such a manner that storm runoff'will be contained within the Project or channeled into the storm drain system which serves the raanoff area. Storm 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 storm runoff water into the respective permanent storm drainage systems during construction. Mud and silt shall be settled out of the storm runoffbefore said runoff enters the storm 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. Significant Than Significant DTII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the € al:y With Less Than Signifiigridcart Mitigation Significant project: Impact Incorporation Irnpact No Inti ac. � r A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the G 0 0 0 environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials?(9d, 9e,9f) B. Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 Q © 0 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and 24 Less Than Significant ignst VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS--Would the sti With Less Than ignicantnt with Significant project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact accident conditions involving the release of hazardous Q Q materials into the environment?(9d,9e,9f) C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 10 Q Q hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school"?(9d,9e,9f) D. Be located on a site which is included on a list of d D Q Q 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? (la, Ic) E. For a project located within an airport land use plan 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?(I a, Ic) F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would C Q Q Q the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?(la, Ic) G. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ® Q Q adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?(I a, Ic) H. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, .0 Q p injury,or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?(la, Ic) SUMMARY: The (Reconsolidated) Genual Plan maps locations throughout the County which are classified as Hazard Land Uses due to materials used,produced,or transported to and from those sites. The project site is neither identified as an Hazard Land Use nor located near either Buchanan Field (situated about four miles away in Concord) or the East County Airport (located farther away in Byron). Therefore, the project would represent no impact. Nonetheless, the Merrithew Memorial Hospital and both the existing Hospital Clinical and Public Health Laboratories currently use, store, and transport toxic and other materials (such as medical gases and a variety of flammable, combustible, or corrosive chemicals) defined as hazardous. State and local regulatory agencies have jurisdiction to review and approve building design and operations of facilities where such materials are handled or stored to ensure the safety of employees using them and to prevent re=_eases which would harm the public or environment. As noted above in the discussion of Air Quality (III), OSHPD is responsible for approving the building occupancy classification of the laboratory structure, based on the types and amounts of potentially hazardous :materials to be used and stored there. OSHPD classification determines code standards of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and other requirements which building design must meet. The classification also establishes maximum quantities of the materials consistent with the approved building design. OSHPD inspects projects during construction to verify that requirements are met. The Contra Costa. County Fire District(CCCFD) would inspect the laboratory building periodically thereafter to ensure that the types and amounts of materials stored on-site do not exceed the limits of the building classification ultimately approved. The project is proposed to be a Class B building and has been designed to meet Class B requirements. OSHPD =ultimately determines appropriate building occupancy classification whereupon final OSHPD permit approval would be 25 contingent on the project's compliance with all relevant requirements of the applicable building occupancy classification. In addition to submitting architectural and engineering plans to OSHPD to review the laboratory building, the Hospital Clinical and Public Health Laboratories have submitted chemical inventories detailing existing and proposed amounts of materials to be used at the new combined facility. Adherence to the design and operational procedures mandated by the BAAQMD, CCCFD, and OSHPD would reduce both on- and off-site risks to the public, including students who attend Alhambra High School immediately south of the site, and to the environment from accidental release of and exposure to such materials. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed laboratory building in conformance with these agencies' respective approvals would reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. The existing hospital and its associated facilities are an integral part of basic countywide stealth programs and the County's emergency services network. The project would consolidate and update rather than interfere with these activities. Project operations would not alter emergency access to the hospital campus which would remain where presently located via C Street and Street Five. 'Thus,the project would result in no impact. Because the project site is inside the corporate boundary of the City of Martinez, The(Reconsolidated)General Plan identified it as located in a "local responsibility area" for fire hazards. However, the incorporated and unincorporated hillside open space lands upslope of the site are designated"moderate fire hazard State responsibility area°'. Doth fire hazard areas are located in Critical Fire Weather Class 2, a zone subject to an average of 1.0 to 9.5 days per year of such conditions. Despite the laboratory buil_=ding site's proximity to potential wildfire hazards, the entire hospital campus is fully served by public water supplies for both domestic and firefighting purposes, a fire hydrant would be located on Street Four at the southern laboratory building entrance, and the proposed laboratory building would be constructed with one-hour fire resistive exterior walls and a fill interior sprinkler system. "These or other site-and project-specific features required of the project by the CCCFD wo=uld reduce potential lire hazards to a less-titan-significant level. Project implementation depends upon approvals and/or receipt of necessary permits required by agencies other than the County. Granting of such approvals and permits to build and operate the project would be contingent on compliance with the measures enumerated above. Therefore, implementation of these measures would reduce potential hazardous and hazardous materials'impacts to a less-than-significant level. Less Than Significant PotenVIII. HYDROLOGY AIND WATER QUALITY--Would the Significant with Less Thar, Significant Mitigation Significant project. Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact A. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?(5a,6,9e) B. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ® © 0 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 punned cases for which permits stave been granted)?(la,4a,5a,6) C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ® El �# or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a:Wanner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?(5a,6) D. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site?(2,5a) 25 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation impact No impact F. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the C1 01 L7 capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantia:additional sources of polluted runoff?(5a,6,9b) F. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?(lc) 0 0 0 G. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as l^ ® Q mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?(1 a,2,4b,5a,9b) H. Mace within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 0 Q would impede or redirect food flows?(l a,2,4b,5a,9b) I. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, lo; ® L7 injury,or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (I a) J. Inundation by seiche, tsunami,or mudflow?(la,4b) rJ C� SUMMARY: The laboratory building site is served by sanitary sewer facilities which connect with other existing wastewater collection facilities present on the hospital campus and extend to/from Alhambra Avenue via the main B Street entrance. Project plans indicate that all existing electrical and underground utilities would remain or be relocated with redevelopment of the site and that the laboratory building would be connected to all public facilities, including sewers. Regulated waste would be disposed of in accordance with the laboratories' and hospital's State- mandated hazardous materials' procedures, and, based on current practices, discharges of other materials would not require any precautions due to small and/or diluted quantities,thus not constituting a potential impact. The laboratory building 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. This is because the laboratory project would consolidate existing facilities located on the hospital campus and in downtown Martinez rather than create altogether new demands for groundwater or other sources of water. Moreover, project implernentation would :tot interfere with groundwater recharge. Borings drilled 22 to 37 feet deep for the project's geotechnical assessment encountered no groundwater at the laboratory building site at these shallow depths. Almost total coverage of the urbanized laboratory and parking lot site by buildings and pavement has inhibited potential infiltration of surface runoff to groundwater in the past,and this situation would not change in the future with construction of the project,thus resulting in no impacts to groundwater recharge,. No natural waterways are present on the site, and the nearest, Alhambra Creek, is located east of Alhambra Avenue from the site and hospital campus. The site currently is connected to existing storm drainage facilities which serve the entire hospital campus and discharge into Alhambra Creep via B Street. These facilities convey nearly 100 percent of surface water runoff originating on the site to the public storm drainage system and receiving waters due to existing coverage by impervious surfaces. While the proposed laboratory footprint and parking lot surface area would be somewhat larger than tine former "I" Ward, "7" Ward, and warehouse footprints, virtually the entire site was and would be covered buildings, paved parking, and other "hardscape". This means that project development would not alter existing site drainage patterns and would neither increase surface flows to creeks nor result in "post- development"erosion from surface flows. Moreover, surface water running off the project site would not discharge directly to any creek. For these reasons,the project would result in no impacts. 27 Project implementation would divert daily tips by 22 existing employees and additional taps by periodic visitors who presently travel to the I I I I Ward Street Public Health Laboratory and reroute them to the hospital campus and employee parking lots. In addition, some drivers who currently park off-site (such as in on-street spaces of the adjacent residential neighborhood) would be diverted to the project site's new parking spaces. The combination of these vehicular trips would increase buildup of typical automotive residues on paved streets and parking areas which would be carried in surface runoff to receiving waters downstream from the site. Pollutant loads would be greatest at the onset of winter rains when initial stories wash off oil and petroleum accumulated during the dry season. Landscape maintenance of replacement vegetation may also result in use of pesticides or herbicides on the site. Hese horticultural chemicals could enter surface flows when washed off the site in irrigation or stormwater. The hospital's ground crew currently inspects the parking lots daily, and maintenance personnel pick up debris and clean spilled auto pollutants to prevent th=ese materials from being washed into receiving waters, thus averting an impact on water quality. Land adjacent to Alhambra geek is located within the AO zone identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) as subject to shallow flooding of one to three feet in at,, 100-year flood event. The AQ zone extends west of Alhambra Avenue onto the lower elevations of the hospital campus and includes part of parking Lot 1 and existing non-project buildings but not the "replacement hospital", laboratory building site, or Dots 2 and 4. Ground elevations at the laboratory building site currently range from about 85 to 93 feet and, with project implementation, would be graded to a finished first floor elevation of 87 feet. "'hese elevations exceed those of the adjacent hospital which has a finished first floor elevation of 50 feet, outside the mapped area of the AO zone. Reconstruction of Lot i would even out the pavement and reduce (if not eliminate)seasonal ponding. Habitable building sites would neither be exposed to nor inhibit flood flows. The project site is not located downstream from or within the in=undation area of any dam. Thus, the project would not be subject to potential public safety risks or property damage from a catastrophic dam failure. According to The (,reconsolidated) General Plan, tsunami run-up from the Golden Gate decreases to none at the head of Carquinez Strait and would not affect the project site which is located more than one mile inland from the waterfront. Moreover, it is not located it the vicinity of a closed water body where a seiche could occur. While the site is located at the foot of steep a Hillside, the only nearby area of slope instability where downslope movement of materials could occur after prolonged rains or a seismic event is a mapped landslide farther south. Less Than. Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation. Significant Imo. LAND USE AND PLANNING--Would the project: Impact incorporation impact No Impact A. Physically divide an established community? (2,5a) C El 1:1 21 E. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or 0 0 p Q regulation or an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to,the general plan,specific pian,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?(la,21) C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 17 C C natural community conservation plan? (lc) SUMMARY: The hospital campus is located at the western edge of the urbanized area of the City of Martinez, contiguous to designated open space lands. Cather hospital facilities and the established residential and non- residential land uses in the vicinity are located east of and downhill from the site. As a result, project implementation would not physically divide an established comm=unity. The project site and surrounding hospital campus are designated PS-Public i Semi-Public in The (Reconsolidated) General Plan and H-Hospital in the Martinez General Plan and Central Martinez Specific Plan. The County's Public / 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 school, libraries, fire stations, and public offices without explicitly providing for public hospital and related facilities. The designation only excludes private residential and private 28 commercial uses and does not establish density or intensity limits. The prosect would continue and complement an established use for which the site and campus are designated. The Central Martinez Specific Flan contains the following County Government Policies relevant or partly relevant to the project: 30.341 The City and County should keep mutually informed about significant planning revisions and other proposed public actions which affect Martinez. 30.342 An agenda of current unresolved planning problems, including but not limited to parking, traffic circulation,and current County space requirements,should be developed and discussed by City and County staff for the purpose of arriving at mutually acceptable solutions. Other actions which may affect Martinez can be anticipated. 30.343 The County should be discouraged from encroaching further into developed residential neighborhoods and taking any action that threatens stability and value of privately-owned parcels. 30.345 Any future expansion County government shall respect the need to upgrade and consolidate uses within tate central business district through careful site selection of professional and office space. 30.346 Height, bulk, and uses of proposed governmental structures shall conform to the character of the community. The County Board of Supervisors ultimately determines the consistency of projects with adopted public plans and policies. Until the Board makes its formal determination,it appears that the proposed laboratory and parking project conforms with the site's 'and use designations and does not conflict with adopted policies, thus resulting in no impact. As noted in the discussion of Biological Resources (IV(F)), the project would not conflict with any local, regional, State, or Federal Habitat Conservation Plan, ''natural Community Conservation Plan or rather similar biological resource protection because of the absence of species of concern and 1 or sensitive habitat on or near the site, thus resulting in no impact. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant X. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact A. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral l C resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the State?( a) B. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important 0 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,or other land use plan?(la) SUMMARY: The (Reconsolidated) General flan identifies three mineral resources determined to be most important and currently minted 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, redevelopment of the site through project implementation would not result in the loss of known mineral resources of local or broader value and would result in no impact. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant XI. NOISE--Would the project result in: Impact Incorporation= Impact No Impact A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in Cl L7 � excess of standards established in the local general plan or 29 cess Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? ll ® 0 (la) B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 13 C groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?(4b, 5a) C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in 0 £ the project vicinity above existing levels without the project?(4b) D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient 0 noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project?(la,4b) E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 0 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) F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ® 1 the protect expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (la) SUMMARY: According to the Noise Element of The (Reconsolidated) General Plan, noise sources in the County include vehicular, rail, and air traffic and operation of industrial facilities. Of those, freeways and major arterial streets constitute the major source of vehicular traffic noise countywide, and noise generated by vehicular traffic is the predominant noise source in the vicinity of the project site, including in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Other noise sources are farther distant from the site. The Southern Pacific Railroad tracks which traverse downtown. Martinez are located more than one Crile from the site. Buchanan Field, the source of frequent complaints, is situated about four miles away in Concord, as noted in the discussion of Hazards and Hazardous Materials (VII(E)) and (VII(F)). Moreover,the site with is located at the interface of residential with non-residential development and of the urban area with designated open space is also distant from industrial noise sources. The Noise Element indicates that hospitals and nursing homes,among other uses, are"normally acceptable" in areas with community noise levels of 50 to 60 decibels (dB) and are "conditionally acceptable" where community noise levels do not exceed 70 dB, Background noise is not expected to exceed these levels, due to the site's location on a hospital campus, :tear a residential neighborhood, distant from the area's main arterial streets, and contiguous to undeveloped open space. Therefore, the laboratory project would not expose building occupants to noise levels incompatible with hospital land uses and would result in no impact on laboratory employees or visitors. Protect implementation would increase short-term ambient noise levels during construction, long-term on-site ambient noise levels attributable to operations and maintenance activities, and long-term offsite traffic noise levels compared with existing conditions, On-sit,- construction noise would be generated by earthmoving equipment during site preparation and grading and by use of construction machinery to erect the proposed steel frame laboratory building (such as riveting machines, impact wrenches, and pneumatic drills). Interior finishing and outdoor landscaping would generate lower noise levels. The building would be constructed on a conventional spread footing foundation necessitating no pile driving. Thus, no groundborne vibrations would be generated by that construction activity. Patients in "replacement hospital" rooms located immediately adjacent to the laboratory building and parking lot sites would be exposed to the loudest noise levels generated during construction. Approximately 40-50 patient beds 30 overlook the laboratory building site, the nearest of all proposed construction areas to this sensitive receptor. The elevated indoor noise levels resulting from construction could disturb sleep of those patients, a potentially significant impact, although the hospital was constructed with double-paned windows which could reduce indoor noise from levels normally encountered near construction. Construction noise levels would decrease with distance from the site. The nearest residential uses are apartments located on C Street and residential development on Allen Street and Soto Street. While construction activity may be audible indoors and outdoors at these off-site locations and may constitute a nuisance, the resulting noise levels would not be expected to interfere with speech or sleep, thus constituting less-than-significant noise impacts,except possibly for residents who sleep during the daytime. Operation of laboratory facilities would not produce periodic instantaneous noise events, thus constituting no impact. However,roof-mounted mechanical heating, ventilation, and cooling{HVAC}equipment would contribute to existing background noise levels. New HVAC equipment installed in an enclosed mechanical penthouse would be expected to generate lower noise volumes than older equipment formerly used onsite until March 1998 when the "I"Ward building was vacated. Reintroduction of this on-site noise source would not be expected to increase noise levels on the hospital campus or in offsite neighborhoods by the three decibels (3 dB) necessary to be audible or five decibels (5 dB) necessary to generate adverse community response, with or without the shielding effect of the proposed penthouse structure. Noise from project-generated traffic would result from the rerouting of 22 existing Public Health Laboratory employees from 11 Ill Ward Street to employee parking facilities provided for the hospital campus and may increase prevailing noise levels along local streets, primarily Alhambra Avenue. The volume of employee and incidental service or delivery trips trade on residential streets would not increase traffic noise levels the three decibels (3 dB) necessary to be audible or five decibels (5 dB) necessary to generate adverse community response, thus representing a less-than-significant impact. The County's contractor contracts require implementation of the following control measures to reduce temporary construction noise impacts primarily on occupants of the "replacement hospital", s Comply with all applicable state and local laws, ordinances, and regulations relative to noise control. Due to the close proximity of this work to an existing hospital providing critical care services, equipment to be employed on this site shall not produce a noise level exceeding the following limits in dBA at a distance of .tjty feet from the equipment under test. Earthmo!v tI Equipment lYtaterlas)s Ha ndlin E meat ` Front loader 79 Concrete Mixer rgackhoes 3 85 Concrete Pump $� j Dozers z 80 Crane8 --- ?rectors ; 8-088 88 i Scra ers 88 ? iin act Equipment Graders 85 ` Pile Drivers--Not Permitted Trucki 91 3 Jack Hammers 88 Paver 89 E Rock Drills 98 StadonLq Equipment Pneumatic Tools 86 Pumps 76 Other E u' meet Generators 78 Saws i 78 Com ressars 81 Vibrators 76 s This equipment shall not he operated before 8:O0 a.m.. or after 5:00 p.m. • 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. 31 ffi Idling diesel engines shall be turned off. Implementation of these measures would reduce the severity of short-term construction noise impacts to a less- tban-significant level. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING--Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No impact A, Induce substantial.population growth in an area,either C C l directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?(5a,5b,6) B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ® 0 121 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?0,5a,6) C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the C M Q construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(3,5a, 61) SUMMARY: The project would consolidate existing laboratory facilities currently operating at different locations within Martinez-- on the hospital campus itself and at I I I I Ward Street downtown --and would expand on-campus parking supply. The County would take over vacated space in the 11€1 Ward Street building, and the vacated "E" Ward building would be redeveloped at some time in the future for relocation of existing cafeteria and food service facilities. Project implementation would not change the combined number of employees, dbus not affecting population directly or indirectly. Construction of the previously developed site presently served by infrastructural facilities similarly would not induce or facilitate unplanned or premature population growth. No Dousing:snits exist on the project site, thus none would be displaced by the project. Mental health facilities previously housed in the former "I" Ward building were relocated to the "replacement hospital" in March 1998, thus no one would be displaced by f-he laboratory project. Likewise, no one would be displaced with parking lot construction and reconstruction. Buildings previously present on the sites of Lots 2 and 4 were vacant until removed in March €999. 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 Less Than physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of Significant which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order Potentially With Less Than to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other Significant ?.Mitigation significant performance objectives for any of the public services: impact Incorporation Impact No Impact A. Fire protection(9e) ® ® 0 0 B. Police protection?(9h) n 0 C. Schools?(9f) p ® Rl D� Parks?(I a, 2) C ® 0 0 E. Cather public facilities?(9b) G 0 0 0 SUMMARY: The Contra Costa County Fire District(CCCFL)provides fire protection service 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. As noted in the discussion of Hazards and Hazardous Materials (VII(H)), the laboratory is proposed as a "Class B" building and would be constructed with one-hour fire restive exterior walls, have sprinklers installed throughout, and be connected to public water supplies for both domestic use and firefighting. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) gives local jurisdictions responsibility to review Class B buildings before construction or occupancy. However,the CCCFL has not yet reviewed building plans or other aspects of the project(such as hazardous materials to be used at,stored on, or transported to or from the site) submitted in December €998 in order to verify compliance with the UBC, Uniform Fire Code (UFC), Title 19 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, and other relevant 32 regulations. The District will focus its review of the project after OSHPD completes its -review, underway as of March 1999, in order to avoid duplicating OSHPD. Nor has the District assessed the adequacy of site access, water supply and pressures, or location of hydrants and has not determined whether demands for fire protection services would change with consolidation of the existing laboratories at the proposed project. These issues represent potentially significant impacts until:mitigated to the satisfaction of the CCCI3D. The hospital campus and 1111 Ward Street Public Health Laboratory are located within the City of Martinez where the City's Police Department provides police protection, including street patrol, traffic control, and parking; enforcement. (County public security officers patrol the hospital campus and parking lots, but the Martinez Police Department is responsible for parking enforcement.) The diversion of 22 employee trips from downtown Martinez to the site would not be expected to change overall demands for off-site traffic control service substantially. Break- ins or thefts of employee automobiles and assaults on afternoon or night shift employees walking between their cars and laboratory would not be expected to pose any greater problems than currently experienced there or at similar facilities (such as the, Kaiser and Veterans' hospitals). The Department does not expect the ;project to cause a significant impact. The Martinez Unified School District operates public schools in the City, including Alhambra High School near the project site. The District's facilities are operating close to capacity, and the District has an open enrollment policy. This policy permits people who work in but do not reside in the District to enroll their children in local schools. Because project implementation would not increase employment of the respective laboratories, the number of students would not change either in Martinez Unified School District or in the school districts where these employees live. The District's primary concerns about the project relate to parking and the use of spaces in the Alhambra High School lot by hospital and laboratory employees, as assessed below in the discussion of Transportation and Traffic(XV). Firally, with no increase in employees (th=us residents), the project would not increase demands for public parkland. The project would reorganize and modernize existing public facilities. In none of these res_=, is would the project result in significant impacts. Construction of the laboratory building would be contingent upon approval by the CCCFD and incorporation. of the site- and project-specific measures identified by the District, in addition to those required by OSHPD, The building occupancy classification ultimately approved by 0SHPD would determine the CCCFD's authority and, thus, any remaining requirements to obtain the District's relevant approvals. Design„ construction, and operation of the laboratory project in compliance with the applicable building and occupancy requirements and the hazardous materials' use, storage, and transport regulations of the Contra Costa County .Fire District would reduce the project's impacts to a less-than-significant level. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant XIV, RECREATION Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact A. Would the project increase the use of existing n L EI neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?(la,2) E. Does the project include recreational facilities or require ® C the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?(1a,2) SUMMARY: As noted in the immediately preceding discussion of public services (VIII(A) through (E)), the project would not expand total employment of the combined Public Health Laboratory and Hospital Clinic Laboratory and, therefore, would not increase population-baseddemands for public services and facilities. Relocation of 22 employees would not be expected to redistribute recreational (arid other) activities appreciably. 33 Increased use would not be expected to accelerate use or exacerbate deterioration of existing City or County parks or recreational facilities or that new or expanded facilities would be required. Less Thai,. Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC--Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact A. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation 13 E1 0 0 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)?(9b) B. Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of 0 0 ® 0 service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (9b) C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either 1 1 13 0 wQ an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results n substantial safety risks?(la) U. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., 1 0 sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)?(9b) E. Result in inadequate emergency access?(9c) ® 0 0 El F. Result in inadequate parking capacity?(3,5a,6) ® El d Z G. Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs 0 supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?(!a) SUMMARY: Access to the project site is via Alhambra Avenue, Berrellesa Street, local residential streets, and on- site roadways. South of the hospital campus, Alhambra Avenue is a four-lane two-way arterial roadway to Highway 4 with two travel lanes in each direction and curbside parking. North of the main B Street entrance to the hospital campus, the couplet of northbound Alhambra Avenue and southbound Berrellesa Street provides one-way access to and from downtown Martinez. Both are two-lane streets with curbside parking. North of the hospital campus, Allen Street provides access to Street Four and the project site. Allen Street is a two-lane residential street with one travel lane in each direction and curbside parking on both sides. South of the hospital campus, C Street provides access to Street Five and the project site. C Street is a two-lane residential street with one travel lane in each direction and curbside parking on one side only. It also provides emergency ambulance access to the"replacement hospital". The intersections of Alhambra, Aller, B, Berrellesa, C, and Soto Streets (between Allen and B Street) are unsignalized with stop sign controls on the intersecting east-west streets. Turn pockets on northbound Alhambra Avenue at B (with a median island)and C Streets(without a median)facilitate left turns. Peak travel directions are northbound on Alhambra Avenue in the morning and southbound on Berrellesa Street in the afternoon. Traffic operations are smooth except for left-turn movements from Northbound Alhambra Avenue into the main B Street hospital entrance. At this location, the curve of Berrellesa Street makes it difficult to see oncoming southbound vehicles. A crosswalk is provided at the Alhambra Avenue/B Street intersection, although patients and employees who park east of Alhambra Avenue, including in the Teamsters' Union Hall lot, also cross at the unmarked Alhambra Avenue / C Street intersection. The City of Martinez plans to signalize the Alhambra Avenue/B Street intersection by the end of 1999. The planned signal is expected to be installed and operational by about October or November 1999. Parking currently is provided on the hospital campus for employees (175 spaces) and patients and visitors (155 spaces) and in off-campus "remote" lots for employees (194 spaces), Substantial additional spill-over parking by 34 employees, patients, and visitors also occurs on residential streets within an approximately six-block radius of the campus. Can- and off-campus parking is discussed further below and at length in a focused study attached to this Environmental Checklist as Appendix A. This study included one 14-hour weekday survey and follow-up spot checks on three other weekdays. It confirmed that hospital employee, patient, and visitor parking demands exceed the supply provided in on- and off-campus lots, as is widely recognized throughout the area. The existing shortfall may be as large as approximately 290 spaces, based on the survey of on-street hospital parking in the surrounding neighborhood. To address this present demand, the proposed project would expand the on-campus parking supply by 68 spaces,including the four spaces proposed on the new laboratory building site. The project would not increase traffic on the existing street network citywide, although relocation of the Public Health Laboratory from downtown Martinez to the hospital campus would change employee trip patterns somewhat from present patterns. Project implementation at the proposed site would divert to the hospital campus some existing traffic already on the road and reduce trips to the congested downtown by an equivalent amount. Depending on where trips originate, rerouting may increase the total number of vehicles using Alhambra Avenue to access on- or off-campus employee parking lots where most trips would terminate. (Some additional trips by service vehicles would be made directly to the laboratory site.) The number of rerouted trips attributable to the laboratory project would be 22 inbound morning and 22 outbound afternoon trips per day Trade by Public Health Laboratory employees, all of whom under the "worst case" are assumed to drive to work and to do so alone. Some existing drivers also would diverted to new on-site parking from on-street spaces in the adjacent residential neighborhood, although they represent vehicles already on the road. All 22 AM and 22 PM Public Health Laboratory employee trips would coincide with peak traffic periods, as would all other trips already made to the hospital campus by day shift Hospital Clinical Laboratory employees who would relocate to the new laboratory building. Assuming one morning and one afternoon trip per employee per day, these later employees who presently work in "E" Ward generate 40 inbound AM and 40 outbound PM trips. In view of uncongested free-flowing conditions on Alhambra Avenue, the additional rerouted trips would ne=ither be considerable nor result in significant level of service impacts under existing or future cumulative conditions. Thus, the project would represent no impact,even if all relocated employees park in existing and proposed hospital campus lots(rather than the Alhambra High School or 'Teamsters' Union Hall lots) thereby increasing left-turns at the main I3 Street entrance. This is because the intersection will be signalized by October or November 1999, before the project is completed and occupied(about 1.5 years from the date construction commences). Neither the Hospital Clinical Laboratory nor Public Health Laboratory would affect hospital patient or visitor parking demand on- or off-campus. Relocation of the existing on-campus Hospital Clinical Laboratory from "E" Ward to the consolidated project would not change employee parking demands in on-or off-campus lots. However, relocation of the Public Health Laboratory's 22 employees would require 23 parking spaces, as follows: • One (1) designated (reserved) space for the laboratory director who travels to and from the site for meetings during the day. ® Three(3)designated handicap spaces for three handicapped laboratory employees. ® Eighteen(18)spaces for non-handicapped laboratory employees. • One(1)designated space for the laboratory's specimen transport van. Project implementation would remove six existing spaces at the laboratory building site and provide 68 new spaces. The proposed expanded parking supply would more than accommodate the new 23-space demand. Therefore, the project would result in an incrementally beneficial impact on the hospital's unmet parking needs, thus a less-than- significant impact. The project makes no prov=isions for alternate forms of transportation. However, the project would not affect air traffic and would not alter the design of existing streets or intersections, thus causing no impact. Although it would not affect emergency access to the"replacement hospital"via C Street and Street Five, the CCCFD has not reviewed the project yet to determine accessibility to the project itself in the event of an emergency (such as an accident involving hazardous materials). This represents a potentially significant impact (addressed in the impact and mitigation discussion of Fire Protection(XIII(A)). 35 The 23-space parking demand of the laboratory project would be averted by completion of the parking supply expansion concurrently proposed and scheduled for completion by August or September 1999. With implementation of this aspect of the project before completion and occupancy of the laboratory, no additional mitigation would be required. Lms Than Significant Potentially With Uss Than Significant Mitigation Significant XVI,UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS--Would the project: impact Incorporat=ion Linpact No Impact A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 0 ® C 0 applicable Regional Nater Quality Control Board?(9a) B. Require or result in the construction of new water or 0 ri 21 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?(9a,9b) C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water 0 ® # drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?(9b) D. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 0 0 G 0 project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?(9b) E. Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment ® 0 C 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?(9a) E. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity 0 0 Q 9. to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (9e, 5g) C. Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and 11 Cl 0 C regulations related to solid waste?(9e,9g) SUMMARY: The site and :hospital campus are located within the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and currently are served by the District's wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Sewage mains are located in Alhambra Avenue and flow north by gravity to downtown Martinez. From there,flows are pumped to the District's wastewater treatment plant located near the I-bgtl / Highway 4 interchange. Mains in Alhambra Avenue are relatively new with adequate capacity to accommodate combined project flows. (Some mains elsewhere in Martinez are 103 years old.) The wastewater treatment plant has a design capacity of 45 trillion 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 proposed laboratory despite infiltration, and the project would have tto impact on the District, its facilities, or wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The site and hospital campus are located in the water service area of the City of Martinez and are connected to existing water distribution facilities. The City purchases water supply from the Contra Costa County Water District (which serves the part of the Martinez outside the City's service area). Existing facilities are adequate to provide sufficient water for the proposed laboratory and to satisfy other demands of the hospital campus. The laboratory would not generate new water demand and would result in no impact. The project would not require construction of new or expansion of existing water or wastewater treatment facilities,thus representing no impact. The project site and hospital campus are connected to the City's existing stormwater drainage facilities installed in B Street which discharge into Alhambra Creek east of Alhambra Avenue. Storm drain capacity is adequate to 36 accommodate surface water flaws originating from the site, and project implementation would not alter the amount of runoff or tinning of peak flows, due to virtually identical existing and future coverage by impervious surfaces. Because the project would not increase runoff,there would be no impact. "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 Keller Canyon or Solano County for disposal. The Keller Canyon landfill facility is located near Bay Point in Contra Costa County and has adequate future capacity without immediate constraints. The County has developed a solid waste program for the Merrithew Memorial Hospital. The program focuses on source reduction and recycling of non-contaminated waste, including reducing use of disposal medical supplies and replacing them with reusable materials (such as diapers). While consolidation of the two existing laboratories with project implementation would not expand solid waste generation and disposal requirements of conventional or medical materials,operation of the project could initiate the waste reduction program planned to be instituted on the hospital campus as a whole. Otherwise, the programs eventually would apply to the project when implemented.elsewhere on the hospital campus. in addition to unregulated solid waste, the Environmental Health Department oversees State-mandated medical waste programs in Contra Costa County. Counties have the option to implement these programs locally or can have the State carry them out. Laboratory operations involve use and storage of potentially toxic, infectious, and hazardous materials which require disposal in landfills designed to accept classified wastes and operated to prevent soil or groundwater contamination. The Environmental Health Department issues permits for disposal of such regulated wastes. The Public Health Laboratory :has accumulated a variety of unused materials which the Environmental Health Department has agreed to dispose of when the laboratory relocates to the project. For these reasons, the project would have no impact on disposal of regulated or unregulated waste, landfill capacity, and applicable plans related to solid waste. Less Than Significant PotentiaL'y With Less Than Significant Nfitigation Significant XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE impact Incorporation impact No Impact A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ® 21 0 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? B. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, 0 J 0 but cumulatively considerable? ("Curnulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? C. Does the project have the environmental effects which will 0 ® 0 cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? SUMMARY: The project would not degrade the quality of the environment by affecting biotic or cultural resources adversely. The project site is completely urbanized and surrounded by development (although near grasslands designated as open space). The site neither currently provides habitat for nor when redeveloped would support any plant or animal populations other than species adapted to built environments. The former"I"Ward, "J"Ward, and warehouse buildings previously developed on the site were removed in March 1999, and project implementation would affect no known examples of California history or prehistory on the site. Mitigation incorporated into the project would reduce the potential significance of impacts on unrecorded cultural materials revealed during project implementation. 37 TI,e project would contribute incrementally to existing cumulative erosion conditions. Site grading to implement the project would expose site soils to short-term wind or water erosion impacts until paved or landscaped. Both potentially significant impacts could be mitigated successfully for the project alone or in combination with cumulative development. Thus, project would avert contributing incrementally to cumulative impacts and would not result in effects deemed"considerable"after mitigation. Project implementation would cause a number of adverse short- and 1 or long-term impacts on people. Without mitigation, impacts include short-term increaser) in noise and the long-term potential for exposure to toxic or hazardous materials. However,those project effects could be successfully mitigated to less-than-significant levels. • Standard noise mitigation during construction would restrict the times when noise generating activities would be permitted, reduce some noise sources, and provide recourse for addressing noise, complaints. While mitigation would not eliminate the impacts altogether, the resulting noise impacts would be temporary and would not be deemed"substantial". $ Accidental emission, release, or spills of potentially toxic or hazardous materials which could harm people or the environment would be mitigated through a series of required project design reviews,permit approvals, and inspections by a number of public agencies other than the County. The County cannot proceed to build and operate the project without first obtaining the specific approvals and permits described in the air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and fire discussions (III, VII, XIII, and XVI). Granting of the necessary approvals and permits would be contingent upon the project's full compliance with the agencies' respective requirements. ® Discovery of historic or prehistoric remains during site excavations, especially if human burials are uncovered, would affect humans. This potential impact could be mitigated if required through consultation with the individual designated by the Native American Heritage Commission as the most likely descendant. Therefore, implementation of the measures identified in this Environmental Checklist and incorporated into the project by the County would reduce potential direct or indirect impacts on people to less-than-significant levels. Appendix A Environmental Checklist Form PARKING STUDY FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY/CLINICAL LABORATORY PROJECT MERRITHEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 1. Introduction This report has been prepared by Crane Transportation Group (CTG) to address the parking issues associated with consolidation and relocation of Contra Costa County medical laboratory facilities in Martinez, California to a site on Street Four of the Merrithew Memorial Hospital campus,adjacent to the west side of the.recently rebuilt"replacement hospital". The proposed project would consolidate the hospital's existing(on-campus)Clinical Laboratory,Pathology Laboratory,and Morgue into one new laboratory building and relocate the Public Health Laboratory(presently situated in downtown Martinez)to the new laboratory building. There would be no change in parking demand on the hospital campus associated with the on-site move of the hospital's Clinical and Pathology Labs and Morgue. The relocated Public Health Laboratory would increase the employee parking demand on the hospital campus but would not be expected to result in any additional visitor or patient trips to the hospital campus. Thus,this parking study focuses on existing and near-future employee parking supply and demand. 2. Setting A. Roadways Merrithew Memorial Hospital fronts Alhambra Avenue and Berrellesa Street. The main entrance to the hospital campus is at the Alhambra Avenue/B Street intersection. West of Alhambra Avenue and Berrellesa Street,B Street,C Street, Allen Street,and Soto Street are two-lane east-west roadways providing access to various parts of the hospital campus. Ilene,Brown,Wano,Flora,Arch, and Castro Streets are two-lane roadways located north,south,and east of the hospital campus where weekday spill-over hospital parking occurs(see Exhibit A-1 Land uses surrounding the hospital include office, single- and multi-unit residential, and residential care facilities. Alhambra High School is situated along the hillside south of the hospital campus amid residential land uses. L Alhambra Avenue is a four-lane north-south arterial street providing access from the Highway 4 freeway north into Martinez. In the vicinity of the hospital,Alhambra Avenue changes to northbound one-way flow on two travel lanes, becoming a one-way couplet with Berrellesa Street(a two-lane street)carrying southbound traffic. 2. B Street is the main hospital entrance. It extends west from Alhambra Avenue into the hospital campus and east from Alhambra Avenue for one block to a dead end. On the hospital campus,B Street ends at a circle driveway at the main hospital entrance. The circle is designated for patient pick-up 1 drop-off,loading,and handicap parking. Four driveways intersect B Street on the hospital campus: two branch north to the Lower (Main} Lot and Physicians` Lot, and two branch south to driveways to the Specialty Clinics adjacent to Alhambra Avenue and a small parking lot behind the Specialty Clinics. 3. C"Street extends abort three blocks west and one block east of Alhambra Avenue and borders the south side of the hospital campus. This two-lane street provides one of two accesses to the hospital Emergency Entrance on the northwest side of the hospital campus,as well as to parking lots on the west side(upper elevations)of the campus. Several former Douses located on C Street are used by the hospital for administrative functions. 4. Allem Street is a two-lane street extending four blocks east and west of Alhambra Avenue. It is the north access to the hospital Emergency Entrance and parking lots on the upper elevations of the campus. Aller,Street also serves buildings which are not hospital facilities(20 Allen Street Health Services Administration,Alhambra Convalescent Hospital, and residences). 5. Soto Street is a two-lane street extending two blocks west and three blocks east of Alhambra Avenue. It connects to the north side of the hospital's Lower(Mair.)Lot and serves single-family residences located or, the north side of the street. A-1 NW TO 50,011 On-Campus Parking Areas Lower(Main) Lot .►'' %o "P Physicians Lot ► ,.' #� ��`�� ,�'`� Chid Emergency Lot � ,► .►s�a� Wr � Emergency Lot ' ,► a0 $ = Upper(Fuck) Lot �yot.+ 1+► '' -�� ®' Rehab Therapy Lot �'' '' �� 4#' o� . Front Driveway Street Q`1 3: A jt 0 _ Circle/Hospital Entrance Ilene St y Bertola St Arch St F St ER Flare St �g � ��•� S. "#3 vim` �r.r,.., _ Weno St C j ./7s St TEAMSTERS UNION HALL N Off Campus (Remota) Parking Lots Rr =Alhambra High ~School Parking Lot A HIGH SRA "" � =Teamsters Parking Lot SCHOOL r �s .....r.~i.�rr��rr'r.'r�rnr' tit i*ser Street Segments Affected by County Hospital Parking remand = Street Segments Not Affected by County Hospital Parking Demand Exhibit A-1 Hospital Campus Parking Areas and Remote Parking Lots �* Source:Crane Transportation Group Noah b. Other Hospital Campus Roadways Streets"Four"and"Five"border the west(back)side of the hospital campus. They provide access to hospital Loading Dock B and several parking areas(listed in order from south to north): Rehabilitation and Therapy(Ward F),Ambulance,Upper(Back)Lot,Maintenance,and Emergency(northwest side of the campus)(see Exhibit A-2). B. Parking Supply Five lots on the hospital campus provide for employee and patient parking,two off-campus(remote)lots have spaces reserved for hospital employees, and spillover hospital parking occurs on the network of streets north and east of the hospital(see Exhibits A-1 and A-2). Exhibit A-3 lists parking lots on the hospital campus,Exhibit A-4 lists remote lots with parking reserved for hospital employees,and Exhibit A-5 lists on-street parking north and east of the hospital. i. Hospital Campus Parking a) Employee Parking. One hundred seventy-five(175)parking spaces are designated(reserved.)for employees on the hospital campus: Lower(Main)Lot(employee portion) 140 Physicians' .Lot 43 Upper(Back)Lot(including 2 shop spaces) 18 Rehab/Therapy Lot 4 C Street Administrative Lot(spaces in driveways of houses used for hospital administration) 10 Total 175 b) Patient/Visitor Parking. One hundred fifty-five(155)parking spaces are designated(reserved)for patient /visitor use only: Lower(Main)Lot(patient portion) 101 Emergency Lot(ail-minute limit) 8 Upper(Back)Lot 9 .Rehab/Therapy Lot 14 Specialty Clinics Driveway 9 B Street Hospital Entrance 8 Circle-Hospital Entrance b Total 155 c) "Other" parking spaces. Hospital campus parking also includes unreserved spaces for employee and/or patient use and reserved spaces for County delivery,sheriff,or police: Old Emergency Lot(9 unreserved, and 2 reserved for County vehicles) 11 Emergency Lot(2 reserved for sheriff/police,and 2 reserved for County vehicles) 4 Total 15 d) Unauthorized Parking and Private Parking by Special Arrangement, Vehicles were observed to be parked illegally(at curbside where parking is prohibited or along the perimeter of striped parking areas)in locations such as the Upper(Back)Lot,in the Lower(Main)Lot driveway,and behind the Shop Building(Upper Lot). Some employees report preferring to arrange to pay for private off-street parking at residences located near the hospital campus rather than use the remote lots or more distant on-street parking. 2. Remote Parking Lots One hundred ninety-four(194)parking spaces are reserved for hospital employees in remote (off-campus', 'lots. The remote parking lots are located at Alhambra High School(where 119 spaces are reserved for Merrithew Hospital employees)and at the Teamsters' Union Hall (where 75 spaces are reserved for hospital employees). Alhambra High School is located just south of the hospital campus. Hospital employees walk from the high school parking lot through a gate to Marion Terrace (a residential street) and across to C Street to the A-3 I"To Male On-Campus Parking Areas Lower(Main) Lot Rehab Therapy Lot Physicians Lot = Front Driveway a Old Emergency Lot $ :B Street Entrance 0 = Emergency Lot =Circle/Hospital Entrance w Upper(Back) Lot ' Q =C Street Administrative Houses Vr Lj I rx, }} . MM. 8 i i7tt tliStab MIA ttsaw nin S t "Ste db MIM AC U4 Ktat;wer } Am r p �. S$410fjR9t ,3 1 �PIC 101 ,., . } lift 1 i Exhibit A-2 Hospital Campus Parking Areas Source:Crane Transport:stion Group North '6 i ; ' t;6 at 1 ;s`Z d � cVT t S 00 14 it it c c 3 z it ss r'• °� iL-i i r"e c ? y 3 y 14 CS i i In z« sit it u5 m t t ?d S? ? �6ii t V4 cz 0-4 cd lbs i m C� � � E d •i o� i � cb w.. at ' i t o 'a i ' C6 CAI? W 4 - - �' Vi ?� ri'icn <tE;v's qtr'- oc7s� Wi � ' S.S7 ht t S s 6� .�i� mak' �;'� y'1 i k•S t s �� E i k •; 'SS i •�^' y 4 t ,k 'k •k i C, a:CA "'kkSN tom`; ,t o 's ;t �S� �� ,� ki•t 'S , ttt k • ee k� ,S � � ° •'it r3 t7+�k� izrr vz'S� ,S,S i' '�� ',may ,,t .t 1 � t '•; ,';v�' � r-• `6 �S; � � ;it i {c?,�i e�tk�'•; i t � �eC ki � � k � 'k :t i •i' t• ',k ei � �t 't � S• '� GiJ , ®•tk y O ,S! ,•: � cS u w•�r�i,� yi� �,';Gs ,�?, � �SS �„ d �; rrs hospital campus. The Teamsters' Union Hail is located m the southeast quadrant of the Alhambra Avenue/C Street intersection. Hospital employees cress Alhambra Avenue at C Street to enter the hospital campus. 3. On-Street Parking North, South, and East of the Hospital Preliminary parking surveys conducted by CTG on the hospital campus and surrounding streets revealed that,on weekday mornings when hospital on-campus patient and employee parking is at capacity (full)and when remote lot employee parking is near capacity, there is extensive spill-over patient and employee parking on streets north and east of the hospital campus. Thus, in addition to surveying hospital campus parking lots and off-campus employee parking lots,on-street parking was surveyed as far as a six-block radius north and northeast of the hospital(the area observed to be impacted by hospital parking spill-over). Areas north and east of the hospital are served by a network of two-lane streets(see.ExhibitA-1). Streets observed to be impacted by hospital parking-include Alhambra Avenue,Berrellesa Street,B Street,C Street,and Allen,Soto, Ilene,Brown,Wano,Flora,Arch,and Castro Streets. Most allow on-street parking on both sides of the street with no time restrictions. Four streets or street segments near the hospital have two-hour panting limits: Alhambra Avenue between Berrellesa and D Street. Wano Street east of Alhambra Avenue to end of the street. Flora Street east of Alhambra Avenue to end of the street. Arch Street east of Alhambra Avenge to end of the street. South of the hospital, between and including C Street and Alhambra High School, there are parking restrictions along C Street,Geneva Street,and Marion Terrace(presumably due to the high school parking spill-over), Portions of C Street bordering the south side of the hospital campus and Geneva Street are restricted to neighborhood residents with on-street parking permits. No on-street parking is allowed along Marion Terrace, Exhibit A-I shows street segments observed to be affected by hospital parking spillover on Tuesday,March 16 and Wednesday,:March 17, 1999. C. Planned Improvements:Parking Lots,Evening Shuttle Service to 1 from Remote Lots,and Parking Planning Committee 1. Planned Parking Sixty-eight(68)parking spaces are planned for near-term construction on the hospital campus. Four (4) net new spaces would be provided in the re-striped Upper (Back) Lot adjacent to the new laboratory building. A 38-space lot is planned to be located adjacent to(and just west of)the Physicians' Lot,replacing"J" Ward,and a 26-space lot is planned to be located near Emergency barking,replacing an existing warehouse located uphill from"M"Ward(Family Practice). The new spaces have not yet been allocated to specific uses (that is to employee,patient, or other use). 2. Shuttle Service to/from Remote Lots Employees arriving for the afternoon(3:30 PM)or evening(11:30 PM)shifts report some reluctance to park in the High School lot,since this location requires walking at bight between the high school and hospital campuses. This same concern has been expressed about parking in the Teamsters' Union Hall lot at night. To address these'concerns,the hospital plans to begin providing shuttle service to both remote lots in Spring 1999. 3. Parking Planning Committee A hospital parking committee was scheduled to begin meeting on March 23, 1999 to further address hospital parking needs. D. Observed Parking Demand To determine the existing parking demand for the hospital, CTG interviewed Merrithew Memorial Hospital adrunistrative staff about peak activity days at the hospital,existing parking supply and use,and anticipated near future parking demand. hospital representatives state that maximum parking occurs o weekday mornings when staffing levels are highest to meet peak patient demand. Although activities at the hospital are generally the same every day of the week, A-7 activities at the hospital are generally the same every day of the week,Tuesdays are maximum activity days for the hospital clinics. r No special seminars,classes,or other activities are routinely held at the hospital which either result in unusual parking increases or, for the survey week, account for anomalous decreases in parking demand. Hospital offices and clinics operate on an 8:00AM to 5:00 PM weekday schedule. Physicians and nurses maintain three shifts which start at 7:30 AM,3:30 PM,and 11:30 P.M. Emergency services operate 24-hours,weekdays and weekends. On Tuesday,March 16, 1999,CTG conducted a 14-hour survey of hospital parking(6:00 AM to 8:00 PM)to record parking demand on-campus, in remote lots,and on-street. Exhibits A-3 through S provide survey results for six time periods on the 14-hour survey day. The peak parking demand was found to occur by 9:00 AM. At this time,on-campus employee and patient parking lots were full(Exhibit A-3),off-campus(remote)lots were near capacity(Exhibit A-4), and on-street parking was at a maximum for the day(Exhibit A-5).Survey results were field checked on several other weekdays at various times of day between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM. Parking counts on a Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday confirmed the Tuesday survey results -- the on-campus employee and patient parking demand exceeds the campus and remote lot parking supply. E. Existing Parking Shortfall Surveys revealed that hospital employee parking is inadequate to meet existing demand. This also is true of patient/ visitor parking. The addition of 68 new parking spaces planned on the campus will offset some of the existing shortage but will only partly address the major weekday parking shortfall at the hospital. CTG observations on parking survey days indicate that,on weekday mornings when on-campus parking is at capacity,the total amount of spill-over parking by employees and patients extends about six blocks north and east of the hospital(the area within which individuals were observed walking to and from on-street parking and the hospital). The 9:00 AM total on-street parking count on Tuesday within the area of observed impact attributable to the hospital was 289 cars(see Table 3). It is not known how much of this on-street parking is actually due hospital employee, visitor, and patient demand. However, the area of on-street parking impact is extensive and could encompass 200 or more spaces. Definitive numbers would require interview surveys of patients,visitors, and employees for the entire hospital. 3, Impacts A. Proposed Project The laboratory building site is located on"Street Four"of the Merrithew Memorial Hospital campus,adjacent to the west side of the recently built"replacement hospital". The laboratory building would consolidate the hospital's existing(on- campus) Clinical Laboratory, Pathology Laboratory, and Morgue into one new laboratory building and relocate the Public Health Laboratory(presently situated in downtown Martinez)to the new laboratory building. There would be no change in parking demand on the hospital campus associated with the on-site move of the Hospital Clinical and Pathology Labs and Morgue. The relocated Public Health Laboratory would not transfer visitor or patient trips to Merrithew Hospital but would increase the employee parking demand on the hospital campus. The relocated Public Health Laboratory would perform the same services and maintain:the same hours as the existing Public Health Laboratory. It would have 22 employees (the same as the existing number of emiployees) and would operate 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday. This facility's existing parking requirements consist of a designated parking space near the building for the iaboratory director who is required to leave and return from meetings throughout the day,a space for the laboratory's specimen transport van,three handicap parking spaces for handicapped lab employees,and 18 spaces for non-handicapped employees. These special requirements are based upon existing lab employees and lab functions which are not projected to change with the relocation. The projected total parking requirement for the relocated lab is 23 spaces,allowing one space per employee,plus a space for the specimen transport van, The lab director states that the transport van must be able to unload at the laboratory but does not have to be parked adjacent to the laboratory.L Conversations with Chris Grazzini,Administrator,and Betty Frith,Materials Manager(and fo_*mer Acting Facilities Manager), Merrithew Memorial Hospital,March 12 and 19, 1999. 2 Conversation with Rick Alexander,Director,Public Health Laboratory,March id, 1999. A-8 As part of the proposed the new laboratory project, the following parking supply improvements are proposed which, when irnplerr�ented,would result in a net increase of 68 new parking spaces on the hospital campus: 6 'I"ne tipper(Back)Parking Lot would be re-striped, adding:tour new parking spaces to the total'hospital campus parking supply. ® Thirty-eight(38)new"Emergency trot"spaces are proposed at the intersection of Allen Street and "Street Four„ (the former site of a demolished warehouse building)(Lot 4). I wenty-six(26)new spaces are proposed to expand the"Physicians'Lot"located off the*Hain"B"Street hospital campus entrance(the former site of the demolished"J"Ward building)(Lot 2). Another six to eight(6-8)additional spaces may be created in the existing Lower(Main)Lot when rebuilt,as proposed by the project. The new spaces have not yet been allocated to specific uses(that is, for employee,patient,or other use). B. Project Impacts Project implementation would add 68 new parking spaces(as yet undesignated and unreserved)to the hospital campus planned to be complete by August or September 1999. relocating the Public Health Laboratory from downtown Martinez to the new laboratory building would increase the existing weekday hospital employee parking shortfall by 23 parking spaces. Creation of the proposed 68 new spaces would provide for the parking demands of the laboratory project and , in addition, would increase the hospital's total on-campus parking supply. No additional measures would be required to address the parking needs of the proposed laboratory. 4. Mitigation Measures Although no mitigation would be required for the proposed project, it is recommended that the hospital perform comprehensive parking surveys in order for the newly-formed parking committee to plan effectively. Surveys should be conducted of all hospital employees to determine travel mode to and from work and their usual hospital parking locations . This would aid in a determination of the existing employee parking shortfall. Similar surveys should be conducted of patient and visitor travel mode and parking locations. Results of the two surveys would define the extent of the parking shortfall at the hospital and allow for future planning. A-9 1 ,!F+ � � tg7"� Pe L� ,`"'n.�" ver 'Ci �'"C ^' yH•d• C i•,1 S'w �. t C'a rc r�3 MAI— eL 91 lk gra • ' ' Sy � � u.+ A tr.Og � �, v. .^3• Ai tKi D"� b mt,� tC � ��;Ci .�.• -47 C9 fa .� f9�{ Cj '� v'''� 6 N '� 1'i CY _❑ � y� pt !"' � .q t? i � � ��.�� .�,� •i � L®. �, � o.� �+�� °.�.� �' cmc ` 'r�.-•-z oo c y u EE e s i OR s ° at p dry, �• � a; z� ty fia $_ !J�a y? E to K "a��q ^ R � �i•9 � � �• k !S G� VV'S s�r� • aqitt `14 it to `i t37 t� S i e i ;i KY O . k9 D7 4.5 Y6 �pryypy rU5 so ds c c Cl.rg- i gL �,a� S� rn •, i 'm � � co in� ' rni3 � ro v ° ^csYn .,wn � � a i �, � �. ' �Ks � o cs � ;w �.� � �. � � rn•cs epi � �. ; tb ro `{ E o � � ca rn a �.``• i=a.a:� �o' •' i I gat rn � fl �,.�; m a �` � ��•` �. is � iso ° � � y c�� ; � �'�" w � �C � �. • w cm d d ro rn C� es w N _ c A N S • .moi S moo'° cro CD Ir iD 'rN •^ i Vis, - t i � roro �i 'CI C) b nb Q .d° i Cq ggyy45 e�qy P9 � Ci e4 2"• �p � � �!�7 ':� ' i c m Sl ioj n = o a n c Vi r6 "roS t�ya ro cn ,.� �, � H � b•v rc � n• �,.�b � a e s s EitaA a S. a r ca a m a a a rn� acs jou zr, r � h' . �.'3• Gr°ao i 5. f a403x ro � roK, W i s ra a as a 4 i s o ,° ° b tin 15 ar p 0 b C" ... co i G GL b H A i `C b CL _ 3 i � 4 � �.� �•o a �' � � w i m 4z OZ i O q tl�5 ro W 1 !b 4 � , i �, per ��r�, t4,a.•,a. � °:gat 0 to `yy eo ppm G R 16 a � c..i I •i !,S•7; as.• t t g. .1t.,h�.•„ i ��,��,•a ��." �,a�•tw� -� � o �m � � �' 3 i,s .i coo ° S's �y7CrCy It 3 �, %�. 3r3,, t 1 y (s � "'� as �• � �� .,�f? � ,�.re � �;�• ?�;E , How 0, .RE Oyu m ISE ; •.e "� sx`� a m er a ro y y 'F E�. �•i ra �'- `�,'� 4 0.'Em c a.� n ars .. n�7 N y g e r ! za t� A•�O. tm sl vk a a s a o o.+ cc s 'r ry as v-� �# ^'� � � cu � �' �» •• r� a At „C 3 � ,"�„ �# �, .moo �, � � _ ' i � '•,,,,`�S d E - .n'' w o ' '' :X ' , ° `' `° fro •s, t; ','�c it 1 n fl C ca o ss s o sE It �' n a O � � •i tE b Af. It r � N y.r ca w 's 4 E ! t t, it i s _ - I n �`.A _ to •�t G.X.�;` ✓�.�'��p,.".t Cy�y y`r�,,� qp�,�• �f, :�t �51 O ;of t ti Fds 'zat�oO, gg�ya. 'rj ii'j• ? y " n .:w�+t i'j ' 5�1 ` •'t ,"is i G ii C Cw Cy i`Y '`Y' 4r's„ b 'A,`� ,.✓ p co dt t ��✓';,y�'U��.�w jp, � �� "Cam+ �.,�y��~'�• K�Svps�Cd��ci� 1'��iS� i, sr^'`', �. � yrs �iK�3"S� ty � �..��y�•�c°,�, �� O !�� ' � '� �G � .a � Y4� Og `. Gee� • �?F�� ry � .S O t4 too �+q 26 �"!+ At OM ta�.� �` ✓"� Q � �, LV �� 'y1 '� R � �y "Y°n� � ,`i TA It i �a i � o rpt �Fn � ,i 1 9•� � t� ",'• ra t t y t ✓,