HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03272001 - C.3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: MAURICE M. SHIU, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: March 27, 2001
SUBJECT: APPROVE the State Route 4 East Widening from Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road
Project, and ADOPT the joint Mitigated Negative Declaration/Finding of No Significant
Impact in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; Pittsburg Area. (State
Clearing House #2000112007, 26% Measures C, 10% Federal Demolition Funds, 28 %
State Transportation Improvement Program, 28% Transportation Congestion Relief
Program, 6% Interregional Transportation improvement Program, and 2% East Contra
Costa Fee and Finance Authority) Project No. 4660-6X4287, WO #4287.
Specific Requests or Recommendations & Background & Justification
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPROVE the State Route 4 (SR4) East Widening from Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road
Project, and
FIND, on the basis of the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment and all comments received, that
there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment,
and
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Finding of No Significant Impact in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act, (the custodian of which is the Public Works Director who
is located at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez) and
Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE.
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON March 27 , 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct
copy of an action taken and entered on the
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) date shown.
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
LC:lap ATTESTED: March 27 , 2001
G:\GrpData\EngSvc\ENVIRO\ JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk of the Board of
2001 projects\State Route 4\BO.doc Supervisors and County Administrator
Orig.Div: Public Works(Eng Sery Division)
Contact: Cece Sellgren, Phone(925)313-2296
cc: County Administrator
Attn: E. Kuevor By
Auditor-Controller '
Community Development—K. Piona Deput
PW Accounting
Real Property (K. Laws)
Environmental (C. Sellgren)
SUBJECT: Approve the State Route 4 East Widening from Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road Project;
Pittsburg Area; SCH# 2000112007
DATE: March 27, 2001
PAGE: 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION (continued):
DIRECT the Director of Community Development to file a Notice of Determination, and
DIRECT the Public Works Director to arrange for the $1,250 Fish and Game filing fee to be
transferred to the County Clerk, and
AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of a $25 fee to Community
Development for processing, and a $25 fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of
Determination.
II. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The estimated project cost is $88 million funded by 26% Measure C Funds, 10% Federal
Demolition Funds, 28% State Transportation Improvement Program, 28% Transportation
Congestion Relief Program, 6% Interregional Transportation Improvement Program, 2% East
Contra Costa Regional Fee and Finance Authority.
III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
The project proposes to widen SR4 to accommodate an additional mixed-flow lane and one HOV
lane in each direction.
It is needed in order improve traffic conditions within the 3.6 kilometer (2.2 mile) long SR4 corridor
from Railroad Avenue to just west of Loveridge Road.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration/Finding of No Significant Impact pertaining to this project was
published on 1/23/01. The Board has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Finding of
No Significant Impact together with all comments received during the public review period.
IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Delay in approving the project will prevent property acquisition and result in a delay of project.
construction.
h
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
651 PINE STREET 4TH FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0095
Telephone: (925)313-2296 Contact Person: Cece Sellgren, Environmental Planner
Project Description,Common Name(if any)and Location: State Route 4 East Widening Project from Railroad Avenue
to Loveridge Road, SCH # 2000112007. The CCTA, in conjunction with Caltrans and the FHWA through a master
cooperative agreement, proposes to improve traffic conditions within the 3.6 kilometer(2.2 mile) long State Route 4 corridor
from Railroad Avenue to just west of Loveridge Road by widening SR4 to accommodate an additional mixed-flow lane and one
HOV lane in each direction. The improved corridor will connect to the existing eight-lane freeway system comprising three
mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction west of Railroad Avenue and transition to a six lane facility comprising
three mixed-flow lanes in each direction immediately west of Kirker Creek. SR4 will be widened primarily to the south and will
include sufficient median width to accommodate a future BART extension. As part of the project, freeway improvements
including HOV lanes, ramp improvements, and local road improvements will be constructed. Right-of-way will be acquired in
various locations adjacent to the existing freeway and ramps. Approximately 82 properties including residences, commercial,
industrial, noncommercial and vacant parcels will be acquired along the proposed alignment. The project will require relocation
of several utilities. The precise field location of high-risk utilities will be identified during final design in accordance with Caltrans
procedures. Project Location: The proposed project is located along State Route 4 between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge
Road in Pittsburg in eastern Contra Costa County.
The project was approved on
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act:
( ) An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified (SCH# )
( ) The Project was encompassed by an Environmental Impact Report previously prepared
for (SCH# ).
( X ) A joint Mitigated Negative Declaration/Finding of No Significant Impact was prepared following identification of a
potentially significant impact(SCH#2000112007).
Copies of the record of project approval and the Negative Declaration or the final EIR may be examined at the office of the Contra
Costa County Community Development Department.
( X ) The Project will not have a significant environmental effect with the incorporation of mitigation into the project
description.
( ) The Project will have a significant environmental effect.
( ) Mitigation measures were made a condition of approval of the project.
( ) A statement of overriding considerations was adopted.
( ) Findings were adopted pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Date: By:
Community Development Department Representative
AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING
I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by
California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing
date.
Signature Title
Applicant: Department of Fish and Game Fees Due
Contra Costa County Public Works Dept. EIR-$850 Total Due: $
255 Glacier Drive _X Neg.Dec.-$1,250 Total Paid $
Martinez,CA 94553 DeMinimis Findings-$0
Attn:Karen Laws _X_ County Clerk-$50 Receipt#:
G:\GrpData\EngSvc\ENV1R0\2001 Projects\StateRoute4\NOD.doc
1
1
L
rreltric Initial Study/
Environmental Assessment
`i
i
tr. r
.' ,.. -, �:;;�'. r;..: ,:. •ice r
'v. ��.,1�• '� KY'e� ::','r'iy'; :.ice ,�X�,��..._ �. 'ems.. �..:-:,,
:;�.;....
rZ.-
Pro
> ,
� (7
=R. NW1
•
L on Route 4 in Contra Costa County
L from Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road
February 2001
CContra Costa
Transportation Authority 0
(1 U.S.Department of Transportation
� Federal Highway Administration
lot, �"'"L U.S. DEPARTMENT OV TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
CALIFORNIA DIVISION
980 Ninth Street,Suite 400
Sacramento,CA.95814-2724
February 14, 2001
IN REPLY REFER TO
HDA-CA
File#: SR 4 HOV Widening
Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road
Document #: P34498
Mr. Harry Yahata, District Director
Caltrans, District 4
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA. 94623-0660
Attention: Susan Simpson
Dear Mr. Yahata:
SUBJECT: FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
We have reviewed the revised Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed State
Route 4 East Widening in the City of Pittsburg from 0.8 kilometer west of Railroad Avenue to
0.3 kilometer east of Loveridge Road in Contra Costa County transmitted with your January 23,
2001, letter. We concur with the administrative final EA and Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI). The signed, original FONSI is enclosed for your use and information. This will
constitute NEPA approval for the project, which may be advanced accordingly
Sincerely,
For
Michael G. Ritchie
Division Administrator
Enclosure
r
2
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR
Proposed State Route 4 East Widening
IN
Contra Costa County from Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the proposed Route 4 East
Project will have no significant impact on the human environment. This Finding of No
Significant Impact is based on the attached Environmental Assessment (EA) and incorporated
technical reports, which have been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to
adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed
project and appropriate mitigation measures. These documents provide sufficient evidence and
analysis for determining that an Environmental.Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. The
FHWA assumes responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the attached EA and
incorporated technical reports.
------------
C. Glenn Clinton Date
Program Delivery Team Leader North
STATE OF CALIFORNIA SCH Number:
2000112007
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 04-CC-04 KP 35.7/38.5 (PM 22.2/23.8)
04209-228770
' NEGATIVE DECLARATION
' PURSUANT TO: Division 13, Public Resources Code
' PROJECT TITLE: State Route 4 East Widening Project from Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is to widen State Route.4 to accommodate an additional
mixed-flow lane and one high occupancy vehicle lane in each direction within the 3.6-kilometer-long
(2.2-mile-long) State Route 4 corridor between Railroad Avenue and west of Loveridge Road.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An initial study has been prepared by the California
t Department of Transportation. On the basis of this study,it is determined that the proposed action would
have:
1) no impact on agricultural resources,air quality,mineral resources, utilities, and recreation resources;
2) a less-than-significant impact on geology and soils,hydrology and water quality,biological resources,
parking, and cultural resources;
3) a less-than-significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated on land use, population and
housing,hazardous materials,traffic noise, public services, and aesthetics.
A complete description of the mitigation measures is provided in the attached initial study. Monitoring will
be conducted in accordance with procedures outlined in 1-2.7 of Volume I of Caltrans' Environmental
Handbook.
' Darnall W. Reyno;�Ibistrict Division Chief, Planning /ate
District 4
California Department of Transportation
1
1 ;
1
State Route 4 East Widening Project
in Pittsburg, Contra Costa County, California
from Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road
INITIAL STUDY/
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1
State of California
Department of Transportation,
and
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Pursuant to: 42 U.S.C. 4332 2 C
Division 13, California Public Resources Code
' o
Darnall W. Reds Date
District Divi on Chief, Planning, District 4
California Department of Transportation
' der l / I / 00
Michael (Y Ritchie Date
Division Administrator
' Federal Highway Administration
' Initial Study/Environmental Assessment for the
State Route 4 East Widening Project
' Prepared for:
California Department of Transportation, District 4
111 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
Contact: Susan Simpson
510/286-5619
Sponsored by:
' Contra Costa Transportation Authority
1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Contact: Paul Maxwell
925/256-4735
Prepared b .
P y
' Jones & Stokes
2600 V Street
Sacramento, CA 95818-1914
Contact: Maggie Townsley
916/737-3000
As a .subconsultant to:
Mark Thomas & Co.
1243 Alpine Road, Suite 222
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Contact: Mike Lohman
925/938-0383
February 2001
' v
This document should be cited as:
Jones&Stokes. 2001. Initial study/environmental assessment for the State Route 4 East widening ,
project. February. (J&S 99-131.) Sacramento,CA. Prepared for California Department of
Transportation,Oakland,CA. Sponsored by Contra Costa Transportation Authority,Walnut
Creek, CA.
Table of Contents
1
Page
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
' PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
' Purpose of the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
COST ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . 1-8
Chapter 2. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
' LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
PROJECT LIMITS 2-1
EXISTING FACILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION 2-3
UTILITY RELOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
No-Action Alternative 2-4
LOGICAL TERMINI AND INDEPENDENT UTILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
' NECESSARY PERMITS AND APPROVALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REMOVED FROM
FURTHER CONSIDERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
1 Alternative I: Existing Horizontal Alignment Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
Alternative II: Shift/Raise Alignment, Precast Bridge Alternative . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
Alternative III: Original North Alignment Alternative . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
Alternative IV: Central Alignment Alternative . 2-8
Alternative V: Bay Area Rapid Transit Extension Alternative . . . ... . . . . . . . . 2-8
' Alternative VI: SR 4 Widening/BART Station Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
Alternative VII: Frontage Road Extension Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
RELATED PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
' Chapter 3. Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
SECTION 3A. LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
LandUse . . . . . . . . . ..• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Population and Housing 3-3
Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
' SECTION 3B. AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Air Quality 3-6
' vii
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
SECTION 3C. NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
Federal Agency Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 '
California Environmental Quality Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for
New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
Noise-Sensitive Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
Existing Noise Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
SECTION 3D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 3-14
Topography and Climate.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
Surface Water and Groundwater Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
.Regulatory Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17 ,
SECTION 3E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18 ,
Site Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
SECTION 3F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 3-19
Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
Special-Status Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
In-Depth Studies for Special Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25
SECTION 3G. CULTURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
Historic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
SECTION 3H. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
Proposed Right-of-Way Acquisitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I. . . . . . . . . . 3-28
Summary of Potential Hazardous Materials Sites in the Project Area ... . . . . . 3-28
SECTION 3I. AESTHETICS . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29
Chapter 4. Environmental Evaluation Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 '
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
TECHNICAL REPORTS ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
Chapter 5. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
SECTION 5A. SOCIOECONOMICS AND LAND USE . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
LandUse . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Population and Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 ,
Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7.
Other Utilities and Service Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
SECTION 5B. AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
AirQuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 5-9
SECTION 5C. NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
SECTION 5D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 5-13
SECTION 5E. GEOLOGY AND.SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 5-15
viii '
SECTION 5F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16
SECTION 5G. CULTURAL RESOURCES ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18
SECTION 5H. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19
Regulatory Requirements . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20
SECTION 51. AESTHETICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22
SECTION 5J. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24
Requirements for Cumulative Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24
Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25
Planned Growth in Area of Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26
Assessment of Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26
NEPA CONCLUSIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-28
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-28
NEPA Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-28
Chapter 6. Consultation and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Chapter 7. Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
PRINTED REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
Chapter 8. List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 8-1
Chapter 9. Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
Appendix A. Concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service on Special-Status Species
Appendix B. Concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer
Appendix C. Responses to Comments on Draft Initial Study/Environmental Assessment
1 ix
List of Tables
Table Page
1-1 Comparison of Actual and Statewide Accident Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows 1-4
1-2 Schedule for Construction of the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8
2-1 Summary of Anticipated Right-of-Way Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows 2-4
3-1 Estimated Population and Household/Housing Characteristics of
Affected Areas (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows 3-4
3-2 Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
3-3 Summary of Field-Measured Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows 3-12
3-4 Summary of Long-Term Sound-Level Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
3-5 Summary of Traffic Noise Modeling Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows 3-14
3-6 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . follows 3-30
xi
List of Figures
Figure Follows Page
2-1 Regional Location of the State Route 4 East Widening Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2-2 Project Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . 2-4
3-1 Affected Area Census Tracts and Neighborhood Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3-2 Receiver and Sound Wall Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
' 3-3 Receiver and Sound Wall Locations3-12
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-4 Receiver and Sound Wall Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
' 3-5 Receiver and Sound Wall Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . . 3-12
3-6 Sensitive Habitats Located within the Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
5=1 Environmentally Sensitive Areas to be Avoided at the Project Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16
1
xiii
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
1
' A draft initial study/environmental assessment (IS/EA) was circulated for public review in
November 2000. In some cases, comments received on the public draft document required that
minor revisions be made to the text. These changes are identified in the text of this document
' (stri�for deletions and underline for additions).
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
This IS/EA has been prepared to assess the impacts of the State Route(SR)4 East Widening Project
(proposed action)as required by the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and the National
Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). The proposed action would involve widening SR 4 in the City
of Pittsburg (Contra Costa County) from 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) west of the Railroad Avenue
overcrossing to 0.3 kilometer(0.2 mile) east of the Loveridge Road overcrossing.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as the state lead agency for the proposed
action under CEQA, must evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed action when
' considering whether to approve the proposed action. Because federal funds allocated by Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA)highway assistance programs would be used for final design and
construction of the proposed action, the FHWA must also approve the proposed action; therefore,
the FHWA is the federal lead agency for the proposed action under NEPA. This joint document has
been prepared because the State CEQA Guidelines and the Council on Environmental Quality's
(CEQ's) NEPA regulations encourage state and federal agencies to prepare joint environmental
documents to eliminate discussions of-the same issues.
This IS/EA will serve as a public document for analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed
action, including the required utility relocations; presenting feasible measures to reduce or avoid
potential environmental damage; and identifying alternatives to the proposed action.
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
r
Introduction
SR 4 is the primary east—west transportation corridor in Contra Costa County. SR 4 provides the
' only highway link between central and eastern Contra Costa County(East County)and is one of only
Initial Stud"/Environmental Assessment Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
' Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1-1
i
i
four highway connections between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Interstate 5 corridor in the
Central Valley.
SR 4 is used primarily for commute traffic between East County residential areas and employment
centers in central Contra Costa County, Santa Clara County,Oakland,and San Francisco. Previous
East County development and increased regional traffic have contributed to traffic delays along the
eastern SR 4 corridor,which is currently operating beyond its capacity. A traffic analysis conducted
for current traffic conditions on SR 4 between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge Road indicates that
traffic volumes exceed available capacity in each peak' direction of flow (Fehr & Peers ,
Associates 2000). Traffic volume increases beyond SR 4's capacity have created severe congestion,
increased travel times,and increased accidents in the SR 4 corridor. Additional projected increased
traffic volumes on SR 4 from Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road would further contribute to these '
problems (Fehr& Peers Associates 2000).
New or expanded transportation modes are either under construction or have been recently
completed in East County,including widening SR 4 west of the SR 4/Railroad Avenue interchange,
extending the Bay Area Rapid Transit(BART)system between Concord and Bay Point,and opening
high occupancy vehicle](HOV) lanes on SR 4 between Concord and Pittsburg. However, several
studies conducted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), Contra Costa County,
Caltrans,the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC),and BART have identified the need '
for continued improvements to SR 4. These improvements include:
I
■ widening Si 4'east to beyond_ Loveridge Road to Hillcrest Avenue,including extending
the HOV lanes, and
■ extending BIART to a station in the vicinity of Railroad Avenue.and widening SR 4 to ,
accommodate the new station (the pending Bay Area Transit Connectivity
described below will determine the specific location of a future BART station).
I
Purpose of the Proposed Action
i
The proposed action has been proposed to alleviate traffic delays within the 3.6-kilometer-long '
(2.2-mile-long)SR 4 comdor between Railroad Avenue.and Loveridge Road and to facilitate the use
of alternative modes of!transportation. The specific objectives of the proposed action are to:
E alleviate existing traffic congestion along SR 4 between the SR 4/Railroad Avenue and '
g g
SR 4/Loveridge Road interchanges consistent with Contra Costa County's planned
transportation improvement strategy for the SR 4 corridor; ,
4
I
■ increase the use of HOV lanes between SR 242 in Concord and Loveridge Road in
Pittsburg; and
I
1
Initial Study/Environmental Ass'es.rment Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need,for the Proposed Action
.State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authloriiv I-2 ,
I -
-':4::�•y':_'t.::•>'1',.1:.v.i •.:S•: •irk{.5^.:�::'
' ■ accommodate future mass transit-services further into East County that are consistent
with BART's stated intention to extend its system toward Antioch as defined in the
' Pittsburg-Antioch BART Extension Project adopted in 1988.
These three objectives are described below.
Alleviate Existing Traffic Congestion on State Route 4 from Railroad Avenue to Loveridge
Road
Traffic congestion along SR 4 is severe and has contributed to higher accident rates and substantial
' travel delays in the vicinity of the proposed action. The majority of accidents occur during congested
periods. In addition, from 1994 through 1998, the actual rate of fatal and injury accidents was
substantially greater than the statewide average for similar facilities (Table 1-1) (Mark Thomas &
Co. 2000). West of the SR 4/Railroad Avenue interchange, SR 4 is currently being upgraded to an
eight-lane facility comprising three mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction. The
proposed action would extend this eight-lane facility to just west of the Loveridge Road interchange
by upgrading the existing four-lane facility between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge Road to eight
lanes comprising three mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction. This upgrade would
' substantially improve existing traffic operations on SR 4 between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge
Road and reduce accidents along this segment by reducing congestion and providing standard inside
and outside shoulders (Fehr& Peers Associates 2000).
Increase the Use of High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
The proposed action would contribute to traffic congestion reduction by extending HOV lanes in
East County. SR 4 from Willow Pass Road in Concord to just east of Bailey Road in Bay Point was
recently modified to include construction of pavement in the median to accommodate restriping and
signs for future HOV lanes. The SR 4 widening project from Bailey Road to just west of Railroad
Avenue in Pittsburg is currently in the construction phase;this project includes striping forone HOV
lane in each direction from SR 242 to west of Railroad Avenue. After the Bailey Road interchange
is complete, the HOV lanes will be sufficiently long (i.e., 13 kilometers [8 miles]) to provide an
' effective alternative mode of transportation to single-occupancy vehicles. The proposed action
would extend the 13-kilometer-long (8-mile-long) HOV lanes at the eastern terminus by an
additional 1.9 kilometers(1.2 miles)in the eastbound direction and 3.6 kilometers(2.2 miles)in the
' westbound direction. Automobile occupancy counts conducted during peak-hour traffic on SR 4 in
the project area in 1999 indicate that approximately 15% of vehicles traveling in the peak direction
carried two or more passengers (Fehr&Peers Associates 2000). Extending the HOV lanes beyond
the eastern terminus would increase the potential time savings for such carpool drivers; therefore,
the number of passengers using the HOV lanes would likely increase.
Initial Stud" nvlbivir inental Assessment Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
State Route 4 East Widening Project Febraary 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authorin- 1-3
i
i
- Accommodate Future IMass Transit Service in East County
The East County BART line currently terminates at the Pittsburg/Bay Point station at the '
SR 4/Bailey Road interchange. The SR 4 widening project from Bailey Road to Railroad Avenue,
which is currently under construction, will widen the median from the Pittsburg/Bay Point station
to 0.8 kilometer(0.5 mile)west of Railroad Avenue to accommodate a future BART extension. The '
proposed action would extend the widened median easterly between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge
Road and could therefore accommodate a future BART extension from Pittsburg to Antioch
consistent with the approved Pittsburg-Antioch BART Extension Project. In addition,the proposed '
action would provide a sufficiently wide median through the project area to accommodate a Railroad
Avenue BART station location, which would contribute to future transit use in the project vicinity.
Need for the Proposed Action
i
Traffic Congestion in the Corridor '
i
Congestion on SR 4 during peak commute hours has resulted from growth in Contra Costa County
in the late 1970s and 1980s. Existing traffic volumes are high relative to the capacity of the '
four-lane highway. Beifore the Willow Pass Grade was lowered in 1990, heavy traffic volumes
combined with steep grades at the summit resulted in peak-hour volume-to-capacity ratios of 1.04 in
the morning and 1:13 in the evening. Volume-to-capacity ratio is a measure of traffic congestion; ,
if the value is greater than 1, as in this case, the roadway is operating beyond its capacity and is
experiencing high levels of congestion. Since SR 4 was widened and lowered over the summit, the
point of congestion has moved east of Railroad Avenue. During peak hours, traffic queues extend ,
2 miles or more and cause increasing diversions of traffic onto local arterials.
j
Transportation Improvement Planning
I -
Widening SR 4 and provisions for future rail extension in its median have been included in plans and '
programs adopted by CCTA,BART,Caltrans,MTC,Contra Costa County,all local municipalities,
and Contra Costa County voters. All transportation studies prepared to date also document the need
to widen SR 4 from four to eight lanes (including one HOV lane in each direction) and to provide '
a median wide enough to accommodate a future BART extension from SR 242 to Hillcrest Avenue
in Antioch. These studies and commitments are summarized below. '
i
■ Route Concept Report for State Route 4—Prepared by California Department of
Transportation, 1985. This report noted that improvements necessary to maintain an ,
adequate level of service on SR 4 from Willow Pass Road in Bay Point to SR 160
include:
widening SR 4 to eight lanes with a wide median for future expansion;
- constructing additional park-and-ride facilities within the SR 4 corridor; and
I
i
Initial.Studv/Enviravnental Assessbnent Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1-4 '
I
- promoting other Transportation System-Management (TSM) measures.
' The report also indicated that extending BART would help to reduce the congestion in
this segment of SR 4 and should be considered as a long-term supplement to the freeway
widening.
' ■ Pittsburg-Antioch Corridor Extension Project, Contra Costa County—Prepared
by Bay Area Rapid Transit, 1988. BART has been planning to extend its heavy rail
' system to East County for nearly 20 years. In 1988, the BART Board of Directors
approved an environmental impact report (EIR) to extend rail service to the
Pittsburg-Antioch area. The EIR studied alternative transportation modes, including
busways, light rail, and heavy rail through a number of corridors; it identified a heavy
rail extension to Antioch via the SR 4 median as the preferred alternative. The EIR
identified extending BART from the existing Concord Station to Hillcrest Avenue in
Antioch with station locations at north Concord/Martinez,Bay Point,Railroad Avenue,
Somersville Road, and Hillcrest Avenue. BART's rail extension to north Concord and
Bay Point is now complete and open for service.
■ Year 2005 HOV Lane Master Plan—Prepared by Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, 1990. This plan, prepared by the MTC, Caltrans, and the California
Highway Patrol, identifies HOV lanes on SR 4 between SR 242 and Hillcrest as
necessary to meet the mobility needs of the East County region by 2005.
' ■
Subsequent Widening and Lowering of Highway 4 Project Report between Willow
Pass Road in Concord and Bailey Road in Pittsburg—Prepared by California
' Department of Transportation,1991. This report analyzed the ultimate use of seventh
and eighth lanes as HOV lanes between SR 242 and Loveridge Avenue. The analysis
' concluded that HOV lanes would need to be constructed from SR 242 to east of Bailey
Road before sufficient time savings would be realized to encourage their use. Thus,the
already constructed median along SR 4 was not striped for HOV lane use until the HOV
lanes currently under construction were widened east of Bailey Road.
■ Revised Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management
Ordinance—Measure C,1988. This primary goal of this ordinance,adopted by CCTA
in 1988,was to reduce congestion within Contra Costa County. The ordinance includes
an Expenditure Plan that cites improvements and widening of SR 4 from Willow Pass
' Road in Concord to at least Railroad Avenue in Pittsburg and extending rail transit from
Concord to East County. Funding issues are included in a separate program to address
carpools, park-and=ride lots, bus transit improvements, and TSM ordinances.
' ■ Contra Costa Transportation Authority Strategic Plan Update, 1998. This plan
update includes projects to be developed in Contra Costa County and identifies funding
' sources totaling $63:4 million. The plan update specifies the need to reconstruct the
SR 4/Railroad Avenue interchange to provide eight lanes on SR 4 and a future 44- to
Initial Stud v/Enviroiunental Assessment Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001.
' Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1-5
i
60-foot-wide;median for BART and includes provisions to not preclude a future BART
station between Railroad Avenue and Harbor Avenue.
j
■ Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan—Prepared by Contra Costa
Transportation Authority, 1994. This plan discusses the importance of-the SR 4
corridor to the continued economic development of East County and includes specific '
future improvements to the facility.The three main proposed improvements include:
i
widening SR 4 between Bailey Road and Railroad Avenue to six lanes plus two HOV ,
lanes;
providing for BART in the SR 4 median to Hillcrest Avenue; '
opening HOV lanes from SR 242 to Hillcrest Avenue.
The plan also includes support for Transportation Demand Management (TDM)efforts
that are currently administered by Tri-Delta Transit.
N East County Action Plan, Resolution 94-1. This plan was developed by
TRANSPLAN/CCTA in 1994. It institutes actions for the jurisdictions of East County
to pursue to�address regional traffic impacts. Specific actions include: '
upgrading SR 4 to a full freeway with HOV lanes and a median for BART; ,
promoting the construction of a BART extension to Hillcrest Avenue; and
implementing a regional transportation impact fee to help finance the SR 4 corridor
improve Iments. (Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1994.)
Local Commitments to Improve State Route 4
Contra Costa County voters indicated their commitment to congestion relief in the eastern segment
of the SR 4 corridor by approving a sales tax under Measure C in 1988 to generate revenue for
proposed improvements. After the voter approval of Measure C, the East County jurisdictions ,
approved a transportation impact fee for all new development to provide additional financial support
for the proposed SR 4 corridor improvements.
As a result, two major projects were recently constructed that widened more than 4 miles of SR 4
from Willow Pass Road in Concord to Bailey Road in Bay Point. This segment of SR 4 now has six
mixed-flow lanes,auxiliary lanes over Willow Pass Summit,and two paved median lanes for future ,
HOV lanes from SR 242 to Bailey Road. In addition, these projects allowed for the opening of
service on the first of 1 ART'S East County extensions. A significant commitment and investment
in the SR 4 corridor has already been made and construction of the proposed action would continue '
the commitments made by the local and regional agencies to the Contra Costa County voters.
liiilia!Stuns/Environnrerual Asse.'ssnrerrl Chapter l..Purpusr of and Nerd jot the Proposed Action
State Route 4 Fast Widening Projerl February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Auihoritv 1-6
iCombined with these major construction improvements, local agencies have committed to
implementing a variety of transportation management strategies. TSM measures (i.e., measures
' designed to improve overall traffic operations in a specified geographic area) such as coordinating
traffic signals and transit schedules are being pursued by Contra Costa County, and ramp metering
' is being pursued by Caltrans. Caltrans has installed ramp metering equipment on SR 4 at the
SR 4/Bailey Road and SR 4/Willow Pass Road (Bay Point) interchanges as the first step in
implementing Transportation Operating System (TOS) measures. This equipment is integral to
' CCTA-sponsored projects and is funded by Measure C. Caltrans is analyzing corridor-level
implementation of-ramp metering in Contra Costa County, including SRs 4, 242, 24, and
Interstate 680, as well as local intersections. CCTA and Caltrans have agreed to include
' belowground ramp metering wiring and loop detection equipment for future ramp metering for
ramps that are reconstructed, but they will not connect signals or hook up the ramp metering
equipment. Future Caltrans TOS measures may include using changeable message signs,detector
loops,and closed circuit television to monitor traffic flow. In addition,TDM strategies that include
' changes in land use patterns, congestion pricing, incentives for carpooling and transit use, and
telecommuting have been adopted via local ordinances, and implementing these strategies is a
' condition for receiving Measure C funds.
' Major Investment Study, 1999
CCTA,Caltrans, and FHWA, in coordination with the MTC,commissioned the Major Investment
' Study (MIS) in 1999 to address the increasing congestion along the SR 4 corridor. Antioch,
Brentwood,Pittsburg,and Contra Costa County formed a joint-powers authority(East Contra Costa
Regional Fee and Financing Authority) to implement and administer the program. The MIS was
intended to determine the preferred transportation investment strategy for the SR 4 corridor. A
detailed evaluation was completed for the MIS based on system continuity,traffic operations/Traffic
Service Objectives compliance,change in corridor travel time,environmental issues,cost issues,and
phased implementation. The major components of the recommended strategy include widening SR
4 to eight lanes between Railroad Avenue and Hillcrest Avenue and six lanes between Hillcrest
' Avenue and the SR 4 Bypass. The inside lane of the eight-lane freeway would be striped for HOV
use. The median would be widened for a future BART extension and an auxiliary lane in each
direction between the Loveridge Road and Contra Loma interchanges. TSM and TDM measures,
' including ramp metering,TOS,changeable message signs,and park-and-ride lots,would be installed
and parallel arterial improvements would be constructed.
' The MIS is consistent with previous corridor planning, its ability to provide significant additional
corridor capacity, and its more balanced transportation network with significant HOV and transit
mode incentives.
Bay Area Transit Connectivity Study
Preparation of the Bay Area Transit Connectivity Study is currently underway. The study will
identify current and future service characteristics for transit alternatives including (but not limited
Initial Stud'/Environmental Assessmera Chapter I. Purpose of and Need fur the Proposed Action
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authorin- 1-7
i
to) ridership, demographics, land use, mode, technology, and commuter alignments. Transit
alternatives to be discussed include BART heavy rail,light rail,and bus service such as express bus
service and feeder busses. Work will include preliminary engineering,benefit analysis, and public '
outreach. A report and action plan will be prepared recommending staged improvementsfor the
short, intermediate, and,longterms.
erms.
!
COST ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
The total cost of the proposed action is estimated to-be.$73.7 million. The schedule for completion
of environmental compliance, design, and construction is shown in Table 1-2. '
Table 1-2. Schedule for Construction of the Proposed Action
Activity Time Period
Environmental June 1999—December 2000 ,
Design July 2000—June 2002
Construction June 2001—February 2004 '
i
i
i
Initial Study/Fnvirownental Ae.res:cment Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need fur the Proposed Action
State Route 4 Fast Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
I
1
Chapter 2. Description of the Proposed Action and
' Alternatives
LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Thero osed action is located between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge Road in Pittsburgn eastern
P P g g
Contra Costa County,California(Figure 2-1). Between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge Road, SR 4
is currently a four-lane facility with a narrow median. This portion of SR 4 is generally at grade,but
the roadway runs below grade between Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street.
' The topography of the project area generally slopes gently to the north at an average grade of
approximately 5%. The project area is generally urbanized. Primary land uses in the vicinity of the
' project area include residential, commercial, industrial, parks and recreation spaces, schools and
other public facilities, and utilities.
PROJECT LIMITS
Project limits on SR 4 in Pittsburg would be from kilometerost 35.7 to 38.5 (post mile 22.2
P P
to 23.8). The proposed action would improve SR 4 from 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) west of the
' Railraod Avenue overcrossing to 0.3 kilometer(0.2 mile)east of the Loveridge Road overcrossing
(Figure 2-1). Improvements would range from minor restriping at project termini to acquiring right-
of-way for major widening and construction activities.
EXISTING FACILITY
SR 4 is currently a four-lane divided freeway from just west of the SR 4/Railroad Avenue
interchange east approximately 10 kilometers(6.25 miles)to the SR 4/Hillcrest Avenue interchange.
On completion of the current SR 4 widening project currently under construction from the
' SR 4/Bailey Road interchange to SR 4/Railroad Avenue interchange, SR 4 will be an eight-lane
freeway narrowing to a six-lane facility at the Railroad Avenue west side ramp merge points; this
project,expected to be completed in Fall 2001,will taper the third lane to two lanes in the eastbound
' direction at the Railroad Avenue eastbound exit ramp. Conversely, the third lane in the westbound
direction.will start at the Railroad Avenue westbound on-ramp.
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 2. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2-1
i
1
The existing freeway is at-grade west of Railroad Avenue but below grade from Railroad Avenue '
to Harbor Street, and i:t then ascends to existing grade just east of Harbor Street. The existing
four-lane facility has a'paved 4.8-meter-wide (15.84-foot-wide) median with a concrete barrier to ,
separate oncoming traffic. Side cut slopes are 1:1.5.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
I
The CCTA, in conjunction with Caltrans and the FHWA through a master cooperative agreement
(Caltrans District No.4; 1376—C),proposes to improve traffic conditions within the 3.6-k_ilometer-
long (2.2-mile-long) SR 4 corridor from Railroad Avenue to just west of Loveridge Road by '
widening SR 4 to accommodate an additional mixed-flow lane and one HOV lane in each direction.
The improved corridor'would connect to the existing eight-lane freeway system comprising three
mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction west of Railroad Avenue and transition to'a ,
six-lane facility comprising three mixed-flow lanes in each direction immediately west of Kirker
Creek. SR 4 would bevidened primarily to the south and would include sufficient median width
to.accommodate.a future BART extension. As part of the proposed action,freeway improvements, ,
including HOV lanes;ramp improvements;and local road improvements,which are described below
and shown in Figure 2-2, would be constructed. '
■ Freeway improvements. Widening would connect the proposed action to the eight-lane
SR 4 widening project now under construction approximately 1 kilometer west of ,
Railroad Avenue and would extend east 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) before ending 400
meters (1,320 feet) east of the Harbor Street overcrossing,just west of Kirker Creek.
East of thati point, the improvements will include lane add/drops and a transition back '
to conform ito the existing four-lane facility at the Loveridge Road overcrossing.
■ Ramp improvements. Ramp improvements would include reconstructing the SR 4 '
eastbound Railroad Avenue off- and on-ramps and modifying" the existing SR 4
westbound(Harbor Street off-ramp. The SR 4 eastbound Railroad Avenue off-ramp
would be reconstructed as a two-lane ramp and include a 400-meter-long auxiliary lane. ,
The eastbound on-ramp from Railroad Avenue would be constructed to accommodate
an ultimate three-lane metered on-ramp comprising two mixed-flow lanes with an HOV
bypass. No ramp metering is proposed for the westbound on-ramp as part of the ,
proposed action because of utility and other site constraints.
As part of the proposed action,the eastbound on-ramp would be striped to accommodate
two southbound Railroad Avenue left-turn lanes and narrow to a single-lane eastbound
on-ramp. The westbound Railroad Avenue on-ramp will be widened at the Railroad '
Avenue/ramp intersection to accommodate two northbound left-turn lanes from Railroad
Avenue.
The westbound Loveridge Road on-ramp connection to SR 4 would be modified to start
a third westbound mixed-flow lane-. The westbound HOV lane will begin approximately
Initial Studp/Environmental Asses'.sinent Chapter 2. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ,
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 200/
Contra Costa Transportation Audioritr• 2-2 '
V.x - yY -T•�✓T8.
�r.w.♦ �` r' `�b f f�►�_,�.. C� tit�yG•A ^•�.s,=•
s o L A Nro NNEw ::3' �'� v ,�,I�.�.. r•- i;w.'d'" ,�"re'_ f�-: y'�y�;,., 'x� � �
ISJ7
- i :. t!•Y�:`• %3r+'.�✓.�!Lxi,Yi:{. - -�_ rte^ ti•:;,..
MARIN'. ,. ..� +• _ . ''1?;.+.�•-i ....'5.. '? ,Ei:.'.r- �.4
Pittsburg "°• tr $ ,� F •.t,+,. ,y,
BwAYfr r , d g 'r ',,}+. .li.::�� . :iti:.t-[•+<':�+ � ... -Zi9i..
CONTRA _ ME
COSTA 1-IM
1�rp.y,
au.+: •o:M..` ,. ._ � 7� �+s Oe l � 'j „ r rr..�. .e!T,
.�Yi�:.:.:.. °t•r+ w-Ar •�>• ��r(r��. :�� �� riL?;a•�`�y'�
. -_-_- -_
rya r•
M�T•EO _ --.
---------
- -N • M DrAlrry DT. 6r• f l M♦1 OgPM1l ~`x� w
Y SANTA Sr Srp ary 5! 4rAw ID.{ `
C L A R A r• y> �� 1 w,�y� �,`
���7 • F Nn. eMSw.
wn�•l
rnr tr
�,a! ,c—M.ML.r°si
+ °A ■ ar P `c 'Gqt f rtet[FrAo�Loa
d y I rN aTy eo [r T.
tAgStl)t - f rNK ,y�'T Xa .7' t w•O t.
Area'
Of
ff
At 3 8 iae • sc f +r. �•
.Ra AA,F/ An, �� f ,; Qy� ,!.c •rT ecu a� sG'oq � ' '� °g
�• � � t � .amu ��,. T �,�,� r ,.
4 oMewfr ila d :ti o Al r ,v ! o- a K
cr. '__ >3 jfi � ` oor••• � d e Is
ry :y� t brq '� 4xgry `
ar 4eelt
.Ju r fi J r S p 1 -ftr
. P p
Av. l " '•,r r e
?,Q,� 3 =FF'Y'• �t ra' G kv i ,aumlw,uL ; silo
Pro ect Limits
"*Y- Cq rQ/ SA ct 4M
1 •kms') _ �,�."" - �' i roar •' ..r, 4""¢� rb n-+ar. 1 `a*+r� e o•, ,..+1!a' :;�"-
d - '"PL
�
TP1554 MW
moo-•:
`1:'oosim+e-
'�'
' ..3'1...•_,_..lY I r 51r lE Av ���. .-....� _ �'�Y' iD ��� `~ !'".r:'`�• fir.
•+wrt p�7, �Mlrtwu•[ p �' g ,�C: d�d a w g >r� d' A2q'� -
�� I q"Lo' y � 3 Mll cactr Av. " 1{I cuq+rO.�'°�It' 3� �� 3 ,fi" kr'�!o + T f a"n s d ". `�� P uyE w qr` `": '..•I
F n 4 ��4 •,.r"r, sL g' �ODb 'ft�w� �a-:
,.aoolArn Y V 2�� Eas Ar. tawa � y 4 cfl• �? w� � `� cs '�trt� � C
Ct-4 - vc,mM!f wp, aic �►3 v"oIL j*
4 A �yapnai n. Y llf sr MRO R1. d"� p•d��. 00.
STEW. �.D.. Q8 MF.r1E B w.
] FL s
ao
aucwxAw
1.. ."1R r.A'"TT *F VrIF 4 „` -3 '+ea M. Z •2 AErI.[
1 I^V fIR e ; rn Y
v E t
.' � s r•T, , � .Dr arntt
1 V
0.0 0.2 0.4
Base map:California State Automobile Association. i Pittsburg City Limits ' Mile
P
1 .
Figure 2-1
Regional Location of the State Route 4 East Widening Project
650 meters(2,145 feet)east of the Harbor Street overcrossing. The initial eastbound lane
taper will begin 600 meters(1,980 feet)east of the eastbound Railroad Avenue on-ramp
' with the third eastbound lane to be continued to the eastbound Loveridge Road off-ramp
and an exit lane only. Any yellow thermoplastic stripes(which could contain hazardous
levels of lead) requiring removal would be identified in the plans and specifications
under special provisions.
' ■ Local modifications. Local modifications for the proposed action would focus on
reconstructing the Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street overcrossing to accommodate the
additional lanes needed to widen the mainline SR 4. Both overcrossings would be raised
approximately 1.8 meters (5.9 feet) above existing grade. Additional local
' improvements include creating termini on Frontage Road on the west side of Los
Medanos Elementary School and Crestview Lane.
■ HOV lanes. HOV lanes would be constructed in both directions. HOV lanes are
currently being completed for SR 4 from SR 242 to Railroad Avenue. The proposed
' action would extend the HOV lanes east 1.9 kilometers (1.2 miles) in the eastbound
direction and by 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) in the westbound direction (Figure 2-2),
making the length of the HOV lanes from SR 242 to Loveridge Road approximately
15.5 kilometers (4.7 miles).
' RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION
' Right-of-way would be acquired for the proposed action in various locations adjacent to the existing
freeway and ramps. It is anticipated that 82 properties—approximately 57 residences;
' 17 commercial, industrial, and noncommercial properties; and eight parcels without
structures—would need to acquired along the proposed alignment (Table 2-1). The right-of-way
would be acquired under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970, as amended.
' UTILITY RELOCATION
' As part of the proposed action, several utilities would need to be relocated as identified.below.
Relocating the utilities would occur during the construction phase of the proposed action. Impacts
associated with the various utility relocations are addressed in this IS/EA pursuant to California
' Public Utilities Commission 00-131 D filing requirements. The precise field location of high-risk
utilities (e.g.,600-millimeter Pacific Gas and Electric Company gas main) will be identified during
final design in accordance with Caltrans procedures.
' ■ Pacific Gas and Electric Company utilities. High-voltage (60 kilovolts [kV]) power
' lines extend from the western limit of the project area(west of Los Medanos Elementary
Initial Study/Environmental As's'essment Chapter 2. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 200/
' Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2-3
I� 1
i
School)on the south side of SR 4,cross over SR 4 at Los Medanos Elementary School,
and continue to run along the north side of SR 4 (Figure 2-2). Widening SR 4 would
require the relocation/construction of possibly three Pacific Gas and Electric Company t
towers in the western project area. As shown in Figure 2-2, it is estimated that two
towers south of SR 4 would be directly affected: one.tower currently located adjacent
to FrontagelRoad just west of Los Medanos Elementary School and one tower adjacent
to Frontage iRoadjust north of the school. A third tower north of SR 4 would likely need
to be constructed to allow for proper alignment of the power lines located along Power
Avenue near Andrew Avenue. ,
In addition,ia 600-millimeter Pacific Gas and Electric-Company gas main runs adjacent .
to the SR 41right-of-way on the north and crosses Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street. ,
Relocating :the gas main could be required because of changing the local road profiles.
The Pacific;Gas and Electric Company also operates the primary electric underground
utility line along Harbor.Street.adjacent to Bliss Avenue and gas distribution lines along
Frontage Road and the Railroad Avenue overcrossing that could require relocation '
pending final design.
■ Joint overhead utilities. Joint pole (i,e., electrical, telephone, and cable) utilities are '
located along Frontage Road and would.need to be relocated to accommodate freeway
widening to the south.
■ Cable. Underground cable extends from the joint pole along Frontage Road south along
the local residential streets.
■ Shell. A 200-millimeter as line extends east through the project area with Power '
Avenue and California Avenue.
■ City of Pittsburg utilities.. Pittsburg operates a 200-millimeter water main, a
200-millimeter gravity sewer, and a 600-millimeter storm drain, which are all located
along Frontage Road. These utilities would need to be relocated to the south to allow ,
for widening of SR 4.
i
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative was developed to meet the requirements of CEQA and.NEPA and to
serve as a baseline for assessing the impacts of the proposed action. Under the No-Action
Alternative; the proposed action would not be constructed. Traffic congestion would continue to
increase on SR 4, and the alternative transportation modes that the proposed action would allow
Initial Stud'WFnvironmental Assedcment Chapter 2. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
.State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority .2-4 '
0
.9
-o
a
C4
w
on
N
G
O
W
w.
a
aC-4 NI t y
O �
N O
� CL
a Z IS4
C �
LO)
d
4 �
as ~Q
a �
a c
G c
d
N � �
� y N
T '•O C,
G q y
Lh sve O "o
N fm
N W p i. p
E.. N •r+ d t� rA G � � w
A a � b G •� '° b Cs. ..� a� � '� as
N
•� � a .L � o c ca � .b � ,g � ai
y N C N L N r
tn
ce d H v,
v •d o F Z p. � H
vi �
(i.e.,HOV lanes and sufficient median width for BART)would not be implemented. Commute time
delays would continue to worsen and response times for emergency vehicles would also experience
delays.
LOGICAL TERMINI AND INDEPENDENT UTILITY
The U.S. Department of Transportation regulations for "Environmental Impact and Related
Procedures," (23 CFS 771) which prescribe FHWA policies and procedures for implementing
NEPA, require projects evaluated under NEPA to:
■ connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on
a broad scope,
■ have independent utility or significance (i.e., be usable and be of a reasonable
' expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made,)and
■ not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation
improvements.
' The SR 4 widening project meets these criteria, as described below.
■ Other improvements would not be needed for the SR 4 widening project to operate. The
facilities at each end of the project would still function satisfactorily.
The traffic analysis report for the proposed action indicates that SR 4 would operate
satisfactorily with the proposed widening. The peak-hour direction level of service
(LOS) would be LOS F at the ends of the proposed action under current and future
no-project conditions; the proposed action would improve these conditions to LOS E.
(Fehr& Peers Associates 2000.)
■ Other improvements would not be needed for the SR.4 widening project to improve
traffic conditions.
As described in the traffic analysis for the proposed action, the proposed action would
improve existing LOS on SR 4. In addition,the proposed action would improve traffic
conditions at several nearby intersections without modifying these intersections.(Fehr&
tPeers Associates 2000.)
■ The project does not need to be physically connected or otherwise related to another
' project to function; rather, it can ficnction as a .separate and independent project.
Initial Stud'
Assessment Chapter 2. Description of die Proposed Action and Alternatives
' State Route 4 East Widening Prc ject February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2-5
i
i 1
The proposed action is identified.in the MIS as an independent project (Contra Costa
Transportation Authority 1999). As indicated above, the proposed action can achieve
its objectives without implementing other improvements.
■ The projecti is of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope.
The proposed action is approximately 3.6 kilometers(2.2 miles)long and encompasses
an area large enough so that environmental issues can be comprehensively addressed.
This IS/EA'also evaluates operational impacts of the proposed action beyond the project
limits where applicable.
■ The project1would not confine future improvements to the facilities to which it connects. '
As described in Chapter 1, "Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action," widening '
SR 4 and provisions for future rail extension in the SR 4 median have been included in
plans and programs adopted by the CCTA, BART, Caltrans, MTC, Contra Costa
County, all!local municipalities, and Contra Costa County voters. The transportation
studies prepared to date also document the need to widen SR 4 from four to eight lanes
(including one HOV lane in each direction) and to provide a median wide enough to
accommoOte a future BART extension to Hillcrest Avenue in Antioch. The proposed
action is consistent with these planned improvements; potential future improvements
to area roadways and other adjoining facilities would not be precluded by the proposed
action. t
i
NECESSARY PERMITS AND APPROVALS
In addition to Caltrans' and FHWA approvals,this IS/EA will be used by the following agencies in
processing their necessary permits:
■ California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB): National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for construction activities.
■ Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD): Asbestos survey plan for the
reconstruction of Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street overcrossings pursuant to
California Code of Regulations (Section 1529). '
■ California Public Utilities Commission: Pursuant to GO 131-D, the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company will file Notice of Construction for relocation of power lines greater
than 50 kV; This document will serve as the environmental clearance for the proposed
Pacific Gas and Electric Company utility relocations pursuant to GO 131-D
requirements. ,
Initial StudvlEnvironinental Assessment Chapter 2. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 100/
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2-6 '
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REMOVED FROM
FURTHER CONSIDERATION
r
CCTA,in coordination with the project development team, including the FHWA,Caltrans,BART,
Contra Costa County, City of Pittsburg, and the MTC, developed several preliminary alternatives,
listed and described below, that were evaluated but removed from further consideration.
' ■ Alternative I: Existing Horizontal Alignment Alternative,
■ Alternative II: Shift/Raise Alignment, Precast Bridge Alternative,
' ■ Alternative III: Original North Alignment Alternative,
■ Alternative IV: Central Alignment Alternative,
■ Alternative V: Bay Area Rapid Transit Extension Alternative,
' ■ Alternative VI: SR 4 Widening/BART Station Alternative, and
■ Alternative VII: Frontage Road Extension Alternative.
' These alternatives and the reasons they were not considered for further environmental review are
described below.
Alternative I: Existing Horizontal Alignment Alternative
1
Under Alternative I,the.Railroad Avenue overcrossing would be reconstructed in the same location
as the existing facility. To obtain adequate construction and ultimate design highway/BART vertical
clearance (i.e., sufficient height,) the proposed profile required lowering SR 4 by approximately
1 meter (3.2 feet) while raising the overcrossing profile by approximately 1 meter (3.2 feet).
Lowering SR 4 would need to be completed before placing the falsework for the new overcrossing.
Alternative 1,which is estimated to cost$75.2 million,would have required closing Railroad Avenue
completely for approximately 11 months to remove the existing bridge and construct a new one. In
addition, the identified profile did not provide adequate falsework clearance over existing SR 4 to
maintain.traffic on SR 4 during construction;therefore, it would have been necessary to close SR 4
temporarily. Therefore, this alternative was removed from further consideration.
' Alternative IIc Shift/Raise Alignment, Precast Bridge Alternative
' The existing Railroad Avenue overcrossing was originally constructed as a 18.6-meter-wide
(61-foot-wide)bridge in 1951. The bridge was widened by approximately 8.8 meters (28.9 feet)on
' its west side in 1972. Under this alternative, traffic would be maintained on SR 4 and Railroad
Avenue during reconstruction of the overcrossing. The Railroad Avenue alignment would be shifted
11 meters (35.2 feet) west of the existing alignment, primarily through land owned by Pittsburg; a
small amount of land would also need to be acquired from Albertson's. The profile at the
Initial Study/F_nvironmental Assessment Chapter 2. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2-7
intersection of Railroad/California would be higher than the existing profile to provide adequate
construction and ultimate vertical clearance over SR 4.
This alternative would use �P recast girders to eliminate. falsework expedite construction and
minimize traffic disruption. However,precast girders require substantially greater depth of section
than falsework, which is not required under this alternative. When coupled with a 23-centimeter-
thick(9-inch-thick)riding surface,precast girders eliminate any profile advantages. This alternative
is estimated to cost$74.5 million.
I
Alternative III: Original North Alignment Alternative
1
This alternative consists of widening SR 4 by constructing the improvements to the north of the
highway and leaving the southern edge of the existing right-of-way unchanged. This alternative was
later changed to use a portion of an existing utility right-of-way(a high-voltage electric transmission
line that is operated by:the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and parallels SR 4 to the north) in
addition to widening a portion of the south side of the existing right-of-way.
This alternative,which is estimated to cost$83.7 million,would require right-of-way acquisition that ,
would displace 58 residences: 35 multifamily units and 23 single-family homes(Woodward-Clyde
Consultants 1998). In addition, relocating Pacific Gas and Electric Company utilities to.the north
would have been necessary. This alternative was removed from further consideration because it
would not"substantiallyi reduce impacts of the proposed action and would also require major utility
relocation.
;Alternative IV: Central Alignment Alternative
This alternative consists of widening SR 4 to the north and south with respect to the existing
centerline. Construction of the improvements would be fairly equal on both sides of the roadway.
This alternative,which is estimated to cost$94 million,would result in high utility and right-of-way
displacement impacts. Forty-five single-family homes and 31 multifamily homes (for a total of 76
residential displacemenIts) would be displaced (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1998). Utilities on
both sides of SR 4 would be relocated. This alternative was removed from further consideration '
because of the residential displacement and adverse utility relocation impacts.
Alternative V: Bay Area Rapid Transit Extension,Alternative
This alternative would be limited to adding a median to accommodate extension of BART to a new
station east of Bailey Road via the reconstruction of the SR 4/Railroad Avenue interchange and
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 2. Description q(the Proposed Action and Alternatives
State Route 4 Fast Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2-8 '
I
including the necessary BART station and facilities. Additional widening of the highway was not
part of this alternative.
Based on information developed as part of the SR 4 East Corridor MTS,this alternative is estimated
' to cost $318 million. Construction of this alternative would not adequately meet the purpose and
need to alleviate existing congestion on SR 4. In addition, this alternative would constrain future
opportunities for SR 4 improvements between Railroad Avenue and the eastern portions of the
highway, for which specific transportation improvement needs are being planned by Contra Costa
i County and the Cities of Pittsburg,Antioch,and Brentwood(Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1998).
' Alternative VI: SR 4 Widening/BART Station Alternative
This alternative is similar to Alternative III except that it would also include constructing a BART
P g
station at Railroad Avenue and modifying the Railroad Avenue interchange to accommodate traffic
' associated with the BART station. Based on information developed as part of the SR 4 East Corridor
MIS, this alternative is estimated to cost$328 million. This alternative was removed from further
consideration because it would cause additionai environmental impacts associated with p�ope�ty
' displacetim, it would cause additional environmental impacts associated with property
displacements for a project that has neither identified funding nor obtained protect-level
environmental clearance.
Alternative VII: Frontage Road Extension Alternative
' This alternative is similar to the proposed action but did not include the closure of Frontage Road
at Los Medanos Elementary School. This alternative, which is estimated to cost $74 million, was
removed from further consideration to minimize the loss of a portion of the school's play field
' adjacent to Frontage Road. -
' RELATED PROJECTS
' Several related transportation projects have been recently completed, are ongoing, or are proposed
in Contra Costa County in the SR 4 corridor. These projects and their relation to this project are
described below.
t ■ Bailey Road to Loveridge Road Railroad Avenue. This project was necessit2tted by
the extension of BART to Bay Point and the projected giowth in the Pittsbuig and Bay
Point aten. This ptoject Was completed in 1996, involving reconstnaction of SR 4 fmin
vo-est of Bailey Road to 900 meters (2,953 feet)east, widening six lanes with pavement
Initial Study/Environmental A.mes's'ntent Chapter 2. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
' State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2-9
•hoc:al-shreets� This project is currently under construction and will widen SR 4 to an
eight-lane facility(three mixed flow and one HOV lane in each direction)with a median
to accommodate a future BART extension between the Bailey Road interchange
improvements and approximately 1,300 meters (0.8 mile) west of the Railroad Avenue
interchangeI The project, which is expected to be completed in June 2001, narrows to
a six-lane facility before connecting to the Railroad Avenue interchange. '
■ Bay Point BART Station and Service Extension. BART has been planning an
extension of its system to eastern Contra Costa County since the early 1960s. In 1988, ,
BART completed the Pittsburg-Antioch Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Draft and Final
EIRs. In November 1988, the.BART Board of Directors adopted the SR 4 corridor '
(using the highway median)as their preferred alignment for a BART extension. The first
constructed,segment of this extension,completed in 1996,was from the existing-station
in Concord to new stations at North Concord and the Bailey Road interchange in Bay ,
Point.
■ BART Service Extension East of Bailey Road. Additional extension of the BART
system east,of the existing Bay Point station at Bailey Road has been considered at a
conceptual :stage. Conceptual siting studies were completed in 1997 that evaluated
various options for an extension and new station east of Bailey Road. However, no ,
specific project has been presented for evaluation at the time of this IS/EA. The Bay
Areas Transit Connectivity, which is expected to be completed in 2001, will
propose specific project locations.
■ Year 2005 POV Lane Master Plan. A Year 2005 HOV Lane Master Plan was
prepared by the MTC, Caltrans, and the California Highway Patrol in 1990. The plan
identifies the construction of HOV lanes on SR 4 between SR 242 and Hillcrest as
necessary to meet needs of the East County region by 2005.
i
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 2. Description of lite Proposed Action and Alternatives
State Route 4 East Widening Projei•t �-10 February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authrtrity
:l
1
Chapter 3. Affected Environment
1
' SECTION 3A. LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMICS
' The information presented in this section is based on the community impact assessment prepared by
Jones & Stokes (2000b).
Land Use
Existing Land Uses
' The project area contains a mix of land uses, with generally more commercial and light industrial
uses than other areas of Pittsburg. Figure 3-1 shows the three primary Census tract(CT)areas that
would be affected by the proposed action;existing land uses within these areas are described below.
The Power Avenue/Pittsburg High School Area, which encompasses the area north of the
' SR 4/Railroad Avenue interchange,is characterized largely by low-density residential(3.1-5.0 units
per acre) and mixed commercial uses in the area adjacent to SR 4 and by residential, mixed
commercial,and governmental uses further north of SR 4. In the Los Medanos Elementary School
1 Area,located southwest of the SR 4/Railroad Avenue interchange,land uses adjacent to SR 4 include
low- and medium-density residential uses (3.1-5.0 and 5.1-14.0 units per acre, respectively) along
Frontage Road and retail,restaurant,and office uses south of the SR 4/Railroad Avenue interchange.
' The East of Harbor Street Area, which includes the area north of SR 4 and east of Harbor Street, is
largely characterized by neighborhood commercial,low-density residential(3.1-5.0 units per acre,)
and service commercial uses from adjacent to SR 4 east to Loveridge Road. The Bliss Avenue/East
' Leland Area, located adjacent to the south side of SR 4 in the area between Railroad Avenue and
Loveridge Road, land uses change from retail, service commercial, and heavy commercial uses
between Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street to industriallbusiness park uses between Harbor Street
and Loveridge Road.
Very little vacant land is located in the Power Avenue/Pittsburg High School and Los Medanos
' Elementary School Areas. However, a large parcel at the southwest corner of the Frontage
Road/Railroad Avenue intersection was recently developed for an Albertson's supermarket and a
fast-food restaurant, and a vacant parcel is located at the Frontage Road/Crestview Drive
intersection. In the East of Harbor Street Area, vacant parcels are located on both sides of Harbor
Street at its intersection with California Avenue,and a large vacant parcel is located along California
Avenue about halfway between Harbor Street and Loveridge Road. Large vacant parcels also exist
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project . February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-1
northwest of the SR 4/Loveridge Road interchange. Portions of the project area in the Bliss
Avenue/East Leland Area(i.e.,the southeast quadrant)appear to contain underused commercial and
industrial areas and pockets of vacant land.
Major utilities within the project area and project limits include a Pacific Gas and Electric Company
transmission tower line and underground gas line. The transmission line originates south of SR 4 ,
and crosses over the highway in an northeasterly direction from the Los Medanos Elementary School
location. The transmission line then parallels the north side of SR 4 past Loveridge Road and '
outside of the project limits. The underground gas line originates just west of the northern side of
the SR 4/Railroad Avenue interchange and continues parallel to the north side of SR 4 past
Loveridge Road and outside the project limits. Utility locations are described in Chapter 2 and
illustrated in Figure 2-2.
Future Land Uses ,
Pittsburg's planning area contains a relatively large amount of land available for future residential.
development. According to the Pittsburg General Plan, which was adopted in 1988, Pittsburg's
planning area had the capacity to accommodate approximately 15,620 additional housing units,about
double the number of units that existed in the city in 1988. However, only a small amount of this
capacity had been used since 1988. Approximately 1,200 housing units were built in Pittsburg from
1990 to the beginning of 1999(California Department of Finance 1999),indicating that much of the
vacant land designated for residential development within the general plan area is still available.
Future residential development is planned throughout Pittsburg, although Pittsburg's general plan
indicates that the major concentrations of future housing growth in the city will occur on vacant land
in the planning area's southern, southwestern, and southeastern hills, in the west and east Leland
area, and in the Buchanan area. Also, according to the general plan, new multifamily sites are
designated near downtown Pittsburg;at major intersections,such as Bailey/West Leland;and in new '
development areas, including the Chevron site,the the Mallard Marina area, and the edges of the
hillsides, especially on Kirker Pass Road. ,
City of Pittsburg General Plan Update. Pittsburg's general plan is currently being updated.
Under the general plan land use alternative currently being considered by Pittsburg, '
4,000-5,000 new housing units would be constructed in major new development areas in Pittsburg
between 2000 and 2010 (Gangapuram pers. comm.). In-fill development is also envisioned
throughout the city.
The general plan update anticipates future development of a BART transit station at Railroad
Avenue,which will probably lead to changes in existing land use designations and zoning in specific '
areas of the project area. Based on the preferred land use map currently being considered by
Pittsburg for the general-plan update,land uses along Railroad Avenue south of SR 4 and along Bliss
Avenue in the southeast quadrant of the project area will shift from industrial park to business r
commercial, which will facilitate eventual redevelopment of the area with an emphasis on
commercial and office uses. Similarly,the general plan update will likely encourage redevelopment
Initial Stud"/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-2 '
V 0
0
IWO
.31SV—
x
Iola
DOINIA01
' .it
005
1 a
10
It
AN mill
VV',
mom
Won
Kmolu
.is
Tot rr AY
MV,
tJnws i A no
AV
mm" Imnoom
•
fi .3
IV
A' +py Is
AV 0
Ss AY YMY 3SOY AY WSVVVl A,
AV Bog
AV
A
11 V
L03 %Q
vii !"DR
I'm
\ N � d p oG0 36 Com.' _ "- Q
Im
1 , t ; W � 4-��� 3l1,ron;°Q` �:. t5 11 -- ' --- --�` I�
-Ml
13
01
1 ,010
a� ` `•;'"' `'43� .tl
\ 5� P!l• J• wy ar la 0"LI Jrs owls d ��`
*rwV4
1 � )tfA°��� i £ wOttp9 oW
4,
of Railroad Avenue north of SR 4 and along Californiaia Avenue, shifting land use from office
' commercial to community commercial uses. (Strelo pers. comm.)
Agricultural and Mineral Resources
The project area is generally urbanized and contains no commercial farmland that would be directly
or indirectly affected by the proposed action. In addition,the project area is not known to be located
near locally or regionally valued mineral resources.
Population and Housing
Contra Costa County's population has grown from 556,100 in 1970 to an estimated 906,600 by the
beginning of 1999 (California Department of Finance 1984, 1999). The county's population is
' projected to grow to more than 1.1 million by 2020, with almost 60% of this growth expected to
occur in rural East County and the communities of Antioch,Brentwood,and Pittsburg(Association
of Bay Area Governments 1998).
' At the beginning of 1999 Pittsburgad an estimated population of 53,000 5.8% of Contra Costa
g g � g P P
County)(California Department of Finance 1999). Pittsburg's population growth rate has exceeded
that of Contra Costa County since 1970,with Pittsburg's population increasing at an average annual
rate of 5.1% (compared to 2.2% countywide) between 1970 and 1999 (California Department of
' Finance 1984 and 1999).
According to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections•(1998), the number of
' households in the Pittsburg sphere of influence, which is larger than the current city limits, is
projected to increase from 70,900 in 2000 to 96,500 by 2020—an annual growth rate of 1.8%. The
population in the current city limits is projected to grow to approximately 80,000 by 2020.
Based on 1990'Census data, the average number of persons per household is generally larger in
Pittsburg than in Contra Costa County as a whole. According to recent household size estimates
prepared by the California Department of Finance (1999), this difference has been maintained
throughout the 1990s. Pittsburg's average number of persons per household of 3.14 in 1999 exceeds
the countywide average of 2.73. Within the project area,household sizes in 1990 ranged from a low
' of 2.64 in the Bliss Avenue/East Leland Area to 3.34 in the East of Harbor Street Area.
Estimated populations and household characteristics of each CT area affected by the proposed action
' are summarized in Table 3-1.
Initial SRtdv/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project Febmary 2001
Contra Costa Transportation AuthoritY 3-3
Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
On February 11, 1994,ithe President issued Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice lin Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," directing federal
agencies to develop strategies to prevent environmental discrimination against poor and minority
communities. Environmental discrimination would involve an action that intentionally or ,
unintentionally differentially affects or creates a disadvantage for individuals, groups, or
communities based on 'race or color.
i
Pittsburg is more ethnically diverse than Contra Costa County as a whole. Pittsburg's population
contains a higher percentage of persons of Hispanic origin(23.7%)and African-Americans(17.6%)
than the county (11.44 and 9.3%, respectively). Conversely, whites represent a much smaller
percentage of Pittsburg's population (56.8%) than the county's (76.0%). In the project area,
particularly the Power; Avenue/Pittsburg High School and East of Harbor Street Areas, ethnic '
composition is more diverse than Pittsburg as a whole. In the Power Avenue/Pittsburg High School
Area, 42.5% of residents are persons of Hispanic origin, and in the East of Harbor Street Area,
59.4%of residents are African-American. ,
i
An analysis of environmental justice was completed for the proposed action in the community
impact assessment prepared for the.proposed action by Jones & Stokes (2000b). The analysis
concluded that temporary and permanent adverse impacts of the proposed action would fall
disproportionately on minority and low-income populations based on 1990 U.S. Census data for
Contra Costa County, the City of Pittsburg,.and the project area. As described in Chapter 2, the
primary purpose of the;proposed action is to alleviate traffic congestion along the SR 4 corridor.
Because there are no practicable alternatives to the proposed freeway widening that would avoid
effects on minority and.low income people and meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, ,
CCTA would implement standard measures to minimize the temporary and permanent effects on the
general populations affected, including relocation of residents and compensation of properties in
accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act; '
see Mitigation Measure 3.in Chapter 5. In addition, the proposed freeway widening would be
primarily on the south side of SR 4, which has a lower percentage of families and individuals with '
income below the poverty level and a higher percentage of nonminorities than the north side of SR 4,
thereby further reducing the number of minority and low-income people affected by the proposed
action. '
Applicability of Section 4(f) Evaluation
Section 4(f)of the U.S.Department of Transportation Act protects properties that are publicly owned
and managed as a park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site. Therefore, ,
federal-aid highway projects that "use" Section 4(f) properties cannot be approved unless it can be
demonstrated that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to such a use and that the project
includes all possible planning to minimize harm to Section 4(f) properties (49 USC 303). ,
Initial Stud'/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Projrt•t February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-4
•ii•"�� max: fa.'. ./.�.
Y
f00 It V- .
O
•t7 00W) C14
M
cn c
cs<C
a o
i N M M M
O
U �
y �
U un .+
V O N
x
7
O Q
vt p v?
CA
O
cr
75
N D
� a y
'c, o
M N �
8 o M
M
0
°o U
`x. l
to 0
Cd
C
oj [Gj
„�
w L4
v 0 0
0. W
' The project area is not located near a publicly owned recreation area or near a wildlife or waterfowl
P J P Y
' refuge, and it would not affect a significant cultural resource. Also, as described above, although
the proposed action would require acquisition of a utility easement within the northern portion of
the Los Medanos Elementary School playfield, a Section 4(f) evaluation is not applicable because
ownership of the land would remain with the school district,the function and use of the land would
not change, and the proposed action would not interfere with the long-term activities of the school.
Therefore, a Section 4(f) evaluation is not required for the proposed action.
Public Services
Schools
' The project area is served by the PittsburgUnified School District, including three elementary
schools(Parkside Elementary,Village Elementary,and Los Medanos Elementary,) two junior high
' schools (Central Junior High and Hillview Junior High,) and one high school (Pittsburg High
School). Los Medanos Community College,which is located east of the Bliss Avenue/Leland Road
Area, also serves residents of the project area.
Emergency Services
Police services are provided to Pittsburg and the project area by the 72 sworn personnel of the
' Pittsburg Police Department,which is located in the Power Avenue/Pittsburg High School Area west
of Railroad Avenue. For police patrol purposes,the city is separated into nine police beats,including
Beat 2, which includes most of the East of Harbor Street Area and the eastern portion of the Power
Avenue/Pittsburg High School Area; Beat 3, which includes the portion of the Power
Avenue/Pittsburg High School Area west of Davi Avenue; Beat 5, which includes most of the Los
Medanos Elementary School Area;and Beat 7,which includes most of the Bliss Avenue/East Leland
' Area.
Fire protective services are provided by the Contra Costa Fire Protection District, which serves
' Pittsburg and Antioch and surrounding unincorporated areas. The district operates two fire stations
in Pittsburg: one in the downtown area and one on Harbor Street, located just south of the Harbor
Street/East Leland Avenue intersection in the Bliss Avenue/East Leland Area.
' Major medical services are provided by Sutter Delta Medical Center in Antioch,the closest hospital
to the project area. Other health facilities in and near the project vicinity include the Pittsburg Health
' Center on School Street east of Harbor Street, and the Los Medanos Health Center near the East
Leland Road/Loveridge Road intersection. Ambulance and paramedic services are provided by a
number of private companies.
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 Fast Widening Project February 200/
' Contra Costa Transportation Authorily 3-5
Recreation/Bike Paths ,
The Pittsburg General Plan Open Space Element contains a Bikeway Master Plan;which designates '
planned bike routes to; provide alternative modes of transportation to schools, parks, and the
riverfront. With the exception of portions of Harbor Street and Buchanan Road, which have been
striped to accommodate Class 2 bikeways, none of the streets in the project area currently support '
bike lanes(Reinders pets. comm.). Within the project area,the Bikeway Master Plan's Bicycle and
Pedestrian Ways map proposes development of Class 2 bikeways in the future along the following
routes:
■ north alongCrestview Drive from West Buchanan Road to Frontage Road, east along
Frontage Road to Railroad Avenue, and north along Railroad Avenue to 3rd Street;
■ along the length of Harbor Street; ,
■ along West and East Leland Road;
■ along California Avenue; and ,
■ along Power Avenue. ,
Other Recreation ,
Other forms of recreation in the area include water-related activities in nearby water bodies north of
the project area and various outdoor activities(e.g.,camping and hiking)in regional and state parks
located in Contra Costa County and throughout the region.
SECTION 3B. AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION
The information presented in this section is based on the air quality impact report prepared for the
proposed action by Jones & Stokes (2000a) and the draft traffic analysis report prepared for the '
proposed action by Fehr& Peers Associates (2000).
Air Quality ,
Climate
The project area is located .in a Mediterranean subtropical climate zone,with cool,wet winters and '
warm,dry summers that are typical of central California. Most rainfall in Pittsburg occurs between
November and April, with annual precipitation of approximately 20 inches. .
Initial Studv/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-6 '
Bay Area Attainment Status
' The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) was reclassified on June 1, 1998, by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) as a federal carbon monoxide (CO)attainment area.
' The SFBAAB is also classified as attainment for state CO standards. The region is nonattainment
for both state and federal ozone standards. For particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
(PM10), the region is nonattainment for state standards and is undesignated for federal standards,
which is tantamount to classification as attainment.
' Regulations
The following regulations are addressed in the evaluation of the impact of highway projects on air
' quality: NEPA, the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments, EPA regulations
implementing the CAA, the California Clean Air Act, and California law implementing CEQA.
' State Implementation Plan
' The BAAQMD's portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)contains transportation
control measures (TCMs) designed to reduce emissions of the region's nonattainment pollutants:
PM10 and ozone precursors. The FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) found the
' MTC's fiscal year 2000 Federal Transportation Improvement Plan (FTIP) and 1998 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) to conform to the applicable SIPS on October 6, 2000, and January 21,
1999, respectively. The proposed action is included in the MTC's conforming FTIP and RTP with
' the same design concept and scope. The proposed action does not interfere with the timely
implementation of applicable TCMs. Further, HOV lanes, an applicable TCM, are included in the
' project.
Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol
The Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol was developed jointly by Caltrans and
the Institute of Transportation Studies of the University of California,Davis(Garza et al. 1997). The
protocol has been approved by the EPA and FHWA for use in the SFBAAB. The protocol allows
for a qualitative approach to be used in evaluating CO concentrations for areas that are classified as
attainment for the state and federal CO standards. Based on that approach, the proposed action
would not cause exceedances of state or federal CO standards and consequently would not result in
CO microscale pollution impacts. Therefore, the proposed action is a conforming project when
' evaluated for its microscale effects.
i
1
Initial Study/Environinental Assessment Chapter.3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project Febnrary 2001
' Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-7
1
Transportation
The information draft traffic analysis report prepared b ,
T e ormatron presented �n this section is based on the. y p p p y
Fehr & Peers Associates (2000). The report presents traffic analysis for 1999 and travel demand
forecasts for 2025. Both the.traffic analysis and travel demand forecast examine the following '
conditions: vehicle occupancy counts,freeway mainline operation,weaving section operations,ramp
'junction operations,intersection operations,and signal warrant analysis. Overall,the analysis found
that SR 4 currently operates. at LOS F during morningpeak hours and LOS D during evening peak ,
hours. Amore general description of transportation conditions in the project area is provided below.
Existing Conditions
SR 4 is the primary east-west transportation corridor in Contra Costa County: It:is used primarily
for commute traffic between East County residential areas and the employment areas.of central.
Contra Costa County, Santa Clara County, Oakland, and San Francisco. Progressive development '
in East County combined with increased regional traffic has contributed to traffic delays,which have
resulted in the freeway operating beyond its capacity.
Major north-south arterials include Railroad Avenue, Harbor Street, and Loveridge Road. Major '
east-west arterials include Willow Pass Road and the Pittsburg-Antioch Highway north of the project
area,Power Avenue and California Avenue adjacent to the north.side of SR 4,and Leland Road and ,
Buchanan Road in the southern part of the study area(Figure 2-2).
Relevant Plans and Policies
Transportation circulation and access planning in the project area is guided by objectives and policies '
contained in the Traffic and Circulation Element of the Pittsburg General Plan. The primary
objectives of the transportation element include:
■ permitting through traffic to choose reasonably direct paths to destinations throughout
the general 'plan planning area; '
■ minimizing;intrusion of through traffic onto local roadways;
■ avoiding over-reliance on SR 4 for intracity travel in Pittsburg and intercity travel
between Pittsburg and adjacent cities; and
■
providing efficient routes for transit emergency, and other service vehicles. '
P g g Y�
The transportation element recognizes that projected traffic volumes on SR 4 will exceed desired '
capacity despite the widening of SR 4 to the west of Loveridge Road. According to the
transportation element,;this situation will require additional widening of SR 4 (to eight lanes from
Initial Studr/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-8 ,
i
west of Railroad Avenue to Hillcrest Avenue and six lanes'from Hillcrest Avenue to the SR 4 Bypass
as defined by the SR 4 MIS)or significantly increasing the use of transit and other TSM techniques.
' The transportation element encourages the extension of BART through the planning area and
contains the following guiding policies relevant to the proposed action:
' ■ Policy 6.2.A Work with the California Department of Transportation to achieve
timely construction of programmed freeway and interchange
improvements.
■ Policy 6.2.0 Provide adequate capacity on arterial roadways to meet Level of Service
(LOS) standards and to avoid traffic diversion to local roadways or the
freeway. (Jones & Stokes 2000b.)
' SECTION 3C. NOISE
The information presented in this section is based on the noise study technical report prepared by
Jones & Stokes (2000d). Conclusions in the report pertaining to noise conditions were obtained
' from field noise investigations conducted by Jones & Stokes' acoustical engineering staff.
Summaries of federal, state, and local regulations and guidelines are discussed below.
1 '
Federal Agency Guidelines
National Environmental Policy Act
' NEPA is a federal law that establishes environmental policy for the nation, provides an
interdisciplinary framework for federal agencies to prevent environmental damage, and contains
' "action-forcing"procedures to ensure that federal agency decision makers consider environmental
factors in their decisions. Under NEPA,impacts and measures to mitigate adverse impacts must be
identified, including identifying impacts for which no mitigation or only partial mitigation is
available. The FHWA regulations discussed below constitute the federal Noise Standard. Projects
complying with this standard are also in compliance with the requirements stemming from NEPA.
Federal Highway Administration Regulations
' Title 23, Part 772 of the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772) provides procedures for
conducting highway project.noise studies and implementing noise abatement measures to help
protect the public health and welfare, supply noise abatement criteria (NAC), and establish
' requirements for information to be given to local officials for use in planning and designing
highways. Under this regulation, noise abatement must be considered for a Type I project if the
project is predicted to result in a traffic noise impact; Type I projects are defined below. A traffic
Initial Stud'/Environmental Assessment Chapter3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 Fast Widening Project February 2001
' Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-9
1
noise impact is considered to occur when the project results in a substantial noise increase or when
the predicted noise levels approach or exceed the NAC specified in the regulation. 23 CFR•772 does
not specifically define what constitutes a "substantial increase'••or the term "approach"; rather, it '
leaves interpretation of ithese terms to the individual states.
Noise abatement measures that are reasonable and feasible and likely to be incorporated into the '
project as well as noise:impacts for which no apparent solution is available must be identified and
incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. Table 3-2 summarizes the FHWA noise
abatement criteria. ,
Table 3-2. Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria '
NAC,Hourly
Activity A-Weighted Sound ,
Category Level,(dBA-Leq[h]) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
Exterior significance and serve an important public need and where the
preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is.to continue
to serve its'intended purpose
B 67 Picnic areas,recreation areas,playgrounds,active sport areas, ,
Exterior parks,residences,motels,hotels,schools,churches,libraries,and
hospitals
C 72 Developed.lands,properties,or activities not included in '
Exterior Categories"A or B above
D — Undeveloped lands ,
E 52 Residences,motels,hotels,public meeting rooms,schools,
Interior churches, libraries,hospitals,and auditoriums ,
Source: California Department of Transportation 1998. ,
California Environmental Quality Act
Under CEQA, a substantial noise increase may result in an adverse environmental effect; if so, the
increase must be mitigatcd or identified as a noise impact for which it is likely that only partial '
(or no) mitigation measures are available. . Specific economic, social, environmental, legal, and
technological conditions may make noise mitigation measures infeasible.
Initial Stud"/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-10 ,
1
Traffic No: Analysis Protocol for
New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects
' Section 216 of the California Streets and Highways Code relates to the noise level that is produced
by the traffic on or by the construction of a state freeway and is measured in classrooms, libraries,.
multipurpose rooms,and spaces used for pupil personnel services of a public or private elementary
' or secondary school. The code states that if the interior noise level produced.by freeway traffic or
the construction of a freeway exceeds 52 dBA-Leq(h)(A-weighted decibels-equivalent hourly sound
level,) the department shall undertake a noise abatement program in any such classroom, library,
' multipurpose room, or space used for pupil personnel services to reduce the freeway traffic noise
level therein to 52 dBA-L�q(h)or less by measures including(but not limited to)installing acoustical
materials,eliminating windows,installing air conditioning,andconstructing sound baffle structures.
Type I Projects
' Transportation projects affected by the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol are referred to as Type I
projects. A Type I project is defined in 23 CFR 772 as a proposed federal or federal-aid project for
the construction of a.highway on a new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway that
significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of
through-traffic lanes. The FHWA has clarified its interpretation of Type I projects by stating that
a Type I project is any project that has the potential to increase noise levels at adjacent receivers.
This includes projects to add interchange, ramp, auxiliary, or truck-climbing lanes to an existing
highway. A project to widen an existing ramp by a full lane width is also considered to be a Type I
' project. Caltrans extends this definition to include state-funded highway projects. The proposed
action is considered to be a Type I project because it involves federal funding,widening the existing
mainline highway, and modifying ramps.
' Noise-Sensitive Land Uses
Field investigations conducted by Jones & Stokes staff identified single-family residences,
condominiums,apartments,and schools as noise-sensitive uses potentially affected by the proposed
action. These uses are considered Activity Category B land uses as defined in Table 3-2.
Commercial uses are also located in the project area and are considered Activity Category C land
' uses. The following is a discussion of land uses in the project area.
Area 1
' This area is located on the south side of SR 4-between the western project limits and Railroad
Avenue (Figure 3-2). Frontage Road runs between the freeway and development south of the
freeway. Single-family residences and the play field of Los Medanos Elementary School are located
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 Fast Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-11
between Dover Way and Marsh Avenue along the south side of Frontage Road. The school structure
and hard-top play yard are set.back more than 152 meters (500 feet) from SR 4. An apartment
building and an Elks Lodge are located between Marsh Avenue and Crestview Drive. An apartment '
complex is located juste west of Crestview Lane along Frontage Road. The first row of residences
have a direct line of sight to the freeway. The first row of residences, the apartment building, the
Elks Lodge, and the first two buildings of the.apartment complex located between Los Medanos '
Elementary School and Crestview Lane would be removed as part of the proposed action.
Commercial land use includes a shopping center located between Crestview Lane and Railroad
Avenue. ,
Area 2 '
This area is located on the north side of SR 4(Figure 3-3). Power Avenue.runs between the freeway '
and development north of SR 4 except at the apartment complex (Fountain Plaza Apartments)
located south of Power Avenue,where the street turns northwest away from SR 4. These apartments
are located between the western project limits and Power Avenue. A 10-foot-high soundwall is '
located between the apartment complex and SR 4. A condominium complex (River Run
Condominiums)is located north of Power Avenue west of Parkside Elementary School. An 8-foot-
high sound wall is located between the condominium complex and Power Avenue. Parkside
Elementary School is located north of Power Avenue and west of Andrew Avenue. The school
structure and hard-tope play yard are set back more than .152 meters (500 feet) from SR 4.
Single-family residences are located in the area between and on either side of Andrew Avenue and. '
Davi Avenue. First-row residences in this area have a direct line of sight to SR 4. Office buildings
are located between the residences and Railroad Avenue.
Area 3
This area is located on the north side of SR 4 between Railroad Avenue and Harbor Avenue
(Figure 3-4). California Avenue runs between SR 4 and development north of SR 4. A restaurant
is located directly east; of Railroad Avenue. Single-family residences are located between the '
restaurant.and a vacant lot adjacent to Harbor Avenue. SR 4 in this location is in a deep cut. There
is no direct line of sight from the residences to SR 4.' '
Area 4
This area is located on the north side of SR 4-between Harbor Avenue and the eastern project limits
(Figure 3-5). California Avenue runs between SR4 and development north of SR 4.• Commercial
uses are located between Harbor Avenue and Newport Drive. The Solomon Temple Missionary
Baptist Church is located directly east of Newport Drive. An outdoor preschool play area faces the
freeway. An empty lotiis located directly east of the church. A sign located on the site states that '
Pittsburg Vision, Inc., a commercial use, will be located on the site in.the future. Single-family
homes are located between this site and Diane Avenue. The Church of Christ is located directly east
1
Initial StudVEnvironmental Assessment Chapter?. Affected F.nvironntent
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Audiority 3=12 '
i
1
' �o �M' -• -- vi ri �'�— O O
H z z z z z z z z ~
' x
N N M M O M
I H zz zz zz zz zz zz z z
s z z z z z z z z
C\ O C\ -t in N N ¢ N
N N N N N z ^-� ^ cq C\ z
y
N
C
00 C\ 00 r- 00 N C\ I- W) M CN W) Q' 00
1 � � z z
y
N M �o M ¢ 00 O M 00 M M CN C� Q'
(7� 00 M O l- r- �O .• M
cd O z � M - d' M M M to "t Z -,t
Q Q
' M N M M N z N N N N N N M N z N
'b y
C
tn Q �o
o b H
z z
0
vo �D ¢ w CN W CN 0 Ch wM - oo -4
w p v1 tt to z W) V1 V1 �O V1 M M d' z
M C
Q
M
N
B M N OO "It C� l M 00 00 00 W� 00 r 't \O
[- m O N [- V1 cV -r -- C\ CN N 00 t- — C\
E > v1 V1 �o v1 V1Cd
�O
7 � a
y C
O �
C
O O. O N N -- 00 V1 O T
C
C
U
0 � �
' X
N
d a c. a ci a ci a s c. a 16 ci li Cd ci a 6.
f t oo r O d M W- -+ oo CN \0 r [, N 0
to M M to + M
N N. N --�
X �
r- 00 r- C- I- (- r- l� I� w w 00 00 w 00 w U N N
N C1 .--+ _r .--i — — — '. .-, .-. .--i — .-. — — —
Q o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0F aj
�- z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z >, a E
C > �
V u
N N N QCd
fn
zxz
t
O
Q°
O "
s ■ ■ = r r r r =
2v },
:N
r2 _
— o
e a p
M
e
s
a i
cn
_ �fiiiiiii'!;:i
'DWI,. ��I•I
if
mv
.E•
T�
°
ss .
D
s
I
.2
.5..I:
'............ i'
,�
to ..•
F ��-ay
is
: «2':2«:«::a
CA
E2
i �' 3 / •
:'I A
• tc
eD ,
> >
r+
WCI
V1 O
,::
S n C
- fD
r•. c
3 O w !.:..
D w —
' ...
I►I�III •
-� Vii:! I / � ...'i ►.p;,,
cr
/ •�%• /ii /�• / /� �'�� ���'y� -- ``il •� :.iiia t' 9. :E: _ (9
N
H
n
..........
:I
O
... ..........................t....::::::::...... .. ....
r C�
O
/ . f
C
FI
..::.: t!:::a;,iii:! ;..`.l : '•� � O
d
:
...........:'::
r ,
it
/
...........
........................
........... ..........................
........
/
ISI:
..............:
I
't=
...........................
r •.
.................:...................
••/ oR ML .....:
•,, i
i:_ia
i..
h
I:
I
f
o /
S
uil
1
. . .......:.
_. rr
_ ■.1,..■ear� lili!,i: ;— _ / J '
°Dr
°
•g°°D o m
a e OOOOOOe00e °•
O °O U
'! °OO C O
o °o°
o °o eeoo Deeo
o d
•C c ° 0 1 N
r� o a•c
CA
'•t C H K �
eD
� K vj
m c fl DO
d
C
r d o u O
Ly N N
H
CD
:3
LA � aw
fD D w
3eD
W 00
00
i + V kAVk
c
1
cn
eD
cn
C
;. rW
Vml
It
�•� � \\ 1�' 111 , 1\ `�-= �v r� --
��� •+ III 1 'j � I I �I �%'a;
-
�\A \ 111 i I Il,.-..--..-.. --------
..._._
e \ 111 II I�I a I'll I, � ,.
I lilt
•• IIII 11 'I 1 r', \ cn mcl
D
�y 1•'c�\ I I.I II 1� .j I O z
En
m
3 "' ••.
0.0 woo ,a lilt
r) mom sma
I Ilya I l r►,� I l
It � I 'It I N 11
rJD LO tT1 r" u I 1 ISI I I `. u •.
d CD Ln
r OO CD I
-
cc
� 1II S = W
I ; (D 11111 II III — ANDREW AVE.
Cl
� N �
ILA
III ill
5
�
s� rte-- - I II I I .���,�--
.1..1��.�I,� 11 I ,o
=�• ul
.III , . .----
o �.-
o
i tLip
� I . !1 III i, __❑
p ._c' 11= _ .��III I v,
} 1.
^ � ' ' Imo... V!I - � I I I 1 �� f-,f--��. � .••
---eD
--
� )
cn
o + CDL-J I ...........li
O O N fD {_ s V V�,7 t!!�i — ,—
�' w + _2-__LrJ 00
0 to 00 V1 D
__ �I
c
vim+
Continued on Figure 28
M W jwo am M M M. M M M . M.
o
ON)MD
Continued from Figure 2A
1.:1:1!1 I SII I -...;,
o !......r., ti...... ..
r
------
� MARSH AVE. I I
Sz --- .--
II I IIII'
n
3
CMD
0 2 ' I;II;I I ;
1
ii l; I ,III
III; I o
r � --•� n III
o
0 2 I;
-
r••� ........ ....... . A.j I
77.77,7
I N
tl.....L......
II
.. I I' III ..... ....... ...
Al
III _
0 1
CR VIEW DRIVE_ i I I 1 , # Z_DAVI AVE. p •p
d �.®moo,, .. .. .. � . � I. III f - ►.
I; I�
III II'
! I ;L..........................
III I Ir I I ,�
I I
I + I I I• 1,19
J
u_
CRESTVIEW LANE t I I I II 3 I
_.... ......
® sow wooago
son woo MO woo
'
M
I; �' II�I III rl li \
Z � ' I ' 1111I III I� ` i �I
50 I ,� 1111y l Il l N I ! III I
poi
r I .,I I! !I • � I I �I � ��
I I
..........................:..,.................................
......
I
7'`.777
r
---—
........................:.. .
fill I 1
Rauboa _ _ -
Continued on Figure 2C
I
o c
I �
M
Wcc O 0. C
(' !ND D
+ c
Op v A 0 0- O
o ! (D
O O NrD O O
-P N In Cn
+ + um N
r T_ In Cc =*. 0
LA
O lfl oo v+ 0 O ;:w
O O 7
O W .
N W
.Continued from Figure 28
H _ y ..........................................
'0 no.. _ _—_ ___
n r ,r ;� •� I I l� )r
1
_._.............
�- E17
+
3
•—
......-........At_._ '
t ;
I I • � ,
i
II 3 I_II� � � I i• ! _ 'o
1 1.I, Irl- j N I I I � , _ �•--_ -
4111
�+
o --
I
ll
� I
1 III III . S I I I -'4-__:-�--•-
1
1 II .I,I,I�. ? III ; �, ,� •'
3
1 r 1-IIt --
1 I I � 11
I ! —�
I
I I I,I.......... _-
_
! _CLYDE AVE.
1 N ,II
1 III ' -IIS I I I.
III I
- ___ -
III-�l I ► � j-
1
-:�.._.`..L -
,
I I
i
' fl .
..........__..:.jL
. I
AJ
1 111 •� '
I � — ...��
rt
I� ' dill_
7
•
�. illllrglcy
l Cldll' il 1
1 1111111 fllillA I;I '� I ! 1
fli JI:�-........._ i
1 III-:'� • � � I I II � 1
f 1 1 1 I -.-.......-
� V) L^ > ; 1 III' !'i •� I I I ,_:�` _
CL
� _ _ �-
1 i la_ �j! I I ( I
I
M v) L^ L4 a e y o 1 �_,i
9 I 111 . ;I • � � I If �I
w ao
° Z Z a I Ill II
H w o n 1 111 • ' i I I I I !II
c + + ° n iII ' •�: o I ISI
°- o o °P'J - i III •I ) ' I I �I , III 7..�
'R w +
r Nj
Un o
O CC Oo u, o �,
eb ° 1 SII 'r � l SII -
Of.77y� a I ---
4A I
Continued on Figure 2D
Continued from; Figure 28
O f -
Imo/ c :::::::: III I.:_ . 14
:.....::.::...:........... .
CD
s II k
cn
Q° :.III .
..
•I
N .` ► 1 I I ..�-� ...
cn
I
I n I •
CSD E
;t NE
C!) n w 2' 'III .$� •( I --�— R RIV
• eD o r D
III I I• I I::':: -::
110
III II _ ...... . ..-
.................... _.............,.._: I T
_.....
III
.......... oo;
D0 O
I • I � 'I� �
III I I = WT
D
._...............
k n
I i
A
�e17
!I : ill t
`11 I
ri
. :._...............ai" I ......_.. ..._..
I :: 11 I •'k
III I
. . 0
l
I.� N
I I
1 I
IM
II
ie
® ': f
�....: :.... r.:-.�
BENJAMIN AVE.
II EiP
=�
..:
..............
ti �I
v, 1Z
Z Zo
O
(D o
o
/':
K K
. ::: err
I ^
_• o � ; i :III ! ;�..� �`
1
O J DIANE AVE.
LA
O
O _ III n
H
Kirker Creek
i
m m
0 \UJ
p Cn
C + i
II 0
OO V ..': I_ I 0 x
.,
O C O O
O O -"
� I I
II I .
N ,
N N N � •I' i
+ -+'
r T LM Ln N
00 lJ+ 0 co
ami®�
0
' of Diane Avenue approximately 30.5 meters(100 feet)back from California Avenue. Only a church
PP Y
parking lot (with no outdoor activity areas) faces SR 4. The play field for the Martin Luther King
Elementary School is located east of the Church of Christ. The school structure and hard-top play
yard is set back more than 152 meters (500 feet) from SR 4.
Area 5
This area is located on the south side of SR 4 between Railroad Avenue and the eastern project
limits. Except the Faith Worship Center Pentecostal Church, which is located east of Railroad
Avenue, these are all commercial or light industrial uses.
Specific receiver locations were selected for detailed evaluation based on the field investigation. In
1 some instances,a receiver location represents a single residence or noise sensitive location. In other
instances one receiver location might represent several residences or sensitive uses in an acoustically
equivalent location. Although impacts on Activity Category C land uses (i.e., commercial and
industrial uses)will be discussed,detailed evaluation was not conducted at Activity Category C land
uses because, according to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, noise abatement is normally not
considered reasonable at commercial uses. Because sound-level measurements taken at the Fountain
Plaza Apartments in Area 2 indicate that sound levels behind the existing soundwall are below 60-
dB Leq(h), no detailed analysis was conducted at this location.
Figures 3-2 to 3-5 show Activity Category B receiver locations evaluated in the analysis. Receiver
locations where noise monitoring was conducted are numbered. Receiver locations evaluated in the
modeling analysis are lettered.
Existing Noise Environment
The noise environment in the project area is dominated by traffic traveling on SR 4. In Areas 2, 3,
and 4 north of SR 4,surface traffic on Power Avenue and California Avenue are major contributors
to the overall traffic noise levels at noise-sensitive uses in the area. This contribution is greatest
along California Avenue east of Harbor Boulevard, where heavy trucks are common,and in Area 3,
where SR 4 is in a deep cut. Tables 3-3 and 3-4 summarize sound level measurements taken in the
project area, and Table 3-5 summarizes the noise-modeling results for existing conditions.
Initial StudVEnvironmental Assessment Chapter3. Affected Environinew
State Route 4 Fast Widening Project February 2001
1 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-13
Table 3-4: Summary of Long-Term Sound-Level Monitoring
Time dB-L,.U(h)
12 a.m. 56.0
1 a.m. 54.5
2 a.m. 55.0
3 a.m. 57.0
4 a.m. 60.0 '
5 a.m. 61.0
6 a.m. 62.5
7 a.m. 62.5
8 a.m. 60.0
9 a.m. 60.5
10 a.m. 59.0
11 a.m. 59.5
12 p.m. 61.0
1 P.M. 62.5
2 p.m. 63.0
3 p.m. 63.0
4 p.m. 62.5
5 p.m. 61.0
6 p.m. 61.0
7 p.m. 61.5
8 p.m. 62.0
9 P.M. 62.5
10 P.M. 61.0
11 P.M. 59.5
The modeling results in Table 3-5 indicate that existing traffic noise levels at first-row residences
facing SR 4 typically exceed the noise abatement criteria of 67 dB-Leq(h) for Activity Category B
land uses. Although noise levels at adjacent commercial uses were not specifically modeled, spot
monitoring and the modeling results indicate that existing noise levels at these uses approach or
exceed the noise abatement criteria of 72 dB-Leq(h) for Activity Category C land uses.
SECTION 3D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The information presented in this section is based on the water quality study technical report
prepared for the proposed action by Jones & Stokes (2000e) and a draft hydrology report prepared
Initial Stud'/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-14 '
w
O
�yC C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
1 U
a
c
•p 2 b Cn fn � M M fn m M � V1 � � r- CO V1 W � N-i O\ c"I O� [� M ('n M M �' M �
z r �-
°
r�
>
y y
�o 00 It \O w M �o w "T O O tn 10 O t r- v1 V1 V1 v1 M N �t 00 N v1 N C�
z � � �o V•1 v-� �O V1 � �D V•1 V1 l- �° v) [- wI- r �D l� �o I� \O I- [- �O v1 [- IO �D V1
a � z° b
O
' 3
o
00 > u
M t/1� O cn W) O M O \0 Wo C0 N \O w z N ►a �o v1 in �o W) v� to�D v� V1 \O V7 v) \O I� Z�o \o �o \D v'1 �o W) \D Z �o v1 \o %o N V'1
s! , w
° � �'saacaaaataaa� aaaaaaaaaoaacar�aaar�aaaa� caa� a� aaaaa� a� r�aaaaaoa
1 z yEp — bb U L7 S7 b bb bb bbb b b 'bb
w z �o �o �o �o �o �o �o �o �o �o �o �o �o \o \o \o \o �o•\o
Q U b PO Gq GQ a1 W W GG CC Ct1 as PQ 07 Gq as PO OQ m 0.1 W GO Oq W 0.1 Ca GQ PG1 CU Gq a1
w
O
!, G
O E
c� c� c� c� a —a c� a "a
> C C C C G C C C C G C C C C C C C C C G G C C G C C C
N
w w w w w w w w w w w w s L w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
U U
cn rA
U U U U U U U U U U U U U G G U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
C 'C 'O b b 'O 'fl b b b 'C 'C 'O b � � b b b 'C 'C 'O 'fl •fl b "O b b b b
p w w w w w w w w w w (4 w w w w w In w w w w w w w w w w
U 0 0 T T T T - - T T T T T T T T
Cd Cd
' EL 00 @) co 00 b0 7EL 0o 730on @) c0 00 w ou 00 00 a0 ao 00 00 00 0o 00 00 c0 00 cw
C C C CC G C E G C C C C Q Q C G G G C C C G C C C C G C
'w 'w 'w 'w 'w 'w 'w 'in 'w 'w r-� .-J �n w w w in C4 w v3 'in W w 'A 'W 'n
— — — — — -" — -r — -. -- -r -r — — — -r — — N N N N N N N
cE :d cJ c3 cJ cC cJ cd cd cd c7 m M m m m 0 m cl of m m m m m m 0 m m
L
a�
u Q a, u '" Q m U a W N u, 0 C7 M x ., � x � � z 0 a � x �
N !,
v..
a r
y
•F) H M � 'd' N M M M N N M N N M M M N M
z U �-
O.
.�
V ~O N 00 M N O M N rt 117 [- �O ln �O 00 IA O
I
0
3 '
O
x ..
G a�
•p 00 O 00 O �O --� O� N M M � M. M t-
z 4) 'M� \O � 'O l� �O l� in [— V1 l— ti) Il- r- � [— �o r-
1 fy
W h o b
3
a� aci z'u ACl AU CO Cq Gq Cq CO CC 0.1 Acl .W L�0 Acl L1Li al C4 Lq f�4
O y � p b b •b b b TJ b 't7 'C b 'O' 'C b b 'S7 b b 't7 b 't7
V G cl ,� Io to %
l0 to Io Io Co l� Io I0 (� l0 to I�
Z. �y I �O �O �O �O �O �O �O �O �O �D �D;�O �O �O �O �O �O �O �O �O
� Qcd
U b W GQ Cq L�1 W 0.1 Qa L1� OQ Cq f�'.� pa Qq Cq f� OQ � Cq al
M
H G '
V
O
pup,, O c� iq cd c� id id id c'a A -A c� c� a
OO
a b 'G b p p b O 72 C b O O
in in in t w in y in w in G in z; is in in in S .0
22
V
K
N
O O 0
O O u u t o
V
COU T VT V>> VV VVE VT VT VT QT) VT VT � Vy VhT ViTn ViTn V�T V�T
d «ccCd+
DQcCd)
V u u u u u V u u uu u uuu o _CCCT � CCGCCCLCGC . CCa Q. 'a'V VV I� V V V V V V V ''C 'C 'C 'C b b "O b cy
NN inN
p
O
c .� cu
V V •in •fn N G: N N 6r V' E 0 0 V V V V •C .0 G C
bq b0 •OA 'Y OQ 00 OA OA b0 cw 7a bD a Qq bU a V ,
C c C '�' c G G G G c p c C c C c G .2P cj ,n
0 G
cl m :b :3 c3 m 03 0 c3 mo m c3 C3 cC m m m a) m '+� p •y C
V V V V V V V V V V V V
H > O 3 ¢ opo = U °, A W °O v)
' for the proposed action by Mark Thomas & Co. (2000). The hydrology and water quality features
of the project area, as well as the regulatory background, are summarized below.
Topography and Climate
The project area lies in East County in a Mediterranean climate zone; its cool wet winters and warm
dry summers are typical of central California. Annual precipitation is approximately 20 inches at
Pittsburg,with most rainfall occurring between November and April. Stormwater runoff generally
is a significant portion of the flow in ephemeral streams of the San Francisco Bay region during the
rainfall season. When drier conditions return in spring, streamflow is generated from the discharge
of groundwater. The elevation of the project area ranges from approximately 100 feet above sea
1 level (asl) at the western project boundary to 50 feet asl at the eastern extent.
Hydrology
Surface Water Features
The project area is located on a terrace in the southern region of the tidally influenced Suisun Bay
east of San Francisco Bay and at the far western extent of the Sacramento River-San Joaquin River
Delta. Surface runoff to the project area generally flows from south to north and discharges to
Suisun Bay. A small unnamed intermittent flowing drainage channel crosses under SR 4 near the
western extent of the project area within the utility easement for Pacific Gas and Electric Company
power lines. Kirker Creek, a perennial stream and the largest channel in the project area, passes
under SR 4 approximately 500 meters west of the SR 4/Loveridge Road interchange. These
drainages receive runoff from mixed land uses of the Pittsburg municipal area,including developed
and semirural areas.
Surface drainage along the SR 4 alignment is conveyed by surface ditches, swales, and culverts on
either side of the roadway and interchanges. Subsurface storm drainage pipes in the project area
generally consist of short pipe and culvert segments that collect and convey runoff under roadways
to surface drainages.
Floodplain Assessment. Kirker Creek has a designated Federal Emergency Management
Agency 100-year floodplain. Since the early 1950s, Kirker Creek has a history of flooding SR 4
because of insufficient flow capacity under SR 4. A double-box culvert that was installed by
' Caltrans in January 1998 will provide total capacity under SR 4 for the 50-year flow and eliminate
inundation of SR 4 in the future. However,the culvert cannot be fully used until Pittsburg completes
downstream improvements. along Kirker Creek to increase channel flow capacity. Caltrans also
' installed an early warning flood system and improved a pump station at Loveridge Road. Pittsburg
has ongoing improvement projects which are expected to be completed before the construction of
the proposed action.
Initial StudvlEnvironmental Assessment Chapter.i. Affected F_nvironment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-15
Groundwater Features '
The project area overlies the Pittsburg Plain groundwater aquifer as identified by the California
Department of Water Resources(DWR). The aquifer runs in an east-west direction parallel to SR 4.
There is relatively little information regarding local groundwater conditions; however, shallow
groundwater can be expected near drainage channels on a seasonal basis. Monitoring records
maintained by the DWR indicate that groundwater levels in two local wells, approximately 1 and
2 miles northwest of the project area, have been constant since 1990 at about 6 and 9 meters below
ground surface (bgs), respectively (California Department of Water Resources 1999).
Surface Water and Groundwater Quality
Water quality depends primarily on hydrologic characteristics of the basin, mineral composition of '
the soils in the watershed,and sources of contaminants in the watershed. Streams in the project area
originate from rainfall and runoff and provide relatively clean flows and groundwater recharge at the
higher elevations in rural areas. As streams pass through urban areas and descend to the Pittsburg �.
Plain, water quality can be expected to decrease because of the additional influences of urban and
industrial development, loss of riparian vegetation, and other factors. The quality of stormwater
varies greatly depending on climatic and land use conditions. Urban and industrial runoff are known
to contribute significantly to the levels of toxic materials, such as metals and organic pesticides,
transported to streams(Makepeace,Smith,and Stanley 1995). Stormwater discharges may contain
unacceptable levels of petroleum fuels and oils., organic matter such as pet and domestic livestock
.wastes;pesticides;metals,such as copper,lead,cadmium,and zinc;and fertilizers,such as nitrogen
and phosphorus.
No routine water quality monitoring is conducted in the streams that. cross the project area. A
previous water quality technical report was prepared for an-earlier SR 4 improvement project that
included the project area and summarized the available surface water quality data for the region
(Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1996b). Water quality indicators for Marsh Creek, located west of
the project area, were reported to be excellent, with low inorganic mineral content. Surface water
sampling results from nearby creeks, such as Walnut Creek and its two main tributaries (Las
Trampas Creek and San Ramon Creek,) indicated good water quality in that they met most water '
quality criteria for aquatic life. Given.the similarity of land uses between the watersheds with water
quality monitoring data and the project area, water quality of small drainages and Kirker Creek are
probably comparable in physical and mineral properties.
Results of stormwater. samples collected by Caltrans on SR 4 at 'Willow Pass Road during
1994-1995 and 1995-1996 runoff events identified only two parameters (lead and zinc) at levels
generally lower than national average concentrations; no organic compounds were detected
(Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1996b).
r
Initial Stud-/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-16
Water quality in two wells located withinl mile of the project area that were monitored by Pittsburg
was reported to be within acceptable limits compared to water quality objectives of the San
Francisco Bay RWQCB (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1996b).
Regulatory Background
Many applicable laws,regulations,and ordinances administered by local,state,and federal agencies
ensure that the hydrologic characteristics and water quality of surface water and groundwater
resources are excluded so that the existing uses they provide (e.g., water supply, flood control,
' recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat) are not impaired. Water quality permitting processes are
designed to limit the discharge of pollutants to the environment, maintain surface water and
1 groundwater quality at existing levels, protect fish and wildlife and their habitats, and protect
beneficial uses.
Federal Clean Water Act
' The proposed action would not result in the filling of waters of the United States,including wetlands,
as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). Because the proposed action would not require a CWA Section 404 permit,a water quality
certification under Section 401 of the CWA would not be required either.
' California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600
' Alterations to creeks by public agencies are regulated by the DFG under Section 1601 (Section 1600
et seq. California Fish and Game Code),which includes strict measures to protect water quality and
fish and wildlife habitat and to mitigate unavoidable habitat losses, including loss of riparian
vegetation. Although the proposed action would not involve work within the ordinary high-water
�. mark of Kirker Creek,construction activities to widen SR 4 over the existing Kirker Creek crossing
and on top of the existing culvert would occur. However,this work would not involve activities that
would require a Section 1601 permit. The DFG Region 3 game warden confirmed via telephone
conference that a streambed alteration agreement would not be required if construction is restricted
to the area above the culvert and does not encroach on the streambed or riparian vegetation
' (Kozicki pers. comm.).
Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management
Executive Order 11988 requires avoiding incompatible floodplain development, restoring and
preserving the natural and beneficial floodplain values, and consistency with the standards and
criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program. An agency must perform a location hydraulic
study when planned transportation improvements encroach on a base (i.e., 100-year) floodplain or
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Afferted Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-17
support incompatible floodplain development(23 CFR part 650A). The proposed action would not
involve construction in the.100-year floodplain. Therefore,a location hydraulic study would not be
required. '
Water Pollution Controls
The proposed action would produce stormwater runoff that could potentially discharge into local
drainageways and Kirker Creek. Pollutant discharge will be minimized by using effective best
management practices(BMPs). The proposed action would disturb an area greater than 5 acres and
would require coverage under Caltrans' NPDES stormwater permit, which was issued by the State
Water Resources Control Board on July 15, 1999 (Order No. 99-06DWQ, CAS000003). The
NPDES stormwater permit requires the preparation of a stormwat.er pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP), preceded by a conceptual SWPPP, that identifies the BMPs to prevent soil erosion, ,
drainage channel scour,and discharges of construction-related pollutants(e.g.,petroleum-based fuels
and oils,solvents,paints,cement,and other materials)that could contaminate nearby water resources
and exceed the established water quality standards. In addition, the proposed action may require ,
other Waste Discharge Requirements(WDRs)from the RWQCB in addressing potential discharge
of groundwater during excavation. Permits from the Corps and DFG must also be required if work
involves culvert extension in Kirker Creek. '
Caltrans is also required to consider an appropriate selection of permanent pollution control
measures, such as seeding and planting, for new cut-and-fill slopes. In addition, soil contaminated ,
with aerially deposited lead(ADL)must be managed in accordance with Caltrans' Standard Special
Provisions, and this issue must also be addressed in the SWPPP. The RWQCB must be notified 30
days prior to project advertisement for bids if ADL soil is to be reused and covered under Caltrans ,
Variance for reuse of ADL soil.
SECTION 3E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section is based on information summarized from the geotechnical impact report prepared by
Parikh Consultants(2000). The report was based on available published geological and geotechnical
data, site reconnaissance, and a review of subsurface information in Caltrans files.
Determinations of geologic conditions were based on best available information and field '
investigation. The geotechnical impact report qualitatively evaluated the environmental concerns
regarding the geotechnical condition of the project area, and did not include any detailed
geotechnical investigations (e.g., a bridge foundation report). ,
Initial Studv/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-18
Site Conditions
A majority of the project area is underlain by older Pleistocene sediments of the Montezuma
formation. These sediments consist of silt to clayey silt and fine sand. Younger Holocene alluvial
sediments occur along active stream channels under SR 4. These sediments predominantly consist
of sands,silts,gravel,and clays. Soils in the project area include slightly compact to very dense silt
and sand at Railroad Avenue, loose to dense sand and silt at the Harbor Street overcrossing and stiff
to hard silty clay at the Loveridge Road overcrossing. The sandy soils within the project area are
known to have low.to moderate liquefaction potential; however, the clayey soils that compose a
majority of the project area generally have low liquefaction potential. Because of the predominance
of clayey soils, overall liquefaction potential in the project area is considered low. However, the
clayey soils in the project area tend to be composed of the Capay-Rincon Soil Series,which generally
exhibits a high shrink-swell potential with a medium to high expansion potential. The expansion
potential of soils at the project site should be determined by evaluating soil borings as part of the
final design phase to ensure that appropriate design considerations are incorporated.
The project area is located in a generally seismically active portion of northern California. The
closest active faults include the Antioch fault, located 5 kilometers(3 miles)east of the project site,
' and the Concord fault,located 12 kilometers(7.3 miles)southwest of the project site. The maximum
credible earthquake (MCE) on the Antioch fault is 6.75, and the MCE on the Concord fault is 6.5.
The Greenville fault is identified as the main controlling fault in the project vicinity, and is located
approximately 15.4 kilometers(9.4 miles)southwest of the project site. The MCE on the Greenville
fault is 7.2. There is a moderate to high possibility that the site could experience ground-shaking in
' the event that surrounding faults produce earthquakes. There are no known active faults across the
project site and the potential for fault rupture is relatively low. In addition,the site is not known to
exist within an Alquist-Priolo Zone.
SECTION 3F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The information presented in this section is based on the natural environment study(NES)technical
report prepared by Jones &Stokes (2000c). Identification of biological resources in the NES were
obtained from field surveys,correspondence with government agencies(i.e.,the DFG,the U.S.Fish
and Wildlife Service [USFWS], and the Corps),review of pertinent literature, and a records search
' of the DFG's Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB).
' Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitats
The project site is located in the California Biotic Province of the California Floristic Province
(Munz and Keck 1973) at the base of the inner North Coast Ranges in Contra Costa County.
Minimal native vegetation is present within the project area because of the conversion of natural
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3=19
n- grasses and herbs occur along road edges and in vacant fields and
lands to development. Non-native g ss g �, ,
much of the project area is paved. Kirker Creek is a natural stream channel that generally flows
south to north in the project area approximately 533 meters (1,750 feet) west of Loveridge Road. '
In the study area south of SR 4, the creek channel supports freshwater marsh vegetation.
The plant communities that occur in the project area include mostly ruderal grassland along the ,
shoulders of SR 4 and a small area of creek channel/freshwater marsh located along Kirker Creek
where it passes under SR 4(Figure 3-6). Appendix A contains correspondence with the USFWS and
the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)regarding the potential occurrence of threatened and
endangered species. .
Creek Channel/Freshwater Marsh
Kirker Creek is a perennial stream that conveys runoff from the surrounding natural watershed and
urban development to Suisun Bay. Outside of the project area(south of the railroad grade),•Kirker
Creek is an incised channel that supports cattail, with sparse riparian 'vegetation (Le., little or no
canopy cover) on the upper banks, including black walnut and willow trees. Just upstream of the
project area, immediately south of-SR 4,.Kirker Creek crosses under the railroad levee in a culvert
(Figure 3-6). Between the railroad culvert and the SR 4 culvert,the channel widens to approximately '
7.6 meters (25 feet) and contains freshwater marsh vegetation, primarily cattails.(Figure 3-6). The
west bank of the creek in this location is riprapped. An approximately 3.0-meter-wide (10-foot-
wide)storm drainage channel joins the creek just north of the railroad grade. A recently constructed
flap gate is located on the east bank of the creek between the confluence with the storm drainage
Channel and the culvert under SR 4. This gate connects to .a separate culvert designed to transport
excess flows in Kirker Creek to a downstream location north of SR 4 during high-flow periods.
Kirker Creek flows cross beneath SR 4 in a previously lengthened culvert.
Downstream of the study area on the north side of SR 4; Kirker Creek is a 4.6- to 6.0-meter-wide '
(15- to 20-foot-wide) channel (creek channel/freshwater marsh) with a narrow band of riparian
vegetation along both banks(Figure 3-6). Kirker Creek passes under California Avenue in a buried
pipe. The portion of Kirker Creek downstream of the project area has been channelized and is
characterized by steep banks with larger riparian trees. Cattails are also found in the creek.
Kirker Creek provides foraging and breeding habitat for a variety of terrestrial wildlife species;
fisheries habitat is described below. Common bird species that may use this habitat include
mallards,green-backed herons,and great blue heron. Other wildlife species associated with stream ,
habitat include Pacific tree frogs, great egrets, belted kingfishers, and muskrat (Zeiner et al. 1990).
Unvegetated portions of the Kirker Creek channel may qualify as other waters of the United States,
and the areas supporting freshwater marsh may qualify as wetlands. Both wetlands and other waters
of the United States are subject to Corps jurisdiction. Because the proposed action would not affect
Kirker Creek and no fill activity would occur because of the proposed action, a wetland delineation
is not required for the proposed action (Smith pers. comm.).
Initial StudY'IEnvironniental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-20
Cn
O
,
`� \ \ I •
I
,,
I �
VJ S ` \, '• ':: it I I � i i!
3 o �' `. I
— --..._.. .................
® w.
I111
............................
IA
BENJAMIN AVE.
■
07■
{ ir..... ! i..
I 1 :
3
_.__....................
I{
3
r
L
•
(D
O ; (fl r!
i..
eD
' 3
c
.._..... .. i Mir• � . ,
■
:....:.......� i.. '
IT
w r. •:
III
i i :I I I ^ I I •
r
_
� •III � � —
IIT i = DIANE AVE.
eIII
• :III i I � � '��"
I I _..................._....._
Y
i
i
III
I .
•� � r
C'
y�g � reek
I {
creek
e
LA
,
o
................. .......... (fll '
e
v •
�+ I
H ■
O 3
e1eD
fl. • f
I
I ;
1••h ;
a _ n
i
CD N i J
EF
LA
,..' o
I
I o
O 'n x
rt N
19
W
o�
' Ruderal Grassland
Ruderal grassland is common along roadsides and in vacant fields. It consists chiefly of non-native
annual grasses, such as wild oat, rip-gut brome, and meadow barley, and forbs, including black
mustard, bindweed, birdsfoot trefoil, and storksbill. This vegetation type appears to be controlled
in many areas through mowing or grading.
Because of the site's disturbed condition, the ruderal habitat at the project site provides limited
i foraging and nesting opportunities for wildlife. Wildlife species associated with ruderal grasslands
adjacent to the roadsides and in fields include California ground squirrel, killdeer and American
crow, and western meadowlark.
Fisheries Habitat
Common species likely to occur in Kirker Creek include largemouth bass, green sunfish, bluegill,
threadfin shad, white catfish, brown bullhead, mosquitofish, carp, and goldfish. Chinook salmon
and steelhead may be found transitorily in the lower reach of Kirker Creek outside of the project
area, near its confluence with the San Joaquin River. Resident fish species that occupy upstream
reaches are likely to include mosquitofish, golden shiners, and other minnow species.
Culverts in Kirker Creek reduce the habitat value of this creek to fisheries resources. Salmonid
species and other nonbenthic fish species typically do not pass through long culverts. The culvert
under SR 4 is approximately 45 meters (150 feet) long, and salmonid species rarely pass through
such dark, long culverts. However, it is possible for fish to pass through the SR 4 culvert if water
depths and velocities permit it. Kirker Creek downstream of the project site flows into a buried pipe
at California Avenue,which dries out the creek bed, making Kirker Creek unsuitable fish habitat in
the project area. The culvert continues below California Avenue until just downstream of the
Antioch Highway. At that point, the substrate of the creek contains primarily a sandy silty bottom,
unstable banks, and minimal riparian vegetation. There is almost no valuable salmonid habitat
downstream of California Avenue. Because there is minimal cover habitat in this area,fish are more
susceptible to avian predators and therefore,tend to avoid sections of stream with low canopy cover.
' Special-Status Species
Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the federal Endangered
Species Act(ESA),the California Endangered Species Act,or other regulations and species that are
considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to qualify for such listing.
Initial Stud v/F_nviro menta(Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
1 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-21
Special-Status Plants '
No special-status plants or their habitats were found within the project area during the field survey. ,
The natural environment study prepared for the proposed action identifies special-status plant species
with the potential to occur.in the project area,.as well as each species' listing status, habitat
requirements,and likelihood for occurrence in the.project area(Jones & Stokes 2000c).
Special-Status Wildlife '
The NES prepared for the proposed action identifies the special-status wildlife species with the
potential to occur in the project area. This table also describes each species' listing status,preferred
habitat, and probability for occurrence.at the project site. (Jones & Stokes 2000c.)
No special-status wildlife species were observed at the project site during,the field survey. Site visits
conducted in May and August 1999 indicated that six special-status species (burrowing owl,
loggerhead shrike,tricolored blackbird,northern harrier,and white-tailed kite)have the potential to
occur at the site based on the presence of suitable habitat. Special-status species with potential to
occur at the project site or species of special interest to the USFWS (i.e., the California red-legged
frog [CRLF]) are described below in more detail. The USFWS requested that a site assessment be
conducted for the CRLF to determine if the project site provided suitable habitat for the species
(McCasland pers. comm.). There is no potential habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox or California
tiger salamander.
California Red-Legged Frog. The CRLF, which is listed as threatened under the federal
ESA and listed in California as a species of special concern, was once common from Redding south
to Baja California, including in the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges. Its current range is much
smaller;most remaining populations are found along the central California coast from Marin County
south to Ventura County. Continued recent declines are attributed to the ongoing loss of wetland
and stream habitat (especially from dam construction and water management activities) and the
introduction of non-native predators and competitors, including bullfrogs, crayfish, and fish
(Jennings and Hayes 1994).
Within its range,the CRLF breeds in lowland streams and wetlands,including livestock ponds. The
CRLF may also be found in upland habitats near breeding areas and along intermittent drainages that t
connect wetlands.
The site assessment for the CRLF was conducted by a wildlife biologist on May 19, 1999, and i
August 18, 1999. To evaluate habitat suitability,the site's potential to support breeding or foraging
frogs, provide cover, or support dispersal movements was assessed. A .pedestrian survey of Kirker
Creek was conducted approximately 0.4 kilometer.(0.25 mile) upstream (south) of SR 4 to Garcia
Avenue and approximately 0.16 kilometer(0.1 mile)downstream (north)of SR 4 to Martin Luther
King Elementary School. In addition, Kirker Creek was spot-checked upstream for approximately
4.8 kilometers (3 miles) beyond Garcia Avenue at points where the creek crossed under roads and
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Afferted Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Projert February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-22
' there was visual access..Based on the resuff�of the siteiassessment conducted at theroject site,the
P J
project site does not provide habitat for CRL.F.
1Burrowing Owl. The western rn burrowing owl is federally listed as a species of concern and
listed in California as a species of special concern. Burrowing owls were formerly common
tpermanent residents throughout much of California, but population declines became noticeable by
the 1940s (Grinnell and Miller. 1944) and have continued to the present. Ground squirrel control
measures and the conversion of grasslands to agriculture are the primary factors responsible for the
species' decline (Zarn 1974).
' Burrowing owls prefer open dry almost-level grassland habitats where they feed on insects, small
mammals, and reptiles (Zeiner et al. 1990). They live and nest in burrows, typically in abandoned
ground squirrel colonies. The breeding season usually extends from late February through August.
' Burrowing owls often nest in roadside embankments, on levees, and along irrigation canals. They
are more diurnal than most owls and can often be observed during the day standing outside the
entrances to their burrows.
' No burrowing owls or signs of their activity were observed in the grasslands at the site. There
appears to be little ground squirrel activity at the site,and no burrows suitable for owls were located
during the field survey. Although burrowing owls may not currently nest at the project site, the
adjacent grassland south of the project area may provide low-quality foraging habitat.
White-Tailed Kite. The white-tailed kite is fully protected under the California Fish and
Game Code. Distribution of white-tailed kites is limited in the United States; the species can be
found only in California, western Oregon, and along the Texas coast (American Ornithologists'
Union 1983). White-tailed kites are fairly common in California's Central Valley lowlands. The
white-tailed kite almost became extinct in the United States in the early 20th century because of
illegal shooting, but it has since made a successful recovery (Terres 1980).
White-tailed kites nest in riparian and oak woodlands and forage in nearby grasslands, pastures,
' agricultural fields,and wetlands. They use nearby treetops for perching and nesting sites. Voles and
mice are the species' major prey items.
No white-tailed kite or signs of their activity were observed in the project area. The riparian scrub
located south of the project area may provide suitable perch sites.
' Northern Harrier. The northern harrier is listed in California as a species of special
concern. The northern harrier is either a permanent or winter resident throughout California,except
in the Klamath, Cascade, and Sierra Nevada ranges. The northern harrier occurs as a winter visitor
' (Zeiner et al. 1990). Loss of grasslands and wetlands has contributed, to the decline of northern
harriers in California (Remsen 1978). This species nests in dense grasslands and wetlands and
forages in wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural fields (Terres 1980).
No no v The ruderal
northern harriers or signs of their activity were observed at the protect site.
grasslands are present at the site provide low-quality foraging opportunities for this species.
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Cnsva Transportation Authority 3-23
Loggerhead Shrike. The loggerhead shrike is listed in California as a species of special
gg gg P P
concern. The loggerhead shrike is a widespread breeding species in North America. This species
is present from the southern Canadian provinces, south across most of the United.States and into '
Mexico (American Ornithologists' Union 1983). In California, the loggerhead shrike is a resident
species throughout the lowlands and foothills (Grinnell and Miller 1944).
In the western United States loggerhead shrike populations appear.to be stable after past declines
(Fraser and Luukkonen 1986). The conversion of grassland and open brush fields to agriculture and '
the increasing trend of farming larger fields called"clean farming"have eliminated the hedge rows
that supported the prey base and perch sites for shrikes. Pesticide contamination may also have
reduced the breeding success of this species by reducing eggshell thickness (Fraser and ,
Luukkonen 1986).
The loggerhead shrike inhabits grasslands,agricultural lands,open shrublands,and open woodlands
(Bent 1950). Loggerhead shrikes nest in low trees, dense shrubs, and vines and feed on insects,
small reptiles, and small mammals.
No loggerhead shrikes were observed at the project.site. The riparian scrub located south of the
project area provides suitable perch and nest sites. The ruderal grasslands present in the area provide
moderate-quality foraging opportunities for.this species.
Tricolored Blackbird. The tricolored blackbird is a federal species of concern and
California species of special concern. Tricolored blackbirds are permanent residents in the Central '
Valley from Butte County through Kern County and are found in scattered locations throughout
California. The tricolored blackbird has declined throughout its range because.of the loss of wetland
breeding habitat, nest disturbance, aerial spraying of pesticides and herbicides, and mortality from
poisoned grain (Terres 1987, Beedy and Hamilton 1997). Tricolored blackbirds nest in dense
wetland vegetation and'blackberry thickets and forage in grasslands and agricultural fields as-far as
4 miles from their nesting colonies (Beedy and Hamilton 1997).
Tricolored blackbirds were not observed during the field survey. Nesting habitat at Kirker Creek is
considered of low quality because of the sparse emergent vegetation, but the ruderal grasslands '
provide moderate-quality foraging habitat.
Special-Status Aquatic Species
No special-status fish species were found within the project site. Special-status fish species that may
be found on a transitory basis in Kirker Creek downstream of California Avenue include Central
Valley steelhead and winter- and.spring-run Chinook salmon, which are described below. Delta
smelt and Sacramento splittail are not likely to be found in Kirker Creek at any time.
Central Valley Steelhead. Central Valley steelhead, federally listed as threatened
(63 FR 13347,March 19,1998)occupy the Sacramento River drainage,including the Delta. Within.
the project area,Kirker Creek is included in the designated range of critical habitat for Central Valley
Initial Studv/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-24
' steelhead(65 CFR 32,February 16,200.0).-Although Kirkdr•,Creek contains very poor rearing habitat
in the lower reaches,the lower reaches could potentially be used as a migratory corridor during adult
upstream migration and juvenile downstream migration(Stern pers.comm;also see Appendix A for
correspondence with the NMFS). The 45-meter-long (150-foot-long) culvert that directs the flow
under SR 4 does not necessarily preclude the presence of steelhead upstream of the culvert;however,
' it does reduce the likelihood of passage by many salmonid fish. Those that do enter the system are
not likely to move far upstream, particularly to the project area.
Chinook Salmon. Four runs of chinook salmon inhabit the Sacramento-San Joaquin
drainage: fall, late fall, winter, and spring. Winter-run chinook salmon is identified both by
California and the NUTS as endangered(59 FR 440,January 4, 1992). Spring-run chinook salmon
has been listed by California and the NMFS as threatened (64 FR 50393, September 16, 1999).
Although Kirker Creek is not included in the designated range of critical habitat for winter-run
chinook salmon, it is considered critical habitat for spring-run species (65 CFR 32, February 16,
2000).
In-Depth Studies for Special Laws
1 Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act: Wetland Delineation Technical Assessment
No disturbance of potentially jurisdictional waters of the United States would occur as a result of the
proposed action; therefore, no CWA Section 404 permit would be necessary (Smith pers. comm.).
However,a preliminary delineation was previously conducted for the project area, which identified
' the Kirker Creek channel as potential waters of the United States that would be regulated under
Section 404 of the CWA (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1997).
California Department of Fish and Game: Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement
The DFG regulates streambed alterations under Section 1600 et seq.of the California Fish and Game
Code. Alterations by public agencies to creeks are regulated under Section 1601, which includes
' strict measures to protect water quality and fish and wildlife habitat and mitigate.unavoidable habitat
losses,including loss of riparian vegetation. Although the proposed action would not involve work
within the ordinary high-water mark of Kirker Creek,construction activities to widen SR 4 over the
existing Kirker Creek crossing and on top of the existing culvert would occur. However, this work
would not involve activities that would require a Section 1601 permit. The DFG Region 3 game
warden confirmed via telephone conference that a streambed alteration agreement would not be
required if construction is restricted to the area above the culvert and does not encroach on the
streambed or riparian vegetation (Kozicki pers. comm.).
1
Initial.Studv/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
' Contra Costa Transportation AuthoritY 3-25
Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands
Executive Order 11990, signed May 24, 1977, directs all federal agencies to refrain from assisting
in or giving financial support to projects that encroach on public or privately owned wetlands. The
order further states that federal projects must support a policy to minimize the destruction, loss, or
degradation of wetlands. Such projects may not be undertaken unless agencies have determined that '
there are no practicable alternatives to such construction and that proposed actions include all
practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands that may result from such use. The.proposed
action meets this directive because it would avoid wetlands.
Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act '
The federal ESA directs federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or implement
will not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of these species' habitat. Appendix A contains a copy of the
species list provided for the proposed action by the USFWS as required by Section 7. Based on
consultation with the USFWS and review of the NDDB, six wildlife species were determined to
have the potential to occur in the project area; see "Special-Status Wildlife Species" above. No
suitable habitat occurs for the CRLF in the project area. The natural environment study prepared for ,
the proposed.action concluded that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect federally
listed endangered species (the HFWA is awaiting conctinence of this finding from the USFWS�
(Jones & Stokes 2000c). USFWS has concurred with FHWA's determination that the 1ro2osed
action is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species (Appendix
Kirker Creek is included in the designated range of critical habitat for Central Valley steelhead and
spring-run chinook salmon. Correspondence with NMFS indicate that the lower reaches could
potentially be used as a migratory corridor during adult upstream migration and juvenile downstream
migration (Appendix A). NMFS has concurred with the FHWA's determination that the proposed '
action is not likely to adversely affect Central Valley steelhead or spring,-run chinook salmon (with
implementation of mitigation proposed in this IS/EA) (Appendix A).
SECTION 3G. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section is a summary of technical reports prepared for the SR 4 Bailey Road to Loveridge Road '
project, which included the project area, including a historic property survey report (HPSR), an
historic architectural survey report(HASR),and an archaeological survey report(ASR),which were
prepared in 1996 by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1996a). In addition, an addendum HPSR, '
HASR,and ASR(Jones&Stokes 2000f)were prepared to address additional cultural resource issues
relative to the proposed action.
Initial Studv/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
1
State Route 4 East Widening Projert February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-26
o i.
Archaeological Resources
Archaeological resources in the project area were identified using refield research,a records search,
g P J gP
' initiating Native American consultation through the Native American Heritage Commission.
(NAHC), and an intensive pedestrian survey conducted in May 2000. Based on the analysis, no
sensitive archaeological resources are known to occur in the project area (Jones & Stokes 2000f).
Historic Architecture
Using the criteria set forth in the U.S. Department of the Interior Regulations 36 CFR 60.4 for
evaluating cultural resources for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), the
addendum HASR assessed the significance of a total of 94 architectural properties in the project area,
12 of which are more than 45 years old. A summary of the evaluations is contained in the HASR
conducted for the proposed action (Jones & Stokes 2000f). On the basis of field observations and
historic research, the HPSR concluded that one property—the National Guard Armory building at
99 Power Avenue north of SR 4—appears to meet the criteria for listing in the NRHP. However,
1 the HASR concluded that the proposed action would have no effect on the property. The HFWA
is awaiting conetftmnce of this finding fi-oin the State Historic Preservation Offi The State
Historic Preservation Officer has provided concurrence with FHWA's determinations(Appendix B).
SECTION 3H. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The information presented in this section is based on the initial environmental site assessment for
this project prepared by Parikh Consultants (2000). The assessment involved identifying potential
hazards and hazardous materials sites within a 2-kilometer radius of the project area through a site
' inspection (October 15, 1999) and a VISTA database record search. Results of the site visit and
database search are summarized below.
rProposed Right-of-Way Acquisitions
As shown in Figure 2-2, the proposed action would involve the acquisition of 57 residential units;
17 commercial, industrial, and noncommercial properties; and eight parcels without structures.
' Acquisition of residential properties will occur by Contra Costa County as the lead through a
joint-powers agreement with Caltrans and CCTA.
1
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
1 Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-27
Regulatory Requirements for Residential Property Acquisitions
Residential units constructed before 1980 may be subject to asbestos and lead paint surveys before
demolition pursuant to state and local regulatory agency requirements. Any hazardous waste
generated during demolition must be managed and disposed pursuant to Title 22 of the California
Code of Regulations.
Regulatory Requirements for Nonresidential Property Acquisitions
Owners of nonresidential properties(i.e.,commercial,industrial,and vacant properties)are required
by Caltrans to cleanup any contamination before property transfer to the state. Acquisitions led by
Contra Costa County that would be transferred to Caltrans would be coordinated with Caltrans
right-of-way staff to ensure that Caltrans' standard procedures are followed.
Results
The site reconnaissance of the project area was conducted to identify potential nearby sites or land
uses that might contribute environmental hazards to the project corridor. The area along the project
corridor west of Railroad Avenue is mainly occupied by side streets;residences;and businesses such
as restaurants,storage facilities,and grocery stores. East of Railroad Avenue and south of SR 4,land
uses are generally a mix of industrial and commercial,such as auto body shops,car sales and service,
and vacant lots. The ,site reconnaissance did not identify any land uses that may contribute
environmental hazards in the project corridor. However,a sampling work plan of specific properties
will need to be conducted before construction begins.
A review of previous land uses combined with observations during the site reconnaissance indicates
that the project corridor has supported vehicular activity since the 1950s. As a result,it is likely that
the surface soils along these areas are affected by deposition of aerial lead, known as.aerially '
deposited lead (ADL) from exhaust of cars burning leaded gasoline. Lead levels in surface soils
along highways can reach concentrations in excess of the hazardous waste threshold requiring proper
disposal of such soils. As a result, the sampling work plan will include ADL sampling and special
health and safety measures should be in effect during all construction activities pursuant to Title 8
of the California Code of Regulations.
Summary of Potential Hazardous Materials Sites in the Project Area
A record search of the VISTA database, which lists state-designated and federally designated
hazardous materials sites, was conducted to locate hazardous materials sites within 2 kilometers of ,
the perimeter of the project corridor. The search identified more than 40 sites;however,most of the
sites are either downgradient and/or are too far upgradient to contribute to impacts associated with
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 3. Affected Environment '
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
Contra Costa Transportation Authoritv 3-28
' an hazardous materials contamination✓: Only one site near the SR 4 corridor that may have an effect
Y Y Y
on the study area was identified—the former Chevron gas station located at 501 California Avenue.
' All sites within 200 meters of the project area and their potential for adverse environmental impacts
are listed in Table 3-6.
As part of standard practices regarding hazardous materials sites, contamination testing (including
that for ADL)will be required on several of the industrial parcels(located on the south side of SR 4)
' because the initial environmental site assessment did not include sampling. The testing of possible
contamination sites will occur during final design phases. Specific sites,sampling methods,and the
scope of the investigation will be approved by Caltrans before testing is conducted for the proposed
action.
SECTION 3I. AESTHETICS
The information presented in this section is based on the visual impact assessment technical report
prepared for the Route 4 East Projects in Contra Costa County by Woodward-Clyde Consultants
(1997b). The report applied the FHWA and American Society of Landscape Architects methodology
' and used computer-simulated modeling for the analysis.
The SR 4 corridor is located between two scenic landscape types: the foothills of the Diablo Range,
and the Baylands facing north to Suisun Bay and the western Delta islands. Both of these landscapes
are primarily characterized by large open space with views of high scenic quality. However, the
immediate project area is a highly developed suburban area with very limited, low-quality views of
' the surrounding landscapes. The primary surrounding land uses consist of residential development
(low-rise single-family residential units,)with areas of industrial(warehouses,storage,)commercial
(small retail and food services,) and right-of-way (highway) uses also.
Most of the residential development is currently screened from SR 4 by soundwalls and roadside
plantings. The industrial development is located south of the SR4 between Railroad Avenue and
Loveridge Road and is currently well screened by dense, maturing roadside planting. The
commercial areas are mostly located on the east side of Railroad Avenue, which is tree-lined. The
highway has relatively continuous landscape screening consisting of vine-covered cyclone fencing,
mature shrubs, and clumps of pepper and other trees. Other visual resources along SR 4 include
high-voltage transmission lines. The eastbound approach to Railroad Avenue and the westbound
' approach to Harbor Street and the main entries to Pittsburg. The portion of SR 4 at these locations
is distinguished by an abundance of large mature trees and other vegetation.
' The major sources of light and glare in the project area include light and glare of vehicle headlights
from both eastbound and westbound oncoming traffic on SR 4 and from street lights on adjacent
roadways. No part of SR 4 within the project area is designated as being eligible for listing as a
State Scenic Highway, and no visual resources of special historic or cultural importance were
identified in the project area.
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter i. Affected Environment
State Route 4 East Widening Project February 2001
' Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3-29
y
c
aC�
G C•
G G
N O O O O O O '
•> C G � C C c G G ' ' ' '
G O
WU
i
0
a
c
� b
aci v aci aci � aci b � a°i '� c
ro .n b a
o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0
h N N N N .. - -- v1 V1
c�
cd
cd
y � G
x coo ° v E 8
_ o O O
' c •G o a a a �; ° �
f1° M cGa cl Cd ? V
a� a� a� � •a� �d •a
' M
N
F"
' l A ¢ A
a,
o
> O > U cd id � �„ > 0 `
Q a� u 4J Q a� :d ¢ c C7 ¢ c
b
3 b G
0 0 no � .c 0cn nc 0o G > oo oo U
-- _
x ¢ U c �. � 3 iw U ¢ cU 03
-14
_ °� U � 8 C 51 cl U a
O U tr)M F � C Q O Q N :+ C N
1
1
Chapter 4. Environmental Evaluation Checklist
INTRODUCTION
' A basic objective of CEQA is to inform decision-makers at the state, regional, and local levels as
well as the public of the significant environmental effects of proposed activities and to determine
whether an environmental effect is significant or potentially significant (State CEQA Guidelines
' 15002[a]). Determining whether an activity could have a significant environmental effect on the
environment plays a key role. in the CEQA compliance process. The CEQA Environmental
Significance checklist provided below was used by Caltrans District 4 to identify any potential
significant impacts resulting from the proposed action on environmental resources. The checklist
provided in this chapter is not a NEPA requirement.
' Although this is a joint IS/EA intended to meet both the requirements of CEQA and NEPA,state and
federal environmental laws have different requirements, standards, and.procedures for addressing
' impacts. CEQA expressly requires a lead agency to make significance conclusions for impacts, as
identified in the following checklist and in Chapter 5; this.is not expressly required under NEPA.
' Under NEPA,the degree to which a resource is affected is used to determine the appropriate NEPA
document (e.g., an environmental impact statement versus an environmental assessment) to be
completed by the lead agency. Under NEPA, once the lead agency has determined the magnitude
of the environmental effects of the proposed action and the appropriate NEPA document, the
magnitude of the impact is evaluated and no judgment of its degree of significance is expressly
required. Therefore, for the purpose of the impact discussion in this document, determination of
significant or potentially significant impacts is made only in the context of CEQA. NEPA
significance conclusions for specific resource topics are provided at the end of Chapter 5.
' TECHNICAL REPORTS
Several technical reports were prepared to assist in the preparation of this IS/EA,and the conclusions
of these reports have been incorporated into this IS/EA. These technical reports include:
' ■ natural environment study for the SR 4 East widening project (prepared by Jones &
Stokes);
■ community impact assessment report for the SR 4 East widening project(addressing land
use, growth inducement, public services, and utilities) (prepared by Jones & Stokes);
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 4. Environmental Evaluation Checklist
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 4-1
■ water quality technical report for the SR 4 East widening project(prepared by Jones & '
Stokes);
■ draft traffic analysis report for the SR 4 East widening project from Railroad Avenue to
Loveridge Road (prepared by Fehr& Peers Associates);
■ air quality impact report for the SR.4 East widening project (prepared by Jones &
Stokes);
■ noise study report for the SR 4 East widening project from Railroad Avenue to
Loveridge Road(prepared by Jones & Stokes);
■ update initial environmental site assessment for the SR 4 East corridor widening between
Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road (addressing hazardous waste materials) (prepared ,
by Parikh Consultants);
■ addendum archaeological and historical.architectural survey reports for the SR 4 '
widening/Railroad Avenue interchange (addressing cultural resources) (prepared by
Jones & Stokes);
■ . visual impact assessment report for the SR 4 East projects (addressing aesthetics) '
(prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants);
■ geotechnical. impact report for the SR 4 East widening, Railroad Avenue to Loveridge '
Road (prepared by Parikh Consultants);
■ draft hydrology report for SR 4 widening project—Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road '
(prepared by Mark Thomas & Co.); and . ,
■ relocation impact assessment report for the SR 4 East widening project (prepared by
Jones & Stokes).
The reports are available for review at Caltrans District 4 Offices, located in'Oakland, CA:
Public Information Office '
California Department of Transportation
111 Grand Avenue ,
Oakland, CA 94612
CEQ A ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST '
The environmental significance checklist included in this chapter summarizes the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed action. This checklist was-.used to identify physical,
lizitial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 4. Environmental Evaluation Checklist
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 4-2 ,
' biological, social, and economic resources that might be affected by the proposed project. In many
cases, the background technical reports prepared for the project clearly indicate the project would
' not have an adverse effect on a particular issue. A"no impact"answer in the first column documents
this determination. Chapter 5, "Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures,"provides
a discussion of identified impacts and project commitments to support these conclusions.
In Chapter 5, impacts relating to the physical environment are discussed in Air Quality and
Transportation," "Noise," "Hydrology and Water Quality," "Geology and Soils," and "Hazardous
Materials"; impacts relating to the biological environment are discussed in"Biological Resources";
and impacts relating to the social and economic environments are discussed in"Socioeconomics and
' Land Use," "Air Quality and Transportation," "Cultural Resources," and "Aesthetics."
' Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less-than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
I. AESTHETICS-Would the project:
' a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
' including,but not limited to,trees,rock ❑ El ❑ ■
outcroppings,and historic buildings along
a scenic highway?
'
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
surroundings?
' d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or nighttime views in the area?
*Significance level is based on CEQA determination only
Initial Study/f'11virunntentat Assessment Chapter 4. Environmental Evaluation Checklist
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 200/
State Route 4 East Widening Project 4-3
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant
ess-than Significant Mitigatibn Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES-In
determining whether impacts on '
agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects,lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land ,
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997)prepared by the California
Department of Conservation. Would the
project:
a. . Convert Prime Farmland,Unique
Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide '
Importance(Farmland),as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency,to non-
agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or conflict with a ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Williamson Act contract?
C. Involve other changes in the existing
environment that,due to their location or ❑ ❑ ■ '
nature,could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use?
Less than ,
Significant
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact ,
111. AIR QUALITY-When available,the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air '
pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ '
of the applicable air quality plan'?
b. Violate any air quality standard or '
contribute substantially to an existing or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
projected air quality violation?
1
*Significance level is based on CEQA determination only '
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 4. Envirtinntental Evaluation Cliecklis•t
.Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 200/
State Route 4 Fast Widening Project 4-4-
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is a non-
attainment area for an applicable federal ❑ ❑ E
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial F-1 0 E
pollutant concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ 0 0
substantial number of people?
' *Significance level is based on CEQA determination only
Initial Stud}/Fmviruntnental Assessment Chapter4. Envirntuttetttal Evakialion Clteckli.st
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
' State Route 4 East Widening Project 4-5
i
Less than '
Significant
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-Would
the project: '
a. Have a substantial adverse effect,either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate, '
sensitive,or special-status species in local ❑ ■ ❑
or regional plans,policies,or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b. Have a stibstantial adverse effect on any '
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional ❑ ❑ ■. ❑
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the '
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
(including,but not limited to,marshes, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
vernal pools,coastal wetlands,etc.) '
through direct removal,filling,
hydrological interruption,or other means?.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement ,
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, ,
or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
.e. Conflict with any local policies or. '
ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
resources,such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? '
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
habitat conservation plan,natural
community conservation plan,or other ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ '
approved local,regional,or state habitat
conservation plan'?
*Significance level is based on CEQA determination only '
Initial Stud"vlEn•ironrnental Assessynent Chapter 4. Environmental Evaluation Checklist
Contra Costa Transportation Authority ' February 200/
State Route 4 East Widening Project 4-6 '
- Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
' V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would
the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
defined in Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains,including
' those interred outside of formal ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
cemeteries?
' Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
' VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS-Would the
project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential
' substantial adverse effects,including the
risk of loss,injury,or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
' as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
' Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
' 2. Strong seismic groundshaking? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
3. Seismic-related ground failure, ❑ ■ ❑
including liquefaction?
4. Landslides'? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
1
*S.ignificance level is based on CEQA determination only
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 4. Environmental Evaluation Checklist
Contra Costa Transportation Authority rebruary 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 4-7
Less than '
Significant
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the ❑
loss of topsoil? '
C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable or that would become unstable
as a result of the project and potentially ❑ ❑
result in an onsite or offsite landslide,
lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse? '
d. Be located on expansive soil,as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building ❑ ❑ ❑
Code(1994),creating substantial risks to '
life or property?.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or '
alternative wastewater disposal systems in ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
areas where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater? ,
Less than '
Significant
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No '
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS-Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public '
or the environment through the routine ❑ ❑ ❑
transport,use,or disposal of hazardous
materials? '
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably '
foreseeable upset and accident conditions ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment`?
C. Emit hazardous emissions or involve '
handling hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials,substances,or waste within ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?.
*Significance level is based on CEQA determination only '
Initial Stud-/Environmental Assessment Chapter 4. Enviromnental Evaluation Checklist
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 4-8 '
1
Less than
Significant
' Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
' e. Be located within an airport land use plan
area or,where such a plan has not been
adopted,be within two miles of a public ❑ O ❑
airport or public use airport,and result in
' a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f. Be located within the vicinity of a private
' airstrip and result in a safety hazard for ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
people residing or working in the project
area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency ❑ ❑ ❑
response plan or emergency evacuation
' plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss,injury,or death
' involving wildland fires, including where 0 ❑ ❑
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY-Would the project:
' a. Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑
waste discharge requirements?
' *Significance level is based on CEQA determination only
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 4. F.nvironnzental Evaluation Checklist
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 4-9
Less than ,
Significant
Potentially with Less-than- '
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
b. Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with '
groundwater recharge,resulting in a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering.of
the local groundwater table level (e.g.,the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level that would not
support existing land uses or planned uses '
for which permits have been granted)?
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area,including '
through the alteration of the course of a ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
stream or river,in a manner that would
result in substantial erosion or siltation
onsite or offsite? '
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area,including
through the alteration of the course of a '
stream or river,or substantially increase ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding '
onsite or offsite?
e. Create or contribute runoff water that
would exceed the capacity of existing or '
planned stormwater drainage systems or ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? ,
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
quality?
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood ,
hazard area,as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ '
floodflows?
i. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury,or death ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ '
involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
*Significance level is based on CEQA determination only '
hzitial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 4. Environmental Evaluation Checklist
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 4-10
'Less than
Significant
' Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
tsunami,or mudflow?
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would
the project:
a. Physically divide an established ❑ ■ 0 ❑
' community?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy,or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project(including,but
not limited to,a general plan,specific plan, ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
local coastal program,or zoning
ordinance)adopted for the purpose of
' avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat
' conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
conservation plan?
1
Less than
Significant
' Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
' X. MINERAL RESOURCES-Would the
project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
value to the region and the residents of the
state?
' b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
recovery site delineated on a local general
plan,specific plan,or other land use plan?
' *Significance level is based on CEQA determination only
Initial Stud v/£nvironmental Assessment Chapter 4. Environmental Evaluation Checklist
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
' State Route 4 Fast Widening Project 4-11
Less than ,
Significant
Potentially with Less-than- '
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
XI. NOISE-Would the project: '
a. Expose persons to or generate noise levels
in excess of standards established in a local ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
general plan or noise ordinance or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Expose persons to or generate excessive
groundbome vibration or groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ '
noise levels?
C.. Result in a substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the project ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ,
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d. Result in a substantial temporary or '
periodic increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? '
e. Be located within an airport land use plan
area,or,where such a plan has not been
adopted,within two miles of a public ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
airport or public use airport and expose '
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f. Be located in the vicinity of a private '
airstrip and expose people residing or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? ,
Less than '
Significant
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No '
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING-
Would the project: '
a. Induce substantial population growth in an
area,either directly(e.g.,by proposing new
homes and businesses)or indirectly(e.g., ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ '
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
*Significance level is based on CEQA determination only '
InitialStud y/F-nvironmental Assessment Chapter 4. Environmental Evaluation Checklist
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 200/
State Route 4 East Widening Project 4-17 '
Less than
Significant
' Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
b. Displace a substantial number of existing
housing units, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑
construction of replacement housing
' elsewhere?
C. Displace a substantial number of people,
necessitating the construction of ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
' replacement housing elsewhere?
' Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
' Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES -Would the
project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
' facilities or a need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities,the
construction of which could cause
' significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times,or other performance
objectives for any of the following public
' services:
Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Schools? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
' Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Other public facilities? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
*Significance level is based on CEQA determination only
Initial Stud'/Environmental Assessment Chapter 4. Environmental Evaluation Checklist
Contra Costa Transportation Authority^ February 2001
tSlate Route 4 East Widening Project 4-13
Less than
Significant '
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
XIV. RECREATION-Would the project: '
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ '
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the '
construction or expansion of recreational ❑ ❑ ■
facilities that might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Less than '
Significant
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would '
the project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial ,
in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
substantial increase in the number of vehicle
trips,the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, '
or congestion at intersections)?
b. Cause,either individually or cumulatively, '
exceedance of a level-of-service standard
established by the county congestion ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
management agency for.designated roads or
highways? '
C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ,
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards because of a
design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ '
dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses
(e.g.,farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access'? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ I
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
*Significance level is based on CEQA determination only '
Initial StudvlEnvironniental Assessment Chapter 4. Environmental Evaluation Checklist
Contra Costa Transportation Authoritv February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 4-14 '
Less than
Significant
' Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
g. Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or
programs supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle
racks)?
' Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
' Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
-Would the project:
' a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Control Board?
' b. Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
' construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
C. Require or result in the construction of new
' stormwater drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities,the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
and resources,or would new or expanded
entitlements be needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
project's solid waste disposal needs?
*Significance level is based on CEQA determination only
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 4. Environmental Evaluation Checklist
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 4-15
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less-than- '
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
g. Comply with federal,state,and local
statutes and regulations related to solid ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ '
waste'?
1
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less-than- '
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact* Incorporated* Impact* Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF '
SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, '
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining ,
levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
animal community,reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal,or eliminate important '
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are '
individually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable"means that the incremental '
effects of a project are considerable when ❑ ❑ . ■ ❑
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects,the effects of other current ,
projects,and the effects of probable future
projects.)
C. Does the project have environmental '
effects that will cause substantial adverse ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
1
*Significance level is based on CEQA determination only '
Initial Stud r/Envirotwtenral Assessment Chapter 4. Environmental Evaluation Checklist
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 4-16'
Chapter 5. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation
Measures
SECTION 5A. SOCIOECONOMICS AND LAND USE
The socioeconomics and land use impact assessment in this section is based on the findings
' presented in the community impact assessment prepared by Jones&Stokes(2000b)for the proposed
action.
' Land Use
Impact: Indirect Effects Associated with the Division of an Established Community(Checklist
Item IX. a)
Cohesive communities are indicated by social characteristics, such as prolonged residency, home
' ownership, frequent personal contact, ethnic homogeneity, high levels of community activity, and
shared goals. Transportation projects can divide cohesive neighborhoods when they act as physical
barriers or when residents perceive them as psychological barriers. (California Department of
Transportation 1997.)
The proposed action would cause potential changes in community cohesion only in the Los Medanos
Elementary School Area. Except for one home in the Power Avenue/Pittsburg High School Area
that would be affected by the proposed action, no other neighboring residential areas, including the
Bliss Avenue/East Leland Area, would be directly affected by the proposed action.
In the Los Medanos Elementary School Area, the proposed action would displace numerous
residences east of Los Medanos Elementary School, as well as the Pittsburg Elks Lodge, which is
' one of the neighborhood's focal points. In addition, the southward realignment of Frontage Road
to accommodate the SR 4 widening would reduce the buffer between the neighborhood and the
freeway and increase noise in the neighborhood.
' Construction of a sound wall,which is recommended to abate noise impacts,could introduce a sense
of enclosure and separation from other parts of the community in the neighborhood. In addition, as
' described in Chapter 2 and shown in Figure 2-2, the proposed action includes creating termini on
Frontage Road on either side of Los Medanos Elementary School. The sense of isolation could be
1 amplified in the northern portion of the neighborhood by the closure of Frontage Road at Burton
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 5.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authoriry February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-1
i
Avenue and Crestview Lane. Closing a portion of Frontage Road along the north side of Los
Medanos Elementary School would effectively create a barrier between the neighborhoods on either
side of the school,although West Leland Road would still provide southern access between the two '
neighborhoods. However, this closure may not substantially reduce cohesiveness because the two
neighborhoods are generally distinct. The closure of Frontage Road at Crestview Lane would also
isolate the northern portion of the neighborhood from Railroad Avenue, which provides access to ,
north Pittsburg. However,West Leland Road,which runs south of the neighborhood,would partially
maintain this access to Railroad Avenue.
Considered together, the displacement of residents, loss of the Pittsburg Elks Lodge (assuming
relocation within the neighborhood is not feasible,)increase in freeway noise,potential construction
of a sound wall along the freeway, and closure of the western and eastern ends of Frontage Road
could create an adverse impact to the neighborhood east of Los Medanos Elementary School.
Cohesiveness could also be diminished in the northern portion of the neighborhood. However,this
impact would be minimized by implementing the following mitigation measure:
■ Mitigation Measure 1. Provide Proper Access to Residents in Areas Where '
Community Cohesion is Removed. A sidewalk and bikeway that would provide foot
and bicycle access to Los Medanos Elementary School and between the neighborhoods
east and west of the school will be provided adjacent to the northern end of the school.
Sidewalk and bicycle access will also be provided between Crestview Drive and the end
of the cul-de-sac of Frontage Road, and a pedestrian access will be provided to the
Albertson's supermarket.
Impact: Potential Conflict with the Pittsburg General Plan Bikeway Master Plan (Checklist
Item IX. b)
As described in Chapter 3, Section 3A, the Pittsburg General Plan Open Space Element contains a
Bikeway Master Plan that designates planned bike routes along several city streets. Some right-of-
way on these streets may be acquired for the proposed action, specifically on Frontage Road; if so,
the proposed action could conflict with the Bikeway Master Plan. Mitigation Measure 2 requires
a bikeway to be provided between Crestview Drive and Railroad Avenue to mitigate for the proposed
action's impact. Implementing the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less- '
than-adverse level.
■ Mitigation Measure 2.
Routes; Maintain Bicycle Access from Frontage Road to Railroad
Avenue. Pittsburg should revise its Bikeway Master Plait to include a designated
Road.bikeway along Railroad Aventic between West heland Road-drid Ft ontage Road to allow
the planned bike route along erestview bane to be linked to Radroad Avenue via a
planned bike route along West heland A bicycle route: will
be provided from Frontage Road, at Crestview Lane, to Railroad Avenue via the most '
direct route possible. To the extent feasible, bicycle access should be provided from the
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter S.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-2
proposed eastern end of Frontage Road (adjacent to Crestview Lane) east to Railroad
Avenue behind the Albertson's supermarket parkin lot.
ot.
Impact: No Use of Section 4(f) Properties (Checklist Item IX. b)
Section 4(f)of the U.S.Department of Transportation Act protects properties that are publicly owned
and managed as a park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site. Therefore,
approval of federal-aid highway projects that "use" Section 4(f) properties cannot be made unless
it can be demonstrated that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to such a use and that the
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to Section 4(f) properties (49 USC 303).
The project area is not located near a publicly owned recreation area, wildlife, or waterfowl refuge
' and would not affect a significant cultural resource. As described in Chapter 3 under"Applicability
of Section 4(f)Evaluation,"although acquisition of a utility easement through the northern portion
of the Los Medanos Elementary School playfield would be required,a Section 4(f)evaluation is not
' applicable because ownership of the land would remain with the school district,the function and use
of the land would not change, and the proposed action would not interfere with the long-term
activities of the school. Therefore, the proposed action would not result in the use of a significant
Section 4(f) property, and there is no impact.
' Population and Housing
Impact: Minimal Potential for Growth Inducement Through Indirect Activities (Checklist
Item XII. a)
rThe SR 4 East corridor is used primarily for commuter traffic between residential areas in East
County and employment centers to the west. Through the study area, SR 4 is highly congested,
operating at LOS F during the a.m.peak hour and LOS D during the p.m.peak hour west of Railroad
Avenue(Fehr&Peers Associates 2000). This segment of SR 4 is projected to become substantially
more congested (Fehr& Peers Associates 2000). This new congestion, coupled with the existing
poor LOS on the SR 4 mainline,will result in substantial freeway queuing,peak-hour spreading,and
further diversion of mainline traffic to parallel local roadways,possibly causing an indirect obstacle
to future commuter-related growth in East County.
' Traffic modeling, using the most recent land use and population estimates from ABAG's
"Projections'98"database,was conducted for the proposed action to forecast freeway demand levels
' for 2025. These forecasts indicate that traffic volumes on SR 4 at Railroad Avenue and on the
adjacent arterials in 2025 would be similar under no-action and with-project conditions. The
distribution of traffic would be different, however, because more traffic would be diverted to the
adjacent roadways under the no-action conditions. Therefore, although the theoretical capacity of
the SR 4 mainline would increase by adding one mixed-flow lane and one HOV lane in each
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 5.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
' State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-3
direction, traffic volumes would not increase because the distribution of traffic would be diverted '
from the local arterials to the mainline. '
The Pittsburg General Plan is currently being updated with preliminary land use plans designed to
accommodate growth projected for the Pittsburg by ABAG through 2020 (Gangapuram pers.
comm.). If the preliminary updated plan is adopted and adhered.to through 2020, the proposed
action would have little effect on the rate,level,or location of growth in Pittsburg. As stated above,
traffic forecasts indicate that the proposed action would have little effect on freeway volumes;hence,
it would not affect projected population growth levels.
The proposed action is not likely to induce substantial population growth because it would not
directly or indirectly promote, hasten, shift, or intensify planned growth, or encourage unplanned r�
growth within the community or region. Therefore, this impact is considered less than adverse.
Impact:Displacement of a Substantial Number of People and Residential,Business,and Other
Properties (Checklist Items XII. b and c)
As described in Chapter 2 under"Right-of-Way Acquisition," approximately 82 properties would
need to be acquired. The proposed action would displace approximately 56 housing units along
Frontage Road in the Los Medanos Elementary School Area and one housing unit along Harbor
Street in the Power Avenue/Pittsburg High School Area. These displacements would include single- ;
family homes and one- and two-bedroom'apartment units. The proposed action would displace an
estimated 242 persons,representing approximately 0.5%of Pittsburg's estimated 1999 population.
In addition, displacement of an estimated 15 businesses (commercial and industrial structures and
property) would occur in the Bliss Avenue/East Leland Area, primarily north of Bliss Avenue
between Railroad Avenue and Martin Way and north of Harbor Court. Sronresidential,nonbusiness
displacements would occur in both the Los Medanos Elementary School Area(Pittsburg Elks Lodge)
and the Bliss Avenue/East Leland Area (Faith Worship Center, Pentecostal church), and the
proposed action would require right-of-way acquisitions from portions of a public parking lot and
seven undeveloped properties.
In many cases, implementation of the proposed action would require acquisition of only a portion
of a particular parcel ("partial take"). However, some of the properties that would require only a
partial take would be purchased in their entirety ("full take").because a partial take would likely
cause the residual use of the remainder of these parcels to be uneconomical. The excess lands not
dedicated for the proposed action would be sold through Contra Costa County's standard practices '
for disposition of real property. Implementing the following mitigation measure would reduce these
impacts to a less-than-adverse level.
■ Mitigation Measure 3. Minimize Relocation Impacts by Implementing Relocation
Assistance Programs. The Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970 (as
amended)and the California Relocation Assistance Act(Government Code Section 7260
et seq.)both require that comparable replacement housing be made available or provided
to each displaced person within a reasonable period of time before displacement occurs.
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 5.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-4. '
Such assurance must be specifically given'---on any project requiring residential
displacement(California Department of Transportation 1997). A local certified public
agency will carry out the Relocation Plan to help eligible displaced individuals move
with as little inconvenience as possible. All rights and services provided under Public
Law 91-646,the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970, as amended, will be strictly followed. Persons displaced as.a result of the
proposed action will receive fair and equitable treatment and will not suffer
disproportionate injuries because of programs designed for the benefit of the general
public. Relocation resources would be made available to all residential and business
displacees without discrimination. Appraisals to determine actual market value will be
conducted for each property to be relocated once a final alignment has been selected and
the environmental document is approved.
1 Public Services
Impact:Alteration of Response Routes and Response Times for Police and Emergency Service
Providers (Checklist Item XIII. a)
1 Under the proposed action,some travel routes used by police and emergency service providers would
' be altered in the Los Medanos Elementary School Area by the loss of through access on Frontage
Road from Chelsea Way to Railroad Avenue.
Effects of route alternations would vary for service providers. The Pittsburg Police Department
would experience minor increases in response times to portions of the Los Medanos Elementary
School Area. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District would also experience some delays
in reaching portions of this area. Although the route changes would not affect first-unit response
times to'the area, second-unit response times could increase by 2 to 3 minutes, which could result
in response times that do not meet the fire district's performance goals of reaching 90% of calls
within 5 minutes. This increase in response time is considered substantial because a large number
of emergency calls are received from the Los Medanos Elementary School Area. Similar response-
time changes could be experienced by private emergency service providers serving the area. (Public
Affairs Management 1997.) Alteration of response routes and increases in response times are
considered adverse impacts. However, implementing the following mitigation measure would
reduce these impacts to a less-than-adverse level.
■ Mitigation Measure 4. Provide Proper Notice to Service Providers Prior to Any
Road Closures or Blocking. Implementation of the following provisions will ensure
that impacts to police and other emergency response service providers are minimal:
The Project Special Provisions of the highway contracts will require that emergency
service providers(Le.,police,fire,and ambulance services)be given adequate notice
before any freeway ramp or street closures.
Initial Study/Enviromnental Assessment Chapter 5. Environmental Consequenres and Mitigation Measures
Conira Costa Transportation Authority February 200/
' State Route 4 East Widening Projert 5-5
Blocking or limiting access to homes near Frontage Road and along Railroad
Avenue, California Avenue, and Harbor Street during construction will be avoided
to the extent possible.
Impact: Minimal Impact on Schools (Checklist Item XIII. a) ,
The displacement of residents in the Los Medanos Elementary School Area could result in the
reduction of enrollment in schools that serve this area. Based on the average household size and age
distribution of the population within the Los Medanos Elementary School Area, a minimal number
of school-age children could be displaced by the proposed action. These displaced students are
currently served primarily by Los Medanos Elementary School, Hillview Junior High School, and
Pittsburg High School. Changes in attendance levels at local schools would result in reduced or
increased enrollments and accompanying reductions or increases in per-student funding levels.
When divided among affected schools, these changes would be minimal, especially because many
displaced students would probably remain within their existing school attendance zones and could
be relocated relatively close to their existing residences. This impact is considered less than adverse.
Impact: Relocation and Interruption of Other Utilities (Checklist Item XIII. a)
The project area includes overhead and underground utilities. In particular, the proposed action
widening to the south would require the relocation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company overhead i
power lines and buried Pacific Gas and Electric Company gas,Pacific Bell telephone, and Pittsburg
water,stormwater,and wastewater lines that run parallel to SR 4 along Frontage Road in the vicinity
of Los Medanos Elementary School. The widening of SR 4 to the south will. require that
underground utilities be relocated as part of the project on Los Medanos Elementary School property
along the northern edge of the play field, adjacent to Frontage Road. CCTA plans to acquire a
permanent utility easement on behalf of the utility service providers (i.e:., Pacific Gas and Electric
Company,Pacific Bell, and the City of Pittsburg)to install,access,and maintain their underground
utilities. Construction within the easement will be of short duration (i.e., less than the time needed
for construction of the entire project,) ownership of the underlying fee title of the property would .
remain with the school district, and the amount of land needed is minor.
Because the utility relocations would be implemented as part of the proposed SR 4 project
construction,'the impacts associated with the physical relocation of these utilities are included as part
of the analysis in this document. In addition to the impacts associated with the relocation of these '
utilities, such relocation could cause minor interruption of service, which could be considered
adverse. Interruption of service would generally be short-term(approximately 2-6 hours)and would
be coordinated directly with the service providers. Implementation of the following mitigation
measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-adverse level.
■ Mitigation Measure 5. Coordinate Relocation and Interruptions of Service During
Construction with Service Providers. Direct coordination with the service providers
whose utilities must be relocated to identify specific relocation placement and to
Initial StudylEnvironmental Assessment Chapter S. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Fehruary 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-6 '
coordinate the timing of relocation.with road construction will occur. In addition,
Specific mention will be made in the construction contract that service providers will be
notified in advance of all service interruptions and will be given sufficient time to notify
customers. The timing of interruptions will be coordinated with the providers to ensure
that the frequency and duration of interruptions are minimized.
Recreation
Impact: No Increase in the Use of Existing Recreational Facilities (Checklist Items XIV.
a and b)
Implementation of the proposed action would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities; such increases can lead to substantial physical
deterioration of such facilities. In addition,the proposed action does not include features that would
require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities;such activities can result in an adverse
physical effect on the environment. There is no impact.
Although there is no impact associated with the proposed action from a recreation perspective,there
are impacts from a land use perspective that are described in more detail under the "Land Use"
section above.
Other Utilities and Service Systems
Impact: No Impact on Other Utilities and Service Systems (Checklist Items XVI.a,d,e,f, g)
As described in Section 51),"Hydrology and Water Quality",the proposed action would have minor
impacts on water quality. Before beginning project construction, the CCTA would incorporate
Caltrans requirements for maintenance of water quality during construction activities. As a result,
changes in water quality would be minimal and short-term in nature,and the proposed action would
not require substantial changes in wastewater treatment practices or facilities associated with the
project area. In addition, no appreciable increases in surface drainage, which would require an
expansion or construction of new drainage facilities, are expected. The proposed action would
' comply with federal,state,and local regulations in the disposal of all solid waste materials produced
during construction activities. Therefore, there are no impacts.
1
Initial Suedti/Environmental Assessment Chapter 5. Environinental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 Fast Widening Project 5-7
'SECTION SB. AIR QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION
Air Quality
The air quality impact assessment in this section is based on the findings presented in the Air Quality
Impact Report prepared by Jones&Stokes(2000a). The analysis is based on a qualitative approach
that uses the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol and on a comparison to
similar projects in other parts of the Bay Area (see Chapter 3, Section 3B). The proposed action
meets the regional test for PM10 and ozone conformity with the State Implementation Plan (see
Chapter 3, Section 313); therefore, it is not discussed further in this section.
Impact:Temporary Impacts on Air Quality Associated with Construction(Checklist Items III. '
b,d,and e)
The proposed action would generate air pollutants during construction that may contribute to '
exposure of nearby residents (adjacent residential inhabitants and general public) and employees
(workers from adjacent shops and restaurants) to increased levels of air pollutants. Trucks and
construction equipment emit hydrocarbons,NOx,CO,and particulates. The proposed action would
not involve any activities or use of substances that would emit or create objectionable odors in the
project area. Most pollution would consist of windblown dust generated by excavation, grading,
hauling, and various other activities. The impacts from these activities would vary as construction
progresses, and would tend to be short term. In addition, the Special Provisions and Standard
Specifications included in the construction contracts for the proposed action would include
requirements to minimize or eliminate dust through the application of water or dust palliatives that
will be at least as stringent as the construction dust mitigation measures required by the BAAQMD.
Therefore, these impacts are considered less than adverse.
Impact: No Cumulative Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutants (Checklist Item III. c)
The proposed action would result in freeway and intersection facilities that would be smaller and less
congested than comparable facilities in the same air district. Because the comparable facilities are ;
in an area that meets the CO air quality standards (i.e., a"maintenance area,") the proposed action
also would meet microscale air quality requirements;therefore,the proposed action would not result
in adverse impacts on air quality or cause exceedances of state or federal CO standards. '
Impact: No Conflict with Existing Air Quality Plans or Policies (Checklist Item III. a)
The proposed action would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality
plans, such as the SIP or the BAAQMD's plans. As a result, there is no impact. '
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 5.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 200/
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-8 '
1
Transportation
The transportation and traffic impact analysis is based on the Draft Traffic Analysis Report prepared
' by Fehr&Peers Associates(2000),and the Community Impact Assessment report prepared by Jones
& Stokes (2000b).
Impact: Temporary Increases in Traffic and Inadequate Access to Areas within the Project
Vicinity Resulting from Construction Activities (Checklist Items XV. a and e)
Construction activities could result in temporary changes in circulation and periodic disruptions in
access to homes and businesses along Railroad Avenue between Power Avenue and Bliss Avenue
1 during an estimated 18-month construction period. Circulation and access could also be affected on
Bliss Avenue and California Avenue near Railroad Avenue for short periods.
The removal and reconstruction of the Harbor Street overcrossing would result in the closure of
Harbor Street at the bridge for approximately 10 months. Closure of Harbor Street,which is one of
Pittsburg's fournorth-south access routes,would change circulation for businesses and residents who
currently use this road to reach the northern or southern portions of Pittsburg, effectively reducing
access to businesses and neighborhoods in the vicinity of Harbor Street. However,traffic would be
1 rerouted to other north-south arterials during the construction period, such as Railroad Avenue.
Frontage Road would be realigned to the south and cul-de-sacs created at Chelsea Way, Burton
' Avenue,and Crestview Drive. These changes would alter circulation in the neighborhoods east and
west of Los Medanos Elementary School and decrease access between these neighborhoods and from
these neighborhoods to Railroad Avenue. Creation of cul-de-sacs could also increase traffic on
Chelsea Way,Burton Avenue,and Crestview Lane as vehicles use these streets instead of Frontage
Road to reach Railroad Avenue via West Leland Road.
In summary, the proposed action would result in access and circulation impacts in the vicinity of
Frontage Road and Los Medanos Elementary School and would cause changes in circulation and
access during the construction period. These impacts, although temporary, are considered adverse.
However, implementing the following mitigation measure would reduce these impacts to a less-
than-adverse level. Impacts on emergency access would be minimized by implementing Mitigation
Measure 4, "Provide Proper Notice to Service Providers Prior to Any Road Closures or Blocking,"
which is described in more detail under"Public Services" above.
■ Mitigation Measure 6. Reduce the Constraints to Access and Circulation in the
Project Area. The following measures will be implemented to ensure that access and
circulation impacts in the project area are minimized. .
— Reconstructing Railroad Avenue and the Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street
overcrossings will be phased so that the capacity of Railroad Avenue is not
constrained while Harbor Street is closed.
Initial Stud y/F_nvironmental Assessment Chapter 5.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
' State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-9
— Blocking or limiting access to homes near Frontage Road and along Railroad
Avenue, California Avenue, and Harbor Street during construction will be avoided
to the extent possible. Residents will be contacted and advised concerning any
potential access or parking impacts before construction activities begin.
— Closing ramps and streets during construction will be limited to nighttime hours to
the extent feasible to reduce impacts to businesses in the: study area.
— Blocking or limiting access to businesses on Railroad Avenue,Bliss Avenue,Harbor
Court, and California Avenue during construction will be avoided during business
hours to the extent feasible. These businesses will'be contacted and advised of
construction activities before construction begins.
— Temporary ramps will be provided if ramps will be closed during construction for
extensive periods during normal business hours. '
Impact: Regional Improvement of Levels of Service (Checklist Item XV. b)
On a regional level, the proposed action would improve access and circulation within and through
Pittsburg by adding a mixed-flow and HOV lane to both directions of SR 4 through central Pittsburg.
Widening the freeway would expand its capacity, decrease existing congestion, and improve the
current LOS from F to E and'C during peak a.m. and p.m. hours, respectively (Fehr and Peers
Associates 2000). This is considered a beneficial impact; therefore, there are no adverse impacts.
Impact: No Changes in Air Traffic Patterns or Increases in Roadway Hazards (Checklist
Items XV. c and d)
The project area is not located near a public or private airport or airstrip; therefore, no impacts on
air traffic patterns would occur. In addition, the proposed action does not contain features that
involve dangerous road features and it would not create incompatible uses. Therefore, there is no
impact.
Impact: Loss of Parking Capacity as a Result of Project Construction (Checklist Item XV.f)
The proposed action would result in the temporary and permanent loss of private and public parking
throughout the project area. Temporary losses of street parking and access to-private parking lots
could occur during construction in the following locations: south along Railroad Area to
approximately the Goodyear Tire store south of Bliss Avenue; north along Railroad Avenue to
Power Avenue;east along California Avenue from Railroad Avenue to approximately Avon Street;
north along Harbor Street from California Avenue to approximately four parcels north of California
Avenue; west and east along California Avenue to approximately two to four parcels from its ,
intersection with Harbor Street; and along Frontage Road from Burton Avenue to Crestview Lane.
Initial Stud v/Environmental Assessment Chapter S.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authoritv February 200/
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-10 '
The duration of temporary parking losses during the construction period is not known; however,
access to parking lots operated by businesses on Railroad Avenue would be maintained as much as
possible during the reconstruction of the Railroad Avenue approaches to the SR 4 overcrossing.
Permanent losses of private parking would occur as partof the displacement of single-family homes,
apartments, and townhouses in the Los Medanos Elementary School Area and the displacement of
commercial and industrial properties north of Bliss Avenue. These parking losses would be largely
offset by the reduction in demand for parking associated with the homes and business displaced by
the proposed action. Public street parking would also be lost along the portion of Frontage Road that
runs along the Los Medanos Elementary School property and on both sides of the northern segments
' of Burton Avenue,Goff Avenue,Abbott Avenue,Marsh Avenue,and Crestview Lane. These public
street parking losses would total approximately 40 vehicle spaces. Reduction in parking would again
be somewhat offset by the reduction in demand associated with displaced residential and
nonresidential uses in the Los Medanos Elementary School Area.
In the Bliss Avenue/East Leland Area, permanent parking losses would primarily include private
1 parking associated with displaced commercial/industrial uses north of Bliss Avenue. The only
exception would be the loss of public parking in the Park-and-Ride lot operated by the Federal
Transit Administration(FTA)and BART on the north side of Bliss Avenue east of Railroad Avenue.
Right-of-way acquisition required for the proposed action would result in the loss of the back portion
of the parking lot, causing the loss of approximately 80 of the lot's estimated 170 parking spaces.
However, along the FTA/BART Park-and-Ride, the right-of-way will be reduced to the extent
feasible to reduce the number of parking spaces affected by the proposed action. Residents with
parking access near construction activity areas will be contacted and advised concerning potential
access or parking impacts before construction activities begin.
Impact: No Conflict with Adopted Transportation Plans and Policies (Checklist Item XV.g)
The proposed action is consistent with the plans, policies, and goals described under Section 3B
"Transportation". In addition,the proposed action would create room in the freeway median for the
eventual extension of the BART line to Railroad Avenue. Therefore, there is no impact.
' SECTION 5C. NOISE
' The noise impact assessment in this section is based on the findings resented in the Noise Stud
P g P Y
technical report prepared by Jones & Stokes (2000d). In addition, this impact assessment uses
' Caltrans significance standards (Protocol) to evaluate the severity of noise impacts associated with
the proposed action.
Initial Stud y/Enviroiunental Assessment Chapter 5.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Audioriry February 200/
' State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-11
1
Impact:Exposure of the Current Third Row Residences in Area 1 to Noise from Construction
of the Project (Checklist Item XI. a,c)
Table-3-6 summarizes the results of the traffic noise modeling for future 2025 (design-year)project
conditions. Predicted increases in traffic noise under design-year conditions relative to existing
conditions range from 2 to 12 dB. These increases are attributed to increases in traffic volumes,
widening of the freeway, and realignment of the freeway to the south. The largest increases
(predicted increases are as high.as 12 dB) occur in Area 1, south of SR 4 and west of Railroad
Avenue (Figures 3-2 and 3-3), where the freeway would be shifted to the south, resulting in..the
removal of the first two rows of houses and placement of the freeway closer to the remaining houses
(Figure 2-2 shows the affected homes). Area 2, north of the freeway and west of Railroad Avenue ,
(Figures 3-2 and 3-3), and Area 4, north of the freeway and east of Railroad Avenue (Figure 3-5),
would also experience increases in traffic noise. Because of the increases in noise in these areas
associated with the proposed action, this impact is considered adverse. '
■ Mitigation Measure 7. Construct a Minimum 3.7-to 4.3-meter-high(12-to 14-foot-
high)Soundwall. A minimum 3.7-to 4.3-meter-high (12-to 14-foot-high) soundwall
will be constructed in three locations along the right-of-way.line between SR 4 and the
residential subdivisions adjacent to SR 4. The soundwalls will be constructed in
accordance with Caltrans standard soundwall specifications.
Noise abatement in the form of sound walls was evaluated at four residential areas. Four
sound walls, identified as SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, and SW-4 and corresponding to Area 1,
Area 2, Area 3, and Area 4, are depicted in Figures 3-2-3-5. Residences are located on
both sides of Los Medanos Elementary School. Because sound walls need to extend
beyond the ends of each subdivision to provide noise reduction at residences at the edge
of each subdivision, a single continuous wall (SW-1),joined by the area in front of Los
Medanos Elementary School, will be constructed. This wall would have the added
benefit of reducing noise at Los Medanos Elementary School.
To assess a reasonable range of sound wall heights, heights of 3.7, 4.3, and 4.9 meters
have been evaluated for sound walls SW-1,SW-2,and SW-4. "Because Area 3 is located
where the freeway is in a deep cut, shorter walls in the range of 1.8 to 3.7 meters were
evaluated. In this location, none of the wall heights provided more than 2 dB of noise
reduction. This is attributed primarily to the fact that the edge of the cut currently
provides substantial barrier noise reduction and that the addition of a wall at the top edge
of the cut cannot substantially improve noise reduction. In addition, noise generated by
traffic on California Avenue would not be reduced by the wall.This limits the ability of
the wall to substantially reduce overall traffic noise levels in the;area. Sound wall SW-3
was therefore found to be infeasible because it would not provide at least 5 dB of noise
reduction at any critical receivers (i.e., receivers predicted to be;exposed to traffic noise
impacts.)
Initial Slud lEnvirunmental Assessment Chapter S.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-12 ,
Impact: Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise in the Project Area due to Construction of the
' Project (Checklist Item XI. d)
Noise levels from construction activities will be higher at times during construction than current
existing noise levels. To ensure that these temporary impacts are minimized, standard noise-
reducing measures will be implemented during construction and incorporated into plans and
specifications. Specifically, the following measures will be implemented to minimize
construction-related noise:
■ consider the construction of noise barriers, where feasible;
■ use stockpiled materials as earthen berms to attenuate the effects of construction
activities;
■ avoid construction during night-time and weekends, when feasible;
■ establish a field office to address potential noise concerns and provide advance warning
to the community of construction activities that would generate noise; and
' ■ implement appropriate noise control measure consistent with Caltrans standard
specifications, Section 7-1.01I, "Sound Control Requirements."
Therefore, this impact is not considered adverse.
' Impact: No Exposure of People to Noise from Ground-Borne Vibrations or to Noise from
Construction of the Project Within the Vicinity of an Airport (Checklist Items b,e, f)
' The proposed action is not expected to involve construction activities that would cause excessive
ground-borne vibrations that could expose people to noise associated with such activities. The
project area is not located within an airport land use plan area or in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Therefore,the proposed action would not expose people who live or work in such areas to excessive
noise levels. As a result, there are no impacts.
1
SECTION 5D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The hydrology and waterquality impact assessment in this section is based on the findings presented
in the water quality technical report prepared by Jones & Stokes in (2000e).
Initial Stud"vlEnvironmental Assessment Chapter 5. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 Fast Widening Project 5-13
1
Impact: Temporary Changes in Water Quality (Checklist Items VIII. a-b)
Construction activities associated with the proposed action may potentially impact water quality ,
within the project area. As a result,eroded soil,petroleum products, and other construction-related
pollutants may be potentially discharged to receiving waters. Appropriate implementation of
effective BMPs would minimize potential water quality impacts. Groundwater would not be
intercepted or diverted by the proposed action;however,groundwater discharge might occur during
construction activities near the creek or shallow water areas. Dewatering of construction areas near
Kirker Creek or shallow water areas may be required if excavations fill with soil seepage or surface
drainage to the extent that draining is necessary. Effective BMPs would minimize dewatering
concerns.
The proposed action's potential water quality impacts are considered minor because of the short-term
nature of construction activities and the implementation of effective BMPs required by Caltrans. ,
In addition,dewatering activities,if any,would be conducted according to NPDES permit conditions
and possibly WDRs, as required by the RWQCB. As a result, this impact is considered less than
adverse. '
Impact: Changes to the Existing Drainage Pattern (Checklist Items VIII. c—f)
Implementing the proposed action would result in the construction of additional areas of impervious
surface associated with widened roadways and interchange ramp improvements. An increase in the
amount of impervious surface area would generate greater surface runoff during storm events.
Increases in the total volume of runoff can accelerate soil erosion and ;stream-channel scour and
increase the transport of pollutants to waterways. As part of the proposed design, drainage
improvements would include expanding and upgrading existing facilities consistent with Caltrans
standard specifications so that the quantity of drainage resulting from the proposed action and
drainage distribution to conveyance channels would not change appreciably. Treatment of A
stormwater entering the state system would be consistent with current Caltrans District 4 policies.
In addition, the proposed action would require only slight modifications to existing minor drainage
improvements;i.e.,major drainage features,such as Kirker Creek,would riot be affected. To further
minimize impacts to the existing drainage pattern, a drainage plan will be developed as part of the
project design to depict all flow control improvements, such as'culverts,catch basins, and ditches.
All new and existing drainage facilities would be sized to handle the anticipated flow resulting from
the roadway improvements. There would be no appreciable change in the direction or routing of
storm drainage from existing conditions., As a result, this impact is considered less than adverse.
Impact: No Contribution to Flooding or Flood-Related Hazards (Checklist Items VIII. g—
j)
Kirker Creek, the most substantial body of water close to the project site, is mapped on a federal
Flood Insurance Rate Map in the 100-year flood zone;however,no construction activities that could
impede or redirect floodflows would occur within the creek channel. In addition,implementing the
Initial Studv/Environmental Assessment Chapter_S.F_rrrironmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-14
1
ro osed action would not ex le or structures to flood-related harm such as death injury,
P expose eo P P P P � J rye
' or damage caused by events such as levee or dam failure or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow.
SECTION 5E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
' The following geology and soils impact assessment discussion is based on the findings presented in
the geotechnical impact report prepared by Parikh Consultants in January 2000.
Impact: Minimal Potential for Geologic Hazards from Construction of the Project(Checklist
Items VI. a,c,d,e)
As described in Chapter 3,Section 3E,the project site is not known to exist within an Alquist-Priolo
' Zone, and'no active faults pass through the project site. However, because of the existence of
regional faults, there is potential for the site to experience. strong ground shaking as a result of
earthquakes originating from regional or local faults. There is no potential for fault rupture in the
project area because the nearest fault,the Antioch fault,is located 5 kilometers(3 miles)east of the
project site,and the proposed action would not involve construction activities that could rupture any
known nearby fault. Potential for ground shaking would be confirmed by the CCTA prior to the
commencement of construction activities and appropriate safety measures would be incorporated
into the project design.
' As discussed in Chapter 3,the project area has an overall low potential for liquefaction based on the
project site's soil structure. In addition, landslide potential in the project area is low because of the
depressed profile of the project site. As discussed in Chapter 3,soils at the project site are generally
considered to have high shrink-swell potential and moderate to high expansion potential. Although
the potential for expansive soils at the project site is considered moderate to high, geologic and
seismic safety design elements as required by Caltrans (through guidelines provided in the Caltrans
Highway Design Manual)would be incorporated as part of the project design,including testing soils
for expansion potential. As a result, geologic hazards impacts are considered less than adverse.
The proposed action is a highway widening and.interchange reconstruction project, and does not
require construction or use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater systems. This impact is
considered less than adverse.
Impact:Minimal Potential for Soil Erosion from Temporary Construction Activities(Checklist
Item VI. b)
The proposed action may temporarily impair water quality in the project area because construction
activities would disturb relatively large areas of soil. However, the loss of soil is not considered
significant because of the short-term nature of these activities and because of the CCTA's
Initial Stud YlEn'ironmental Assessment Chapter 5.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-15'
incorporation of standard erosion control measures, as required by Caltrans (see discussion under
"Section 5D. Hydrology and Water Quality" above) as part of the project design. Therefore, this
impact is considered less than adverse. 1
SECTION 5F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ,
The biological resources impact assessment in this section is based on the findings presented in the i
NES technical report prepared by Jones & Stokes-(2000c).
Impact: Loss of Habitat for Burrowing Owls, Northern Harriers, White-Tailed.Kites,
Tricolored Blackbirds,and Loggerhead Shrikes (Checklist Item IV. a)
Implementing the proposed action would result in the removal of approximately 5 acres of ruderal
grassland, which is considered potential foraging habitat for burrowing owls, northern-harriers,
white-tailed kites, tri-colored blackbirds, and loggerhead shrikes. However, these species are
common to the region, and the estimated amount of habitat loss is minimal and would not
substantially reduce the populations of these species. Therefore,this impact is considered less than
adverse.
Impact:No Loss or Disturbance of Creek Channel and Associated Vegetation(Checklist Item
IV. b)
Construction along the Kirker Creek channel would be avoided because the proposed action would
become a six-lane, mixed-flow facility west of the Kirker Creek crossing. Under the proposed
action, the pavement would be located outside of the creek channel and away from the associated
riparian vegetation; therefore; no direct impact on these resources would occur. However, indirect
construction-related impacts on the creek habitat and species in the creek could occur from erosion
and sedimentation or ancillary construction-related activities (e.g., locating construction vehicle
parking or equipment storage areas next to the creek or releasing hazardous substances to the creek.)
To ensure that these indirect construction-related effects would not occur, the following measures
will be implemented:
■ Mitigation Measure 8. Erect High-Visibility Fencing Designating Kirker Creek as ,
an Environmentally Sensitive Area. The Kirker Creek channel will be protected
during construction by erecting orange construction-barrier fencing between the creek
channel and the construction area, as shown in Figure 5-1, before any grading activities
begin. The location of this barrier will be clearly identified on the construction
drawings,and the environmentally sensitive area will be marked in the field on signs by
a project biologist/environmental monitor. Contract specifications will require that ,
parking and equipment storage be located outside of the environmentally sensitive area
and that the construction foreman will ensure that all onsite construction personnel are
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 5.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-16 ,
s
so
o5 t
gorJr"c-J;';rl 1 is�'r,.+' } t• 1
%, '�•.' 1,;'!'!r l/.•. '+ t ''L , 'i` \ t
"��� t .. ';��� `� /i ., / J,171;: �•.c�. :.��"' ! tit •L •'; '
�, ; �jil,' 'rn`;t:rt' f�/rrl�a,Lr�;1%\'':i!�r i�• J t
1 Ilk
;" `.� '`d'-i��K•6r;.�'1'J:i1,','y''i,1;;1 .yy' Ir(t'r!''Y`a- .a :r171,%!%, I,.{l ,7. •':�l �` •• l
t. 1 . K ,/�,lr,,r r:, r�...r 1�I 1!.., r j./ r �•rl,,. •it \ ,.
ii i. ,';1'l (, �' / .'ti�''y' �; i�,"rte'.:•„r ,t:11, iah, r!'"�- 1 ''�,
t ,'J:,;1 rr t `I t i ~��''•� r/,'' jr^%l'!
H � is
r,': f
Il 1 i
• 'r...i i�'. i'`�.t+% 1 ti., 1'1. Jti (; o: � '/,'!/,.11t'rr Jrf �f'` - t � •�,,' -\ �\
.. ,. � t ,1\ „ •.ti;t!s t !r 1 r„,;;.r,.e�..S1 �q r ,t;r.rrl�l �” �...••.+�, � i
:' .:it:'r�lfr'jJ`t',,.t. rl�' i.� % i�'f`j�,��/t fir: ti>F,,•\ .i1 t \ ••; �'
Silt''
r : ;1,1,7 J/,i �+? *�C� y i,/,''1`�,,,Jlj. /.•qrg� �1
• s � i�.'. F� ,'t�+'ii, ,�,�7 .�``f'�S' <;;.j,1i'•;l'it'•ii j.';"� ir�� r, ? , ,', � ,
1, ��, I� ,�• �� LIQ 1;,t r Ir r� �, } t, i
, t" � ,�,n �?;�:;`�?,;:i�'�t''i:• 'r'r'�:;r , f1�1.r,1;/ilii
. `', t r lrl'i`J/,r• ,rJr•. r %!J � t �\ ,� `{ ` •'
�` 't 1 +.: .t, \ +4r{q'i:rf;tJl'r•,t;';/r�iNt, +'r Y( f•:; tN.J ¢.�. r •;f;�'rpWi } ; 5`i1
irx �,�::.Jj%'f!%r�t• r/.0 � ;. t ,
.\ ' ':\ c ,,.r 'IjJ 1 ,t:i;,if+r .J, 1 -+rI,�,K/,1,,.. •r� � 1 '
� ,`�,.., 'r,_ � ',�h f�!N�l;:'t,i,,1,'ilt'1,°j;1;tr11: °��•a' h�' �1J jrrflr`/r�'r,�/%fi •i \� <' •S� '1 t V`1
r1 ,.' ,, �� e:}yt;t:' r1 ri+'r:;L}, r' `t *' '. `�• /,ILrtif:l/' f r.i'�"7,�its,,'. ��
/'' ` r a• ( \'d •; E '(::9'','1Jr':,;li`t•,'f'�lJ!>i'Jt �x .y�.•`,�;;r/r,J ti'"�!!%t .�,,::rs,',v.�. ` ;1 `� ... \ iii
'�i" Q. ,t+• \'s, .r4�'>. J,:i�i,'}:rN�rNt�rF,'�r'Jt ,� _.f4 ,'',�'rr�,r),r i,.,t�,•;J:;%"�.. \ ''t �•
.•4-
.,w . ,,{;;:r7r l;tr. 1 J :,. •1!% rvr,,Jr,t` J '"`rdS{,. i .} , . 1, '� -,.t
� � �u = J r fr:� t/;•r;',�':A'`�';,'v, :r- ;jJ;l:Jrr;,4. r.f'r >' , .� 11
rJi,'(YcY.; ,t, r;, '/r J�{.ri. �I,i`•ir \
1r 1. r, r;•JJ 5.. , `` `Si
t 1.4441'1; r;i•'T' !,�/, � J,t/ t, t
, 1, ,
e+ r avec. 4+ J �ri:'rit:tr;/�if,ll`4.p ;A f�1J,r�/J. %is:i'fl�j +• t 'i �t, 1
r'r:1
..�:1 .► o ,� �j r. :?Jrr,r!:lati r ,' •� ';1,,rll'Yvr 'l j , ',. y
(n t'. \,y” � 4f1 Q � � l• ''� .S'�,. ,.L!,-,• 'yifi,'1`lt1"'t�` r• r Ji,r p ,tit .w\' r 11
�/ �'" V f't i• \ 'fit:,rr :%,11, irr, I,Jtt,,/!,l 'i�.'�� j�f/,•j�t!,�„%r't,llfr�t,t' � ' ` t+ t
11�i
CD (D G .i � ���y� �'';j',}t.Jl�,!�1t'j? .'.Jj�:ta;St�•7rj1.i t' ,;.r ry%l�!i?i'r%ljj,,�.If/, r-S.l �.� , ,, ,, t +,
(� O t '� +�”�� n � �� 'LS i"M:`1111:;1,'.111; '.,,1;, IJ/?t,.1 .✓ rJ�J ft��!'Ji'rJ �•r,. 5`1!1'1"i. i i \ , 1', ; , t
o G y r•o �, i 1 a,�'� k'� � `rt Cf 'r''1;� �"',t. r. !f:t�;l;:,;'t.:� fit � ` � ;
.., � fD '� �" � „ .+h , -': r;lt•.•`Jr.+�!,'•e,;'' , 11 ', '`••� /i'%A•r f;.c•! ,ry `' t \ '
tP o ?�nn LU f�CY ."S"a 1 , �((.lf:%r,1% ,r ',t, f'jt" f%'1'!fir• , ' i \, ; '
a i'.\ lw `�' i•�.} ,'t', .4, .F' 'Yf;,'�y Jli�,f 1.. r /r` q• /, i:'' r ` ' ! t
o , ' � � Ots1 !D O - ,,`; :t `:; \ `°���y4�,'rj�?;,'r`i;':1`.:�7;r ��i��^/� +`- ,� •rll�i��/;/ J„ '�;�3, + 1 � �'�
\ rF .qv Q1 \,/ +i u" {�;%' r!�•l:rr�`,t,Y;'rr't1, �"' r 41 Ji"'•J.%/�t t,''f;r f�,aa�.v ; `i , •t
../ .�: ¢.•:.1� '; ;1':t !.r;, .;i,�t�,:,:i r,,,'rti '•+; �'�} r f`,r:`.�r./r;, !! t, r � ,'�.,t,
� �.'�, � tN •Y•o ',� 1 'i'^�"rcti'rtJy I r�'If`:' +p`:•t:g �"' i.. %/.fjr t !, 1 ! /, _. `i
C � � wl o •+ {J'+ ,, , 11 5• , .x rli`,r(!`T.f?:r�r'rr�)r�rtr,%;'1�,�Jt,'ak,l����;%�r/!"iota!>iI�,S�� I,yvj,C�� `;t t `, `; ,
�G � v , � � �'� � i, �it:rX�Ey;lr�:i,,tr�Ar h'r/;,' :�`r'�'*eyltv,�•�':fi;; l,',,il�I;r•f. r.�,- r'�; '� �{`1,; \ .
n i r ,f r; JI; ., 'l: „r:i, fin Ir{,,,:'S`4'•t , j S
rn #.. 4I
111"`
� I
!il i;Sr., J' ? av �,•. _
i' � .i•r Q 'r< � t tt�!` r 1 tr;r ,1,,.,�':; rJ:: ° T�t�" f J r j (1 }'%' Y;S 1 `; -T`! ��`
1� �, � -� a G o �` >?r''r %;�t .;� , ti:;r„�:; '�' 1 ,,,}p�•%r',,,t`;r'/ t�r7�,,., �{. n. �5 .,i`' 't t
{,/s• � '(S'•r,4..�•sy , .f�'"::,, r rr,.::�,., r L;d'•; y�//f;'/'%��,: !L, '�j �.,, j .. � , i
• r .. _ Y "d \ 1 jif
`�t'�1''�•��''r?:; `
,r'1' Y'•l.,l Jr, til,'/.•':� �/% � C '•1
� Q � ��+ �� k :� � ,��' •�.!"ii h�r t`t.t r'rl;l,fit `:{:ef,'` t-},i/���t,iLr�:,�et 1.�! i'r''i:� ` , � , 1 '
�ttl O, � ;'i •1,�..•t��,:'S%'A:'1,!1'tr �•FX,N;.i '�`t.><rvwi'/J:luu � iFtir {. �j \,, '
r.L
• � .+� k: 'Si!�'+, ?+)"' ✓rtrr;1'fr z' E J :f I,'•' �x t `- ,.
t � �• 'Hi'. �Q' _;, `kt�i:;•r,'i c�{:� t t;';l�r�y r f�tl � .,. �:fJ,rirtr',;t1' j�' �'� ' ,i i 1 �, 't
01 �.,.•:.!,r' `t,�i%.;1.: rf,:J v S4. ,r. 7 r- / r ;/r
-,-.;i 1 '.ra IJ`7 �l' .�', r •ti',.r:�J^ / ~7+ v i ` ;t ``
•t� .,n.'P:. 1t ,r:ilj f': r. 1 ff,/rl, /• :•,!) "P •1_ )
`✓✓•' t j �- Y"11, yi f; ff.'Jr� fl L;"+yr, � 1
i , (� et;�,�''+�!rt,��' !?rl`•f ,1/ �ff+ :� ut''r";:t' j• ,t .1
'frr'r.r r•'if` 1 S. /'�/•//ff , r.'rJ "i3`?• \�
',i ,q; :r r�.t i;;, r r 'l�f!, /Ir'jr �r`,\'� •\ 1
.•r, _ ;F;;'!+1:: 1 1 r 1 r • a r,r r/�;/r'f %r, �},• •'':
� '�. • �\'.,' s1 k�7',;'j�'(•r,�.141r!rr'rjl;�''y':tiij�1t p'4 ,fi�lY' !rirr:t/r:rrli,/rt `"S• ,�� � <
1 � :it r rt Il r a;�i t'�, r ,� !.r J/ !i x'i�z`v. � ,•. +',
lirr:.i'�;;%i;'/ K_
, S � 1•
I`,",',r' ;
1 '.0
�
� �\•
r. i �, �'�"�'=t ,xJl?,/ + rt �'1trJ l,t. bt ,r ' ,/'JJI''t`!•f'ii% :!•1" x. ) O,
1, lrt rt. r,l•'t:, ~tll/jJ' t`, t•.:Jr 5 +
:{. '•r,; `"
!4 ?� r ,r r ,r 1 , c•-, i r;,I��t' r a,-„ t
`•••. i; , r:,;.,r,i,; a?';.'.jl��� 4�.,tcJ' :J'j rnt ! I' '
', f /� 4',t, ` ".Ir;r?.•(,l+ ;i 5". r,,;rit�%:r lfr f'j M;'��•.J ,
�.. ; - :'T•. "f, t�lrh,1�11;,;J.. J �. ; J/.lr:;';:! I'' ,,. , , .1'
��`}! �`r1'i•. r•l,r �'rli,'•'' �•� rfr.;r/, , �1�j :`r'.
r..
-'+' ', .u' ,yJ! i.' ,)r;.''1 „1�. ,t .�,��„� ?.,: �f�fjfj, '�riC'•.q t, �� �.
, ! ! i` �; _ i ,J�, „r,.fr+., IF..+�+ a' >��: nllj,rt/' ';,,r 1•�fJ ",_\ , t, t tnt
:ar»... ` , ! `! �, it�'s'�`hi'!Y':,i'?i,`t.{til�Jr!•;1;��utj�1 .�++ �N,. /,f l:t7jlfi ' f•� t_ i �, .y\
lit
•---•, ' ; +�. id...':.j� t t,,t :�1; t;1+'(rr,r tyt �t '• tt/ �y},'� `
�••'. \. �.,i, )"rf`t'.'r'it i 1 1th%,1,I!' r � ! rJ lf/fJr. `1 fr, �. \t�
ii Pe:: t, rht.,lr ( r J :r ' �%r, I.��(•.,i r' t �,_�
i �i , : ., t�',•„,r+•},�''`%.'l.;•rrrlr`'Jtlt•E�,l ;� �.r.�,;,/rrr ril''rfj =;��v:��; •3 ,l \�
E' __ - _ 11rtJ,,:J,,r;.,..'r,:`rl �+'i ,�?'•�.� ,r%jflfti' r,Jt I///, Z.+4�. 'i' � t \i
i i �,k.'• t �.J:,,n: 1tJ'irJl ��` /";'11;t'��ftJ., �, t�,'na. , 1 `,, \ ��-r
' •.i• r< r..,.JrU,t+�%j9rJ.r'"J`;J'1`�,ala' !;/./.!'j l.� f�r�
' _ _ ,•'S,. g �f.,a;JF.,; ri);;J,+,.1!1"i .�i• rrjJ J J/!l
�l f•�t
�y 't � t t YY:Pr ,r',./ r, rj..II ..�,i, •/%Ij,f,,ty�,//, �,� � , ;.� � ,
y � '�y J. r4;":; ,aJ 11.17., i+t! •na1! J'/, 1�fi;�Jt �lr �'�,�r•.'•�jl .-.�.'` i {
� .. .. •i i ', \�`,'`: ',/✓,i,� 11:`1' r31;j��J Y' l' ;f��., !, .a't„ �\' 1
...Y ..... ...;,:) ! f t''•:•_.•�+':1'j' 'i�Jry':`ir,1J;Y!J F�. Y f�y rlr,,f/j/•+tr Jfi/fll.y,�JJr .;t.i 1 \
f'tt .•{ .i ,; r. \; •. 1�'J�, J1i1,�r?l!,':;t ��. /1f'/l:J,f I1t �'f' t .>' i , .�..
703' 1r 71;'!:.•�t :� .� � � /r;t,l.!,rt f '�,,,Yt t. � 1 �` �
' 1�',4�i'^r'r•:;7a,„ 1;11,1 l/ rlYy' rip j/'; +
Nt' t' ,.1171? 1rt. r,tt,�!� ' t f/ff;l'•,l:t i ;,! Iy��''r� ,' 't, t
,
G .. ,.r , ;; .-. `a� ,+ �_ i � '11r;":%:,J 'r7,�J�i�!';,w°�•�'�•�'�Y,^:;. ;f>;"!; .:trl;� .�•if`�t�•k ' •t..../"i r�i
Z O i !`' r - . ,,'` � �r.,:v.'11;x1•,:♦ 1,r G!' ta<v �j, 1 fq Sn,
' ``'�+ - ':-,i'.,r.�„ r:,rr.!�ti.Jl.f;•, "� '!`f!/,j'f!f��t,�llr,? ,,,rr t 1.}.) -,ti'i: �''i, ,'; ,
, � rrf t,•.. _
r ,�, .... 't', {'( ,,.t yal,•+,. , I":1, rI JJ ?3 . /,i.rfj I!/;/„ '!/r• � � --t�l t
fn i ` '.'�, ',.{_�<. ', ,... , ,; .. "tY�i�. 117;..r jam' , Gx< `;ii' ;f!/J c,f.;rjl,•t:r�';�`���,'}a`'. ;�
111 Sn '.c ]/i`-• )jt:i'111�'=,!rr`r+•t1;Vt '� ''('.'''i/:'1;,/�•' %r, > �, ! 4... }� I' ,,t ,'• �r``-
rr. k• r,t r
N Z , 1 ii, i�r1. !,•IJ: 1 i J'1 r �. s 'rr.r�l, /i'ri, �r. !yy�� ^y.
-.c;':�Y: r
O" '., � ,� - � �'�` ,ti`'1'!.'r�I,'``-%1 A',�',r,l,i n :?„^� �,,'�-,•�„ur r..,fl+"f�ti?�. �,:t:. - ,i•''.
�, •;,, t,....• t.. ; r�;�•`'r','171;%/'7 rJ r, t j.. 't,J�t:'•/Jlllti i,�^y'! •}`�
i - � 1� ''.., i�'�,t .Ji,r r'Il,"ri:(tl r c ���' 1/! 1 ri•\ ,�• { ,'�i
(+1 N � -'i" ,i. , ;, ;'• �: ,.rrLJl,ii'ii li, tr ri�, "$ lr,f. �:«.` ,:!/J �� tt t,� •:.r
, `( � `�r`: `�� ,4.1`r, ,fir.. jlt 7r-.Ft'a � 1:•l'.,',r .,tom. l r
�` '� .. � as rtiJ;J:ry :,i;alt:"i7?+(;• ,r�rr •.� , .!,/•�rl{1%%., .71'!°' g:' r •� `�' .
.'�Y^ .t� .\ �_,. :` T� y ,�'i;,t,.t,:,rt�r!(,1t,lJ� K;? ;}}h; fJj�l,,.�r•.,�I, r.rr "��� r`.:::'_��`''�;` `,',`t,
pi t Y." 7j% �,;, �•, "� lfrvf/ r'j; l! /lf '•.�
v' ,r
? tJ, r,t Si1�`1::jrf:7 i(�• t.' rr t, off'
�.. kg••r
. � 1 � ,•`''�; 'Y N, "yy�'K�,,/t1;'.tr;�.„ r1':/,',t;ir�.�. ��*, f,; tr '/fr ��� ` ��1
� �'��i +�'•.�iJ/i �,,� i ir�y f:rt rf;rl�k. , ' �
,: . r:r
i. t' � a;r><+ r;:S';hri H
r. !�: Ir (,yJ -� .• ..\ \ �; 4
� 'f .+h x, ,.tj,;?ti`r1i:;`:';Irfr'tl,j•',l '°Y �'g rir;'•%�,.lr J!r.'(,I%(S 1.•' �i. <`h -'�� S3�
�r-' r 1 1\'. ;11:1, i. C• , !:`l.�;:'r•' jrf' �1 i i.\•.. �"• w ;
.., ��,...-- ( � ,• � r r. 1 �1 7,'k.. n li:r. ! J, it _ �, �_, •}•.
.. t t 6.? {';.;.r,Nrr.r J.n;lr: ; t� , is rr�.:r;J/•,/� J:r�•�'' ,;�
o! ' .""tr ''i, v.
iii7;j
(7(:�;.' ti ... !'! !':f \ ,,tih ♦\ L)
3 �, M',11J':`it'rt ...,,, 'l:,rb'jr .^tia, l;,,��:;•t'{r',r:�,. lr.l,y,
• E � 1 e O t l><v>.J,::t:,: 'i r':,'.;+t`:tr`,,l :�?. w..� 11• fr l t,
, �. ';� +C,+�.'rA;'t'?:`J?,4'.l t :t ^y ,. ,.1' i/r '/, f 4�J,.'`fi. y i ,.E,r•\ \
�� \ 7 t9 X y i,:rl•,tJrY,f,,./IJ;�,t.irjj fi f�.�'' %,,�r�J.,If,r�!(r � :��`
:t � , ,�{_�•. ,1l i.., ,,t JJ,r;•!, :.da� :f1'%%rJlr. rr. '�,frX `' ,� `,,� `' �.
'. , `, � ',,•� � � •yri•-'.�_}, �;�t'11+:;:iir'l r) 'tJr,1.
rt
,1 t "� `.;t � �`S rf t rYr Jr 1 i�l rl�Jl!!, i� ';�i!%`"`'.�•"n t'j %I r� '< 's` `� t'i ,` \\
1 Q �li1 t• 111;,1 r f:J; :' �, ;Y J �j/v' x ` i '�
{'(S n �- P•Y 1'.,., �?rtJrlr ,`, � "A';kf/'il
` � ` � }',,S i• �1., 'k��>. ;Y,JI,�'r. �''r• it{rill.�j �4� r:'%�rlrf.'%Jr �r A'•h•t _ � ,u � , \ !�
... •,'' Q �+ , ', ,,, ,. �;,:,ra;1t,,'(!,``1'1 f ..,Mia^q /1,41!' r�`f, I/%r t` '1 1 1
isi '< V'� y,l 0 41, y. !''' lt,;,t; r?r1,• .ft r!/ tr•�tj/fir.%1' � t, ,`rtr} , t 1 It
,.•",.'.f;ilt7trr"�• G, ljftgr,r r rr, t!!f,/' �4 1
•;- .r� ri:?: rr'�I,r t )1 'r t:'i i, It !r.t;�'r :' 1�. t
fti .1 �,/ / � r,1• rJ•,.;tt'r,•;1I`l,ir ,+�.�tf- ,:�rtr fr rfr./vl.!Ya%I?:.t� S + ,i F 1
.......
t Y
, r•t` e° ,? I1r�1?lii;.::,;.�.,' j:! !, r:�:Jil"t.•;fJli i i 'y � � ti ,�
t,
'L•.: `Ji'
Jr!•. N.
i '+ ,t + s• i .,. �. j� •ti` r Jif:ri;, •,r;,:,
:: y;;':r r:::.r:t:�l�t.;r ,;,i;`>Y !,jf;�t�}�y�;jr`'1': •�:�, '1, 't
, �I `� ,; 'i �,. rz�{,,,rJ�„j,:;;h/,' j' rii:; it aCi r•rJrilfr�%yf•'.IJ ,r �;/ 1 ,.•7 ` t.
.. � 'i� '� .` � > .. f,,;t..,rir•.t(rf �;q�y� !' '!/!:t1 h!,J.• �. •t � ,, ,}
1 � ��h'i:,1;;11'1';t.'; �i;;, rJ ;»« y��:'��4'; •/11111 IN! ! /•!, �'_' ',.:
. ; P4' •n r '� ^>z;yJrr Ii ;`i'iJlr'ir 't7I 1 J! t
:FU')'�rt t�,rr,:. ,�__// r �"i'��• (.�
•�,i�.. .- ,'•, �D t tr?; /r%e:%%11 /i.� ° ft j l r
,�� �t, _ -r�' 1�,,. i' /.',r�;+t.,.,..i:�r, tr r ',• �'t r 1, r, l j. r , t
i .. ` `.r:',,;Nr t1'r�'i'•r`7,.J l' ni'r'r ,� P
_. l.�, ':,'.'� \ � r2'•,�•y.!;•:!!; r 1„'rJ,tJJf',-���f Y:!'� i/i ff/'a,ifl,!/r,%t% r!!f
`' Q1 ', 1 :4i'+� l�.:!::lf)'rt.rt,It%1t �''`��?'' 1 Jr' rpr•r,,.UJ'•,�l �!:w � � f'1
... •'`�. � '. t• -. `� `�``'' , j ''.•tf,1;,?fij,:1'tr: 1 !'r;r,. .tr{``-fir w"1: fj,,`71 r/;Ir+:, r r/` .+ � C7
w. ,,. •;.,f. ''-v '�' ',rfi�'!; 1 1'rl,tl rt `"��' r '7i• r 1,':%v. ..a
_.il--”" 1 :1- \ ih .,,,55��'t`:,:,rt.4..;,..�r::,r, ,i.t•; ='Y5,')ri::.�' .Ir;/l'i,�rj��r �j •� •�/t�� Com.. �► �
\ '.'�•',,,.'.liy,.r,,,r,.,r:;!'Jrl a.}'.`�+R „/,'f, 11Jtr�':.fJ ,•�+�
._. \,• ,..f Q n,tlt: ('i Jrr+:lF6.E 4
64. k,, WIll J'•,�/////.•:4,t./t!ir F t".”.4•qr'.�{ �tai
ri{ <
; .t.1�1•r".t 17r: .t,r J �'{:. ! f,ll`, rt r/! ,�) it .•1
f �"'_." � \ ,t l ;� EF` a I�;ii�Jtltlrlj7lri'i;f1Ji .,���, �t%/%r`„�,'.t� r/! Z��fj�► 1'� }n }' t'4
�l, ',' , ••,', ri.11, .,,: !., r;1.1 �f.� r% r f.,'r,j / Ph -i
', ,\ �,,,{ ;' 1,.;J,1�,,„ /r v..-;f/f./f J l.;l,.i 1! if t*4 �•
14
7 �,,. '•; i', `� r "�, 1"t.'i.l,7r;r. , t :� 7 t t!/�lrl/j'lt/, Z � �
;`,� �:_•., `,� 00, Irlt•'•ib:t1J,�t1it,%�lyir,,l:,.,t.,?";�. •�.."r: lJf!r/ir''1/'rf;ft:f'�' r!r'l R Oct
O�
�.t j , '1�:- � l �"�i�%+:�?:;�'' � t;; r 1%1�?; `F 5 / /,, �/r`'t, %f!`'�•,' �+
./ ''`f t ,`• \ ` . (. r'jt',1:'rt..,lt.>' •,1 ' +, jj!tJ,tljl.4f! �;4 � � "w.
'•} _. jl. ,..r'r,r Jt 1rJrIN ;;��r•1 !!9.! ,.'•r/I� 'I�,`ti•':R tQ •�'
.} , ,`t �,''.,�, `,, 1'�''^s': '•""'T'J.'y�ijll!t11, '�, �t I:�rfL�S:�, `!i' G('f w� +4
.� , ,,� , ,'� : �.'Gat:ty h i,l.,'. .'' Jr /1i,r i 'Y^`. '1..�'`/Jft Yq'frj`�':t. �.•,1• N G..► a01lTti t0 Yf
� ,.� ,..�`,<: �',4;i1111'!?'�1,'fl t,( �+'•• "'''e.�-`i/�f/, rf>rl,. :l'' <y� •� ,R
.i 1, •,''� T �k,} '', I „r 1.11%JG, r ! ' `
t, ',t i �. %x, �'J.,. Jit;r.• !t!"i'/ r f
�. ••i t '',. !1 ,'> _ Jii Y,r�l i..ltl, '!r✓<l ;Jl,r, i� y9 �r.jt''�,f/,((!�r/,rr
4 (rr'•: i,I� t`. fix /�',r, 5 ., r
�", f r,� ',`;`; \ •- �.�l!` .!.!�%t'r, '�'(j•lr rk+a Jr. t /ti, rr/ N ,+C _ � •
N .Gj, ., \ �t ``i.`' jy 1' ri,,•'aN?;r:! ri':r,t, '�^ti'r,.:.+.! y � � < p
� r ,+,.;,.:r:hrr°%r ,11.11 , x /•/r�/!j y 'rJ' jr � a
,,' � � ,;�1 �+Yy .,,s i�J,�i�JiJr.iii,I; 1;1j,Jl/ ,•w `�J�/•'jf.J J��I'Y/! f"- q�
` ,I �Y, r JJ!': r'1 t r.j(, ^�'F.•K ! r t}if//J�t !i � '4
1,11,�J!,'r � /r% /..'f►y,,, / .., 4 �,►
tlt rA ;�+j';�,J,r111n',lr. i',;,+,Jl�;*•:rf'•�ir,ftlr ffj.j l'•,a� rt i
+ ' �• r/y�J';r1.11!,,J IJ, c� f1 f` f ;Ilia. 't.
i• .'1 , i ` �,•. `6}�.'�rf•I,r�,t,ri''/Pr+,t t!/tr�•,�!.'r' � 4(�I rj' 'r�!r t��' J.R
',:..�.•; a�?1 •11//}1'7 i.�: Ir �� q;�' J!.%': �f
\ � '',+ 7 7�';�i(,t'•/11 1111' rl,lr, a'3i'+t4�:.�lr� 1/';;ffr,!
' "i , {'`.� fir' ` J` J:r e i. .r,:• r•:,:'.:
�'t t `, l :'t � j��j.Yti�C, 1!t1.;.�1J,Irr7t�1:1,�''11.%ij. _y ;j!•',J.,.
^, � ; ` , 1, ,'. ., ! 'T.•,�i 1+1,;';r,J;,.',,;J,l,;,'t:,h;:,.;;i,- .f1j�•'
tr .t,. . Vill
co ,
educated about the environmentally sensitive area and are instructed to avoid it. The
fencing and signs will remain in place and the monitor will maintain the fencing until
construction is completed.
■ Mitigation Measure 9. Limit Construction Activities Next to the Kirker Creek
Channel to the Summer Low-Precipitation Period. To reduce the potential for
impacts on habitat, fisheries, and wildlife associated with construction activities,
construction activities will be limited within 30.5 meters (100 feet)of the Kirker Creek
channel to the summer low-precipitation period (April 1 to October 31).
■ Mitigation Measure 10. Implement Grading and Erosion Control BMPs Necessary
to Prevent Water Quality Impacts. Standard erosion control measures will be
implemented for all construction activities that expose soil. Erosion in disturbed areas
will be controlled through grading operations that eliminate direct routes for conveying
runoff to drainage channels, construction of erosion control barriers such as silt fences
and mulching material,and reseeding of disturbed areas with grass or other plants. The
BMPs and other specifications to prevent soil erosion will be included in the final
construction plans for the proposed action. The construction contractors conducting the
work will be responsible for implementing, regularly inspecting, and maintaining the
measures in good working order. The construction contractor also will be required to
implement appropriate hazardous materials management practices to reduce the
' possibility of chemical spills or releases of contaminants,including any nonstormwater
discharge to drainage channels.
iImpact: Loss of Ruderal Grassland (Checklist Item IV. b)
' Implementation of the proposed action would result in the removal of approximately 5 acres of
ruderal grassland. As described in Chapter 3, Section 3F, this habitat is dominated by non-native
invasive plant species, is common and abundant both locally and regionally, and does not support
habitat for special-status plant species. For these reasons,the ruderal grassland to be removed in the
project area is considered a habitat of little botanical value. Therefore, there is no impact.
' Impact: No Disturbance of Potential Waters of the United States or Wetland Areas (Checklist
Item IV. c)
As described in Chapter 3, Section 3D, the Kirker Creek channel has the potential to be designated
P P g
as waters of the United States, including wetlands, requiring special discharging permits to be
obtained from the Corps. However,construction of the proposed action would not occur inside the
channel,and would not require any direct removal,filing,or hydrological interruption of the channel.
As a result, there is no impact.
Initial Stud"vlEnvironmental Assessment Chapter 5. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
' Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 200/
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-17
Impact: Indirect Disturbance of Aquatic Habitat from Turbulence or Surface Runoff ,
P q
(Checklist Item IV. d)
of the proposed action would avoid direct disturbance of the Kirker Creek channel;
Construction e p po ,
however, construction activities next to the creek channel could result in indirect disturbance of
fisheries from runoff and sedimentation. Degradation of fisheries resources (e.g., through the
introduction of pollutants during construction and increased sediment loading)would be minimized
by the implementation of mitigation measures, including preparation of a stormwater pollution
prevention plan, aimed at controlling soil erosion and sedimentation under Caltrans' NPDES
stormwater permit. Implementation of these measures would ensure that turbidity increases
associated with the proposed action would not exceed 20% of natural turbidity levels and would
avoid disturbance to the creek channel. As a result, this impact is considered less than adverse.
Impact:No Conflict with Local Policies Protecting Biological Resources (Checklist Items IV.
P g g
e and f)
By implementing mitigation measures and construction activities that meet Caltrans requirements,
the proposed action would not involve any activities that would conflict with local policies that strive
to protect biological resources in the project vicinity. In addition,the proposed action is not known
to conflict with any local-,regional-,or state-adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan. As a result, there is no impact.
SECTION 5G. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The cultural resources impact assessment in this section is based on the findings presented in the
HPSR, HASR, and ASR and addendums prepared by Woodward-Clycle Consultants (1996a) and
Jones & Stokes (2000f).
Impact: No Change in the Significance of a Historical or Archaeological Resource(Checklist
Items V. a and b)
Based on the findings in the HPSR, one property—the National Guard Armory building located
north of SR4 on Power Avenue—appears eligible for listing in the NRNP. However, the HASR ,
concluded that the proposed action would have no effect on the property. No known archaeological
resources are located in the proposed action's area of potential effects (APE); therefore, no known
archaeological resources would be affected by the proposed action.
Initial Study/F_nvironinental Assessment Chapter S. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-18 '
Impact: Potential for Disturbance of Unknown Buried Cultural Resources (Checklist Items
V. c and d)
Although no archaeological sites have been identified in the APE,grading activities associated with
the proposed action could disturb previously undiscovered cultural or paleontological resources,
including human remains.
1 This impact is not considered adverse because if cultural materials(e.g.,bone,chipped stone,shell,
glass,ceramics)are located during construction of the proposed action,the construction foreman will
halt work in that area so that the significance of the find can be determined by a qualified
' archaeologist.
If human remains of Native American origin are discovered during construction,.the.construction
contractor will comply with requirements governing the disposition of Native American burials,
which fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)(Pub.Res.
Code Sec 5097). In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other
1 than a dedicated cemetery,there wi 11 be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
' 1. the county coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the
cause of death is required and
2. if the remains are of Native American origin,
(a) the descendants from the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation
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, or
(b) the NAHC was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission.
According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location
constitutes a cemetery (Section 8100) and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony
(Section 7052). Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation stop in the vicinity of
discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native
American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the
NAHC.
SECTION 5H. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The hazardous materials impact assessment in this section is based on the findings presented in the
updated Initial Environmental Site Assessment report prepared by Parikh Consultants (1999).
Initial Stud-v/Environmental Assessment Chapter 5.F_nvirunmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 200/
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-49
Regulatory Requirements
As stated in Chapter 2, the proposed action will involve reconstruction/widening of existing
structures on Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street. The BAAQMD requires notification and asbestos
survey before construction activities. The inspector who will conduct the asbestos survey must be
accredited under TSCA Title 11 and Cal-OSHA-certified under Section 1529 of California Code of
Regulation.
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC)has granted a variance to Caltrans
to reuse soil with ADL. If an entity other than Caltrans will be responsible for construction of the ,
proposed action, that entity should consult with DTSC and the Sari Francisco Bay RWQCB
regarding the applicability of the variance and management of lead-impacted soil.
In addition, a Health and Safety Plan (H&SP) must be prepared pursuant to Title 8 of California
Code of Regulation regarding workers' safety and the use of protective equipment during excavation,
moving, or handling of contaminated soil or water.
Impact: Minimal Potential to Create Hazards as a Result of the Use,Production,Transport, ,
or Emissions of Hazardous Materials'(Checklist Items VII. a, b,d )
As described in Chapter 3, Section 3H, previous land uses in the project corridor may contribute to
trace amounts of ADL in soils in the project area. Construction activities (e.g., grading and
excavation)may result in the movement of such soi Is. However,the amount of ADL present in these
soils is unknown; further testing of surface-soil samples would need to be completed before
beginning construction. As described above,special health and safety procedures would be in effect
near potential lead-contaminated areas during construction activities to reduce risks of exposure to
workers or nearby residents and passersby. '
Aside from soil-moving activities, the proposed action does not involve the use, transport, or
production of any hazardous materials, and the potential for release; of such materials is not
considered a significant risk. As described in Chapter 3, Section 3H, several listed hazardous
materials sites Were identified within the project area..However, these sites were found to be at a
significant distance (50 to 250 meters) hydrologically down- or up-gradient from the project site,
resulting in a low risk of potential emissions. or release of hazardous materials. However,
construction activities could expose workers or others .to hazardous material unearthed during
construction. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that this impact is
not adverse.
■ Mitigation Measure 11. Conduct Preliminary Site Investigations at Properties to
Be Acquired for Right-of-Way. A site-specific preliminary site investigation(PSI)will .
be conducted at properties that are suspected of containing ADL or other contaminants,
consistent with Caltrans guidelines. If there are monitoring wells on properties identified
for acquisition, coordination and concurrence from the regulatory agency that required
I
Initial Stud"VEnvironnlental Assessment Chapter S.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation.Measures
Contra Costa Transportation A.uthoritr February 200/
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-20
the monitoring wells much be achieved before"the decommissioning and abandoning of.
existing.wells. The PSIS will include soil and groundwater field sampling and laboratory
analysis as required to evaluate if soil or groundwater contamination is present. If
determined to be present, the PSI will identify the type and level of contamination, the
' areal extent of the contamination; and the estimated costs for remediation.
Impact: No Hazards to People or Structures Residing or Working within the Project Area
(Checklist Items VII. e—h)
' The project area is not located in close proximity to a public or private airport; therefore, the
proposed action would not result in a safety hazard to people living or residing near airports in the
project area. The proposed action is not expected to impair the implementation of,or interfere with,
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. During construction activities,
anticipated roadway blockages or closures would be properly implemented through a transportation
coordination plan. The project area is located in a highly urbanized area with limited areas of open
space or wildland, and the proposed action does not involve the use of any combustible materials;
therefore,the proposed action would not contribute to risks associated with wildland fires.Therefore,
there is no impact.
Impact:Potential for Exposure of Public to Electromagnetic Fields from Relocation of Pacific
Gas and Electric Company Electrical Transmission Lines (Checklist Item VII. c)
' High-voltage tower lines(i.e.,60 kV)extend on the south side of SR 4 from the western limit of the
project area (west of Los Medanos Elementary School) and cross over to the north side of SR 4.
Widening SR 4 will require the relocation/construction of possibly three Pacific Gas and Electric
Company towers in the western project area(two towers would be directly affected and a third will
likely need to be constructed to allow for proper alignment of the power lines.) The final alignment
of the transmission lines and tower locations will be determined during the final design of the
project. However, relocation of the transmission lines to allow for freeway widening could result
in the lines being located closer to adjacent residents and workers near the freeway, which could
generate public health concerns regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs). The California Public
Utilities Commission and the California Department of Health Services have not concluded that
exposure to magnetic fields from electric utility facilities is a potential health hazard. Many reports
have concluded that the potential for health effects associated with EMF exposure is too speculative
to allow for evaluation of impacts or the preparation of mitigation measures.
EMF is a term used to describe electric and magnetic fields that are created by electric voltage
(electric field)and electric current(magnetic field). Power frequency EMF is a natural consequence
of electrical circuits and can be either directly measured using the appropriate measuring instruments
or calculated using appropriate information.
EMTs are invisible force fields created by electrical voltage and by electric al currents. These fields
occur naturally from electrical circuits and are present where voltage exists on a wire.Magnetic field
Initial Stud.VEnvironmental Assessment Chapter 5. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
1 Contra Costa Transportation Awhorith February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-21
levels vary depending on customer use of electricity. The magnetic field levels of the Pacific Gas
and Electric Company's overhead and underground transmission lines varies depending on customer
power usage. Magnetic field strengths for typical Pacific Gas and Electric Company transmission
line loadings at the edges of rights-of-way are approximately 10-90 mG. Under peak load
conditions, the magnetic fields at the edge of the right-of-way would not likely exceed 150 mG.
There are no long-term, health-based state or federal government EMF exposure standards. State ,
regulations for magnetic fields have been developed in New York and Florida(150 mG and 200 mG,
respectively, at the edge of the right-of-way); however, these regulations are based on limiting ,
exposure from new facilities to levels no greater than existing facilities.
There is a consensus among the medical and scientific communities 'that there is insufficient ,
evidence to conclude that EMF causes adverse health effects. Neither the medical nor scientific
communities have been able to provide any foundation upon which regulatory bodies can establish
a standard or level of exposure that is known to be either safe or harmful. Laboratory experiments
have shown that magnetic fields can cause biologic changes in living cells, but scientists are not
certain if any risk to human health can be associated with them. Therefore, potential (but
unquantifiable) adverse impacts related to public health and safety could result from"anticipated
increases in EMF strength immediately adjacent to transmission line locations. Such health effects,
if any, related to the relocation of transmission lines from this project cannot be determined.
Furthermore, reports prepared by the National Research Council, American Medical Association,
the American Cancer Society,and the California Department of Health Services conclude that there
is no scientific evidence to warrant the adoption of specific health-based EMF measures. However;
general public concern exists about the safety of EMFs. Therefore,this impact could be considered
adverse. Implementing the following mitigation measure would ensure that the impact is not
adverse.
■ Mitigation Measure 12. Coordinate Final Design of Relocated Towers with the
Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Reduce EMF Strength at Ground Level. The
California Public Utilities Commission requires the Pacific Gas and Electric Company
to take "no cost and low cost" EMF reduction steps on transmission, substation, and
distribution facilities to reduce exposure of the public to magnetic fields (EMF
011—Decision 93-11-013). The decision was adopted by the Public Utilities
Commission to address public concern about the possible EMF health effects from
electric utility facilities. Final design and proposed location of the towers will be
coordinated with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company consistent with its Transmission
and Substation EMF Design Guidelines.
SECTION 5I. AESTHETICS
The following aesthetics impact assessment is based on the Visual Impact Assessment technical
report prepared for the Route 4 East Projects in Contra Costa County by Woodward-Clyde
Consultants (1997b) and by a site visit conducted in 1999.
Initial Stud v/Environtnental Assessment Chapter 5.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project
Impact: No Adverse Effects 'to Scenic Vistas, Resources, or a Scenic Highway from
Construction the Project (Checklist Items I. a and b)
As described in Chapter 3, Section 3I, the project area is a highly urbanized area with limited, low-
quality views of the surrounding landscapes. Views of surrounding landscapes are fragmented by
residential,industrial,commercial developments(i.e.,single-family homes,retail and service shops,
warehouses)and SR 4. In addition, no part of SR 4 within the project area is designated or eligible
' for listing as a State Scenic Highway, and no scenic resources of importance have been identified.
Therefore, the proposed action would not result in impacts on scenic vistas, resources, or scenic
highways.
Impact: Temporary and Permanent Changes in Views near the Project Site from Project
' Construction (Checklist Item I.c)
The staging and use of construction vehicles and equipment would temporarily change existing
views in the vicinity of the proposed action. However, as described in Chapter 3, Section 31, most
of the adjacent development is currently screened from SR 4 by soundwalls and roadside plants;
' therefore, the short-term change in views in not considered significant. However, the proposed
action would include the construction of soundwalls along the north and south side of SR 4 and
would also result in the loss of some established ornamental landscaping south of SR 4,just west
of Kirker Creek. Although these changes in views could be perceived as adverse,implementing the
following mitigation measures would ensure that the impact is not adverse.
■ Mitigation Measure 13. Plant Vegetation along the Highway within the Project
Area. To minimize light and glare effects associated with the roadway widening,
vegetation including (but not limited to) trees, shrubs, and vines (on right-of-way
fencing) will be planted along the widened portions of SR 4 if space is available after
construction is complete.
■ Mitigation Measure 14. Use Directional Lighting during Nighttime Construction
Activities. If construction activities occur during nighttime hours, directional lighting
methods will be employed to reduce such sources of light and glare to motorists and
' users of adjacent residential, commercial, and industrial development. To the extent
feasible, lighting equipment will be directed only on the areas where construction
activities are occurring.
' ■ Mitigation Measure 15. Plant Irrigated Vines Next to Soundwalls. Irrigated vines
will be planted to allow growth on state property along soundwalls(provided that space
is available) to soften the appearance of the soundwalls.
Initial Stud"
/F_nvironmental Assessment Chapter 5. Environmerual Consequenres and Mitigation Measures
' Contra Costa Transportation Auduoriq February 200/
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-23
Impact: Intr Introduction of New Sources of Light and Glare from Construction of the Project
od g �
(Checklist Item I. d)
.Construction of thero osed action would result in increased visual scale and dominance of the
P P
roadway because of road widening,an increase in.the amount of vehicles using the roadway,and(as
a result) an increase in light and glare from vehicle headlights. In. addition, some nighttime
construction activities are expected, which would also create light and glare from construction
lighting equipment. However,implementing the following mitigation measures would reduce these '
impacts further.
■ Mitigation Measure 13. Plant Vegetation along the Highway within the Project '
Area.
■ Mitigation Measure 14. Use Directional Lighting during Nighttime Construction
Activities.
SECTION 5J. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Requirements for Cumulative Impact Analysis
The CE 's NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1580.25) and State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130
)
require a reasonable analysis of the significant cumulative impacts. of a proposed project.
Cumulative impact refers to "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are '
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts"(State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15355 and 40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative impact from several projects is as follows:
"the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the
project when added to other closely related past,present,and reasonably foreseeable
probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." (State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15355[b].) '
The cumulative impact analysis may be less detailed than the analysis of the project's individual
effects. The cumulative impact analysis must identify related projects through either a "list" or a
"projection" approach, summarize effects of the related projects, and contain a reasonable analysis
of cumulative impacts and mitigation measures (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[b]).
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 5. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Projecl 5-24 '
Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis
The cumulative impact analysis is based on the projections contained within the general plans of
' cities and the county in the regional vicinity of the project area. The general plans take into account
the planned growth that could contribute to significant cumulative impacts. Future growth is
considered to have the potential to occur in currently planned developments and lands designated
for development (i.e., residential, commercial, and industrial land use designations) identified in
current land use plans.
' The project site is in the City of Pittsburg. The region of influence for the analysis of cumulative
impacts,however, varies among resource topics. For example,cumulative noise impacts may only
be associated with projects that are geographically proximal and that may only affect a small area
close to the noise-generating source. In contrast, cumulative air quality impacts are determined on
a regional airshed basis.
Estimates of future population growth in the regional vicinity of the project area indicate that a
sufficient amount of residential land is available to accommodate growth through 2040, which is
beyond the 2025 planning horizon for the proposed action. Based on this projection, it is assumed
in this analysis that land use designations and the urban limit line identified in current county and
city general plans will remain in effect during the life of the proposed action. Changes to the existing
planned land uses would require amendments to county or city planning documents or zoning, and
the county or city would need to conduct environmental analysis and review to approve such
changes.
The following land use planning documents were reviewed to identify planned changes in land'uses
in the SR 4 cumulative impact area and land use planning policies designed to protect the
' environment from the adverse effects of growth:
■ Contra Costa County General Plan (Contra Costa County 1996),
■ Draft EIR for the Contra Costa County General Plan (Contra Costa County 1993),
■ City of Antioch General Plan (City of Antioch 1994),
■ City of Pittsburg General Plan (City of Pittsburg 1988).
As identified in the Contra Costa County General Plan (1996), much of the growth is planned for
the eastern part of the county. The Contra Costa County General Plan EIR identifies that buildout
of the county would result in the conversion of approximately 8,800 acres of agricultural lands to
urban uses; 90% of this conversion would occur in the East County area (Contra Costa
County 1993).
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter S. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
' Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-25
Planned Growth in Area of Cumulative Effects '
Although the proposed action would not contribute directly to growth, planned development in the
SR 4 cumulative area could result in cumulative impacts on numerous resources. A two-step process
was used to conduct the analysis of cumulative and potential secondary effects of growth associated '
with planned development. First, the potential for future growth in the project area was assessed
based on land use designations and policies described in current county and city general plans.
Second,the likelihood that a particular resource area would be affected by future development was
assessed.
Assessment of Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative project-related impacts were analyzed for the resource topics analyzed for direct impacts
in this document. The cumulative impacts for each of these topics are described below..
Socioeconomics and Land Use
Land use and socioeconomic impacts resulting from the proposed action involve the acquisition of
residential and commercial properties and conversion to public right-of-way. Other public road
widening and commuter rail projects(e.g.,a proposed BART station at Railroad Avenue)along the
SR 4 corridor would contribute to a cumulative loss of commercial properties and residences,some
of which could be minority or low-income neighborhoods. However, the cumulative effect would '
not be considered adverse because the displacements would not occur concurrently and the
acquisitions and relocations would be lessened through relocation assistance and compensation for
property. In addition, planned growth in the Pittsburg area and neighboring Antioch and ,
unincorporated Contra Costa County would occur in a manner consistent with the relevant general
plans. '
Air Quality and Transportation '
Cumulative air quality impacts were assessed on a regional basis and include a comparison of air
quality conditions in the region with and without the proposed action. The analysis considers the '
regional conditions and the proposed action's individual contribution to air quality. Therefore, the.
proposed action would not contribute to an adverse cumulative air quality impact.
Cumulative impacts on traffic within the project area were assessed using areawide ABAG
projections in the traffic modeling conducted for the proposed. action (Fehr & Peers
Associates 2000). Using the general plan information, the ABAG's Regional Traffic Model was '
used to project trip generation in the area for 2025. The result showed an improvement in traffic
Initial Stud"/Environmental Assessnieni Chapter 5.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures .
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-26 '
operations and consequently,air ualit' conditions on are Tonal level. Therefore the cumulative
P (and, q Y ) g
impact is considered beneficial.
' Noise
The noise impact analysis conducted for the proposed action includes modeling of the regional traffic
data and is based on worst-case traffic volumes and speeds. Therefore,the quantitative assessment
takes into account the cumulative assessment for the project area. Traffic-related noise generated
from the proposed action and other planned development in the project area would be reduced
' through the construction of sound barriers along the freeway.Therefore,the cumulative noise impact
is not considered adverse.
Geology, Hydrology, and Water Quality
' The impacts resulting from the proposed action primarily affect geologic, soils, and hydrologic
resources locally and do not contribute to regional or cumulative impacts. Soil erosion and
sedimentation impacts from excavation activities associated with the proposed action and other
planned development could contribute to both local nuisances and regional adverse water quality
conditions. However, project construction schedules for various public and private developments
' in the regional vicinity of the proposed action generally require a storm water pollution prevention
plan or BMPs intended to minimize soil erosion during construction. These measures would ensure
that this cumulative impact is not adverse.
Biological Resources
' As described in the direct impact discussion of biological resources,no special-status species would
be affected by the proposed action. Existing environmental protections and adopted general plan
policies address potential impacts on special-status wildlife species and sensitive habitat resulting
from planned growth. Therefore, the proposed action would not result in substantial cumulative
impacts on sensitive species or habitat.
Cultural Resources
' Record review and field surveys showed no evidence of cultural resources at the project site.
Therefore, the proposed action would not contribute to cumulative impacts on cultural resources.
' Aesthetics
The proposed action would result in some alteration of the existing landscaped area adjacent to the
' SR 4 corridor . However, changes in the landscape tend to be localized and are not considered
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter S. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
' .State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-27
adverse with implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed action would not
contribute to cumulative impacts on visual resources. '
NEPA CONCLUSIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Introduction
As described in Chapter 4,the significance conclusions provided in the Environmental Significance '
Checklist are based on CEQA significance conclusions, which can differ from NEPA significance
conclusions. To ensure that the proposed action has been adequately assessed under NEPA, this
section provides a summary of impacts and mitigation of the proposed action as they pertain to '
NEPA and its integration with other major federal regulations.
NEPA Impact Assessment
Air Quality
The federal CAA requires that federally supported activities must conform to the SIP to attain and ,
maintain the NAAQSs. Section 176(c) of the federal CAA, as amended in 1990, established the
criteria and procedures by which the FHWA (Title 23 U.S.C.), the FTA (58 FR 62188,
November 24, 1993), and metropolitan planning organizations determine conformity of federally
funded or approved highway and transit plans, programs, and projects consistent with SIPs.
The air quality impact assessment for the proposed action is based on the findings presented in the '
air quality report prepared by Jones & Stokes (2000x). The analysis is based on a qualitative
approach that uses the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol and on a comparison '
to similar projects in other parts of the Bay Area; see Chapter 3, Section 3B. The proposed action
meets the regional test for ozone conformity with the SIP; see Chapter 3..Section 3B. Therefore,no
adverse air quality effects would occur as part a result of the proposed action. '
Noise
Adverse traffic noise impacts were identified by determining if design-year (2025) noise levels
would approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria or would be 12 dB or greater than existing ,
conditions. As described above, predicted increases in traffic noise under design-year conditions
relative to existing conditions range from 2-12 dB. These increases are attributed to increases in
traffic volumes,widening of the freeway,and realignment of the freeway to the south. Where traffic '
noise impacts are identified in this chapter, noise abatement was considered for reasonableness and
feasibility as required by 23 CFR 772 and the Caltrans significance standards (Protocol). As '
Initial StudvlEnvirnnmenial Assessment Chapter 5.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001 '
State Route 4 East Widening Projert 5-28
' described inMrtigatio n Measure 7,noise abatement in the form of soundwalls was evaluated at four
residential areas and found to be feasible at three of the residential areas. The three soundwall
locations are therefore considered feasible mitigation under the NEPA criteria.
' Natural Environment
Section 7 of the ESA (16 USC 1531 et seq.), as amended,requires federal agencies, in consultation
with the USFWS and NMFS,to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence
of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical
' habitat of these species. FHWA procedures require that an investigation be made of each proposed
action to determine if species are affected.
As described above, construction activities within the Kirker Creek channel would be avoided
because pavement would be located outside the creek channel and away from the associated riparian
vegetation; therefore, no direct impact on these resources would occur. However, an indirect
construction-related adverse effect on the creek habitat and special-status fish and wildlife species
in the creek could occur from erosion and sedimentation or ancillary construction-related activities.
' However,implementation of feasible Mitigation Measures 8-10 identified above would ensure that
the adverse effects are mitigated.
iCultural Resources
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) declares a national policy of historic
preservation and encourages preservation. It established an Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACNP) and provided procedures (Section 106) for federal agencies to follow if a
' proposal could affect a property included or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places(NRNP). The ACHP has developed procedures(36 CFR Part 800)that must be followed on
any federal project or action.
' As described above and based on the findings in the HPSR, one property—the National Guard
Armory building located north of SR4 on Power Avenue—appears eligible for listing in the NRNP.
However, the HASR concluded that.the proposed action would have no effect on the property. In
addition, no known archaeological resources are located in the proposed action's area of potential
effects (APE); therefore, no known archaeological resources would be affected by the proposed
' action. Therefore, the proposed action would have no adverse effect on cultural resources.
' Aesthetics
The criteria for determining adverse effects on visual resources for the proposed action is defined
above in this chapter based on the FHWA's Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects
Methodology(Federal Highway Administration 1983). A qualitative description of design features
of the proposed action that modify the visual quality of the site and changes in the project viewshed
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Chapter 5.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
' Contra Costa Transportation AuthoritY February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-29
from important adjacent vantage Points was prepared and, based on the FHWA methodology, '
adverse impacts associated with implementation of the proposed action were identified. However,
implementation of feasible Mitigation Measures 13-15 identified above would ensure that the 1
adverse effects are mitigated.
Cumulative Impacts
The CEQ's NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1580.25) require a reasonable analysis of the significant '
cumulative impacts of a proposed action. Cumulative impact refers to "two or more individual
effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other '
environmental impacts"(40 CFR 1508.7). A cumulative impact analysis for the proposed action was
conducted pursuant to CEQA and NEPA requirements, and the results are described above for
specific resource topics under "Cumulative Impacts." The analysis concludes that no adverse '
cumulative impacts would result from the proposed action.
Initial Stud"v/Environmental Assessment Chapter 5.Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 5-30 ,
Chapter 6. Consultation and Coordination
The following agencies, organizations, and individuals were contacted and/or consulted during
preparation of this document.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Victoria Alvarez
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1
Curt McCasland
1
California Department of Fish and Game
i
Nicole Kozicki
a
Contra Costa County
D .
DLowell Tunison
City of Pittsburg
D
Garrett Evans
a Avan Gangapuram
Wally Girard
Randy Jerome
Agnes Lee
Paul Reinders
Initial Stud'vlEnvironniental Asse.cstnent Chapter 6. Consultation and Coordination
' Contra Costa Transportation Authoriq• February 2001
State Route 4 Widening Project 6-1
Nasser Shirazi ,
Kenneth Strelo
Bay Area Rapid Transit
Kathy Mayo
Malcolm Quint '
Leo Rachal
Dick Wenzel '
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Ashley.Nguyen '
Pacific Gas and Electric ,
Randy Burton '
CB Richard Ellis, Inc. '
Gregory Smyth '
Mark Thomas & Co. ,
Michael Lohman '
i
1
Initial Star'/Environmental Assessment Chapter 6. Consultation and Coordinatioh
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 200/
State Route 4 Widening Project 6_? '
1
Chapter 7. Citations
' PRINTED REFERENCES
' American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American birds. 6th edition. Allen
Press, Inc. Lawrence, KS.
' Association of Bay Area Governments. 1998. Projections'98—Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay
Area to the year 2020. Oakland, CA.
' Beedy, E. D., and W. J. Hamilton III. 1997. Tricolor balckbird status update and management
guidelines. Jones & Stokes. Sacramento, CA.
Bent, A. C. 1950. Life histories of North American wagtails, shrikes, vireos, and their allies.
(Smithsonian Institution U.S. National Museum Bulletin 197.) U.S. Government Printing
' Office. Washington, DC.
California Department of Finance. 1984. Population estimates for California counties and cities:
January 1, 1970 through January 1, 1980. (Report 84 E-4.) Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Finance. 1999. City/county population and housing estimates, 1991-1999,
with 1990 census. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Transportation. 1997. Community impact assessment. (Caltrans
' Environmental Handbook Volume 4.) Sacramento, CA. -
California Department of Transportation. 1998. Technical noise supplement, a technical
supplement to the traffic noise analysis protocol. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Water Resources. 1999. Division of Local Planning Assistance Internet
groundwater database information. Data downloaded on November 5, 1999. URL:
www.dpia.water.ca.gov/cgi-bin/supply/gw/main.pl.
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 2000. Draft traffic analysis report for the State Route 4 widening
project from Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road. Prepared for the California Department of
Transportation,District 4,Oakland,CA;Contra Costa Transportation Authority,Walnut Creek,
CA.
h6tial Stud v/Environntental Assessment Chapter 7. Citations
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
' State Route 4 East Widening Project 7-1
Fraser, J. D., and D. R. Luukkonen. 1986. The loggerhead shrike. Pages 933-941 in R. L. '
Di Silvestro(ed.), Audubon wildlife report 1986. National Audubon Society. New York,NY.
Garza V.J. P. Graney, D. Sperling. 1997. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide
Protocol. December 1997. Davis, CA.
Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. (Pacific Coast
Avifauna Number 27.) Cooper Ornithological Club. Berkeley, CA. '
Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in
California. Final report. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. '
Rancho Cordova, CA.
Jones&Stokes. 2000x. Air quality impact report for the State Route 4 East widening project. April '
2000. (J&S 99-131.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Contra Costa Transportation Authority,
Walnut Creek, CA.
2000b. Community impact act assessment for the State Route 4 East widening
project. March 2000. (J&S 99-131.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Contra Costa
Transportation Authority, Walnut Creek, CA. '
2000c. Natural environment study for the State Route 4 East widening project.
March 2000. (J&S 99-131.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Contra Costa Transportation '
Authority, Walnut Creek, CA.
2000d. Noise study report for the State Route 4 East widening project,Railroad '
Avenue to Loveridge Road. Draft. February 2000. (J&S 99-131.) Sacramento,CA. Prepared for
Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Walnut Creek. CA. '
2000e. Water quality technical report for the State Route 4 East widening
project. March. (J&S 99-131.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Contra Cost County '
Transportation Authority, Walnut Creek, CA.
2000f. Addendum historic properties survey report for the State Route 4 '
widening/Railroad Avenue interchange, Pittsburg, Contra Costa County. Draft. September.
Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Walnut Creek, CA.
Makepeace, D. K., D. W. Smith, and S. J. Stanley. 1995. Urban stormwater quality: summary of '
contaminant data. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 25(2):93-139.
Mark Thomas & Co. 2000. Draft project report for State Route 4 from 0.5 mile west of Railroad '
Avenue overcrossing to 0.2 mile east of Loveridge Road overcrossing. June. Prepared for
Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Walnut Creek, CA. '
Initial StudvlEnvironlnental Assessment Chapter 7. Citations
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 7-2 '
' Munz P.A. and D.Keck. 1973. A California flora and supplement. University of California Press.
PP Y
' Berkeley, CA.
Parikh Consultants. 1999. Update initial environmental site assessment for the Route 4 east corridor
' widening between Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road. November 1999. Walnut Creek, CA.
Prepared for Mark Thomas & Company, Walnut Creek, CA.
Parikh Consultants. 2000. Geotechnical impact report for the Route 4 East widening Railroad
Avenue to Loveridge Road (KP 35.5/39.2). January 2000. Walnut Creek, CA. Prepared for
Mark Thomas & Company, Walnut Creek, CA.
Public Affairs Management. 1997. Route 4 East/Pittsburg BART Station project background
socioeconomic study. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, CA;
California Department of Transportation, District 4, Oakland, CA; Bay Area Rapid Transit
District, Oakland, CA; Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Walnut Creek, CA.
Remsen, J. V. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California: an annotated list of declining
or vulnerable bird species. (Nongame Wildlife Investigations, Wildlife Management Branch
alluvial report No. 78-1.) California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.
Skinner M. W. and B. M. Pavlik (eds.). 1994. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants
' of California. 5th edition. (Special Publication No. 1.) California Native Plant Society.
Sacramento, CA.
' State Water Resources Control Board. 1995. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary. 95-1WR. Sacramento, CA.
' Terres,J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf.
New York, NY.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1996a. Historic architectural survey report Route 4 east project,
Contra Costa County,California. Prepared by Archaeological/Historical Consultants. Oakland,
CA.
1996b. Water quality report - Route 4 East projects, Contra Costa County,
California. Prepared for Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Oakland, CA.
1997a. Natural environment study, biological assessment, and wetlands
assessment, Route 4 East projects, Contra Costa County, CA. February 1997. Prepared for
' Centennial Engineering, Inc. San Ramon, CA.
. 1997b. Visual impact assessment report for the Route 4 East projects, Contra
Costa County, CA. January 1997. Prepared for Contra Costa County Transportation Authority,
Walnut Creek, CA.
Initial Study/Enviromnental Assessment Chapter 7. Citations
Contra Costa Transportation Audmrity February 2001
' State Route 4 East Widening Project 7-3
1998. Negative declaration finding of no significant impact and initial study, ,
and environmental assessment, Route 4 East project, Contra Costa County, California. May
1998. Prepared for Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, Walnut Creek, CA.
Zeiner,D. C., F. Laudenslayer, K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California wildlife; volume II:
birds. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. ,
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS '
Alvarez, Victoria, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Liaison to Caltrans, San Francisco District. ,
Personal communication regarding status of existing wetland delineation - February 25, 2000.
Gangapuram, Avan. Project planner. City of Pittsburg Community Development Department. '
Pittsburg, CA. Telephone conversation, November 4, 1999.
Kozicki, Nicole. Game Warden. California Department of Fish and Game, Region 3. Personal '
communication regarding streambed alteration agreements - March 8, 2000.
Leach, Steve, Senior Staff Scientist, URS Greiner Woodward-Clyde. Personal communication '
regarding status of existing wetland delineation -February 3, 2000.
Reinders, Paul. Senior Civil Engineer. City of PittsburgCommunity Development Department, t
Engineering Division. Pittsburg, CA. Telephone conversation, March 14, 2000.
Strelo Kenneth. Planning Technician. City of PittsburgCommunity Development Department. '
Pittsburg, CA. Telephone conversation, November 4, 1999. '
Initial Studv/Environmental Assessment Chapter 7. Citations
Contra Costa Tratsptirtation Authoritv February 2001
State Route 4 East Widening Project 7-4
i
1
Chapter 8. List of Preparers
i
The following individuals participated in.preparing the environmental documentation or the Project
Development Team (PDT).
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND REVIEW
1 California Department of Transportation
P P
' (State Lead Agency)
' Subhash Agarwal
Ray Boyer
Ace Forsen (Project Manager)
' William Gee
Mario Jerez
Elizabeth Krase
Elsa Lamb
Tim Mehta
Cheryl Nevares
' Shirley Parker
Cesar Pujol
Joe Robinson
1 Susan Simpson (Environmental Manager)
Emil Vergara
Barney Wong
1
1 Contra Costa Transportation Agency
(Project Sponsor)
' Dale Dennis
Martin Engelmann
Paul Maxwell (Project Manager)
Trudy Presser(Project Manager, with Nolte Associates)
1
Initial Studv/Environmental Assessment Chapter 8. List of Preparers
Contra Costa Transportation Authority rebruary 2001
' State Route 4 Widening Project 8-1
Mark Thomas & Co.
(Project Report and Review)
Michael Lohman
Jones & Stokes '
(Environmental Studies and Documentation)
Sara Atchley Cultural Resources '
Mark Bowen Cultural Resources
David Buehler Noise '
Janice Calpo Cultural Resources
Christy Corzine Project Oversight
Jeff Lafer Water Quality ,
Kevin Lee Air Quality/Noise
Debbie Loh Project Oversight
Stephanie Myers Wetlands, Endangered Species, and Natural '
Environment Study
Tim Rimpo Air Quality
Seema Sairam CEQA Analysis '
Maggie Townsley Project Management
Roger Trott Community Impact Assessment
Lisa Webber Wetlands, Endangered Species, and Natural '
Environment Study
Ray Weiss Relocation Impact Assessment '
Fehr & Peers '
(Traffic)
Matt Henry ,
Fred Choa
1
Parikh Consultants
(Geotechnical and Hazardous Materials) '
Gary Parikh
Initial Studs/Environmental Asse.s.sment Chapter& List of Preparers•
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
State Route 4 Widening Projert 8-2 ,
' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND OVERSIGHT
Federal Highway Administration
(Federal Lead Agency)
' R.C. Slovensky
' Contra Costa County
(Coordinating Agency)
' Lowell Tunison (representing ECCRF)
tCity of Pittsburg
'
Wally Girard
' Randy Jerome
Nasser Shirazi
tBay Area Rapid Transit
' Kathy Mayo
Malcolm Quint
' Leo Rachal
Dick Wenzel
' Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Ashley Nguyen
' Pacific Gas and Electric Company
P Y
1
Randy Burton
Initial Stud r/Environunenml Assessment Chapter 8. List of Preparers
Contra Costa Transportation Authority February 2001
' State Rouse 4 Widening Project 8-3
Appendix A. Concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
' Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
on Special-Status Species
1
TOP T
amp µ �2� United States Department of the Interior
9
y O
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
,. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
�'4gc3 .s°9 2800 Cottage Way,W-2605
Sacramento,California 95825-6340
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1-1-01-I-944
January 31, 2001
Mr. Michael G. Ritchie
(Attn: R.C. Slovensky)
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
California Division
i980 Ninth Street, Suite 400
Sacramento,California 95814-2724
r
Subject: Request for a Not Likely to Adversely Effect Concurrence for State Route
4 Widening From Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road, Pittsburg, Contra
Costa County, California
Dear Mr. Ritchie:
The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) through the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority (CCTA), is proposing to widen State Route 4 from six to eight lanes between Railroad
Avenue and Loveridge Road in the City of Pittsburg. In a December 12, 2000, letter, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) stated that the proposed project would indirectly affect listed
threatened and endangered species as a result of the growth facilitating aspects of the proposed
project. This letter is in response to a request made by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) at a meeting held on January 18, 2001, that we reconsider our determination that the
proposed project will directly or indirectly affect the federally threatened California red-legged
frog (Rana aurora draytonii).
iThe Service reminds the FHWA that it is their responsibility, as a Federal agency, to address
indirect effects resulting from their action. Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended, (Act) requires that each Federal agency shall, "in consultation with" the
■ Secretary' "insures that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification" of that species critical habitat. 16 U.S.C.
1536(a)(2). The Service's regulations define Federal "action" for purposes of Section 7(a)(2) to
included "actions directly or indirectly causing modification to the land, water, or air," and the
"action area" to include "all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and
FrFEB
EIVED
5 YOGI fCri1111d11I 1
Mr. Michael G. Ritchie 2
merely the immediate area involved in the action." 50 CFR 402.02 The regulations further define
"[e]ffects of the action" to mean "the direct and indirect effects of anaction on the species or
critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent
with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline . . . Indirect effects are those that
are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur."
Id.
The Service has continuing concerns regarding the indirect effects of increased urban
development that generally follows with highway projects, and particularly in San Francisco Bay
Area locations that are experiencing rapid urbanization such as the Antioch, Pittsburg, Brentwood
and San Jose areas. The Service is currently working with local jurisdictions to develop a Habitat
Conservation Plan(HCP) which may provide a means to address the indirect impacts resulting
from highway improvements and associated urban development.
CCTA and FHWA are in the early planning process for improvements to State Route 4 between
Loveridge and Sommersville, and because this further improvement is likely to directly and
indirectly affect federally listed species, this larger project is a more appropriate place for section
7 consultation as required by the Act. Impacts resulting from indirect effects from the larger
Loveridge to Sommersville highway improvement project possibly could be offset by CCTA's
participation in, as well as a financial contribution to, the local HCP planning process. The
Service urges CCTA to fully participate in the HCP planning process.
Therefore, the Service has determined that because the footprint of the currently proposed project
segment is in an urban area, and the growth facilitating aspects will be included in the future
project, we now concur that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect federally listed.
species.
If you have any further questions, please call Sheila Larsen or Jan Knight at (916) 414-6625.
Sincerely, -
14"
n Wayne S. White
Field Supervisor
cc: Congressman George Miller(K. Hoffman)
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (P. Maxwell)
�. SMENT Op,-,
Q United States Department of the Interior
r .
y - Fish and Wildlife Service
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
2800 Cottage Way,Room W-2605
Sacramento,California 95825-1846
IN REPLY REFER T0:
1-1-00-I-3202
' December 12, 2000
Mr. Michael G. Ritchie
Division Administrator
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
980 Ninth Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, California 95814-2724
Subject: Request for Concurrence on the State Route 4-Kirker Widening Project,
Contra Costa County, California
Dear Mr. Ritchie:
This is in response to your letter dated July 18, 2000, requesting concurrence with your
determination that the proposed subject'action is not likely to adversely effect the California red-
legged frog (Rana aurora dratonii). Your request was pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act). Included with your letter was the June,2000,Natural Environment
Study,prepared by Jones& Stokes.
The project as proposed involves the widening of State Route 4 from Railroad Avenue to
Loveridge Road in the City of Pittsburg to accommodate existing traffic volumes and increased
volumes in the future (page 6-4 of the Natural Environment Study), and to accomodate the
proposed Bay Area Rapid Transit extension. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has
' reviewed the Natural Environment Study and believe this project facilitates development related
impacts to protected species beyond the described footprint of the widening project. The Service
considers projects that provide the infrastructure (roads, water delivery, wastewater disposal,
�. etc.)necessary to accommodate planned growth/urbanization as potentially impacting to species
protected pursuant to the Act within the "service area" of the proposed action. The Federal
regulations that implement the Act (50 CFR §402.02) specifically direct the Service to analyze
the"direct" and"indirect" (i.e., growth facilitating) effects of the proposed action.
We have enclosed a list of species protected pursuant to the Act in Contra Costa County for your
information. We believe these impacts may be significant for such species as the San Joaquin kit
fox and California red-legged frog, and will likely require a permit or authorizationf.Z"take"
listed species pursuant to section 10 or 7 of the Act. Because of the nature of the project and the
Mr. Michael G. Ritchie 2
potential to adversely affect the above listed species, the Service requests you initiate formal
consultation. If you have any questions, please contact Kenneth Sanchez at(916) 414-6625.
Sincerely,
M
Karen J. Miller
Chief, Endangered Species..Division
Enclosure
. 1
r
x � UNn= STATES DEPAFnmF_NT of comw_Rm
National Oceania and Atmospheric Adminlslratlan
NATIONAL MARINE FISHE=RIES SERVICE
Southwest Region
501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200
Long Beach,Caldomia 90802-4213
_ September 11,2000
In Response Refcr To:
S WR-00-SA-0068:MCV
Mr. Michael G.Ritchie !! tri _�`` f
California Division Administrator ,`►
U.S. Department of Transportation I ;; ; SEP 1 4
Federal Highway Administration ) -
x
980 Ninth Street,Suite 400
Sacramento,California 95814-2724 '
Dear Mr" Ritchie:
This is in response to your letter of July 19,2000 requesting concurrence with the Federal
Highway Administration's determination that the proposed widening of State Route 4(SR 4)
between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge Road.Contra Costa County(HDA-CA,File
#04-CC-7-35.7/38.8KP, Document#P32765), is not likely to adversely affect the endangered
Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon(Oncorh)nchus tshawytscha),threatened Central
Valley spring-run chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha),and threatened Central Valley steelhead
(O. mykiss), or their critical habitat,pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended
(ESA). Also submitted with your request for concurrence was a Natural Environment Study for
the State Route 4 East Widening Project,June 2000,prepared by Jones&Stokes.
' The Contra Costa Transportation Authority(CCTA)proposes to improve SR 4 through the City
of Pittsburg by: 1)widening SR 4 between Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road from four lanes
�. to eight lanes with a median capable of accommodating a future Bay Area Rapid Transit
extension;2)connect the third lane in each direction to the existing west-side Loveridge Road
ramps; 3)widen SR 4 to the south;4)reconstruct the Railroad Avenue interchange eastbound on-
and off-ramps; 5)reconstruct the existing westbound Harbor Street off-ramp as necessary to
confurm to mainline profile changes;and 6)reconstruct the Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street
over-crossings. Of the proposed actions, only the widening of SR 4 was determined to
potentially affect listed salmonids.
The 2.2 mile section of SR 4 proposed for widening crosses Kirker Creek,which is directed
�. through an approximately 150 foot long culvert beneath the highway. This bridge crossing is
located approximately 2.5 miles above the confluence of Kirker Creek and the San Joaquin
River. Kirker Creek is a natural perennial stream fed by the surrounding watershed and urban
development. Kirker Creek supports freshwater marsh habitat and riparian vegetation in the
vicinity of the proposed project site. Based on the description of the existing conditions as
described in the Natural Environment Study,the site is unlikely to be used by salmonids.
sr,
1%
L
r
However, as stated on page 4-7 of the Natural Environment Study, all runs of listed salmonids
may use the lower reaches of Kirker Creek"on a transitory basis"for rearing and during
migration. Because Kirker Creek is a tributary of the San Joaquin River, the condition of the
Kirker Creek watershed influences the condition of lower Kirker Creek and the San Joaquin
River. thus actions taken in the upper reaches of the Creek may affect the lower reaches.as well
as listed salmonids.
Your letter requesting concurrence incorrectly states that"... no critical habitat for any federal
listed species is located within the project area,"and states that only Central Valley steelhead
may pass through the area. These statements contradict statements made in the Natural
Environment Study, as well as final ESA listings by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS). Kirker Creek:is located within the range of the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook
salmon,the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, and the Central Valley steelhead. 'Actions
within the range of these species may result in take(i-e-,-ham or harass)of tlu;se-spWies,!;uul
therefore the effects of such actions on these species must be considered regardless of whether
the action occurs within the designated critical habitat of the respective runs. In malting a
determination regarding the effects to critical habitat, the effects of the.action on the constituent
elements of the habitat must be considered in making the determination as to whether the'actioa
is likely to adversely affect the habitat.
Critical habitat for the Central Valley P s rin -run chinook salmon and Central Valle steelhead
g Y
was published in the Federal Register on February 16,2000,(CFR Vol. 65,No.32),prior to the
June 2000 Natural Environment Study. Designating critical habitat for these species includes"all
river reaches accessible to listed chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and its
tributaries"(7778),and"all river reaches accessible to listed steelhead in the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries"(7779). 'herefore,NMFS considers this action to occur
within critical habitat of both the Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon and the Central
Valley steelhevA
Based on the proposed action, as described in the Natural Environment Study,the implementation
of the three"Project Commitments"(pg 2-2)to minimize indirect construction related effects,
and the development of a storm water pollution prevention plan(6-3),NMFS concurs with your
determination that the widening of SR 4 is not likely to adversely affect the federally listed
Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon,Sacramento River spring-run chinook salmon,and
Central Valley steelhead that may utilize the lower reaches of Kirker Creek during migration or
rearing, I�
or their designated critical habitat. Therefore,unless now information reveals that the
proposed Action may affect listed species in a manner or to an extent not considered,or a new
species or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by the proposed action; no further
action pursuant to the FSA is necessary for this project.
NMFS encourages the CCTA to take this opportunity to implement restoration activities within
the Kirker Creek watershed, as identified in the policies and mitigation measures to the City of
Pittsburg General Plan Policies,City ofAntioch General Plan Policies, City of Brentwood
General Plan Policies and General Plan Environmental Impact Report.Mitigation Measures,
and the Contra Costa County General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures. -
Restoration of tributary waters of the estuary and Hay will contribute to an improved condition
both within the immediate watershed and in the waters into which it flows,contributing to the
preservation of native habitats, as well as contribute toward the recovery of federally listed
species.
Wereciate your continued cooperation in the conservation of listed species and their habitat,
dPP P
and look forward to working with you and your staff in the future. If you have any questions
regarding.this response,please contact Ms. Martha Volkoff in our Sacramento Area Office,
650 Capitol Mall,Suite 6070, Sacramento, CA 95814. Ms. Volkoff may be reached by telephone
at (916)498-6488 or by FAX at(916)498-6697.
Sincerely,
7Reelca Lent,Ph.D.
Regional Administrator
S- each
cc. NMF PRA,Long B , CA
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
1
i
1ENTOF y% United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
2800 Cottage Way,Suite W-2605
Sacramento,California 95825
•� IN REPLY REFER M '
1-1-99-I-2338
December 23, 1999
Mr. Jeffrey A. Lindley
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
980 9`h Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, California 95814
Subject: State Route 4 Widening at Kirker Creek, Pittsburg, Contra Costa County,
California
DearMr. Lindley;
This responds to Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc's September 17, 1999 request for concurrence
that the proposed project site does not provide suitable habitat for the California red-legged frog
(Rana aurora draytonii) (red-legged frog). The red-legged frog is listed as threatened under the
i Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended(Act).
The proposed project involves widening State Route 4 between Railroad Avenue and Loveridge
Road and crosses Kirker Creek in the City of Pittsburg, California. The proposed project will
.include the construction of three mixed-flow and one high-occupancy vehicle lanes and a median
width to accommodate expansion of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)has reviewed the site assessment and does not have
' sufficient information to determine potential impacts to the red-legged frog. The Service suggests
that FHWA initiate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. To proceed with section 7
zonsultation, the Service requests the following information as required in 50 CFR §402.14(c):
• A description of the action being considered;
• A description of the specific area that may be affected by the action;
• A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be affected by the action;
• A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or critical
habitat, and an analysis of any cumulative effects;
• Relevant reports, including any environmental impact statements, environmental
assessments, biological assessments or other analysis prepared on the proposal; and
• Any other relevant studies or other information available on the action, the affected listed
r species, or critical habitat (including indirect and growth inducing effects).
Mr. Jeffrey A. Lindley 2
A species list has been enclosed for your information. Please address potential impacts to these
species in future correspondence. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact.
Don Hankins or Kenneth Sanchez at (916) 414-6625
Sincerely,
RJR'Karen J. Miller
Chief, Endangered Species Division
cc: Stephanie Myers, Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA
Enclosure '�
3-06-2000 4:59PM FROM ENVIRONPLAN—NORTH 510 2865600
P- 4
Sent by: FEDERAL HIGMMAY ADMINISTRATION 915 498 5008; 03/08/00 14:28; 6398;
Page 3/7
Revised Species List for the State Route East Widening Project
(December 15, 1999)
- Endanperst)an0 Thrtviol,ed Species sett Yq Ow n or t e Abate by
Prgjesiis in the Arm of ste Fal w V cel 1waa 0,44M of Counties
t)eaeether tri,1999
W"TM COSTA COUNTY
ustlea►spares
w
sof mash hOr*w mouse,T1s rawvct o (E)
San Joaquin M tar.VW68 irfaaruft mufte (E)
Caldbmia brown pewam Pefaosrwe ooaidw afiaoWWanims (E)
CaM w0a clipper rail,Rok a/glrarrostris abwk*A (E)
Crditm least teem,Sterna 8rftibrum(`-eaft nV&mw (E)
. Aleudert Cartage lid.tskllnta refradsnefs hucgpprete (7j
westem am"plow.Chain*"awxerKlF*""Vow (T)
bald flCtlfeee"llerAaocspfwn m
Repma
Alameda WhipWN".HMSO pM bftV re MA)Wanftd (r)
ginft gan"ani 411erm pws 0903 M
CMWW mdapgW frog.Rei ar amara matt**m f
Fish ..
odewater go",yrs SnWwr yt (E)
Critical habbt wW4K-Mn Chinook iialmon.Onwhyndws%ft*wymcfm (E)
' vA"W{un ohm%*salrrron.OnoorhynaRus tshe*ywft (E)
CfftM hebbt deft smelt NyporrMM MVMW6oas (T)
I� dab erre.H,�war trdrrs�e Oba m I -
i Central California shielhead.Owcorhyades anVk*v m
Cermet Va"sw estela Oncoff+ who mss m
Cerdral Vsky spdnot-fm m1nme.Owwhyndws asnawrtadra (T)
so-ml enlo aplw.Pbpontd+thys a>aaoflpidbtus (T)
' I U nge%Ateafrm*budwft.Apo wni i memo Carel JE)
1 Conserver lift shdaw.8mnahwwca oovrse►veno (E)
ft9bmtt lolly shrimp.&wwffMCa brW.ftnrta (E)
i vernal pool tadpole 90M.LgXduro prrAkawdi (q
calpPpe suumspot butesrfy.$patent mf4W mWe (E)
vernal pool fatty shrimp.tgrarKW*cm M (T)
vafey eberdery longhorn beetle.0aaaroa0uia caAlfpfiriaa dimarAtwd ( )
3-06-2000 5:00PM FROM ENVIRONPLAN-NORTH 510 2865600 P_ 5
Sent by: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 916 498 5008; 03/08/00 14:27; #396; Page 4/7
page 2
Plants
WW4=erad Ar►rsyrckie grwWft (E) ►�
sott bude-beak Camhnfts mollis sem-mofs (E)
Antioch Vwwserermg-prit mw Owwft►s ddiMdM 3*rtowW (E)
Crftd habitat.Antioch owws eveneh.primroM Ooenouwa ddbidws sW-h wW (E)
Wad mwcMft(Alonwdb rnartxarrit 1 Arcd U*Aylhs paw M
Contm Cosa goldfields. a r.,or(4KM (E) •
pmpaswd'.lipochs
mammds
rtpOrien(San Jolrquin Vidhq)woodmt,NMJWw famopo rjlraria (t'E) '
riparian brush a&K SyArYVVds"dunarri tg Odw (PE) '
` Bre
eMourriaie ptovar.Clw mhn qro hms (FIT)
Fish
Cndcal Ha"K Certtrld VWY%W"R dWftk 0WWftjald„a ts�rswycacha (tom
Plertt$
Sari Cnm twptalrt.Mbbmpha maoaaenie
' Candld eft$pod"
Artiptmibisrmg •
CAlba is ager sataawmdef,Ambyslmw o#wm m 1C)
Fish
Caftd Valley faUAW P ialwun d*xwk salmon.Onoorhyncim tshewytsha (C)
Sj�ies v!Covrcwrrr
Mammals
Paofia wewern bgpC,E bA Caryrrorhw"('Pivag"jpWaWX r tWA11 M (SC)
grad westem mONWbat EwAw pwaft caftni m (SC)
smaotooted myu*bat.Ayyotla a>dateb" (SC)
long,owft roroto bat.AryoOs ovvtis (SC)
ftio d myons bat AtpvM Nrysaaodw (SC) '
iorgLsgged myads bat.A"M udans (SC)
Yuma rrly bat.APOOrtrs=Waft (SC) ,
Seen FrdRC w dusky4acmd mmdrat Aleotb M hgtOM ser o brrs (SC,,
San..loequin poeAd moues.AerogneMW rrwmstrrs (SC)
swum ornom sm" saw wake zMmmz (sc)
UK rnosh vagrat shrew.Satan vvgra hak;own (SC) ,
Berkeley kainpMo rat D4X dome heermew*bwftrey nsls (SC) •
3-06-2000 5:00PM FROM ENVIRONPLAN—NORTH 510 2865600 P. 6
Stent by: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 916 488 5008; 03/08100 14:27; #396; Page 5/7
i �
Page 3
Birds
�. Swainsare'S hawk.Buis*Slrew:=W ICA)
We wftw KYOW w..Er w dorm VaW b vws*n (CA)
black rail.laWar wj&7wkwNos coftwnbAo (CA)
bw*swal".ftsne IO&rfa (CA)
American peregrine Mm.Falco poregrfts coelom (D)
WOO$ed bledrbK A0&Wm bfr.,olbr(SC)
9rasshomm epwrow,AmmgriFww smmorum (SC)
Bei's saga spoor w.Amp/rR &ba bd& (SC)
s wd-eared awl,Asb fltemmsrrs (SC)
weslmn b"wra owl.Aftm aRwc*m frypu o (SCI
Arnerkm bittern,Q*"w lsntlonoaus (SC)
ferruginous bawls.Bor U nrgaft (SC)
Co a%hemvmxjb nt CWyjft c*oW (SC)
I arnsarroe's goldCee¢h,Crelis lawrorrovi(So
Vain swr7R Cha efto v� (SC)
lark spwm.Clrovadirebs wommotrs (SC)
ofiae-slded 8ycafeher.Canopus cc ape (SC)
hermit w8rplp►.D&KVokp ooGd9rrt (3C)
wk"ibd(=01W:k dumddered)kft EWow bucums (9C) .
P*Aiir-wow ftvdcher.F.ir*onw d6kiA"ts (SC) .
aoessresore bon,Gam/mmar (5C)
saltmarsh oorrnnon yeilsss>rt mut Geooftis&kits sopjow (SC)
imp rtreed stnim,Lzaka>ildbvt*ku#s (SC)
' Lome woodpecker.Alkfenwm lam (SCl
Sriqun soca rsp:rrrow.Aft bfi*o nr A dim rtgmdkn (SC)
Al uNM(30-M Balt)=V spam.Aabq&a mebdPe pusBra (SC)
San Pablo song sparrow.Ah*q*a m elm Wj semi"s (SC)
lorrg0i w curlew,MwrwrUms am omuf (SC)
taped bls,Plegpdis how (SC)
n,fous hummingbird,586mphorus raters (SC)
Akm's hunsnirrg"Selmrhurus wear (6C)
red4nGStsd saps+ruwr. %ohynp cw muber(SC)
Sawidr'c wren, Tb►yorranee b@Wk*ii (SC)
Caibrrria 7lrasreer, Tawos r m rmovm m (9C)
Rep%ft
sbery 10gim kwd.Arron&prr dwa pWcAm (SC)
rwrltrrr on pond s nik,Crevrpr ys momorua m n w rwa (SCI
I
i
3-06-2000 5:O1PM FROM ENVIRONPLAN–NORTH 510 2865600 P_ 7
Sent by: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 916 496 5008; 03/09/00 14:27; #396; Page 617
t
Page 4
soudumdern pond turtle.Cbmrnp mamwrata pow (SC)
San.losquie Coedr W(soh ),Aft66W#*Abgsffto n dklbcb (SC)
C bMia horned kt ard.Phtynoaorrra oorono m ocabb (SC)
' toms YCWW-kww frne.RWR (sQ
i
western 43209W Ind.SeAphigm hwmwwWW (SC)
Fish
9reen A996on,/topanserrne&vsft (SC)
river Iampre'fr,Lampon syrow (SC)
Pia kvwq.407po4a tridputs (SC)
won onteit.Sodndws a►abiW" (SC)
Irrvertettrsbes '
Ciarvo aepauan wam beetle,AsgiaNii i�ortainrta (SLy
Anhudr Our antluW book Aq t=errboobmm (SC)
rarrterelo mid betege.An#Wmm aerram u t► (SC)
Sen loaqun dune beetle,Coekw yraoft (SC)
Art6och cophuratl robberffjr,Cwhum hwo (SC) -
mooch eeie m-r mw.ly.Eftir opow i (9C)
' BodgmW Coast Range shcAwband ensu.hlt9 nAmpi o9ypte nkmbliam (SC)
Rkkmc ers water s, wrettger 6eatk.Mydrvo om Ikftedo, (SG) -•
tarrred-foot lgpro0ra&wing beetle.Hy9»oftm arw4m (SC)
MkWh iodt srdefdbam katydid.Idbsbam midtAaksrdi (SC)
Mart dbn butlsdlr,mcbmb mossy (sC)
CSWWW W debt ft Liirrdwlsi s octtidierrb t; (SC)
nroleMn bfister heath.Lyft rrroteab (SC)
IU.d)s rngbpogM Mbbo ft A*QWogW hurl (SC)
Antioch mutiU wasp.A/ynirosultt pmAca (SC)
Sen Fund=Wig,NoOkid rysr cemboaia (sC)
ydbw~be WW 2 wh a lid beer Psi halkW A*od b (SC)
Mkt*:h somod wase.PhNanMw nWft (SC)
pkpa r.
Summ Ulmh asW,AsWri utam (sC)
brimmwak,AbWm depnma (SC)
voloy SPUWDcab.A&Wft lam (SC)
VA Diabb bird*ossk Cadylarrftw M&4ww (SC)
inferior Cali wn fadwur.Dow ww n crtDfb *xm s;p.6gisrrm (SG)
mmoved Wltepw.Dephi*w� mq arras (SQ i
fragrant(ridmy,Priti Wia**am ($C)
3-06-2000 5:01PM FROM ENVIRONPLAN—NORTH 510 2865600 P. 8
Sent by: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 916 498 5008; 03/06/00 14:28; (1396; Page 717
Pape 5
Dwbb h4w0wlfA(worJkrroie).HatiarWW@ castarrea (SC)
Brewer's dw&14%K Hhgpa Qvm&&won (SC)
Carquina SOl0enbush,>sovoma argots (SC)
Norfltwrr Calkwwvb black wolmuL JuoWw cofpl mko var.ltfndsk (SC)
deft tuM-pq,4=atlryrtts ppwoini v®r.jepaor►i (SC)
Mason'a aaeppsis,i.Aseapais+rraaorrit (SG)
idle mousdoL Afyoswrrs rrre wms WA apes (SC)
bIR Disbb pt"A ia.HlfaoeMs pfraavioiidea (9C)
'( rock sanide.Sanrctda saxook (Sc)
( most bo=*U(uncommon)Wwedbww.Sftpt&,Ao s&404&V pwwarnomws (SC)
1 mt.Oiabb*memoww.smwbnwvA nispldas (SC)
alkali ndlk-vek:h,A*apakm tbrw Mr. tgner (SC) •
heaReraW,Abpfet corumWa ($C) '
diamo Wletaied poppy.EscihWx*ia rdorsboom (SC)
PWPae sipikeweed.Hwx"rds Pon*sap,cc local►(SC) -
Cepa 4ralled trapid nrpum.rrapidocarparrr cAWwldetm (SC)
fcty: -•
(F) EndmVerm Listed(in the Federal Ragi5W)es babp in daW Of ardirxtion.
(7) Thiv+kmwd Listed as Q*b become endangered wktha,the foresesoble ftmm.
(P) PA*oaod 011itlafi)r proposed(in me Fo*W Rq*W)for W"ss erdangefi0d or thr Mored.
(PX) Pta®ad Rnpwad as an arra emsrigW to the a mo vatim of the spera.s-
Grflcal H~
(C) C&W dab Candidate o beeorrre a prcpoesd spooee-
(5C) 4mbs or Other species of pgrroenr tq the Sww1m.
Cox"
(D) Odd natpd.slap e b be nxndww lar 6 Years.
(me) Sole-Lod I islad an bumdened or andangerg by the Stile of CaMbrnia
ft0pabd PoAft 6 44mbd*am ft area
Exir+ct Possibly dk4nct .
CAA W Habitat Area vesenW tD Ito conservation or s>ipums,
j
ENT OF
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
C1, �a"9 2800 Cottage Way,Room W-2605
Sacramento,California 95825-1846
IN REPLY REFER TO
I-I-99-SP-2190
October 7, 1999
SG3
Ms. Stephanie Myers
Wildlife Biologist
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2600 V Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95818-1914
Subject: Species List for Proposed State Route 4 Widening Project, Contra Costa
County, California
Dear Ms. Myers:
1 We are sending the enclosed list in response to your September 16, 1999, request for information
about endangered and threatened species (Enclosure A). The list covers the following U.S.
Geological Survey 7'/2 minute quad or quads: Honker Bay and Antioch North Quads.
Please read Important Information About Your Species List (enclosed). It explains how we made
the list and describes your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. Please contact
Harry Mossman, Biological Technician, at(916)414-6650, if you have any questions about the
attached list or your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. For the fastest response
to species list requests, address them to the attention of Mr. Mossman at this address. You may
fax requests to him at 414-6710 or 6711.
Sincerely,
Karen J. Miller
tChief, Endangered Species Division
Enclosures
j
Important Information
About Your Species List
How We Make Species Lists
' We store information about endangered and threatened species lists by U.S. Geological Survey 7'/z
minute quads. The United States is divided into these quads, which are about the size of San Francisco.
If you requested your list by quad name or number, that is what we used. Otherwise, we used the
information you sent us to determine which quad or quads to use.
Animals
The animals on your species list are ones that occur within, or may be affected by projects within, the
quads covered by the list. Fish and other aquatic species appear on your list if they are in the same
watershed as your quad or if water use in your quad might affect them.
Plants
Any plants on your list are ones that have actually been observed in the quad or quads covered by the
list. We have also included either a county species list or a list of species in nearby quads. We
recommend that you check your project area for these plants. Plants may exist in an area without ever
having been detected there.
Surveying
Some of the species on your list may not be affected by your project. A trained biologist or botanist,
familiar with the habitat requirements of the species on your list, should determine whether they or
habitats suitable for them may be affected by your project. We recommend that your surveys include
any proposed and candidate species on your list. For plant surveys, we recommend using the enclosed
Guidelines_for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and
fCandidate Species. The results of your surveys should be published in any environmental documents
prepared for your project.
State-Listed Species
Species listed as threatened or endangered by the California Department of Fish and Game do not
appear on your.species list unless they have also been listed by us or by the National Marine Fisheries
Service. Call (916) 322-2493 or write Marketing Manager, California Department of Fish and Game,
1 Natural Diversity Data Base, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 95814 for information about
state-listed species.
Your Responsibilities Under the Endangered Species Act
All plants and animals identified as listed on Enclosure A are fully protected under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations prohibit the
take of federally listed wildlife species. Take is defined by the Act as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" any such animal. Take may include significant habitat
modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or shelter(50 CFR §17.3).
Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized by one of two procedures:
If a Federal agency is involved with the permitting, funding, or carrying out of a project that
-may result in take, then that agency must engage in a formal consultation with the Service.
Such consultation would result in a biological opinion addressing the anticipated effect of
the project on listed and proposed species. The opinion may authorize a limited level of
incidental take.
If no Federal agency is involved with the project, and federally listed species may be taken
as part of the project, then you, the applicant, should apply for an incidental take permit. The
Service may issue such a permit if you submit a satisfactory conservation plan for the
species that would be affected by your project. Should your survey determine that federally
listed or proposed species occur in the area and are likely to be affected by the project, we
recommend that you work with this office and the California Department of Fish and Game
to develop a plan that mitigates for the project's direct and indirect impacts.to listed species
and compensates for project-related loss of habitat. You should include the mitigation
plan in any environmental documents you file.
Critical Habitat
When a species is listed as endangered or threatened, areas of habitat considered essential to its
conservation may be designated as critical habitat. These areas may require special management
considerations or protection. They provide needed space for growth and normal behavior; food, water,
air, light, other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; and sites for breeding,
reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination or seed dispersal.
Although critical habitat may be designated on private or State lands, activities on these lands are not
restricted unless there is Federal involvement in the activities or direct harm to listed wildlife.
If any species has proposed or designated critical habitat within a quad, there will be a separate line for
this on the species list. Maps and boundary descriptions of the critical habitat may be found in the
Federal Register. The information is also reprinted in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR
17.95).
Candidate Species
We recommend that you address impacts to candidate species. We put plants and animals on our ,
candidate list when we have enough scientific information to eventually propose them for listing as
threatened or endangered. By considering these species early in your planning process you may be
able to avoid the problems that could develop if one of these candidates was listed before the end of
your project.
r
Your list may contain a section called Species of Concern. This term includes former category 2
candidate species and other plants and animals of concern to the Service and other Federal, State and
private conservation agencies and organizations. Some of these species may become candidate species
in the future.
' Wetlands
If your project.will impact wetlands;riparian habitat, or other jurisdictional waters as defined by
section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, you will need to
obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Impacts to wetland habitats require site
specific mitigation and monitoring. For questions regarding wetlands, please contact Mark Littlefield
of this office at (916) 414-6580.
Updates
Our database is constantly updated asspecies are proposed, listed and delisted. If you address
proposed, candidate and special concern species in your planning, this should not be a problem. We
' also continually strive to make our information as accurate as possible. Sometimes we learn that a
particular species has a different range than we thought. This should not be a problem if you consider
the species on the county or surrounding-quad lists that we have enclosed. If you have a long-term
project or if your project is delayed, please feel free to contact us about getting a current list. You can
also find out the current status of a species by going to the Service's Internet page: www.,fws.gov
1
GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING AND REPORTING BOTANICAL INVENTORIES
FOR FEDERALLY LISTED, PROPOSED AND CANDIDATE PLANTS
(September 23, 1996)
These guidelines describe protocols for conducting botanical inventories for federally listed, proposed
and candidate•plants, and describe minimum standards for reporting results. The Service will use, in
part, the information outlined below in determining whether the project under consideration may
affect any listed, proposed or candidate plants, and in determining the direct,indirect, and cumulative
effects.
Field inventories should be conducted in a manner that will locate listed, proposed, or candidate
species (target species) that may be present. The entire project area requires a botanical inventory,
except developed agricultural lands. The field investigator(s) should:
1. Conduct inventories at the appropriate times of year when target species are present and identifi-
able. Inventories will include all potential habitats. Multiple site visits during a field season may
be necessary to make observations during the appropriate phenological stage of all target species.
2. If available, use a regional or local reference population to obtain a visual image of the target
species and associated habitat(s). If access to reference populations is not available, investigators
should study specimens from local herbaria.
' 3. List every species observed and compile a comprehensive list of vascular plants for the entire
project site. Vascular plants need to be identified to a taxonomic level which allows rarity to be
determined.
4. Report results of botanical field inventories that include:
a. a description of the biological setting, including plant community, topography, soils, potential
habitat of target species, and an evaluation of environmental conditions, such as timing or
quantity of rainfall, which may influence the performance and expression of target species.
b. a map of project location showing scale, orientation, project boundaries, parcel size, and
map quadrangle.name.
C. survey dates and survey methodology(ies).
d. if a reference population is available, provide a written narrative describing the target species
reference population(s) used, and date(s) when observations were made.
e. a comprehensive list of all vascular plants occurring on the project site for each habitat type.
f. current and historic land uses of the habitat(s) and degree of site alteration.
g. presence of target species off-site on adjacent parcels, if known.
r
r
h. an assessment of the biological significance or ecological quality of the project site in a.local
and regional context.
5. If target species is(are) found, report results that additional) include:
a. a map showing federally listed, proposed and candidate species distribution as they relate to
the proposed project.
b. if target species is (are)associated with wetlands, a description of the direction and integrity
of flow of surface hydrology.. If target species is (are) affected by adjacent off-site hydrolog-
ical influences, describe these factors.
C. the.target species phenology and microhabitat, an estimate of the number of individuals of
each target species per unit area: identify areas'of high, medium and low density of target
species over the project site, and provide acres of occupied habitat of target species.
Investigators could provide color slides, photos or color copies; of photos of target species or
representative habitats to support information or descriptions contained in reports.
..d. the degree of impact(s), if any, of the proposed project as it relates to the potential unoccu-
pied habitat of target habitat.
6. Document findings of target species by completing California Native Species Field Survey Form(s)
and submit form(s) to the Natural Diversity Data Base. Documentation of determinations and/or ,
voucher specimens may be useful in cases of taxonomic ambiguities, habitat or range extensions.
7. Report as an addendum to the original survey, any change in abundance and distribution of target
plants in subsequent years. Project sites with inventories older than three years from the current
date of project proposal submission will likely need additional survey. Investigators need to
assess whether an additional survey(s) is (are) needed. '
8. Adverse conditions may prevent investigator(s) from determining presence or identifying some
target species in potential habitat(s) of target species. Disease, drought, predation, or herbivory
may preclude the presence or identification of target species in any year. An additional botanical
inventory(ies) in a subsequent year(s) may be required if adverse conditions occur in a potential ,
habitat(s). Investigator(s) may need to discuss such conditions.
9. Guidance from California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) regarding plant and plant
community surveys can be found in Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Develop-
ments on Rare and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities, 1984. Please contact the CDFG
Regional Office for questions regarding the CDFG guidelines and for assistance in determining
any applicable State regulatory requirements.
r
r
ENCLOSURE A
Endangered and Threatened Species that May Occur in or be Affected by
Projects in the Area of the Following California County or Counties
' Reference File No. 1-1-99-SP-2190
October 7, 1999
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Listed Species
Mammals
salt marsh harvest mouse, Reithrodontomys raviventris (E)
San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica (E)
Birds
California brown pelican, Pelecanus occidentalis californicus (E)
California clapper rail, Rallus longirostris obsoletus (E)
California least tern, Sterna antillarum (=albifrons) browni (E)
Aleutian Canada goose, Branta canadensis leucopareia (T)
western snowy plover, Charadrius alexandrines nivosus (T)
bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus (T)
Reptiles
' Alameda whipsnake, Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus (T)
giant garter snake, Thamnophis gigas (T)
Amphibians
California red-legged frog, Rana aurora dra tonii (T)
Fish
tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi (E)
winter-run chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (E)
winter-run chinook salmon critical habitat, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (E)
delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus (T)
delta smelt critical habitat, Hypomesus transpacificus critical habitat (T)
Central California steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss (T)
Central Valley steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss (T)
Central Valley spring-run chinook crit. hab., Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (T)
Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (T)
' Sacramento splittail, Pogonichthys macrolepidotus (T)
Invertebrates
Lange's metalmark butterfly, Apodemia mormo langei (E)
Conservancy fairy shrimp, Branchinecta conservatio (E)
longhorn fairy shrimp, Brahchinacta longiantenna (E)
1 vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Lepidurus packardi (E)
callippe silverspot butterfly, Speyeria callippe callippe (E)
Reference File No. 1-1-99-SP-2190 Page 2
vernal pool fairy shrimp, Branchinecta lynchi (T) ,
valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Desmocerus californicus dimorphus (T)
Plants
large-flowered fiddleneck, Amsinckia grandiflora (E)
soft bird's-beak, Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis (E)
Contra Costa wallflower, Erysimum capitatum ssp. angustatum (E)
Antioch Dunes evening-primrose, Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii (E)
Antioch Dunes evening-primrose crit. hab., Oenothera deltoid es ssp. howellii crit. hab. (E)
pallid manzanita (Alameda manzanita), Arctostaphylos pallida (T)
Contra Costa goldfields, Lasthenia conjugens (E)
Proposed Species
Mammals
.riparian (San Joaquin Valley)woodrat, Neotoma fuscipes riparia (PE)
riparian brush rabbit, Sylvilagus bachmani riparius (PE) "
Birds
mountain.plover, Charadrius montanus (PT)
Plants '
Santa Cruz tarplant, Holocarpha-macradenia (PT)
Candidate Species
Amphibians ,
California tiger salamander, Ambystoma californiense (C)
Fish j
Central Valley fall/late fall-run Chinook crit hab, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (C) .
Central Valley fall/late fall-run Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (C)
Species of Concern
Mammals
Pacific western big-eared bat, Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii townsendii (SC)
greater western mastiff-bat, Eumops perotis californicus (SC)
small-footed myotis b.at,.Myotis ciliolabrum (SC)
long-eared myotis bat, Myotis evotis (SC)
fringed myotis bat, Myotis thysanodes (SC) .
long-legged myotis bat, Myotis volans (SC)
Yuma myotis bat, Myotis yumanensis (SC)
San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, Neotoma fuscipes annectens (SC) r
San Joaquin pocket mouse, Perognathus inornatus. (SC)
Suisun ornate shrew, Sorex ornatus sinuosus (SC) .
salt marsh vagrant shrew, Sorex vagrans halicoetes (SC) '
Reference File No. 1-1-99-SP-2190 Page 3
Berkeley kangaroo rat, Dipodomys heermanni berkeleyensis (SC)
Birds
�. American peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus anatum (D)
tricolored blackbird, Agelaius tricolor (SC)
grasshopper sparrow, Ammodramus savannarum (SC)
Bell's sage sparrow, Amphispiza belli belli (SC)
short-eared owl, Asio flammeus (SC)
western burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia hypugea (SC)
American bittern, Botaurus lentiginosus (SC)
ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis (SC)
Costa's hummingbird, Calypte costae (SC)
' Lawrence's goldfinch, Carduelis lawrencei (SC)
Vaux's swift, Chaetura vauxi (SC)
lark sparrow, Chondestes grammacus (SC)
olive-sided flycatcher, Contopus cooperi (SC)
hermit warbler, Dendroica occidentalis (SC)
' white-tailed (=black shouldered) kite, Elanus leucurus (SC)
Pacific-slope flycatcher, Empidonax difficilis (SC)
common loon, Gavia immer (SC)
saltmarsh common yellowthroat, Geothlypis trichas sinuosa (SC)
loggerhead shrike, Lanius ludovicianus (SC)
Lewis'woodpecker, Melanerpes lewis (SC)
Suisun song sparrow, Melospiza melodia maxillaris (SC)
Alameda (South Bay) song sparrow, Melospiza melodia pusillula (SC)
San Pablo song sparrow, Melospiza melodia samuelis (SC)
long-billed curlew, Numenius americanus (SC)
white-faced ibis, Plegadis chihi (SC)
' rufous hummingbird, Selasphorus rufus (SC)
Allen's hummingbird, Selasphorus sasin (SC)
' red-breasted sapsucker, Sphyrapicus ruber (SC)
Bewick's wren, Thryomanes bewickii (SC)
1 California Thrasher, Toxostoma redivivum (SC)
Reptiles
silvery legless lizard, Anniella pulchra pulchra (SC)
northwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata marmorata (SC)
southwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata pallida (SC)
San Joaquin coachwhip (=whipsnake), Masticophis flagellum ruddocki (SC)
California horned lizard, Phrynosoma coronatum frontale (SC)
Reference File No. 1-1-99-SP-2190 Page 4
Amphibians '
foothill yellow-legged frog, Rana.boylii (SC)
western spadefoot toad, Scaphiopus hammondii (SC)
Fish
green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris (SC)
river lamprey, Lampetra ayresi (SC). _
Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata (SC)
longfin smelt, Spirinchus thaleichthys (SC) ,
Invertebrates
Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle, Aegialia concinna (SC)
Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle, Anthicus antiochensis (SC)
Sacramento anthicid beetle, Anthicus sacramento (SC)
San Joaquin dune beetle, Coelus gracilis (SC)
Antioch cophuran robberfly, Cophura hurdi (SC)
Antioch efferian robberfly, Efferia antiochi (SC)
Bridges' Coast Range shoulderband snail, Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi (SC)
Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle, Hydrochara rickseckeri (SC)
curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle, Hygrotus curvipes (SC)
Middlekaufs shieldback katydid, Idiostatus middlekaufi (SC)
Marin elfin butterfly, Incisalia mossii (SC) ,
California linderiella, Linderiella occidentalis (SC)
molestan blister beetle, Lytta molesta (SC) ,
Hurd's metapogon robberfly, Metapogon hurdi (SC)
Antioch mutillid wasp, Myrmosula pacifica (SC)
San Francisco lacewing, Nothochrysa californica (SC)
yellow-banded andrenid bee, Perdita hirticeps luteocincta (SC)
Antioch sphecid wasp, Philanthus nasilis (SC) ,
Plants
Suisun Marsh aster, Aster lentus (SC)
brittlescale, Atriplex depressa (SC)
valley spearscale, Atriplex joaquiniana (SC)
Mt. Diablo bird's-beak, Cordylanthus nidularius (SC) '
interior California larkspur, Delphinium californicum ssp. interius (SC)
recurved larkspur, Delphinium recurvatum .(SC) '
fragrant fritillary, Fritillaria liliacea (SC)
Diablo helianthella (=rock-rose), Helianthella castanea (SC)
Brewer's dwarf-flax, Hesperolinon breweri (SC) '
Carquinez goldenbush, Isocoma.arguta (SC)
Reference File No. 1-1-99-SP-2190 Page 5
rNorthern California black walnut, Juglans californica var. hindsii (SC)
delta tule-pea, Lathyrus jepsonii var.jepsonii (SC)
Mason's lilaeopsis, Lilaeopsis masonii (SC)
little mousetail, Myosurus minimus ssp. apus (SC)
1 Mt. Diablo phacelia, Phacelia phacelioides (SC)
rock sanicle, Sanicula saxatilis (SC)
most.beautiful (uncommon)jewelflower, Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus (SC)
Mt. Diablo jewelflower, Streptanthus hispidus (SC)
alkali milk-vetch, Astragalus tener var. terser (SC)
heartscale, Atriplex cordulata (SC) *
diamond-petaled poppy, Eschscholzia rhombipetala (SC)
pappose spikeweed, Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdonii (SC)
caper-fruited tropidocarpum, Tropidocarpum capparideum (SC) **
r
KEY:
(E) Endangered Listed (in the Federal Register) as being in danger of extinction.
(T) Threatened Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.
(P) Proposed Officially proposed (in the Federal Register) for listing as endangered or threatened.
(C) Candidate Candidate to become a proposed species.
(SC) Species of Other species of concern to the Service.
Concern
(D) Delisted Delisted. Status to be monitored for 5 years.
* Extirpated Possibly extirpated from the area.
** Extinct Possibly extinct
Critical Habitat Area essential to the conservation of a species.
r
r
r
r
ENCLOSURE A
Endangered and Threatened Species that May Occur in
or be Affected by Projects in the Selected Quads Listed Below
Reference File No. 1-1-99-SP-2190
October 7, 1999
QUAD : 481C HONKER BAY
Listed Species
Mammals
salt marsh harvest mouse, Reithrodontomys raviventris (E)
' Birds
California clapper rail, Rallus longirostris obsoletus (E)
California least tern, Sterna antillarum (=albifrons) browni (E)
Aleutian Canada goose, Branta canadensis leucopareia (T)
bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus (T)
Reptiles
Alameda whipsnake, Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus (T)
giant garter snake, Thamnophis gigas (T)
Amphibians
California red-legged frog, Rana aurora draytonii (T)
Fish
winter-run chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (E)
winter-run chinook salmon critical habitat, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (E)
' delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus (T)
delta smelt critical habitat, Hypomesus transpacificus critical habitat (T)
' Central Valley steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss (T)
Central Valley spring-run chinook crit. hab., Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (T)
Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (T)
Sacramento splittail, Pogonichthys macrolepidotus (T)
Invertebrates
vernal pool fairy shrimp, Branchinecta lynchi (T)
valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Desmocerus californicus dimorphus (T)
delta green ground beetle, Elaphrus viridis (T)
Plants
' soft bird's-beak, Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis (E)
Reference File No. 1-1-99-SP-2190 Page 2
Antioch Dunes even ing-primrose,'Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii (E)
Proposed Species
Mammals
riparian (San Joaquin Valley)woodrat, Neotoma fuscipes riparia (PE)
riparian brush rabbit, Sylvilagus bachmani riparius (PE)
Birds
mountain.plover, Charadrius montanus (PT)
Candidate Species
Amphibians
California tiger salamander, Ambystoma californiense (C) ,
Fish
Central Valley fall/late.fall-run.chinook crit hab, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (C) f
Central Valley fall/late fall-run chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (C)
Species of Concern ,
Mammals
Pacific western big-eared bat, C&ynorhinus(=Plecotus) townsendii townsendii (SC) '
greater western mastiff-bat, Eumops perotis californicus (SC)
small-footed myotis bat, Myotis ciliolabrum (SC) ,
long-eared myotis bat, Myotis evotis (SC)
fringed myotis bat, Myotis thysanodes. (SC)
long-legged myotis bat, Myotis volans (SC) ,
Yuma myotis bat, Myotis yumanensis (SC)•
San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, Neotoma fuscipes annectens (SC) '
San Joaquin pocket mouse, Perognathus inornatus (SC)
Suisun ornate shrew, Sorex ornatus sinuosus (SC) ,
Birds
American peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus anatum (D) ,
tricolored blackbird, Agelaius tricolor (SC)
western burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia hypugea (SC)
ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis (SC)
Suisun song sparrow, Melospiza melodia maxillaris (SC) ,
Reptiles
silvery legless lizard, Anniella pulchra pulchra (SC)
northwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata marmorata (SC)
Reference File No. 1-1-99-SP-2190
Page 3
' southwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata pallida (SC)
San Joaquin coachwhip (=whipsnake), Masticophis flagellum ruddocki (SC)
California horned lizard, Phrynosoma coronatum frontale (SC)
Amphibians
1 western spadefoot toad, Scaphiopus hammondii (SC)
Fish
' green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris (SC)
river lamprey, Lampetra ayresi (SC)
Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata (SC)
longfin smelt, Spirinchus thaleichthys (SC)
Invertebrates
Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle, Anthicus antiochensis (SC)
Sacramento anthicid beetle, Anthicus sacramento (SC)
San Joaquin dune beetle, Coelus gracilis (SC)
Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle, Hydrochara rickseckeri (SC)
curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle, Hygrotus curvipes (SC)
California linderiella, Linderiella occidentalis (SC)
Plants
Suisun Marsh aster, Aster lentus (SC)
heartscale, Atriplex cordulata (SC)
delta tule-pea, Lathyrus jepsonii var.jepsonii (SC)
Mason's lilaeopsis, Lilaeopsis masonii (SC)
QUAD : 481 D ANTIOCH NORTH
' Listed Species
Mammals
' salt marsh harvest mouse, Reithrodontomys raviventris (E)
San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica (E)
Birds
California clapper rail, Rallus longirostris obsoletus (E)
Aleutian Canada goose, Branta canadensis leucopareia (T)
bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus (T)
Reptiles
1 giant garter snake, Thamnophis gigas (T)
Reference File No. 1-1-99-SP-2190 Page 4
Amphibians
California red-legged frog, Rana aurora.draytonii (T)
Fish !
winter-run chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus.fshawytscha (E)
winter-run chinook salmon critical habitat, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (E) ,
delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus (T)
delta smelt critical habitat, Hypomesus transpacificus critical habitat (T)
Central Valley steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss (T),
Central Valley spring-run chinook crit. hab., Oncorhynchus tshai,vytscha (T) ,
Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (T)
Sacramento splittail, Pogonichthys macrolepidotus (T)
Invertebrates !
Lange's metalmark butterfly, Apodemia mormo langei (E)
vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Lepidurus packardi (E) '
vernal pool fairy shrimp, Branchinecta lynchi (T)
valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Desmocerus californicus dimorphus . (T)•
delta green ground beetle, Elaphrus viridis (T)
Plants
Contra Costa wallflower, Erysimum capitatum ssp. angustatum.- .(E)
Contra Costa goldfields, Lasthenia conjugens (E) '
Antioch Dunes evening-primrose, Oenothera deltoides,ssp. howellii (E)
Antioch Dunes evening-primrose crit. hab., Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii crit. hab. (E) '
Colusa grass, Neostapfia colusana (T)
Proposed Species
Mammals !
riparian (San Joaquin Valley)woodrat, Neotoma fuscipes riparia (PE)
riparian brush rabbit, Sylvilagus bachmani riparius (PE)
Birds
mountain plover, Charadrius montanus (PT)
Candidate Species
Amphibians ,
California tiger salamander, Ambystoma californiense (C)
Fish
Central Valley fall/late fall-run chinook crit hab, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (C) . ,
Reference File No. 1-1-99-SP-2190 Page 5
' Central Valley fall/late fall-run chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (C)
Species of Concern
Mammals
Pacific western big-eared bat, Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii townsendii (SC)
' greater western mastiff-bat, Eumops perotis californicus (SC)
small-footed myotis bat, Myotis ciliolabrum (SC)
long-eared myotis bat, Myotis evotis (SC)
fringed myotis bat, Myotis thysanodes (SC)
' long-legged myotis bat, Myotis volans (SC)
Yuma myotis bat, Myotis yumanensis (SC)
San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, Neotoma fuscipes annectens (SC)
San Joaquin pocket mouse, Perognathus inornatus (SC)
Suisun ornate shrew, Sorex ornatus sinuosus (SC)
Birds
American peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus anatum (D)
tricolored blackbird, Agelaius tricolor (SC)
western burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia hypugea (SC)
ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis (SC)
Suisun song sparrow, Melospiza melodia maxillaris (SC)
white-faced ibis, Plegadis chihi (SC)
Reptiles
silvery legless lizard, Anniella pulchra pulchra (SC)
northwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata marmorata (SC)
southwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata pallida (SC)
San Joaquin coachwhip (=whipsnake), Masticophis flagellum ruddocki (SC)
California horned lizard, Phrynosoma coronatum frontale (SC)
' Amphibians
western spadefoot toad, Scaphiopus hammondii (SC)
Fish
green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris (SC)
river lamprey, Lampetra ayresi (SC)
Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata (SC)
longfin smelt, Spirinchus thaleichthys (SC)
Reference File No. 1-1-99-SP-2190 Page 6
Invertebrates,
Ciervo aegialian scarab beetle, Aegialia concinna (SC)
Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle, Anthicus antiochensis (SC)
Sacramento anthicid beetle, Anthicus sacramento (SC)
San Joaquin dune beetle, Coelus gracilis (SC) '
Antioch cophuran robberfly, Cophura hurdi (SC)
Antioch efferian robberfly, Efferia antiochi (SC)
Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle, Hydrochara rickseckeri (SC)
curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle, Hygrotus curvipes (SC) '
Middlekaufs shieldback katydid, Idiostatus middlekaufi (SC)
California linderiella, Linderiella occidentalis (SC)
Hurd's metapogon robberfly, Metapogon hurdi (SC)
Antioch mutillid wasp, Myrmosula pacifica (SC)
yellow-banded andrenid bee, Perdita hirticeps luteocincta (SC) '
Antioch sphecid wasp, Philanthus nasilis (SC)
Plants .
Suisun Marsh aster, Aster lentus (SC)
heartscale, Atriplex cordulata (SC) '
valley spearscale, Atriplex joaquiniana (SC)
diamond-petaled poppy, Eschscholzia rhombipetala (SC)
delta tule-pea, Lathyrus jepsonii var.jepsonii (SC)
Mason's lilaeopsis, Lilaeopsis masonii (SC)
Reference File No. 1-1-99-SP-2190
Page 7
KEY:
1 (E) Endangered Listed (in the Federal Register) as being in danger of extinction.
(T) Threatened Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.
(P) Proposed Officially proposed (in the Federal Register) for listing as endangered or threatened.
(C) Candidate Candidate to become a proposed species.
(SC) Species of May be endangered or threatened. Not enough biological information has been
1 Concern gathered to support listing at this time.
(D) Delisted Delisted. Status to be monitored for 5 years.
( * ) Extirpated Possibly extirpated from this quad.
( ** ) Extinct Possibly extinct.
Critical Habitat Area essential to the conservation of a species.
i
1
i
1
1
i
Appendix B. Concurrence from the State Historic
1 Preservation Officer
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
JAN-22-01 MON 1252 PM NOLTE WALNUT CREEK FAX NO. 9259395451
P. 03/04
. - 1-22-2001 12.1'7PM FROM ENV I PO4:1-A —NORTH 512 2665600 P.2
?T^TgWCAL)FMM14—MWPVJOWCESA"NCY OAAYDAYMrww w
OFFICE-Of 11WORIC PRESERvA-noN v
DEPARTMENT OF PARK$AND RECREATIONPA tm 9 L
&*Z M WO1 Cr19UMMM
i91�106� Feat 1s7b�bct634
�wWhpo�n�lvulmsRovn
January 10, 2001
REPLY TO: FHWA960812A
Michael G, Ritchie, Acting Division Administrator p Q
Federal Highway Administration
California Division JAN 18 Z001
980 Ninth Street, Suite 400
' SACRAMENTO CA 95814,2724 OFrxeOFF ewirlow4r•-.
Re: Addendum Historic Pro
party Survey Report and Finding of No Historic Property
Affected for the Propo8ed Widening of State Route 4 in the City of Pittsburg In
Contra Costa County.
Dear Mr. Ritchie:
' Thank you for submitting to our office your November 27. 2000 letter, Addendum
Historic Property Survey Report (AHPSR), and Finding of No Historic Property Affected
' (FONPI' documentation regarding the proposed widening of State Route(SR)4 from
Railroad Avenue to Loveridge Road in the City of Pittsburg in Contra Costa County,
The AHPSR is in response to an expansion of the project Area of Potential Effect(APE)
at its east end that includes five additional parcels adjacent to the highway. In 1996,
we concurred with FHWA that there were no National Register of Historic Places
•(NRHP) eligible or listed properties within the APE at that time for the proposed
widening of SR 4 and the addition of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes.
FHWA is seeking our comments on its de:,•.- '.. ". -f : eligibility of ninety-
four(94) properties located within the project APE for Inclusion on the NRHP in
accordance with 36 CFR 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservatson Act. Our review of the AHPSR and the FONPE lead us to make
the following comments regarding the proposed project
We concur with FHWA's determination that the Pittsburg Armory appears
eligible for-inclusion on the NRHP under applicable criteria established by 36
CFR 60-4, As such the property should be treated as an eligible.property for
' the purposes of this project. This concurrence, however, is not a formal
determination of eligibility for this property. Our office will forward such a
determination once it has received sufficient documentation from the
California National Guard establishing the structure's eligibility for inclusion on
the NRHP.
• We concur with FHWA's determination that the seven (7) properties
previously determined ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP in the 1996
consultation for this project remain ineligible for inclusion under applicable
criteria established by 3f CFR 60.4.
,JAN-22-01 MON 12:53 PM NOLTE WALNUT CREEK FAX NO. 9259395451
P. 04/04
1-22--2001 12:18PM FROM ENVIRoNPLAN-NORTH 510 2865600 P_ 3
We concur with FHWNs determination that 15 pre-1955 properties Identified
and evaluated in the AHSPR as part at the expanded APE are not eligible for
Inclusion on the NRNP under any of the criteria established by 36 CFR 60.4. '
i'lie properties have no strong associations with significant historical events
or persons and are not examples of outstanding architectural design or
function.
• We concur with FHWA's assessment that the treatment of ro ne '
rtY-o
architectural properties that post-date 1955 under the Memorandum of.
Understanding ...Flegarding Evaluation of Post-1945 Buildings, Moved Pro- ,
IW Buildings, and Altered Pre-1945 Buildings and the interim Post-1945
MOU Guidelines, is appropriate For the purposes of this projoct.
• We concur with FHWA's determination that the proposed project, as ,
described,will have no effect on historic properties.
Thank yob again for seeking our comments on your proiEwt. If you have any ,
questions, please contact staff hlstorlan Clarence Caesar at (916) 653-8902.
Sincerely, '
i
Dr. Knox Mellon-
State Historic Preservation Officer
-. t
OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON.G0V@fWF
ICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION '
' SOX 942896
AMENTO 94296-0001
' S53�624
' S16)653-9824 December 27, 1996
tREPLY TO: FHWA960812A
Dave H. Densmore, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
98.0 9th Street, Suite 400
SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2724
Project:04-CC-4-14.6123.0, Widen for(HOV) Lanes, Route 4 East, Contra Costa
' County
' Dear Mr. Densmore:
The State Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO) has reviewed and
' provides the following comments on the documentation you submitted in support
of the cited project.
Your report indicates that reasonable measures were taken to identify
historic properties within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE). Your efforts
to identify historic properties conform to applicable standards.
' You have provided a list of the Post-1945, Moved Pre-1945 and Altered
Pre-1945 buildings within the APE of you undertaking. This is in accordance
with the provisions of your Memorandum of Understanding.
You indicate that there are seventeen bridges within the APE. These
have previously been considered for eligibility in your bridge survey. None of
these are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). This is
consistent with my records.
You have also recorded and evaluated a sample of houses in the "High
School Village", seventeen warehouses at Camp Stoneman (a remnant of a
World War II military base), the Pittsburg High School complex, and PG&E's
Contra Costa Substation to Shell Chemical Plant 60kv transmission line. You
have determined that none of these structures meet the minimum requirements
for eligibility established by 36 CFR 60.4 under any of the criteria. I concur with
your assessment that none of the structures have strong associations with
significant historic events or persons, nor are they architecturally significant.
Dave Densmore
December 27, 1996 '
Page Two
I also agree with your assessment that Camp Stoneman, as it exists, has
suffered a considerable loss of integrity with the removal of the majority of its ,
structures. None of the remaining structures are eligible for the NRHP either
individually or collectively. '
I do not object to your finding of no effect for the project as it is currently.
designed. Accordingly, you have fulfilled your responsibilities pursuant to 36
CFR 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. You may have additional Section 106 responsibilities under
certain circumstances set forth in 36 CFR 800.
Your consideration of historic properties in the project planning process is
appreciated. If you have any questions regarding our review of this undertaking,
please call Gary Reinoehl of our staff at (916) 653-5099. ,
Sincerely, 1
Cherilyn Widell ,
State Historic Preservation Officer
0000,
1
1
1
Appendix C. Responses to Comments on Draft
Initial Study/Environmental Assessment
This appendix includes responses to comments received on the draft initial study/environmental
assessment as well as copies of each comment(i.e.,comment letters,public meeting comments,and
' public meeting comments from court reporter transcripts).
1
1
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON
' DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1 Responses to Comment Letters
' L 1-1 The proposed action would require reconstructing short segments of California Avenue
only at its intersections with Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street because of the increase
in elevation of the new Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street overcrossings of State
Route 4 (SR 4). There are no plans to widen California Avenue to accommodate bicycle
lanes as part of the proposed action for the following reasons:
' a. The City of Pittsburg has not designated California Avenue as a bicycle route.
b. California Avenue cannot be widened to the north because of existing residential and
commercial uses. California Avenue has widening constraints to the south because
of the existing Pacific Gas and Electric Company tower line and 600-millimeter-
diameter(24-inch-diameter) gas main.
c. E. Leland Avenue, which is located 500 meters (1,600 feet) south of SR 4, is an
' existing east-west Class II bikeway that extends east from Bailey Road to the City of
Antioch.
' L 1-2 The Railroad Avenue overcrossing would include 2.4-meter-wide(8-foot-wide) shoulders
in each direction. The Harbor Street overcrossing would include 1.5-meter-wide (5-foot-
wide)shoulders in each direction. Consequently, both bridges would meet the California
' Department of Transportation's (Caltrans') criteria for Class II bikeways. The City of
Pittsburg would determine whether a Class II bicycle lane should be striped on either
bridge.
L 1-3 Please see response to Comment L 1-2 above.
' L 1-4 The City of Pittsburg has included in its General Plan a future planned bikeway, which
will include the portion of Frontage Road between Crestview Road and Railroad Avenue.
The City has determined that the project is consistent with its general plan, including the
future planned bikeway. CCTA is working with the City to provide future
accommodation for bicycle users from the end of Frontage Road, at Crestview Drive, to
Railroad Avenue until the future planned bikeway is developed. CCTA will provide for
' that accommodation in the SR 4 widening project. The City would be able to modify the
signage and striping of the proposed bicycle route as part of the future bikeway project
' at a later date. This is addressed under Mitigation Measure 2 on page 5-2 of the IS/EA.
L 1-5 If bicycle lanes are signed and striped as a part of the proposed action (see response to
' Comment L 1-2 above), striping adjacent to on-ramps would be placed in conformance
with current Caltrans design guidelines.
C-1
L 2-1 The proposed geometry for reconstructed portions of Harbor Street, including the Harbor
Street overcrossing, includes minimum shoulder widths of 1.5 meters (5 feet). Caltrans ,
design guidelines require a minimum bike lane width of 1.2 meters (4 feet) if there is no
gutter and 1.5 meters (5 feet) if there is a 600-millimeter (2-foot) gutter. There is no
direct relation to a"square curb."
L 2-2 Signing and striping Harbor Street as a bicycle route is a City of Pittsburg decision. The '
City of Pittsburg has initiated a feasibility study to review the possibility of providing a
Class H bikeway facility on Harbor Street from Buchanan Road to School Street. It is
not known when the study will be complete. If the study concludes that Harbor Street '
should be striped to provide a bike lane, supplemental signage could be installed by the
City of Pittsburg or the contractor constructing the Harbor Street overcrossing (if it is still
under contract). ,
L 3-1 The Harbor Street overcrossing would include a 1.5-meter-wide (5-foot-wide) sidewalk
on each side of the bridge. The Railroad Avenue overcrossing would include a 1.5- ,
meter-wide(5-foot-wide) sidewalk on the west side of the bridge(southbound) and a 3.0-
meter-wide (10-foot-wide) sidewalk on the east side of the bridge (northbound). Curb
ramps would-be provided at each intersection. '
L 3-2 The Harbor Street overcrossing will include a 1.5-meter-wide (5-foot-wide) shoulder in
each direction that meets or exceeds Caltrans' requirements for a Class II bikeway.
L 3-3 Bicycle lanes, if implemented with the proposed action, would be placed in accordance ,
with current Caltrans standards.
L 3-4 The air quality study prepared for the environmental document indicated that the overall
level of air quality would improve after the proposed action is constructed because of the
reduction of queued automobiles. One of the three main objectives of the proposed
action was to alleviate existing traffic congestion along SR 4 consistent with Contra '
Costa County's planned transportation improvement strategy for the SR 4 corridor. The
traffic analysis report prepared for the environmental document indicated that local traffic
congestion would be reduced as a result of the proposed action. Therefore, no mitigation '
measure to construct bicycle lanes equal in length to the widening project on nearby
parallel roadways was considered as part of the proposed action.
L 3-5 The proposed action would require reconstructing short segments of California Avenue
only at its intersections with Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street because of the increase
in elevation of the new Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street overcrossings of SR 4. There ,
are no plans to widen California Avenue to accommodate bicycle lanes as a part of the
proposed action for the following reasons:
a. The City of Pittsburg has not designated California Avenue as a bicycle route.
i b. California Avenue cannot be widened to the north because of existing residential and
C-2 '
commercial uses. California Avenue has'widening constraints to the south because
' of the existing Pacific Gas and Electric Company tower line and 600-millimeter-
diameter (24-inch-diameter)gas main.
c. E. Leland Avenue, which is located 500 meters (1,600 feet) south of SR 4, is an
existing east-west Class II bikeway that extends east from Bailey Road to the City of
Antioch.
L 4-1 Comment noted. The first bullet on page 1-2 refers to improvements proposed as part
of the proposed action to Loveridge Road and are included in previous corridor studies.
' The expanded text on page 1-7 describes the full recommended improvements identified
in the Major Investment Study completed in 1999. CCTA is programming and
implementing SR 4 improvements eastward as funds become available. To clarify this
point, the text has been changed to indicate that the studies call for widening SR 4
beyond Loveridge Road to Hillcrest Avenue.
' L 4-2 An objective of the proposed action is to accommodate a future mass transit service
eastward into East County consistent with Bay Area Rapid Transit's(BART'S) Pittsburg-
Antioch Extension Project, which was adopted in 1988. The proposed action, as it has
' been developed, would accommodate BART tracks and stations to the extent practicable.
It is recognized that exact locations of future BART stations have not been established
and will be addressed in the upcoming Bay Area Transit Connectivity Study. The
' referenced text of the IS/EA has been revised to indicate this pending study.
L 4-3 Comment noted. A paragraph titled "Bay Area Transit Connectivity Study" that
describes the study has been added to Chapter 1 of the IS/EA after the paragraph about
the MIS.
' L 4-4 Comment noted. The text of the IS/EA has been revised to indicate that the project in
question extended to just east of Railroad Avenue.
L 4-5 Comment noted. The second bullet on page 2-10 of the IS/EA has been revised to add
the reference to the Bay Area Transit Connectivity Study, and a paragraph titled "Bay
' Area Transit Connectivity Study" has been added to Chapter 1 of the IS/EA.
L 4-6 The commenter's concerns regarding the Park-and-Ride lot are noted.
' L 5-1 Comment noted.
Responses to Public Meeting Comments
C 1-1 Comment noted.
C 2-1 Refineries and chemical plants in the vicinity of the proposed freeway improvements
C-3
t
predate the proposed action. As required by state law, Contra Costa County has an
Emergency Response Program in place that stipulates that refineries and chemical plants '
must meet certain standards and must work in a coordinated fashion to alert local
authorities and residents of potential health risks. The proposed action would increase
capacity on SR 4; therefore, there would be a substantial increase in Contra Costa
County's ability to move large numbers of vehicles more quickly relative to current ,
conditions. In addition, CCTA recognizes the immediate need for the proposed action,
and it is working with local and state officials to secure funding for the proposed action '
from local, state, and federal sources.
C 2-2 Concrete forms are being used for construction of the median barriers for the Bailey '
Avenue to Railroad Avenue project, which is currently underway but outside the scope
of the proposed action. However, because the median barrier construction is not
currently on that project's critical path for project completion, no additional forms are '
warranted at this time.
C 2-3 OCTA, as the project sponsor, recently finalized a project study report(PSR) for the next '
segment of the SR 4 corridor(Loveridge Road to Somersvi lie Road). The PSR, which
is a conceptual planning document, includes provisions for widening SR 4 to an eight-
lane facility with a median wide enough to accommodate BART(similar to the proposed '
action) to east of the SRA/Loveridge Road interchange. The environmental report
necessary to clear that project will be started in early 2001, and it is estimated that ,
construction will begin in 2005.
C 2-4 Comment noted.
C 2-5 CCTA's Web address is http://www.ccta.net. Under the "Project Status Pages,"
information can be found regarding the project currently under construction on SR 4 '
from Bailey Road to Railroad Avenue, which.is on schedule with an expected completion
date of June 2001.
C 3-1 CCTA and City of Pittsburg staff are coordinating to ensure that appropriate detour routes '
are identified and analyzed during the design to minimize inconvenience during the
temporary closure of Harbor Street for bridge reconstruction. Because of high vehicle '
demand and restricted capacity on SR 4, there is currently a significant level of traffic
that uses local roads, such as Leland Road, as parallel arterials to SR 4. Capacity
improvements on SR 4 as a result of the proposed action would reduce the number of ,
vehicles diverting to Leland Road between Bailey Road and Railroad Avenue during
peak commute periods. A traffic analysis and signal warrant study that was performed
to determine if eliminating Frontage Road access to Railroad Avenue would require '
signal systems to be installed at Leland Road intersections concluded that no new signal
systems are required after construction is completed. However, the situation would be
monitored by CCTA staff during construction and for 6 months after construction to '
ensure that residents can access Leland Road safely.
C-4
C 4-1 Comment noted. The decision to extend BART to East County first or to San Jose first
is beyond the scope of the proposed action.
C 4-2 Comment noted. The final location of a future BART station in East County has not been
' determined at this time and is beyond the scope of the proposed action. Although the
proposed action would accommodate a station at Railroad Avenue, a separate
environmental document process involving BART, Caltrans, and the City of Pittsburg
t would be required to make a final selection for station location. An East County Transit
Study that will study this issue is currently under preparation.
C 4-3 Comment noted. See response to comment C 4-1 above.
C 4-4 CCTA has committed to expediting the construction period for the proposed action while
' maintaining traffic circulation within Pittsburg. Consequently, replacement of the
Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street bridges cannot be performed simultaneously.
Replacement of the Railroad Avenue bridge requires considerable advance construction
' activity and relocating Frontage Road and the eastbound off-ramps and on-ramps, before
bridge construction can begin. The Harbor Street bridge, however requires minimal
advance construction work. Therefore, it is reasonable to begin Harbor Street bridge
construction first.
C 5-1,
' C 5-2 The Pacific Gas&Electric Company is in the process of defining a preliminary alignment
for the tower line relocation; however, it is anticipated that the alignment will generally
fall within the existing alignment north of Route 4, shifted slightly to the west, with a
tower likely to be located adjacent to the Power Avenue/Andrew Avenue intersection.
Please refer to Section 5H, "Hazardous Materials," of the environmental document for
discussion on electromagnetic forces. Pacific Gas and Electric Company representatives
can be contacted for further information.
' C 6-1 Because of congestion on SR 4, there are currently high volumes of traffic that use local
roads, including California Avenue and Leland Road, as parallel arterials to SR 4.
Capacity improvements on SR 4 as a result of the proposed action would reduce the
' number of vehicles diverting to those parallel routes during peak commute periods,
thereby allowing local residents easier access to California Avenue.
' C 6-2 A traffic analysis and signal warrant study was performed to determine if eliminating
Frontage Road access to Railroad Avenue would require signal systems to be installed
at Leland Road intersections. It concluded that no new signal system is required.
' C 6-3 Comment noted. The need for soundwalls adjacent to the Meadows Trailer Park is
' outside the scope of the proposed action. However, CCTA is responding to concerns
related to this area as part of the Bailey Road to Railroad Avenue project currently under
construction.
' C-5
C 7-1 Because of congestion on SR 4, there are currently high volumes of traffic that use local
g Y g
roads, including Leland Road, as parallel arterials to SR 4. Capacity improvements on ,
SR 4 as a result of the proposed action would reduce the number of vehicles diverting to
Leland Road between Bailey Road and Railroad Avenue during peak commute periods.
A traffic analysis and signal warrant study was performed.to determine if eliminating t
Frontage Road access to Railroad Avenue would require signal systems to be installed
at Leland Road intersections. It concluded that no new signal system is required.
However, the issue will be monitored by CCTA during construction and for 6 months t
after construction to ensure that residents can access Leland Road safely.
C 7-2 Comment noted. Adding ramps at Range Road is a City of Pittsburg issue outside the ,
scope of the proposed action.
C 8-1 The commenter's concern regarding property values is noted. However, it is beyond the ,
scope of the IS/EA to evaluate a project's effects on property values. State CEQA
Guidelines and NEPA require that lead agencies limit their analysis of the environmental
effects of a proposed action-on the physical changes in the environment (CFR 771.125, '
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). Additionally, there are many variables
associated with real estate valuation and it would be speculative to provide an analysis
of the effects of the proposed action without addressing issues beyond the scope of this '
report, such as supply and demand, interest rate fluctuation, and regional economic
factors. The physical environmental and social effects of the proposed action (e.g., noise,
traffic, visual, air quality) have been evaluated in the IS/EA and measures to reduce '
impacts are proposed that would ensure that the project-related effects are minimized.
C 8-2 See response to C 7-1 above. There are currently four access points for the development '
west of the Los Medanos Elementary School: Frontage Road to east of the school to
Railroad Avenue and Leland Road, Dover Way, Covington Drive, and Arlington Drive
south to Leland Road. After construction is completed, access to Leland Road through
Dover Way, Covington Drive, and Arlington Drive would remain.
C 8-3 See response to comment C 8-1. '
C 9-1 Because of congestion on.SR 4, there are currently high volumes of traffic that use local '
roads, including California Avenue, as parallel arterials to SR 4. Capacity improvements
on SR 4 as a result of the proposed action would reduce the number of vehicles diverting
to those parallel routes during peak commute periods, thereby allowing local residents '
greater access to California Avenue. Traffic diversions from California Avenue to
MacArthur Avenue would likely be reduced as well.
C 10-1 A preliminary construction staging report would be examined as a part of the final design ,
of the proposed action. Because it is the intent of the design team to maintain a
minimum of two lanes of traffic in each direction on SR 4 (luring construction, it is not '
anticipated that traffic would increase substantially on California Avenue because of
construction activity. CCTA and the City of Pittsburg are working toward minimizing
the inconvenience to motorists during construction. '
. C-6
There will be several occasions during construction when traffic may be detoured from
SR 4 onto local streets to facilitate bridge construction. The specific construction
activities that would require closing the highway include bridge demolition and erecting
and removing bridge form supports (falsework girders). Such closures would be of short
duration, probably at night, for a limited number of days.
C 10-2 Comment noted. Truck traffic on California Avenue is a function of freeway access
points, truck origination and destination points, and City of Pittsburg-designated truck
routes. Neither access points nor truck origination and destination points would change
�. as a result of the proposed action. Prohibiting truck traffic on California Avenue is a City
of Pittsburg issue outside the scope of the proposed action.
C 10-3 Because of high vehicle demand and restricted capacity on SR 4, there are currently high
volumes of traffic that use local roads, including California Avenue, as parallel arterials
to SR 4. The proposed action will start a third westbound lane at the SR 4/Loveridge
Road interchange and a fourth (carpool) lane adjacent to the Harbor Street/California
Avenue off-ramp. These lane additions would substantially increase the capacity of
SR 4, thereby reducing the number of vehicles diverting from SR 4 to those parallel
' routes during peak commute periods and allowing local residents greater access to
California Avenue.
C 11-1 Following approval of the environmental document, cellular companies will receive
assistance regarding alternative relocation sites. Relocation could be to locations on the
' remaining property. However, that decision will ultimately be made by the individual
companies. The appraisal will evaluate the value of any lease hold interests that could
be affected by the proposed action.
C12-1 Project features were coordinated with BART representatives during the preliminary
phase of this project. As a result of those meetings and ongoing coordination, this project
is consistent with the proposed future BART extension project. With regard to access to
a future BART station in this document, no project-level environmental clearance has
been obtained at this time for a station location, and there is no funding programmed for
extending BART east of its present terminus. Therefore, it is speculative to include an
analysis of access at this time. A separate environmental review would need to be
conducted for the BART station after that project is proposed.
C12-2 As described above, ro'ect features were coordinated with BART representatives during
P J P g
the preliminary phase of this project. As a result of those meetings and ongoing
coordination, this project is consistent with the proposed future BART extension project.
Pedestrian access directly from the Railroad Avenue bridge to a BART platform located
within the median of SR 4 has not been accommodated. Access to the BART platform
from the Railroad Avenue bridge sidewalk would be provided only as an emergency exit
from the BART platform area. The sidewalk on the east side of the Railroad Avenue
bridge has been widened to 3 meters (10 feet) to accommodate an emergency exit from
a potential BART platform located on the east side of the bridge.
C-7
C12-3 As described above,project features were coordinated with BART representatives during r
the preliminary phase of this project. As a result of those meetings and ongoing
coordination, this project is consistent with the proposed future BART extension project.
C12-4 Comment noted. The last sentence referenced has been revised to state that the
alternative was removed from further consideration because it would cause additional
environmental impacts associated with. property displacements for a project that has
neither identified funding nor obtained project-level environmental clearance.
Responses to Public Meeting Comments from Court Reporter Transcripts
r
R 1-1 The City of Pittsburg has confirmed that Frontage Road, between Crestview Drive and
Railroad Avenue, is shown as a designated bicycle route on the City's General Plan. The
CCTA is working with the City of Pittsburg to review the feasibility of providing bicycle i
access from the end of Frontage Road, at Crestview Drive, to Railroad Avenue. If
determined to be feasible,the CCTA will provide the access as part of the SR 4 widening
project. The City of Pittsburg could sign and stripe the bicycle route as part of a larger
City bike lane project at a later date. Mitigation Measure 2, on page 5-2 of the IS/EA has
been revised to address the bicycle access along Frontage Road.
R 1-2 Within the project limits, Railroad Avenue would have 2.4-meter(8-foot) shoulders and
Harbor Street would have 1.5-meter (5-foot) shoulders. Frontage Road would be
reconstructed to include 2.4-meter(8-foot)shoulders on the south side along with limited
segments of 2.4-meter(8-foot) shoulder on the north side that can accommodate bicycle
traffic.
R 1-3 Comment noted.
R 1-4 Comment noted. See response to Comment R I-1.
R 1-5 Although the proposed action would require reconstructing short segments of California
at its intersections with Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street, there are no plans to widen
California Avenue to accommodate bicycle lanes as a part of the proposed action for the
following reasons:
a. The City of Pittsburg has not designated California Avenue as,a bicycle route. '
b. California Avenue cannot be widened to the north because of existing residential and
commercial uses. California Avenue has widening constraints to the south because
of the existing Pacific Gas and Electric Company tower line and 600-millimeter-
diameter(24-inch-diameter) gas main. ,
C-8
1 ..
c. E. Leland Avenue, which is located 500 meters (1,600 feet) south of SR 4, is an
existing east-west Class II Bikeway that extends east from Bailey Road to the City
of Antioch.
R 2-1 There are no plans to utilize the unused BART median for automobile traffic until BART
is extended east of Bailey Road because of the following reasons:
a. The project currently under construction from Bailey Road to Railroad Avenue will
construct concrete median barriers along the inside edge of the paved shoulder in each
' direction, precluding use of the BART median. The concrete barriers are planned to
extend east to Los Medanos Elementary School.
b. In the eastbound direction, the proposed action would transition from a four-lane
facility to the existing two-lane section at Loveridge Road; this is a complicated
transition required to start 600 meters (2,000 feet) before the start of the Loveridge
Road off-ramp. Adding an additional lane would further complicate the transition.
c. The proposed BART median lane would end abruptly at both ends of the proposed
' action. Inside lane(fast lane)drops are considered to be more dangerous than outside
lane drops because of the higher speeds.
d. The existing freeway facilities on either side would act as meters to the proposed
five-lane section, effectively limiting the traffic that could reach the additional lane.
By limiting the traffic, there is less need for a fifth lane.
R 2-2 The proposed action would install a signal at the Railroad Avenue/Power Avenue
intersection.
R 3-1 No construction is proposed along California Avenue except as required to conform to
the raised profiles of Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street. Currently, SR 4 traffic diverts
to local parallel arterial streets because of congestion. The proposed action would add
one standard mixed-flow lane and one carpool lane in each direction on SR 4,
r - transitioning to three lanes at the Loveridge Road interchange. This would result in
fewer cars using local city streets such as California Avenue.
IR 3-2 The commenter's reference to a"noise box" indicates that the commenter believes that
a noise monitoring station would be placed at the corner of Clyde Avenue and California
Avenue. Receiver position 11 indicated on Figure 3-4 of the IS/EA is not a location
where a monitoring station would be placed; rather, it is a location where sound level
measurements were taken as part of the noise study for the proposed action. This area
was evaluated in detail as part of the noise evaluation. As explained on page 5-12 of the
' IS/EA, construction of a soundwall between California Avenue and SR 4 was determined
to be not feasible (i.e., the benefit of the soundwall would not justify its cost) because a
soundwall at that location would not provide at least 5 dB of noise reduction. The
�1 highway is currently substantially shielded from residences by the freeway cut-section
' C-9
1
1
• We would like to be assured that the freeway on-ramps at Railroad Avenue will have correctly '
'placed bicycle lanes. To whit: the bicycle lanes should be between the straight-through.lane and the L 1-5
dedicated on-ramp lane., A straight-or-right lane is not safe for bicyclists and should not be
constructed. '
'Thank you very much for your attention in this matter. Please inform us as to how your
organization will deal with these issues.
. r
Sincerely,
Dave Stoeffler,
President
I
I
f1
Delta FWgIm Sky&dub'
P.O.Bm 2394,Aroix:h.Cat6nu 94531
i.
emni.�abtr.XclfAnol.ax�
II
vaacT,ra v�v
a� vi
s
004
P 6OrL6 FOR 0: PEN S PACE OR +av's
OCTA
1340 Treut aoulavard
Ste. 1 S(1
Walnut Crock CA 94996 �
Dear Paul Maxwell.
Some of the bic •a wt; �vic i 'n corm have brought to our a particular lint
yf:.l u � 1 tttc county Sh P� Pt
o►f intcr>cet for bicycle commuters In the Pittsburgh area.It is my undemmming 4Wt as
rpart of the Highway 4 widaning priiject,that the Trrnsptntxtiom Authtxity wui Caltrans
will lesoca and widen the Harbor Street over crossing. However.the current plan L 2-1
includes only a 4-foot wide shoulder'on this bridge. While 4-foot wide shoulders arc
better for cyclists than nothing,Caltrans specifications cull For 5-fcxtt bike lanes it the
lane abuts a square mut. It slakes i se to build this bridge Ui,fit fi mal bicycle lane
speeificad(ins beutw;c Harbor Sum is designated as a bicycle route in the Pittsburg
General plan.
A setxmd concern is to have bicycle lanes striped on Harbor Sheet. Harbor Street is a
major North/South route chat extends the entire length of Pittsburg and connects schools, L 2-2
parks.and the Delw.De Anja multi use trail.Currently.kvai bicycle advocate Bruce
Ohlson (of the East Bay Bicycle Coalition)is working with Piusburg Trac:Engineer.
Paul Reiriderm.to hove the striping donc. The cmiperation of OCTA and Calrrans on.this
project would be helpful and apprncciated.
' i reciatc our time and i h CCTA will continue to scree the needs of area bicycle
"f'P Y °� Y
ccmtmutcrs as well as those riding in tars.
Sincxr\e(y,
S.Craig Tucker.Ph.D.
' F:a_%t Bay Outreach Ccor4nator
Greenbelt Alliance
MAIN OM-C8 • 6q0 Mall SuVej Simr y0.9. San Frttnriacn CA 941110• (416)%f1*37M) • h-ax(415)94Ad+!►5n
iCAIT11 AAY OPt7CE • 1922 Tile Alxmrrfi S►tfir.213. San]axe CA 9512G • (ON)98;+115951 • Fax(400)ORA-1001
voltTlr AAY OFFICE • 52n MCn4ucin.,Avcnttr Solm Q°5. Santa ituau CA 95401 • (707)G76-J01S1 • F'ax(707) !17442711
F.A_4T RAYOFF11CF. • 1371 Wall Main%frrrt tiuitc 20. Walnut Crcck CA 94596 • (510)932-7776 • Fax(510102-1470
t:mnik Arcrn)xrlt6li(rcalx:.w-g • wtib sitC' wvrw.strGtVcll.u.y
3829 Los Altos Place
Pittsburg CA 94.965-6110
(925) 439-5848
bruceoleo, tlso_�a�il corn
November 22, 2000
IPaul Maxwcll CCTA
1340 Treat Boulevard
Walnut Creek CA 94596
Fe= (925) 938-3993
Dear Mr. Maxwell,
I attended the public meeting on November 16, 2000. I appreciate all the
work that you and your organization have put into this project. Several
issues need to be addressed before my bicycle club, the East I ty Bicycle
Coalition. will be comfortable with the Highway 4 widening project.
As you know, TEA-21 calls for mainstreaming bicyclingand
walking
facilities into federally funded transportation projects. Congress has
' mandated that our transportation system trust be balanced, accessible,
and safe for all Americans.
The inclusion of ADA-sized sidewalks on each side of each freeway-over
crossing, both Railroad Avenue and Harbor Street, is a necessity.
Although I may have misunderstood your intentions, it sounded to me L 3-1
that sidewalks arcre not being included on the Harbor Street bridge.
Please assuro me that I am mistaken and that sidewalks with curb cuts
will be included on both sides of each bridge.
The inclusion of shoulders that are wide enough to accommodate ASHTO
standard-width bicycle lanes on each side of each bridge is a necessity. L 3-2
As I understand the design standards, the plan for the Harbor Street
bridge does not Aneet the minimums. Please rectify this oversight.
I did not have the opportunity to ask about the exact placement of the
bicycle lanes in the vicinity of the freeway on-ramps, but I would like to
be assured that a standard width bicycle lane will be placed between any
dedicated on-ramp lane and any dad"ted straight-through lane. Lanes L 3-3
from which motorists can turn right onto the freeway or go straight on
the surface street/over crossing are not bicycle-friendly. I would like to
be assured that none of this variety of lane is included in the plans for
Railroad Avenue.
As the CJS DOT policy statement, Integrating Bicycling and Walking into
7hvwportation I frastructure, indicates, every transportation agency i-5 ( L 3-4
November 22, 2000 page
expected to make accommodation for bicycling and waWng a routine
part of their planning, design, and
construction activities. As a
mitigation for the reduction of air quality,and the increase in traffic that L 34 con'i
this widening project will bring to our community, bicyclists request that
bicycle lanes equal in length to the widening project be constructed on a
nearby, parallel road. California Avenue from Railroad Avenue to
Loveridge Road is the obvious candidate.
We understand that space is at a premium in this corridor, but as part of
the reconstruction of the affected sections of California Avenue, we want
the CCrA to acquire sufficient right-of-gray to allow the inclusion of
bicycle lames at the inter4wtions of both PWlroad Avenue and Harbor ,
Street. As you know, California Avenue was built before world war n.
Back in the dark ages of transportation engineering,facilities for non-
motnri8ts were routinely rejected as-unnecessary, costly, and regressive. L 3-5
B Sides, there waSn't enough room for such exp=4ve amenities. The
result was a highway environawat that du=urWr,bicycling and
waIldng and that has made the two modes downright dangerous.
After Highway 4 is widened, the City of Pittsburg will, uu laubtedly,
repave, upgrade, and beaut*California Avenue. Cyclists do not want to
be faced with arguing to the City Council that the newly constructed
intcrseetions should be ripped out so bicycle lanes can be installed. Let's
build it correctly the first time. The inclusion of bicycle lanes must not
be an afterthought.
Thank you very much for addressing these issues.. It is a cWlcnge for
transportation planners and highway engineers to balance competing
interests in a limited right-of-way, but we must start today to provide a
transportation infrastructure that provides accesa for all, a real choice of
modes, and safety in equal measure for each mode of travel.
Sincerely,
Bruce D. Ohlson
Member of the Board of Directors of
The East Bay Bicycle Coalition
Community Contra OMmw►��nt olrecWr
Development Costa
Department County
car Admirdsusdon Suuaing
tiny Petestnaet • .. �-
4th Floor,Notch Wing AF
MarInez,Caftrnla 84553-M
PhMW. (925)33 5-1201
D6cremW 4,2000
Paul Maxwell,Deputy Director,Pr ects
Contra Casta,Transportation Authority
1340 Treat Boulc^v 4 Scute 150
Walnut Creek CA 94596
Dear Paul,
Thank you for tho ogportutaty to review the Draft Initial Stu4l8aw"mental Assessment for the State
]Iotttc 4 Fast Widvnin$Fmjeet.
The Community De.velopmant Department is pleased to seethat the eaviroautcutal review phase is now
urAer way for this importaut project. I vAx. dd like to oft flu following Oommeats on the document.
pM1--2."fid#bWJ9t Point. The improvements called for is the&undies include widening SA 4 east alt the
way to Hillcrest Avatue and beyond,not just to Loveridge Road. For example,the State Rocca 4 East Major L 4-1
Investment Study calls for the widening of State Route 4 from"4 to B lanes between RIU Mad Avenue and
Wilcrest Avenue,and from"4 to 6 Ian=bctwoen Milmst Avenue and the[future]State Routs 4 Bypass
h tarchaage." (OCTA Major Investment Study,May 1999,p. 109).
h L s &wd bullet gint.This bullet point refers to the extension of BART to a station in the vicinity of
Ralroad Avenue. It Atoutd be noted that the pending East County Transit Study in 2001 will deturmine the L 4-2
location of Um BART stations in East County,if any. This may or may not include a Railroad Avenue
station,depending on the outeom.of the study.
7?&U 1;2 last bullet name—tine oar. Same comment as above. A reference should be added to the Fant � L 4-3
County Jbinsit Study and the decisions that will emerge from the study. The treed for such a study was
mauioncd in the State Bout+a 4 Fast Major Invesaneat Su*-
)IUM 2-9 ft bgllgt poilA At ft boa=of the vane. This bullet retra to a project completed in 1996 that
widened SR 4 from"Bailey Road to Lovaidge.Road." The reference to Loveridge Road may be erroneous. L 4-4
TM project is defined as extw&ng from wear of Bailey Road to 2,933 foes cast. A project of this length
would not reach Loveridge Road_ We suggest this item be reviswod.
—continued
Office Hours Monday•Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 P.M.
Office is closed the 1st.3rd 3 Sth Fridays of each month
Defier 4.2000
Pop 3
PM 2-10+second bullet Point Regarding BART Swvlca adensioa east of Hailey Road,the document sties
"Po spw fic p mdcd lw8 been prownted for evaluation at tM time of this ISMe, The Past County TrMait L 4-5 j
Study will develop Specific pmjoa pmpowkK with shott-tcm medium-tarm and long-MM str'at+eOW.
age 5-1 l� rts�pjete mon the raga. This paragraph indicatha the priadda will cause the loss
of"appy or aWdy 80"Spaces from filrc Hlisa Av&=park-Sod-ride lot Since itis not yat known wlim
future BART stations will be located,it is importaat to preserve the Bliss Avenuc park-Sad-ride lot to the
fullest cxftt possible,and to enpaad park-and-ride lot capaaty avaalt is East County. we=Mpg that the
pmjcct Rmsot(s)wane with BART,Tri Delta Transit and kheal jurisdWdans to ideatify new park-and-tide I"4-6
facilities that would ofet the lass of spaces at the Bliss Avmc lot Such actions are felled feu in the East
County Action Plan,which is part of the Countywide Comprehemive Transportation plan recently updawl
by the Contra Costa TrattsportWoo.Authority.
If you WMW I"elarifteedttion of any of these cammawk please Ounut use at your couvcahience at(M)
335-1201.
Again,a wft for the chance to review the document. Good luck is moving forward with this phase of the
Stec Route 4 widealn&
Siacerety, -.
Joico Groh=
Senior Thansportation Plaaaw
cc: S. Goetz,C.ammunny Development Dept
V.Mawd.BART
S.Pante,Tri Delta Transit,
1
. 1
. 1
. 1
P diCGCsardBBCliCQxltl MV lend 5ericts afice
1030 Detroit Areme
Caaord.G 94518-2487
' December 4, 2000
Mr. Mark Boucher
Mark Thomas & Co. Inc.
1243 Alpine Road, Suite 222
Walnut Creek, CA. 94596-4431
RE: 4-CC-04
1 SR 4 East Widening, Pittsburg
Order Number 8036479 Electric Transmission
Dear Mr. Souther:
Mr. Bhatia from our Electric T&D Engineering Department,
has reviewed the proposed alignment of the towers shown on
the Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. drawing PG&E Transmission Towers
SR 4 East Interim Interchange Project Railroad Avenue To
Loveridge Road, dated 8/2000, Job No. 99008
(sheet 1 of 2)and it meets with his approval. The L5-1
locations of the proposed towers, that are shown on the
drawing, are approximate locations only. The final
locations of the towers will be staked in the field once
the design has been completed.
If you have any questions. please .contact me at
(925)674-6433.
Sin ely,
Randy . Burton
Lan Agent
1
TOTAL P.01
. .
.
.
... . ... ...':�. .
-
, ':�:Z:...'�.:,-:;._ ':.� '-�,:�'::' �'...
" --�" . .. - .... . ._., .
.- ".T
.:..:.:. ... 1'.-.-:... .'..i� .L�',��''. -� ''-:,�
.
-:! : .
... -':.:. :
r:_`.', - �'-:-'-:': ,--"-'.
"
. "t '.�'
.'11 . . .. ... �- .. .'..
- .... . .
' (
. .
1:...4 �'. .'.:..- . . '. . ..r..-:.;-.-��!:��::�:i;�: Or.
�
� .
.... , ..' .,:'.'�.Z.%�iKv.-'. . , .- ..T.t. . ) % . . I
. - , .:.,. - . . � * .. ... - .. ..." ..'. ...' - , ,:......!'�.'.%.':
.. $- ,..!.
.,.: .:,�'--.:..�..-'....."�-,..::.. . . 7 ;.;... . . ... ..�:::�'�;%.,.,.,.'.-,,.t,-.�-�. .. : ;.. ..�..:,
......:. . .. ..;.;7'73%z� ...:'I'.�'�. '_.. .. -...,-
, -
".--,•.;.... I . : . . r .... '.'.'.";':.:.... ..:: . . .
. li.. ... ' . , :"*:.i
.. . .,.: '. ." , . . , , '* -,, , ,
.-. - - ' , ol.'i��. ... I
! - r I , .6,�<.,_ :. :!.... - - - --. -
.. ... . .� ..'ji,...,�. r--.'-'."x';-' ".- . .
. - . -
.,:.�"...", -i�';'... :..;""'" . "',`� ' ; I ."Z.,,, .:�..... '; ,,-*'* -"' ,'_�..
.. .. . ..1 , - -,% ': :-." "..�"' ' WWW'__I" .' A. .. ... .. ....' .. ...- ,-.--�--
.w... ... . . . - ' -n'r.'4.I... _. : ... '... ,
: .:. ..' - .1, .:�......- ':' .
. .... !-: '-,f. '. - :.'� .!.�:',..m . '!�-;�:-:,
.. -:� .":Z . �:.'�'.�'.�-'-:'_ '.-'j<.,I..';l-.-.A'P -".5:'-".-Z4.':.:.. -'...'.- .--.� - ..' i.�.-
.
. ..-. - -�-..:4. . -._-:. . ... .. .. -. -. . ........'.
I. , ". .j . ':4;'; :,!:�.:"
. -
.
. I� _.. ,..
_.. .,Z.
:,:..:,:,� . �,-�",-'�'1," ':._!�' ,:`,.�' . i ..-�-�*.. ;("-t . -- -,%:.�F,.... .:'. �!.'.li
'�'-.:-;- . . �...-,�.--...".'.*'.'.!..::.�"....,.1.... .
. ' 1 --��' ' ;.%,..".:-.::�:" -..---� :-_'-�j:' .. . . ..:_': --
's . •
', - -
;;': ..;%��""�' , .-� : ....r .
.-� :.-..-'.'7....: .L:.... -2. �......,",.:�;..:.:-:� -. . . - - ..-:.. :.. '.'%..'�' _
. . , .. . - - .
..... - .: ,.-.:. . . ..'. . : .:i!'.: .. ... .. ... . -I.� - ..:f"-.',.'.'..... - ..a. ...:..; . .,.-.
. .. ... . . , , - ..1.I -:� V.,.... . ... ,.,.,�':.�.,..--,:. - .
i......i-14. - .,.��-'� :'--':--'. L... -..4ft,,-�, I'-. � ..
7.�. , ....:.: . .. . ..- . .
- '.✓.'1�1::� . ,
.:.;- -'.
.. - ,
'' ' ' ;: ."", ..-!.:".�-."...:"J""-'��"'. . ,k��."..:�:-:.:
-. -
. "..�'.--' 1,.'.:i.Z.,-".- .,..:, - I
- ....' ..
- ��-_�-1�-:1..."I.I..'�1"..."�` Plu ; !-.�'-.�
.-
.-";,-.%,k, .. . ..
4 ...';-',.
. :;,....."P..�..-'�'.''. .. - .. - *,' .. :-!::.,;.:
" -
.
:•h
-,�
- - - ... 1 T.
. .'. :
I " ' I. .- :.:...,.,.,.......'. .. .q.I....'.."`,.:-.
.. . :.. "�'�."-.: .;. ..m . .......1. .. ;�-_-' .. .�.
. .... .... ... . ' ;;
_..'- '. :.. I- J :.,r.� .;
,.;,:, .....:.,.; . ....... t'. ........:...'. - ."... . .�*
.. 200OF ... ........
..
. ' SIJ
. .. .4... �. .�:!."",�,:,::%.,:.!%,:�..:.!,..,.,..i.,:...".�.;
.;:..
akr--. :.;. ..% '. ..:'_'..�:;'-.'
'. V - ".....-,. . . ,--......:-...� ..- '. �... .."...: - I
. ...:.... . . . .. .. I . I-,!.V,,.-. .. "j-'"-.'.I.."�';"-,..".-':,'>.'-*'ll . "
. , . ., . ' .. . ���--_.- ,..... .."'. -'* , .. '.�...
---,4� .'�' ..'!. . .".!.'I;"I -.I .11.1 ..r". ,'. .......-.�..--:. .. . .-
�_...-.:.",.:.i.,.��..-....:-..,.....".......,......�.",*,.i..; " i.. . . .. . - .!,..;;;. .
. , ".• �..:. -
. .
.:::-..:. .. .. .1..
. - -� -%�:. . . .....: -
... ... 'L.;.'..�' . . .
.. ... . L....; -'.'- ;�
,7',,:�-",`rJ'-----�.', 'I'. ..:'..,....'.!, .." ...:.7',, _'. .;i"':..." , ,
. - . . ... -
','•
...
.::... . - ..,,. . ... ..%, . 1,L, "� �....':""'-�'.�."�IZ, �;;'�"�'--'-t�'*-,'�":::.,.-.........:. ..� ...I -
..... . r.:I`* -I
-.
...:�:. .....,...;.....;... , ;' �.', . :
. ..:..:�..... . ,9%-,�r �,Ine ;:rz�'.-�::-..:,�-" .. . -:,:;�� ' .
':.!'.'..: � .,,.__4�- - -
. .:.�. . .�:... ..... -, . . . .. ..
.. .�.:. ,. .-�:.''...'..;, ,... ----,--..�-- ... ...-
=;% . .... . t.
. . . , .....:.. -..."...- ..."�.'.'�.�::'.-.''.'.�--"'' . I .
.:.:.
.
. 'A-p ... ,:. - . *4 ,..X'.'.-..'. *,,
.
. :. -.. .
. ::. ....g' .I- .. . .
.'�,.. J,•"�'. -.",.' .%,1� ... - .
.:, f.- �: ': . i.;-�-'.'.,:: ... .�.' .
, - *-
: -
'..;-..;';'.'.'.`;; . Ji;'.1-".' ;. !�..i'w'-- �i..'--,-,- -'-.;�'.-_g.;'.Z.; i*.'--.', : " �; '2
* • .....",.,�!�:m",i��,.�q!�7.��o............ .-.g'-T_.-. ....'A..**44.
.. :a: .. . .. .,, '�.�.::I..,..'..-'--' .. .Tr=:.,...--.:
. - -; ��.:'_:4'��.;'
. ! �_ 7%�-,-.';"!77-7.-.�-'M`�'---�-. � ." ,, . I ..: ...
; . . ".'--'.:�. .." .:.P;: . "' ': --.. ' ,..':.:.,:!.. .. .�' .:-'..
.. '!*!;�-',��'!?:':.:.�..'.'.'; �- - .."', _�.:":..'...;... ,'.� -"...':. :. ,
"'
.;�'k 1...:.. ._.... ... ,. " , ..�_. I----:....!v'�k,'...-.,-7".. .:"..�'-'; , ,. .
."...:!.-,I,,`,'.-�.-0 ",.:,.�.'- I _. .I. . Vit,:,::;
...
. � .*...;.,,,, r, 1 177, �.''�..- -..,:.I.,v:'
- ."'�' .
.-i": -..-v.. .. - . . ...'. ...;.k.::;1.
.'..
: ... - . ._'Z I.1'�"..:,- -.
A - I I' ..��'."'_-. �! i
'�'.'>t�f:'
." Iff"I ' V'i-..'-'�' 1,
1;V%�;.''':..-...'. .. :.;."..:,..,....... _."..�:. .
Pt:1,21j. .
' .
. , .lY%:-.:i...-.::.,..,!- i 4-..._.;.-l!.' ... ...j.;�
. - . ,4::,
I..:,...i U. 1".
- :. .
aI 'e:N'... ..:. - .
1. . . �L%X�_'-M'%-.i.. .-..:.;:... -,---; .
11 - a:?7..... : � - .. '.... .�:
I . .I Q! . . - -0,4-"q4-;'j.j-4.. .. -
1. . 4 v!�. "I ..�6
� .. ? . .1.m!. -In-trI.�KW!"vFT.It" .... - 9, -*!;!!rr.t" __ i ...A* .
..?iQ. .. -T ".i. - - - . - -'�'..... .... - :�.t':..r..'
.'.... ... ...1, ....'......-I lz.-,:;I.....r "A - - . - -
' " * .1
'
.'� .� - - ! ', ii .-.. �l ...-.
_ -Ki'- " ' '
.' I - , -
-
.. . '.�Q § . -,'il �", 1"...
.. . .� %-Iw'-XIIAS M,
'.
��ki.';ii. 'i. -� . . -
, 'r'i;'-;�-.-.'."v,!-..,..t _t'!L c ii Or ... 7 "I'4:. " .
.. .i.;�. h. '4R .91j;511.1 � i
, .�.' -.i�'
A I:.", :.....'4�' a. - :-1, ..-1. --�_.. .. .:.�_ -:.
. . , i,�. .". -....�,,.."�,.-'....-.-*.%;...-..*�l'......�:,.; �..
--';��-- .'--.-" . . �';"' ...
.:.....'.._ ' , � .'.�-:-- ,:-s''
..;;-,-.,-,�".I�;..�?;":::":.4 '
.. . I ..... .N�'--...' ... . ,".'-';:;.:.'-fi---.'k"':1.---
-;'.'.....;- , v
.' .;. ,.,;,., I ... ...� .,;...
.. .. . ;.. .I'�'.... . .z.-".::-,..-%�,.:;,:."W":;,�.:�.,..?:7.- .. . . .. ...
, - :: ... 4....-.�...... .� .i .:-, ? I-.�.;N:�::, . . -
-��..';': . . .... - _''_ ' ..,-. -..... ... ... , --- .
:-'e ':!.'_':":4.:..'; . . . . .....:-!' ..-
.o._. iat,
. .o.
. .. .:: '.. - I - - . -�.'...- ..
. ....;. i; . . .. ?.;�" ..
;.., . ! 'I ' 'JU _' Ls ' �
'. ; . J M ). � ,*
..4' by
.
... .. . . .E* tt ... ",
- .... !..: P�.`x'' : -qplc . .
..) _'3 . ..I I..='*0 . . . .. r
_.- _. .,_h ,_... , t.. ,M"
.;. ';w k .. I v .. , .
W!, ". .i .
... : -�. .�..'F' .4 i - , - ':_i'l .�-;- 'jLAll:L'!_-r_.-.-..'-: . u ; ,
.� _'. . .
.. ..... :'. . r.....W., .,-. 2. , i-u..... ?o - .. . " ... IV '.
:"-. :,..'.f .. -. 11 ''. " , ...... W;
, �
... .
.. 1� . it . :
.. . � aamia" hyt. W sq,w . ftal
- . - I ..-: .-
. .'. '-----__---��;....:"p..,.,... .. . _. . 4'. ..- " ..- �-."^;jz) ?7f.--f...'� '"" g%
.1. . .. i.. �_.! Z'-v---A'. '----'
.�..'.. .'.''. .". - I.: __f .Wu�'.' '--" .*: -
'
* fes:.
. . .. , .1-1 I :F:UwCN . Wfi ..---.'-----.--.'-"-�,:-�-
- . ..- - .. - * ....*.. ..'� - ...�".. -,."..6"". ..:,. .."
..:: I ip .
�.... " IM N'*7 I'! .. wigt'"'�*.'-..-M
, I I
-:e. !�' ... , Ym :
, - ;' - - - ......-I .. , - ..- , .. . ..
"
W. - :'..'
'._�... ; .X...'..._...'.. .t- - f.t..:_ , .... .V-.i�: '- .. ' '- . � ,
'j. : - . ..
'01 ;...... 5.,•... -' IfIv- ' ^-�-.*.Z.I., 1.-. . -
,
I -11 ... - .. 'L , '. . ..;�. . _*' Wl-'w-'f"_•..-'-:'�.
....'...._ % - O.W., " I ...;�V. .�.--'..!-.'!-.-.f:-.;'.. .
. .•
.- I... - WR P.***.,,Ifwrl ...
. .... . -". Clpoplkck
J, - 'A
. . . T
�'",""' ' 6 ' * i ...
........ . .I. _.A,I',. I_ -, -Iii.," ... -.1 .
. ' " ...... "*.;;;'.�.. ... ..." , .' -.."�:"..'-- "'j��'- ..I- ",
"-:-I—--- ...' .- - . .,"'� �.., ll %4...11., - ' * -h..'�'...�...... .1". �
A.�Vi-;-:':,j , --.'.�."...".;4�'-';:;,-'!:'..:.,.. -..��....-.....�-�.-'..�--.�?� ".,..' ..
' '�; 't � - . . ... ._IeW'..'-.'.'4-' .-
... _§2" ." , Z .
. .._-l.. 1, 1 7. ..: -
. . - - -
. t. .
.MW ".7�. .. .-,
...... :-�! .�",...4.:�".;:5.,-.'..�4.",� , , . ,"...i; ,
-- . . . - .- -:-7--�z".'��. ... " .. '.7'�..' ' - -
. k .. �'
.:... ':f 'e......';.. .'.. -;','w-,9:-�V;'4,:'a------'.'-:--'-'L',,-i-!"-�- .'.. , . .:..:'*.-' --�..:--..k,..�--.:.;.:-4g,....,r.
.:.1:...:.- : �. .. .: > .'A' � '. � .c .�; .;.: . .",- .... "'. .�.!.: ....:..
. . .'':�.::::.""!:'.;, . ..:;---�:"'."-'-'.. -f,..,...-'_,';.:.:..! t. .
:-';f-...-ei , .'. t':* : .;"
-
'�.._ '. .. ,...�..'.'....'.... :,:..'�:'.;V".11",..-: ;'.., -i.. .;. ,
...' ".'.' �.o' '::_;. .
. ... :;:.:.".;.l -".'%'e:': .�-'..`%";Rt ........;-;'� �*": --'.-�k*:1....
' ' . -,, '.'
I
...,.- "!,: ....
.
..: - - .'-' - , . PEP.Je.:'I.�! �� "*'-.- -
�: ...-P ... :,., . I ;j'; , . :'-.e_'.:'.
lft�.:'
� Z .. - .:.... kf:.:-� ,. ..m1 l;w .......'I-q. ...... . c 1-1
.- -�'. .Zh ! .�: ;,*,::, . IL
�14*. - ... .. .... .
:::
.r ..
.
' a' . j:: +.
,
: . -. ,--'�.. ". ..,:;:. v '*
I " '.* .' ':'-��":.
..-Illi...,:�' ..:,:
...:' ..:-
" :�; . . ...-.-"..!�;'.i".:....'.'.-_.l .'..-'...'�.�.--:: ".
. .:,..!-.... . .. - , ..'..
' .1 W'� �.
I '�'�:4, : . '._;.' ..
- -1'�!.....'. ... ....":'.". .�.y..'.%,_.. . ..... , . ,-'- :L... ...-:,*,".t!f".*'.:', . .4 � .: ..
. ...... . •
'.. .;...".. - 1* I
.1. "E .w ..:; "..- . ..; ..
.. . . :.. ..�. - . . W-lo" . ...:_--'-.--.,-�--,.:...7 .... : :...'.l�
11141,14:1 1::-' ;". , ."."., -Z� ."".-t-�t.;':, . ..' ..-;*.l.."-.-::'._._.'.-:'.. '.
** -
. ,
,
.:... -:. . .. .. .... ... .
...., .. . I- ... � , 1 :i 1! I J" '.. ':..!r.-.7 ,::.-:...-'...'..'".:.:..'.-.�-,':"' _.-.:_...-::'..�'-:.-..:.. ..
.. , . . ...-.... ,;.. .;., ...'�:!�'-�-.; - ..'�.*"..', . -!'� -'S'
. -..�'. ...:f'� .�-'t-.-'�"v ... -...
- - ..-.- . , " ,... . ,, .
' . - . . . , . " .. ... ,-. - .A. . ;�" .. .....- ,;:--.1..... '-'...':. �-w'....--;�;'_.-' .I."....
. ;..." :
..::L.� ... yl:".-'4� WW
-, . - �
- . '
' . '��'....:.. .._:.... -.'. '."..�.'. .... -
.. -,. _�'.'....�V'f .
:- "�_.... .
'L .. . ': . '.'...... ' .1. . . .
' - .1 .,..�.L.i .!. ...� -..,..:..": .; '. . '
.: ...; . :�.
�'. .. .. ".'.. .: '_ ... 'z%-.;... ..
. ...:.-�'.:.... .'.-:"..-;'-:. ....' ..'.... .. ...-I*.F.,,'-' '-_':..-.-:...;.--;- ....!!.,!:_!:"�.'';'.�'--.'.;i.,-:-"*-v-'-'�.;',-'.-:'.
" .. :.....:.�--f-1--...:
.1:.? .:.
....-I i......::,.,.�'.') ..I-i---.:!""'::'��.-!"'-;-' 'L' -.....'..!.�":.'�-;* 'A,'��F 7 . '_.
. ...".._"._:r....:".!_..-:-"';r'.-%' _-.4"....:.'..... . .�!.;
- .. !, .. ...;.. ,.�,., -!,;;, ....T .
. ....:'. . '... .. �....•-'l.". '.'..j.'' ..:.'.. .., _*,,, ... 7 ,',i.::
, ..
.: , . ... ..-_'...i;�:,"".-t. :...:,--�� .1;0--�.":�.'L-:';-::::!'.. :'.::�'...."'.j
'%....... :.--I,.,L:,.."..,..�;-.i ..:...:... :. ..���..�:.�.�-.:::!,�-�::�.:�- z, ._..-.: .'-�-. . -":":!.,
. . ........'. ............".;' ;m..... ;:;:,:, ::',;'. . .:.
' :'"'..: '.-; ' ' -' �..�:'..; .. -
.. .. ' .: ..;...... -:-:::;..i; 7.:� . - - .::..!, .-:.-'_,....'�:': .. -- --- . . ....
. - -- ' -�'� ." ..... :.;...-l..-'....--..l...:.. . - .r - - - -
4'�.
.,.:'I." 1;X... . .�".•....' .. -.�. .. .:.L .' . .......-
,:., - .. .1.. .'� :'�. �'- .-:.. ....
'.;l"-s-'r.
.. .
. -.:-::.:. ' "'l-'�::
I. �..:,!....L::...,....-...... .�.. :- : .--".":.'.�E�-;_: . -,:... .: .' . ,-'.... .
.:.; . , ;�.--..�.... '!!!:":!"'. .,:.;.,...' - -
----.-_.l:."�.!,--'-.:--'�' ....'..i.Li....'- 4i': '.._:%
' .. -.. '-�.-.:..:.:.;�.::.,:
- �' ..
N�.;"'�'.:�-';'Ii�:--,'�."'--" .
" I . �;�W'. ':'_�'.._ -.';�.-�':,'.":.'%�. - -- �.:--,...... . -- -
4.'.' .-'�L,_,; �'!. .. ...
,. . .- . I'�' ..,"-.t:';n-�' '.;l�.'-:.....
.. .I. - ....'...lZ... �". ..4.".. , . - -I:'.r-.' '" ... .1.1'.... ....- . : � ,.:f"� .•,r'��-..-�'--"."4_�!�:
, :-`::'..""':�-.'. '�'
. -,: ... -:-I, . . .!�.
:..." ' -.'... . ... . . ...
'"'r.;r. . -
% :�.: -
"�"1,,!,.�-O'-i�; -;..:. �'.'
-'! -.-
'Y:
..r., �.. - ..
'y lt';-';�.-'-';'.'.:',-'-'.,;"_'.:-.--.-'*-..-'4. .!"�.�'.. .;.,!".r"::,.:�..:.,..::..4. .. -. ..'- .%%,'.--,. .
, 1..'. .-I'�'...; ...,'�'..1'.1:�";'...r": . ,..'. . .� '.� - , �
'',:, '. ..:' ,.;.I- ;s ' ' ...It 7.-.-'.., , ......_."� �';
: ':j..' -I'..t" ,i�...r .,.._.- -, ......
.:;,:.; ... . ..':i:::
-
. , . .n . .. .. -."
. .'. .';!"":'--�-�... -'::'�. , -- ':..; ...�. . i.
... -:.t;::.. .... I . .. . - ":::'�_-'...._
:.n:�..:�...'.'., 4";..%�.,:I . . :.. - . ':.-:�..�T�.' . . .7::�: :
.,..T *1 ;. .. . Il .. -'-.:...:. ... � .. - ..-'-:;-'-.---
.: - . - '.�-. '.
I :... .. '�"::�'-.- .;-."-;." 71 .. :�- .... . ...... ._. . . -0 ' . '.._... , . -'r.'.'._' .'.;-,:..':;:.�
..
... *" "".'- m :_. . -Z'-"l.-.;7.'.I.".
;-"�!!-':!-:'.--- '. ; . - . �
... . '.. .. .;:*' "" . ,
.
. ,-.,IN-, - , .' ... �
.
.
.
. .
. , . !.-
:.� .
-'-':I. -..,..... :'.. . . '..":.�.. -�� .. -:'�'��-. .'" ..._.l.. .. . .... .. -
-.... - ,.:!.,*.%,',�.,.:,L���",::.''.. '.."-.-.'...'....: . ........,..:. -
..:�s ,4:* :t.':�i.--`_'��. ....:�- ... -j'-'--. ..'.:,.. ..."...'... . .. '.
";."�:: � :;."." --".'-.-'-" ' '.' .. .: �.
....... "'.-.':.-' ... '.... . ,.-'e ... : ..' -...,-, -:�l':c.-..*'.. ....�.'. .: .".;.".r":_ ... :...... '------"�;-.,.'.':j-".. ..,..;;,-.":.� .- ...'
- .. :.,. . .. .. ... � .;
:"'-`;.�.'l-.'-... ;", ...... , _:�'-'�'��;: ..'."`�::;l .'
I . - 1. . .".'.... . il. . .'::.!'_';.�'..�;�:�W...
:Y'.;.:._I,�... --�;--'-._�'-'-. -, f.;. - -
r" * ':' ;�'".' -� --".'-...-'�:'
... - , . -z-_: - ---.-'�;.; .-�.%.'-'-.-.-0'!:-' - .
.!.:;.%.
'��. 4, , . ,;" ,
..:... . ..........I -%:�.-1.43" . ': 4 �c :-:;:.'-� -,- _ ..,-'.'.,.i�..�,.,-..,::-.i-".':.-'..'.. ... .T.-'_'---'- , ';�
, :.": �,:t.,:..::..r;..........::.t:.;,!�:...-.,.,.*...... -
.. . . - .. .... ...'I". . .' -.... , . I , _V
. .; . - -jz, '.; ......... -..;.._..._.:�%..'��.'.'.
..
. 7�.`� �.... '.'?:'-':.-. ,-;.�l'..-.'�-" �
....- . I . I . - r. I
. , n .�.'L-, '.4.:.""-' ..' �- �'-��':-- - -, .::,. . %::..'..-..-�."-:..
..`, :..; -7.,'-�
.. - 2 . . .;� . ,,-.
, ..;-.. .. ..1 .5 ;,
,�;*-'
. '""''Y\,'','"''' ' 'i�!""' :i 'A i, ; *"� !--"- :'.:J'.!7.'.- . .. :...........V.:-::!.,
..
..;:. .:.:'..:�. -%...1:I:. 1,;'", ;;,"I"'.�Z. -- . -r .'�. - - . ......-
.. . .; . . .
., . - i7 . -
- -' '.:'- .. . "t -�....
- . '.
.:. .. . ...'. .t...." ..
'�..% . .. .: ':M1''
i
'
, .11
�;`.:�: '... , - ....
" .
:.. ..:.. .-..; ".4.. ... -�. --,, nil
,I" . -";-.-'-v4�-.-
..-"�........,.:.-. :A'
. ..-��.'_'- ... :.''r.'-,
-.-..-'�.;.".'�_.�. .T. -.!:
.....,.. :,%.".�:...;�..�,i;.,�,.:�,'�.,*:�'.,:,..:".:.*.�..:..!.:.""
:--- -, -
.."';e''. .
. Q., .6".;,..%..':�'...;.;'�.�:.�. _'�-'.:......:.4.!'�;'.;.'..:..... ...��::.'.-. :. ... .
.. , - . .....�l..,!;�r�,'&'�-1g:�.:,-!!".i;:�.-.:.:,�4 ,.....:L� .1
f.;
.. . . Z�. ..;..
'.. :i� . .7.'. -:1!.Y:."�1 4'..:: .
-':,.i_.:,..;, , ., ,.,;... , -�.'.-'.�'. ' ... .- " , " "N' .;.. . . " .........,.'..
- . . . : .�':" R::'... . . '.
:.' .... . . --.'-'_.'.':.'.�':N. . 1?.:.
'..'f..'-'L:�':'. . '....': .'�. --i:..,;-.%:�' .'�A l... . i.-1-'!:!"."'-':;�*-_:5-..'.*' k %., . .. %
. . � .........", - ... ... '. ... .�n
- ... . . . I..,:, , . - -� -
--�� -..-�'.' "j:�'..:..:. ..' -":'., _'.. -J` -
. - ,:;; - , _.. ;l... �
. - , �- �' -
� ... . .1 , ,%-,.
. . . . , . '�;!�.; ..:%
:, .. . : .
. .�.. .�� . .I,x'. .. .:. .'.... . . ....
. . ..z .'�.. .-- :--;--'�� 4-. '- L--'.-.'v!::
.;.; ", ' ' -
' _'�
..".'- .' '.' ,. ..........:'..' ..-.:! ;r'�:. -"'---��. . -':!--:.-.;��.'j...;'.
-:,'-.-_.--l., J_
';.*.'� I '. -'�:-`?"�"':--�;.'.'
, .- � ... . .:. --
- .:. :".,.:.,...�.�'..;� .::.., .'.
" -:.;: '-..-,:.
... - .. . . .;:.
. .
."..: •
...
�:'!':'.-.:;.�.'� ,
...... .... ... .- .... �.,..,.";...,-.!.!7.' •
..........4c
4'. j!...'..� .... - .%�..:.. -��"-' 2..'. -
... ,
- ......j.... :_.. . .r .. I.........
:'k. . , � --- , -I: ::..�.i-i':�.-'*.:*�-%%:-':':.':- j�.y:..,.'..
. `::_._-�`-'-'�':";..'A'�':----"';:.--,*.!?-'.'-�.".�_.,.;:.......;...'.!!:..:'.�;,..,.'.,.:.1�':!':::;� -
'.. ' ".��..%.�j,', - . ..
. . . .. .I-...- -..- - .. -.-�-'--
�,�-'
. ..
<.?
�'--�' -,-.�... �.-.i..,;,'�..:.:.:t-..- .,-.-:;,:.;; ,.:..: .... . . '.
i: ;' . . '--.-:-.-..,:,...A-�-.-� ,iti.; .i .Z. :.. :.f , - . . . . ..
:'....".��' ....., ';] ,.:,.,... " .x
. ..... .. .. .,T.;�::,...�:�,.-,.,.:,..-.-..--� ' . ...- '7: .. -: ,
:".-,.: ."' .. . -:'.:;::::�.-;.---�11-."�:--..'��-'..... . . 't......... ... .. .'� .-N.......
. . ... .. . .. ... .-. . . .. ...
.:'..�:!. .. '.:'. ..... ..... '%
. ..�._'_i ...:�
";.. . .. t:-':'�;�"�'.:'ii'�...-.� "�;' a:r'!:'� _'--.:-;'.:
;. .., ... , .�'.';-Z:�: -::" . .:..'. -.-,-';
_...IN
.'-j_:�:-�:�:�".'.'."�.:--:--_-%..-�...�_..�' .., .... V. '
.. .. .. ':�.:.;: , "
.... .::. ...��.:.. . ......1, '?'j-! , .. - ..-'� .".;'� .. .� .o.
. . '�:'�_'��-'-.lY�;-..--.-.-..__....'... . .:�' .
. . ..::� -'.-'.�!.; , ,. ,-, -'- .a,
- --.'-!;'.: ."'; -��;;%;�
. . - A�-,-j -' .��. - ,":h�.'-:"�'.n�".
....:, - .'. 1 .�::: . "-Z'�" ::-:-:-:�.'!"Z"�!!:i.. 'q".:'i?r.'-' ...
��. .'
.'-;.::�.- ':�
,
'.�':.......it'.- .:'4.k.to '.'. , :- ..I .. .1......
4. 'J.' "-_..,. '4", . .e.... . . .
....4-.4-&.' . -
' ....... _. ..... .*.�A.. t';�'.-,.,%:..,�--'-'-�.*,',�:,....::,..." ..;:. ..
, - . -
-r.. '...C: .. � ...� . . ,, . '
. .--,.. - `.�'-. :'..-, �..4:-...� .. ' .. ' - .- r� .:�%- :. _ .'.z�'
.� 1...li�'_' '.'-;"-j' ,'�,- '-7.*I'-_- . .. :..
7"' -':�'.' -:.-:.:- -.;v4'!.: I'J: - ... I _ .. ... * -:..'.�:".';!.!-'.-...::..-
. ':� - . . ..f. .. .� I .. - ;' :..� .. .,.! ..':'-:-�..-'.- !�_--,
..
." ' - -A'Y--''-".-.--' '-��':,. � ' : �;::..�.,::%:.-:.: :;�'..,..;:-' - -'-'.'.'-.".:l '.
�: � .... � - ". -' - - - '-'...._ .
.. : .:.'. ... . ....-!'� �:.::"�_-- : . , !:,
.. . - ..-' - ..... .
. .... .... .' ;' 1,Z.,.-:. ..:,..:- '.� .:.:..: .;i...., ..W.':�- �"'. . . ."....... .. .. ;l. I f"'�.:It..'..
. .-:' ... :.r'. .' .
..... �... ... - . - �;%Z.'.'.m'.p !:";.;.6.. "I. ..m 1. :....I. ..." _��.;, .. � ".-__-.1 .:-;% 1.,-,:...,:.. .... - '...':I,-"..."; .. '.Z
. . .. ....;."M: :: ."". ; . 1�1-'I'f-.7: -�;. '�-:. :.4 f�_�'., .
, _'. � . !....... .... .: . .� ' - �.. . .. ..
.::...
: I 11 ' %!I SFr'„
. ...: :1. I.. .; .'.'�.'.
' : .: ;:. .4 _.�.' :".:, -.�- ,,.:.,.:: . .1 . .1
....I,:.,.,.:. : "'.'! _. .' ��. .: .1 ...... _. �! ".
. ._....1.1...,...I'-...r�.-':'::-_ :".' .11;.'�l �� . ,:. .:, .._...... - "-.., .." 1
.... . . . . � �" ...V:
. , I.. . % .".
. .:.::. .''...........
-�:
. .
".. "
I ol..': :".. .: .. .:.:.':... .. -,--
.._. .:.,.. , ,,, ':: "..,'.iA. .;- -:',,.- .";, .... . 1.- . . ..." . .. ,
.. '. .i :! ,:.,.:".�.:. :.. _ .:- '.; .1. I I " : --� -Y.;.-*:..
. . ". .. .. x, .- ... �. . ..... '.. ..
.. e . .. .. . ..
::.:.. . ': . ,.;. . .. ... 11' .... . ., . . :.�.'..
... .M.i. . �!;' . .... . .. .,.;: I-.. %'.':.4'. ... ,: .,. ,.i:l :.: ...i..;l'-."-'.":.. ..;.Z.. .
. . :...:.....I... -..:: .I- " %�.I. �:; ':Cl'l
. .. . ..'I....! ' � ... .�.. .� '.".... .. .. ' . '. .. I.
- :-;':;...;. . 11 ;.- ..' ...�..".
, .. '.. ._. ;. t...� . . 11, . - '�. i .�."'. t;." .; .:: :.:" �moi,
::.�:.'! q . .!!... !�:t .... ..4 ...,;..;. ..I .!.,". ......
. '. '
. .':. . . -':.. . . .
:.i. ;....... . 1� . ... " ..;
'...�'. . i...: _. .....I.....- .-..el... J:'....�.'..1�1. - ' � .. .... 'j
. ..,..:...;. .. ., .. wo .... 1. . - 1'. " .. - .. .
- . - ...m ..I.t ywa.:.�.':'��.
. ��. .! ,
-. .1 . 'l-. ., "....-, . . .
. �- ..... ..1. ".
.�.'�.�' . . . .. 1. .
" : I .. . '. . . -.�.,.. �-:..'-
..: , . .. � ... . .. . ;;' -w-e-N '. - .1 , 7 - .;�.. ` . .. . .
, ..... .. . ..� . ... . . I %. �. ".
I '-w�;.m. :. I , : '�. �.: .. ...�::!::';'i� -...:�' ..
.�.. ..
. "I'll" . . 7 �. -;.-.� . ...'. %. . 4 "f :'� �.� . .:. . .. ._..
,
1�i . - '. �,�.. I .,:"f :� c. . .' . ..
.
- .:...,-,. ..'. . -I....".
I . . _. ..I I.... �11_ �!''"�'. . '4.-"�'.::' - : .. . ,.- .. ... ;
. ... . - I. 11 r ,14
7,7': -11 .'.
. . .. ...1 .......
. ..I......'' _. .!:- .-, '.� -j I ..� .'.:.'vl . !, 3 _
- �..--...�.............4 1.1 -.,:,:.,�'�'.!" Z _:i..... �'.I .,....I
' ,.k'7. %. .
.
. .. . , V.,
a.
:�'. .� � ..:
1 . li% I.m.. .11 .. , '-;-"'-...'..:-
. ... "
. - . .11.. . :.' - - .... .. .... . ...
. ...1 - . . . . !. '.
"-.`.aid::. � . . .! .�::-.�." I.. �: .".".:.�.,,)..-.�..-,:;;�l.,-'.-. -�.":..
,I ., " . . ....%
- I 11. �, I';... :�!::....-_. ' ;: , j ; �.�...
; ::! 1 ' -
� :' it
'!: .. K:; �' "'i �`$
:,: . .
'; :;::, .. I.' - !: ,
I . :.I- .t . I... .I :
M.. - Z -,
!uq:'qt 00-Le-AON
I z of3ed !V-L !OL:GL 00/LZ/ LLL
.
I. I I �
I I
. . � I . 1 I
I I
- ....... ..; ..... -
:;::
•
:':
t
. :
4.
,. I.
t. ,.::i.• .... "r' ice.
J
...._ .. .. .. + J -
:.
y r.v.
�:r'
.,. .. J.... ,...,.. '...,-. ,''-- T. -
M-•
v :
L
7'.
r+t. ��'r�,�y
}.
N
:.j
t -
J .,
\. .:.M.r _:1•( ,•r,, 'i5- !'Tt ,`-n :J'}':�/ •L.• �t�t'J--:.,, .:f'w
';i
'r
'�r", r
.,..,•.-•�4, •.
. s.d:,C.Y'.w,'i'�RII+Y ';',n.'.. ,ca•.,u 4�..ti--'•?`i',yc. .sc;
�•. i1
n.
:a
K
�.s: .,.t�J'
;lr. }
it=:''
'.t't':
,r
;Jly t(:
4'
�,,.,,
�•Y -
t'
1"1
-y-
':Y: :i:J%• - -
:I:.,• ,
,��.
::)•' ! ,
tl
llI••
_T: -
nig
` „
-r,• +
t
%ra l
" .
l»
"t
+:4. V
t' 'fT -
♦5{
.ry
'1'
V: h'
i; ,rr
;. e•j'''
:>.
?�r;
..Frh.
_% ,,1�i'i'i..:: -,a<.
4
.3.aaa T.. t
i:� i .
1. r! -
rr
cT
t+
S a.
�.
`.7
*'
�rla
.f�, 4
'..lii.
`T
.t
...eIs •ro*A•••.
iI
_ r,
4
�• Y
r' r
i'.
I 1, N. i>
_ `°i-
- 6X
,'f
%
i 7� l
j
f:. Ca•
•:?":','::- .rte' ';y'r.' i•.h.,"'":
yt•
•rT'
� .
:)
4`
'SIV, y 5
p'
. ,,..,.,E
„h;,
r
�-i
:L. :r: f: t.
r r...
J .,•. .ri tii'
[,=
.�;�.Y:'r
:�; J.
:i c ♦ e:
'.r.'
,•:r` EJr,
;:j:i�: .�y:.:
.:y'-c
u'
M •N i
Y :^M1! T••�^.!" •r:, �•► •I ft, i141M /tr J��II •..•SN'iY
tN .r..ts•c..y+!. rr e i :':.r:h.:».r,.•.-.,•.. n b �.s. •::''••::iS:
.. :.1." r- : .- i' - ::y. .:i
5: J.
�:.
,i:.:>
+n T.t.
�`t - 11
y,
7
'r.,J•,,;, .'=kC.i _ :ice:"
1 r�'a A,...:' -
7.
X1^.}1»
=:i
.::• ^R
,�
.1 '.:r
:i"`
.yj�
.ry
r,";
r.
r
''I:
I �'ti w
4:
f`I
tiT e
t t.
ti..
v~Fi':'
!'
yj•: ,
ter.
�f T> X
.f
,r.J-
F,t:
yi
i'
e c. A ,-.•.::'."
fXi A''.<, i..,,>.
�i ,.Ia
�•
Js• 2�4�}r` �y ..
fr:.. ='x t a
}atm 1
.i: .. r3
.n�4,
4,« f'! r ,r ,N» :! ►, ?P'R�••'!t .•4,. ,w •[[....vin. •n••«=ars' :i: �L: ;,;:,�
'..,'t.,. ca; '*::•'}!`.' .,•cy r.:_:��': ;- •.a.: .,#. Y. ,1 tR••„ ,}� aw
�:Y:
�'!:'. },
Y:j
yf;
'� \+':
4� :l %ti
j.4
.int,
e �.
L-
};r
%: ,
1 - f:
Y:f% �
Jl wjji I .... - -%,
.
J
L . :r ''�i a:�:'-
:;`
{, `e.. o: I: r. 1.Q J. - -
`fi 'i1' YWt,S"'.:�;,Y, :aa"• '.b .fimt •Y`' 's,l: s'r:: '� �^;_e^'
.<r::•�i(%�x�'cy.��� T b. � .it. '.r-.r ,:r. ,.r,�,>':>J •:.n 7tr }�.Z.. •:h,.r;ytia:iy:' -
.1.._jx:Ir„ "'rr:L+•';A+;�b;• 11 Ss..n 1/ll k� -„' '•,:• ;.,i : .�: iY^c.~:
.: :'4y1'. •,'��t�.•'•J�,`,'` "t.l.a.1. :i Y rY' '1'< R t+ a 'h1.i`Z'.M ...: - ;,r
iii
IS\„ ':Ri.>Fr }: A , .;>�4+X.1... .ice.. A,n.. ...-+•'-�•+r1 :.vt
•1+- ul;-;$,':•.. •.'(t•'':•.:. ;.b'v '.. `:.t..{r„ r'�,"R,;7::A'• t,y.'r✓tr-'. ,A' ,: .!`.,
}�^S,�.Y`:-r� !3„�,s! ..M +: -:%c'%,.;x.. ,a.4.. '�,. •:,.>.1"r. '� :J' .:,;' '',i'''"l i'%�
.i -n �?J.•=`j.'.3 y Si:`yr..�rr ••i:'S„�{.h,e7 •r:�yyr}`� r".7�•.•:,:: .1`:-
`fit °: '' ;.. rte' �.. r: : : '_'
:. :.
-. ���}
r. :.. -'
::
'~'
.!}' •. .}.� i.F(. ./, r4 i�, h'iAl T
.e •,';! Int.vl'...r.:.:.;.., �!!'A:::.'" :in•->,"'
:Y.: _ '"�> `-':•if"7`.i'�4 .•1'Pv.:r r-..:{•,I•r.[.'/r}'`r _
'� '!ti- `,:!`!. ?"•j!.rr +�!'a•'••. '}:Y:,7`r •$SS :�•5.t1'.ti .:y:..r.;••;
:'--.1......".7':
.:'r .. wo _
/_ YL•' '.°its7.' :::iG., :.k :: '' ;r� _ -
0. „IYM1
e, :I[/
: yF.
•:ri \
i :A'
!!
k.
:•'
r:I .`'.
KF: 4:::
y�f �W:
,�1'.
z+�iG
195; •.
{
,t :?
•}�' •<
7'.
% •.
t
:✓ ?
;: ;a.
;, ':
Y.
:+jam•
t
lei.
is V ••y::,'
\'
{,_.,,
M+-:
t
..
,�,,a,y..�.:
J y':.
i,
s, -
.•f K+y:J
ys*yi i
r
:.
,iAi
.-TT W.:..�;
':n
,::., ,.
: ,r
vj;ji:
+�.
L. r
+ �
! ,,:
'ti'
:.r.: ti" +
3v-
�:,
�y(I• :T
,.. :t- `� : .
;•V -ri:,, .J.t✓st arr•. I .;,-:o _ .-i-'. ,•4•: 7'Jy�fi +:':':� - 1,
,r» ',`: .;4{` .'.J!•.c .fes °:,t..a:.3':,::.: r•,, J: ':',::�::"}.::.
:,:�,
,,,�,y. cam..',`:,;y,
' y�t� -
ii'
tS '.i,
4:'
:lI :�`.
~-.
:'!
.5
'[:
_. �!'.
.. :r.
'NY r
:i+
{''
:1
/� ;.S:•t
.1+'✓tf
t Yti`
a ^ `
:}
•S a
i'j
~�!r
\'
'1' ..'Ri,,�"
+� y�� i':.,:
r
` +J�� ._. 1•a \"•
..s;.;;
jr
.T•�•1G•f%. «� .
':
3 �"
s'` h :i'ry•v.
: : r:::..
> :�, i 1
:.,,.>
F ,
.,r' ,. '7J-5[•!,•:r '.H;•1 '.1. ,1,.. .-Z l o•:':. •5" .'r+,. >Y.' r. -'--s!:.` i'j;
.•4 •7. �n f. y.•, 5.:;; .1,tR. .`i] ,.f:.,:"• )) - •Las v., - _ .r,
lilll
- y !.
`t>'.z:a
+'>iFJ:
i:. i
le Y
.-w
� ....:.. _.T
', '• ill, .;�
`': •, .••
^:<i
ri �':'
:,fir. :.:
is - ...O "•'':.i�.
^'h'. ..5,.x .•ata. .�w;;•:'w}... /^I`''_
0'>F _
i -,Yy� :y`. Y,::
tii.
r t+'R' ..
L:�
,J
N::^i
h.
.y:i
� •a\aY
{.^.
S..
i art M:�--:� -
.r''r,,.
r'
,�V
i.
J'4 _
rA,:na,
r ,
'}w r
trt
ti
f.W. .`t
•ter.'.
y` _i
.FJ' .!"``a.
:,h•, ;�is,
f /
j Y
•4 "i- ''J. -'i' :. �.. .:'1.• L: r>C. `:llfy'F.'1%> ..,.
fir::..,.."1 ^: !i- r^:.:
:'4: -
,4'
::FJ, ::�''''
'K..
R 1•
1
•r,• r',i:
<.r
f'. �'ii' i+•
.,, ..
`��'' _ .j
.h '4'.•ani
J;. ';rY
..• > ,,it...,, -:.h• 4�.+.a.a -c:J c•, s .,.•",-•.' �, ':l si rii-�: %1'_]0. :'T.
.-�. .,s+ - r,r•.r.-;» ia,.sa, =;t:. 4'Y:•:::>.T%, :•c!'•-r�.-'..
i:R
:•t'<
r.:, '�a yr.' ilil :'�!� . •-!,�..
J'n"_ R1,rr ��
_ .>, :r
.: ': h. :a\,.
:1`' :J' :.^I :•i+(': _1,- - S• ,�1'":^r 1i:'{�• ,r�t�:i: ,I..r.
IAii . :•ate '+"•�i�::,'!
�;
�L
L.
JORNO1•
�,�"� 4'
H;
�FM,�j� 1/r ''.
i.Ar�! .
C2+:. .. C
w�
�.,: ', '
• .
i F'r .S- :X:..J. r
F; r�!'
1.
C_:
J�i
r: jr;
r ti�"' ,
v`i.
J.
7y^`r
' .1... % Y
::-
Vii'.::
.._.:y- ..: t .. .. :..,,•::..•�.� a. .;".ti: aY4i ;:�.• .rr" '•'i; :;y;: .< - '•r<.'.0".d
:r
/I• Y. :4}
:�''
- .,; ,.,'
�,�J 1 4. I _
�f -
,:
J.
i�I'I'
' :IJ,'. _
i '
„t
j'• ..
I r�i'
ri� .
..tr.; _ rJ._: _
7a
r:'
;'
R :7�.
t
�=i, ;it
R' t' -
•..
:if1
r'L
I'••" h
1
:e•
'4`•� aR i` r
4 r
4-
�:
L`r'
iii
\n •�I 4
^ _
S;
!'r 1:
5
r}-
r.
%.v
''' _
ti:r
L
r t.
tt��l1
5:,
:
>.
r:'
t-•
r:G
.*t.. ,.A`I.
,.i 4 "
i. }:
ti✓:
:r, i?:.
t"
is�r.�'` r
JJ J.
Aim
_' / ;,
;.
::ti r;
r.
-'.q-'.. '4- -., - t. t.. \_ 1,. .:'i. ..,, ..'..y:, ..., .tii
.,. , a}.:...r,r
>.v
v..
.:. .... - i.. ..n. ,; . : -
\ J
1
;:y.;,
C
R�' t.
.:'r-1
VY�
1'
!f
r.,
4'.'
... ., I.."1.'... .,...,.y...
}r yt'.
I -
'�
:......... .11 ... :I.:
l a.
1.
L, J�'
...-....a,. ..:}. ..a..,� .. .. ., .. .... ..... ........ . . � `tii ��/.:�
,.. ... .. ., ,,. .. -..,a...a::,. ., .tY r _>...,.. .. `•n. x., .., -'fit" 'a..4..
... .. .. .. ...:,.. ... ..,.,n•,:
,.. ,.'. r
.
. .... - .<. Y... .. y. ...
.a 1 r .:5.,.,.,.,.,. ., , ..ice -
c.
r( s'4 is-._;y
I ,, =r ' :'
",
M :JY���: C.^•
r -Y'
- k i:'I:: ,.,1,,. fir`:;.. ,..J•-".' .'rl�i:,,
..:,r ,.a.... .!.
.<.,...!. ... :...::...., r -:.:•..,, ..�.. .,:' I::r .o. L:. G�rryp
i. <
2 L
i` J'
Z/ t d..,. ;L9:9G 00-/Z-AON •ZO£0 £1£ SZ8 a ` �uI``°6u2�sal 6uTTTtug+66aa0
eBed 'v-LOO <- zaso 0us sze 'so:et aottZrt� :P47nTe�s}j
Nov 29 00 09:56a Mark Thomas 8\ Co. Inc. 19259380389 P• 3
11/17/00 13:10 FAX 510 845 8750 MOORE IACOFANO do GOLTSBA 9100Z
STATE ROUTE ENING PROJECT
RAu.Ito�w A vFxIDCF RC1�,D
Pubi ing
Tlnl &Vl 16,2000
6: :30 p.m-
+.w.•.\\....wr- •r-r•w•\.•w......N...........
\w..ww•wwr•www\NWw•.r• \w•w.-w•rw\N\Mw•w.ww\wM\M•.rwr•.N•wr.
Comment form
..w\w\\\\\M....-�......r....\\\1I1NN\NN.IIN.\Mvr+w..w.w..•w.\.\.•r..w.rr•..w..r•M\N\I\\N\wu...r..w\\N.rrr�.r.w.M•W
Please wire down wy eouanents,questions and ideas you d like to share with the p xoj team by-
completing
ycompleing this comm—t farm as you visit the information stations and listen to the presernarion-
' Please return it to the sign-in table u the end of tonight's meeting. You may also mail or fan
this form to: Paul Maxwell,OCTA,1340 Treat Blvd.,Sage 150,W21 nit Creek,CA 94596;fax(925)
938-3993 by NwamFicr ZZ,2000.
C.dYi
C 3-
AA
1 Name '^—
i
J r��
t
r
C'•Jft "f.' Y'
11
;:'•:.....,.,T .<r�r.'�t .E, ,t. -`�{`•!:i'r'r
7
,: . is�' -My �(1�1�'+3,'\.; y !-.CF.%i ,1� .i. :�.r•t..;:,: '�;�.
4,t e:r•..,..,.,... ... .....,....,!-,;... .. .- '$ �~a'•i}`:'�
4.
gig NJIA��4f A-
A'. 5,_... .:.... ,.., .. .� .....,.!.5..;.ya.:,^:s.•...::.� %i''':t.- ..N.:�.a.,l:J `'t�:: F.�% a'rd �Q • .:•,,�'
.r•*', :,i.: :i'c:��f,%4: ti��w .sC -,..F.. x. ,rSa�rw. � ..:a,.�
...{.:, r.,. r:'✓.f. r,_ -ti's .Mbi .,4
3 W. SS
,.`
`ir•. (
ti
°.�y;Irf.� :'• E IDE
TATE�IROUT 1VING-
.'`!i:iir�'�,�a,� ;•A�'':y ,�;t':.,r.�,•.:� "rr:";•.:�.::;�•;ti�3�Hfv9'Y '+SP,1 0!tl�tikiq�>+�" �,,. a::`.^''::.`:,
';Vie`:•`-:+, .•.�.� y + 'u,
- ,�:• �;�'.:say;t:;�;,�;;' ��::;� ;_',�,��'RAuxonn_ A vFxIDCERonn '(�-. :yt�,
Z. . .. ......
' � 41..:, '��:..s`#.,..1.-.+ i+!'i .Jai .�ti' s rnS •:t.�.. .y,.,;.e..,.
' � :•,�_�� p�:iCh:,,w:•:+�•: nS"+,s.":�`1M fir, .,.�h:•'r�.,v.!.;: :r:'.:..- .
qS
�, ':;C, r�' �''�i ,..a:,'ai:i:�;'�• l. .,t,iii", i•i;+��:•�:•7'�ti. iM;,: ,.x :�.:A'�'.=+•i''t�'`•.i:��'�.
-'i' ,�''I, ,',(��r ';r.;..a r." 1'lFi:l.. , ;� '�;�y f' lt;�L• , r �'
�� �,S•. Ise Urck: ,�'';,�, �� ,,.. �,
2000,.x,.�,. .
,
��,.;'.: '•:;5�,:: ��(" '.p '>.p: :JO. F' '371.,, _ -":a,,., .
r
W
*��r.�,:��' f '' {:. .i :� .L +�a�,� `.l Fj' Ly.`��1' ::f1•,tl:, ''�1]Y�':q'.""_,..�,.r,#?:
Mul
. .. „�.:,..,,�, .]-':Y'r ,t'ar.-•r. --- -----i.;:;. :r,,' ;•rl. ;�`;1]
....................................................... - •.i.fi,,1•'i'}_'.;y.; .
,71F•'X:.1.'�•'••, •� rtiyar�`I';�r f,•,rA':'irrgar.�'aL�'i•�t,ii
•S.Z`-''y� is
n For.m ��..f., :':r�:. ly.
C.D.m m•.e .�•'
.r; ♦
x�• �'t
:. .?!�. ..7' j:s't:,..�•�•��
�:�;:�:j;~,,•.;;:',' ..:K':�. �'Cbra` R'd s. .P'tirR 'x,. .,►•'. al .... � ..-`Sr.�:
..1;:,�..>:�� ':�•�e•S'�U.. ..•t:#n�'ra ,� .4. _,�;7. ,#4�xL.1, .F'S!:.. .4 ,tr�'r��,:, .
Am
k �. N ;Please waste down;azry commerrts,quesEtons'and ideas you'd to with...........
project team
,-g'.. writ, •r.W .'v.. 'tcxr•:;: ,.-r,;+w:_-::. i: -,.3;.:? arnatvc:.•:trtk!t�k4t(•: ;, R,:� Garb rdQVit�.va:.y?
d''. com'1 :this comment.form as you vet the uiforma�o�.staaons d listen to the presentaao
P,.`..•..,�bi..-t;:r=:r;A•i y' A 'tt�l isi Y'_: c�o„gr'� •l.su=U;itpi54.�Y :�he priT�6{ti.:; ati'
l Please return rt to`tlie si =iri table'at theend of:tom+ is meehnou also mall orf
a : .
this fomn toc:Paul IVlaxwell,oCTA;•1340,Treat Bly .Sutte lS�;Waiut:Cree 9459Er'fax
•N 1510 938-3.993 November 22;2000: , ����, F �;,�'�• r �
l
;�!,' �.•.fii,��rF.. _ :;t .�•��•rr."��•x11 a;�s+♦, e�
.::...:...: y
:: -...,...;.•.�: :::.` qtr.' ';,� y.t:r n'a�;.;,} ..�+` 3s. :t....•, n- -A• •..F•_tE
. - - /�, (1n.�LOC•!�IA.:.• '?•.WAR 011*7g i:
#„ttt,ey 'r„k. v� .:N• � `'l::::jj`,�•. :�'3' � I
•'�t” ��Y::''-lr'�1�.,yT,,T :.+��, � i�� :i' Fi''k•� �� ;r y n. ..i„
;.i.'
"�.,.:' ..f_ .'Y.s{{ 'Op rt,y!.l _j•: Z 7•• '+�'. :T a
,.T}
dui. :•f."r`'. ;n '.S, �y�,:�t,may rv�� 5 '4. ♦.� p
. T
�'/ ,y
- r
:t. .-nt c<, .,�:" ,'i._1.. ':i•;,.�-r:f=. '':f. •;�,,IP)';:,;;�,. , .� Iv. , �:tL. �' ,.m�u�:y���i.:`i'•�
• �� - .A.' ',F. �.r.•.� ,,'_4,'1'7.°. t�•�� .Y'r' `r' .:fiY.lf.• `'i.,,q�.::,
.. _ .,s:. .:f�,. .a.'�{.en'� .:y.°'�_]� f y+!',.i�pp;• QS.�'�::d; }.. .�, ww f,3• -'�.tt:,:.�:..
��_
3.
.. .... ...:.. ::.
- ` F
T:k f
f' -
- i.
.3
`r
- f
7
l
4•
.;.. •fir''- c ,.
.h
- .Yv.
:;1•:':,l y' 1. •.r..
•
i -
.r�V''S
1•' j� C 44
\'f,.'i�.
t *t
is`;!• � ,
r
`�.:. - l'I:'''- i,j:" :':f:h'�•i n.,Y4`'�:.'1: 1•,•1 .t,i, .. .. 1
r•�/ � ':fix. 4; '�,.x:�' -r...:; � ._.. .
1_0 l
ko LAs.� ren 6JI"' �L's11�'�"S �j C
Name: /`qJ�/y_ (J�
�ra! �rJ�.JL •�vim'` Y � C�✓`
Address: 3/ 51-( L,,1•..Q ��- ;� t :t-d �- �-�-�-
"
Nov 29 00. 09:56a' Mark Thomas & .Co. Inc. 19259380389 P. 5
11/17/00 13:11 FAX 510 845 8750 MOORE IACOFANO & GOLTSYA la004
STATE ROUTE IDENMG PRojECT
RAHRQADA E ROW
Pubi `
ung
Thursday, i6,2000
6• :30 pml
..._ ........................_...__ ._._...._._.._..._.. ......._..._...._..._.........,......._._..................-- ...._.
Comment Form
Please wz=down auy co==ts,questions and ideas yoei d&e to shm with the project ream by
completing chis coaunwt form as you visit the infacmation stations and listar to the p wen Uait=
Please r euim it tothe st 4n tabic at the end of u nigl�ct's meetiag. You may also mal or fax
chis form to: Paul XmsAl CTA,1340 Treat Blvd.,Suint 150,Wal=Creek,CA 94596;fax(925)
938-3993 by Nonmbcr 2:4 2000.
/;�E
mac*`- �'O-ux`•�J� �ry 15' i,:r c 5-2
N
_ ,t,. .tt''p:t;�f: ...„n':.;:. S.'� •rr,::+.'.ivi t.•il�?' ,�`rt r.,. •;i• .;j ��( r�,,r��.ry..C:i
!� ,J' .�.�1 yC}•�'•T .�f�•l�•�,q ��
::i.1:p } •F,•r,,' .'�•"•',''47�yiilt,'yr,}!,1'i --id ;,�;�.,•Y`� .•19 ,x., "4•�:R.' +illi'?'/: ,!�.','•1�},,tt:7.�..� .lt,y�c : �>:.
;` `�:,.IY':4' :,�v,;: .,�,;;C1'•t v:''. ,•C �F"�-^"h�� Y.'�l�' I�f+� 1`' y`, +, -t/'�• +l�Lt`E }
;'1,l.k.: :�..• - 1':? ,.Fil!,..:..1:,,t'nl}:4,i�• 'P s4� •,/.. 7 }x, �- .Y ,;X,, -1.
- ,.,.Y.:;- :i;�`:};i...:,1-r:6:�':• .',Sr'.;`.�:�' `.J��, 1.
�• ,t
IDE PROJEC
.; ,. STATE'ROUTE I�TING`
.!J:K {,',1 ;;x:, ay."i�:,:` ✓. S':�;' 'i,'j1 :r• .'.`�j,{f71Ci'AC184'fy'�ryi:Y{1F`: . `+Kf�etts,e,.htd+r.,.el.;,•'..�q:,•r•....p' _: ..:.
�MM'21"y„Y,,.,.��; 'Fv�#. .+, .Yr '" `��; WRAIIROAnA OVERIDGEROAD a +'a�i�_.-
t-:{i.',• - ''1 .i t.�: :.f. ,:b•F,tJ,i 3IY'< �j' ty `.�' 'A( C,`iv -
:;S•'1 '� '�Y'r ^}:(t 'ri:::i�.�.I.•J# �' :tV}�iMfip. '�. ��,`!-.K.,.
- .r;��' ••�-?�S'%'t'' �'f':�'�41:t':�.:: ,:9. "U; SO,-,
: ...
_ �.-. I�� +:":�1.,,.'i-:M: :b *••�y?+ ,thy.yy a�ti1, }5h:i..y ��..;:r-..,,'
.y:' ,�..�T�� '� .1.• OJ Z 4.1,'••��. �j1,T r'�.� "•4,( 7 il.',•t .�J..���'�::�.
'i', '�li�.j�'' .-�:1(': `•�ir„• .�r' 'rs!:Ft j ,"ri. {L,.;U'M.,, .;y'•35aI�:
• ,t:� :';lj:•r�y..,
;.lr .- •y.;f„ •
U .i *ler::l(: » s2000Y, a ,� _ •t.J��t� t':-•'t' •'���%'`�,J:
;a �:. u •}:
.. - ''r'.'J�:, }�1r,f'y.��ta,y,Fu,��!�'�ti (p .F�;��•�•}e. �r' YhR`,:•:.'
:.i�%��^'�:<�.A!'t'�'fQ ,. �Vf �'of •W� �
��
f„
!�!::� :+`•.. h ;a?. :�;.t-3.4•:Y.,.,a;,..�: >;;;':".'rs�l-,.,•e3;t ie'��:mx�i� t1:. 'rv6'i�t�ii::,/a:•.!:1�1,� ..d• 'L<:��;`
yk
•', :...........
� `tFi et1 r• •Y••ya. 'V�` .u,.;�';�rc..
..........................
•'`'.i, '1177• '.�j' +�•Ir;P�';n�,�y'.J.,.:,.....,�!:�,:
.. �','i'e :.!i•, •a Lc;'::S`w� + r�/�, '�f 1�y',{yy�"�V.��'F
}L Y• _ -'
_ •`� y-��-.�' .......�
COM m:;e:�
".::' -::,'.,:,�� :.'. .. ::-� - 1•;}:: 1',M,.;a6i'ry4sr..:t�. A'iA.•.A.;;ay.yti r!!yg`,S"!6\+...FW P,}J.fi' � J
' +:t Please:write down any,comments, . •ons grid i I M, ou'd to. ro
>,• - -fif >ti'. C'.ct'M)C:r: yQ7'.q !',a.'.
.•k:. .�A;i.':t .r•: . . a.,�T��t>�•# S��.tlt9tl".>",: :[i}?' '. y:;..�- sti*< •4 .��
::...
}" completing this comment form as yo vmt the.u�ormataon stations and�Sten;,to the presentaao
�tIY.: l(rifrtM+2•j`�Lti. t::t': .,��•�'a6i4R�%....:tc!} ' ` +,�j"�'
.Please return it to toe's -in table•at the.end of tofu t,s meetin fou also mai o
uite
,:.,. this form to: Paul IVTaxwell;OCI` -1340 Treat Blvd'�.5" `:150 :W
938-3993 by November 22 2000w�
r ..r.-.
•Y Y� t.
G`I' . ,7 t'f'� +.1�k:*";•?.::''•;"'
�,..,(!
t•;..:1'J`•f.7r. �'7' A.,,�,{��Y.. •1..
11
✓ v
.,+� :tr
.. .: .. . ..._..
:::•�st�...Vit: ,�Y � `�lIQ}�4
. ' d =, � -.4 ,,,..,.;.;,••..
=�
- � •4:t'1
r:
C1YL
IV
C
2
,r• •Ii.
i
�� 11�t .`,�:~: :�n i' .4- �.s,..:r✓�•' •JPiJ"'.tY�)`,;k.'.•:1A�:'•.1�!':.,,'.�,:�� _ .4 -t.. ,
..,.. •f:I!n 1 �,1 j':i,� ��':' .�.�. '?)rl��:.vim:."$.:.; # S:t, f:
� N,�,�. '�Ti`r'.,)�•,.��'.�:-y� f�����'�i:��: ,iL• , 1yi.. ,;.�,�•rs .,...,r�!% f�+t�,.:ti,h�:�' ,
�� 1� , V.''':�i� .rS%�:'p:��t;+,�[>:t'i,1,� ,vi:.''- :;v:;�r.. �.:y,,i':i'�iyi ietnVt, .�te 4.;�..•.ati!.: SM it R..
{•.��
eiy�li..'J��' .,/;- '7 :'YS',• :'di. '��"�..:.•, �:�V��!,i�i•"•'. "M,.' :+.s;,
. '�'rv.l,: `;7;-'t:mak. `('y Kf!.� �?1At R'1'`��::...I'L*�.1•
i
N
v.. Y.1•
i';ii•w v.+ - •':P,f:...;,j .1;.�:...;s..,,. - :1:• ::v'.
If
.`,tcl"rr.
: i,.{•r...l:t•+'F "{_'' 'Q,.:;{.,,5 ':.' c r..:.{• � �!; •1: �"4, `rT, � 17E.�!.0"7:.:
.t.
Wflo
�p�.Y`Th 't J
tJ.
:.1'.;1;.:.1::'•ai Xz,
.d r'
r�
.r
.Y••� :�
Name: G G! — CL444 Treace-r e V-
Address:
T:
r
S
i�.'. .;Ir :•!rr"' �'ti+:�:Y s:.,•[,..L.M,��•y!.;.�•.!�':. �'J_:r'� �:v.�',n.Y wa':S } ;f .� !
:Wi
;: r ;:• �.. x ,.- i":STATE ROUTE IDE
NING�PRO EC �
`!.h' +t`y1.5.,,ti.`ti : ,ir.'•.,�p1��'N'r' d ,dr.,,�..i•a�:���p�I/Jd!$�''k16W: '4e4J�e�f!'fYIMIR,kaliaY,i4dlyp'R�+..
:.i �;:���',::.:.:;;. ``: ,;:a::::.;:-•�:.. .;..... �+�•',.;A`'}"ItnitstOnn-A
VER IDGE RO
i:a• ', _ .l� _ ...4,•,11{�ry�
' � 1,} •l.. p.. 0. .r SOY.,.�'hk11'y j:.. r;�t't1.'�-,•(::.
1 '
�Pubi
1 ,
,
- pp '1
y Yw `
.y,:�i> •':r.•':! stir':� g g! no!.
y.
:,if"
�r.
---------
f------------------------ :•`
t
�
:•. _ .air. �':�.:C o m�m-ei n .:o:r m�� . pt
..............a�,r .....skylk9ti+i►�4�t ?kJ�a. � �I.:.,,,
rs,� C l m' . k y: i.,,• •'tir::c.'.
Please write down any;commons as i �VTou_ roes rt'
" 'compleung this comment forimn a`s. ejnformation'statao an t 'the resentatio 4
:. ... - ..... .. ,yrl�„�:'• yy�g�pS� a%#;w�'.>.., titi►,. }9gpn.- i51�;c
-in table at.the end`{ofFtorugli s meetm '
Please return ittditlie'sigri t. ouf also or' '�:
ter;...,
Wafnut Cree19459�;, au 925
flus forni'to::`Paul Maxwell;CCI•A;MO Treat Blvd--Swte'15v'.
938-3993 by November 22;2000: " �
4 : '
"d�: •p���,� ♦ ti. 1 t:` �i:.., .v!:�t1F K :1�'� /'
.ef+ iis;�:4•+: C Y;; :JF..a'•d:.��.. :. •.ir'';.:.. rr� �•: i' .r �, !. .\. :�x't�.':�..:.
+ ' ,�!1•�,a ,r ..j:if �::. w:.,..
:'L- .I,, erg '^•rf'�.c,'i'c�,• r::''3;'",�'a'in
min'he€ i ' '''��P"` ! Stff i'tiak• ''!' .
>, - .?.• ;a•' f.�F•�;'�?
VV
x i ,thy •�'i+`,H'S d!.?�j',,' s
�k,,., :fj'r;;!•'l'��. T 99i>:�'
.. -� :l'1� !•T,:i: �{,.�.'- .fit i. .1,1�_f'.�.'.l,Jil�.. ���!G;:�-ice, .LL
. '•!.'.ci:' f'F•:,::r'.i:�:' �i';' .A��,';•f;+ .:!''i;r,•:'r:ti i�.'.r:\. �i'i:::�ti�.:��:.� �... ;:t:'>�� �''`�i�'�;� _
60
{ .
_x
Y '
F
�vr
11'
f
1.l' !?'
/.: :'i.";;:F"1.•. 4:` .rty1c+: �.Y. y„Y .S r, I. tf ,., %�Hf'+i:syi; C 7-2
/
c'�',i f
j .�e+'r�=.. :4 ,�;. � ,✓',,;eit;i^3:f:/.
'��:: i*!..� •,Y. r '� .1St' '•$` J ,'1•' ,tr
•tvS^r:
r
J. y..
IC'
••,?'�•-f'<'7••.tY-;•'- ,�?:'.. .fix'; i!..;�,'',:t�• ,r.• -af• .: .;,r.y;i'_
.'1"4'':.'•I...:�i% •'�iA:J�t?n'... 1., r.\.,.,..'�.- q-YI" '.Y.� �I4."''�•i':,1, ;.,.. .
. r'• ' ����J•` :''i�-;.:�.'i�A.<::-'.:"• ,/.c�;;1•!' -,.;�Ay. J� �i�1. '>� .air•:��vli' V ..�... 1. ...
.�� .` . : ./,�_.:^ �' v�r° ••F:11�.r rkr f �}� .'�., ....r+. .f,n 'n 'J•'•�u�:�`�...
UVJ'PJ,N�„ ?`.�•y�� `'�.' Y.."k. '�. . .
�1'Cr••4... •1-?.!q } �S f.!:;"..: ��;r;
1i...it .1�_,.i...7J �i .j,( 1.�4f-. '.i'•.. ,.y /..,:,:
Name:
Address:
Nov 28 00 09:57a Mark Thomas .$ Co. Inc. 19259380389 Pie
11!17/06 15:12 FAX 510 845 8750 XOORE IACOFANO & GOLTSMA: 0007
4
STATE ROUTE IDEIVING PROJECT
RAII XOADA E Raw
Publ jn
g
�6,2«>0 1
6: 30 p.tn.
«wwi Niii-r«.....wwNiwwwwN.wi«.�+.•....«....r«« .wi...rwr«.wNtiw.«...w...w.w.NliNwMw..r......Niwwr...wriwiwy....w. -
Comment Farm
�aNNiww........wN
Please write dawn aup Comm e�s,dons and ideas yeed Idre to share wirh the pmjea team by
(=*led%this conunw t form as YOU visit&information=tions and 1%rm to the preseata4on.
Please r two it to the sign-in rabic at the crud of toauigbt's wasting You may also n ug or f2X
this form uz Pani.MorweZ GCM 1340 Trait N d,Suite 150,Walnut Q=%CA 94596;fm(925)
938-3993 by Narexuber 22,20c*.
raj LO or
7 curreIVT PR) CJAj Iny, a C8-1
v CLd a 171 r 1 scud V !
0 N l 1A 0 uoo-'„� ) n) a IV 4 p u- -' �k) ACL P p4jtl'l X/ C 8-2
15Gt S.f PfL 1 0. - 'OI,Vre- "-Vn'p- Olu -!
eo aA CQe Se
Y \ 1-vv IC a. a. wa Lee41_
CA--, Y,r, rerg S+Mee C 8-3
- WihName �� �f/�Jok
b�e
707` Z119 7s e,� / .
Mov 28 00 09:58a Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. 19259380389 P•9
11/17/00 13:12 FAZ 510 845 8750 MOORE IACOFANO & GOLTSKA 0008
STATE ROUTEMOM PROJECT
RAtI.>zqu►D A OVUM=Rcaw
r Publ ing
may, 16,20W
• :30 p.m.
.Comment Form
Please wf*e dawn any Comments,qucstivns and ideas you'd Me to share wub the project team by
completing this comment form a$you vtsu the information nations and liMM to the p Um=on.
Please return it tb the sign-in table at the end of tnnigltt-s meeting. You may also marl or fax
tris form w: Paul Maxwell.OCTA,1340 Tact Bhd,Suite 150,Walnut Creek,CA 94596;fax(925)
938-3993 by November 22,2000.
ecc-
-27
ICY, 4�
r � . s
rName: C,r�, Gl• ��xi/.�iihra. err -���,j
i
r
�'"i'.-.' •:.,.4 Lr�',�;�4'•.�,• -� ,•1,\.:11�::......•ir,Tw.�"rF��(: 17 M1•tF ���•"S�f F
,+,, r.;i. �:., r{„ ..:(.fr:i.}.�.rl,;il.�,• �'.'i':yi�`1;.3��±^:' :S+ b
..'r:' .:,w.i:a;S:y n:� t,., �,+.�;�`�.�.: •,4 1%°T,; ��',> 2Y}':�. +^,y� .My .( '7�
_ .. �`:,��::•�.r;;:!4:..• wer(.,:i:�7ri ..,r..,,;...::,,fw,. :�;'••R)<• '.r, F:' .•j• :�..
'riq Yaf'.
OP
:t. :e.;+
STATE ROUTE
IDEI�1INGrPROJE
•(,_.Alt, ::��y:. YAC Y., �,�,<;� �:.,rr,'.'. ri !,
" i.;`'.r}.1 �•::i:, =,t tri ,ey `.Y• •t4.;,r� ,, RA¢RROAD�A vERIDC`EROAD
::r.-� �•j�•�Y N�:, i �;ti..,. tp5a �1,}yy 1'y,1 r�{,� .!/y�,r. /����
. :Y•.! r.. :a
�M
6 a�}
C
a,.
n
1 T°'•'
k•:W i
Pub ��7b
F
a":'^'• 6:'::.yn•,:l:i�. c.r..._ il:�•`.y��'li7..Y 1. f'�,t' S' �'•.:
.:''1:'.� :�:t:•f�::;a:�.'kt�- ���i��:�:.,.:_. .:.'�':1•{ N �.y'i .�jat
,'� �'r' ctr-,n t'4'^ :,i.,•w,�YM':.,,:•�►7-�(_ ^i t �,rf ,
,.� "f.:r::..:�I:t,.1 �..:.tr,n 4:,:7.;''.,111 .1 '-'ZOOM Iy ° •,�'
41
CTA
r t i'<.
30
atA'• f.`:�'' :.�.� 'J� );,' :=fir;;=•• p -6�
uii ..'\ .a-�t�....r:.i'I' '� •„
.... ����� . ;
•a':: • •� �: .,;(+JS`•dr... `S'i'RM,�•a `••11;•r <f: .: ):,�:!`�-''.?=t�:• r.,•• t•
- �+
mMent:, , ® rm . :�t
f ✓ S
�,{�� M t
W•'
_ .t^.,:.'.: +�::::' fi::'� fi .,S?..v ..k'?6. .1.f,w•:'11+Y";I ..�'r ^� :�'�7'•.
.•�6 '�fi�!':'.t'�-n.,.•�.�'ti%�4�•��rM�•1'!G+.?,`:'•*�"f+,'��,�-,'/C?.:� �S1' •.......... ... ..... ..••••• ••••
Please waste.down•acry comments questions_and ideas.you- to.$ es th ro ect team -
t , u.•
. .-.. .....: ',.:, .. ,e'. :er,.•:.. .arA.J,c*aJ�3�'am�:•:aaXisfF.191"•::� iXry� .�part•!r�lfkaf...�'�r.' t?r.•:•.i..
completing lth& omment form as.you'visit tbe.information stations'andrLsten to.the resentatio
•:sl:;'.Y,2Ni�i'' :,.'a`rr:. .:,r.-.,:r,:.••rr..�>�::y;c'r ,1;,}•: .+hr•,c '.n..., i�:..,t,.•�+ypr;h$ +'r 0F!,tri.;:.. �
Please return it to;the sign=in table a the•end of tori t s meehnpp You also ot
..}:):; ,',r.. •,ti., a '. J. ,�.ma�}' .4 rF.• .kYr•ti.:
vac r: r.••'.i ... .. �..
flus forni fo:•Paul Maxwell;OC!•A 1340 Treat Blvd:,Suite'.150`:WalnutCreek,CA 94596-x(925
2 .+.fkr'.S'rl.!.',+i`�:yL r•f.' 'yir��7:�{:- 1• : •'L r13 '. ^C 'i:`1�Y'...
938-3993 lay Novem
ber 22000:
•'.r'r„ _ LGitil�f}•.,`aJ�t F '2,r,i,7r,< 1'•^ .h. �,5� .1..'r
':,}: .F)ry;rf,,�'y+:tV .i.v�•i' .fS1.'.,s�.•::i r,::r;;:� C' 1 y'yr.•i::i.;?,'.:r�- t 7� '-�` —
{,ilti3'r i ��ryry ,r' "R4r?. 'r a �{ Vii).;.:...•..:,; +i SNI :,;' �•'
.t,.S"T:1Y:: , Nlw. ....;t, 1 _t. .F�• - k/ r •{': C 'e..a• I;.
./�'�-�l :S`•!a?�r..:.a-,r..y MHr.ka.aj�i py.�^t
� ;,)� ,r: ��::..y:t': :.t::'•!ti:.4Z':`�i4' ,�: d .:'!4r' �,Y YlA., ij .?:. I•:
JV
� k :: c is.
iA'V +.rt::•V'{J�,.. •tt:; ±� S 1:=4:'[ { _r' y�,�r,1 I,, S-,,,11),,r -
:. �` V/��// C r .S:r: fh,� `tirw'Itrz\.:-�. .; �!• 4'..� k ��-�'D,SI� �.WiR..'Y. �t
-�:: - "�.� .'f.+•)' r-j:.w-: •,r; _ '1- rc.;: :�•,.. ',°,ti.(�;` ;5` � ��/,•i.
:t• r.u` ;'a., .;1!{4.0 ,g':+�: ?''�3,`<�::•:y w.� 'Q •+" •\.7u >�
r ,
":P1" w •k. rY�
z
AV
q+� i
:F7
r-;.:: •�'�.ti:,+ :::q'••`.j::•.:�yr .j't _+i ;:i��'- ::..�({�.'n3::cr: tirp S7,'r:..•.:
2
.. .. :.:,.. ...•.:....1. -
Nom:��ft;', in r .K+�,. P(J V i. r<rti7;�,�.1• *r� ,f'(r�y.' .':. ..�: :
t;r,,r.t' �.,�p� r`Ati•\ {.t5.:y.t';�'ij'�. '�; 'X•i�;1ti-• K:
'•tt :firs .5. :; ., r S.f r?' '�I.
'j`'t: rt• �jy:/'�i"ry.,y.•4F�'' e���•'tC�t7 i ,.ai,•.
•d% Al. ;A..r.F,. .:e•,:.I�M,N-kc1.F'G: �t.
.-
A OL
f <;1,: 17s .S?!•n :fir-...1.1,..1. :,�.:e �rr,Y S'
l.�
oe.sfn7 ;fir" .• a yy � .,di;.
. ����/� "r..:, r ti\ '%+'iJ::'''.�--'+:•':y?i�i�"'�?'� :''�3�• 'L�'.,.. �trr,�;rr,,^: -
���/. ' ''cY,�:,�' %:<', .;`::{..fit•:�... `:'i�i,:`.� fa'' ,:r�.,.. b ,'�o; t' r�,,b`f�l.. •,8,.��..
'W;-`i "•+� rii�ii+.:�iTly :4 fj�:' �
:4 1.
/l �•
.:i:• _. _ V•�.. qtr: i:.j.:a _.:'f'.x.43 i.: - rel `
• A'i):t "Now
�.'i.:• SSI.. ':4'r� •,'Y.!•�.. 4..,a, .k'.�Y,ML' �4f'
Name:
Address: '
i
Received: 11 /17/00 14:55; 4329939 -> CCTA; Page 1
11/17/2000 13:58 4329936 AMERICAN AUTO BODY PAGE 01
' STATE ROUTE IL7ENING PRO
RAIL:ROADA VERIDGL J { '
� ROAD'=''�, r.'. .r, �.?" �••.
a' `' Wit:.: '`': "• _-nX.
�+.:• ,•V 4::.•',//'�� '"'++„tri..,,-,
ubi ungJ,
{•til*•.•I•Y * �� )
ursday, bei , 2000
6: ,-:. ;
*, is
:30 p.m. 3 � .f. :�•:
>�"o
' ...........«••••••ww.•wu:•w•«.•.•....••..«•« .•.1...........iuw.••w.•:.•........ ..............:.•••NwN.bwiildi' •..........
o rri m e n t: Fo r rJ : :
' ... ........w... .. ......... .. ... _maJ�y• °� �N ��
«.w.w. ww:... .www.• .u•w.iiw •w..: wwwww.w.«...••w•.....�i.oii'iAuw•��Yiir f iiili,,.. ��'/
Please write down• comments questiotis and ideas you'd Likc to shate`a►itli eft s
completing this comment form as you visit the information stations and listtn 4 res
' Please return it to the sign-in table at the end of tonight's meeting,'>''S�oii ''� '"` ' 'ot.
this form to Paul Maxwell,CCTA, 1340 Treat Blvd,Suite 150,WilmiC'reek;C:l1 96,r#
938-3993 ^a
b7'November 22,2000. � ,�.,• ',, _ "� >�•'
�� A 'Y..Fi: .e.. •T •''•� Yt
�i �� IOW£RS.. iJ��/licAn ,:�wa•o bd0� iGf.,9sd�s;:_ �, � ii:.
•�; rFR: ej' C 11-1
1 y :
_ �..74 `.� �.. fir•.
V... ... .i.sky:• %'
` •kf�,.
:' '.s .. ii^"S:'•; '. a `''�•.
Name r!,ES: /SS En z
AL,
i
STATE RoiTIE� ronvnvG PROJECT1
RAaROAD A mGE ROAD
Publ ng
Thum*, 16,2000 '
6: 0 pm.
M.ww.w .....waw..•w.N.•ww...wr...w.......... F N1N.NNN.•.w•.r�. ww...ww.ww.....IN.ww...�..N.
Comment Form
Please ratite dawn mp comtaeat% que==and ideas ycdd Bw w sbare Wick rhe project team by
eompleaag this cw==form as y oa visa the information sowi=and Escen to the prese=zdoa. '
Please retro it to'the sign-in table at the end of tonigWs meeting. You mai►also=a or f z
this form toe pawl Mantuan,CM,1340 Trac Blvd.,Suite 150,Wokur Crede CA 94596.,fix(925)
938-3993 by November 22,20M. n L
^/M et D H -(C4 M D t ro,+� ��t l wad A✓, i✓o o lo(/ a e f ecv- o .r wi p e�c ,
I 6 C 12-1
UA�T �Iza�ra✓� . Access +� �vt�re ad �fi
5-14 Fie;,
1 s ILco meKl .
/ / P +(�c j2u;1 �r, e ? �� sd, vel� �li�
Id ' �� ct�ce55 �� /0✓IAeQ pro" �, C 12-2
' II
� E�t17
ex)ulKL e ) .
Co � t.'O(e �
�'�� 1�1f .C�O55 i✓ci/lG aT ��ttt Qd'SIf�Ot�°�¢ fR`"►P ��
✓��vwte/? n gyp/) [ �J / ,
e o,n-0,'-p Q. mO✓ecL achif dT e .DAkT fir ,N9 e W(25f O R"?dre'iR
+ ' ;5 �'1 Q o')U , � " . I a�W
(Al e- ,peG(es�r ,a h br�'�ye � J r�� �✓1��.nr� ,Jz
1 . (�1 ' vv1- rte ne dTTi ✓Q (�/ `t('T2G� iT . c12-J
�pJ�� ��e ✓er+,cct� p ry C� e r Th
res611 tvV
1 s`'� ,e51 ref6c"l,yr O� e SQK�ec,�e 012-4
Ld►1S�(Gich�-s�
.j'011o4l•lnq UK�QG�2uSC
J �"ew��ora rY
i6 I
SS6 Luco�� ; Cf. z5) ��� zS-o
i
' Comments Excerpt from Court Reporter's Transcription
4 MR. OHLSON: Ole Ohlson. For Mitigation Measure
' 5 No. 1, found on page 5-2, we're talking about pedestrian
6' access to be provided to the Albertson's Supermarket, I
7 have no problem with that. I want to see bicycle access R 1-1
8 also provided to the Albertson's Supermarket. In fact, I
9 want to see bicycle access provided from the cul-de-sac at
10 Frontage Road through to Crestview Drive and then onto
11 Railroad Avenue.
12 With the economy in such good shape, we now have
' 13 the wherewithal, as well as the desire, to create new
14 pavement. I would like to see this new pavement friendly RI-2
15 to all citizens and travelers, not only to those who
16 travel with the use of internal-combustion engine powered
17 personal transportation vehicles. Particularly, I am
18 concerned with bicyclists.
' 19 Right now the Frontage Road is a very
20 bicycle-friendly access road from Crestview Drive, which
21 has a bicycle lane on it all the way from the south end of R 1-3
22 the city at Buchanan Road all the way down to Frontage
23 Road.
24 Now Cal-Trans and the Contra Costa Transportation
25 Authority are going to whack up Frontage Road and create
0003
' 1 the freeway. I got no problem with widening the freeway, R 1-4
2 but I do not want to lose this bicycle-friendly access
3 road from these bicycle lanes on Crestview Drive over to
4 Railroad Avenue.
5 Now, on page 5-2, we're talking about mitigation
' 6 measure No. 2, and you're saying you're going to revise
' Page I of 7
i
1
7 the current bikeway master plan to include an additional ,
8 bike route. that would go from West Leland Road down to the
i9 freeway overcrossing on Railroad Avenue.
10 I got no problem with revising the bicycle master
11 plan. I would like to see Cal-Trans become financially R 1-4 Con'[ ,
12 involved with making sure that not only this bicycle
. , 13 master plan .gets created, but also bicycle lanes g6t
14 installed on Railroad Avenue from West Leland Road down to
15 'the freeway overcrossing on Railroad Avenue. ,
16 Along with widening the freeway, which I have no
17 problem with, I would like to see a little bit of ,
18 Cal-Trans money spent on putting a bicycle lane on. a
19 parallel .street to the particular section.of freeway that '
20 is being widened, the optimum street would be California
21 Avenue, it extends from Railroad Avenue down to Loveridge
22 Road, California Avenue extends from Railroad to R 1-5
23 Loveridge, and also the widening program extends from
24 Railroad to Loveridge. I probably made a mistake in there
25 but they will know what I mean. I want bicycle. lanes on
0004
1 California Avenue, please. '
2 I've already spoken with Susan Miller at CCTA, and
3 she says, "Well, " and shrugged her shoulders, "this is a '
4 City of Pittsburg project."
5 Well, that's fine. Let's put some CCTA money with '
6 the City of Pittsburg project to make sure that we get
7_ bicycle lanes on that street. I'm not asking for millions
8 of dollars, 100,000 would be enough, I'm sure, bicycle
9, lanes are only four feet wide. ,
Page 2 of 7 '
' 10 MR. CEBALLOS: Steve Ceballos. I have two
11 questions.
12 Question one is, are they going to look into R 2-1
13 utilizing the space that is set aside for BART for traffic
' 14 until BART comes out to -- comes out past Bailey Road?
15 Second question is I want to make sure that the
' 16 traffic problem on Railroad Avenue at Power Avenue, at
17 that intersection, is properly reviewed and addressed and
R 2-2
18 are they looking at putting in a traffic signal.
19 The other question I had really doesn't concern
20 this phase, it's on the current construction phase, and I
21 don't think I'll ask that one.
' 22 MISS SCHRUGGS: Tina Schruggs. I live at 307
23 California Avenue, corner of Clyde. I only rent, but I've
' 24 been there almost seven years, and it's really noisy R 3-1
25 there. People speed there. And it's already lots of
' 0021
1 traffic to go through there right now.
2 And I wonder why they wouldn't do something with
' 3 that road, because I know .it's not going to come out --
4 from what I was told, they're going to have the two lanes
R 3-2 .
5 as it is, and I seen on the layout they're going to have a
6 noise box right on the corner I'm on, and I was just
' 7 wondering why wouldn't they have put up some kind of wall
8 there.
9 I just know it's' going to be a lot more mess. I
10 already have a hard enough time getting out of the street,
R 3-3
11 and everybody on my whole street does, and the dust comes
12 in there and everything, carbonation, it's a really busy
' 13 street.'
Page 3 of 7
i
I R 3-4 con't
14 That's about all I can say. ,
15 MR. NATALE: Frank Natale. I have a business at
16 141 Clark, Unit A, Pittsburg. And these two individuals; '
17 Patty and Carry Christenson have their business on .the
18 corner of Harbor and Clark. Christenson Recycling ;is '
19 their business. My business is California Heartbeat
20 Licensing. '
21 What we have an issue is the environmental concerns R 4-1
22 that we are going to be taking into consideration for this
23 environmental study, how it's going to affect our
24 useability of our space, how it's going to affect the
. 25 useability of my electricity, I'm a manufacturer, how it's
0022 '
1 going to affect the useability of labor for people coming
2 to work and the access for trucks to make deliveries, the
3 • flatbed trucks, the semi-trucks, for delivering material.
4 I personally pay $35,000 for my electricity, my '
R 4-2
5 transformers that are on the corner of Harbor and Clark,
6 . and that service myself and service Carry Christenson. ,
7 Now, I understand the other businesses that are in
8 the buildings that we're in do not have certificates to '
9 occupy, nor do they have business licenses. I do and so
10 does .Christenson, that's why the two of us were notified '
11 about this hearing. R-4-3
12 . Now, when I spoke to the lady from the relocation, '
13 the officers from the relocation department of this.
14 project had no knowledge anything concerning us, and
15 neither did a Paul Maxwell in a letter to myself and my
16 attorney stating that we were not going to be affected by '
Page 4 of 7 '
17 virtue of what information they have from the City of
18 Pittsburg, and Paul Maxwell states that we don't have any R 4-3 con't
' 19 concern, but we do.
20 That's really my point.
' 21 MISS CHRISTENSON: I'm Maria Christenson from
22 Christenson Recycling, and we're on Clark and Harbor. And
R 5-1
' 23 we get about 200 customers a day, and we're just kind of
24 worried about if we're going to be able to stay open while
' 25 all of this is happening.
0023
1 MR. GARCIA: John Garcia. My concerns are, No.
' 2 1, and I'll start with the previous project that's now
3 existing, if you go west on the freeway past the PG&E high
' 4 towers there, we have a mobile home park there. They have R 6-1
5 not put a sound wall there whatsoever. And they can tell
' 6 me all they want about sound tests or whatnot, those
7 people deserve a sound wall there, and there's no reason
8 for that not to be put in.
9 No. 2, when you extend the freeway, all you're
' 10 going to do is put a bottleneck onto Leland Road. People
11 will be jumping off of Bailey Road, going down to Leland.
12 At the present time you only have three stoplights there
R 6-2
13 and one four-way stop sign. Once you close off Frontage
' 14 Road for those people, these people will never be able to
15 get out in the morning to make a left turn either way,
' 16 because that traffic will not stop for them.
17 And what you need to do as part of this project,
18 you've got to put stoplights in those intersections there
19 so people can get in and out of their neighborhoods. And R 6-3
20 that, in turn, environmentally with those cars going down
Page 5 of 7
21 that road, you are polluting a school, you're polluting a
22 neighborhood, and actually it impacts the businesses in R 6-3 con't
23 . our community, because these people will not pull over to '
24 get into.a business.
25 And Albertson's is going to be impacted, because '
0024
1 they will not drive into that parking lot and venture to
R 6-4 ,
2 come back out of that parking lot once that traffic's
3 coming through there in the mornings and the afternoon.
4 And if the politicians in this county and city ,
5 remember when we had the flood on Loveridge Road, every
6 street in our community was roadblocked. We were at a R 6-5
7 standstill. If we ever have an emergency, the same
8 thing's going to happen, we're not going to be able to ,
9 move.
10 And by closing off Frontage Road the way they're ,
11 doing and not putting in stoplights all the way up and
12 down Leland Road, you're going to have a bottleneck there, R 6-6 ,
13 and that's health and safety for the people who live in ,
14 this community now.
15 MISS CHRISTENSON: Maria Christenson. I
16 wanted -- I'm concerned about the useability of '
17 electricity, useability of space, warehouse space, the '
18 storefront space, the parking for the employees, the water
R 7-1
19 connection hook-up, the accessibility for the customers, '
20 the accessibility for the trucks that come to pick up the
21 glass, the aluminum, the plastic, and the trucks that take ,
22 it away. The place of the business, it's right at the
23 forefront of all this change. '
Page 6 of 7 '
' 24 We want to get a copy of that environmental thing. I R7-2
25 MISS JONES: Debra Jones. I have a question for
0025
t1 PG&E. I live off of Edward, and there's going to be a
2 Pacific Gas & Electric tower there, looks like two of R 8-1
' 3 them. What's the environmental effect of having those
4 towers there?
5 MR. LLOYD: Donald Lloyd. I represent Goff
6 Avenue. And the project is going to adversely affect what R 9-1
7 little is left of our street. And we're very concerned as
8 a neighborhood as to where the city is going in regards to
' 9 the disrepair and degradation of our neighborhood. Just R 9-2
10 wanted to register that.
1
1
Page 7 of 7