PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Transcription

1 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT PIEDMONT, CALIFORNIA State Clearinghouse Number: Submitted to: Public Works Department City of Piedmont 120 Vista Avenue Piedmont, California Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California (510) LSA Project No. CPI0801 May 2011

2 This page intentionally left blank.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE DRAFT EIR Purpose of the EIR EIR Scope Report Organization ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS...2 CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT UNDER REVIEW SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES...7 CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT OVERVIEW PROJECT SITE Location Surrounding Land Uses Site Characteristics PROJECT OBJECTIVES PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS...23 CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES CULTURAL RESOURCES Existing Setting Regulatory Framework Significance Criterion Impacts and Mitigation Measures GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Existing Setting Regulatory Framework Significance Criteria Impacts and Mitigation Measures...63 CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Principal Characteristics Analysis of the No Project Alternative SMALLER UNITS ALTERNATIVE Principal Characteristics Analysis of the Smaller Units Alternative SUBSTATION REUSE ALTERNATIVE Principal Characteristics...76 P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) i

4 5.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION Relocation of Substation Building Fewer Units Alternative Off-Site Alternatives ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CHAPTER 6.0 CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Methodology Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Project GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES Changes in Land Use which Commit Future Generations Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources CHAPTER 7.0 REPORT PREPARATION REPORT PREPARERS REFERENCES APPENDICES A: REVISED INITIAL STUDY B: NOTICE OF PREPARATION C: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION D: GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE MODEL OUTPUT SHEETS P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) ii

5 FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location...25 Figure 2: Project Area...27 Figure 3: Proposed Project...29 Figure 4: Exterior Elevations...31 Figure 5: Landscape Plan...33 Figure 6: Photographs of Substation E...39 TABLES Table 2.A: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...9 Table 3.4.A: Existing Trees to be Removed...23 Table 4.2.A: Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases...53 Table 4.2.B: Project GHG Emissions...66 Table 6.1.A: City of Oakland Projects within One Mile of Project Site...85 P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) iii

6 This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) iv

7 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE DRAFT EIR Purpose of the EIR Piedmont Station LLC proposes to develop an approximately 0.4-acre site within the City of Piedmont with seven three-story over basement townhouse structures. A circa Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) substation (Substation E) located within the project site would be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. Substation E is an historical resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the June 2008 field survey conducted by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) confirmed that the building retains sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. The removal of this resource would be a potentially significant impact under CEQA, and this Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to address this impact. All other topics that were evaluated in the Initial Study were determined to be less than significant, and mitigation measures were included as required to reduce potentially significant impacts. These topics will not be addressed in detail in this document. As required under CEQA, potential impacts associated with global climate change are addressed in the Focused EIR because this topic was not included in the Initial Study. The City of Piedmont (City) is the lead agency for environmental review of the proposed project. This Draft Focused EIR, together with the Initial Study, does not provide a recommendation on the project but has been prepared to inform City decision-makers, responsible and trustee agencies, and the general public about the proposed project and the potential consequences of project approval. This Focused EIR also examines various alternatives to the proposed project and recommends a set of mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts EIR Scope The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) supported by the Initial Study notifying responsible agencies and interested parties that a Focused EIR would be prepared for the project and indicating the environmental topics anticipated to be addressed. The NOP was published on March 24, 2010 and mailed to public agencies, organizations, and individuals likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the project. A copy of the NOP and Initial Study were available for public review at the Office of the City Clerk at the Piedmont City Hall and on the City's website. Comments on the NOP were received by the City and considered during preparation of the Focused EIR. A scoping session for the Focused EIR was held on April 14, A total of 16 written comments regarding the NOP were received as well as several oral comments at the scoping session. The Initial Study was revised according to comments received during the NOP. The revised Initial Study is included in Appendix A, the NOP is included in Appendix B, and comment letters as well as a summary of the oral comments received during the scoping session are included in Appendix C of this Focused EIR. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 1

8 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION Report Organization This Focused EIR is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 1 Introduction: Discusses the overall EIR purpose and organization and describes the environmental review process. Chapter 2 Executive Summary: Provides a summary of the proposed action, identifies potentially significant issues and concerns, summarizes the impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project, and describes mitigation measures recommended to reduce or avoid significant impacts. A summary overview of alternatives to the project is also provided. Chapter 3 Project Description: Provides a description of the project site, project objectives, required approval process, and the details of the project. Chapter 4 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures: Describes the following for cultural resources and global climate change: existing conditions (setting), potential environmental impacts and their environmental significance, and mitigation measures recommended to mitigate identified impacts. Potential adverse impacts are identified by levels of significance, as follows: less than significant impact (LTS), significant impact (S), and significant and unavoidable impact (SU). The significance of each impact is assigned one of these categories (i.e., LTS, S, or SU) before and after implementation of any recommended mitigation measure(s). Chapter 5 Alternatives: Provides an evaluation of three alternatives to the proposed project including the No Project Alternative. Chapter 6 CEQA Required Assessment Conclusions: Provides additional specifically-required analyses of the proposed project s growth-inducing effects, cumulative impacts, significant unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible changes, and effects found not to be significant. Chapter 7 Report Preparation: Identifies the preparers of the EIR, references used and persons and organizations contacted. Technical Appendices: The appendices contain the revised Initial Study, NOP, comments on the NOP, and global climate change model output sheets. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS This Draft Focused EIR will be available for review by the public, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day comment period starting on Tuesday, May 17, During this period, the public is invited to submit written comments to the City of Piedmont. The City will also hold a public hearing on the Draft Focused EIR on June 13, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. at the Piedmont City Hall Council Chambers, located at 120 Vista Avenue. The public is invited to attend the hearing to offer oral comments on the Draft Focused EIR. Comments on the Draft Focused EIR may be submitted in writing to: City of Piedmont Attention: Kate Black, City Planner 120 Vista Avenue Piedmont, California kblack@ci.piedmont.ca.us P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 2

9 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION Following the close of the comment period on July 1, 2011 at 5:00 p.m., a Response to Comments document will be prepared to respond to all substantive comments received on the Draft Focused EIR related to environmental issues surrounding the project. The Response to Comments document will also revise the Draft Focused EIR, as necessary, in response to these comments or to clarify any previous errors, omissions, or misinterpretations of material in the Draft Focused EIR. The Piedmont City Council will receive additional public comment prior to certifying the Final Focused EIR. The Response to Comments document, together with the Draft Focused EIR, will constitute the Final Focused EIR. 1.3 PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS Two applications related to this project have been submitted to the City of Piedmont: D esign Review and Variance. Detailed plans and elevations of the project have been submitted for Variance and Design Review (Application # ), pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Piedmont Municipal Code, and are available for review by the public, agencies, and organizations. The application was submitted on March 28, 2008, and on December 16, 2010, was determined to be provisionally complete, upon receipt of the funds to begin processing the EIR. The application is subject to review by the Piedmont Planning Commission, who will provide advisory comments to Piedmont City Council. The City Council will take final action on the application. There will be at least one public hearing with the Planning Commission and one hearing with the City Council prior action on the project and EIR. V esting Tentative Map. An application pursuant to the State Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 19 of the Piedmont Municipal Code (Application # ) has been submitted, and is available for review by the public, agencies, and organizations. The application was submitted on February 25, 2011 and determined incomplete on March 23, The application is for a Vesting Tentative Map for seven condominiums, and once complete, will be subject to review by the Piedmont Planning Commission, who will provide advisory comments to the Piedmont City Council. The City Council will take final action on the application. There will be at least one public hearing with the Planning Commission and one hearing with the City Council prior to action on the project and EIR. It is possible (but not mandatory) that the applications for the variance and design review, the vesting tentative map, and the EIR will be heard concurrently at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. the to P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 3

10 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 4

11 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This chapter describes the proposed 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses Project (proposed project) that is evaluated in this Focused EIR and includes a summary of the previous environmental review that has occurred for the project area, issues raised during the public review of the NOP, unavoidable significant impacts identified as a result of the analysis contained in Chapter 4.0, and the alternatives to the proposed project that are evaluated in Chapter 5.0 of this Focused EIR. A summary of the impacts and mitigation measures contained in Chapter 4.0 of this Focused EIR is included in Table 2.A at the end of this chapter. 2.1 PROJECT UNDER REVIEW Piedmont Station LLC proposes to develop an approximately 0.4-acre site within the City of Piedmont with seven three-story over basement townhouse structures. The property is currently developed with an approximately 5,700-square-foot, two-story, concrete electrical utility substation that was vacated in The proposed project would involve: demolition and removal of the existing electrical substation building; removal of existing vegetation and excavation and placement of fill for the housing pads; construction of the seven new townhouse structures and associated development components; and landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project is described in more detail in Chapter SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The demolition of the existing historic substation building constitutes an unavoidable significant impact to a historic resource. Although impacts to the historic substation are partially mitigated with implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-4a through CULT-4d, impacts to historic resources remain significant and unavoidable. In light of the adverse impact identified pertaining to cultural resources, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be needed prior to project approval by the City Council. All other impacts resulting from the proposed project could be mitigated to a less than significant level (see Table 2.A and the Initial Study, Appendix A). 2.3 SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed project would not induce significant growth. In January of 2009, the population of Piedmont was 11,165 with an average household size of 2.88 persons 1. The proposed project would increase the net population of the site by approximately 20 persons (7 x 2.88 = 20.16). The additional 20 residents would represent less than five percent of the City s existing population. Thus, the 1 California Department of Finance Demographic Research. Available online at: (accessed 20 January, 2011). P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 5

12 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY population growth caused by the proposed project would not be significant compared to the existing population of the City. The proposed project would not construct new roads or infrastructure, or substantially increase the demand for jobs, schools, parks, public services or utilities. 2.4 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project would not cause considerable cumulative impacts when taken together with the Piedmont General Plan build-out and nearby projects in the City of Oakland, with the exception of impacts to Substation E on the project site. The proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to the existing historic substation on the project site, both individually and when considered together with potential impacts to historic resources from other projects in the area. Mitigation Measures CULT-4a through CULT-4d, contained in this Focused EIR, would reduce impacts to the historic substation, but not to a less than significant level. Therefore, project impacts to historic resources are cumulatively considerable. 2.5 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The Initial Study (Appendix A) identifies no significant impacts to the following environmental topics: Aesthetics Agricultural resources Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems 2.6 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS The following alternatives to the proposed project are considered in this Focused EIR: The No Project Alternative assumes that the project would not be developed within the shortterm. The Smaller Units Alternative would consist of reducing the height and the overall square footage of the units. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 6

13 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Substation Reuse Alternative would reuse the historic substation building for seven townhouse units. The No Project Alternative, followed by the Substation Reuse Alternative, were determined to be the environmentally superior alternatives. Please refer to Chapter 5.0, Alternatives Analysis, for more discussion of these alternatives and other alternatives considered during development of this Focused EIR. 2.7 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The potential areas of controversy and issues to be resolved are associated with cultural resources and global climate change, which are addressed in Chapter 4. Letters received as comments on the NOP also raised concerns about traffic and parking, tree removal, and visual impacts to neighboring properties. These issues are addressed in this Focused EIR or in the Initial Study (Appendix A). 2.8 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Initial Study identifies potentially significant impacts to the following environmental topics; however, these potential impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the mitigation measures included in the Initial Study: Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources (unknown archaeological, paleontological, or human remains only) Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Noise Table 2.A, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, includes the mitigation measures from the Initial Study as they relate to each environmental topic, as well as the mitigation measures included in Section 4.1, Cultural Resources, of the Focused EIR. For a complete description of the potential impacts, refer to the Initial Study in Appendix A. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 7

14 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR MAY 2011 CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 8

15 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR MAY 2011 CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table 2.A: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impacts AESTHETICS There are no significant aesthetics impacts. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES There are no significant agricultural resources impacts. AIR QUALITY Construction activities at the project site, which would include excavation, soil mounding, and transport activities, could temporarily increase the local concentration of particulate matter. If construction activities associated with the proposed project result in blowing dust, a major cause of increased PM 10 and PM 2.5 concentrations, the project could contribute to the Bay Area s existing particulate matter air quality violation. Level of Significance Without Mitigation¹ S Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Consistent with guidance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the following measures shall be implemented on the project site during the construction period: All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective Level of Significance With Mitigation¹ LTS P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review EIR Draft.doc (05/11/11) 9

16 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR MAY 2011 CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Environmental Impacts Level of Significance Without Mitigation¹ action within 48 hours. Mitigation Measures Level of Significance With Mitigation¹ Building materials containing lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials (ACM) were used to construct the PG&E structure. If any of these materials remain as part of the PG&E structure, demolition of this building could potentially release airborne particles of hazardous materials that may affect construction workers or the public. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed removal of nine trees could impact nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. S S Mitigation Measure AIR-2: The project shall comply with the BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2: Hazardous Materials, Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing, with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standard related to lead abatement, and all other applicable State and federal requirements for the safe handling and disposal of lead-based paint, ACM, and universal wastes. Prior to the demolition of the PG&E structure on the project site, lead-based paint and ACM surveys shall be performed for the exterior of the PG&E structure by a qualified environmental professional. If any lead-based paint or ACM is identified, it shall be abated and removed from the site in accordance with all applicable regulations, including OSHA requirements. The City shall verify that the surveys and abatement or removal, as necessary, have been completed before issuing the demolition permit for the project. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If feasible, vegetation removal activities shall occur during the non-breeding season (September 1 January 31). If such activities are scheduled during the breeding season (February 1 August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nest survey of all trees or other suitable nesting habitat in and within 100 feet of the limits of work. The survey shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of work. If the survey indicates the potential presence of nesting birds, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer will be determined by the biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and will be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of up to 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent disturbance to birds nesting in the urban environment, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest. LTS LTS P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review EIR Draft.doc (05/11/11) 10

17 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR MAY 2011 CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Environmental Impacts CULTURAL RESOURCES Although no surface archaeological resources have been identified within the project site, the possibility of intact subsurface archaeological deposits that may qualify as archaeological resources, as defined in Section (3)(c) and Section , cannot be discounted. Level of Significance Without Mitigation¹ S Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure CULT-1: The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the possibility of subsurface archaeological deposits within the project area by including the following directive in contract documents: If prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. Archaeological resources can include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite toolmaking debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat-affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, faunal bones, and cultural materials); and stone-milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Prehistoric archaeological sites often contain human remains. Historical materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls, and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics, metal, and other refuse. Level of Significance With Mitigation¹ The City shall verify that the language has been included in the contract documents before issuing the building permit. If archaeological deposits are identified during project subsurface construction, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. The archaeologist shall first determine whether such deposits are historical resources as defined in section (a) and as required of the lead agency at Section (c)(1). If these deposits do not qualify as historical resources, a determination will be made if they qualify as unique archaeological resources, pursuant to Section (c)(3). If the deposit qualifies as either a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource it will need to be avoided by adverse effects or such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation may consist of, but is not necessarily limited to, systematic recovery and analysis of archaeological deposits; recording the resource; preparation of a report of findings; and accessioning recovered archaeological materials at an appropriate curation facility. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review EIR Draft.doc (05/11/11) 11

18 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR MAY 2011 CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Environmental Impacts There is the possibility of encountering significant paleontological resources in the fossil-bearing Late Pleistocene alluvium in the project site that is overlain by approximately three feet of modern artificial fill and as much as 10 feet of Holocene (10,000 years B.P. to present) alluvium. Level of Significance Without Mitigation¹ S Mitigation Measures recommendations for the treatment of the archaeological materials discovered. The report shall be submitted to the City of Piedmont and the Northwest Information Center. Mitigation Measure CULT-2: The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for paleontological resources by including the following directive in contract documents: The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are encountered during project subsurface construction, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials. Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals may include bones of mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison. Paleontological resources also include plant imprints, petrified wood, and animal tracks. Level of Significance With Mitigation¹ LTS The City shall verify that the language has been included in the contract documents before issuing the building permit. Should paleontological resources be encountered during project subsurface construction, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials. It is recommended that adverse effects to such deposits be avoided by project activities. Paleontological resources are considered significant if they possess the possibility of providing new information regarding past life forms, paleoecology, stratigraphy, and geological formation processes. If found to be significant, and project activities cannot avoid the paleontological resources, adverse effects to paleontological resources shall be mitigated. Mitigation may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report, and accessioning the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City of P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review EIR Draft.doc (05/11/11) 12

19 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR MAY 2011 CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Environmental Impacts Although Native American remains have not been identified within the project site, the possibility that such remains exist in the project site cannot be discounted. Such remains could be uncovered during construction period activities that involve ground disturbance. Level of Significance Without Mitigation¹ S Mitigation Measures Piedmont, and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Mitigation Measure CULT-3: If human remains are encountered, these remains shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the cultural sensitivity of the project area for human remains by including the following directive in contract documents: If human remains are encountered during project activities, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains and associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Level of Significance With Mitigation¹ LTS The City shall verify that the language has been included in the contract documents before issuing the building permit. Project implementation would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical S In the event that human remains are encountered during project activities, work within 25 feet of the discovery should be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist should be contacted to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel should not collect or move any human remains and associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City of Piedmont and the Northwest Information Center. Mitigation Measure CULT-4a: Prior to demolition, the applicant shall retain a cultural resources consultant to prepare a historical context report and photo- SU P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review EIR Draft.doc (05/11/11) 13

20 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR MAY 2011 CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Environmental Impacts resource as defined at CEQA Guidelines Section Project implementation would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined at CEQA Guidelines Section Project implementation would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined at CEQA Guidelines Section Project implementation would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined at CEQA Guidelines Section GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY Strong seismic groundshaking at the project sites could result in risks to humans and damage to property. Level of Significance Without Mitigation¹ S S S S Mitigation Measures documentation of Substation E. The report shall include a description of the substation s historical significance within the context of PG&E s infrastructure. Photo-documentation of Substation E shall be included as an appendix to the report to provide additional descriptive data and a permanent visual record of the resource. The photo-documentation shall be done according to Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) guidelines. 2 The report and photo-documentation shall be offered to the Oakland Public Library and the Piedmont Historical Society, and shall be submitted to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University. Mitigation Measure CULT-4b: An interpretive brochure shall be prepared that describes the historical significance of Substation E. The brochure shall be offered to the Oakland Public Library, the Piedmont Historical Society, and the City Public Works Department for distribution to interested members of the public. Mitigation Measure CULT-4c: The applicant shall evaluate the reuse and salvage of original architectural components of the building, including doors, windows, balconets, and roofing materials for incorporation within new construction on site or for use in other historical buildings in the Bay Area. At a minimum, the applicant shall prepare a brief report for the City Public Works Department that documents those building elements that could be reused either on site as part of the project or offered for sale on the recycled construction materials market for reuse in renovation or remodels of historical buildings. The report shall take into account the technical feasibility, economic feasibility, and hazardous-materials constraints that may preclude salvage and reuse of certain architectural components. Materials that are salvaged for off-site use or recycled on-site may be counted toward compliance with the City s Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance requirements of Chapter 9 of the Piedmont Municipal Code. Mitigation Measure CULT-4d: The applicant shall set aside a publicly accessible space within the current project site for an interpretive panel that briefly documents the historical significance of Substation E within the context of city and regional history. The panel shall include historical photographs and/or drawings of the substation. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The proposed project shall be designed to the criteria contained in the geotechnical investigation report for the project (Kropp 2006). Construction methods for the project shall incorporate all of the specifications and Level of Significance With Mitigation¹ SU SU SU LTS 2 National Park Service, HABS/HAER Photographs: Specifications and Guidelines. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review EIR Draft.doc (05/11/11) 14

21 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR MAY 2011 CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Environmental Impacts The placement of fill on the project site occurred prior to 1939 and was not in accordance with accepted modern standards; therefore, it is possible that new loads from building foundations and/or significant fill placement could potentially trigger some additional settlement. Soils on the project site are moderately to highly expansive and could result in damage to foundations and slabs for the proposed townhouses. Level of Significance Without Mitigation¹ Mitigation Measures recommendations contained in the geotechnical report pertaining to site preparation and earthwork, foundations, building code seismic design parameters, slabs-on-grade, retaining walls, and surface drainage. A peer review of the geotechnical report will be required by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall submit plans and specifications, certified by an engineer or professional geologist, to the City that indicate how the geotechnical report s recommendations will be implemented. Written evidence that the measures have been implemented as specified in the geotechnical report shall be provided to the City. These plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. The City shall verify that the recommendations of the geotechnical report are included in the construction plans prior to issuing the project s building permit. Level of Significance With Mitigation¹ GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE There are no significant global climate change impacts. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS During the construction period, materials such as fuels, oils, and/or solvents that, in large quantities, could pose a potential hazard to the public or environment if improperly used or inadvertently released. Inadvertent release of large quantities of these materials into the environment could also adversely impact soil, surface waters, or ground water quality. Asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint present on the project site could pose a safety hazard to workers or the environment. S S A geotechnical consultant shall be present on site during construction to observe the earthwork (i.e., site clearing, excavation, subgrade preparation for slabs or filling, and any compaction operations) and any foundation work (i.e., pier drilling and void below grade berms) associated with the project. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Project construction plans shall include emergency procedures for responding to hazardous materials releases for materials that would be brought onto the site as part of site development and construction activities. The emergency procedures for hazardous materials releases shall include the necessary personal protective equipment, spill containment procedures, and training of workers to respond to accidental spills/releases. All use, storage, transport and disposal of hazardous materials (including any hazardous wastes) during construction activities shall be performed in accordance with existing local, State, and federal hazardous materials regulations. The City shall verify that the emergency procedures are included in the construction plans, prior to issuing the project s building permit. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: The project shall comply with the BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2: Hazardous Materials, Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing, with the OSHA Standard related to lead abatement, and all other applicable State and federal requirements for the safe handling and disposal of lead-based paint, ACM, and universal wastes. LTS LTS P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review EIR Draft.doc (05/11/11) 15

22 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR MAY 2011 CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Environmental Impacts Asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petroleum hydrocarbon fuels, and other hazardous materials present on the project site could pose a safety hazard to workers or the environment. Level of Significance Without Mitigation¹ S Mitigation Measures Prior to the demolition of the PG&E structure on the project site, lead-based paint and ACM surveys shall be performed for the exterior of the PG&E structure by a qualified environmental professional. If any lead-based paint or ACM is identified, it shall be abated and removed from the site in accordance with all applicable regulations, including OSHA requirements. The City shall verify that the surveys and abatement or removal, as necessary, have been completed prior to any grading or demolition activities on the project site. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Prior to any grading or demolition activities on the project site, a Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared in accordance with State and federal laws and regulations with provisions to protect construction workers and the nearby public from health risks from any residual contaminants in site soils, groundwater, and/or the existing PG&E substation building during project construction. The Health and Safety Plan shall summarize previous environmental investigations and health risk assessments conducted for the project site and identify any known residual contamination that remains in soil or groundwater that would be disturbed or handled during construction. Level of Significance With Mitigation¹ LTS Oil, PCBs, lead, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) identified as potential contaminants of concern in the subsurface investigation (Phase II ESA) could pose a hazard to workers, residents or the environment. S The Health and Safety Plan shall also: 1) provide procedures to be undertaken in the event that previously unreported construction hazards or previously undetected subsurface hazards, including soil or groundwater contamination, are discovered during construction; 2) incorporate construction safety measures for excavation and other construction activities; 3) establish procedures for safe storage, stockpiling, use, and disposal of contaminated soils and groundwater and other hazardous materials at the project site; 4) provide emergency response procedures; and 5) designate personnel responsible for implementation of the Health and Safety Plan during the construction phase of the project. If regulatory oversight is required for site remediation, the Health and Safety Plan shall be subject to review and approval by regulatory oversight agencies. The City shall verify that the Health and Safety Plan has been completed prior to any grading or demolition activities on the project site. Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Based on the results of the subsurface investigation and P&D s recommendation in their 2006 subsurface investigation report, the petroleum-impacted soil at location T3 with concentrations exceeding residential ESL values shall be removed by a qualified professional and disposed of according to all local, State, and federal regulations prior to any earthwork activity on the project site. The City shall verify that the soil has been remediated, as necessary, to the satisfaction of the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency or other overseeing regulatory agencies prior to any grading or demolition activities on the project site. LTS P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review EIR Draft.doc (05/11/11) 16

23 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR MAY 2011 CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Environmental Impacts Oil, PCBs, lead, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) identified as potential contaminants of concern in the subsurface investigation (Phase II Environmental Site Assessment) could pose a hazard to workers, residents or the environment. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY There are no significant hydrology and water quality impacts. LAND USE AND PLANNING There are no significant land use and planning impacts. MINERAL RESOURCES There are no significant mineral resources impacts. NOISE Construction of the proposed project would require excavation and earthwork activities that could generate noise levels that exceed established thresholds or expose sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels. Level of Significance Without Mitigation¹ S S Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: In a letter sent to PG&E on December 19, 2006, the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency stated that if remediation of petroleum-impacted soil at location T3 is successful and no additional environmental areas of concern are discovered during site demolition, they would be able to issue a No Further Action Letter for unrestricted site use. The City shall be provided with the final No Further Action Letter from the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency prior to issuing the building permit for the project. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The project shall comply with the following noise reduction measures: As required in Section 12.8 of the City Code, operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition activities may only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays and Saturdays, and between the hours 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. Sundays. All heavy construction equipment used on the project site shall be maintained in good operating condition, with all internal combustion, engine-driven equipment fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. All stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far away as possible from neighboring property lines. Post signs prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. The construction manager shall identify and designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. The noise disturbance coordinator shall report all complaints and resolution thereof to the City via monthly reports. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site. Level of Significance With Mitigation¹ LTS LTS P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review EIR Draft.doc (05/11/11) 17

24 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR MAY 2011 CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Environmental Impacts Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project, particularly the use of heavy machinery, could generate temporary ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels that exceed established thresholds or expose sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels. Level of Significance Without Mitigation¹ S Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: The project shall comply with the following measures to address ground borne vibration and noise: In the event that pile driving would be required within the project area, all residents within 200 feet of the project site shall be notified of the schedule for its use a minimum of one week prior to its commencement. In the event that pile driving would be required within the project area, the contractor shall implement quiet pile driving technology (such as pre-drilling of piles, the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration, or the use of portable acoustical barriers) where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions. Level of Significance With Mitigation¹ LTS POPULATION AND HOUSING There are no significant population and housing impacts. PUBLIC SERVICES There are no significant public services impacts. RECREATION There are no significant recreation impacts. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC There are no significant transportation and traffic impacts. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS There are no significant utilities and service systems impacts. Notes: ¹ S: Significant LTS: Less than Significant SU: Significant and Unavoidable P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review EIR Draft.doc (05/11/11) 18

25 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This chapter describes the proposed 408 Linda Avenue project (proposed project) that is evaluated in this Focused EIR. A description of the project s objectives, location, background, and site characteristics is followed by details of the project and a summary of required approvals and entitlements. 3.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW For CEQA purposes, the project under consideration is the 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses Project. Piedmont Station LLC proposes to develop an approximately 0.4-acre site within the City of Piedmont with seven three-story over basement townhouse structures. The property is currently developed with an approximately 5,700-square-foot, two-story, concrete electrical utility substation (Substation E) that was vacated in The proposed project would involve: demolition and removal of the existing Substation E building; removal of existing vegetation and excavation and placement of fill for the housing pads; construction of the seven new townhouse structures and associated development components; and landscaping and irrigation. 3.2 PROJECT SITE The following section describes the location of the project site, surrounding land uses, and site characteristics Location The approximately 0.4-acre project site is located at 408 Linda Avenue, northwest of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Linda Avenue, in the City of Piedmont, California (Figures 1 and 2). The project site is located in the western portion of the City, approximately 2 miles northeast of the downtown Oakland commercial district. The Oakland Avenue viaduct is located adjacent to the site s northern boundary Surrounding Land Uses The site is bounded on the south and west by Linda Avenue, on the north by Oakland Avenue, on the northeast by a two-story over basement/parking apartment complex, and on the east by a one and onehalf story, single-family residence (420 Linda Avenue). Oakland Avenue crosses Linda Avenue via a viaduct approximately 40 feet above the ground at the intersection/crossing and at grade at the northernmost corner of the property. The bridge abutments are located adjacent to the northwest boundary of the site between 21 and 28 feet from the property boundary. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 19

26 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Adjacent land uses include the Oakland Avenue right-of-way, Beach Elementary School, and Linda Park to the northwest (across Oakland Avenue); multi-family residential housing to the northeast; and single family residential to the east. Single- and multi-family residential structures ranging from onestory over-basement/parking to three-story over-basement/parking are located on the opposite side of Linda Avenue, to the south of the project site Site Characteristics The site is irregular in shape and has maximum dimensions of approximately 195 feet by 235 feet. The site is currently developed with Substation E, a decommissioned PG&E electrical substation building which occupies approximately two-thirds of the site. The project site was used as a PG&E substation from 1926 to 1991, at which time it was abandoned and has been vacant ever since. Southeast of the Substation E building is a relatively flat area covered by a low growth of weeds. A small paved courtyard, located at the back of the building on the northeast side, is partially contained by an approximately 5-foot-high retaining wall. Behind the courtyard, along the northeastern corner of the site, is a slope with an incline of approximately 4:1 (horizontal to vertical) that extends up to Oakland Avenue. The remaining portions of the site are covered with weedy broad-leaved plants and grasses and several trees around the perimeter of the site, including acacia, coast live oak, and juniper. 3.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The following are the objectives of the proposed project: Redevelop a site, which is currently developed with a vacant PG&E power transfer station, with seven (7) townhome condominiums. Develop a project that complies with the use and intensity permitted by the regulations and policies of the City of Piedmont and the State of California. Develop a project that is in compliance with the City of Piedmont s design guidelines, policies, and criteria. Build a project that is economically viable based on market conditions. Increase the City of Piedmont s housing supply. Enhance the visual and community character of the neighborhood. 3.4 PROPOSED PROJECT The project would consist of the removal of the existing 5,688-square-foot concrete PG&E substation structure and the construction of seven three-story over basement townhouses situated around a central courtyard (Figure 3). Townhouses. Pursuant to the set of architectural plans submitted on January 27, 2010, the townhouses are proposed in two separate buildings around a central courtyard. One building which faces Linda Avenue would have 5 townhouses (Units A through E) and the other building located at the rear of the property would have two townhouses (Units F and G). Each townhouse would P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 20

27 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION generally have four bedrooms, three full bathrooms and one half bathroom, and two garaged parking spaces. The townhouses would range in size from 2,149 square feet to 2,416 square feet. The rear townhouses (identified as Units F and G in the Figures) would be approximately 32 feet in height, and the townhouses fronting Linda Avenue (identified as Units A through E in the Figures) would be approximately 35 feet in height (Figure 4). Building setbacks would be 20 feet along Linda Avenue and 4 feet along the rear and side property line boundaries. A variance may be required for the property setback along Oakland Avenue. All units would have four levels, including a garage, first floor, second floor and third floor. Typical exterior materials would include composition roof shingles; painted metal gutters and downspouts; painted cement plaster walls and sills; painted wood fascia, trim and paneling; wood clad windows; and painted vents to match adjacent surfaces (Figure 4). All exterior lighting would be directed downward. All of the townhouses would have fireplaces and chimneys, as well as a fire ladder on the back of the building. Each unit has an option for an elevator. Each townhouse would have a private lawn approximately 115 square feet in size (Figure 3). The lawns would be enclosed with a 42-inch high painted metal fence and gate or stone retaining wall. Stone steps would extend from the street and through the lawn to the four townhouses that face Linda Avenue. Rock retaining walls approximately 30 inches tall would be installed along the base of the townhouses facing Linda Avenue. A painted metal handrail would be located along the property frontage on Linda Avenue. A new five-foot-wide colored concrete public path, with lighting for public safety, would be constructed at the northwestern side of the site within the City right-of-way adjacent to the Oakland Avenue bridge abutment (Figure 3). The new path would provide pedestrian access via side paths to Units E, F and G as well as a new public sidewalk. Pedestrian access to Units A through D would be provided via Linda Avenue. Parking, Circulation and Common Areas. Vehicular access to the project would be from a single 12-foot-wide gated and covered driveway at Linda Avenue (Figure 3). All circulation of vehicles and parking for the residences would be on the interior of the project. The proposed project would supply, at a minimum, two covered parking spaces for each townhouse. The driveway would connect to a central courtyard that would provide garage access for all seven townhouses and access to a guest parking space adjacent to Unit F. The driveway and courtyard would also provide emergency vehicle access for police vehicles and ambulances. The courtyard and driveway would consist of recycled permeable colored concrete pavers. An approximately 825-square-foot common area would be located in the western corner of the property that would include a bench and landscaping (Figure 3). Landscaping and Irrigation. The landscape system would consist of three zones: trees and shrubs, a sod yard area, and planting beds (Figure 5). Trees and shrubs would be planted along the borders of the property and would include a variety of drought tolerant ornamental species from 1-gallon to 15- gallon containers. Tree and shrub species would include species such as arbutus (Arbutus sp.), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), wild lilac (Ceanothus sp.), boxleaf euonymus (Euonymus japonica), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), and yedda hawthorn (Rhaphiolepsis umbellata). Some herbaceous plants such as lily of the nile (Agapanthus sp.), blue fescue (Festuca ovina glauca), and wild strawberry (Fragaria chiloensis) would also be used in the P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 21

28 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION property border areas. Grass yard areas would be planted with a heat and drought tolerant tall fescue mix and include common space and exclusive use lawns associated with individual townhouses. Planting beds would be located in the central courtyard. All landscaping would be served by an automatic irrigation system. The grass areas would be irrigated with a pop up spray system and the planting beds would be irrigated with a drip system. Each of the seven townhouses would have a separate water meter, and residents would be responsible for irrigating any exclusive use area associated with the individual residence. The proposed project would comply with Assembly Bill 325, Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Division 2, Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 2.7, Sections 490 through 495) as a condition of project approval. Utilities. The City of Piedmont water distribution and sewage collection systems are owned and maintained by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and the storm drainage system is owned and maintained by the City of Piedmont. Solid waste disposal would be provided by the Richmond Sanitary Services/Republic Services and the Vasco Road and Keller Canyon Landfills. Gas and electricity would be provided to the project site by the PG&E. Cable, telephone and internet services would be provided by a variety of private companies. Each townhouse would be metered for gas, electric and water with a separate electrical meter and water meter for the common area. Utilities would be undergrounded. Water meters would be embedded in the sidewalk. Space for electric and gas meters would be incorporated along the driveway on the street side of the gate (Figure 3). Three waste carts would be provided to each townhouse for trash, recycling and green waste. The sanitary sewer and storm drain systems for the project would be in accordance with EBMUD requirements and standards. The storm water management plan for the project would consist of two principal elements: landscaping, including permeable surfaces and semi-permeable surfaces, and underground flow retention chambers. Water that flows off the vertical surfaces of the building would be directed to permeable and semi-permeable surfaces. As the project is currently designed, these surfaces would be sufficient to manage these flows. Water flowing from the roof would be collected in gutters and would flow in drain pipes to underground connections to the storm sewer. An underground retention chamber would be installed upstream of the sewer connection as required to limit storm water flow rates in compliance with regulations. A detailed storm water plan would be prepared after the project footprint, massing, and surface materials are approved. Site Preparation. Earthwork operations at the site would primarily consist of the demolition of the decommissioned 5,688-square-foot concrete PG&E substation building currently occupying the site and the grading of a level building area for site development. The demolition of the building would be conducted with a wrecking ball or hydraulic equivalent and take approximately four weeks. Materials containing lead-based paint or asbestos, if any, would be identified, handled and disposed of in accordance with State and federal regulations. A retaining wall up to 10 feet in height may be required at the northeast corner of the site behind the garages due to the sloping topography of the site. The wall would be constructed of reinforced P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 22

29 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION concrete and would not be visible. It is anticipated that minimal new fills would be required at the front of the units; the remaining cut materials from site excavations would be disposed of off site. Up to nine existing trees would be removed from the site and adjacent City right-of-way in order to accommodate the proposed project, including juniper, acacia, and coast live oaks (Table 3.4.A and Figures 3 and 5). City review and approval would be required for the removal of trees within the City right-of-way, and the City would require preservation measures for any retained trees located within the City s right-of-way as a standard condition of approval. Table 3.4.A: Existing Trees to be Removed Common Name Latin Name Diameter (inches) Location black acacia Acacia melanoxylon 12 City ROW black acacia Acacia melanoxylon 14 City ROW black acacia Acacia melanoxylon 36 City ROW black acacia Acacia melanoxylon 38 City ROW Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 6 Project Site Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 12 City ROW Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 14 Project Site juniper Juniperus sp. 16 Project Site juniper Juniperus sp. 16 Project Site Construction would occur intermittently over the course of approximately two years. Construction equipment could include backhoes, bulldozers, draglines, front loaders, compactors, scrapers, graders and pile drivers. Construction would occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday in accordance with the City Code Section 12.8, or as otherwise specified by the Planning Commission and City Council. Noise reduction measures would be employed. 3.5 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS The City of Piedmont Public Works Department is the lead agency under CEQA with the primary authority for project approval. As a result of the preparation of the Initial Study, the BAAQMD and the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency have been identified as Responsible Agencies under CEQA. At this time, no regulatory permits are anticipated for the proposed project. The following approvals and/or discretionary actions are required by the City for the project: Design Review Approval in accordance with Chapter 17, Regulations Prescribing the Character of Construction, and the City s Residential Design Guidelines. The City Council will take action on the application, and the Planning Commission will be advisory to the City Council. In connection with the Design Review application, an application for a variance from the setback provisions of Chapter 17 has been submitted. The Planning Commission and City Council will make a determination concerning the need for a variance, and if one is needed, shall take action on it. Building Permit, including demolition and excavation. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 23

30 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tentative and Final Map, in accordance with Chapter 19, Subdivisions, of the City s Municipal Code, and the Site and Design Requirements for New Residential Condominiums in the City s Subdivision Manual. The City Council will take action on the application, and the Planning Commission will be advisory to the City Council. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 24

31 Project Location r FIGURE 1 Piedmont Station LLC 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses N 0 10 MILES SOURCE: 2006 DeLORME. STREET ATLAS USA P:\CPI0801\g\Figure1_RegionalLocation.cdr (8/4/08) Project Location

32 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 26

33 Oak 33rd Franklin 53rd Dover Mcclure Aileen 40th 37th Hawthorne Verdese Carter Emerson Middle Elementary School School Oakland Technical High School Park Day Elementary School Kaiser-Permanente Medical CTR Mosswood Park Summit Medical Oak Glen Center Park South Summit Medical Center 28th 20th 46th Apgar Elm 25th 24th Grand Webster 54th 56th 24 27th 55th 40th 39th Macarthur Summit 22nd 21st Snow Park 17th Harrison Alice 49th Andover 54th 53rd 47th Latimer Carberry Hawthorne Summit 26th Kaiser 20th 46th 27th 23rd 19th 52nd Shattuck Telegraph Clarke 37th 36th 30th Valdez 52nd 29th Valdez Louise Westlake Middle School Waverly 43rd Orin Ruby Ruby 28th 26th Grand Harrison Harrison Lakeside Jackson 34th Valdez Clarke 45th 42nd Rich Richmond 40th Hawthorne 27th Vicente Claremont 38th 44th Webster Brook Redondo 50th 48th Adams Park 40th Shafter Macarthur Fairmount Randwick Hamilton Bay Richmond Vernon Bay Lakeside Park Hardy Park Cavour 49th 41st Bellevue Avon Opal Croxton Frisbie Manila Westall Richmond Garland Park View Clifton Miles 38th Kempton Frisbie Orange Montecito Lenox Lawton Shafter 50th Emerald Locksley Manila Warren Oakland Vernon Lee 51st Garnet Broadway Stanley Perkins Perkins Cerrito Leighton Pearl Jayne Shafter Cavour 42nd Kempton Orange Perkins Ellita Boyd 51st Coronado Moss Pearl 45th Rio Vista Vernon Van Buren Belmont James Yosemite Adams Palm Hudson Lawton Glendale Coronado 49th Terrace Montgomery Montell Perry Warwick Desmond Mather Piedmont Fairmount Staten Manila Clifton Gilbert Ridgeway Adams Lake Merritt Arts Elementary School Cal College of Art and Crafts View Saint Leo Elementary School Glen Wilda College Whitmore Robley Glen El Dorado Moss 41st Vernon Euclid Pan a ma Kales Bryant Broadway Mather Bayo Vista Harrison Burk Clifton Arroyuelo Monte Kelton Vernon Ada Broadway Valley John Glenwood Cresta Mariposa Glen Linda Monte Vista Kingston Lakeview Elementary School Lagunitas Thomas Montgomery Santa Clara 580 Claremont Country Club Linda Ave Rose Garden Park Jean Cleveland Cascade Brooklyn View Howe Crescent Napa Echo Kingston Entrada Oakland Lakeshore Pleasant Belgrave Santa Rosa Chetwood Mira Vista Glen Alta Vista Valle Capital Lake Vista Boden Carlton Gleneden Kingston Elwood Hillsborough Brandon Lake Sunnyside Valle Vista Lake Park Lakeshore Sunnyslope Cheney Excelsior Merritt Olive Rand St Marys Cemetery Jewish Cemetery Walker Wickson Beacon Cleveland Monroe Broadway Radnor Rose Grand Nace Wesley Ramona Pleasant Valley Howard Cambridge Weldon Vermont Glenview Kenwyn Greenbank Fairview Oakland Avenue Project Area Erie Mandana Plaza Park Hillgirt Haddon Wildwood Sylvan Warfield Wesley Prospect York Club Margarido Country Ramona Manor Grand Lakeshore Haddon Arbor Scott Brookwood Holly Arbor Boulevard Fairbanks Lake Prince Erie Athol Lower Fairview Davidson Westminster Arroyo Cambridge Park Mckinley York Fairview Stratford Barbara Montclair Ronada Ricardo Crofton Rosal Weldon Spruce Lorita Ostrander Park Ramona Monticello Mountain View Cemetery Dracena Park Artuna Latham Jerome Hill Nova Arbor Warfield Capell Romany Park San Carlos Keefer Palm Walavista Kenmore Viona Balfour Dracena Longridge Estrella Blair Ramona El Cerrito Larmer Wallace Rosal Morrell Blair Piedmont Middle and High SCH Wildwood Elementary School Oakland High School Alma Carmel Carlos Calmar S a n Hillcrest Elementary School Havens Playground Cerrito Jerome View Winsor Park Wildwood Santa Ray Mandana El Ranleigh Paloma Buckeye Moraga Bonita Hillside Portsmouth Harvard Annerley Arimo Paloma Northvale Ve rada Rosemount Sunnyhills Trestle Glen Waldo Wilding Longridge Chatham Norman Vista Prospect Marguerite Morrill Clarewood Lakeshore Mesa Bonita Magnolia Walavista Prospect Paloma Alma Clarewood Highland Oakland Balfour Monte Harvard Holy Names High School Mandalay Blair Hardwick Piedmont Park Oakmont Holman Highland Magnolia Hazel Walavista Calmar Larkspur Hillcroft Hermosa Clarewood Santa Park Ray Florence Jacobus Pala Scenic Craig Requa Requa Wildwood Trestle Glen Biehs Red Sunnyhills Sonia Harbord Truitt Rock Hazel Wawona Carlston Paramount Grosvenor Alta Ashmount Carlston Park Park Boulevard Morpeth Portal Pacific Agnes Modoc Scenic Modoc Modoc Wildwood Florada Harbord Dormidera Sierra Stark Knoll Agnes Echo Julia Abbott Alta Mountain Sharon Muir Midcrest Amy Crocker Highlands Elem School Hubert Underhills Woodland Bell Hagar Wildwood Wildwood Brighton Sharon Lafayette Ardmore Clarendon Bates Hilltop La Salle Ashmount Greenwood Park Proctor Maxwelton Sheridan Caperton Harbord Barrows Park FIGURE 2 Piedmont Station LLC- 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses ,600 FEET Project Area USGS StreetmapUSA (2008) I:\CPI0801\GIS\Maps\Figure2-ProjectArea.mxd (08/01/2008)

34 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 28

35 FIGURE 3 N Piedmont Station LLC- 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses Proposed Project SOURCE: JARVIS ARCHITECTS (DECEMBER 2009) P:\CPI0801\g\Figure3_ProposedProject.cdr (02/19/2010)

36 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 30

37 TYPICAL EXTERIOR MATERIALS COMPOSITION ROOF SHINGLES PAINTED METAL GUTTERS & DOWNSPOUTS PAINTED CEMENT PLASTER WALLS, SILLS PAINTED WOOD FASCIA, TRIM, PANELLING PRINTABLE CLAD WOOD WINDOWS W/3 DIMENSIONAL LITES PAINTED FLUES & VENTS TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING TO BE DOWNWARD DIIRECTED PAINTED METAL HANDRAILS, GATES, FENCES W/4 MAX. GAPS ROCK RETAINING WALLS STONE PATHS, STEPS FIGURE 4 Piedmont Station LLC408 Linda Avenue Townhouses 0 20 FEET SOURCE: JARVIS ARCHITECTS (JUNE 12, 2008) P:\CPI0801\g\Figure4_ExteriorElevations.cdr (03/22/2011) Exterior Elevations

38 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 32

39 0 N FEET 25 FIGURE 5 Piedmont Station LLC- 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses Landscape Plan SOURCE: JARVIS ARCHITECTS (7/1/09) P:\CPI0801\g\Figure3_ProposedProject.cdr (02/25/2011)

40 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 34

41 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES This chapter contains an analysis of each potentially significant environmental issue identified in the NOP prepared for the project and, as such, constitutes the major portion of the Draft Focused EIR. Sections 4.1 through 4.12 of this chapter describe the environmental setting of the project as it relates to each specific issue, the impacts resulting from implementation of the project and mitigation measures that would reduce impacts of the project. Determination of Significance Under CEQA, a significant effect is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. 3 The CEQA Guidelines 4 direct that this determination be based on scientific and factual data. Each impact evaluation in this chapter is prefaced by criteria of significance, which are the thresholds for determining whether an impact is significant. These criteria of significance are derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Topics Addressed in the Draft EIR The following environmental topics are addressed in this chapter: Cultural Resources (4.1) Global Climate Change (4.2) An Initial Study was completed for this project in March 2010 (Appendix A). This analysis determined that the project would not have a significant effect on aesthetics, agricultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Impacts related to air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise have been mitigated to a less than significant level in the Initial Study. As a result, these topics have not been investigated further in this chapter of the Focused EIR, but are briefly addressed in Chapter 6.0, CEQA Required Assessment Conclusions, in the subsection entitled Effects Found Not to Be Significant. Format of Issue Sections Each environmental issue section has four main subsections: 1) Setting; 2) Regulatory Framework; 3) Significance Criteria; and 4) Impacts and Mitigation Measures of the Proposed Project. Each impacts and mitigation measures subsection is further subdivided into an initial discussion of the less than significant impacts and a subsequent discussion of significant impacts. Any identified significant impacts are numbered and shown in bold type, and the corresponding mitigation measures are numbered and indented. Significant impacts and mitigation measures are numbered consecutively 3 Public Resources Code California Code of Regulations, Title 14, 15000, et seq. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 35

42 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES within each topic and begin with a shorthand abbreviation for the impact section (e.g., CULT for cultural resources). The following symbols are used for individual topics: CULT: CLI: Cultural Resources Global Climate Change The following notations are provided after each identified significant impact and after identification of mitigation measures: SU S = = Significant and Unavoidable Significant LTS = Less than Significant These notations indicate the significance of the impact before and after mitigation. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 36

43 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes existing conditions for cultural resources within the project site, as well as potential impacts that could occur to those resources due to project implementation. Cultural resources include historical buildings and structures, archaeological deposits, paleontological resources (fossils), and human remains. In previous documentation prepared pursuant to CEQA, LSA concluded that the project would have potentially significant impacts on archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains. Mitigation measures are included in the Initial Study that would reduce potential impacts to those resources to less than significant levels. A potentially significant impact to a historical resource, however, was identified in the Initial Study: removal of a c PG&E substation. This potentially significant impact was based on a historical evaluation of the PG&E substation by PAR Environmental Services, Inc., who concluded the building was historically significant as a rare example of Mission-style design in a utilitarian building and as a notable example of the work of PG&E architect Ivan C. Frickstad. 5 Project impacts to this historical resource are addressed in this section. The Initial Study, contained in Appendix A, provides a discussion of impacts to, and mitigation measures for, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains. The evaluation presented in this section is based on a review of existing documents and a field review. Feasible mitigation measures are presented for potentially significant impacts Existing Setting The existing setting of the project site was established by conducting a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a field review, and a review of a previously published eligibility evaluation of the building at the 408 Linda Avenue project site. The results of these tasks are summarized below. Historical Records Review. A records search of the project site was conducted at the NWIC of the California Historical Resources Information System on June 4, The NWIC, an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), is the official state repository of cultural resources records and reports for Alameda County. The records search revealed a single historical resource in the project site and immediate vicinity, consisting of a reinforced concrete, Mission-style building constructed in 1926 that operated as a PG&E substation (Substation E) until 1991 (Figure 6). OHP has assigned this resource a National Register Status Code of 7J, indicating that documentation for this resource was received by OHP, but the agency has not made an official determination of the resource s eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The documentation submitted to OHP in 2006 consisted of a National Register Registration Form. PG&E, which still owned the building in 2006, submitted a letter opposing the Substation E National Register nomination to California Historic Preservation Officer Milford Wayne Donaldson, and the nomination was officially withdrawn. 5 Bakic, Tracy, Historical and Architectural Evaluation of PG&E s Piedmont Substation E, Alameda County, California. PAR Environmental Services, Inc., Sacramento, California. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 37

44 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 38

45 Substation E, 1926 Substation E, 2011 FIGURE 6 Piedmont Station LCC 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses Photographs of Substation E SOURCE: BAKIC 2000; PG&E ARCHIVES (1926 PHOTO) P:\CPI0801\g\Figure6_Photographs-SubstationE.cdr (3/21/11)

46 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 40

47 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES Due to PG&E s opposition to the nomination, the California Office of Historic Preservation did not comment on the substation s eligibility, nor was the nomination forwarded to the Keeper of the National Register in Washington, D.C. 6 The records search also identified a previous study of the project site conducted by PAR Environmental Services, Inc. (PAR) in PAR s study consisted of a historical evaluation of the Substation E building that included the following: Visits to, and contacts with, several archives and individuals, including various PG&E archives in San Bruno and San Francisco; the California State Library, Sacramento; the Oakland Public Library, Oakland; Glenn Caruso, PG&E, San Francisco; John Meade, PG&E, San Francisco; and Jeannette Dinwiddie-Moore, Dinwiddie & Associates, Oakland; A field inspection by an architectural historian of the interior and exterior of Substation E; A historical context (presented below) for Substation E; and An evaluation of Substation E s eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). Field Review. An architectural historian with PAR did a field review of Substation E on October 14, 1999, to identify and record the building s design elements and character-defining features. In order to ensure that the most current baseline conditions of Substation E were considered for this EIR, an LSA architectural historian conducted a field review of the building on February 1, Based on LSA s field review, no major structural modifications to Substation E or alterations to the surrounding setting have occurred since the 1999 PAR field review (Figure 6). The following description of Substation E is based on PG&E architectural drawings of the building and site visits by PAR 8 and LSA. Building Description. Substation E is a Mission-style, L-shaped building constructed of reinforced poured concrete. The building measures 84 feet, 11.5 inches along the south (Linda Avenue) side; 48 feet, 7.5 inches at the west side; approximately 48 feet at the northwest side; 14 feet, 4.5 inches at the north side of the western portion; 18 feet, 6 inches at the east wall of the western portion; 27 feet, 4.5 inches at the north side of the eastern portion; and 64 feet, 6.5 inches at the east side of the eastern portion. Substation E has single and two-story spaces, with a maximum height of 44 feet, 8 inches to the peak of its gabled parapets. The walls of the building include Mission-style parapeting at gabled ends. The gabled sections of the building are at the east portion of the building with a north-south axis; the south end of the west portion with an east-west axis; and the north end of the west portion with a north-south axis. Each parapeted wall has a decorative central quatrefoil that is inset from the wall surface. Between the parapets of each of the three main rectangular sections of the building is a low gabled roof containing a central skylight. The roof is covered with Spanish tiles. 6 NWIC Coordinator, Leigh Jordan, personal communication with LSA on June 5, Bakic, Tracy, Bakic, 2000, pp P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 41

48 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES Although currently boarded over, at the time of PAR s survey, all windows and transoms are original and are multi-paned, double steel sash. An original, multi-paneled wooden double door is on the west portion of the south (Linda Avenue) side of the building. Decorative elements that embellish each side of this door s frame are a precast cement twisted column with a Corinthian capital that is topped with a precast cement bracket; the bracket has a scroll-shaped interior end. Two lines of incised print above the door read Pacific Gas and Electric Company/Station E and are obscured by mature vegetation. A metal door was added at a later date to the west of the wooden double door. The east portion of the south side has an eight-paneled steel door, entered by a seven-riser concrete stair with metal side rails. Above the door is a six-light transom, and a twelve-light window is to the west of this door. The upper story is fenestrated with a tripartite window area. This window area is decoratively embellished with precast cement twisted columns with a Corinthian capital and a balconet with precast cement scroll-shaped brackets and a metal railing. The west and northwest (diagonal) sides of the building and the north and east sides of the west portion of the building are not fenestrated. The 1925 plans incorporate a door into the northwest wall, although this was never constructed. The north side of the east portion of the building is fenestrated in the same manner as the south side of the portion of the building, except that the upper story tripartite window area is not embellished with inset arches, columns or a balconet. The lower story s door is entered by a slightly-elevated sill, not by a stair as on the south side. The east side of the east portion of the building includes three lower story windows and an upper story tripartite window area that matches that on the south side, including the column, inset arches, and balconet embellishments. A rectangular hip-roofed tower is centrally set along the east-west span of the building. Each side has an arched opening with wire mesh screening. Each opening is embellished with a precast cement twisted column with a Corinthian capital to each side and a balconet with precast scroll-shaped brackets and a metal railing. The tower s roof area has an arcaded cornice supported by precast cement scroll-shaped brackets and topped with an ogee-shaped molding. A rectangular concrete wall-enclosed area is immediately north of the east portion of the building. This section was labeled as a future extension area in the 1925 architectural plot plan. The building is landscaped with bushes, small trees, and ivy. Much of the extant landscaping is probably part of the original planting scheme, although these plantings have matured and enlarged over the past 86 years. Historical Context. 9 As PG&E constructed its hydroelectric power operations in central and eastern California during the first half of the twentieth century, its need for a distribution network also grew. Power generated by new powerhouses in the Sierra was conducted over high-voltage transmission 9 This subsection adapted from Historical and Architectural Evaluation of PG&E s Piedmont Substation E, Alameda County, California (Bakic 2000). P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 42

49 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES lines to the cities and towns that would ultimately purchase and consume that power. This evolution led to the intensive development of local distribution networks throughout PG&E territory during the 1920s, including substations where voltage was stepped down and distributed to local consumers. As PG&E systems came on line, power streamed toward the urban centers around San Francisco Bay and the surrounding region. PG&E designed attractive substations in San Francisco and the East Bay, some with ornate features, such as lattice-encased wall fountains that would be dramatically lit at night, and bas-relief wall decorations. These elaborate, while utilitarian, buildings gradually became less ornate as their numbers increased. By 1925, the Bay Area had experienced tremendous growth in population and industrial expansion that brought about a marked increase in demand for all classes of service. PG&E s San Francisco Division and East Bay Division (the latter of which Piedmont is a part), experienced increased demands for power that warranted the need for new and updated substations. By the late 1920s, PG&E had constructed numerous substations in the Bay Area. Nineteen substations had been updated and three new ones were constructed and in operation by 1927, including Substation E. Piedmont Substation E. Piedmont, like the rest of the Bay Area, was rapidly growing in the 1920s. PG&E responded to the increasing demand for electrical power by updating the antiquated system then delivering energy to consumers. One of their efforts involved the construction of a new automatic substation beginning in 1925, known as Station E, in Piedmont. Under a contract with the Key System Transit Company, the old Piedmont Station E at Oakland Avenue and 24 th Street was to be abandoned and its load divided between two new distributing stations: Station L in Oakland and the new Station E on Linda Avenue in Piedmont. PG&E purchased the property on Linda Avenue in In earlier years the property was part of the Bowie Tract, which was filed by William J. Dingee in By 1886, and until at least 1898, the property was owned by Charles Fella. Work on Substation E was authorized to begin on March 10, 1925, with a construction budget of $230,000. Work in the field began on June 15, Direct current power for the Key System was available for this building beginning on January 31, The building was placed in full operation on July 17, According to General Maintenance Order documentation, S.J. Lisberger was the engineer for the project, with R.B. Kellogg as assistant engineer. M.C. McKay was in charge of construction, with the assistance of A.J. Swank (superintendent) and F.P. Reardon (foreman). According to the 1925 and 1926 plans, Ivan C. Frickstad was the architect of the building and H. Dearmin designed the interior layout of the station equipment. Substation E was one of three new automatic and unattended substations that PG&E completed by The other two automatic substations were San Francisco Division s Station L in San Francisco and East Bay Division s Station O in Hayward. These three substations were noteworthy because they were automatic and contained new and updated features that had not been used on the Pacific Coast up to that time. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 43

50 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES Substation E was also unique because of its location within a residential district. Consideration was apparently given to its design and surrounding landscaping to give the building an attractive appearance that would be aesthetically pleasing with the neighboring houses. The substation was designed in the Mission style, which was popular in Piedmont and the rest of California. It was also designed for noiseless operation. According to a PG&E document from 1925, Substation E was considered to be a somewhat better building than PG&E would typically have built at that time. The 1929 Sanborn Insurance Map indicates that, with the exception of its unprotected steel roof trusses, Substation E was of fireproof construction. The substation was built so as not to require an operator. The main switching was done by supervisory control from Station L in Oakland, located on Twentieth Street between San Pablo and Telegraph Avenues. The substation initially included two 600-volt, 1,000-kilowatt motor generator sets for the railway supply for the Key System, four-kilovolt transformers and switches and conduits for the 4-kilovolt supply. The motor generators were fully automatic with the exception of their supervised stop and start features. The building also was built with an automatic ventilation system. Substation E was operated by Station L in Oakland by means of electrical impulses carried through four control wires that connected the two stations. Substation E was operated by a combination of full automatic and supervisory control equipment, a combination of two of the most modern developments in electric substation design at the time. The supervisory equipment was under the supervision of an operator at Station L, and the full automatic equipment was not supervised from any point within PG&E s system. Substation E carried two kinds of loads: alternating current (AC) for the residential uses, and direct current (DC) for the Key System Transit Company. The high voltage transmission lines coming into the substation carried AC power. Since AC was used for residential service, the substation only had to reduce the voltage enough to make it suitable for those needs. The DC used for the Key System trains, on the other hand, required the substation to change the incoming power from AC to DC, a function performed by the motor generators. During the Key System s peak operating hours, both motor generators were in use, but during slower periods only one generator was used. The motor generators were started and stopped by the operator at Station L in Oakland, but were controlled automatically while running. The operator would be informed of the usage levels of the motor generators by a telemeter at Station L, indicating whether one or both generators was needed. Supplying the AC was a simpler process because it was unnecessary to change the electric power from AC to DC. For the AC service, the voltage was changed in the station s transformers from 11,000 volts to 4,150 volts or 2,300 volts, depending on the feeders that carried the AC at the reduced voltages. The electricity on the 4,150-volt feeders was reduced to 110 or 220 volts by smaller distribution transformers located on poles or in manholes near the homes. The electricity of the 2,300-volt feeders was reduced to make it suitable for street lighting. Each key on the supervisory control panel at Station L in Oakland controlled a feeder switch or a main switch for a piece of equipment. There was also one key that transmitted the impulse to change equipment status. Meters, lights and an alarm on the control panel enabled the operator to monitor the status of equipment or if there was a problem or change in conditions at Substation E. The operator at Station L also had control of the two blowers that forced cool air into the station, as well as two exhausters that drew air out of the station. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 44

51 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES With the construction of Station L in Oakland and Substation E in Piedmont, the old 1902 Station E was inactivated. As indicated on a 1925 Plot and Planting Plan, a Future Extension area on Substation E s north façade was provided for the erection of the necessary transformers, switches, and 4,000-volt distribution feeders that were anticipated as part of an increased lighting load in the future. Preliminary construction was performed in this future extension area, including a foundation and ducts, at the same time the building was constructed. Apparently this area was never needed because no further construction occurred. A third motor generator set was added at a later date but removed in The original motor generators were abandoned and left in place in the 1980s. A metal pedestrian door was added to the south side s west portion at an unknown date. Substation E served the Piedmont area for 65 years and shut down in In more recent years, the building was painted, windows and transoms were boarded over, and some interior equipment was moved to new locations in the building. The building still maintains a distinct presence in Piedmont, however, and represents a noteworthy design among PG&E substations in the Bay Area. Property Summary for Piedmont Substation E. Based on PAR s evaluation of Substation E and LSA s current study, the project site contains a historical resource under CEQA (see Regulatory Framework discussion below). PAR concluded that Substation E was eligible for inclusion in the California Register as a noteworthy example of the work of PG&E architect Ivan C. Frickstad and as a unique example within PG&E s system of Mission-style architecture used in a utilitarian building. 10 As head of PG&E s architectural department, Frickstad designed hydro-powerhouses and associated substations in both urban and non-urban settings. Frickstad designed several integral components of PG&E s network, including the Pit I Powerhouse, San Mateo Substation, Stations K and J in San Francisco, the Cordelia Substation, Station K in Oakland, and Substation E in Piedmont. Substation E is a Mission-style building, a style that was popular in the 1920s. The building is unique, however, when compared to Fricktad s previously referenced buildings, which were designed in a Renaissance-style. The decorative elements used on Substation E, including quatrefoil decorations, twisted cement columns with Corinthian capitals, and metal balconet railings, are atypical for PG&E s buildings. As noted by PAR and confirmed during LSA s field visit, The building retains a high degree of integrity in regard, to location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. 11 Exterior alterations to the building are minor and include a metal door at the south side of the west portion of the building and boarded over windows and transoms. According to PAR, however, the original metal sash windows and transoms appear to be intact behind the boards. 12 Modifications have been made to the interior of the building since 1926, including the addition and removal of equipment. The building s historical significance and overall historical feeling, however, are best represented by its exterior, and modifications to the interior do not detract from the building s significance. 10 Bakic, 2000, p Bakic 2000, p Bakic 2000, p. 26. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 45

52 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regulatory Framework CEQA, relevant sections of the California Public Resources Code, and the City s 2025 General Plan comprise the regulatory framework for cultural resources on the project site. California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA applies to all discretionary projects undertaken or subject to approval by the state s public agencies (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14(3) 15002(i)). CEQA states that it is the policy of the State of California to take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with historic environmental qualities and preserve for future generations examples of the major periods of California history (Public Resources Code [PRC] 21001(b), (c)). Under the provisions of CEQA, A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (CCR Title 14(3) (b)). CEQA requires that historical resources and unique archaeological resources be taken into consideration during the CEQA planning process (CCR Title 14(3) ; PRC ). If feasible, adverse effects to the significance of historical resources must be avoided or the effects mitigated (CCR Title 14(3) (b)(4)). CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if it does not mitigate impacts to a less than significant level (CCR Title 14(3) (a)(1)). The term CEQA uses for significant cultural resources is historical resource, which is defined as any resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: Listed in, or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined at PRC (k)); Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC (g); or Determined to be a historical resource by a project s lead agency (CCR Title 14(3) (a)). A historical resource consists of Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Public Resources Code : California Register of Historical Resources. Section of the PRC established the California Register. Generally, a resource is considered by the lead agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register (CCR Title 14(3) (a)(3)). For a cultural resource to qualify for listing in the California Register it must be significant under one or more of the following criteria: Criterion 1: Criterion 2: Criterion 3: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California s history and cultural heritage; Associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 46

53 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition to being significant under one or more of these criteria, a resource must retain enough of its historic character and appearance to be recognizable as an historical resource and be able to convey the reasons for its significance (CCR Title 14 Section 4852(c)). Generally, a cultural resource must be 50 years or older to be eligible for the California Register. Substation E qualifies for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 because its design embodies the distinctive characteristics of Mission-period architecture during the early twentieth century and represents the work of an important creative individual (Ivan C. Frickstad). City of Piedmont 2025 General Plan. Historic preservation is addressed as part of the City s Design and Preservation Element of the 2025 General Plan. The Design and Preservation Element includes two goals Goal 31 and Goal 32 and associated policies that seek to promote and preserve significant examples of the City s history and to raise public awareness of Piedmont s history and historical resources. The goals and policies relevant to the current project are: Goal 31: Historic Preservation Identify, preserve, and maintain Piedmont s cultural and historic resources and recognize these resources as an essential part of the city s character and heritage. Policy 31.2: Preserving Historic Resources o Ensure that planning and building decisions, including zoning and design review approvals, are sensitive to historic resources and promote the conservation of Piedmont s historic neighborhoods. The demolition of historically important structures shall be strongly discouraged. Policy 31.3: Context-Sensitive Design o Ensure that the repair, maintenance, and expansion of Piedmont s historically important structures use appropriate materials and architectural details and respects historic context. Policy 31.7: Adaptive Reuse o Where it is no longer feasible to continue using an older building for its originally intended use, encourage adaptive reuse of the structure rather than demolition and replacement. Goal 32: Preservation Advocacy a nd Awareness Raise public awareness of Piedmont s history and historic resources, both locally and throughout the Bay Area. Policy 32.2: Preservation Education o Provide outreach to Piedmont residents on the cultural, physical, and social history of the city. Promote understanding not only of Piedmont history, but also of the community benefits of historic preservation. Policy 32.3: Preservation Partnerships o Create partnerships between the City, the Piedmont Historical Society, the Piedmont Unified School District, other community groups, and the private sector to advance historic preservation activities in the city. Policy 32.4: Historic Plaques and Markers P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 47

54 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES o Support the identification of historically important properties through plaques, markers, and heritage trails. Policy 32.5: Historic Resource Media o Encourage the development of books, videos, brochures, display exhibits, websites, and other media that increase awareness of historic sites and structures. Policy 32.6: Preservation Events o Promote preservation awards, festivals, conferences, walking tours, and other special events that celebrate Piedmont history and historic places Significance Criterion Pro ject implementation may have a significant impact if it would: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section The CEQA Guidelines defines a substantial adverse change as: Physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired (CCR Section (b)(1)). Demolition or material alteration in an adverse manner of those physical characteristics of an historical resource which convey its historical significance and justify its inclusion in or eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources, inclusion in a local register, or identification in a historical resources survey (CCR Section (b)(2)) Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section analyzes impacts that may occur to cultural resources if the project is implemented. Measures are presented to minimize potentially significant impacts. Less Than Significant Cultural Resources Impacts. The project is not anticipated to have any less than significant impacts to cultural resources. Potentially Significant Cultural Resources Impacts. Studies conducted by PAR and LSA identified a single historical resource on the project site, consisting of Substation E, a 1926 PG&E substation. Substation E is eligible for inclusion in the California Register under Criterion 3 as a unique example of Mission-style architecture within PG&E s system; it is also cited as a noteworthy example of PG&E architect Ivan C. Frickstad s work from the early twentieth century. If implemented, the proposed project would impact this historical resource. Impact CULT-1: Project implementation would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section (S) P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 48

55 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed project would demolish Substation E in advance of construction. As noted in the CEQA Guidelines at CCR Section (b)(1-2), demolition would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. A mitigation program that incorporates documentation of the resource, salvaging the building s historical materials, and public outreach would partially mitigate the project s impacts on cultural resources. The project applicant would be responsible for funding the following mitigation measures, and the City s Public Works Department would ensure that these mitigation measures are fulfilled as a condition of the building permit. Mitigation Measure CULT-4a 13 : Prior to demolition, the applicant shall retain a cultural resources consultant to prepare a historical context report and photo-documentation of Substation E. The report shall include a description of the substation s historical significance within the context of PG&E s infrastructure. Photo-documentation of Substation E shall be included as an appendix to the report to provide additional descriptive data and a permanent visual record of the resource. The photo-documentation shall be done according to Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) guidelines. 14 The report and photo-documentation shall be offered to the Oakland Public Library and the Piedmont Historical Society, and shall be submitted to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University. Mitigation Measure CULT-4b: An interpretive brochure shall be prepared that describes the historical significance of Substation E. The brochure shall be offered to the Oakland Public Library, the Piedmont Historical Society, and the City Public Works Department for distribution to interested members of the public. M itigation Measure CULT-4c: The applicant shall evaluate the reuse and salvage of original architectural components of the building, including doors, windows, balconets, and roofing materials for incorporation within new construction on site or for use in other historical buildings in the Bay Area. At a minimum, the applicant shall prepare a brief report for the City Public Works Department that documents those building elements that could be reused either on site as part of the project or offered for sale on the recycled construction materials market for reuse in renovation or remodels of historical buildings. The report shall take into account the technical feasibility, economic feasibility, and hazardous-materials constraints that may preclude salvage and reuse of certain architectural components. Materials that are salvaged for off-site use or recycled on-site may be counted toward compliance with the City s Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance requirements of Chapter 9 of the Piedmont Municipal Code. Mitigation Measure CULT-4d: The applicant shall set aside a publicly accessible space within the project site for an interpretive panel that briefly documents the historical significance of Substation E within the context of city and regional history. The panel shall include historical photographs and/or drawings of the substation. 13 Note that Mitigation Measures CULT-1 through CUlT-3 pertain to undiscovered cultural resources and are contained in the Revised IS/MND in Appendix A and summarized in Table 2.A of this document. 14 National Park Service, HABS/HAER Photographs: Specifications and Guidelines. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 49

56 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES Significance Level after Mitigation Implementation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-4a through CULT-4d would reduce potential impacts from the proposed project to a historical resource. These mitigation measures, however, would not reduce project impacts to a less than significant level (see League for Protection of Oakland s Architectural and Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896). The impacts from the proposed project to historical resources would therefore remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. (SU) P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 50

57 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE This section discusses global climate change, its causes and the contribution of human activities, and summarizes existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The section describes the criteria for determining the significance of climate change impacts, and estimates the likely GHG emissions that would result from construction activities, vehicular traffic, energy consumption and other emission sources. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project-related impacts to a less than significant level Existing Setting The following discussion provides an overview of the geographical and climate setting of the City of Piedmont, as well as global climate change, its causes, and its potential effects; and emission sources and inventories. Description of Global Climate Change and its Sources. Global climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth s atmosphere and oceans along with other significant changes in climate (such as precipitation or wind) that last for an extended period of time. The term global climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but global climate change is preferred to global warming because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures. Climate change refers to any change in measures of weather (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from natural factors, such as changes in the sun s intensity; natural processes within the climate system, such as changes in recently observed ocean circulation; or human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, or agriculture. The primary observed effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric 15 temperature of 0.36 F per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between 1990 and Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which would induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of California could include higher sea levels, drier or wetter weather, changes in ocean salinity, changes in wind patterns or more energetic aspects of extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold and increased intensity of tropical cyclones. Specific effects in California might include a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, erosion of California s coastline, and seawater intrusion in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Global surface temperatures have risen by 1.33 F ± 0.32 F over the last 100 years (1906 to 2005). The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years. 16 The latest projections, based on state-of-the art climate models, indicate that temperatures in California are expected to rise 3 to 10.5 F by the end of the century. 17 The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. 15 The troposphere is the zone of the atmosphere characterized by water vapor, weather, winds, and decreasing temperature with increasing altitude. 16 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. 17 California Climate Change Center, Our Changing Climate. Assessing the Risks to California. July. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 51

58 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and other GHGs are the primary causes of the humaninduced component of warming. The observed warming effect associated with the presence of GHGs in the atmosphere (from either natural or human sources) is often referred to as the greenhouse effect. 18 GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are: 19 Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) Methane (CH 4 ) Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF 6 ) Over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming. While GHGs produced by human activities include naturally-occurring GHGs such as CO 2, methane, and N 2 O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6 are completely new to the atmosphere. Certain other gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere as compared to these GHGs that remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is generally excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation. For the purposes of this EIR, the term GHGs will refer collectively to the six gases identified in the bulleted list provided above. These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The global warming potential is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere ( atmospheric lifetime ). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO 2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO 2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of CO 2 equivalents (CO 2 eq). Table 4.2.A shows the GWPs for each type of GHG. For example, sulfur hexafluoride is 22,800 times more potent in contributing to global warming than carbon dioxide. 18 The temperature on Earth is regulated by a system commonly known as the "greenhouse effect." Just as the glass in a greenhouse lets heat from sunlight in and reduces the amount of heat that escapes, greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a relatively even temperature. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a frozen globe; thus, although an excess of greenhouse gas results in global warming, the naturally occurring greenhouse effect is necessary to keep our planet at a comfortable temperature. 19 The greenhouse gases listed are consistent with the definition in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Government Code 38505), as discussed later in this section. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 52

59 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE The following discussion summarizes the characteristics of the six primary GHGs. Table 4.2.A: Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases Global Warming Potential Gas Atmospheric Lifetime (Years) (100-year Time Horizon) Carbon Dioxide Methane Nitrous Oxide HFC ,800 HFC-134a 14 1,430 HFC-152a PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF 4 ) 50,000 7,390 PFC: Hexafluoromethane (C 2 F 6 ) 10,000 12,200 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF 6 ) 3,200 22,800 Source: IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Carbon Dioxide (CO2). In the atmosphere, carbon generally exists in its oxidized form, as CO 2. Natural sources of CO 2 include the respiration (breathing) of humans, animals and plants, volcanic outgassing, decomposition of organic matter and evaporation from the oceans. Human-caused sources of CO 2 include the combustion of fossil fuels and wood, waste incineration, mineral production, and deforestation. The Earth maintains a natural carbon balance and when concentrations of CO 2 are upset, the system gradually returns to its natural state through natural processes. Natural changes to the carbon cycle work slowly, especially compared to the rapid rate at which humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Natural removal processes, such as photosynthesis by land- and ocean-dwelling plant species, cannot keep pace with this extra input of man-made CO 2, and consequently, the gas is building up in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere has risen about 30 percent since the late 1800s. 20 In 2002, CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion accounted for approximately 98 percent of man- made CO 2 emissions and approximately 84 percent of California's overall GHG emissions (CO 2 eq). The transportation sector accounted for California s largest portion of CO 2 emissions, with gasoline consumption making up the greatest portion of these emissions. Electricity generation was California s second largest category of GHG emissions. Methane (CH4). Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Anthropogenic sources include rice cultivation, livestock, landfills and waste treatment, biomass burning, and fossil fuel combustion (burning of coal, oil, natural gas, etc.). Decomposition occurring in landfills accounts for the majority of human-generated CH 4 emissions in California, followed by enteric fermentation (emissions from the digestive processes of livestock). 21 Agricultural processes such as manure management and rice cultivation are also significant sources of manmade CH 4 in California. Methane accounted for approximately 6 percent of gross climate change emissions (CO 2 eq) in California in 20 California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March. 21 California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data to Accessed November P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 53

60 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE It is estimated that over 60 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities. 23 As with CO 2, the major removal process of atmospheric methane a chemical breakdown in the atmosphere cannot keep pace with source emissions, and methane concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing. Nitrous Oxide (N 2 O). Nitrous oxide is produced naturally by a wide variety of biological sources, particularly microbial action in soils and water. Tropical soils and oceans account for the majority of natural source emissions. Nitrous oxide is a product of the reaction that occurs between nitrogen and oxygen during fuel combustion. Both mobile and stationary combustion emit N 2 O, and the quantity emitted varies according to the type of fuel, technology, and pollution control device used, as well as maintenance and operating practices. Agricultural soil management and fossil fuel combustion are the primary sources of human-generated N 2 O emissions in California. Nitrous oxide emissions accounted for nearly 7 percent of man-made GHG emissions (CO 2 eq) in California in Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF 6 ). HFCs are primarily used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances regulated under the Montreal Protocol. 24 PFCs and SF 6 are emitted from various industrial processes, including aluminum smelting, semiconductor manufacturing, electric power transmission and distribution, and magnesium casting. There is no aluminum or magnesium production in California; however, the rapid growth in the semiconductor industry, which is active in California, leads to greater use of PFCs. HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6 accounted for about 3.5 percent of man-made GHG emissions (CO 2 eq) in California in Emissions Sources and Inventories. An emissions inventory that identifies and quantifies the primary human-generated sources and sinks of GHGs is a well-recognized and useful tool for addressing climate change. This section summarizes the latest information on global, United States, California, and local GHG emission inventories. However, because GHGs persist for a long time in the atmosphere (see Table 4.2.A), accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere and climate cannot be tied to a specific point of emission. Global Emissions. Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2004 were 27 billion metric tons of CO 2 eq per year. 26 Global estimates are based on country inventories developed as part of programs of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). U.S. Emissions. In 2004, the United States emitted about 7.3 billion metric tons of CO 2 eq or about 25 tons per year per person. Of the four major sectors nationwide residential, commercial, industrial and transportation transportation accounts for the highest amount of GHG emissions (approximately 22 Ibid. 23 IPCC, Climate Change 2007: op. cit. 24 The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that was approved on January 1, 1989, and was designated to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of several groups of halogenated hydrocarbons believed to be responsible for ozone depletion. 25 California Environmental Protection Agency op. cit. 26 Combined total of Annex I and Non-Annex I Country CO 2 eq emissions. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data. Information available at and P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 54

61 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 35 to 40 percent); these emissions are entirely generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. Between 1990 and 2006, total U.S. GHG emissions rose approximately 14.7 percent. 27 State of California Emissions. According to California Air Resources Board (ARB) emission inventory estimates, California emitted approximately 474 million metric tons 28 of CO 2 eq emissions in This large number is due primarily to the sheer size of California compared to other States. By contrast, California has the fourth lowest per-capita carbon dioxide emission rate from fossil fuel combustion in the country, due to the success of its energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and commitments that have lowered the State s GHG emissions rate of growth by more than half of what it would have been otherwise. 30 The ARB estimates that transportation was the source of approximately 37 percent of the State s GHG emissions in 2008, followed by electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-state) at 24 percent, and industrial sources at 19 percent. The remaining sources of GHG emissions were residential and commercial activities at 9 percent, agriculture at 6 percent, high global warming potential gases (HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6 from miscellaneous sources) at 3 percent, and recycling and waste at 1 percent. 31 ARB staff has projected statewide unregulated GHG emissions for the year 2020, which represent the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions, will be 596 million metric tons (MMT) of CO 2 eq. GHG emissions from the transportation and electricity sectors as a whole are expected to increase, but remain at approximately 38 percent and 23 percent of total CO 2 eq emissions, respectively. The industrial sector consists of large stationary sources of GHG emissions with the percentage of the total 2020 emissions projected to be 17 percent of total CO 2 eq emissions. The remaining sources of GHG emissions in 2020 are high global warming potential gases at 8 percent, residential and commercial activities at 8 percent, agriculture at 5 percent, and recycling and waste at 1 percent. 32 City of Piedmont Emissions. In 2005, the City of Piedmont, including municipal and community sources, generated 47,750 metric tons of CO 2 eq. 33 More than 50 percent of these emissions resulted from energy consumption in residential, civic, and commercial buildings. Transportation sources contributed over a third of the total CO 2 eq emissions. Waste generation and disposal and water consumption made up the remainder. As a result of lower emissions from newer vehicles, the City s GHG emissions would be expected to decrease to about 46,944 metric tons of CO 2 eq in While this represents a 1.7 percent decrease in the short term, the City established a GHG reduction target of 15 percent, or 7,160 metric tons of CO 2 eq, below 2005 baseline emission levels by Since 27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: Fast Facts A metric ton is equivalent to approximately 1.1 tons. 29 California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data to Accessed February California Energy Commission (CEC), Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to Final Staff Report, publication # CEC SF, Sacramento, CA, December 22, 2006; and January 23, 2007 update to that report. 31 California Air Resources Board (ARB), May. 32 California Air Resources Board (ARB), September. 33 City of Piedmont, Climate Action Plan. March. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 55

62 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE emissions are projected to decrease to 46,944 metric tons of CO 2 eq in 2020, the additional reductions from the City s Climate Action Plan will need to total 6,350 metric tons of CO 2 eq Regulatory Framework The regulatory framework and other governmental activities addressing GHG emissions and global climate change are discussed in this section. Over a decade ago, most countries joined an international treaty, the UNFCCC, to begin to consider what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with the physical and socioeconomic effects of climate change. More recently, a number of nations have ratified an amendment to the treaty: the Kyoto Protocol. The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to achieve overall emissions reduction targets for six GHGs regulated under the Protocol (CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, HFCs, PFC, and SF 6 ) by As of November 2009, over 180 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Industrialized and developing nations have different requirements for GHG reductions. Each nation must reduce GHG emissions by a certain percentage below 1990 levels (e.g., 8 percent reduction for the European Union, 6 percent reduction for Japan). The average reduction target for nations participating in the Kyoto Protocol is approximately 5 percent below 1990 levels. The United States has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Federal Regulations. The United States has historically had a voluntary approach to reducing GHG emissions. However, on April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate CO 2 emissions under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). While there currently are no adopted federal regulations for the control or reduction of GHG emissions, the EPA commenced several actions in 2009 that are required to implement a regulatory approach to global climate change. On September 30, 2009, the EPA announced a proposal that focuses on large facilities emitting over 25,000 tons of GHG emissions per year. These facilities would be required to obtain permits that would demonstrate they are using the best practices and technologies to minimize GHG emissions. On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed a final action under the CAA, finding that six greenhouse gases (CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, HFCs, PFCs, SF 6 ) constitute a threat to public health and welfare, and that the combined emissions from motor vehicles cause and contribute to global climate change. This EPA action does not impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, the findings are a prerequisite to finalizing the GHG emission standards for light-duty vehicles mentioned below. EPA received ten petitions challenging this determination. On July 29, 2010, EPA denied these petitions. In February 2010, the White House Council of Environmental Quality released a document titled Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The draft guidance recognizes that many Federal actions will result, directly or indirectly, in GHG emissions. The draft guidance encourages agencies to quantify cumulative emissions over the life of the project in project analysis; to discuss measures to reduce emissions, including the consideration of reasonable alternatives; and to discuss from a qualitative perspective the link between the project s emissions and climate change. The guidance recognizes scientific limits on the ability to predict climate change effects, and therefore cautions the use of speculative analyses or attempting to link a particular project to specific climatological changes. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 56

63 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a final joint rule to establish a national program consisting of new standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy. The EPA is finalizing the first-ever national greenhouse gas emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, and NHTSA is finalizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The EPA GHG standards require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO 2 per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg). On May 13, 2010, the EPA issued a final rule to address greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the CAA permitting programs. This final rule sets thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. State Regulations. The ARB is the lead agency for implementing climate change regulations in the State. Since its formation, the ARB has worked with the public, the business sector, and local governments to find solutions to California s air pollution problems. In a response to the transportation sector s significant contribution to California s CO 2 emissions, Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493, Pavley) was enacted on July 22, AB 1493 requires the ARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks (and other vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State) manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. To set its own GHG emissions limits on motor vehicles, California must receive a waiver from the EPA. On June 30, 2009, the EPA granted the waiver of CAA preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Notice of the decision was published in the Federal Register on July 8, In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California s GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S The Executive Order established the following goals for the State of California: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by California s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act, passed by the California State legislature on August 31, This effort aims at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by The ARB has established the level of GHG emissions in 1990 at 427 MMT of CO 2 eq. The emissions target of 427 MMT requires the reduction of 169 MMT from the State s projected business-as-usual 2020 emissions of 596 MMT. AB 32 requires the ARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline and to reduce GHGs that contribute to global climate change. The Scoping Plan was approved by the ARB on December 11, 2008, and includes measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. 34 The Scoping Plan includes a range of GHG reduction actions that may include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, 34 California Air Resources Board Climate Change Scoping Plan: a framework for change. December. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 57

64 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system. The Scoping Plan, even after Board approval, remains a recommendation. The measures in the Scoping Plan will not be binding until after they are adopted through the normal rulemaking process. The ARB rulemaking process includes preparation and release of each of the draft measures, public input through workshops and a public comment period, followed by an ARB Board hearing and rule adoption. As of September 2010, 40 percent of reductions identified in the Scoping Plan have been secured through ARB actions. 35 In addition to reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, AB 32 directed the ARB and the newly created Climate Action Team (CAT) 36 to identify a list of discrete early action GHG reduction measures that can be adopted and made enforceable by January 1, On January 18, 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-1-07, further solidifying California s dedication to reducing GHGs by setting a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The Executive Order sets a target to reduce the carbon intensity of California transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 and directs the ARB to consider the Low Carbon Fuel Standard as a discrete early action measure. In June 2007, the ARB approved a list of 37 early action measures, including three discrete early action measures (Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Restrictions on High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants, and Landfill Methane Capture). 37 Discrete early action measures are measures that are required to be adopted as regulations. The measures were made enforceable by January 1, 2010, the date established by HSC Section The ARB adopted additional early action measures in October 2007 that tripled the number of discrete early action measures. These measures relate to truck efficiency, port electrification, reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry, reduction of propellants in consumer products, proper tire inflation, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) reductions from the non-electricity sector. The combination of early action measures is estimated to reduce State-wide GHG emissions by nearly 16 MMT. 38 To assist public agencies in analyzing the effects of GHGs under CEQA, Senate Bill (SB) 97 (Chapter 185, 2007) requires the Governor s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA guidelines on how to minimize and mitigate a project s GHG emissions. On December 30, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency adopted CEQA Guidelines Amendments related to climate change. These amendments became effective on March 18, SB 375, signed into law on October 1, 2008, is intended to enhance the ARB s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the ARB to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets to be achieved within the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and The ARB will work with California's 18 metropolitan planning organizations to align their regional transportation, housing, and land use plans and prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled in their respective regions and demonstrate the region s ability to attain its greenhouse gas reduction targets. 35 California Air Resources Board September CAT is a consortium of representatives from State agencies who have been charged with coordinating and implementing GHG emission reduction programs that fall outside of ARB s jurisdiction. 37 California Air Resources Board Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October. 38 California Air Resources Board ARB approves tripling of early action measures required under AB 32. News Release October 25. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 58

65 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE On December 30, 2009, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted CEQA Guidelines Amendments related to Climate Change. These amendments became effective on March 18, 2010, and state: (a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards. (b) A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment: (1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; (3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) provides that the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, and further, states that an ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. Individual projects incrementally contribute toward the potential for global climate change on a cumulative basis in concert with all other past, present, and probable future projects. While projects are unlikely to individually cause global climate change, each project contributes emissions seen in the steady global GHG increase. Revisions to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines suggest that the project be evaluated for the following impacts: P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 59

66 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Bay Area Air Quality Management. As the regional air quality management district, the BAAQMD has taken a lead role in adopting a Climate Protection Program by adopting CEQA Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating GHG emissions. BAAQMD Climate Protection Program. The BAAQMD established a climate protection program that includes measures promoting energy efficiency, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and developing alternative sources of energy, all of which reduce emissions of GHGs and other air pollutants. BAAQMD supports current climate protection programs in the region. The agency stimulates additional efforts through public education and outreach, technical assistance to local governments and other interested parties and promotion of collaborative efforts. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, adopted in June 2010, include thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions. The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, BAAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction, and make a determination on the significance of these construction generated GHG emission impacts in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate best management practices, such as recycling at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials, to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as applicable. For land use development projects (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities), the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions are: (1) compliance with a qualified climate action plan or qualified general plan; (2) annual GHG emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year; or (3) annual GHG emissions less than 4.6 metric tons per service population (residents plus employees). Achievement of any one of these standards defines a less than significant project impact. Local Policies. On May 15, 2006, the Piedmont City Council adopted a Resolution for the City to become a member of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Local Governments for Sustainability and to participate in the Alameda County Climate Protection Project. In 2008, the Piedmont City Council directed staff to begin development of a Climate Action Plan (CAP). As part of the CAP, the City of Piedmont set a goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by The CAP was adopted by the Piedmont City Council on March 15, The plan defines climate change and its potential effects, outlines the actions the City and State are taking to address climate change, describes how residents and business owners can participate in greenhouse gas reduction efforts, details the City s strategy to be consistent with applicable state regulations, and provides guidance to City officials and departments charged with implementing the measures and policies contained within the plan. The following Piedmont ordinances relate to reducing GHG emissions in the City: P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 60

67 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 50 percent Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Recycling Ordinance. In 2007, the City adopted an ordinance that requires projects with a valuation of $50,000 dollars or more to divert 50 percent of construction or demolition related waste from the landfill. 75 percent Diversion Recycling Goal Resolution. In 2008, the City adopted a resolution to achieve 75 percent waste reduction and diversion by The City has established a curbside recycling program for plastics, plastic bags, polystyrene, aseptic containers, and batteries. Food scraps and food soiled paper waste are collected with yard debris. The City s food scrap composting program has achieved a 50 to 60 percent participation rate among Piedmont residents. Civic Green Building Ordinance. In 2008, the City Council approved an ordinance that requires major civic building projects to follow established green building standards. Civic Bay Friendly Landscaping Ordinance. In 2009, the City Council approved an ordinance requiring use of Bay Friendly Landscape practices on all major municipal landscaping projects ( $100,000). Food Scrap Recycling Program. In July, 2008, the City implemented a food scrap recycling program as part of weekly collection services. Residents, business owners and schools may place food scraps and food soiled paper in their green organics carts. The material is sent to a facility where the waste is turned into compost for use by farmers, landscapers, and home gardeners. The City of Piedmont General Plan (2009) contains the following policies related to development and GHG emissions: Policy 7.1: Balancing Travel Modes. Ensure that transportation planning balances the needs of motorists, transit users, pedestrians, and bicycles. Where feasible, future land use and transportation decisions should discourage driving in single passenger autos and instead encourage alternative modes of travel. Policy 7.3: Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled. Support changes that would reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by Piedmont residents, including enabling residents to conduct business with City Hall on the internet, allowing home-based businesses, supporting telecommuting, encouraging carpooling, improving public transit, and upgrading facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. Policy 7.4: Synchronizing Land Use and Transportation Decisions. Ensure that Piedmont s transportation system complements the city s land use pattern, and that land use decisions complement and make the most efficient use of the city s transportation system. Policy 9.1: Accessible Transit. Strongly support the provision of safe, reliable, convenient public transportation service that is accessible to all Piedmont neighborhoods. AC Transit should be responsive to input from Piedmont residents and should increase service frequency to Piedmont as funds permit. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 61

68 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Policy 9.2: Transit Stops and Routes. Encourage AC Transit to provide a bus stop within walking distance (roughly 1,000-2,000 feet) of all Piedmont residences. Bus routes should generally follow arterial and major collector streets. Policy 9.3: Transit Vehicles. Due to the high operating expense and greater impacts of full-size transit vehicles on Piedmont streets, encourage the use of mini-buses, shuttles, para-transit, and other smaller vehicle transit systems. Also, encourage the use of quiet, clean-fuel buses on Piedmont streets. Policy 9.5: Transit Amenities. Encourage amenities that make bus travel a more appealing alternative to driving. These could include bus shelters and bus stops with real-time information on bus arrival times. Policy 9.6: Casual Carpooling. Support casual carpooling as a viable form of transit from Piedmont to San Francisco during the peak hours. However, carpools should be regarded as a supplement to public transit, and not a substitute for public transit. Policy 9.7: Carpool Parking. Mitigate the parking impacts of casual carpooling. Non-Piedmont residents should be discouraged from all-day parking on streets near carpool pickup points. Policy 10.1: Sidewalks. Maintain a system of well maintained and connected sidewalks to accommodate safe pedestrian travel in and around Piedmont. Policy 10.2: Pedestrian Paths. Maintain Piedmont s mid-block pedestrian paths as walking routes. Adverse effects of the pathways on adjacent property owners should be minimized. Policy 10.3: Street Crossings. Improve the safety and ease of crossing Piedmont s arterial streets on foot or by bicycle. Policy 10.4: Bike Routes. Accommodate bicycles where feasible on Piedmont streets. Recognize that most streets are not wide enough to accommodate dedicated bike lanes, but that the designation of some streets as bike routes (as depicted on the City of Oakland s Bicycle Plan) could improve connectivity to Oakland and link Piedmont to nearby destinations, including shopping districts, Downtown Oakland, and BART. Policy 10.5: Bicycle Infrastructure. Expand the infrastructure necessary to accommodate bicycle travel, including bike racks in parks, at schools, and at public buildings. Policy 14.2: Tree Removal and Replacement. Where appropriate and feasible, require replacement trees when trees on public property are removed. When non-native trees such as eucalyptus and acacia are removed, they should be replaced with native species or other species that are more appropriate to Piedmont s vegetation management and infrastructure maintenance goals. Policy 15.1: Transportation Control Measures. This policy requires the implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs) to reduce air pollution emissions. Measures include those that promote walking and bicycling, carpooling and a more balanced and integrated transportation system. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 62

69 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Policy 16.2: Green Building. Support the use of green building methods in new construction and rehabilitation projects, including both public agency projects and private projects undertaken by homeowners. Policy 16.3: Water Conservation. Maintain development standards and building requirements that encourage the efficient use of water. These requirements should include the use of plumbing fixtures designed for water efficiency and irrigation systems designed to minimize water waste. Policy 17.1: Solid Waste Reduction. Actively promote recycling, composting, and other programs that reduce the amount of solid waste requiring disposal in landfills. Strive for a target of diverting 75 percent of the city s wastestream from landfills by 2010, and increasing that target after Policy 17.2: Energy Conservation. Strongly advocate for increased energy conservation by Piedmont residents, businesses, and other public agencies such as the Piedmont Unified School District. Support PG&E in their education and outreach efforts and encourage Piedmont residents to participate in PG&E weatherization and appliance rebate programs. Policy 17.3: Alternative Energy Sources. Encourage the use of alternative energy sources, such as solar power and wind energy, by Piedmont residents. Policy 17.4: Greening the Government. Ensure that the City of Piedmont follows conservation practices in its day-to-day operations and is a role model for residents and local businesses in the arena of conservation. The City should encourage the use of recyclable or reusable goods in its purchasing policies and implement other conservation measures that can be emulated by Piedmont residents Significance Criteria This EIR analyzes whether the project s GHG emissions would be cumulatively significant. Accordingly, the project would result in significant adverse impacts on global climate change if it would: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; Conflict with a qualified climate action plan; Result in operational-related greenhouse gas emissions of 1,100 metric tons of CO 2 eq a year; Result in operational-related greenhouse gas emissions that exceed 4.6 metric tons of CO 2 eq per service population (residents + employees); or Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section evaluates the emissions of greenhouse gases that would result from implementation of the proposed project. The evaluation of environmental effects presented in this section focuses on P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 63

70 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE potential climate change impacts associated with the project s increase in GHG emissions. Mitigation measures are proposed as appropriate. Less Than Significant Global Climate Change Impacts. The following less than significant global climate change impacts could result from implementation of the proposed project. (1) Construction Emissions. Construction activities, such as site preparation, site grading, utility engines, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction of the project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO 2, CH 4, and N 2 O. Furthermore, CH 4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The only GHG with well-studied emissions characteristics and published emissions factors for construction equipment is CO 2. The project opening date is unknown at this time. However, in order to provide a cumulative analysis of project conditions for this EIR, a project opening year of 2013 was selected for the environmental analysis. The construction period anticipated for the project features as currently proposed is approximately 24 months. Earthwork operations at the site would primarily consist of the demolition of the decommissioned PG&E substation building currently occupying the site and the grading of a level building area for site development. It is anticipated that minimal new fills would be associated with the project at the front of the units and that the remaining cut materials from site excavations would be disposed of off-site. URBEMIS 2007 was used to estimate project-related construction emissions. Model output sheets are included in Appendix D. The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. Therefore, the threshold is based on a qualitative evaluation of whether the project implements applicable BAAQMD Best Management Practices. Energy is expended and GHGs are released during the manufacturing and transportation of construction materials. When materials are reused or recycled, the associated emissions that would have occurred during material manufacturing are reduced or avoided. The practices implemented during construction would require that 50 percent of the construction and demolition waste be recycled per the City of Piedmont ordinance, which is a BAAQMD measure. Therefore, the construction impacts of the proposed project on global climate change would be considered less than significant. (2) Operational GHG Emissions. Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area and mobile sources, and indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption. Mobile-source emissions of GHGs would include project-generated vehicle trips associated with resident vehicle trips to the project site. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance of proposed land uses, and other sources. Increases in emissions would also occur at off-site utility providers as a result of demand for electricity by the proposed uses. Operational emissions estimates for the proposed project are discussed below and were calculated consistent with the methodology recommended in the BAAQMD s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines adopted in June The methodology and/or qualitative description of the sources of GHG P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 64

71 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE emissions related to transportation, electricity and natural gas, water use, and carbon sequestration are described below. An indication of the level of significance is not attributed to each of these sources of GHG emissions because the cumulative assessment of the project s operational GHG emissions, which includes each of these factors, is addressed following this discussion under Project Emissions. The following GHG emissions were estimated using URBEMIS 2007 and the BAAQMD GHG Model (BGM). Transportation. Transportation associated with the project would result in GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in daily automobile and truck trips. Transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in California and represents approximately 38 percent of annual CO 2 emissions generated in the State. For land use development projects, VMT and vehicle trips are the most direct indicators of GHG emissions associated with the project. Using equations and average rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7 th edition, the project is expected to generate approximately 41 new daily vehicle trips. 39 Motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of project-related GHG emissions at metric ton per year. Electricity and Natural Gas. Buildings represent 39 percent of United States primary energy use and 70 percent of electricity consumption. 40 Electricity use can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combusting fossil fuel. The project is anticipated to increase the use of electricity and natural gas. Energy consumption was estimated using BGM. Water and Wastewater. Energy use and related GHG emissions are based on water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment. Each element of the water use cycle has unique energy intensities (kilowatt hours [kwh]/million gallons). Recognizing that the actual energy intensity in each component of the water use cycle will vary by utility, the California Energy Commission (CEC) assumes that approximately 5,411 kwh per million gallons are consumed for water that is supplied, treated, consumed, treated again, and disposed of in Northern California. Water usage and wastewater generation were estimated using BGM. Other Area Sources. URBEMIS 2007 was used to estimate CO 2 emissions related to other area sources, including landscape equipment emissions. Other area sources are estimated at 3.85 metric tons per year. Project Emissions. When calculating project GHG emissions to compare to the thresholds of significance, BAAQMD recommends that the lead agency consider project design features, attributes, and local development requirements as part of the project as proposed and not as mitigation measures. Table 4.2.B shows the calculated GHG emissions for the existing uses and the proposed project. Motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of GHG emissions at approximately 71 percent of the total. Energy use is the next largest category at a combined 24 percent of CO 2 eq emissions. Other area sources, including landscape equipment, are the remaining source of GHG emissions and comprise 5 39 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition (2003) -- Residential Condominium/Townhouse Rates, Code 230: Daily 5.86/Dwelling Unit (DU)/50% inbound, 50% outbound; AM Peak 0.44/DU; PM Peak 0.52/DU. 40 United States Department of Energy Buildings Energy Data Book. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 65

72 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE percent of the total emissions for the proposed project. Additional calculation details are provided in Appendix D. Table 4.2.B: Project GHG Emissions Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) Emission Source CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O CO 2 eq Percent of Total Vehicles N/A N/A Electricity Production Natural Gas Combustion Water & Wastewater Other Area Sources N/A Total Annual Emissions N/A Source: LSA Associates, Inc., January 2011 Note: Column totals may vary slightly due to independent rounding of input data. The proposed project would generate up to metric tons of CO 2 eq per year of emissions, as shown in Table 4.2.B. Annual emissions of operational-related GHGs for the proposed project do not exceed the significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO 2 eq per year; therefore, the operations of the project would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the impact of the proposed project would be less than significant. (3) Consistency with plans and policies related to greenhouse gases. The California Environmental Protection Agency CAT and the ARB have developed several reports to achieve the Governor s GHG targets that rely on voluntary actions of California businesses, local government and community groups, and State incentive and regulatory programs. These include the CAT s 2006 Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, ARB s 2007 Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California, and ARB s Climate Change Scoping Plan: a Framework for Change. The reports identify strategies to reduce California s emissions to the levels proposed in Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. The adopted Scoping Plan includes proposed GHG reductions from direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as cap-and-trade systems. Under AB 32 guidance, ARB identified 44 early action items that ARB staff concluded were expected to yield significant GHG emission reductions, are likely to be cost-effective and technologically feasible. The combination of early action measures is estimated to reduce State-wide GHG emissions by nearly 16 MMT. Accordingly, the 44 early action items focus on industrial production processes, agriculture, and transportation sectors. Early action items associated with industrial production and agriculture do not apply to the proposed project. The transportation sector early action items such as truck efficiency, low carbon fuel standard, proper tire inflation, truck stop electrification and strengthening light duty vehicle standards are either not specifically applicable to the proposed project or would result in a reduction of GHG emissions associated with the project. State measures include emission reductions assumed as part of the Scoping Plan, including light-duty vehicle GHG standards ( Pavley standards ), low carbon fuel standard, and energy efficiency measures. The City of Piedmont CAP includes strategies to reduce GHG emissions from Buildings and Energy, Waste and Water, and Transportation and Land Use to achieve the emission reduction target. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project: P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 66

73 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE TL-1.1. Consider expanding and enhancing bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure throughout the community if financially feasible and practical. TL-1.2. Install bike racks in commercial and civic areas of the City where racks do not currently exist if financially feasible and practical. TL-1.3. Consider incorporating pedestrian-friendly design features into the City's civic/commercial centers. Over 70 percent of the emissions from the proposed project are related to transportation. The proposed project would include pedestrian features, including a new pathway along the northern project boundary and two pedestrian access points into the side and rear portions of the development, and would therefore be consistent with City of Piedmont CAP policies. The project is consistent with the City of Piedmont s General Plan policies related to greenhouse gases, as listed in Section The proposed project would not conflict with the State goal of reducing GHG emissions and would not conflict with the AB 32 Scoping Plan or the early action measures. The project would be subject to all applicable permit and planning requirements in place or adopted by the City of Piedmont and is consistent with the measures proposed in the Climate Action Plan. As discussed earlier, the proposed project does not exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for GHG emissions. BAAQMD s approach to developing a threshold of significance for GHG emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. The project s GHG emissions are below this threshold; therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Potentially Significant Global Climate Change Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant global climate change impacts. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 67

74 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 68

75 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS The CEQA Guidelines require the analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the project s basic objectives and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. 41 CEQA states that an EIR should not consider alternatives whose effects cannot be ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. This chapter describes the alternatives to the project, evaluates the significant environmental impacts associated with each alternative relative to those resulting from the proposed project, and discusses the ability of each alternative to meet the project objectives. Alternatives that were considered, but rejected, are also described. A discussion of the environmentally superior alternative is included in this chapter as required by CEQA. The following objectives, listed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of this Draft Focused EIR are repeated here to help inform this evaluation of alternatives: Redevelop a site, which is currently developed with a vacant PG&E power transfer station, with seven (7) townhome condominiums. Develop a project that complies with the use and intensity permitted by the regulations and policies of the City of Piedmont and the State of California. Develop a project that is in compliance with the City of Piedmont s design guidelines, policies, and criteria. Build a project that is economically viable based on market conditions. Increase the City of Piedmont s housing supply. Enhance the visual and community character of the neighborhood. The proposed project has been described and analyzed in the previous chapters and in the Initial Study with an emphasis on significant impacts resulting from the proposed project, and mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce or avoid these impacts. The following discussion is intended to inform the public and decision-makers of the relative impacts of three potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project. One of the alternatives is required in all EIRs, one is in response to public comments received during the public scoping session on April 14, 2010, and one is directly related to a significant and unavoidable impact. The three alternatives to the proposed project discussed in this chapter include the following: 41 CEQA Guidelines, Section P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 69

76 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS The No Project Alternative would result in no development at 408 Linda Avenue and no demolition of the existing substation. None of the impacts associated with the proposed project would occur under this alternative. However, none of the project objectives would be achieved. The Smaller Units Alternative would consist of reducing the height and the overall square footage of the units. By reducing the mass and bulk of the proposed townhomes, this alternative would reduce the less than significant aesthetic impacts of the proposed project. Any additional land made available from the reduced development footprint would be used for open space and landscaping. This alternative would meet all the project objectives with the possible exception of the fourth one, as smaller units may not be economically viable due to the potential reduction in the overall market value of the project. The Substation Reuse Alternative would reuse the existing PG&E substation for townhouse units. This alternative would reduce cultural resource impacts by retaining the historic substation building. This alternative would meet all the project objectives with the possible exception of the fourth one, as reuse of the historic substation may not be economically viable due to the cost to rehabilitate the building and make it suitable for residential reuse. It is noted that reuse of the building may result in smaller units due to the shape of the building and limitations on alterations to the exterior of the building for fenestration and egress, pursuant to the Secretary of Interior Standards. The following discussion addresses each alternative and analyzes potential environmental impacts. This analysis compares the anticipated impacts of each alternative to the impacts associated with the proposed project; the discussion includes a determination as to whether or not each alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant impacts. 5.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Principal Characteristics Under the No Project Alternative, the existing electrical substation building would remain on the project site and no townhouses, parking, central courtyard or other project features would be constructed. The existing substation would remain vacant and the project site would remain unused. The weedy broad-leaved plants and grasses and existing trees surrounding the building would remain in place. The No Project Alternative would fail to meet any of the project objectives, including redeveloping the site, increasing the City s housing supply, building an economically viable project, or enhancing the community character of the neighborhood Analysis of the No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative is evaluated for all environmental topics analyzed in this Focused EIR and the Initial Study for the proposed project. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 70

77 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Aesthetics. The No Project Alternative would not change existing land uses on the project site, or alter the visual character of the area. Under the alternative, the existing substation building and vegetation on the site would remain intact. Although the No Project Alternative would have none of the aesthetic impacts of the proposed project, the gradual deterioration of the vacant substation building and the presence of unmaintained weeds could degrade the visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. Air Quality. The No Project Alternative would not result in grading or demolition activities on the site, which would otherwise cause pollutants from construction emissions including particulate matter, fugitive dust and construction equipment pollutants, as well as toxic air contaminants from lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials if any such materials remain in the existing substation building. In addition, the alternative would not generate construction-related or operational period vehicle trips. Therefore, the alternative would avoid the air quality impacts associated with the proposed project, namely emissions of reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, as well as toxic air contaminants from lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials. Biological Resources. The No Project Alternative, which would maintain existing landscape features on the project site, would reduce impacts to biological resources compared to the proposed project. Under the No Project Alternative, no trees would be removed and nesting birds would not be impacted. Cultural Resources. Under the No Project Alternative, the historic substation would remain and no ground disturbance would be required. Therefore, no unknown cultural or paleontological resources, or human remains, would be uncovered. Although the No Project Alternative would avoid the cultural resources impacts of the proposed project, the historic substation would remain vacant and could deteriorate over time if it is not restored or reused. Geology and Soils. Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would continue to be subject to earthquake-induced groundshaking, settlement of existing onsite fill material, and expansive soils. However, the No Project Alternative would not expose new buildings to these hazards or substantially increase the number of people exposed to these hazards. Global Climate Change. Under the No Project Alternative, no additional greenhouse gases would be generated through the use of fossil fuels for construction or additional vehicle trips associated with development. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not generate any greenhouse gas emissions and would not result in impacts to global climate change. Hazards. The No Project Alternative would not include construction, ground disturbance, or demolition of the existing substation building. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not result in construction impacts associated with the use and transport of hazardous materials, including fuels, oils, lubricants, asphalt products, other petroleum products, and solvents. However, any existing leadbased paint, asbestos-containing materials or contaminated soils would remain on the project site, potentially limiting future reuse or redevelopment of the site. Hydrology and Water Quality. The No Project Alternative would avoid all the hydrology and water quality impacts that would result from the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not result in construction activities on the site and would not result in soil erosion, the release of P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 71

78 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS construction-related hazardous materials, or the emission of other pollutants that could degrade water quality. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would reduce hydrology and water quality impacts compared to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning. Under the No Project Alternative, the site would continue to contain the decommissioned substation building; therefore the alternative would result in no land use changes to the project site. As described in the Initial Study, the land use designation for the site was converted from Public/Quasi Public to Medium Density Residential with the City Council adoption of the updated City of Piedmont General Plan in April Although the No Project Alternative would not result in land use changes on the site, it would not result in the construction of residential units, consistent with the land use designation outlined in the current City of Piedmont General Plan. Noise. The No Project Alternative would not result in new construction or grading (and its associated noise). In addition, the No Project Alternative would not generate new vehicle trips, which would otherwise increase noise levels in the vicinity of the project site, including area roadways. Population and Housing. Under the No Project Alternative, no new residents would be added to the City of Piedmont. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not induce substantial population growth. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not displace existing housing or people. Public Services/Recreation. Under the No Project Alternative, no new residents would be added to the City of Piedmont. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not increase demand for fire and police protection, schools, parks, recreational facilities and other public services. Transportation/Traffic. The No Project Alternative would not generate any additional vehicle trips to the project site. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not result in any transportation/traffic impacts. Utilities/Service Systems. Under the No Project Alternative, no new residents would be added to the City of Piedmont. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not increase demand for utilities or service systems. 5.2 SMALLER UNITS ALTERNATIVE Principal Characteristics As a result of comments generated by the public during the scoping period for the EIR, an alternative architectural/design alternative was developed for the project site. The Smaller Units Alternative was determined to be a viable alternative and to address some of the concerns raised by the public (i.e., aesthetics). Although this alternative would not avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR (i.e., cultural resources), it is included as an alternative to the proposed project for the benefit of the public and City decision-makers who would ultimately consider the merits of the project. Under the Smaller Units Alternative, the existing electrical substation building would be demolished and the site would be developed with townhouses, parking, a central courtyard and other features P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 72

79 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS similar to the proposed project. The height and overall square footage of the townhouse units would be reduced by approximately 10 percent from the proposed project, resulting in units ranging in size from 1,900 square feet to 2,180 square feet. With the reduction of 215 to 240 square feet from each unit, the units may only have 3 bedrooms in lieu of 4. Alternatively, one or more of the units could be reduced more significantly with less reduction in other units so that the overall project square footage is reduced by 10 percent. The reduction in size would not eliminate a story from the buildings (a 25 to 30 percent reduction would be required to achieve that), but would likely result in a more articulated roof line, or possible further recesses at the second story which would reduce the visual mass of the buildings. Under this option, there would not be a reduction in building height, nor is there likely to be much of a reduction in the building footprint, since the footprints are dictated by the parking and storage requirements of the Piedmont Municipal Code (Chapters 17 and 19). The project floor area ratio the relationship of the amount of total habitable square footage in the buildings to the lot size would be reduced from the proposed 105 percent to 94 percent under this reduced size alternative. Under the Smaller Units Alternative, the site layout, vehicular access, and extent of grading and construction would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative would meet all the project objectives with the possible exception of the fourth one, as smaller units may not be economically viable due to the potential reduction in the overall market value of the project Analysis of the Smaller Units Alternative The Smaller Units Alternative is evaluated for all environmental topics analyzed in this Draft EIR and the Initial Study for the proposed project. Aesthetics. Under the Smaller Units Alternative, the proposed townhouses would be reduced in size by approximately 10 percent, resulting in a minor reduction in the mass and bulk of the buildings. Depending on where the roofline is changed, it could result in an a slightly improved visual building mass relationship between Unit A and the 1-1/2 story residence at 420 Linda Avenue which is slightly more than 15 feet to the east of the project. Any increase in separation between the house and the upper level of Unit A would improve the amount of light and air to the residence. Should Unit A be reduced in size more significantly (with other units remaining the same), the separation between the buildings would improve more dramatically. Overall, the visual impacts of the Smaller Units Alternative would be slightly reduced from the proposed project. Air Quality. Air quality impacts associated with implementation of the Smaller Units Alternative would be very similar to the proposed project as the level of construction activity, including demolition of the existing substation building, would be the same. The Smaller Units Alternative would not substantially increase pollutant or odors concentrations and would not conflict with the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy or the BAAQMD standards. Under the Smaller Units Alternative, air quality impacts associated with construction activities, including pollutants from construction emissions such as particulate matter, fugitive dust and construction equipment pollutants, as well as toxic air contaminants from lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the same mitigation measures as identified in the Initial Study for the proposed project. Biological Resources. Like the proposed project, the Smaller Units Alternative could potentially result in impacts to nesting birds due to the removal of nine trees on the project site, which would not be reduced under this alternative. These potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 73

80 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS level with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 identified in the Initial Study for the proposed project. Cultural Resources. Like the proposed project, the Smaller Units Alternative would demolish an existing substation building eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, resulting in a significant unavoidable impact to a historical resource. Site development could also uncover unknown archaeological or paleontological resources, or human remains. Standard mitigation measures, as described in the Initial Study for the proposed project would reduce impacts to previously undiscovered cultural resources or human remains to less than significant. Therefore, cultural resources impacts under the Smaller Units Alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Geology and Soils. Similar to the proposed project, the Smaller Units Alternative would be constrained by the geologic conditions of the project site. Development of the site would be subject to earthquake-induced groundshaking, settlement of existing onsite fill material, and expansive soils. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 contained in the Initial Study for the proposed project would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Global Climate Change. Global climate change impacts associated with implementation of the Smaller Units Alternative would be very similar to the proposed project as the level of construction activity and long-term operation would be the same. The Smaller Units Alternative would not conflict with the State goal of reducing GHG emissions, the AB 32 Scoping Plan, or the City of Piedmont Climate Action Plan. Like the proposed project, the Smaller Units Alternative would not exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for GHG emissions. Therefore, global climate change impacts under the Smaller Units Alternative would be less than significant. Hazards. The Smaller Units Alternative may result in improper use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes during project construction and demolition of the existing substation building. Such materials could affect construction workers, the public, and the environment. Similar to the proposed project, these potential impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study for the proposed project. In addition, building materials containing lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials, if present, would need to be abated and removed from the site in accordance with all applicable regulations, and any existing petroleum hydrocarbons remaining in the soil would need to be remediated. These impacts would be similar to the proposed project, and the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study would reduce impacts to less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality. Under the Smaller Units Alternative, construction-period activities and project operation could result in impacts to water quality. However, similar to the proposed project, compliance with City of Piedmont regulations requiring preparation of a Stormwater Management Plan and Construction Management Plan, which would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater treatment and control, would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Land Use and Planning. Similar to the proposed project, the Smaller Units Alternative would not result in any significant land use impacts or physically divide an established community. The uses proposed in this alternative would be the same as for the proposed project, would be compatible with P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 74

81 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS surrounding uses, and would be consistent with the site s land use designation in the City of Piedmont General Plan. Noise. Construction activity would take place as part of the Smaller Units Alternative and surrounding land uses would be exposed to short-term increases in noise levels. However, these noise impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2 identified in the Initial Study for the proposed project. Like the proposed project, the Smaller Units Alternative is not anticipated to generate high ambient noise levels or a significant increase in car trips to/from the project site. Therefore, no substantial long-term increase in ambient noise levels is expected to result from implementation of the Smaller Units Alternative. Population and Housing. Similar to the proposed project, the Smaller Units Alternative would not result in significant population or housing impacts. This alternative would add approximately 20 or fewer residents (if the smaller units limit the number of residents per household) to the City. This increase in population has been planned for by the City in their General Plan. Existing houses or existing residential populations would not be displaced by the Smaller Units Alternative as neither exists within the project site. Under this alternative, if one or more of the units is reduced more significantly in that they absorb the entire 10 percent reduction in size (and the other units remain the same), this alternative would be in compliance with existing and proposed Housing Element objectives aimed at encouraging a range of housing sizes and prices (i.e., slightly smaller units will likely sell for a somewhat lower cost). Public Services/Recreation. Similar to the proposed project, the Smaller Units Alternative would slightly increase the demand for police services, fire and emergency services, schools, parks, and recreational facilities, compared to the existing condition. This increase can be accommodated by existing service providers and facilities and would not result in physical environmental impacts. However, this alternative could slightly decrease the demand for those services compared to the project due to the potential for fewer inhabitants needing those services. Transportation/Traffic. The Smaller Units Alternative would result in a similar number of vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed project. As described in the Initial Study for the proposed project, the addition of seven new townhouses is expected to generate 41 new daily vehicle trips on area roadways. This increase is not considered substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system and would not cause the roadway to exceed any level of service standard. Vehicular access, parking, on-site circulation, and the driveway alignment would be the same as the proposed project. Utilities/Service Systems. Similar to the proposed project, the Smaller Units Alternative would slightly increase demand for water, wastewater conveyance and treatment, solid waste collection and disposal, telecommunications, cable, natural gas and electricity compared to the existing condition. This increase can be accommodated by existing service providers and facilities and would not result in physical environmental impacts. However, this alternative could slightly decrease the demand for those services compared to the project due to the potential for fewer inhabitants needing those services. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 75

82 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5.3 SUBSTATION REUSE ALTERNATIVE Principal Characteristics In an effort to reduce the cultural resources impacts associated with the project, the Substation Reuse Alternative would preserve the historic substation, though some changes to the building would occur in order to fulfill project objectives and allow for adaptive reuse of the building. This alternative would accommodate up to seven townhouse units and would require modification of the interior and, possibly, an addition to the rear (north-facing façade) of the building. All modifications to the exterior of the building would be done in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards), and a qualified preservation architect would review and must approve the final design plans for this alternative to ensure compliance with the Standards. Although design plans and conceptual drawings for this alternative have not been drafted, generally this alternative would preserve character-defining elements of the building and incorporate modifications that comply with the Standards. Character-defining features of the building (e.g., original doors, ribbon balconet windows, decorative twisted columns, and grilled quatrefoils) would be repaired and/or replaced, with replacement done only in those instances where deterioration or damage precludes repair. The Linda Avenue façade of the building would not be modified in order to preserve the principal façade of the historic building (with the possible exception of the removal of the non-original metal door that was added later). Modifications to the building may include construction of an addition to the rear of the building and installation of additional skylights and/or fenestration on the east and west facades of the building. Given the limitations related to fenestration in the Standards, only two stories for the main mass of the building is possible, and might result in difficult unit planning within the structure to obtain adequate natural light and egress. This in turn, might result in smaller units. The scale of the new addition would not exceed that of the existing historic building, would not be visible from Linda Avenue, and would be differentiated from the historical building. On-site, structured parking for the proposed project would be provided on the southeastern, currently vacant, portion of the parcel. On-site circulation and vehicular access would need to be altered to provide vehicular access to the at-grade parking. The Substation Reuse Alternative would meet most of the project objectives, including redevelopment of the site through reuse of, and minor modifications to, the existing building; increasing the City s housing supply; and enhancing the community character of the neighborhood. However, reuse of the historic substation may be cost-prohibitive such that the project may not be economically viable due to the extensive modifications that would be required to both preserve the character-defining features of the building façade and also implement the structural reinforcement, fenestration, and insulation needed to make it suitable for residential use. In addition, this alternative would require compliance with Building Code regulations for seismic safety, egress, and light and ventilation, and could possibly result in fewer and smaller units than the proposed project Analysis of the Substation Reuse Alternative The Substation Reuse Alternative is evaluated for all environmental topics analyzed in this Focused EIR and the Initial Study for the proposed project. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 76

83 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Aesthetics. Under the Substation Reuse Alternative, the historic substation building would remain and its character-defining elements (e.g., original doors, ribbon balconet windows, decorative twisted columns, and grilled quatrefoils) would be preserved. Modifications to the building, including construction of an addition to the rear of the building, would be limited by the Standards and would ensure that the scale of the new addition would not exceed that of the existing historic building, would not be visible from Linda Avenue, and would be differentiated from the historical building. Given these limitations, it is likely that the mass and bulk of the proposed building would be reduced form the proposed project. Preservation and reuse of the existing historic structure would limit changes to the existing visual character of the project under this alternative, as compared to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, the Substation Reuse Alternative would be subject to the City s Design Review process and would need to comply with the City s Residential Design Review Guidelines, in addition to the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation. Compliance with these guidelines and standards would ensure that this alternative would be compatible with existing residential development in the neighborhood and would not adversely affect the existing views, privacy, or access to direct or indirect light of any neighbor. Air Quality. Air quality impacts associated with implementation of the Substation Reuse Alternative would be very similar to the proposed project as the level of construction activity would be largely the same. Although the Substation Reuse Alternative would not require demolition of the existing substation building, adaption of the building could release toxic air contaminants from lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials, similar to the proposed project. In addition, the Substation Reuse Alternative would result in pollutant emissions associated with construction activities, including particulate matter, fugitive dust and construction equipment pollutants. Air quality impacts from the Substation Reuse Alternative could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the same mitigation measures as identified in the Initial Study for the proposed project. Biological Resources. Like the proposed project, the Substation Reuse Alternative could potentially result in impacts to nesting birds due to the removal of trees on the project site, including a small group of acacias and some junipers at the front of the building. However, most of the trees on the site would not need to be removed, resulting in a reduced impact to biological resources compared to the proposed project. Potential impacts to nesting birds under this alternative would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 identified in the Initial Study for the proposed project. Cultural Resources. The Substation Reuse Alternative would reduce the severity of cultural resources impacts compared to the proposed project. The proposed project would demolish an existing substation building eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources and result in a significant unavoidable impact to a historical resource. Under the Substation Reuse Alternative, however, the historic substation would remain. Modification to the building would be done in accordance with the Standards, and final project design plans would be approved by a qualified preservation architect to ensure compliance with the Standards. As this alternative would comply with the Standards, impacts to historical resources would be considered mitigated to a less than significant level (California Code of Regulations Section (b)(3)). Although unlikely, unknown archaeological or paleontological resources, or human remains, could be uncovered where grading and excavation would occur (i.e., for parking area east of the existing building and construction of a rear addition). Standard mitigation measures, as described in the Initial Study for the P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 77

84 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS proposed project would reduce impacts to previously unidentified cultural resources or human remains to a less than significant level. Geology and Soils. Similar to the proposed project, the Substation Reuse Alternative would be constrained by the geologic conditions of the project site. Development of the site would be subject to earthquake-induced groundshaking, settlement of existing onsite fill material, and expansive soils. As described above, plans for reuse of the existing substation will need to comply with Building Code regulations related to seismic safety. Compliance with the Uniform Building Code and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 contained in the Initial Study for the proposed project would reduce potential geology and soils impacts to a less than significant level. Seismic upgrades to the structure (that cannot alter the exterior), may be costly, and could reduce the economic viability of the project. Global Climate Change. Global climate change impacts associated with implementation of the Substation Reuse Alternative would be very similar to the proposed project, as the level of construction activity and long-term operation would be the same. Like the proposed project, the Substation Reuse Alternative would not exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for GHG emissions and would not conflict with policies related to GHG emissions and global climate change. Hazards. The Substation Reuse Alternative may result in improper use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes during project construction and adaptation of the existing substation building. Such materials could affect construction workers, the public, and the environment. Similar to the proposed project, these potential impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study. In addition, building materials containing lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials, if present, would need to be abated and removed from the site in accordance with all applicable regulations, and any existing petroleum hydrocarbons remaining in the soil would need to be remediated. These impacts would be similar to the proposed project, and the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study would reduce impacts to less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality. Under the Substation Reuse Alternative, construction-period activities and project operation could result in impacts to water quality. However, similar to the proposed project, compliance with City of Piedmont regulations requiring preparation of a Stormwater Management Plan and Construction Management Plan, which would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater treatment and control, would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Land Use and Planning. Similar to the proposed project, the Substation Reuse Alternative would not result in any significant land use impacts or physically divide an established community. The uses proposed in this alternative would be the same as for the proposed project, would be compatible with surrounding uses, and would be consistent with the site s land use designation in the City of Piedmont General Plan. Noise. Similar to the proposed project, the Substation Reuse Alternative would expose surrounding land uses to short-term increases in noise levels associated with construction activity on the project site. However, these noise impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2 identified in the Initial Study for the P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 78

85 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS proposed project. Like the proposed project, operation of the Substation Reuse Alternative is not anticipated to generate high ambient noise levels or a significant increase in car trips to/from the project site. Therefore, no substantial long-term increase in ambient noise levels is expected to result from implementation of the Substation Reuse Alternative. Population and Housing. Similar to the proposed project, the Substation Reuse Alternative would not result in significant population or housing impacts. This alternative would add approximately 20 or fewer residents (if the adapted building cannot accommodate seven units) to the City. This increase in population has been planned for by the City in their General Plan. Existing houses or existing residential populations would not be displaced by the Substation Reuse Alternative as neither exists within the project site. Public Services/Recreation. Similar to the proposed project, the Substation Reuse Alternative would slightly increase the demand for police services, fire and emergency services, schools, parks, and recreational facilities over the existing condition. However, this increase can be accommodated by Overall, this alternative could slightly decrease the demand for those services compared to the project due to the potential for fewer inhabitants needing those services. Transportation/Traffic. The Substation Reuse Alternative would result in the same number of vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed project. As described in the Initial Study for the proposed project, the addition of seven new townhouses is expected to generate 41 new daily vehicle trips on area roadways. This increase is not considered substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system and would not cause the roadway to exceed any level of service standard. Vehicular access, parking, on-site circulation, and the driveway alignment would need to be altered under this alternative in order to accommodate the reuse of the existing building. However, the number of parking spaces provided would be the same as the proposed project, consistent with the City of Piedmont Municipal Code and changes to the site layout are not anticipated to result in any significant environmental impacts. Utilities/Service Systems. Similar to the proposed project, the Substation Reuse Alternative would slightly increase demand for water, wastewater conveyance and treatment, solid waste collection and disposal, telecommunications, cable, natural gas and electricity compared to the existing condition. However, this increase can be accommodated by existing service providers and facilities and would not result in physical environmental impacts. This alternative could slightly decrease the demand for those services compared to the proposed project due to potential for fewer inhabitants needing those services. 5.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION The following section describes alternatives to the proposed project that were considered, but were rejected from further consideration for the reason(s) provided. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 79

86 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Relocation of Substation Building Under this alternative, the historic substation building would be disassembled, moved off site, and reconstructed at another suitable location. Relocating the substation would lessen impacts to historical resources provided that the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the building and the general orientation, setting, and environment of the building are retained at the new location. 42 The project site would be developed with the proposed project subsequent to removal of the substation and with the exception of cultural resources environmental impacts would be as described in this report. A suitable new location for the substation has not been identified in the vicinity. Furthermore, although this alternative would achieve most of the project objectives, it may not be economically viable based on current market conditions due to the logistical, engineering, land acquisition, and planning costs associated with this alternative. Therefore, this alternative has been rejected from further consideration Fewer Units Alternative Under this alternative, the number of units would be reduced from seven to four, resulting in a different development footprint and, possibly, a different architectural design similar to neighboring single-family development. The Fewer Units Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics, existing trees due to a smaller footprint and to air quality, noise and traffic due to fewer residents and reduced construction. Similar to the Smaller Units Alternative, this alternative would not avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects identified in this EIR (i.e., cultural resources). The Fewer Units Alternative would meet some of the project objectives, including redevelopment of the project site, compliance with the City s design guidelines, and enhancing the community character of the neighborhood. However, this alternative would not meet several key City of Piedmont General Plan housing goals, policies, and programs, specifically, Goal 1, Quantified Objective 2, which states: Develop 7-9 units of multi-family housing on the former PG&E site by 2014 and Program 1-B, which states: Redevelopment of the PG&E Site: Support the redevelopment of the PG&E site on Linda Avenue with multi-family housing. The City has determined that the project site needs to provide seven to nine units to meet the 40 additional units needed under the City s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) established by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Under the Fewer Units Alternative, only four units would be constructed, resulting in an average lot size of approximately 3,844 square feet per unit. This development density would be closer to the singlefamily residential development immediately adjacent to the project site than an average multi-family development. Given that the Fewer Units Alternative fails to comply with key policies in the City s Housing Element, this alternative was rejected from further consideration. 42 California Office of Historic Preservation. California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6, California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility to the California Register.) Electronic document accessed on April 19, 2011, at P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 80

87 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Off-Site Alternatives As described above, the City has determined that the project site needs to provide seven to nine housing units to meet the City s RHNA. Because one of the project objectives is to increase the City of Piedmont s housing supply, the project must meet these needs within the City of Piedmont city limits. According to the City s Housing Element, there are fewer than 60 vacant lots scattered throughout the City, totaling approximately 12.9 acres of land. Given the high cost of land, expense of development, and character of the surrounding neighborhoods, development on these parcels will likely consist of expensive custom homes, with little opportunity for affordable or multi-family development in these locations. Futhermore, the 5.6-acre Blair Park site, located on Moraga Avenue, is currently being considered for development with recreational facilities. The 2-acre Piedmont Reservoir site, located near the northeast portion of the City of Piedmont, and located partly in Oakland, is currently owned by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. This site is designated in the recently adopted General Plan as Parks, Recreation and Open Space land. It is currently zoned for single-family housing, and would therefore not enable the City to meet the RHNA established by ABAG. Therefore, the project site is one of the few available sites in the City of Piedmont that is large enough for redevelopment as multi-family housing but it is not planned for such use by the City. Given the lack of vacant and redevelopable land in the City, few, if any, other suitable sites are available for development of multi-family housing. Therefore, no off-site alternatives were considered in this analysis. 5.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires that the EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative would eliminate most of the significant impacts associated with the proposed project. The alternative would not result in ground-disturbing activities, new construction, and the development of new residential uses on the site. In addition, the No Project Alternative would retain the existing historic substation building, which would avoid the project s significant cultural resources impacts. However, while the No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, in the context of impact reduction, it would not meet the primary objectives of the proposed project. As a result, the No Project Alternative would not provide multi-family housing for the City of Piedmont consistent with the City s General Plan or enhance the visual and community character of the neighborhood. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires that an additional alternative be designated as the environmentally superior alternative, if the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. The secondary environmentally superior alternative, the Substation Reuse Alternative, would preserve the historic substation on the project site, and would reduce the most significant environmental impact (i.e., on cultural resource eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources) associated with the proposed project. Other environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of this alternative would be the same as the proposed project and could be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study. Therefore, the Substation Reuse Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. However, while this alternative could meet most of the project objectives, this alternative may not be economically viable due to the cost to rehabilitate the building and make it suitable for residential reuse, combined with the potential for smaller or P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 81

88 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS fewer units, that would affect the economic viability of the project due to an increase in the overall cost to develop the project and a potential reduction in the overall market value. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 82

89 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 6.0 CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS CHAPTER 6.0 CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS As required by CEQA, this chapter discusses the following types of impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project: cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts; effects found not to be significant, unavoidable significant effects, and significant irreversible changes. 6.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects, which, when considered together, are considerable, or which can compound or increase other environmental impacts. Section of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. These impacts can result from the proposed project alone, or together with other projects. The CEQA Guidelines state: The cumulative impact from several projects is 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 Methodology When evaluating cumulative impacts, CEQA requires the use of either a list of past, present, and probable future projects, including projects outside the control of the lead agency, or a summary of projections in an adopted planning document, or some reasonable combination of the two approaches. This analysis combines the two approaches and is based on the project build-out of the City of Piedmont General Plan and a list of active development projects in Oakland within one mile of the project site. City of Piedmont General Plan Build-out. The build out horizon of the Piedmont General Plan is the year As the City s long-range planning document, the General Plan anticipates and responds to the cumulative effects of individual, unrelated projects within Piedmont, including the proposed 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses project described in this Focused EIR, the Draft Civic Center Master Plan, the reconstruction of school campuses pursuant to Measure E (i.e., the Piedmont Unified School District s Seismic Safety Bond Program), the proposed Moraga Canyon Sports Fields project, the installation of the Rose-Grand traffic signal, and various proposals to underground utilities and replace sewers. 43 CEQA Guidelines, Section P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 83

90 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR MAY 2011 CHAPTER 6.0 CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS City of Oakland Projects within One Mile. Table 6.1.A lists the City of Oakland projects within one mile of the project site, identified from the City of Oakland Active Major Development Projects list (December 2010-January 2011) Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Project Aesthetics. The area relevant to cumulative visual impacts is the project viewshed namely, the area visible from the project site and areas that would have a view to the project site. The proposed project would alter the visual character of the project site through the removal of the existing historic substation and nine trees and construction of seven townhouses and the associated central courtyard and landscaping. Other projects within the vicinity could result in similar visual changes. However, due to their distance from the project site, these projects would have no effect on the viewshed encompassed by the proposed project. The project site is located in an existing residential neighborhood and the proposed project would be designed to be compatible with the existing visual character of the neighborhood. As described in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the City s Design Review process and rigorous design review criteria contained in Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code and the City s Residential Design Review Guidelines would ensure that the project would be compatible with existing residential development in the neighborhood and would not adversely affect the existing views, privacy, or access to direct or indirect light of any neighbor. Since the project site is surrounded by existing urban development, very limited development opportunities exist within the viewshed of the project site and any projects within the project viewshed would be required to comply with the City s Design Review Requirements. The proposed project s impacts to aesthetics are considered less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project s incremental contribution to aesthetic impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. Agricultural//Forestry Resources. No agricultural or forestry resources exist on or near the project site and no land in the project vicinity is used for agriculture or forestry. The project site is in an urban area and is surrounded by land developed for urban uses. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts to agricultural/forestry resources. Air Quality. The geographic area for air quality impacts encompasses the air basin for some pollutants such as ozone, and is more localized for others, such as carbon monoxide hotspots. As indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the proposed project would generate 41 new vehicle trips and would not contribute substantially to air pollutants over the long-term. Other projects in the vicinity, particularly within the City of Oakland, are likely to generate substantially more vehicle trips. Vehicle trips generated by the proposed project would represent a small fraction of the cumulative vehicle trips. Therefore, project impacts to air quality would not be cumulatively considerable over the long-term. 44 City of Oakland Active Major Development Projects (December 2010 January 2011). Available online at: (accessed 20 January, 2011). P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 84

91 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR MAY 2011 CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS Table 6.1.A: City of Oakland Projects within One Mile of Project Site Project Name Location Description Status 460 Grand Avenue 460 Grand Avenue 74 residential units Design Review Committee 2/22/06. Planning Commission approval 6/7/06. Appeal denied by City Council 7/18/06. Extension granted 5/20/09. Safeway Broadway Redevelopment of existing shopping center with new 260,000 SF shopping center. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center Summit Campus Master Plan Kaiser Permanente 23-acre campus generally between Telegraph Avenue and Webster Street, and between 30 th Street and 34 th Street. Generally the area surrounding the intersection of Broadway and MacArthur Boulevard. ABSMC Master Plan Phase I Demolition of Merritt Pavilion Classroom and other small buildings Construction of a new 230,000 SF (11-story) acute care hospital 1,090-space (7-story) garage Phase II Longer-term campus-wide improvements, new medical office buildings, classrooms and closure of a portion of Summit Street for development of a new campus plaza Master Plan for new hospital Phase I 1,216 space parking structure Hospital building (346 beds, approx million SF) Central utility plant Application filed. NOP published 6/26/09. Environmental Scoping Session before Planning Commission 7/15/09. DEIR in preparation. Application filed. NOP published 1/23/09. DEIR published 12/21/09. FEIR published 5/7/10. Appealed to City Council. Council denial of the appeal and approval of the project 7/6/10. Planning Commission certification of the FEIR and approval of the project on 6/7/06. City Council approval of GPA, RPA and re-zoning 6/27/06. Planning Commission approval of the design of Phase I MOB 11/1/06. Design Review Committee for Phase II Hospital on 12/7/07 and 5/28/08. Planning Commission approval of design review for Phase II Hospital on 11/19/08. Building permits for hospital sent to OSHPD review. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 85

92 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 408 LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR MAY 2011 CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS Project Name Location Description Status Cox Cadillac Mixed Use 230 Bay Place Phase II Demolition of existing hospital tower and low-rise (except for recent Emergency Department addition and Fabiola Building) Conversion of ground-floor parking on Site 7 (38 spaces) to accommodate an additional 6,000 SF of retail Conversion of Emergency Department addition to temporary medical services use Construction of parking lot of approximately 189 spaces Construction of a new Central Administration MSB (approx. 60,000 SF) 56,000 SF commercial Renovation of historic Cadillac Showroom Perkins Residential Care Perkins Street 56 room care facility for elderly residents Demolition Permit, Grading Permit, and Building Permit for garage issued. Project under construction. Phase I completed. Project completed. Project completed. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 86

93 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS Project construction could result in increased dust fall and locally elevated levels of PM 10, as well as the release of airborne particles of hazardous materials (i.e., asbestos-containing materials and leadbased paint) from demolition of the existing substation that may affect construction workers or the public. Several large-scale projects in the project vicinity, most notably the Alta Bates Summit and Kaiser Permanente Master Plan projects could be under construction at the same time as the proposed project, and thus contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 (Table 2.A) would reduce air quality impacts of the proposed project to a less than significant level. Other projects within the air basin would be required to implement similar measures, consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, to control construction period emissions. The proposed project s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be considerable due to the implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2, which would reduce emissions of particulate matter resulting from project construction and hazardous emissions from demolition of the existing building. Therefore, the proposed project s incremental contribution to air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant. Biological Resources. The project site is located in an urban area and the proposed project would not significantly impact special-status species, wetlands, riparian or other sensitive habitats, and would not impact any wildlife movement corridor. The nine trees to be removed are not protected by a tree ordinance and four of them were recommended for removal in the arborist s report prepared for the project. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. Other projects in the vicinity are also located in an urbanized area and would have limited to no impacts on biological resources. Therefore, the proposed project s contribution to biological resources impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.. Cultural Resources. The study area for cumulative cultural resources impacts encompasses the project site and adjacent areas that may contain resources relevant to the history and pre-history of California and Piedmont. The proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to the existing historic substation on the project site, both individually and when considered together with potential impacts to historic resources from other projects in the area. Mitigation Measures CULT-4a through CULT-4d, contained in this Focused EIR, would reduce impacts to the historic substation, but not to a less than significant level. Therefore, project impacts to historic resources are cumulatively considerable. If project construction occurs at the same time as project construction for other planned development in the project area, it could result in cumulative impacts to undiscovered cultural resources, paleontological resources, and human remains. However, as included in the Initial Study and Table 2.A of this Focused EIR, the proposed project would adhere to mitigation measures to prevent impacts to undiscovered cultural resources, paleontological resources and human remains, as would other projects in the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts to undiscovered cultural resources. Geology and Soils. The potential cumulative impacts for geology do not extend far beyond a project s boundaries, since geological impacts are confined to discrete spatial locations and do not combine to create an extensive cumulative impact condition. The exception to this generalization would occur where a large geologic feature (e.g., fault zone, massive landslide) might affect an P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 87

94 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS extensive area, or where the development effects from the project could affect the geology of an offsite location. The proposed project is located in an area that is subject to ground shaking, subsidence, and expansive soils. The cumulative impact associated with these geologic phenomena would be confined to the project vicinity and would be reduced to less than significant levels with compliance with the Uniform Building Code and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Table 2.A). Therefore, implementation of the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative geologic impact. Global Climate Change. Climate change is a global environmental problem in which: (a) any given development project contributes only a small portion of any net increase in GHGs and (b) global growth is continuing to contribute large amounts of GHGs across the world. The analysis of global climate change impacts and GHG emissions, by its nature, is primarily a cumulative impact analysis. As discussed in Section 4.2, Global Climate Change, the proposed project would generate up to metric tons of CO 2 eq per year of emissions. Annual emissions of operational-related GHGs for the proposed project do not exceed the significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO 2 eq per year; therefore, the project would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the impact of the proposed project would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project s incremental contribution to global climate change would not be cumulatively considerable. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The area of cumulative impact for hazards and hazardous materials encompasses the project site, including construction and staging areas. After project construction, small quantities of commercially-available hazardous materials could be used within the new residences consistent with residential uses, and potentially for landscape maintenance within the project site. However, these materials would not be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to human or environmental health. Other planned projects, particularly the two hospital projects (Alta Bates Summit and Kaiser Permanente Master Plan projects), could also involve the routine use of hazardous materials after project construction. The use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials is highly regulated by local, State, and federal laws. The handling of hazardous materials in accordance with these regulations would reduce cumulative hazardous materials risks to a less than significant level. Also note that the project vicinity is not subject to wildland fires. Therefore, hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable over the long-term. Project construction would include the use of hazardous materials such as fuels and solvents, the demolition of a structure containing lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials, and the disturbance of soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons and other hazardous substances. Other projects in the vicinity could also release hazardous materials associated with construction activities. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 (Table 2.A) would ensure regulatory compliance and would reduce impacts associated with the proposed project to a less than significant level. The construction-related hazards impacts of other planned projects are also subject to federal, State and local hazardous materials regulations and standard mitigation measures and conditions of approval. The project, in conjunction with other planned development in the vicinity, would not result in a cumulative impact related to hazards and hazardous materials during construction. Hydrology and Water Quality. The geographic area of cumulative hydrological and water quality impacts include the project site and the City s sanitary sewer system, which receives stormwater runoff from the project site. The area surrounding the project site is highly developed and therefore P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 88

95 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS new development is unlikely to substantially increase impervious surface area in the project vicinity. Although the proposed project would result in a slight increase in paved area (from 55 to 60 percent of the project site), stormwater flows would be managed on-site via gutters and drain pipes (rooftops), permeable and semi-permeable surfaces (ground), and an underground retention chamber. Wastewater generated at the project site would be served by the City s existing sanitary sewer system. Project development would conform to all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Uniform Building Code, and the City of Piedmont Municipal Code Chapter 30 (Storm Water Management and Discharge Control) and would not result in unpermitted discharges into the sanitary sewer and stormwater systems. The applicant would be required to submit a hydraulic analysis that estimates storm water runoff generated by the project. The City would confirm the ability of the local storm drain system to accommodate the flows from the project (and not back up during storm events and cause localized flooding of the storm drain system). Similarly, other projects in the vicinity would be required to comply with State and local regulations, prepare a hydraulic analysis and manage stormwater runoff on-site. Therefore, hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable over the long term. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in loosening of topsoil that could result in erosion and siltation impacting downstream water quality. In addition, grading of the project site and construction of the townhouses and associated facilities could alter drainage patterns in a manner that could result in erosion, siltation or flooding onsite or offsite. If other planned projects in the vicinity are under construction at the same time as the proposed project, there could be cumulative impacts to water quality and drainage patterns in the project area. An Erosion Control Plan, included in the Construction Management Plan required by the City as a condition of approval, would be prepared prior to any ground disturbance activities to provide the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the site during the construction period. The Construction Management Plan would also include a Stormwater Management Plan with stormwater treatment BMPs that adhere to the Start at the Source Design Guideline Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection prepared by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (1999). Other projects in the vicinity would be subject to similar measures and regulatory controls. Therefore, cumulative impacts to water quality and drainage associated with the proposed project would be less than significant during the construction period. Land Use and Planning. Planned development in Piedmont and the surrounding areas of Oakland would generally consist of infill development. Development of the proposed project in concert with other development envisioned in the General Plan would allow for the efficient use of land and would not contribute to the division of established neighborhoods. The proposed project is consistent with relevant land use and zoning designations and is compatible with land use policies in the City s General Plan in support of the provision of housing. The City s Design Review process, rigorous design review criteria contained in the Municipal Code, and the City s Residential Design Review Guidelines would ensure that the project would not conflict with plans or policies adopted to avoid or mitigate a significant environmental effect, and that plan conflicts for other potential projects in the City are minimized or avoided. The City of Oakland has its own methods for ensuring consistency with its general plan and municipal code. The project area is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other habitat plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulative land use or planning impacts. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 89

96 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS Mineral Resources. There are no known mineral resources in the project vicinity and no active or past mining operations. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts to mineral resources. Noise. The area of impact for cumulative noise effects is localized to the project vicinity, as noise levels decline rapidly with distance. No substantial long-term increase in ambient noise levels is expected as a result of project implementation because the project would not cause a substantial increase in traffic and would be subject to Municipal Code regulations pertaining to stationary noise (Section ). Construction activities would result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Other planned projects in the vicinity could result in similar construction-related noise if they are under construction at the same time as the proposed project. Like the proposed project, the impacts from construction noise at such sites would be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of the City of Piedmont or the City of Oakland Municipal Code noise ordinance and conditions of approval for construction noise. Compliance with the conditions of approval applicable to construction hours of operation, noise control, noise complaint procedures, and pile driving and other extreme noise generators, would ensure that planned projects in the project vicinity comply with the relevant noise ordinance. Therefore, noise generated by the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. Population and Housing. The proposed project would increase the net population of the City of Piedmont by approximately 20 residents, or less than 0.5 percent of the City s existing population. It is unlikely that significant additional population growth would occur within the City of Piedmont because the City is fully developed and has almost no vacant land. Additional population growth could occur in the project vicinity from planned residential development in nearby areas of Oakland. However, due to its small scale, the proposed project would not significantly contribute to cumulative population growth in the project vicinity. No housing would be displaced by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to population and housing. Public Services and Utilities. The geographic area for cumulative public services impacts is the City of Piedmont because public services and utilities are provided to the project site by the City; the City of Oakland has its own public services and utilities. As described in the Initial Study, the proposed project would not increase emergency response times, exceed the capacity of schools or other public facilities and service systems, or require new or expanded public facilities or utility service systems. As almost all land in Piedmont is already developed, projects addressed in the City s General Plan as part of City build-out along with limited planned infill and/or redevelopment projects in the City are unlikely to create substantial cumulative impacts to public services or utilities when taken together with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not have significant cumulative impacts related to public services or utilities. Recreation. The proposed project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities and would not substantially increase demand for parks and recreational facilities in the project vicinity. Development in the City of Piedmont would primarily be limited to infrastructure and infill projects that would not likely increase the demand for recreational facilities. Planned residential development in nearby areas of Oakland could increase demand for recreational facilities. However, such projects would be required to contribute their pro-rata share or other funding to the P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 90

97 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS construction of new recreation facilities in the City of Oakland (Oakland General Plan Policy REC 10.2: Parkland Dedication and Impact Fee). Therefore, the proposed project s incremental contribution to recreation impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. Transportation and Traffic. Traffic is expected to increase in the project area from nearby planned development, particularly due to projects in Oakland such as the Kaiser Permanente and Alta Bates projects as well as numerous planned residential projects. These nearby planned developments could cumulatively generate thousands of new daily vehicle trips in the wider project area, hundreds of which could occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However, the impact of the proposed project is not cumulatively considerable when taken together with other planned development in the project area. As discussed in the Initial Study, the proposed project would generate three a.m. peak hour and four p.m. peak hour vehicle trips. Projects that generate fewer than 10 peak hour trips are generally excluded from cumulative analyses in traffic studies because the trips from these small projects are assumed to be included in an ambient traffic growth rate. Also, traffic counts taken on different days often vary by more than 10 peak hour trips from day to day. As a result, the addition of 10 peak hour trips or less to the project area is generally not noticeable. Therefore, the proposed project s incremental contribution to transportation and circulation impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact is less than significant. 6.2 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS This section summarizes the project s growth-inducing impacts on the surrounding community. A project is considered growth-inducing if it would directly or indirectly foster substantial economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing. 45 Examples of projects likely to have significant growth-inducing impacts include extensions or expansion of infrastructure systems beyond what is needed to serve project-specific demand, and development of new residential subdivisions or industrial parks in areas that are currently only sparsely developed or are undeveloped. The direct and indirect growth inducing impacts of the proposed project are discussed below. Direct Growth Inducing Impacts. The proposed project would directly cause population growth as a result of the construction of seven new townhouses within the project site. In January of 2009, the population of Piedmont was 11,165 with an average household size of 2.88 persons 46. The proposed project would increase the net population of the site by approximately 20 persons (7 x 2.88 = 20.16). The projected additional 20 residents represent less than five percent of the City s existing population. Thus, the population growth caused by the proposed project would not be significant compared to the existing population of the City of Piedmont. The proposed seven new townhouses represent a significant portion of projected growth in the City of Piedmont, but minimal growth in the context of the surrounding region. ABAG indicates an extremely slow rate of growth in Piedmont during the coming decade, reflecting the fact that the City is fully developed and has almost no vacant land. ABAG s Draft Projections 2009 shows just 10 new households are projected to be added between 2010 and 2025, or fewer than one new home per 45 CEQA Guidelines, Section (d) 46 California Department of Finance Demographic Research. Available online at: (accessed 20 January, 2011). P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 91

98 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS year. 47 However, in the context of regional projected population growth, the proposed project would not cause substantial population growth. For example, in the nearby City of Oakland the population was 420,183 in and is expected to increase to 464,700 by the year , or by 44,517 additional people. Likewise, the population of Alameda County is expected to increase from 1,543,000 in 2008 to 1,700,700 in , an increase of 157,700 people. Thus, the proposed project would not cause significant direct population growth. Indirect Growth Inducing Impacts. The proposed project would occur on an infill site currently developed with an historic PG&E substation in an existing urbanized neighborhood in Piedmont. The proposed project would connect to existing utilities and make use of existing roads and infrastructure. No new utilities, roads or any other infrastructure is proposed other than utility meters, drainage and a driveway on the project site. Since the project site is surrounded by existing urban development, no additional development opportunities are present adjacent to the site that may be induced by the project proximity. The proposed project would cause a slight increase in demand for jobs, schools and public services and facilities. However, as discussed in the Initial Study, the proposed project would not increase emergency response times, exceed the capacity of schools or other public facilities and service systems, or require new or expanded public facilities or utility service systems. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause significant indirect growth. 6.3 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT An Initial Study was completed for the proposed 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses project in March of 2010 and revised in response to public comments on the NOP (Appendix A). Based on information from City staff, visits to the project site, and background research and analysis completed for the Initial Study, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant impacts related to the following topics with the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Initial Study and Table 2.A of this Focused EIR Aesthetics As discussed in the Initial Study, all impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant. There are no designated scenic view corridors or State or County scenic highways within the immediate vicinity of the project site. While the proposed project would modify the current appearance of the site, the resulting visual character would be similar in kind to that which currently exists in the immediate area (single- and multi-family residential). The project would be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring all light sources to be shielded and directed away from adjacent properties and requiring windows to use low-reflective glass. The City s Design Review process and rigorous design review criteria contained in Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code and the City s Residential Design Review Guidelines would ensure that the project would be visually compatible 47 City of Piedmont, Housing Element Public Review Draft. July. Available online at: (accessed 20 January, 2011). 48 California Department of Finance op. cit. 49 Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections Ibid. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 92

99 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS with the surrounding area and that it would not significantly affect the existing views, privacy, or access to direct or indirect light of any neighbor, or cause significant light or glare Agricultural and Forestry Resources The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) designates the site as Urban and Built Up Land. The project site is not zoned for agricultural or forestry use and is not under Williamson Act Contract. No agricultural or forestry land uses are located in proximity to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact agricultural or forestry resources Air Quality The proposed project would not conflict with the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for operation period emissions. Construction activities would comply with BAAQMD standards for particulate matter (Mitigation Measure AIR-1). The project would comply with BAAQMD and Occupational Health and Safety Act regulations regarding the removal of lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials (Mitigation Measure AIR-2). With incorporation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 (Table 2.A), the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors (i.e., neighboring residents and Beach Elementary School) to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would not generate objectionable odors Biological Resources The project site is not occupied by, or suitable for, any listed species or candidate for listing. The project site and surrounding area does not contain any wetlands, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Additionally, the site is located in an urbanized area and is not adjacent to or near any areas of open space or wildlife movement corridors. There are no native wildlife nurseries located in the project area. Although nine trees would be removed as part of the proposed project, the City has no tree protection ordinance and four of the five trees located within the City right-of-way are recommended for removal in the arborist report. Landscaping would be provided as part of the project, and City review and approval would be required for the removal of any tree within City rightof-way. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (Table 2.A) would ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and prevent impacts to nesting birds. The project site is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other habitat plan Geology and Soils The site is not located within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone designated by the State of California. Although the project site is located in a seismically active region of California, construction activities associated with the proposed project would be subject to the engineering and building standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code, Section 7.03, Building Code Seismic Design Parameters. Compliance with these standards and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Table 2.A) would reduce potential risks associated with strong ground shaking to less than significant levels. The project site is not susceptible to liquefaction or secondary effects such as liquefaction-induced settlement and lateral spreading. No landslides exist in the project vicinity. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 93

100 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS An Erosion Control Plan, included in the Construction Management Plan required by the City, would be prepared prior to any ground disturbance activities and would reduce potential impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to a level below significance. It is possible that new loads from building foundations and/or significant fill placement could potentially trigger some additional settlement of existing soils on the project site. Soils on the project site are moderately to highly expansive. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Table 2.A) would reduce potential risks associated with subsidence, settlement and expansive soils to less than significant levels Hazards and Hazardous Materials Although small quantities of commercially-available hazardous materials could be used within the new residences consistent with residential uses, and potentially for landscape maintenance within the project site, these materials would not be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to human or environmental health. During the construction period, materials such as fuels, oils, and/or solvents that, in large quantities, could pose a potential hazard to the public or environment if improperly used or inadvertently released. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (Table 2.A) would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Building materials containing lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials were used to construct Substation E. If any of these materials remain as part of Substation E, demolition of this building could potentially release airborne particles of hazardous materials that may affect construction workers or the public. Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 and HAZ-3 (Table 2.A) would reduce impacts pertaining to the release of airborne lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials to a less than significant level. Based on review of historic investigation and remediation reports provided by PG&E, oil, polychlorinated biphenyls, lead, and volatile organic compounds were identified as potential contaminants of concern for the subsurface investigation (Phase II ESA) conducted in Earthwork activities in this area have the potential to expose construction workers, residents or school children to motor oil concentrations that exceed an established Environmental Screening Level concentration. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-3 through HAZ-5 (Table 2.A) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The project site is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites prepared pursuant to Government Code Section The City s emergency response plan is formally known as the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project site is located in an urbanized portion of the City of Piedmont that does not include wildlands or high fire hazard terrain or vegetation Hydrology and Water Quality The project would not result in the construction of large areas of impervious surfaces that would prevent water from infiltrating into the groundwater, nor would it result in direct additions or withdrawals to existing groundwater. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 94

101 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No dams or levees are located in the project site area. The project site is not located near the open water of the Pacific Ocean, and therefore, would not be subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. The project area is relatively flat and does not contain any hillside terrain; therefore, there is no potential for the project site to be inundated by a mudflow. Construction activities would result in loosening of topsoil that could result in erosion and siltation impacting downstream water quality. In addition, grading of the project site and construction of the townhouses and associated facilities could alter drainage patterns in a manner that could result in erosion, siltation or flooding onsite or offsite. Construction and operation of the project would also include impervious surfaces (i.e., driveways, building pads, and walkways), which could result in an increase in the amount of storm water runoff over existing levels. An Erosion Control Plan and a Stormwater Management Plan would be prepared for the proposed project. Project development would conform to all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Uniform Building Code, and the City of Piedmont Municipal Code Chapter 30 (Storm Water Management and Discharge Control) and would not result in unpermitted discharges into the sanitary sewer and stormwater systems. Thus, the project would not violate any water quality or waste discharge standards. The applicant would be required to submit a hydraulic analysis that estimates storm water runoff generated by the project. The City would confirm the ability of the local storm drain system to accommodate the flows from the project (and not back up during storm events and cause localized flooding of the storm drain system). Therefore, all water quality and hydrology impacts would be less than significant Land Use and Planning The land use designation of the project site is Medium Density Residential and the zoning designation is Zone C, Multiple Density Residential. The proposed project is consistent with these land use and zoning designations. The project is compatible with land use policies in the City s General Plan in support of provision of housing. The City s Design Review process, rigorous design review criteria contained in the Municipal Code and the City s Residential Design Review Guidelines would ensure that the project would not conflict with plans or policies adopted to avoid or mitigate a significant environmental effect. The project site is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other habitat plan. The project site is surrounded by existing residential development and the proposed project would not physically divide an established community Mineral Resources There are no known mineral resources at or near the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not result in the loss or availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents or the state Noise The proposed land use of seven townhouses would not generate high ambient noise levels or result in a significant increase in vehicle noise in the project area. Future occupants would be required to P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 95

102 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS comply with the applicable requirements of the City s noise ordinance. With standard residential building construction, noise in the interior of the townhouses, attributable to the traffic along Oakland Avenue and Linda Avenue, would be reduced to a less than significant level. Construction of the proposed project would require excavation and earthwork activities that could temporarily generate noise levels that exceed established thresholds. Although these activities could result in infrequent periods of high noise, this noise would not be sustained and would occur only during the temporary construction period. Short-term noise levels would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2 (Table 2.A) Population and Housing At the time of the 2000 U.S. Census, the City of Piedmont had an average household population of The proposed project would increase the net population of the site by approximately persons (7 x 2.88 = 20.16). The projected additional 20 residents represent less than 0.5 percent of the City s existing population, which was 10,952 in 2000 according to the U.S. Census. Thus, project impacts related to population growth would be less than significant. There are no existing housing units on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any existing housing Public Services As described in the Population and Housing section above, the proposed project would not result in substantial growth in the area that would require additional public services. The City s fire marshal confirmed that the fire department would be able to provide fire protection and emergency response services to the project site. 51 Construction of the additional seven townhouses would not require additional law enforcement personnel or equipment. The Piedmont Unified School District confirmed that a potential increase in enrollment as a result of project implementation could be accommodated. 52 Implementation of the proposed project would result in a slight increase in the demand for existing park facilities, but it is not expected to require the development of new park facilities Recreation No new parks or expansion of any existing recreation facilities are proposed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project, with seven townhouses, would not result in substantial population growth. The increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of the proposed project would not be such that substantial physical deterioration of these facilities would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly increase demand on existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities or related services in the area. 51 Barringer, Scott Fire Marshal for the City of Piedmont Fire Department. Personal Communication with LSA Associates, Inc. July Brady, Michael Assistant Superintendent for the Piedmont Unified School District. Personal Communication with LSA Associates, Inc. July 1. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 96

103 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS Transportation and Traffic Using equations and average rates contained in the ITE, Trip Generation, 7th Edition, the project is expected to generate approximately 41 new daily vehicle trips (approximately half being inbound trips and half being outbound trips), with approximately three a.m. peak hour trips and four p.m. peak hour trips. 53 The project would not result in an appreciable increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system or exceed any level of service standard. The proposed project would not result in hazards due to a design feature, incompatible land uses, or air traffic. The proposed project is being designed to meet City of Piedmont Fire Department standards and adequate emergency access would be ensured through the City s design review process. The proposed project would provide the required parking per City code and would not result in inadequate parking capacity. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project would not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The amount of additional water demand and wastewater generation would be proportionally small and would not exceed the capacity of existing facilities. The proposed new residences would not significantly increase demand on existing water entitlements. No new or expanded water entitlements are needed. As part of the building permit review process, all departments and agencies responsible for providing services would be consulted to determine their ability to provide services to proposed development projects. The project would result in a slight increase in impervious surface area over the existing condition. The City requires that a Stormwater Management Plan be prepared for the project prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Stormwater Management Plan would include site design practices and measures to promote infiltration of stormwater and reduce the amount of impervious surface that could lead to flooding on- or off-site. The project would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing drainage facilities. The proposed project is not expected to generate substantial amounts of solid waste. The project would be subject to a standard condition of approval requiring submittal of a construction and demolition recycling plan. Recycling receptacles would be provided within the common area of the project site, in accordance with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 6.4 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The demolition of the existing historic substation building constitutes an unavoidable significant impact to a historic resource. Although impacts to the historic substation are partially mitigated with implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-4a through CULT-4d, impacts to historic resources remain significant and unavoidable. In light of the adverse impact identified pertaining to cultural resources, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be needed prior to project approval by the 53 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition (2003). op. cit. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 97

104 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS City Council. All other impacts resulting from the proposed project could be mitigated to a less than significant level (see Table 2.A and the Initial Study, Appendix A). 6.5 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES CEQA requires that EIRs assess whether the proposed project would result in significant irreversible changes to the physical environment. The CEQA Guidelines discuss three categories of significant irreversible changes that should be considered. Each is discussed below Changes in Land Use which Commit Future Generations The proposed project would commit future generations to removal of the existing historic substation and development of the site with seven townhouses and associated features. Although the site could still be redeveloped in the future should the proposed residential land use become obsolete, the loss of the historic substation structure as well as nine existing trees would be irreversible Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents No significant environmental damage, such as accidental spills or explosions of hazardous materials, is anticipated due to implementation of the proposed project. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would require the use of certain hazardous materials, the demolition of the existing substation which contains lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials, and the disturbance of existing on-site soils that are contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons and other hazardous substances. The proposed project would comply with federal, State, and local regulations related to use of hazardous materials, and handling and disposal of lead-based paint, asbestoscontaining materials, and contaminated soils. A Health and Safety Plan would be prepared, surveys for lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials would be conducted, and soil remediation would be completed prior to initiation of construction activities (see Table 2.A, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5). Thus, the proposed project would not result in irreversible damage from environmental accidents Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. The project site does not contain mineral resources or prime agricultural soils and is not used for mineral extraction or agriculture. Therefore, the project would not convert agricultural lands or result in the loss of mining reserves. The construction and ongoing operation of the proposed project would require the consumption of nonrenewable resources including fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas. Nonrenewable natural resources would be used for project construction and then for the provision of water, electricity and heating to the new homes as well as removal of wastewater and solid waste. The scale of such consumption for the proposed project would be typical for a residential development of this size. To the extent feasible, green building and sustainable design elements would be incorporated into the proposed project to minimize use of nonrenewable resources. Such elements would include provision P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 98

105 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS of green waste and recycling bins to each house, use of permeable pavement, and drought tolerant landscaping, among others. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 99

106 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 100

107 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 7.0 REPORT PREPARATION CHAPTER 7.0 REPORT PREPARATION 7.1 REPORT PREPARERS Prime Consultant LSA Associates, Inc. Land Use and Planning Policy; Biological Resources; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity; Traffic and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Global Climate Change; Public Services; Parks and Recreation 157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA Malcolm Sproul, Principal in Charge Laura Lafler, Principal, Planning Kristin Granback, Senior Environmental Planner, Project Manager Shanna Guiler, Senior Environmental Planner Megan Heileman, Assistant Planner Tim Jones, Archaeologist/Cultural Resources Manager 5084 N. Fruit Avenue Suite 103 Fresno, CA Phil Ault, Climate Change Specialist Amy Fischer, Associate, Air Quality 20 Executive Park Suite 200 Irvine, CA Meghan Macias, Principal, Traffic 7.2 REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections Bakic, Tracy, Historical and Architectural Evaluation of PG&E s Piedmont Substation E, Alameda County, California. PAR Environmental Services, Inc., Sacramento, California. Barringer, Scott Fire Marshal for the City of Piedmont Fire Department. Personal Communication with LSA Associates, Inc. July 18. Brady, Michael Assistant Superintendent for the Piedmont Unified School District. Personal Communication with LSA Associates, Inc. July 1. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 101

108 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 7.0 REPORT PREPARATION Davey Tree Expert Company Piedmont Station Tree 408 Linda Avenue, Piedmont. Prepared for Patrick Zimski, Oakland, California. November 3. California Air Resources Board Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October. California Air Resources Board ARB approves tripling of early action measures required under AB 32. News Release October 25. California Air Resources Board Climate Change Scoping Plan: a framework for change. December. California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data to Accessed September and November 2008, May 2010, February California Air Resources Board September 23. California Climate Change Center, Our Changing Climate. Assessing the Risks to California. July. California Department of Finance Demographic Research. Available online at: (accessed 20 January, 2011). California Energy Commission (CEC), Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to Final Staff Report, publication # CEC SF, Sacramento, CA, December 22, 2006; and January 23, 2007 update to that report. California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March. CEQA Guidelines, Sections , and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition (2003) -- Residential Condominium/Townhouse Rates, Code 230: Daily 5.86/Dwelling Unit (DU)/50% inbound, 50% outbound; AM Peak 0.44/DU; PM Peak 0.52/DU. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. LSA Associates, Inc., Piedmont Station LLC- 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses CEQA Initial Study. Report prepared to the City of Piedmont Public Works Department. Piedmont, California. March 22. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 102

109 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 7.0 REPORT PREPARATION National Park Service, HABS/HAER Photographs: Specifications and Guidelines. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Northwest Information Center Coordinator, Leigh Jordan, personal communication with LSA on June 5, Oakland, City of, Active Major Development Projects (December 2010 January 2011). Available online at: (accessed 20 January, 2011). Piedmont, City of, The Code of the City of Piedmont, California. Amended. Piedmont, City of, City of Piedmont General Plan. Adopted by City Council in April Piedmont, City of, Housing Element Public Review Draft. July. Available online at: (accessed 20 January, 2011). Piedmont, City of, Climate Action Plan. March. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data. Information available at and 18a02.pdf. United States Department of Energy Buildings Energy Data Book. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: Fast Facts. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 103

110 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR CHAPTER 7.0 REPORT PREPARATION This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11) 104

111 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR APPENDIX A REVISED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPENDIX A REVISED INITIAL STUDY P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11)

112 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR APPENDIX A REVISED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11)

113 P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N L L C L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y PIEDMONT, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Public Works Department City of Piedmont 120 Vista Avenue Piedmont, California Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California (510) LSA Project No. CPI0801 March 22, 2010

114 This page intentionally left blank.

115 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...1 CEQA LEAD AGENCY...1 PROJECT SETTING AND ZONING...1 SUMMARY...2 SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION...3 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT...3 Required Permits and Approvals...11 Public Involvement...11 SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST...13 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED...14 DETERMINATION...15 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST...16 I. AESTHETICS II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES III. AIR QUALITY...21 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...27 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES...31 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS...38 VII. HAZARDS VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING...56 X. MINERAL RESOURCES XI. NOISE XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING...66 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES XIV. RECREATION...70 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE...80 REPORT PREPARERS...83 FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location...5 Figure 2: Project Area...7 Figure 3: Proposed Project...9 P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) i

116 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) ii

117 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Piedmont Station LLC proposes to develop an approximately 0.4-acre site within the City of Piedmont with seven three-story over basement townhouse structures. The property is currently developed with an approximately 5,700-square-foot, two-story, concrete electrical utility substation that was vacated in The proposed project would involve: demolition and removal of the existing electrical substation building; removal of existing vegetation and excavation and placement of fill for the housing pads; construction of the seven new townhouse structures and associated development components; and landscaping and irrigation. This Initial Study is being prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063, to determine if the residential use of the 408 Linda Avenue Project (project) site would have a significant effect upon the environment. CEQA LEAD AGENCY The City of Piedmont Public Works Department is the CEQA Lead Agency and has prepared this Initial Study to provide agencies and the public with information about the proposed project s potential impacts on the local and regional environment. This document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. PROJECT SETTING AND ZONING The project site is located at 408 Linda Avenue approximately 300 feet northwest of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Linda Avenue. The site is bounded on the south and west by Linda Avenue, on the north by Oakland Avenue, on the northeast by a three-story apartment complex, and on the east by a single-family residence (420 Linda Avenue). Oakland Avenue crosses Linda Avenue via a viaduct approximately 40 feet above the ground. The bridge abutments are located between approximately 21 and 28 feet from the northwest boundary of the site. The site is irregular in shape and has maximum plan dimensions of approximately 195 feet by 235 feet. The site is currently developed with a decommissioned Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) electrical substation building, which occupies approximately two-thirds of the site. Southeast of the PG&E building is a relatively flat area covered by a low growth of weeds. A small paved courtyard, located at the back of the building on the northeast side, is partially contained by an approximately 5-foot-high retaining wall. Behind the courtyard, along the northeastern corner of the site, is a slope with an incline of approximately 4:1 (horizontal to vertical) that extends up to Oakland Avenue. The remaining portions of the site are covered with weedy forbs and grasses and several trees around the perimeter of the site, including acacia, coast live oak, and juniper. Adjacent land uses include Oakland Avenue right-of-way, Beach Playfield and Beach Elementary School to the northwest across Oakland Avenue; Oakland Avenue right-of-way and multi-family P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 1

118 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A residential housing to the northeast; and single family residential to the east. Single- and multi-family residential homes are located on the opposite side of Linda Avenue, to the south of the project site. The zoning for the project site is Zone C, Multiple Density Residential. The land use designation for the site was converted from Public/Quasi Public to Medium Density Residential with the City Council adoption of the updated City of Piedmont General Plan in April SUMMARY This Initial Study has identified potentially significant impacts associated with the development of the proposed project, as well as effects determined not to be significant. Therefore, this Initial Study supports the finding that a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared. For those environmental issues checked potentially significant impact in Section 3, the EIR will analyze the potential impact and recommend mitigation measures. Topics and issues that would result in environmental effects that are not relevant, or that would have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with mitigation, have been screened out from further evaluation in the EIR. As explained in the Notice of Preparation (NOP), responsible public agencies and the public-at-large may submit comments with environmentally-related concerns regarding the proposed project and the information contained in this Initial Study. The City will consider and address these comments, as applicable, as part of the preparation of the EIR. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 2

119 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section describes the project location, project elements, required permits and approvals, and public involvement. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT The approximately 0.4-acre project site is located at 408 Linda Avenue, northwest of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Linda Avenue, in the City of Piedmont, California (Figures 1 and 2). The project site is located in the western portion of the City, approximately 2 miles northeast of the downtown Oakland commercial district. The Oakland Avenue viaduct is located adjacent to the site s northern boundary. The project site was used as a Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) substation from 1926 to 1991, at which time it was abandoned and has been vacant since. The project would consist of the removal of the existing 5,688-square-foot concrete PG&E substation structure and the construction of seven three-story over basement townhouses situated around a central courtyard (Figure 3). The townhouses would generally have four bedrooms, three or more bathrooms, and two garaged parking spaces each. The rear townhouses (identified as Buildings F and G on Figure 3) would be approximately 32 feet in height, and the townhouses fronting Linda Avenue (identified as Buildings A E on Figure 3) would be approximately 35 feet in height. Building setbacks would be 20 feet along Linda Avenue and 4 feet along the rear and side property line boundaries. A variance may be required for the property setback along Oakland Avenue. Earthwork operations at the site would primarily consist of the demolition of the decommissioned PG&E substation building currently occupying the site and the grading of a level building area for site development. The site slopes up gradually to the northeast and a cut held with a retaining wall (possibly 10 to 12 feet high) may be required in this portion of the site. It is anticipated that minimal new fills would be associated with the project at the front of the units and that the remaining cut materials from site excavations would be disposed of off site. A new five-foot-wide sidewalk, with lighting for public safety, would be constructed at the rear of the site within the City right-of-way adjacent to the Oakland Avenue bridge abutment. Pedestrian access into and out of the site from the new sidewalk would be via paths, one that would be gated. Small existing acacia, juniper, and oak trees would be removed from the site. Four existing acacia trees and one oak tree are located within the City s right-of-way along the rear of the site between the project boundary and the bridge abutment, and will either be retained or removed based on the findings of the tree evaluation prepared in November 2009 and City review and approval. The project site would be landscaped with drought tolerant trees and shrubs and fire resistant grasses along the street frontage and throughout the interior of the site. The southwest corner of the project site would be utilized as a landscaped open space area for all residents of the property, and small exclusive use areas would be located adjacent to each townhouse. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 3

120 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Vehicular access to the project would be from a single 12-foot-wide gated and covered driveway at Linda Avenue. All circulation of vehicles and parking for the residences would be on the interior of the project. The proposed project would supply, at a minimum, two covered parking spaces for each townhouse. Construction would occur intermittently over the course of approximately two years. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 4

121 Project Location r FIGURE 1 Piedmont Station LLC 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses N 0 10 MILES SOURCE: 2006 DeLORME. STREET ATLAS USA P:\CPI0801\g\Figure1_RegionalLocation.cdr (8/4/08) Project Location

122 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 6

123 Oak 33rd Franklin 53rd Dover Mcclure Aileen 40th 37th Hawthorne Verdese Carter Emerson Middle Elementary School School Oakland Technical High School Park Day Elementary School Kaiser-Permanente Medical CTR Mosswood Park Summit Medical Oak Glen Center Park South Summit Medical Center 28th 20th 46th Apgar Elm 25th 24th Grand Webster 54th 56th 24 27th 55th 40th 39th Macarthur Summit 22nd 21st Snow Park 17th Harrison Alice 49th Andover 54th 53rd 47th Latimer Carberry Hawthorne Summit 26th Kaiser 20th 46th 27th 23rd 19th 52nd Shattuck Telegraph Clarke 37th 36th 30th Valdez 52nd 29th Valdez Louise Westlake Middle School Waverly 43rd Orin Ruby Ruby 28th 26th Grand Harrison Harrison Lakeside Jackson 34th Valdez Clarke 45th 42nd Rich Richmond 40th Hawthorne 27th Vicente Claremont 38th 44th Webster Brook Redondo 50th 48th Adams Park 40th Shafter Macarthur Fairmount Randwick Hamilton Bay Richmond Vernon Bay Lakeside Park Hardy Park Cavour 49th 41st Bellevue Avon Opal Croxton Frisbie Manila Westall Richmond Garland Park View Clifton Miles 38th Kempton Frisbie Orange Montecito Lenox Lawton Shafter 50th Emerald Locksley Manila Warren Oakland Vernon Lee 51st Garnet Broadway Stanley Perkins Perkins Cerrito Leighton Pearl Jayne Shafter Cavour 42nd Kempton Orange Perkins Ellita Boyd 51st Coronado Moss Pearl 45th Rio Vista Vernon Van Buren Belmont James Yosemite Adams Palm Hudson Lawton Glendale Coronado 49th Terrace Montgomery Montell Perry Warwick Desmond Mather Piedmont Fairmount Staten Manila Clifton Gilbert Ridgeway Adams Lake Merritt Arts Elementary School Cal College of Art and Crafts View Saint Leo Elementary School Glen Wilda College Whitmore Robley Glen El Dorado Moss 41st Vernon Euclid Pan a ma Kales Bryant Broadway Mather Bayo Vista Harrison Burk Clifton Arroyuelo Monte Kelton Vernon Ada Broadway Valley John Glenwood Cresta Mariposa Glen Linda Monte Vista Kingston Lakeview Elementary School Lagunitas Thomas Montgomery Santa Clara 580 Claremont Country Club Linda Ave Rose Garden Park Jean Cleveland Cascade Brooklyn View Howe Crescent Napa Echo Kingston Entrada Oakland Lakeshore Pleasant Belgrave Santa Rosa Chetwood Mira Vista Glen Alta Vista Valle Capital Lake Vista Boden Carlton Gleneden Kingston Elwood Hillsborough Brandon Lake Sunnyside Valle Vista Lake Park Lakeshore Sunnyslope Cheney Excelsior Merritt Olive Rand St Marys Cemetery Jewish Cemetery Walker Wickson Beacon Cleveland Monroe Broadway Radnor Rose Grand Nace Wesley Ramona Pleasant Valley Howard Cambridge Weldon Vermont Glenview Kenwyn Greenbank Fairview Oakland Avenue Project Area Erie Mandana Plaza Park Hillgirt Haddon Wildwood Sylvan Warfield Wesley Prospect York Club Margarido Country Ramona Manor Grand Lakeshore Haddon Arbor Scott Brookwood Holly Arbor Boulevard Fairbanks Lake Prince Erie Athol Lower Fairview Davidson Westminster Arroyo Cambridge Park Mckinley York Fairview Stratford Barbara Montclair Ronada Ricardo Crofton Rosal Weldon Spruce Lorita Ostrander Park Ramona Monticello Mountain View Cemetery Dracena Park Artuna Latham Jerome Hill Nova Arbor Warfield Capell Romany Park San Carlos Keefer Palm Walavista Kenmore Viona Balfour Dracena Longridge Estrella Blair Ramona El Cerrito Larmer Wallace Rosal Morrell Blair Piedmont Middle and High SCH Wildwood Elementary School Oakland High School Alma Carmel Carlos Calmar S a n Hillcrest Elementary School Havens Playground Cerrito Jerome View Winsor Park Wildwood Santa Ray Mandana El Ranleigh Paloma Buckeye Moraga Bonita Hillside Portsmouth Harvard Annerley Arimo Paloma Northvale Ve rada Rosemount Sunnyhills Trestle Glen Waldo Wilding Longridge Chatham Norman Vista Prospect Marguerite Morrill Clarewood Lakeshore Mesa Bonita Magnolia Walavista Prospect Paloma Alma Clarewood Highland Oakland Balfour Monte Harvard Holy Names High School Mandalay Blair Hardwick Piedmont Park Oakmont Holman Highland Magnolia Hazel Walavista Calmar Larkspur Hillcroft Hermosa Clarewood Santa Park Ray Florence Jacobus Pala Scenic Craig Requa Requa Wildwood Trestle Glen Biehs Red Sunnyhills Sonia Harbord Truitt Rock Hazel Wawona Carlston Paramount Grosvenor Alta Ashmount Carlston Park Park Boulevard Morpeth Portal Pacific Agnes Modoc Scenic Modoc Modoc Wildwood Florada Harbord Dormidera Sierra Stark Knoll Agnes Echo Julia Abbott Alta Mountain Sharon Muir Midcrest Amy Crocker Highlands Elem School Hubert Underhills Woodland Bell Hagar Wildwood Wildwood Brighton Sharon Lafayette Ardmore Clarendon Bates Hilltop La Salle Ashmount Greenwood Park Proctor Maxwelton Sheridan Caperton Harbord Barrows Park FIGURE 2 Piedmont Station LLC- 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses ,600 FEET Project Area USGS StreetmapUSA (2008) I:\CPI0801\GIS\Maps\Figure2-ProjectArea.mxd (08/01/2008)

124 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 8

125 FIGURE 3 N Piedmont Station LLC- 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses Proposed Project SOURCE: JARVIS ARCHITECTS (DECEMBER 2009) P:\CPI0801\g\Figure3_ProposedProject.cdr (02/19/2010)

126 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 10

127 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Required Permits and Approvals The City of Piedmont Public Works Department is the lead agency under CEQA with the primary authority for project approval. As a result of the preparation of this Initial Study, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the Alameda Health Care Services Agency have been identified as Responsible Agencies under CEQA. At this time, no regulatory permits are anticipated for the proposed project. The following approvals and/or discretionary actions are required by the City for the project: Design Review Approval in accordance with Chapter 17, Regulations Prescribing the Character of Construction, and Chapter 19, Subdivisions, of the City s Municipal Code. Building Permit, including demolition and excavation. Tentative and Final Map, in accordance with Chapter 19, Subdivisions, of the City s Municipal Code. Public Involvement In accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines, this document is being circulated to local, State, and Federal agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals that may wish to comment on the proposed project. Written comments may be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on April 22, 2010 to the following address: City of Piedmont Public Works Department Attn: Kate Black, City Planner 120 Vista Avenue Piedmont, CA kblack@ci.piedmont.ca.us A scoping meeting will be held on April 14, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Piedmont Memorial Room/EOC Conference Room, Police Department, 403 Highland Ave, Piedmont, CA to present the project being studied, outline the CEQA process, and receive comments on the scope of the EIR. The public and public agencies are invited to attend the scoping session to provide comments regarding the proposed EIR scope and the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 11

128 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 12

129 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1) Project Title: Piedmont Station LLC 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses 2) Lead Agency Name and Address: Public Works Department City of Piedmont 120 Vista Avenue Piedmont, CA ) Contact Person and Phone Number: Kate Black, City Planner, ) Project Location: The approximately 0.4-acre project site is located at 408 Linda Avenue, northwest of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Linda Avenue, in the City of Piedmont, California (Figures 1 and 2). The project site is located in the western portion of the City, approximately 2 miles northeast of the downtown Oakland commercial district. The Oakland Avenue viaduct is located adjacent to the site s northern boundary. 5) Project Sponsor s Name and Address: Piedmont Station LLC P.O. Box 3712 Oakland, CA Contact: Patrick Zimski phone: ) General Plan Designation(s): Medium Density Residential 7) Zoning: Zone C, Multiple Density Residential 8) Description of the Proposed Project: Piedmont Station LLC proposes to develop an approximately 0.4-acre site within the City of Piedmont with seven three-story over basement townhouse structures. The property is currently developed with an approximately 5,700-square-foot, two-story, concrete electrical utility substation that was vacated in The proposed project would involve: demolition and removal of the existing electrical substation building; removal of existing vegetation and excavation and placement of fill for the housing pads; construction of the seven new townhouse structures and associated development components; and landscaping and irrigation. 9) Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Neighboring land uses consist primarily of multi- and single-family residential buildings and park space. The Oakland Avenue viaduct is located adjacent to the site on the northwest. The viaduct physically and visually separates the project site from Beach Playfield, located on the north side of Oakland Avenue. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 13

130 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED All these topics have been considered and those that have been checked will be analyzed further in the EIR. Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Agricultural Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use Transportation/Traffic Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Geology/Soils Population/Housing P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 14

131 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Kate Black, City Planner Public Works Department, City of Piedmont P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 15

132 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No 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 outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State 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 which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Setting The project site is located at 408 Linda Avenue approximately 300 feet northwest of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Linda Avenue. The site is bounded on the south and west by Linda Avenue, on the north by Oakland Avenue, on the northeast by a two-story over basement/parking apartment complex, and on the east by a single-family residence (420 Linda Avenue). Oakland Avenue crosses Linda Avenue via a viaduct approximately 40 feet above the ground at the intersection/crossing and at grade at the northernmost corner of the property. The bridge abutments are located adjacent to the northwest boundary of the site between 21 and 28 feet from the property boundary. The site is irregular in shape and has maximum plan dimensions of approximately 195 feet by 235 feet. The site is currently developed with a decommissioned PG&E electrical substation building, which occupies approximately two-thirds of the site. Southeast of the PG&E building is a relatively flat area covered by a low growth of weeds. A small paved courtyard, located at the back of the building on the northeast side, is partially contained by an approximately 5-foot-high retaining wall. Behind the courtyard, along the northeastern corner of the site, is a slope with an incline of approximately 4:1 (horizontal to vertical) that extends up to Oakland Avenue. The remaining portions of the site are covered with weedy broad-leaved plants and grasses and several trees around the perimeter of the site, including acacia, coast live oak, and juniper. Adjacent land uses include the Oakland Avenue right-of-way, Beach Elementary School, and Linda Park to the northwest (across Oakland Avenue); and multi-family residential housing to the northeast; and single family residential to the east. Single- and multi-family residential structures ranging from one-story over-basement/parking to three-story over-basement/parking are located on the opposite side of Linda Avenue, to the south of the project site. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 16

133 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Views from the site are currently impeded by the PG&E substation building, which is approximately 56 feet tall; existing trees surrounding the perimeter of the site; the Oakland Avenue viaduct and bridge abutments located close to the northwestern edge of the site; and neighboring multi-and singlefamily residential housing to the east and south. These same visual obstructions hinder views from surrounding properties and of passersby into the site and beyond the property. Discussion a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The City of Piedmont General Plan (2009) does not identify the project area as a scenic resource or scenic vista. There are no designated scenic view corridors or State or County scenic highways within the immediate vicinity of the project site. Because the project site is not designated as a scenic vista and is not located in proximity to a scenic vista, the proposed development project would not adversely impact any scenic vistas. No further analysis of this issue is required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. The project site is not located within the viewing corridor of a city-designated scenic highway. 1 Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, or other locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural feature within a designated scenic highway. No further analysis of this issue is required. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of the existing 5,688-square-foot concrete PG&E substation structure and the construction of seven three-story over-basement townhouses, thereby altering the visual character of the project site and surrounding area. However, the areas that surround the project site are residential in visual character. While the proposed project would modify the current appearance of the site, the resulting visual character would be similar in kind to that which currently exists in the immediate area (single- and multi-family residential). The exterior design of the development has been designed to be harmonious with the existing neighborhood development. The mass of the built structures has been broken up to create a village feel to avoid the more typical block style of many other multi-family structures and minimize changes to direct or indirect light for the neighboring properties. The rear townhouses (identified as Buildings F and G on Figure 3) would be approximately 32 feet in height, and the townhouses fronting Linda Avenue (identified as Buildings A E on Figure 3) would be approximately 35 feet in height. The proposed building heights would be more than 20 feet lower than the height of the existing PG&E substation building. With the exception of the setback 1 California Department of Transportation (May 2008), The California Scenic Highway System: A List of Eligible and Officially Designated Routes, P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 17

134 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A along Oakland Avenue, which may require a variance, all other property setbacks would be in accordance with the City s Municipal Code. Small existing acacia, juniper, and oak trees would be removed from the site. The City would require preservation measures for any retained trees located within the City s right-of-way as a standard condition of approval (see Section IV-e, Biological Resources). The southwest corner of the project site would be utilized as a landscaped open space area for all residents of the property, and small exclusive use areas would be located adjacent to each townhouse. The project site would be landscaped with drought tolerant trees and shrubs and fire resistant grasses along the street frontage and throughout the interior of the site. The City s Design Review process and rigorous design review criteria contained in Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code and the City s Residential Design Review Guidelines would ensure that the project would be compatible with existing residential development in the neighborhood and that it would not adversely affect the existing views, privacy, or access to direct or indirect light of any neighbor. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. No further analysis of this issue is required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. Low voltage entry, path/sidewalk, and building wall lights would be incorporated into the project. The project would be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring all light sources to be shielded and directed away from adjacent properties and requiring windows to use low-reflective glass. The proposed exterior lighting would be consistent with the type of lighting used on surrounding buildings, and therefore the additional light from the project would not be substantial in the context of existing light from the surrounding urban environment. Daytime glare would not be substantial because the proposed windows would have lowreflectivity glass. The City s Design Review process and rigorous design review criteria contained in Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code and the City s Residential Design Review Guidelines would ensure that the project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. No further analysis of this issue is required. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 18

135 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to 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 Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 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 a non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Discussion 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 a non-agricultural use? No Impact. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) designates the site as Urban and Built Up Land. Therefore, the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. Thus, no further analysis of this issue is required. 2 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is zoned Multiple Density Residential (Zone C). The project site is not under Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act Contract. Thus, no further analysis of this issue is required. 2 Bay Area Region Important Farmland Map (2004). California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection: Urbanization and Important Farmlands Regional Urbanization Maps Website: P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 19

136 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No agricultural land uses are located in proximity to the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. No further analysis of this issue is required. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 20

137 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A III. AIR QUALITY Where 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? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is under non-attainment status under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No Impact Setting The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin and is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Within the air basin, ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), particulate matter (PM 10, PM 2.5 ), and lead (Pb) have been set by both the State of California and the federal government. The State has also set standards for sulfate and visibility. The San Francisco Bay Air Basin is under non-attainment status for ozone and particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) for State standards. 3 The air basin is classified as marginal non-attainment for the federal ozone 8-hour standard. 4 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the Bay Area as nonattainment for PM Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Ambient Air Quality Standards & Bay Area Attainment Status Website. Accessed on February 22, 2010: 4 The EPA lowered the national 8-hour ozone standard from 0.80 to 0.75 parts per million (ppm) (i.e. 75 parts per billion [ppb]) effective May 27, The EPA will issue final designations based upon the new 0.75 ppm ozone standard by March The EPA lowered the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 35 µg/m3 in The EPA issued attainment status designations for the 35 µg/m3 standard on December 22, The EPA has designated the Bay Area as nonattainment for the 35 µg/m3 PM2.5 standard. The EPA designation will be effective 90 days after P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 21

138 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Discussion a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non-attainment area. The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards. To bring the San Francisco Bay Area region into attainment, the BAAQMD has developed the 2005 Ozone Strategy and the 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP). The air quality plans use the assumptions and projections of local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional compliance status. Since the plans are based on local General Plans and Zoning Codes, projects that are deemed consistent with the applicable General Plan and Zoning Code are usually found to be consistent with the air quality plans. The proposed project is consistent with the City s zoning, which is Zone C (Multiple Density Residential), and the City s General Plan (2009) land use designation of Medium Density Residential. A General Plan amendment would not be required for the project. Excavation and earthwork associated with construction of the proposed project would include temporary grading, landscaping, and construction activities. The area of ground disturbance would be small and would be accomplished by a few pieces of construction equipment operating within the project site. In addition, the proposed project would not generate a substantial number of car trips (i.e., 2,000 vehicle trips per day or more, as determined by the BAAQMD) 6 that would increase regional carbon monoxide and ozone precursor emissions (See Response III-b. below). Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, relevant air quality plans. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The San Francisco Bay air basin is under nonattainment status for ozone and particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) for State standards. The air basin is classified as marginal nonattainment for the federal ozone 8-hour standard and nonattainment for PM 2.5. The BAAQMD has set thresholds of significance for operational period emissions. Below these thresholds, project operation emissions from mobile sources are anticipated to have a less than significant impact; however, projects within 20 percent of the threshold are required to undergo a more detailed analysis. The BAAQMD threshold of significance for ozone precursors (reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxide [NOx]) is 80 pounds per day. Projects generating fewer than 2,000 vehicle trips per day are assumed to contribute emissions publication of the regulation in the Federal Register. President Obama has ordered a freeze on all pending federal rules; therefore, the effective date of the designation is unknown at this time. 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. San Francisco, California. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 22

139 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A below this threshold. 7 The proposed seven townhouses would generate approximately 41 new daily vehicle trips (see Section XV, Transportation/Traffic). Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to contribute substantial ozone precursor emissions. Construction activities at the project site, which would include excavation, soil mounding, and transport activities, could temporarily increase the local concentration of particulate matter. If construction activities associated with the proposed project result in blowing dust, a major cause of increased PM 10 and PM 2.5 concentrations, the project could contribute to the Bay Area s existing particulate matter air quality violation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce impacts related to increased particulate matter concentrations to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following measures shall be implemented on the project site during the construction period: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Building materials containing lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials (ACM) were used to construct the PG&E structure. If any of these materials remain as part of the PG&E structure, demolition of this building could potentially release airborne particles of hazardous materials that may affect construction workers or the public. The U.S. EPA and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) require that lead-based paint with lead concentrations equal to or greater than the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definition of lead-based paints (greater or equal to 1 mg/cm 2 or Ibid. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 23

140 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A percent lead by weight) be removed prior to demolition if the paint is loose and peeling. If the paint is securely adhering to the substrate, the entire material may be disposed of as demolition debris, which is a non-hazardous waste. Loose and peeling paint must be disposed of as a State and/or federal hazardous waste, if the concentration of lead exceeds applicable waste thresholds. Hazardous wastes must be managed, labeled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with local requirements by trained workers, as described above. State and federal construction worker health and safety regulations require air monitoring and other protective measures during demolition or renovation activities where lead-based paint is present. Removal of asbestos or suspect ACM, including removal as part of building demolition, is regulated by the U.S. EPA, federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DTSC, and the BAAQMD. All friable (crushable by hand) ACM, or non-friable ACM subject to damage, must be abated prior to demolition in accordance with applicable requirements. Friable ACM must be disposed of as an asbestos waste at an approved facility. Non-friable ACM may be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste at landfills that accept such wastes. Workers conducting asbestos abatement must be trained in accordance with State and federal OSHA requirements. Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would reduce impacts pertaining to the release of airborne leadbased paint and ACM to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure AIR-2: The project shall comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 11, Rule 2: Hazardous Materials, Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing, with the OSHA Standard related to lead abatement, and all other applicable State and federal requirements for the safe handling and disposal of lead-based paint, ACM, and universal wastes. Prior to the demolition of the PG&E structure on the project site, lead-based paint and ACM surveys shall be performed for the exterior of the PG&E structure by a qualified environmental professional. If any lead-based paint or ACM is identified, it shall be abated and removed from the site in accordance with all applicable regulations, including OSHA requirements. The City shall verify that the surveys and abatement or removal, as necessary, have been completed before issuing the demolition permit for the project. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to Response III-b. Based on project related emission estimates, the proposed project would not result in substantial impacts to the levels of any criteria pollutant. Thus, no further analysis of this issue is required. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors are facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Sensitive receptors P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 24

141 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A adjacent to the project site include neighboring residents along Linda Avenue and Oakland Avenue and students and staff at Beach Elementary School, located approximately 0.25 mile northwest of the project site. As described in Response III-a and III-b above, the proposed project would generate minimal vehicular traffic. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not introduce long-term, substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates and fugitive dust as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment) for a short duration. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 would reduce potential impacts related to particulate matter and fugitive dust to a level below significance. Therefore, sensitive receptors are not expected to be exposed to substantial long-term or shortterm pollutant concentrations, and no significant air quality impacts would result from the proposed project. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The proposed project would not generate objectionable odors. In addition, the proposed project is not located downwind from any significant odor sources (e.g., landfills, sewage treatment plants) that could affect persons within the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people or subject people to objectionable odors. No further analysis of this issue is required. Note: Greenhouse gas emissions and global warming do not appear on the CEQA checklist, but will be addressed in the EIR. California s major initiatives for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act, passed by the California State legislature on August 31, 2006; Executive Order S-3-05; and AB 1493, which requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. These efforts aim to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of approximately 25 percent, and then an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by Some of the potential effects of global climate change in California may include a reduction of the Sierra snow pack, threats to water supplies, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. In addition to these effects, there are many secondary effects that are projected to result from global climate change, including impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. While the possible outcomes and the feedback mechanisms involved are not fully understood, and much research remains to be done, the potential for substantial environmental, social, and economic consequences over the long term may be great. Regulations are still being prepared to address GHG emissions for new projects and there are no adopted or universally recognized standards of significance. The Climate Change analysis contained in the EIR will provide both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 25

142 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A associated with all relevant sources related to the project, including construction activities, new vehicle trips, electricity consumption, and water usage. Additionally, the City of Piedmont has prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) (October 2009) to provide policy direction and identify actions that the City and community can take to significantly reduce the generation of GHG emissions consistent with California AB 32 and Executive Order S The purpose of the CAP is to guide the development, enhancement, and ultimately the implementation of actions and strategies to reduce the City s GHG emissions. The consistency of the proposed projection with the CAP will be addressed in the EIR. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 26

143 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No 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 substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, 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, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, 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? Setting The 0.4-acre site is irregular in shape and has maximum dimensions of approximately 195 feet by 235 feet. The site is currently developed with a decommissioned PG&E electrical substation building, which occupies most of the site. Southeast of the PG&E building is a relatively flat and largely barren area with a sparse low growth of weeds. A small paved courtyard, located at the back of the building on the northeast side, is partially contained by an approximately 5-foot-high retaining wall. Behind the courtyard, along the northeastern corner of the site, is a slope that extends up to Oakland Avenue. The remaining portions of the site have a ground cover of weedy broad-leaved plants and grasses. Mature trees, including acacia, coast live oak, and juniper, are located around the perimeter of the site. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 27

144 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Discussion 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? No Impact. The project site is in a fully urbanized area and is developed with the 5,688- square-foot concrete PG&E substation building. Vegetation on the site is predominantly nonnative, including grasses, shrubs and ornamental trees. The site is not occupied by, or suitable for, any listed species or candidate for listing. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any direct or indirect substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. No further analysis of this issue is required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site is completely developed and does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Adjacent properties are developed with urban uses and do not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not adversely affect any such community, and no impact would occur. No further analysis of this issue is required. 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, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. No wetlands occur on the project site. The project site is disturbed and surrounded by urban development. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse impact on federally-protected wetlands. No further analysis of this issue is required. 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? No Impact. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is completely developed and contains no onsite waterways. Additionally, the site is located in an urbanized area and is not adjacent to or near any areas of open space. There are no native wildlife nurseries located in the project area. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. No further analysis of this issue is required. However, project construction would result in the removal of nine trees that could be used by nesting birds. If conducted during the nesting season (February 1 August 31), tree removal could directly impact nesting birds by removing shrubs that support active nests. Construction- P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 28

145 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A related disturbance (e.g., noise, vehicle traffic, personnel working adjacent to suitable nesting habitat) could also indirectly impact nesting birds by causing adults to abandon nests in nearby trees or other vegetation, resulting in nest failure and reduced reproductive potential. The nests of native birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If feasible, vegetation removal activities shall occur during the non-breeding season (September 1 January 31). If such activities are scheduled during the breeding season (February 1 August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nest survey of all trees or other suitable nesting habitat in and within 100 feet of the limits of work. The survey shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of work. If the survey indicates the potential presence of nesting birds, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer will be determined by the biologist in consultation with CDFG, and will be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of up to 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent disturbance to birds nesting in the urban environment, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact. Nine existing trees would be removed from the site in order to accommodate the proposed development, including juniper, acacia, and coast live oak trees. The development proposes a landscaping plan with replacement trees and shrubs. The City of Piedmont does not have a Tree Preservation Ordinance that regulates the removal of trees for development projects located on private property. However, because the project proposes development components within the City right-of-way and building construction near the City right-of-way, an arborist report was prepared to address these trees by the Davey Tree Expert Company in November For the five trees that are located within or directly adjacent to the City right-of-way, the report indicates that only the coast live oak tree merits preservation consideration. The remaining four black acacia trees are poorly structured and are therefore recommended for removal. The report recommends tree preservation measures to protect the oak tree during construction. City review and approval would be required for the removal of any tree within City right-of-way. The project would not conflict with any other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No further analysis of this issue is required. 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? No Impact. The project site is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other habitat plan. Therefore, development of the proposed project 8 Davey Tree Expert Company Piedmont Station Tree 408 Linda Avenue, Piedmont. Prepared for Patrick Zimski, Oakland, California. November 3. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 29

146 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan. No further analysis of this issue is required. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 30

147 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? 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? Discussion a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? Potentially Significant Impact. State Legislative Context. CEQA defines a historical resource as a resource which meets one or more of the following criteria: Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register; Listed in a local register of historical resources; Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section (g) of the Public Resources Code; or Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency. A historical resource consists of Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California... Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CCR Title 14(3) (a)(3)). Archaeological resources may also be considered historical resources. For a cultural resource to qualify for listing in the California Register it must be significant under one or more of the following criteria: P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 31

148 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Criterion 1: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California s history and cultural heritage; Criterion 2: Associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition to being significant under one or more of these criteria, a resource must retain enough of its historic character and appearance to be recognizable as an historical resource and be able to convey the reasons for its significance (CCR Title 14 section 4852(c)). Resources on the Project Site. To determine whether the project site contains historical resources, cultural resources records searches were conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) an affiliate of the California Office of Historic Preservation and the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the official state repository of Native American sacred site location records. A cultural resources field survey was also completed. NWIC Records Search Results. The NWIC records search indicated that a circa Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) substation (Piedmont Substation E) is within the project site. In 2000, PAR Environmental Services, Inc., (PAR) 9 completed an evaluation of the substation for PG&E to determine whether the building was eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and, therefore, an historical resource for purposes of CEQA. PAR s evaluation included archival research, an architectural field survey, and the development of an historical context. PAR concluded that the building retained a high degree of integrity and was historically significant under California Register Criterion 3 as it represents the work of an important PG&E architect, Ivan C. Frickstad, and is a unique example of Mission-style architecture within the PG&E system. In 2006, Anna Naruta submitted a National Register of Historic Places (National Register) nomination for Substation E to the California Office of Historic Preservation, based on the PAR evaluation done for the building. PG&E, which still owned the building in 2006, submitted a letter of opposition to the Substation E National Register nomination to California Historic Preservation Officer, Milford Wayne Donaldson, and the nomination was officially withdrawn. Due to the objection of PG&E to the nomination, the California Office of Historic Preservation did not comment on the substation s eligibility nor was the nomination forwarded to the Keeper of the National Register in Washington, D.C. 10 The NWIC files did not indicate recorded archaeological sites within the project site. NAHC Records Search Results. LSA faxed a letter and map depicting the project site to the NAHC in Sacramento requesting a review of their Sacred Lands File for any Native American 9 Bakic, Tracy, Historical and Architectural Evaluation of PG&E s Substation E, Alameda County, California. PAR Environmental Services, Inc., Sacramento. 10 NWIC Coordinator, Leigh Jordan, personal communication with LSA on June 5, P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 32

149 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A cultural resources that might be affected by the proposed project. Katy Sanchez, NAHC Program Analyst, responded in a faxed letter on May 17, 2007, that a review of the Sacred Lands File did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. Cultural Resources Field Survey Results. An archaeologist with LSA completed an intensive cultural resources field survey of the project site on June 5, Ground visibility was good to excellent in the majority of the project site. The project site is on modern fill, 11 possibly dating to the construction of PG&E Substation E in No prehistoric cultural resources were observed. Historical refuse observed included broken clay sewer pipes, terracotta roof tiles fallen from the substation, white ceramic tile, and chunks of poured concrete. None of these materials qualify as historical resources under CEQA. Substation E appears similar to when evaluated by PAR in Conclusions. LSA concurs with the findings of PAR that Substation E is an historical resource for purposes of CEQA, and the June 2008 field survey confirmed that the building retains sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3. The removal of this resource would be a potentially significant impact and will be further evaluated in the Focused EIR being prepared for this project. Although no surface archaeological sites that qualify as historical resources were identified within the project site, the possibility of intact archaeological deposits below fill soils cannot be discounted. If such deposits are encountered during project ground-disturbing activities, e.g., grading and utilities trenching, potentially significant impacts may result. If archaeological deposits are encountered during project activities, these shall be addressed according to Mitigation Measure CULT-1 (see below for potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources). b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. There are no surface archaeological resources within the project site, as determined by a records search conducted at the Northwest Information Center on June 4, 2008, and an archaeological field conducted on June 5, Although no surface archaeological resources have been identified within the project site, the possibility of intact subsurface archaeological deposits that may qualify as archaeological resources, as defined in Section (3)(c) and Section , cannot be discounted. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1, described below, would reduce potential impacts to unidentified archaeological resources to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure CULT-1: The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the possibility of subsurface archaeological deposits within the project area by including the following directive in contract documents: 11 Alan Kropp & Associates Geotechnical Investigation, Piedmont Station Residential Development, 408 Linda Avenue, Piedmont, California. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 33

150 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A If prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. Archaeological resources can include flakedstone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite toolmaking debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat-affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, faunal bones, and cultural materials); and stone-milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Prehistoric archaeological sites often contain human remains. Historical materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls, and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics, metal, and other refuse. The City shall verify that the language has been included in the contract documents before issuing the building permit. If archaeological deposits are identified during project subsurface construction, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. The archaeologist shall first determine whether such deposits are historical resources as defined in section (a) and as required of the lead agency at Section (c)(1). If these deposits do not qualify as historical resources, a determination will be made if they qualify as unique archaeological resources, pursuant to Section (c)(3). If the deposit qualifies as either a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource it will need to be avoided by adverse effects or such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation may consist of, but is not necessarily limited to, systematic recovery and analysis of archaeological deposits; recording the resource; preparation of a report of findings; and accessioning recovered archaeological materials at an appropriate curation facility. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the archaeological materials discovered. The report shall be submitted to the City of Piedmont and the Northwest Information Center. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. No unique paleontological or geologic resources are located on the project site. A fossil locality search was conducted on June 9, 2008, by Dr. Pat Holroyd of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), Berkeley. The purpose of this search was to (1) identify known paleontological sites within and near the project area, and (2) identify the geologic formations and types of fossils that might be expected within and adjacent to the project area based on the existing geological and paleontological data. There are no recorded fossil localities within or adjacent to the project site; four vertebrate fossil localities are within five miles of the project site. The fossils from these localities include P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 34

151 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Mammuthus (mammoth) of the Late Pleistocene Rancholabrean (300,000 to 10,000 years B.P.); and Ticholeptus (an extinct ruminating ungulate), Hipparion (horse), Barbourofelis (an extinct lion-like carnivore), and Cranioceras (an extinct artiodactyl) from the Miocene Clarendonian (11,800,00 to 9,000,000 years B.P) (Berkeley Natural History Museum 2008). The Late Pleistocene Rancholabrean fossil locality was found in a similar geologic formation Late Pleistocene (126,000 to 10,000 years B.P.) alluvial deposits to the one underlying the modern fill in the project site. The proximity of a fossil locality in similar Late Pleistocene deposits to those underlying the project site indicates some paleontological sensitivity. There is the possibility of encountering significant paleontological resources in the fossil-bearing Late Pleistocene alluvium in the project site that is overlain by approximately three feet of modern artificial fill and as much as 10 feet of Holocene (10,000 years B.P. to present) alluvium. Should paleontological resources be encountered during project activities, implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-2: The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for paleontological resources by including the following directive in contract documents: The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are encountered during project subsurface construction, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials. Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals may include bones of mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison. Paleontological resources also include plant imprints, petrified wood, and animal tracks. The City shall verify that the language has been included in the contract documents before issuing the building permit. Should paleontological resources be encountered during project subsurface construction, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials. It is recommended that adverse effects to such deposits be avoided by project activities. Paleontological resources are considered significant if they possess the possibility of providing new information regarding past life forms, paleoecology, stratigraphy, and geological formation processes. If found to be significant, and project activities cannot avoid the paleontological resources, adverse effects to paleontological resources shall be mitigated. Mitigation may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report, and P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 35

152 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A accessioning the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Piedmont, and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Prehistoric archaeological sites in the East Bay frequently contain Native American interments. Although Native American remains have not been identified within the project site, the possibility that such remains exist in the project site cannot be discounted. Such remains could be uncovered during construction period activities that involve ground disturbance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-3 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-3: If human remains are encountered, these remains shall be treated in accordance with HSC Section The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the cultural sensitivity of the project area for human remains by including the following directive in contract documents: If human remains are encountered during project activities, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains and associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. The City shall verify that the language has been included in the contract documents before issuing the building permit. In the event that human remains are encountered during project activities, work within 25 feet of the discovery should be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist should be contacted to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel should not collect or move any human remains and associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 36

153 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City of Piedmont and the Northwest Information Center. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 37

154 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No 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: i) 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. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 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 on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Setting Alan Kropp & Associates, Inc. (Kropp) conducted a geotechnical investigation for the project site in The purpose of their investigation was to evaluate the suitability of the site for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering standpoint and to provide geotechnical design and construction criteria for the project. The investigation included: 1) a reconnaissance survey of the site and surrounding properties, 2) a review of published geotechnical materials relevant to the project, 3) an examination of aerial photographs of the area to observe historic development and broad features, 4) a subsurface exploration program consisting of drilling five exploratory test borings at the site, 5) laboratory work to evaluate the properties of the soil materials recovered, 6) geotechnical engineering analyses of the collected data, and 7) preparation of the geotechnical investigation report. The geotechnical investigation report (September 20, 2006) is available for P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 38

155 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A public review at the City of Piedmont Public Works Department. The setting and analyses below are based on the report prepared by Kropp. 12 The topographic map for this area (Oakland East Quadrangle) prepared by the United States Geological Survey indicates that the site is located at an elevation of approximately 60 feet, on the southern face of a gently sloping northeast trending ridge in Piedmont, California. A creek and watershed map of the area prepared by Sowers (1993) indicates that the site is located along the eastern side of a former tributary to Pleasant Valley Creek. The tributary has been filled and Pleasant Valley Creek has been diverted into an underground culvert that flows beneath Grand Avenue. A widely used geologic map of the area (Radbruch 1969) indicates the site is underlain by the upper member of the San Antonio Formation and is approximately 100 feet north of a contact with undivided quarternary deposits. The text accompanying this map describes the San Antonio formation as clay, silt, sand, and gravel. A more recent geologic map by Helley and Graymer (1997) indicates that the site is underlain by alluvial fan and fluvial deposits that were deposited during the Pleistocene epoch. The map indicates this material typically consists of dense gravely and clayey sand or clayey gravel that fines upward to sandy clay. Discussion a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) 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; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv) Landslides? i) Fault Rupture. No Impact. The site is approximately 9,000 feet southwest of the nearest active trace of the Hayward fault. The site is also located approximately 17 miles northeast and 16 miles southwest of the active San Andreas and Concord faults, respectively. The site is not located within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone designated by the State of California. No other known earthquake faults run through or near the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. No further analysis of this issue is required. ii) Ground Shaking. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in a seismically active region of California. Significant earthquakes have been associated with movements along well-defined fault zones. Earthquakes occurring along the San Andreas, Hayward, or any number of other Bay Area faults have the potential to produce strong ground shaking at the site. Studies by the United States 12 Alan Kropp & Associates Geotechnical Investigation, Piedmont Station Residential Development, 408 Linda Avenue, Piedmont, California. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 39

156 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Geological Survey s Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities have estimated a 62 percent probability of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Bay Region before the year As part of their prediction, they estimated the probability to be 27 percent for a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake to occur on the Hayward/Rodgers Creek fault by the year Any construction activities associated with the proposed project would be subject to the engineering and building standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code, Section 7.03, Building Code Seismic Design Parameters. Compliance with these standards and implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, described below, would reduce potential risks associated with strong ground shaking to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The proposed project shall be designed to the criteria contained in the geotechnical investigation report for the project (Kropp 2006). Construction methods for the project shall incorporate all of the specifications and recommendations contained in the geotechnical report pertaining to site preparation and earthwork, foundations, building code seismic design parameters, slabs-on-grade, retaining walls, and surface drainage. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall submit plans and specifications, certified by an engineer or professional geologist, to the City that indicate how the geotechnical report s recommendations will be implemented. Written evidence that the measures have been implemented as specified in the geotechnical report shall be provided to the City. The City shall verify that the recommendations of the geotechnical report are included in the construction plans prior to issuing the project s building permit. A geotechnical consultant shall be present on site during construction to observe the earthwork (i.e., site clearing, excavation, subgrade preparation for slabs or filling, and any compaction operations) and any foundation work (i.e., pier drilling and void below grade berms) associated with the project. iii) Ground Failure and Liquefaction. Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the rapid transformation of saturated, loose, unconsolidated, non-cohesive sediment (such as sand) to a fluid-like state because of earthquake ground shaking. The seismic hazard zone map for the project area prepared by the California Geological Survey in 2003 indicates that the site is within a mapped zone that may be prone to earthquake-induced ground failure during a major earthquake. The map indicates that sufficient concern exists in the project area to merit a site-specific evaluation, not necessarily that the hazard is actually present. Kropp evaluated liquefaction potential for the site using multi-layered models developed based on data from the test borings and laboratory analysis. A moment magnitude (M w ) of 7.1 was used in their analysis. The results of their analysis indicate that the sandy and gravelly clays that exist below the site would not be susceptible to liquefaction in a design-level earthquake. Since liquefaction was judged to be unlikely, secondary effects from liquefaction such as liquefaction-induced settlement and lateral P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 40

157 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A spreading are also judged to be unlikely. Thus, no further analysis of this issue is required. iv) Landslides. No Impact. Earthquake ground shaking can induce landslides, especially where unstable slopes exist because the ground shaking provides a mechanism for ground movement. A landslide map of the area referenced in the geotechnical investigation report did not indicate the presence of any landslides extending onto the site or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides. No further analysis of this issue is required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve grading activities that would result in the loosening of topsoil. The impact of wind and water on loosened topsoil could lead to surface erosion and subsequent degradation of downstream water quality. Construction activities have the potential to disrupt soil and cause erosion. However, an Erosion Control Plan, included in the Construction Management Plan required by the City, would be prepared prior to any ground disturbance activities to provide the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the site during the construction period. The Erosion Control Plan would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to minimize sediment in site runoff during construction. BMPs designed to reduce erosion of exposed soil may include, but are not limited to: soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales, and sediment basins. Any disturbed portions of the project area would be revegetated following construction activities. Implementation of an Erosion Control Plan would reduce potential impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to a level below significance. 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 on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Landslide. See discussion above in Section VI-a pertaining to landslide potential. Lateral Spreading. The geotechnical investigation prepared by Kropp does not indicate that the soils on the project site would be susceptible to lateral spreading. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, described above, would reduce any potential risks associated with lateral spreading to a less than significant level. Subsidence. Based on the results of Kropp s subsurface exploration, it appears that the site is underlain by approximately 2 to 5 feet of fill soils. The geotechnical investigation concluded that these P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 41

158 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A materials were probably placed during the filling of the tributary to Pleasant Valley Creek to create a flat building pad for the construction of the PG&E substation. While the fill soils encountered in the borings appeared to be moderately well compacted, given the era during which the fill soils were placed (the project site and surrounding area were developed prior to 1939) and the evolution of the standards of practice that have occurred since that time, the geotechnical report concluded that it is likely these fill materials were not placed according to accepted modern standards. These standards include removing potentially compressible material prior to fill placement and engineering control of fill compaction. The fill has been in place for more than 60 years and has likely reached a state of equilibrium under current loading conditions. However, it is possible that new loads from building foundations and/or significant fill placement could potentially trigger some additional settlement. For this reason, the geotechnical study recommends that residential units or other significant structures be supported on piers that extend through the fill and gain all their support from the underlying native materials. The study concludes that it would be acceptable to support site flatwork (including driveway and garage slabs) on the existing fills. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, described above, would reduce potential risks associated with subsidence to less than significant levels. Liquefaction. See discussion above in Section VI-a pertaining to liquefaction potential. Collapse. The geotechnical investigation prepared by Kropp does not indicate that the soils on the project site would be susceptible to collapse. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, described above, would reduce any potential risks associated with soil collapse to less than significant levels. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The near-surface soils encountered in the test borings drilled at the site consisted of 2 to 5 feet of clayey fill material. The results of the testing on this material indicate that the surface soils are moderately expansive. Additional testing of soil material collected from the northeast corner of the site on the slope between the PG&E substation building and Oakland Avenue at a depth of approximately 11 feet below existing site grade indicated that the clayey materials at this depth in this location are highly expansive. Expansive soils shrink and swell in response to changes in moisture and have the potential to damage constructed features that are supported on them. The moderately to highly expansive soils would be exposed at the proposed building grades. The geotechnical investigation report recommends specific design and construction specifications to mitigate for expansive soil conditions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, described above, would reduce potential risks associated with expansive soils to less than significant levels. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 42

159 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project site is located in a developed area of the City of Piedmont that is served by a municipal wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment system. No septic tanks are proposed. Therefore, no further analysis of this issue is required. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 43

160 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A VII. HAZARDS. 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 handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for 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 wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No Impact Setting The project site was used as a PG&E substation from 1926 to 1991, at which time it was abandoned and has been vacant since. The two-story, approximately 5,688-square-foot concrete building would be demolished prior to the construction of the proposed seven townhouse structures and associated development components. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 44

161 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Several sources, consisting of past environmental reports, provide information regarding the project site history and environmental conditions of the project site. Listed below are the primary environmental assessments and actions completed to date at the subject property. Referenced documents are available for review at the City of Piedmont Public Works Department. After the substation structure was vacated by PG&E in 1991, site investigations were conducted by Technical and Ecological Services (TES) in 2000 to test for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead, asbestos, and total petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oil, mineral oil, and diesel. Their investigation reported PCB concentrations ranging from 1 part-per-billion (ppb) to 910 ppb in the interior of the building, and from 89 ppb to 140 ppb in the exterior soils. With the exception of the 910 ppb reading, which was obtained from a sink drainpipe inside the building, all PCB concentrations were below the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) standards for residential land use (currently the lowest PRG for the various mixtures of PCBs is 170 ppb). The drainpipe was reportedly removed from the structure by PG&E for cleaning and disposal. The TES investigation also reported concentrations of lead in the soil outside the building at concentrations ranging from 5 parts-per-million (ppm) to 11,000 ppm. No concentrations exceeding the residential land use PRG for lead were detected in the site soil at depths greater than one foot. The TES investigation also documented that petroleum hydrocarbon constituents found in three of the eight soil samples were below the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) risk-based environmental screening levels for residential land use. PG&E initiated soil remediation work at the site in 2000 and 2001 that included lead abatement by removal and replacement of the upper two feet of soil on the property. PG&E s remediation efforts also included the removal of accessible asbestos-containing material from the interior of the building; removal and encapsulation of peeling lead-based paint from the interior walls of the building; and washing of interior walls to remove oil stains. Clearance investigations conducted by Kellco, Inc. (Kellco) in 2004 reported that no asbestos, lead or PCBs remain in the interior of the structure. A lead soil leachability evaluation was conducted by SECOR International, Inc. (SECOR) in January 2005, and concluded that little or no leaching was occurring in the non-remediated eastern portion of the property. RGA Environmental Services, Inc. (RGA) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the project site in The Phase I ESA was based on regulatory agency research and a physical inspection of the project site. The Alameda County Health Care Services Agency issued a No Further Action Letter pertaining to the soils outside of the existing PG&E substation building to PG&E on May 12, P&D Environmental, Inc. (P&D) performed a Phase II ESA (Subsurface Investigation Report) for the project site in The areas investigated included vaults inside the building, the sewer and drainage piping located at the building perimeter exterior, and groundwater adjacent to and in the vicinity of the building. The contaminants investigated included petroleum hydrocarbons, lead, and PCBs. Field activities consisted of drilling for soil sample cores within the interior of the PG&E substation building and outside of the building. P&D also collected groundwater samples and soil gas samples for evaluation and testing. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 45

162 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Discussion a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project applicant is proposing to build new residences and associated infrastructure at the site. Although small quantities of commercially-available hazardous materials could be used within the new residences consistent with residential uses, and potentially for landscape maintenance within the project site, these materials would not be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to human or environmental health. During the construction period, materials such as fuels, oils, and/or solvents that, in large quantities, could pose a potential hazard to the public or environment if improperly used or inadvertently released. Inadvertent release of large quantities of these materials into the environment could also adversely impact soil, surface waters, or ground water quality. If large spills of hazardous materials occurred on the project site, the applicant or its subcontractor would be responsible under state law to report such a spill to the appropriate agencies and to clean up the spill to acceptable levels. The use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) typically implemented as part of construction would minimize the potential negative effects to groundwater and soils. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce impacts related to the significant hazards created through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Project construction plans shall include emergency procedures for responding to hazardous materials releases for materials that would be brought onto the site as part of site development and construction activities. The emergency procedures for hazardous materials releases shall include the necessary personal protective equipment, spill containment procedures, and training of workers to respond to accidental spills/releases. All use, storage, transport and disposal of hazardous materials (including any hazardous wastes) during construction activities shall be performed in accordance with existing local, State, and federal hazardous materials regulations. The City shall verify that the emergency procedures are included in the construction plans, prior to issuing the project s building permit. 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Past use of the property resulted in releases of PCBs and petroleum hydrocarbon fuels and lubricants into the environment. Additionally, asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint were utilized at the site, the latter resulting in lead contamination of the soil. As a result of the findings in the TES report prepared in 2000, PG&E initiated a cleanup of the site in 2000 and 2001, which included removal and replacement of the upper two feet of soil on the southerly and westerly portions of P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 46

163 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A the property. 13 A lead soil leachability evaluation was conducted by SECOR in January 2005, and concluded that little or no leaching was occurring in the non-remediated eastern portion of the property. 14 Clearance investigations conducted by Kellco in 2004 reported that no asbestos, lead or PCBs remain in the interior of the structure. 15 The Alameda County Health Care Services Agency issued a No Further Action Letter pertaining to the soils outside of the existing PG&E substation building to PG&E on May 12, Building materials containing lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials were used to construct the PG&E structure. If any of these materials remain as part of the PG&E structure, demolition of this building could potentially release airborne particles of hazardous materials that may affect construction workers or the public. An asbestos inspection for the possible presence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) was not part of the scope of the Phase I ESA conducted by RGA in Although the clearance investigation conducted by Kellco in 2004 reported that no asbestos remains in the interior of the building, the investigation completed by TES in 2000 indicated that asbestos-containing paint was present on the exterior of the building. The 2005 RGA Phase I ESA reported that they were unable to verify that the exterior paint had been remediated to date. The No Further Action Letter from the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency states that the exterior walls of the building have been scraped, cleaned and coated, which suggests that any remaining lead-based paint or asbestos containing paint on the exterior walls has been stabilized. The U.S. EPA and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) require that lead-based paint with lead concentrations equal to or greater than the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definition of lead-based paints (greater or equal to 1 mg/cm 2 or 0.5 percent lead by weight) be removed prior to demolition if the paint is loose and peeling. If the paint is securely adhering to the substrate, the entire material may be disposed of as demolition debris, which is a non-hazardous waste. Loose and peeling paint must be disposed of as a State and/or federal hazardous waste, if the concentration of lead exceeds applicable waste thresholds. Hazardous wastes must be managed, labeled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with local requirements by trained workers, as described above. State and federal construction worker health and safety regulations require air monitoring and other protective measures during demolition or renovation activities where lead-based paint is present. Removal of asbestos or suspect ACM, including removal as part of building demolition, is regulated by the U.S. EPA, federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DTSC, and the BAAQMD. All friable (crushable by hand) ACM, or non-friable ACM subject to damage, must be abated prior to demolition in accordance with applicable requirements. Friable ACM must be disposed of as an asbestos waste at an approved facility. Non-friable ACM may be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste at landfills that accept such wastes. Workers conducting asbestos abatement must be trained in accordance with State and federal OSHA requirements. 13 RGA Environmental Services, Inc Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 408 Linda Avenue. March Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 47

164 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Fluorescent lighting tubes and ballast, computer displays, and several other common items containing hazardous materials are regulated as universal wastes by the State. Universal waste regulations allow common, low-hazard wastes to be managed under less stringent requirements than other hazardous wastes. Management of other hazardous wastes is governed by DTSC hazardous waste rules. Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 and HAZ-3 would reduce impacts pertaining to universal wastes and to the release of airborne lead-based paint and ACM to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: The project shall comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 11, Rule 2: Hazardous Materials, Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing, with the OSHA Standard related to lead abatement, and all other applicable State and federal requirements for the safe handling and disposal of lead-based paint, ACM, and universal wastes. Prior to the demolition of the PG&E structure on the project site, lead-based paint and ACM surveys shall be performed for the exterior of the PG&E structure by a qualified environmental professional. If any lead-based paint or ACM is identified, it shall be abated and removed from the site in accordance with all applicable regulations, including OSHA requirements. The City shall verify that the surveys and abatement or removal, as necessary, have been completed prior to any grading or demolition activities on the project site. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Prior to any grading or demolition activities on the project site, a Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared in accordance with State and federal laws and regulations with provisions to protect construction workers and the nearby public from health risks from any residual contaminants in site soils, groundwater, and/or the existing PG&E substation building during project construction. The Health and Safety Plan shall summarize previous environmental investigations and health risk assessments conducted for the project site and identify any known residual contamination that remains in soil or groundwater that would be disturbed or handled during construction. The Health and Safety Plan shall also: 1) provide procedures to be undertaken in the event that previously unreported construction hazards or previously undetected subsurface hazards, including soil or groundwater contamination, are discovered during construction; 2) incorporate construction safety measures for excavation and other construction activities; 3) establish procedures for safe storage, stockpiling, use, and disposal of contaminated soils and groundwater and other hazardous materials at the project site; 4) provide emergency response procedures; and 5) designate personnel responsible for implementation of the Health and Safety Plan during the construction phase of the project. If regulatory oversight is required for site remediation, the Health and Safety Plan shall be subject to review and approval by regulatory oversight agencies. The City shall verify that the Health and Safety Plan has been completed prior to any grading or demolition activities on the project site. Based on review of historic investigation and remediation reports provided by PG&E, oil, PCBs, lead, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were identified as potential contaminants of concern for the subsurface investigation (Phase II ESA) conducted by P&D in The P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 48

165 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A physical locations identified for investigation included soil conditions located beneath the vaults inside the PG&E building, soil conditions beneath sanitary sewer pipes located outside of the building, and groundwater quality in presumed upgradient and downgradient building vicinity locations. Soil, groundwater, and soil gas samples were analyzed at McCampbell Analytical, Inc. With one exception, the TPH-mo (total petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oil), lead, PCB, and VOC concentrations detected at the site were below established Environmental Screening Level (ESL) concentrations. 17 The TPH-mo concentrations encountered by P&D at sampling collection location T3, located underneath Vault 4 in the southeast corner of the interior of the PG&E substation building, suggest that the vertical extent of TPH-mo in soil with concentrations exceeding the TPH-mo residential ESL of 500 mg/kg are limited to a depth of 3.5 feet or less. 18 Earthwork activities in this area have the potential to expose construction workers and or residents to motor oil concentrations that exceed an established ESL concentration. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-3 through HAZ-5 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Based on the results of the subsurface investigation and P&D s recommendation in their 2006 subsurface investigation report, the petroleumimpacted soil at location T3 with concentrations exceeding residential ESL values shall be removed by a qualified professional and disposed of according to all local, State, and federal regulations prior to any earthwork activity on the project site. The City shall verify that the soil has been remediated, as necessary, to the satisfaction of the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency or other overseeing regulatory agencies prior to any grading or demolition activities on the project site. Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: In a letter sent to PG&E on December 19, 2006, the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency stated that if remediation of petroleumimpacted soil at location T3 is successful and no additional environmental areas of concern are discovered during site demolition, they would be able to issue a No Further Action Letter for unrestricted site use. The City shall be provided with the final No Further Action Letter from the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency prior to issuing the building permit for the project. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Beach Elementary School is located approximately 0.25 mile northwest of the project site, and the Beach Playfield is located on the other side of the Oakland Avenue bridge abutment adjacent to northwest project boundary. As discussed above in responses VIII-a and VIII-b, project activities have the potential to release hazardous materials, substances, or waste into the environment. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5, impacts on the Beach Elementary School and adjacent playfield would be less than significant. 17 P&D Environmental, Inc Subsurface Investigation Report for 408 Linda Avenue. November Ibid. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 49

166 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites prepared pursuant to Government Code Section According to RGA, based on information contained in the environmental databases that were searched by during their preparation of the Phase I ESA, none of the listed hazardous release sites in the general vicinity of the project appear to have the potential to adversely affect the soil or groundwater at the project site, and none represent Recognized Environmental Conditions for the property as defined in the ASTM E-1590 Standard for Environmental Site Assessments. No further analysis of this issue is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to a safety hazard related to airports. No further analysis of this issue is required. f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. As described above, the project site is not located in the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. This issue will not be discussed in the EIR. No further analysis of this issue is required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The City s emergency plan is formally known as the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (MHFP). 20 It deals with both wartime emergencies and peacetime emergencies, such as earthquakes, fires, floods, dam failure, major accidents, hazardous material spills, storms, epidemics, critical pollution, and civil disturbances. There are no designated evacuation routes in Piedmont. In the event of an emergency, the evacuation routes would be designated by the Police Chief and Public Works Director, based on the nature of the emergency and the direction of movement of the threat. Evacuation would generally use arterial streets such as Grand Avenue, Moraga Avenue, Oakland Avenue, and Park Boulevard. The project is expected to generate approximately 41 new daily vehicle trips (see Section XV, Transportation/Traffic). The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No further analysis of this issue is required. 19 RGA Environmental Services, Inc Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 408 Linda Avenue. March City of Piedmont City of Piedmont General Plan. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 50

167 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized portion of the City of Piedmont that does not include wildlands or high fire hazard terrain or vegetation. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss associated with wildland fires. Thus, no further analysis of this issue is required. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 51

168 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 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 which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No Impact 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 which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 52

169 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Discussion a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve grading activities that would result in the loosening of topsoil. The impact of wind and water on loosened topsoil could lead to surface erosion and subsequent degradation of downstream water quality. However, an Erosion Control Plan, included in the Construction Management Plan required by the City as a condition of approval, would be prepared prior to any ground disturbance activities to provide the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the site during the construction period. (See Section VI-b, Geology and Soils). The Construction Management Plan would also include a Stormwater Management Plan with stormwater treatment BMPs that adhere to the Start at the Source Design Guideline Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection prepared by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (1999). Additionally, wastewater generated at the project site would be served by the City s existing sanitary sewer system. Project development would conform to all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Uniform Building Code, and the City of Piedmont Municipal Code Chapter 30 (Storm Water Management and Discharge Control) and would not result in unpermitted discharges into the sanitary sewer and stormwater systems. Thus, the project would not violate any water quality or waste discharge standards. No further analysis of this specific issue is required. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in the construction of large areas of impervious surfaces that would prevent water from infiltrating into the groundwater, nor would it result in direct additions or withdrawals to existing groundwater. Approximately 55 percent of the project site is currently developed with the PG&E substation building and associated impervious areas. The project proposes seven townhouses and associated hardscape surfaces that would cover approximately 60 percent of the project site with impervious surfaces. The proposed project would not significantly alter groundwater infiltration on the site from current conditions. Therefore, project impacts to groundwater and groundwater recharge would be less than significant. No further analysis of this issue is required. 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 which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would change the drainage patterns on the project site. The Construction Management Plan that would be prepared for the project would include erosion control and stormwater treatment practices. All runoff associated with the proposed project would be either directed to landscaped areas and/or pre-manufactured P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 53

170 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A stormwater quality BMPs for infiltration and water quality purposes prior to being directed to the City s storm drain system along Linda Avenue. As such, the alteration of the existing drainage pattern would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Therefore, project impacts related to this issue would be less than significant, and no further analysis of this issue is required. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose to alter the course of any stream or river. However, grading of the project site and construction of the townhouses and associated facilities could alter drainage patterns in a manner that could result in flooding onsite or offsite. In addition, construction and operation of the project would include impervious surfaces (i.e., driveways, building pads, and walkways), which could result in an increase in the amount of storm water runoff over existing levels. The City requires that a Stormwater Management Plan be prepared for the project prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Stormwater Management Plan would include site design practices and measures to promote infiltration of stormwater and reduce the amount of impervious surface that could lead to flooding on- or off-site. The applicant would be required to submit a hydraulic analysis that estimates storm water runoff generated by the project. The City would confirm the ability of the local storm drain system to accommodate the flows from the project (and not back up during storm events and cause localized flooding of the storm drain system). Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the site or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Project impacts related to this issue would be less than significant, and no further analysis of this issue is required. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would include impervious surfaces (i.e., driveways, building pads, and walkways), which could result in an increase in the amount of storm water runoff over existing levels. These pollutants may be released into the storm water runoff and degrade surface and ground water quality. The project would also have the potential to alter existing drainage patterns on the site which could result in an increase in erosion or siltation and an increase in non-point surface pollutants entering the waterways within the project area. As described above, the project is required to prepare a Stormwater Management Plan and incorporate water quality and erosion control BMPs. Using the hydraulic analysis prepared for the project, the City would also confirm the ability of the local stormdrain system to accommodate the flows from the project (and not back up during storm events and cause localized flooding of the stormdrain system). Therefore, the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Project impacts P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 54

171 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A related to this issue would be less than significant, and no further analysis of this issue is required. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not lead to a significant degradation of water quality. Please see the response to item VIII-a above. As described in Responses VIII-a through VIII-e above, construction and operation of the proposed project has the potential to adversely impact water quality. However, BMPs would be incorporated into the project, as required by the City, to minimize the potential harmful effects on water quality of the proposed project. 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? No Impact. The project site is not located 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. Thus, no further analysis of this issue is required. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See VIII-g above. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. No dams or levees are located in the project site area. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding, as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No further analysis of this issue is required. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. Seiches are standing waves created by seismically induced ground shaking (or volcanic eruptions or explosions) that occur in large, freestanding bodies of water. A tsunami is a series of waves that are caused by earthquakes that occur on the seafloor or in coastal areas. The project site is not located near the open water of the Pacific Ocean, and therefore, would not be subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. The project area is relatively flat and does not contain any hillside terrain; therefore, there is no potential for the project site to be inundated by a mudflow. Thus, no further analysis of this issue is required. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 55

172 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established 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 the 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? Discussion a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is surrounded by areas that are developed with urban land uses. The proposed project would include the development of residential uses on a lot that is designated for development by the City s General Plan (2009) and would not create a physical barrier within the community or otherwise divide contiguous land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and no further analysis of this issue is necessary. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the construction of seven townhouses and associated infrastructure. The land use designation for the site was converted from Public/Quasi Public to Medium Density Residential with the City Council adoption of the updated City of Piedmont General Plan in April The Medium Density Residential designation allows an average density of between 8 and 20 dwelling units per acre. The density of the proposed project is approximately 17.5 units per acre. The project is currently zoned as Zone C, Multiple Density Residential, which allows for singlefamily residences on a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet or multi-family residences with up to seven dwelling units, at a density not to exceed one dwelling unit per each 2,000 square feet of lot area. With the exception of the variance that may be required for the property setback along Oakland Avenue, the proposed project is consistent with this zoning designation. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 56

173 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A The project is compatible with the following goals and policies identified in the City s General Plan (Land Use Element and Draft Housing Element): Policy 1.3: Harmonious Development Maintain planning and development review procedures which ensure that new development is harmonious with its surroundings and will not conflict with adjacent properties. New development and home alterations should be consistent with established standards for setbacks, height, and bulk, thereby conserving the low-density, pedestrianfriendly character of the city s neighborhoods (City of Piedmont General Plan, Land Use Element, 2009). GOAL 1: New Housing Construction Provide a range of new housing options in Piedmont to meet the needs of all household types in the community (City of Piedmont General Plan, Draft Housing Element, 2009). Policy 1.2: Housing Diversity Continue to maintain planning, zoning and building regulations that accommodate the development of housing for all income levels (City of Piedmont General Plan, Draft Housing Element, 2009). The City s Design Review process and rigorous design review criteria contained in the Municipal Code and the City s Residential Design Review Guidelines would ensure that the project would not result in a significant impact related to a conflict with plans or policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating a significant environmental effect. No further analysis of this issue is required. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other habitat plan. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not conflict with any habitat conversion plan. No further analysis of this issue is required. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 57

174 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No 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? Discussion of Impacts 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? No Impact. There are no known mineral resources at or near the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not result in the loss or availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents or the state. No further analysis of this issue is required. 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? No Impact. See Response X-a above. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 58

175 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Setting Fundamentals of Noise. Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. Sound intensity is measured through the A-weighted scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. An A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear s de-emphasis of these frequencies. Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. Table A shows representative outdoor and indoor A-weighted sound levels. A decibel (db) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative intensity of a sound. The 0 point on the db scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 db or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 db or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Sound levels in db are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 db represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 db P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 59

176 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A is 100 times more intense, 30 db is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10-dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Table A: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels Noise Source A-Weighted Sound Level in Decibels Noise Environments Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of pain Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of feeling Accelerating Motorcycle at a Few Feet Away 110 Very loud Pile Driver; Noisy Urban Street/Heavy City Traffic 100 Very loud Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very loud Garbage Disposal 90 Very loud Freight Cars; Living Room Music 85 Loud Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum Cleaner 80 Loud Busy Restaurant 75 Moderately loud Near Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately loud Average Office 60 Moderate Suburban Street 55 Moderate Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment 50 Quiet Large Transformer 45 Quiet Average Residence Without Stereo Playing 40 Faint Soft Whisper 30 Faint Rustling Leaves 20 Very faint Human Breathing 10 Very faint Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc., As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 db(a) reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern. There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. The predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the equivalent continuous sound level (L eq ), the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day-night average level (L dn ) based on A- weighted decibels (dba). L eq is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period. CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dba weighting factor applied to the hourly L eq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dba weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). L dn is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening hours. CNEL and L dn are within one dba of each other and are normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours. Other noise rating scales of importance include the maximum noise level (L max ), which is the highest exponential time averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by L max for shortterm noise impacts. L max reflects peak operating conditions, and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 60

177 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first is audible impacts that refer to increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dba or greater, since, as described earlier, this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level between 1 and 3 dba. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. The last category is changes in noise level of less than 1 dba that are inaudible to the human ear. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant. Fundamentals of Groundborne Vibration. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. When assessing annoyance from groundborne noise, vibration is typically expressed as root mean square (rms) velocity in units of decibels of 1 micro-inch per second. To distinguish vibration levels from noise levels, the unit is written as VdB. Human perception to vibration starts at levels as low as 67 VdB and sometimes lower. Annoyance due to vibration in residential settings starts at approximately 70 VdB. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. The damage threshold for buildings considered of particular historical significance or that are particularly fragile structures is approximately 96 VdB; the damage threshold for other structures is 100 VdB. 21 Common sources of groundborne vibration include trains and construction activities such as blasting, pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. Ambient Noise Conditions. The City of Piedmont encompasses approximately 1.8 square miles and does not have any major freeways, airports, railways, or rapid transit systems within its boundaries. The major transportation facilities, Interstate 580, and State Highways 24 and 13 are outside of the City limits at a relative distance related to noise. Because of this, the studies of noise levels within the City have been directed at noise originating locally, within the City s boundaries, or the adjacent areas in the City of Oakland. 22 With the exception of Interstate 580, which affects some portions of the west end of the City of Piedmont, local vehicle traffic is the primary source of noise within the City. 23 Exposure to noise in the City of Piedmont depends almost directly upon proximity to one of the local main traffic arterials, which include Grand Avenue, Highland Avenue, Moraga Avenue, Oakland Avenue, and Park Boulevard. Residences or locations facing these roads experience the greatest noise levels while the noise levels at only half a block away are significantly lower. The lower levels are due both to the normal loss in noise level with distance from the source, and the noise barrier provided by the first row of housing or buildings adjacent to these roads. The project site is located adjacent to the Oakland Avenue viaduct and less than 0.1 mile from Grand Avenue. Noise level measurements conducted throughout the City in 2007 by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. for the City s General Plan Update indicate that noise levels on Oakland Avenue near Linda Avenue are approximately 60 dba L dn. 24 Figure 6.4 in the General Plan shows the project site located between a 60 dba L dn and 70 dba L dn noise contour. 21 Harris, C.M Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. 22 City of Piedmont City of Piedmont General Plan. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 61

178 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Discussion of Impacts a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project involves construction of seven townhouses. This land use would not generate high ambient noise levels. As described in Section XV, Transportation/Traffic, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate a significant increase in the number of car trips to/from the project site. Thus, changes to ambient noise levels along local streets leading to the site are not expected. Section of the City s Municipal Code (Building Code) requires that mechanically generated noise from stationary equipment on the site (e.g., air conditioning units) not exceed 50 dba beyond property perimeters. The project would be required to adhere to this City requirement. Therefore, no substantial long-term increase in ambient noise levels is expected as a result of project implementation. Construction of the proposed project would require excavation and earthwork activities that could generate noise levels that exceed established thresholds. In addition, construction of the project would require boring for foundation piers. Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project, particularly the use of heavy machinery, could generate temporary ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Pile driving can generate noise levels above 90 dba L max. Noise associated with pile driving is a very loud and impulsive sound, resulting from a large hammer that drops on steel or reinforced concrete piles. Individual noise impacts are of short duration (under one second), but the noise is repetitive, occurring about once every two seconds. Pile driving also generates ground borne vibration that can be perceptible at a distance of 100 feet. Pile driving activities also have the potential to damage buildings near the project site. Maximum ground-borne vibration levels associated with potential pile driving within the site could range from approximately 104 VdB for structures 25 feet away and approximately 90 VdB for structures 75 feet away. 25 As noted in the setting discussion above, the damage threshold for buildings considered of particular historical significance or that are particularly fragile structures is approximately 96 VdB; the damage threshold for other structures is 100 VdB. 26 None of the existing structures located off site and within 90 feet of project potential pile driving locations are considered fragile structures or structures of historical significance. Although these activities could result in infrequent periods of high noise, this noise would not be sustained and would occur only during the temporary construction period. Short-term noise levels would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2, described below. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The project shall comply with the following noise reduction measures: 25 Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 26 Harris, C.M Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 62

179 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A As required in Section 12.8 of the City Code, operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition activities shall not occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. each day, Sunday evening through Saturday morning, and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. Saturday evening through Sunday morning. All heavy construction equipment used on the project site shall be maintained in good operating condition, with all internal combustion, engine-driven equipment fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. All stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far away as possible from neighboring property lines. Post signs prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. The construction manager shall identify and designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. The noise disturbance coordinator shall report all complaints and resolution thereof to the City via monthly reports. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be posted conspicuously at the construction site. Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: The project shall comply with the following measures to address ground borne vibration and noise: In the event that pile driving would be required within the project area, all residents within 200 feet of the project site shall be notified of the schedule for its use a minimum of one week prior to its commencement. In the event that pile driving would be required within the project area, the contractor shall implement quiet pile driving technology (such as pre-drilling of piles, the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration, or the use of portable acoustical barriers) where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions. The project includes development of noise-sensitive, residential land uses adjacent to Oakland Avenue, a main traffic arterial. The State of California has established regulations that help prevent adverse impacts to occupants of buildings located near noise sources. Referred to as the State Noise Insulation Standard, it requires buildings to meet performance standards through design and/or building materials that would offset any noise source in the vicinity of the receptor. These requirements are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (known as the Building Standards Administrative Code), Part 2 (known as the California Building Code), Appendix Chapters 12 and 12A. For limiting noise transmitted between adjacent dwelling units, the noise insulation standards specify the extent to which walls, doors, and floor ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound. For limiting noise from exterior noise sources, the noise insulation standards set an interior standard of 45 dba community noise equivalent level (CNEL) in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 63

180 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Noise level measurements conducted throughout the City in 2007 by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. for the City s General Plan Update indicate that noise levels on Oakland Avenue near Linda Avenue are approximately 60 dba L dn. 27 Figure 6.4 in the General Plan shows the project site located between a 60 dba L dn and 70 dba L dn noise contour. Based on the EPA s Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/ , November 1978), with a combination of walls, doors, and windows, standard construction for northern California residential buildings would provide more than 25 dba in exterior to interior noise reduction with windows closed and 15 dba or more with windows open. Therefore, with standard residential building construction, noise in the interior of the townhouses, attributable to the traffic along Oakland Avenue and Linda Avenue, would be reduced to a less than significant level. No further analysis of this issue is required. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the project would require boring for foundation piers. This activity is not expected to generate excessive ground borne vibration or noise due to its short duration, limited scope, and the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 and NOISE-2, listed above. No further analysis of this issue is required. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. The long-term use of the project would be residential, which is consistent with neighboring land uses. The proposed land use of seven townhouses would not generate high ambient noise levels or result in a significant increase in vehicle noise in the project area. Future occupants would be required to comply with the applicable requirements of the City s noise ordinance. Additionally, Section of the City s Municipal Code (Building Code) requires that mechanically generated noise from stationary equipment on the site (e.g., air conditioning units) not exceed 50 dba beyond property perimeters. The project would be required to adhere to this City requirement. Therefore, no long-term increase in ambient noise levels is expected as a result of project implementation. No further analysis of this issue is required. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See Response XI-a above. No further analysis of this issue is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 27 Ibid. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 64

181 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within the project site to high levels of airport-related noise. No further analysis of this issue is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose site visitors to high levels of airstrip-related noise. No further analysis of this issue is required. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 65

182 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed project would develop the site with seven residential units. At the time of the 2000 U.S. Census, the City of Piedmont had an average household population of The proposed project would increase the net population of the site by approximately persons (7 x 2.88 = 20.16). The projected additional 20 residents represent less than 0.5% of the City s existing population, which was 10,952 in 2000 according to the U.S. Census. Thus, project impacts related to population growth would be less than significant. No further analysis of this issue is required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. There are no existing housing units on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, and no further discussion of this issue is required. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. See Response XII-b above. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 66

183 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered 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 public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Setting The proposed project would be located in an area that is already served by public service systems, as described below. Police Protection. Law enforcement services for the project would be provided by the City of Piedmont Police Department. The Piedmont Police Department employs 20 sworn personnel (the police chief, two captains, four sergeants and thirteen patrol officers), 8 non-sworn personnel (five dispatchers, two animal control officers and one administrative assistant). The department also has specially trained canines who perform patrol services, searches and provide back-up for their officers. The City Police Department is located at 403 Highland Avenue. Fire Protection. The City of Piedmont Fire Department provides fire prevention and protection and emergency medical services to Piedmont citizens. The Fire Department consists of eight personnel per day in addition to the fire chief and responds to approximately 1,100 calls for service each year. The City Fire Department is located at 120 Vista Avenue. Schools. The Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) serves approximately 2,600 students within the City of Piedmont. The PUSD consists of six school sites: three elementary schools (Wildwood Elementary School, Beach Elementary School, and Havens Elementary School); one middle school (Piedmont Middle School), one traditional high school (Piedmont High School), and one alternative high school (Millennium High School). The district also includes an adult school that shares space with the district schools for evening and weekend classes. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 67

184 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Beach Elementary School is located at 100 Lake Avenue, approximately 0.20 mile northwest of the project site. The school served 285 students in the school year. Parks. There are various kinds of parks located in Oakland and Piedmont that are utilized by Piedmont residents, including regional, community, and neighborhood parks that cater to particular activities. Within the 1.8 square miles comprising the City, there are approximately 60 acres of parks and playgrounds that are operated by the City of Piedmont, the Piedmont Unified School District, and the City of Oakland. In the project area, Linda Park is a linear strip park located north of Oakland Avenue that serves as a pathway for jogging, walking, and similar activities. Beach Playfield is located immediately northwest of the project site on the other side of the Oakland Avenue viaduct and consists of two play areas, a large grass field, and two tennis courts. Discussion a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered 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 public services: Fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. As described in the Population and Housing section above, the proposed project would not result in substantial growth in the area that would require additional fire protection or emergency medical services. The proposed project would be designed to meet City fire department standards and would not adversely impact the City s ability to provide fire protection and emergency response services. The City s fire marshal confirmed that the fire department would be able to provide fire protection and emergency response services to the project site. 28 The fire department has also been engaged in the design review process and continues to review and comment on the project design plans. The Piedmont Police Department would provide law enforcement services for the proposed project. Construction of the additional seven townhouses would not require additional law enforcement personnel or equipment. The project would result in a slight increase in demand for school or related services in the area. The Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) confirmed that a potential increase in enrollment as a result of project implementation could be accommodated. 29 Implementation of the proposed project would result in a slight increase in the demand for existing park facilities, but it is not expected to require the development of new park facilities. 28 Barringer, Scott Fire Marshal for the City of Piedmont Fire Department. Personal Communication with LSA Associates, Inc. July Brady, Michael Assistant Superintendent for the Piedmont Unified School District. Personal Communication with LSA Associates, Inc. July 1. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 68

185 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of public service. Therefore, public services will not be addressed in the EIR. No further analysis of this issue is required. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 69

186 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No Impact XIV. RECREATION. a) Would the project 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) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Setting There are various kinds of parks located in Oakland and Piedmont that are utilized by Piedmont residents, including regional, community, and neighborhood parks that cater to particular activities. Within the 1.8 square miles comprising the City, there are approximately 60 acres of parks and playgrounds that are operated by the City of Piedmont, the Piedmont Unified School District, and the City of Oakland. In the project area, Linda Park is a linear strip park located north of Oakland Avenue that serves as a pathway for jogging, walking, and similar activities. Beach Playfield is located immediately northwest of the project site on the other side of the Oakland Avenue viaduct and consists of two play areas, a large grass field, and two tennis courts. Discussion a) Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact. No new parks or expansion of any existing recreation facilities are proposed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project, with seven townhouses, would not result in substantial population growth. The increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of the proposed project would not be such that substantial physical deterioration of these facilities would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly increase demand on existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities or related services in the area. No further analysis of this issue is required. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 70

187 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include construction of recreational facilities nor require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No further analysis of this issue is required. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 71

188 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency on 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 due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Setting The project site is located at 408 Linda Avenue approximately 300 feet northwest of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Linda Avenue. The site is bound on the south and west by Linda Avenue, on the north by Oakland Avenue, on the northeast by a three-story apartment complex, and on the east by a single-family residence (420 Linda Avenue). Oakland Avenue, a main traffic arterial within the City, crosses Linda Avenue via a viaduct approximately 40 feet above the ground. The bridge abutments are located immediately adjacent to the northwest boundary of the site. Oakland Avenue and Grand Avenue are identified as arterial roadways within the City and each carry more than 8,000 vehicles per day. 30 Linda Avenue is a major collector that links Grand Avenue to the Piedmont Avenue shopping district in Oakland. The portion of Linda Avenue located between Grand Avenue and Oakland Avenue, where the project site is located, was measured to have approximately 30 City of Piedmont City of Piedmont General Plan. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 72

189 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A 3,500 daily traffic counts in 2007, which demonstrates a decline in traffic on this roadway segment from 1994 by approximately 8 percent. Discussion a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would create new vehicle trips traveling to and from the project site. However, the addition of seven new townhouses would not add a significant number of vehicle trips to the surrounding roadway system. Using equations and average rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition, the project is expected to generate approximately 41 new daily vehicle trips (approximately half being inbound trips and half being outbound trips), with approximately three a.m. peak hour trips and four p.m. peak hour trips. 31 The project would not result in an appreciable increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. This impact is considered less than significant, and no further analysis of this issue is required. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. Linda Avenue is classified as a Major Collector which, according to the Piedmont General Plan Transportation Element (2009), is a two-lane roadway with a parking lane or a four-lane roadway with or without a parking lane. According to the General Plan, a Major Collector has a capacity of approximately 8,000 daily trips. Based on 2007 traffic counts included in the City s General Plan (2009) 32, the existing daily traffic volume on Linda Avenue between Grand Avenue and Oakland Avenue is approximately 3,508 vehicles. A daily volume of 3,508 vehicles is approximately 44 percent of the total daily capacity of the roadway. When the traffic volume is less than 60 percent of the capacity of a roadway, as is the case with Linda Avenue, then a roadway is considered to be operating at Level of Service (LOS) A. 33 As discussed previously, the addition of 41 daily, three a.m. and four p.m. peak hour trips would not add an appreciable number of trips to the roadway and would not cause a change in the level of service. Implementation of the project would not cause the roadway to exceed any level of service standard. This impact is considered less than significant and no further analysis is required. 31 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition (2003) -- Residential Condominium/Townhouse Rates, Code 230: Daily 5.86/Dwelling Unit (DU)/50% inbound, 50% outbound; AM Peak 0.44/DU; PM Peak 0.52/DU. 32 City of Piedmont City of Piedmont General Plan. 33 Traffic operations are typically quantified through the determination of Level of Service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade is assigned to an intersection or roadway segment, representing progressively worsening traffic operations. LOS ranges from LOS A (indicating free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (representing oversaturated conditions in which traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays). P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 73

190 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A 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? No Impact. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. The proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns since the project would not intrude into air space. No further analysis of this issue is required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicular access to the project would be from a single 12-footwide gated and covered driveway at Linda Avenue. In the existing condition, there are residential driveways on each side of Linda Avenue that provide access to each residence. Without proper design, the project could result in traffic hazards. However, the proposed driveway is required to comply with City engineering and/or design standards that are verified through the City s design review process, and would not be incompatible with the existing conditions on Linda Avenue. In addition, the City of Piedmont Fire Department has also been engaged in the design review process and continues to review and comment on the project design plans to ensure that emergency access requirements are met. As a result, no new significant hazards would be introduced as a result of the proposed project driveway. This impact is less than significant. No further analysis of this issue is required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include an ingress/egress driveway off of Linda Avenue that would be designed to accommodate emergency access vehicles. This access route is being designed to meet City of Piedmont Fire Department standards and would not adversely impact the City s ability to provide fire protection and emergency response services. Adequate emergency access would also be ensured through the City s design review process. This impact is less than significant. No further analysis of this issue is required. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The Piedmont City Code requires that, for Zone C developments, there shall be a minimum of two covered nontandem parking spaces per dwelling unit on the lot, each of which must be located outside the front setback area. The proposed project would supply, at a minimum, two covered parking spaces for each townhouse. Therefore, the proposed project would provide the required parking per City code and would not result in inadequate parking capacity. Traffic and pedestrian safety improvements have recently been implemented by the City on Linda Avenue at the Beach Playfield and Beach Elementary School, located to the northwest of the project site. Specifically, the existing drop off/pick up zone in front of the school has been expanded, a mid-block crosswalk has been created on Linda Avenue north of the Oakland Avenue viaduct, and the 25 mph speed limit adjacent to the school has been reduced to 15 mph. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 74

191 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A As a result of these improvements, the number of on-street parking spaces has been reduced on Linda Avenue between Oakland Avenue and Lake Avenue. Existing on-street parking along Linda Avenue in front of the project site between Oakland Avenue and Grand Avenue has not been affected. However, based on public comments received during the NOP comment period, neighborhood residents feel that other recent nearby development projects, such as the expansion of the Kehilla Synagogue have increased the demand for on-street parking in the vicinity of the project site. It should be noted that lack of parking, in and of itself, is not considered a significant impact for the purposes of CEQA unless it results in significant impacts in other areas, such as air quality impacts or traffic congestion resulting from vehicles searching for parking. In the court case known as San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco, 102 Cal.App.4th 656 (2002), the court ruled that the loss of parking is not in and of itself a physical environmental impact:... there is no statutory or case authority requiring an EIR to identify specific measures to provide additional parking spaces in order to meet an anticipated shortfall in parking availability. The social inconvenience of having to hunt for scarce parking spaces is not an environmental impact; the secondary effect of scarce parking on traffic and air quality is. The project is consistent with the parking requirements specified by the City Code. However, on-street parking on Linda Avenue or adjacent streets may be utilized by the townhouse residents and visitors on occasions when the on-site parking is fully occupied. Although the safety improvements associated with the Beach Playfield and Elementary School have reduced available on-street parking in the project vicinity, secondary environmental effects, such as significantly increased traffic or air pollution, are not anticipated due to the fact that the project would provide the number of parking spaces required by City Code. Furthermore, the small scale of the project (i.e., seven townhouse units), the projected level of service on Linda Avenue with the implementation of the project (see responses XV-a and XV-b above), and the availability of on-street residential parking zones on neighboring streets such as Grand Avenue, Oakland Avenue, and Howard Avenue would mitigate any occasional overflow of parking beyond the project site. g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less Than Significant Impact. Alameda County Transit (AC Transit) operates the Line 12 bus route along Linda Avenue in the project area. The proposed project would not adversely impact the operation of this route. Pedestrian access would be enhanced with the addition of a new pathway along the northern project boundary and two pedestrian access points into the side and rear portions of the development. The project would not result in a significant increase in vehicle trips within the project area that would impact alternative transportation methods. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. No further analysis of this issue is required. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 75

192 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No 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 storm water 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 are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Setting Utilities and service systems for the project site are described below. Water Supply. The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) owns and maintains the water distribution system in the City of Piedmont. EBMUD supplies water and provides wastewater treatment for parts of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Approximately 1.3 million people are served by the EBMUD s water system in a 331-square-mile area extending from Crockett on the north, southward to San Lorenzo (encompassing the major cities of Oakland and Berkeley), eastward from San Francisco Bay to Walnut Creek, and south through the San Ramon Valley. The City of Piedmont is supplied through a distribution system consisting of 6-inch to 8-inch diameter steel pipes which are underground and generally in the street right-of-ways. Wastewater Collection and Treatment. The City of Piedmont owns and maintains the sewage collection system. The treatment is contracted with EBMUD. The regional treatment plant is located in West Oakland with ultimate disposal to San Francisco Bay. The wastewater system serves P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 76

193 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A approximately 642,000 people in an 88-square-mile area of Alameda and Contra Costa counties along the Bay s east shore, extending from Richmond on the north, southward to San Leandro. The sewage treatment plant capacity was designed and constructed for population and employment growth well above current levels. Portions of the City s 47-mile sewage collection system have been or are scheduled for replacement in the near-term. Storm Sewer System. The storm sewer system is owned and maintained by the City of Piedmont. The storm sewer system relies on natural drainage courses to connect various sections. Streets (curbs and gutters) also function as part of the drainage system. Natural Gas and Electricity. PG&E is the supplier of natural gas and electricity to the City of Piedmont under a franchise agreement with the City. The City is supplied with natural gas through a loop network of underground lines, which are normally in the street right-of-way. The lines vary in size from 2 inches to 10 inches. PG&E installs and maintains the electrical transmission lines and subsequent distribution lines throughout the City. Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling. Richmond Sanitary Services/Republic Services, Inc. is the City's provider of garbage, green waste and recycling services, including e-waste. Richmond Sanitary Services/Republic Services, Inc. maintains a transfer station in the City of Richmond that accepts recyclable and non-recyclable waste where it is sorted and forwarded for treatment or disposal as appropriate. Non-recyclable trash is hauled to the Potrero Hills Landfill near Suisun City. On January 1, 2008, the City of Piedmont approved a new Garbage, Recycling and Green Waste contract with Republic Services Inc., which requires that the hauler divert a minimum of 65 percent of the materials they handle from the landfill. In May 2008, the City Council adopted a goal of 75 percent reduction of waste going to landfills by 2010 in accordance with the Alameda County 75 percent waste reduction goal. For the proposed project, each townhouse would be separately metered for gas, electric and water. In addition, it is anticipated that there will be a separate electrical meter and water meter for the common area. Utilities would be undergrounded. Water meters would be embedded in the sidewalk. Space for ganged electric and gas meters would be incorporated along the driveway on the street side of the gate. Discussion a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact. The implementation of the proposed project would not lead to an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. As described in Section VIII, Hydrology, the City would require that the project applicant prepare a Stormwater Management Plan and incorporate water quality and erosion control BMPs. 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? P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 77

194 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The amount of additional water demand and wastewater generation would be proportionally small and would not exceed the capacity of existing facilities. This impact is considered less than significant, and no further analysis of this issue is required. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Approximately 55 percent of the project site is currently developed with the PG&E substation building and associated impervious areas. Construction and operation of the project would include impervious surfaces (i.e., driveways, building pads, and walkways), which could result in an increase in the amount of storm water runoff over existing levels. The project proposes seven townhouses and associated hardscape surfaces that would cover approximately 60 percent of the project site with impervious surfaces. The project would result in a slight increase in impervious surface area over the existing condition. The City requires that a Stormwater Management Plan be prepared for the project prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Stormwater Management Plan would include site design practices and measures to promote infiltration of stormwater and reduce the amount of impervious surface that could lead to flooding on- or off-site. The project would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing drainage facilities. Project impacts related to this issue would be les than significant, and no further analysis of this issue is required. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be located on a suburban infill site that is already served by public service systems. The proposed project would include seven new residences on the project site. The proposed project would not significantly increase demand on existing water entitlements. No new or expanded water entitlements are needed. As part of the building permit review process, all departments and agencies responsible for providing services would be consulted to determine their ability to provide services to proposed development projects. This impact is considered less than significant, and no further analysis of this issue is required. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. The projected wastewater generation resulting from implementation of the proposed project would be proportionally small and would not exceed the current capacity of existing facilities. As part of the building permit review process, all departments and agencies responsible for providing services would be consulted to determine their ability to provide services to proposed development projects. This impact is considered less than significant, and no further analysis of this issue is required. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 78

195 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not expected to generate substantial amounts of solid waste. On January 1, 2008, the City of Piedmont approved a new Garbage, Recycling and Green Waste contract with Republic Services Inc., which requires that the hauler divert a minimum of 65 percent of the materials they handle from the landfill. In May 2008, the City Council adopted a goal of 75 percent reduction of waste going to landfills by 2010 in accordance with the Alameda County 75 percent waste reduction goal. The project would also be subject to a standard condition of approval requiring submittal of a construction and demolition recycling plan. Therefore, solid waste impacts are considered less than significant, and no further analysis of this issue is required. g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. Recycling receptacles would be provided within the common area of the project site, in accordance with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste. This impact is considered less than significant, and no further analysis of this issue is required. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 79

196 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-thansignificant Impact No 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 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a-c. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, the project would not 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, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The potential for the project to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory is potentially significant and will be discussed in the EIR. In addition, the EIR will discuss the following required CEQA sections: growth inducement, significant irreversible environmental changes, cumulative impacts, significant unavoidable impacts, effects found not to be significant, and alternatives to the project. With the mitigation measures included in this Initial Study, the project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 80

197 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A REFERENCES Alameda County Health Care Services Agency Toxics Case No. RO , Case Closure, PG&E Substation E, 408 Linda Ave., Piedmont, CA Letter dated May 12 addressed to Ms. Sally Goodin, PG&E. Alan Kropp & Associates Geotechnical Investigation, Piedmont Station Residential Development, 408 Linda Avenue, Piedmont, California. Bakic, Tracy, Historical and Architectural Evaluation of PG&E s Substation E, Alameda County, California. PAR Environmental Services, Inc., Sacramento. Barringer, Scott Fire Marshal for the City of Piedmont Fire Department. Personal Communication with LSA Associates, Inc. July 18. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Ambient Air Quality Standards & Bay Area Attainment Status Website. Accessed on February 22, 2010: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. San Francisco, California. Bay Area Region Important Farmland Map (2004). California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection: Urbanization and Important Farmlands , Regional Urbanization Maps Website. Accessed on February 10, 2010: Brady, Michael Assistant Superintendent for the Piedmont Unified School District. Personal Communication with LSA Associates, Inc. July 1. California Department of Transportation The California Scenic Highway System: A List of Eligible and Officially Designated Routes Website. Accessed on February 10, 2010: Davey Tree Expert Company Piedmont Station Tree 408 Linda Avenue, Piedmont. Prepared for Patrick Zimski, Oakland, California. November 3. Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Harris, C.M Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. Helley, E.J. and R.W. Graymer Quarternary Geology of Alameda County and Surrounding Areas: A Digital Database Open File Report U.S. Geological Survey. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 81

198 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition. Jarvis Architects New Townhouses: Linda Avenue, Design Plans. Jordan, Leigh Northwest Information Center Coordinator. Personal Communication with LSA Associates, Inc. June 5. Kellco, Inc Final Report, Hazardous Materials Clearance Sampling, Building Interior, Substation E, 408 Linda Avenue, Piedmont, California. February Final Report, Soil Clearance Testing Results for Lead, Substation E, 408 Linda Avenue, Piedmont, California. February 19. Piedmont, City of City of Piedmont General Plan. Adopted April 6, The Code of the City of Piedmont, California. Amended. P&D Environmental, Inc Subsurface Investigation Report for 408 Linda Avenue. November 14. Radbruch, Dorothy II Aerial and Engineering Geology of the Oakland East Quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-769. RGA Environmental Inc Environmental Site Assessment, 408 Linda Avenue. March 23. SECOR International, Inc Lead Leachability Evaluation, PG&E Piedmont Substation E, 408 Linda Avenue, Piedmont, California. January 7. Sowers, Janet M Creek and Watershed Map of Oakland and Berkeley. Oakland Museum of California. Revised Technical and Ecological Services Site Investigation at PG&E s Piedmont Substation E, Piedmont, California. March. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 82

199 L S A A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. P I E D M O N T S T A T I O N, L I N D A A V E N U E T O W N H O U S E S M A R C H C E Q A I N I T I A L S T U D Y P I E D M O N T, C A L I F O R N I A REPORT PREPARERS LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA Malcolm Sproul, Principal Kristin Granback, Senior Environmental Planner Tim Jones, Senior Cultural Resources Manager LSA Associates, Inc th Street Berkeley, CA Dennis Brown, Associate LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, CA Meghan Macias, Principal LSA Associates, Inc N. Fruit Avenue, Suite 103 Fresno, CA Phil Ault, Noise Specialist P:\CPI0801\CEQA\408 Linda Ave _Public Review Initial Study.doc (03/22/10) 83

200 This page intentionally left blank.

201 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR APPENDIX B NOTICE OF PREPARATION APPENDIX B NOTICE OF PREPARATION P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11)

202 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR APPENDIX B NOTICE OF PREPARATION This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11)

203 NOTICE OF PREPARATION To: Notice of Preparation Recipients (See attached distribution list) Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: Agency Name City of Piedmont Firm Name LSA Associates, Inc. Street Address 120 Vista Avenue Street Address 157 Park Place City/State/Zip Piedmont, California City/State/Zip Point Richmond, California Contact Kate Black, City Planner Contact Kristin Granback, Senior Planner Project Title: Piedmont Station LLP Linda Avenue Townhouses The City of Piedmont will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project. The public is invited to submit comments regarding the scope of the EIR. The City is also requesting comments from responsible agencies regarding the scope and content of the environmental document. Project Location: The approximately 0.4-acre project site is located at 408 Linda Avenue, northwest of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Linda Avenue, in the City of Piedmont, California (Figures 1 and 2). The project site is located in the western portion of the City, approximately 2 miles northeast of the downtown Oakland commercial district. The Oakland Avenue viaduct is located adjacent to the site s northern boundary. Project Description: Piedmont Station LLC proposes to develop an approximately 0.4-acre site within the City of Piedmont with seven three-story over basement townhouse structures (Figure 3). The property is currently developed with an approximately 5,700-square-foot, two-story, concrete electrical utility substation that was vacated in The proposed project would involve: Demolition and removal of the existing electrical substation building; Removal of existing vegetation and excavation and placement of fill to create a level building area; Construction of the seven new townhouse structures and associated development components; and Landscaping and irrigation. Potential Environmental Effects: The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the Initial Study prepared for the project. The Initial Study identifies mitigation, as applicable, for environmental topic areas to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. With the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Initial Study, potentially significant impacts are not anticipated for the following topics: aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, geology & soils, hazards & hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use, noise, mineral resources, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities/services systems. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, the existing PG&E substation building on the project site retains sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. The PG&E substation building would be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, a Focused EIR will be prepared to evaluate the effects associated with the removal of this cultural resource. The Focused EIR will also evaluate the impacts of the proposed project on global climate change, the proposed project s potential to cause direct and indirect growth inducing impacts, P:\CPI0801\CEQA\Public Review\408 Linda Ave_NOP.doc (03/24/10) 1

204 reduce impacts determined to be significant in the EI R. Mitigation, in addition to what is included in the Init ial Study, will be proposed for those impacts that are determined to be significant to reduce those impacts to less-thansignificant. Impacts that are determined to be significant after m itigation will be identified. A m itigation monitoring program will also be developed, as required by Section of the C EQ A G uide lines. Public Comment Period on Scope of EIR: March 25, 2010 through April 22, 2010 Public agencies, interested organizations, and the genera l publ ic have the opportunity to comment on the scope of the Focused ErR, including environmental issues which have the potential to be affected by the project and should be addressed further by the City of Piedmont in the EIR, as well as alternatives and mitigation measures. Potential areas of environmental impact have been identified in the Initial Study. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, cultural resources will be evaluated in more detail in the Focused EIR. Due to time limits mandated by the Ca liforn ia Environmental Q ua lity Act (CEQA), responses concerning the scope of the EIR must be received w ithin the designated 30-day comment period and 110 later than April 22, You will have a future opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please send your response to: City of Pied mont 120 Vista Avenue Attention: Kate Black, C ity Planner Piedmont, Californ ia 9461 I kblack@ci.piedmont.ca.us Please include the name, phone number, and ad dress ofa contact person in your response. ed comments will also be accepted at the address indicated above. A copy of this Notice of Preparation and Initial Study are available for public review at the Office of the C ity Clerk, Piedmont City Hall, located at 120 Vista Avenue, Pied mont, California, during regular business hours Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Notice of Preparation and Initial Study are also available for public review on the City's website: Public Scoping Meeting: A scoping meeting will be held on April 14, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Piedmont Memorial Room/EOC Conference Room, Police Departm ent, 403 Highland Ave, Pied mont, CA to present the project being studied, outline the CEQA process, and receive comments on the scope ofthe EIR. The public and public agencies are invited to attend the scoping session to provide comments regarding the proposed EIR scope and the Notice ofpreparation/lnitial Study. Date -.L- ~-",MJ ' '--"D' _ Signature Title -"'C'-'-''-l---'-P---'I."'-'-'Cn ity an'-"er "-'. _ Telephone (510) Reference: California Code of Regulations, Title 14 (CEQA Guidelines) Sections 15082(a), 15103,

205 PIEDMONT STATION LLP LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES NOP/IS DISTRIBUTION LIST MARCH 25, 2010 State Agencies State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA Air Resources Board - Fish and Game Region 3 - Housing and Community Development - Native American Heritage Commission - Office of Historic Preservation - Regional Water Quality Control Board District 2 - State Water Resources Control Board - Department of Toxic Substances Control Regional Agencies Association of Bay Area Governments Attn: Kenneth Kirkey, Planning Director th Street Oakland, CA Bay Area Air Quality Management District Attn: Jack Broadbent, Executive Officer 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA Alameda County Health Services Agency Environmental Protection Attn: Barney M. Chan 1131 Harbor Bay Parkway, Suite 250 Alameda, CA East Bay Municipal Utility District Attn: New Business Office th Street Oakland, CA Local Agencies and Groups Alameda County Community Development Agency Attn: Chris Bazar, Agency Director 224 W. Winton Avenue Hayward, CA City of Oakland Attn: Dan Lindheim, City Administrator One City Hall Plaza, 3rd Floor Oakland, California City of Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency Attn: Walter Cohen, Community and Economic Development Agency Director 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 5313 Oakland, CA City of Oakland Public Works Agency Attn: Vitaly Troyan, Agency Director 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4314 Oakland, CA Piedmont Unified School District Attn: Ray Gadbois, Board President and Connie Hubbard, Superintendent 760 Magnolia Avenue Piedmont, CA Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Attn: Alex Lantsberg, Research Department 265 Hegenberger Rd, Suite 220 Oakland, CA Ralph Marinelli, President Piedmont Historical Society 312 Jerome Avenue Piedmont, CA P:\CPI0801\CEQA\Public Review\408 Linda Ave_Distribution List.doc (03/24/10)

206 This page intentionally left blank.

207 Project Location r FIGURE 1 Piedmont Station LLC 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses N 0 10 MILES SOURCE: 2006 DeLORME. STREET ATLAS USA P:\CPI0801\g\Figure1_RegionalLocation.cdr (8/4/08) Project Location

208 This page intentionally left blank.

209 Oak 33rd Franklin 53rd Dover Mcclure Aileen 40th 37th Hawthorne Verdese Carter Emerson Middle Elementary School School Oakland Technical High School Park Day Elementary School Kaiser-Permanente Medical CTR Mosswood Park Summit Medical Oak Glen Center Park South Summit Medical Center 28th 20th 46th Apgar Elm 25th 24th Grand Webster 54th 56th 24 27th 55th 40th 39th Macarthur Summit 22nd 21st Snow Park 17th Harrison Alice 49th Andover 54th 53rd 47th Latimer Carberry Hawthorne Summit 26th Kaiser 20th 46th 27th 23rd 19th 52nd Shattuck Telegraph Clarke 37th 36th 30th Valdez 52nd 29th Valdez Louise Westlake Middle School Waverly 43rd Orin Ruby Ruby 28th 26th Grand Harrison Harrison Lakeside Jackson 34th Valdez Clarke 45th 42nd Rich Richmond 40th Hawthorne 27th Vicente Claremont 38th 44th Webster Brook Redondo 50th 48th Adams Park 40th Shafter Macarthur Fairmount Randwick Hamilton Bay Richmond Vernon Bay Lakeside Park Hardy Park Cavour 49th 41st Bellevue Avon Opal Croxton Frisbie Manila Westall Richmond Garland Park View Clifton Miles 38th Kempton Frisbie Orange Montecito Lenox Lawton Shafter 50th Emerald Locksley Manila Warren Oakland Vernon Lee 51st Garnet Broadway Stanley Perkins Perkins Cerrito Leighton Pearl Jayne Shafter Cavour 42nd Kempton Orange Perkins Ellita Boyd 51st Coronado Moss Pearl 45th Rio Vista Vernon Van Buren Belmont James Yosemite Adams Palm Hudson Lawton Glendale Coronado 49th Terrace Montgomery Montell Perry Warwick Desmond Mather Piedmont Fairmount Staten Manila Clifton Gilbert Ridgeway Adams Lake Merritt Arts Elementary School Cal College of Art and Crafts View Saint Leo Elementary School Glen Wilda College Whitmore Robley Glen El Dorado Moss 41st Vernon Euclid Pan a ma Kales Bryant Broadway Mather Bayo Vista Harrison Burk Clifton Arroyuelo Monte Kelton Vernon Ada Broadway Valley John Glenwood Cresta Mariposa Glen Linda Monte Vista Kingston Lakeview Elementary School Lagunitas Thomas Montgomery Santa Clara 580 Claremont Country Club Linda Ave Rose Garden Park Jean Cleveland Cascade Brooklyn View Howe Crescent Napa Echo Kingston Entrada Oakland Lakeshore Pleasant Belgrave Santa Rosa Chetwood Mira Vista Glen Alta Vista Valle Capital Lake Vista Boden Carlton Gleneden Kingston Elwood Hillsborough Brandon Lake Sunnyside Valle Vista Lake Park Lakeshore Sunnyslope Cheney Excelsior Merritt Olive Rand St Marys Cemetery Jewish Cemetery Walker Wickson Beacon Cleveland Monroe Broadway Radnor Rose Grand Nace Wesley Ramona Pleasant Valley Howard Cambridge Weldon Vermont Glenview Kenwyn Greenbank Fairview Oakland Avenue Project Area Erie Mandana Plaza Park Hillgirt Haddon Wildwood Sylvan Warfield Wesley Prospect York Club Margarido Country Ramona Manor Grand Lakeshore Haddon Arbor Scott Brookwood Holly Arbor Boulevard Fairbanks Lake Prince Erie Athol Lower Fairview Davidson Westminster Arroyo Cambridge Park Mckinley York Fairview Stratford Barbara Montclair Ronada Ricardo Crofton Rosal Weldon Spruce Lorita Ostrander Park Ramona Monticello Mountain View Cemetery Dracena Park Artuna Latham Jerome Hill Nova Arbor Warfield Capell Romany Park San Carlos Keefer Palm Walavista Kenmore Viona Balfour Dracena Longridge Estrella Blair Ramona El Cerrito Larmer Wallace Rosal Morrell Blair Piedmont Middle and High SCH Wildwood Elementary School Oakland High School Alma Carmel Carlos Calmar S a n Hillcrest Elementary School Havens Playground Cerrito Jerome View Winsor Park Wildwood Santa Ray Mandana El Ranleigh Paloma Buckeye Moraga Bonita Hillside Portsmouth Harvard Annerley Arimo Paloma Northvale Ve rada Rosemount Sunnyhills Trestle Glen Waldo Wilding Longridge Chatham Norman Vista Prospect Marguerite Morrill Clarewood Lakeshore Mesa Bonita Magnolia Walavista Prospect Paloma Alma Clarewood Highland Oakland Balfour Monte Harvard Holy Names High School Mandalay Blair Hardwick Piedmont Park Oakmont Holman Highland Magnolia Hazel Walavista Calmar Larkspur Hillcroft Hermosa Clarewood Santa Park Ray Florence Jacobus Pala Scenic Craig Requa Requa Wildwood Trestle Glen Biehs Red Sunnyhills Sonia Harbord Truitt Rock Hazel Wawona Carlston Paramount Grosvenor Alta Ashmount Carlston Park Park Boulevard Morpeth Portal Pacific Agnes Modoc Scenic Modoc Modoc Wildwood Florada Harbord Dormidera Sierra Stark Knoll Agnes Echo Julia Abbott Alta Mountain Sharon Muir Midcrest Amy Crocker Highlands Elem School Hubert Underhills Woodland Bell Hagar Wildwood Wildwood Brighton Sharon Lafayette Ardmore Clarendon Bates Hilltop La Salle Ashmount Greenwood Park Proctor Maxwelton Sheridan Caperton Harbord Barrows Park FIGURE 2 Piedmont Station LLC- 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses ,600 FEET Project Area USGS StreetmapUSA (2008) I:\CPI0801\GIS\Maps\Figure2-ProjectArea.mxd (08/01/2008)

210 This page intentionally left blank.

211 FIGURE 3 N Piedmont Station LLC- 408 Linda Avenue Townhouses Proposed Project SOURCE: JARVIS ARCHITECTS (DECEMBER 2009) P:\CPI0801\g\Figure3_ProposedProject.cdr (02/19/2010)

212 This page intentionally left blank.

213 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR APPENDIX C PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION APPENDIX C PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11)

214 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR APPENDIX C PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11)

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240 408 LINDA AVENUE PROJECT EIR SCOPING MEETING PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY A scoping session for the Focused EIR was held on at 5:30 p.m. on April 14 th, 2010 in the Memorial Room/EOC Conference Room at the Piedmont Police Department at 403 Highland Avenue, Piedmont, California. The City Planner, environmental consultant (LSA Associates), along with representatives from the applicant team, the City Council and Planning Commission, and approximately 10 members of the public attended the scoping session. Public comments related to cumulative traffic and parking impacts and the need for a traffic and parking study; the height of the proposed townhouses and resulting impacts on the natural light of neighboring properties; concerns about the possible variance in the setback requirement; questions about the height and structural soundness of the proposed retaining wall; questions about construction including duration and hours, number of cubic yards of fill needed as well as demolition of the substation; a question about whether utilities would be undergrounded; a question about why no affordable housing is included in the project; and a question about determining thresholds of significance under CEQA. Applicable CEQA comments are addressed in the Focused EIR.

241 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR APPENDIX D GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE MODEL OUTPUT SHEETS APPENDIX D GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE MODEL OUTPUT SHEETS P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11)

242 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY LINDA AVENUE TOWNHOUSES PROJECT EIR APPENDIX D GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE MODEL OUTPUT SHEETS This page intentionally left blank. P:\CPI0801\CEQA\EIR\408 Linda Ave_ Public Review Draft EIR.doc (05/11/11)

243 Summary Results Project Name: 408 Linda Ave Project and Baseline Years: 2013 N/A Unmitigated Project Mitigated Project Baseline CO2e (metric Baseline CO2e Results Transportation: tons/year) (metric tons/year) Area Source: Electricity: Natural Gas: Water & Wastewater: Solid Waste: Agriculture: Off Road Equipment: Refrigerants: Sequestration: N/A 0.00 Purchase of Offsets: N/A 0.00 Total: Baseline is currently: OFF Baseline Project Name: Go to Settings Tab to Turn On Baseline Project Baseline CO2e (metric tons/year) Transportation: Area Source: Electricity: Natural Gas: Water & Wastewater: Solid Waste: Unmitigated Agriculture: Off Road Equipment: Refrigerants: Sequestration: Purchase of Offsets: 0.00 Mitigated Detailed Results Unmitigated CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total Baseline CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) Transportation*: % Transportation*: Area Source: % Area Source: Electricity: % Electricity: Natural Gas: % Natural Gas: Water & Wastewater: % Water & Wastewater: Solid Waste: N/A % Solid Waste: N/A Agriculture: % Agriculture: Off Road Equipment: % Off Road Equipment: Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A % Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A Total: % Total: * Several adjustments were made to transportation emissions after they have been imported from URBEMIS. After importing from URBEMIS, CO2 emissions are converted to metric tons and then adjusted to account for the "Pavley" regulation. Then, CO2 is converted to CO2e by multiplying by 100/95 to account for the contribution of other GHGs (CH4, N2O, and HFCs [from leaking air conditioners]). Finally, CO2e is adjusted to account for th low carbon fuels rule. Mitigated CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total Transportation*: % Area Source: % Electricity: % Natural Gas: % Water & Wastewater: % Solid Waste: N/A %

244 Agriculture: % Off Road Equipment: % Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A % Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A % Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A % Total: % Mitigation Measures Selected: Transportation: Go to the following tab: Transp. Detail Mit for a list of the transportation mitigation measures selected (in URBEMIS) Electricity: The following mitigation measure(s) have been selected to reduce electricity emissions. Natural Gas: The following mitigation measure(s) have been selected to reduce natural gas emissions. Water and Wastewater: The following mitigation measure(s) have been selected to reduce water and wastewater emissions. Solid Waste: The following mitigation measure has been selected to reduce solid waste related GHG emissions. Ag: No existing mitigation measures available. Off Road Equipment: No existing mitigation measures available. Refrigerants: The following mitigation measure has ben selected to reduce refrigerant emissions: Carbon Sequestration: Project does not include carbon sequestration through tree planting. Emission Offsets/Credits: Project does not include purchase of emission offsets/credits.

245 Transportation Baseline is Currently: OFF Target Year: Target Year: Unmitigated Transportation Mitigated Transportation Project Baseline Project Baseline Project Baseline Project Baseline Operational Emissions from URBEMIS (CO2 tons/year) Operational Vehicles from URBEMIS (CO2 tons/year): Metric Ton Adjustment (CO2 metric tons/year) Metric Ton Adjustment (CO2 metric tons/year): Pavley Regulation Adjustment (CO2 metric tons/year): Pavley Regulation Adjustment (CO2 metric tons/year): US EPA Adjustment (CO2e metric tons/year): US EPA Adjustment (CO2e metric tons/year): Low Carbon Fuels Rule Adjustment (CO2e metric tons/year) Low Carbon Fuels Adjustment (CO2e metric tons/year): Total (CO2e metric tons/year): Total (CO2e metric tons/year): The BGM User's Manual describes in detail each step used to convert URBEMIS's transportation CO2 emissions to total CO2e. These steps include converting from English to Metric units, adjusting for the Pavley Rule, converting CO2 to CO2e, and adjusting for the Low Carbon Fuels Rule. Reference U.S. EPA assumption that GHG emissions from other pollutants CH4, N20, and hydrofluorcarbons (HFCs) from leaking air conditioners account for 5 percent of emissions from vehicles, after accounting for global warming potentail of each GHG. Jump to the Following Transportation Related Tabs: Transportation Detail for Operational Mitigation Land Use Detail Unadjusted Amount Don't Need to Adjust this amt Affected by Pavley Adjusted Adusted Adusted Adusted Adjusted Not Affected by Pavley LDA/ LDT1/ LDT2/ MDV LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV 4 totaled Pavley Calculations Project Unmitigated Pavley Calculations Baseline Unmitigated Pavley Calculations Project Mitigated Pavley Calculations Baseline Mitigated Pavley Adjustment % % CO2 % CO2 % CO2 % LDA CO2 % LDT1 CO2 % LDT2 CO2 % MDV CO2 LDA/LDT1/L Reduction Reduction % CO2 Reduction Reduction Year Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions DT2/MDV % everything else LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LDA % 12.33% 19.61% 9.71% 83.26% 16.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.08% % 12.39% 19.54% 9.61% 83.26% 16.74% 0.35% 0.25% 0.45% 0.48% % 12.45% 19.50% 9.50% 83.27% 16.73% 1.75% 1.34% 1.31% 1.29% % 12.50% 19.47% 9.40% 83.27% 16.73% 4.07% 3.27% 2.60% 2.44% % 12.56% 19.46% 9.32% 83.28% 16.72% 6.31% 5.26% 3.88% 3.61% % 12.62% 19.46% 9.27% 83.33% 16.67% 8.48% 7.26% 5.17% 4.83% % 12.67% 19.47% 9.24% 83.38% 16.62% 10.74% 9.38% 6.54% 6.17% % 12.76% 19.50% 9.23% 83.54% 16.46% 12.96% 11.56% 7.94% 7.54% % 12.81% 19.51% 9.21% 83.55% 16.45% 15.03% 13.58% 9.27% 8.88% % 12.84% 19.52% 9.21% 83.55% 16.45% 16.94% 15.43% 10.54% 10.16% % 12.87% 19.53% 9.21% 83.57% 16.43% 18.72% 17.13% 11.74% 11.40% % 12.89% 19.55% 9.22% 83.59% 16.41% 20.37% 18.69% 12.89% 12.59% % 12.96% 19.67% 9.28% 83.82% 16.18% 26.87% 24.86% 17.60% 17.42% % 13.03% 19.76% 9.32% 84.26% 15.74% 30.60% 28.71% 20.63% 20.47% % 13.11% 19.80% 9.35% 84.47% 15.53% 32.38% 31.17% 22.43% 22.29% % 13.14% 19.90% 9.44% 84.72% 15.28% 33.27% 32.61% 23.60% 23.53% Low Carbon Fuels Standards Year % Reduction Gasoline and Diesel Fuel % Reduction Tank to Wheels

246 Source: Final Regulation Order Subchapter 10. Climate Change Article 4. Regulations to Achieve Greenhouse Gas Reductions Subarticle 7. Low Carbon Fuel Standard Section Average Carbon Intensity Requirements for Gasoline and Diesel

247 Water and Wastewater Baseline is currently: OFF Unmitigated Water and Wastewater Mitigated Water and Wastewater Project Baseline Project Baseline Project Baseline Project Baseline CO2 metric tons/year: CO2 metric tons/year: CH4 metric tons/year: CH4 metric tons/year: N20 metric tons/year: N20 metric tons/year: CO2e metric tons/year: CO2e metric tons/year: CO2e metric tons/year: 0.83 CO2e metric tons/year: 0.83 Clear All User Overrides *** Select Mitigation Measures on the Mitigation Tab ===> Mitigation User Override of Model Estimates (af/yr) Model Estimate (af/yr) Total Gallons/year Indoor Gallons/Year Outdoor Gallons/year Mitigated Indoor Gallons/Year Mitigated Outdoor Gallons/year Total Mitigated kwh/year Baseline Water Demand Project Water Demand , , , , , Net Increase in Water Demand , , , , , , Houshold Size Land Use Type Square feet per employee Single Family Multi family 1 Warehouse 1, Public Assembly 1, Lodging 1, Food Sales 1, Retail and Service Education Energy Information Administration Special Topics 1995 Building Activities Other, Square feet per employee. 7 Public Order and Safety Food Service Other Health Care Office PROJECT BASELINE % indoor water use % indoor water use % outdoor water use % outdoor water use Total 1.00 Total 0.00 Project Water Demand Indoor kwh/year Baseline Demand Indoor 0.00 kwh/year Project Water Demand Outdoor kwh/year Baseline Demand Outdoor 0.00 kwh/year Total kwh/year Total 0.00 kwh/year Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors CO2 CH4 N2O Electricity from California Climate Action Registry, 2009 Units #/mwh #/mwh #/mwh from Navigant, 2006 Gallons Per Acre Foot: 325, Indoor vs. Outdoor Water Use From URBEMIS: Project Data Indoor Outdoor Total Land Use Residential Units Projected Water Use (gallons/yr) Single Family Residential Multi family Residential ,392.73