INITIAL STUDY ANDADDENDUM TO THE 2006 TRANSBAY CABLE PROJECT EIR

Transcription

1 INITIAL STUDY ANDADDENDUM TO THE 2006 TRANSBAY CABLE PROJECT EIR MAY 2013 PREPARED FOR: CITY OF PITTSBURG 65 CIVIC AVENUE PITTSBURG, CA PREPARED BY: JOAN LAMPHIER CONSULTING PLANNER JML PLANNING STINSON BEACH, CA

2 Table of Contents Introduction 1 A. Environmental Setting 1 B. Proposed Project 2 C. Previous Environmental Review 3 D. Required CEQA Review for the Proposed Project 3 Initial Study 6 A. Summary B. Environmental Factors Affected 7 C. Determination 7 D. Overview 8 E. Checklist 9 Attachments A. Project Plans B. Table 1 Summary of Potential s and Measures for the Trans Bay Cable Project

3 INITIAL STUDY AND ADDENDUM TO THE 2006 TRANSBAY CABLE PROJECT EIR I. INTRODUCTION The City of Pittsburg will consider the application of Trans Bay Cable LLC (Trans Bay Cable) to add two new buildings to its existing Trans Bay Cable Converter Station located on West 10 th Street in Pittsburg, California, and to remove an existing sound wall and replace it with a new one closer to West 10 th Street. In addition to design review consideration, the proposed Project will require an amendment to the West 10 th Street Zoning Overlay District because the Overlay District requires buildings to be located at least 250 feet from the West 10 th Street rightof-way, and the proposed buildings would be located 140 feet from the right-of-way. In 2006, the City of Pittsburg certified an Environmental Report (EIR) and Addendum to allow the construction of the Trans Bay Cable Converter Station. This Initial Study and Addendum to the 2006 Trans Bay Cable Project EIR (2013 Addendum) has been prepared to document that no further environmental review is necessary for this proposed Project because it does not result in any of the circumstances outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section that would require a subsequent EIR. A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project site is situated northwest of the intersection of West 10 th Street and Beacon Street and is bounded on the north by the Mirant Pittsburg Power Plant and the PG&E Substation to the north and west. The site is located within a mixed land use setting of Pittsburg. rth of West 10 th Street, there are light industrial uses such as wrecking yards, auto repair, pool contractors and similar uses. South of West 10 th Street,there arecommercial businesses along West 10 th Street and single-family homes situated behind these commercial uses. The area directly southeast of the West 10 th Street Converter Station site is currently vacant, but has been zoned for mixed use development since There has been no change in the developed land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project site since the 2006 EIR was prepared. The existing Trans Bay Cable Converter Station at 570 West 10 th Street in Pittsburg includes the Converter Station building, a small office building totaling 28,500 square feet, and a sound wall located at the southern boundary of the Converter Station site. The remainder of the parcel extending from the existing Converter Station 255 feet to West 10 th Street is landscaped, with some trees. Page6

4 B. THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed Project includes the addition of two ancillary buildings totaling 14,700 square feet to the existing Station in the landscaped area between the existing soundwall and West 10 th Street. The site changes include: Construction of a 9,900 square foot building for storage of spare parts. This building would be used only for storage of spare parts that would be required for emergency repairs to the cable or the converter station. Construction of a 4,800 square footmulti-use building. This building will be used for administrative functions related to the operation of the Trans Bay Cable Project. Addition of26 parking spaces to the site to meet the City s parking requirements for the proposed new buildings. Reduction of the required minimum building setback from West 10 th Street right-of-way, from 250 feet to140 feet. Addition of a bio-retention facility to the landscaped area at the front of the property to retain more stormwater on the project site and to improve the water quality of stormwater runoff. Removal of the existing soundwall and access gates, and construction of a new soundwall and access gates 140 feet back from (and 110 feet closer to) West 10 th Street, in order to accommodate the two new buildings as part of the existing Station. The proposed building additions would require an amendment to Limitation L-39 of the West 10 th Street Overlay District (Ordinance ) that requires that structures be a minimum distance 250 feet from the right-of-way of West 10 th Street. The proposed buildings would be located at a distance of 140 feet from the West 10 th Street right-of-way. The submitted project plans are provided in Attachment A to this 2013 Addendum and include: Sheet A1: Vicinity Plan, Aerial Photo, and Site Plan. Sheet A2: Roof Plan and Floor Plan of two new buildings. Sheet A3: Elevations of the two new buildings. Sheet C1: Preliminary Grading Plan. Sheet C2: Preliminary utility Plan. Please refer to these plans for a visual representation of the proposed Project. Page7

5 C. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Trans Bay Cable Project includedthe construction of the Trans Bay Cable Converter Stationin Pittsburg, a converter station in San Francisco, and an approximately 53-milelong, 400 megawatt (MW) high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line extending through the San Francisco Bay and adjoining waterways, from a terminus in the City of Pittsburg in Contra Costa County to a terminus in the City of San Francisco in the vicinity of Potrero Point. The Project was proposed to transmit electrical power from a converter station in Pittsburg to a converter station in San Francisco, providing a dedicated connection between the East Bay and San Francisco. A Draft EIR was prepared for the Trans Bay Cable Project in accordance with Public Resources Code Section et seq. and California Code of Regulations et seq(the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] and State CEQA Guidelines).The Final EIR was issued on October 10, The City Council held a public hearing on the Final EIR on vember 6, 2006, after which it adopted a resolution (Resolution ) certifying that the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines, making CEQA findings, and adopting the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP) for the Trans Bay Cable Project.An Addendum was adopted in December 2006 because a reduced scale project became possible because of new technology. The 2006 Addendum documented that the revised project did not introduce any new or ly increased impacts. Copies of the Final EIR and 2006 EIR Addendum are available for public review at the Pittsburg Planning Department, City Hall, 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, CA (Attn: Dana Hoggatt Ayers, Planning Manager). The 2006 EIR and Addendum were organized to address potential impacts for three separate locations: the Pittsburg Converter Station site (West 10 th Street), the San Francisco Converter Station site, and the San Francisco Bay. This organization reflected the fact that there were several different jurisdictions with authority over portions of the project, including the City of Pittsburg, the City and County of San Francisco, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The Pittsburg Trans Bay Cable Converter Station was constructed in 2008 and After a period of testing, the facility began operation in vember 2010 and has operated continuously since that time. The Measures contained in the MMRP were implemented as part of the design of the Project, during project construction, and the current operations of the facility. D. REQUIRED CEQA REVIEW FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT When an EIR has been prepared for a project, CEQA Guidelines provide that further environmental review is required only in specific circumstances, which are set out in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162: Page8

6 Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations. (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. Page9

7 The proposed Project represents a change from the previously evaluated project. The Initial Study included in this 2013 Addendum evaluates, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, whether the currently proposed changes to the site would require environmental review in addition to that contained in the 2006 EIR and Addendum. Because the following Initial study does not identify that the proposed Project could result in new, potentially environmental effects, a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or a change in the feasibility of mitigation measures, CEQA Guidelines Section provides that no further environmental review is required. Table 1-1 of the Final EIR is includedas an attachmentto this 2013 Addendum (Attachment B).Most of the potential impacts identified in the 2006 EIR and Addendum wererelated to the initial construction and grading of the West 10 th Street project site. While many of the impacts associated with implementation of the Trans Bay Cable project were considered to be potentially, mitigations were identified that reduced all potentially impacts to lessthan-. Some of the mitigation measures would apply to the current proposed Project and are identified in the Initial Study Checklist. Page10

8 II. INITIAL STUDY A. SUMMARY 1. Project Title: Pittsburg Trans Bay Cable Converter Station Storage and Administration Buildings 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Pittsburg 3. Contact Person & Phone Number: Dana Hoggatt Ayers, Planning Manager, City of Pittsburg, Project location: 570 West 10 th Street, Pittsburg, CA 5. Project Sponsor Name and Address: Trans Bay Cable, LLC One Letterman Drive, Building C, 5 th Floor San Francisco, CA Attention: Steven Powell, Senior Engineer Steven.Powell@TransBayCable.com 6. General Plan Designation: Service Commercial 7. Zoning: CS-O (Service Commercial with a Limited Overlay, Ord ) District 8. Description of project: Construction of two ancillary buildings totaling 14,700 square feet at the Trans Bay Cable Converter Station site for storage of spare parts and office use, 26 additional parking spaces, relocation of a soundwall, addition of a bio-retention facility for stormwater, and an amendment to the West Tenth Street Overlay Zoning District to allow the proposed structures to be located within 140 feet of the West 10 th Street right-of-way when a minimum setback of 250 feet is now required. 9. Surrounding Land uses and setting: Surrounded on north, east and west by industrial uses. Southern portion of Converter Station site is vacant. A residential development is located approximately 400 feet south of the Project Site, across West 10 th Street beyond industrial uses that front on West 10 th Street. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Page11

9 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry Air Quality Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources ise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a effect on the environment, there will not be a 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 effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially impact or potentially 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 effect on the environment, because all potentially 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. /s/ Signature _May 28, 2013 Date _Dana Ayers, Planning Manager Name (printed) and Title Page12

10 D. OVERVIEW An EIR and an EIR Addendum were prepared for the Trans Bay Cable Project. The Final EIR was issued on October 10, An Addendum was prepared because a reduced scale project became possible because of new technology. The 2006 Addendum documented that the revised project did not introduce any new or ly increased impacts. The City Council adopted a resolution (Resolution ) certifying that the EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines, making CEQA findings, and adopting the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP) for the Trans Bay Cable Project. Copies of the Final EIR, 2006 EIR Addendum and Resolution are available for public review at the Pittsburg Planning Department, City Hall, 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, CA (Attn: Dana Hoggatt Ayers, Planning Manager). These documents are hereby incorporated by reference. The 2006 Trans Bay Cable Project EIR and Addendum evaluated the potential impacts from construction and operation of the Pittsburg Trans Bay Cable Converter Station and identified mitigations to reduce all potential impacts to a less than level. The site was substantially graded, constructed on, and landscaped. The modification of the project evaluated in the Trans Bay Cable Project EIR to include the proposed Project (two additional buildings, the relocation of the soundwall, and the addition of a bio-retention facility) will not change the potential impacts of a number of environmental factors from what was previously set out in the previous CEQA documents. Therefore, these factors will not be evaluated further, and this Initial Study relies on the previous CEQA documents with respect to the following environmental factors: Aesthetics Biological Resources Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities/Service Systems Agricultural and Forestry Resources Land Use/Planning Hazards & Hazardous Materials Population/Housing Recreation Analysis of Greenhouse Gas emissions and global climate change is now required as part of CEQA review but was not identified as an environmental factor when the 2006 EIR and Addendum were prepared. The project evaluated in the 2006 EIR and Addendum has been constructed and is in operation. Therefore, the proposed changes to the site are the only portion that should be subject to consideration. For office buildings, the threshold for the analysis of greenhouse gases is 53,000 square feet. The proposed new buildings total 14,700 square feet, which is less than this threshold. It is reasonable to conclude that the proposed changes to the site will not cause a new impact or ly increase the severity of an identified impact related to Greenhouse Gas emissions. Page13

11 E. CHECKLIST 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? The Summary of Environmental s and Measures (included as Attachment B of this document) of the Trans Bay Cable FEIR identified that the operation of the Pittsburg Trans Bay Cable Project converter Station could result in visual impacts related to the Converter Station Domination of View, (IMPACT VIS-5) as viewed from West 10 th Street. With implementation of Measures VIS-5a, b and c during construction of the existing Converter Station, this potentially adverse visual impact was reduced to a less than level. (FEIR, page through and Monitoring during construction and operation). The proposed two new buildings would be screened by the relocated sound wall and would have no impact on aesthetics. II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Page14

12 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) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The Trans Bay Cable Project Site, prior to development of the Trans Bay Cable Project, was historically utilized for auto repair service. There are no agricultural resources on this site. 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 nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Page15

13 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The Summary of Environmental s and Measures (included as Attachment B of this document) of the Trans Bay Cable FEIR identified potential Fugitive Dust Emissions and equipment exhaust emissions during construction (AIR-1 and AIR-2). The mitigation measure AIR-1 included Fugitive Dust Controls and mitigation measure AIR-2 included exhaust controls. The proposed Project would also have the potential to create Fugitive Dust Emissions and Equipment Exhaust Emissions during construction. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 into the proposed Project, the potential impact would be less than. 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? Page16

14 The FEIR analysis of biological resources determined that the Project Site is located within industrialized and previously disturbed landscapes. biological resources were identified on this site, and therefore, no impacts to these resources were identified. (FEIR Pages ) 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? The FEIR determined that no archaeological resources and no fossil localities have been identified within the footprint of the Project Site. (FEIR pages and through ) 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? Page17

15 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 (1994), 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? The Summary of Environmental s and Measures (included as Attachment B of this document) of the Trans Bay Cable FEIR identified potential impacts related to Soil Erosion, Strong Ground Shaking, Liquefaction and Shrink-Swell Subsidence (s GEO-1, 3, 4, and 5). The mitigation measures (GEO 1, 3, 4, and 5) included using Best Management Practices as part of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize erosion; designing site improvements to comply with the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4; requiring site specific borings and laboratory testing to identify the specific locations of potentially liquefiable materials and expansive soils and incorporating appropriate design features into the design of site improvements and buildings; and incorporating into the final project design requirements to address shrink swell subsidence. With the incorporation of these mitigation measures to the proposed Project, the potential impact would be less than. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Analysis of Greenhouse Gas emissions and global climate change is now required as part of CEQA review but was not identified as an environmental factor when the 2006 EIR and Addendum were prepared. The project evaluated in the 2006 EIR and Addendum has been constructed and is in operation. Therefore, the proposed changes to the site are the only portion that should be subject to consideration. For office buildings, the threshold for the analysis of greenhouse gases is 53,000 square feet. The proposed new buildings total 14,700 square feet, which is less than this threshold. It is reasonable to conclude that the proposed changes to the site will not cause a new impact or ly increase the severity of an identified impact. Page18

16 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a 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 onequarter 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 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 risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The Summary of Environmental s and Measures (included as Attachment B of this document) of the Trans Bay Cable FEIR identified potential impacts related to Removal of Hazardous Building Materials resulting from demolition, Soil Removal, Construction-phase Hazardous Materials Use, Construction-phase Waste Streams, Construction-phase Accidental Spills, Construction-phase Dust and Volatilization of Contaminants, Contaminated Groundwater, Operations-phase Hazardous Materials Usage, Operations-phase Waste Streams, Operations-phase Accidental Spills, Operations-phase Operations and Explosion Risk and s from Page19

17 Seismic Activity (s HAZ-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12). These impacts related to the initial construction of the Converter Station including removal of structures, site grading and handling of materials related to the facility would not be triggered by the proposed Project. measures (HAZ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) were implemented to reduce the potential impacts from the initial construction of the existing Converter Station to a level of less than. The proposed new construction would have a less than impact related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. IX. 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? 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? Page20

18 i) Expose people or structures to a 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? The location of the proposed new buildings is outside of the 100-year flood plain zone, so there would not be potential impacts relating to flooding. The original project included Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), which had the potential for impacts on surface and ground water quality. HDD was necessary for the installation of the Trans Bay Cable and would not be necessary for the proposed new buildings. Therefore, these impacts would not be triggered by the proposed Project. The Summary of Environmental s and Measures (included as Attachment B of this document) of the Trans Bay Cable FEIR identified the potential for impacts during construction resulting from erosion and contaminated runoff (WATER-1). The implementation of mitigation measure WATER-1 included applying for a NPDES permit and development and compliance with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and would reduce this potential impact to less-than-. The proposed Project would also have the potential to create erosion and contaminated runoff during construction. With the incorporation of the mitigation measure WATER-1, the potential impact would be less than. X. 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? The FEIR for the Trans Bay Cable Project evaluated the potential impact of the Converter Station on land use and determined that there would be no environmental impact due to the mixed use character of the surrounding area and the layout of the Project Site (Pages through ). The surrounding land use has not changed since the completion of the existing facility on the Project Site in The proposed addition of 14,700 square feet of building area and relocation of the existing sound wall would not physically divide an established community and would not conflict with applicable land uses plans (subject to the requested amendment of the Zoning Overlay District). The Project Site is designated urban/developed and would not conflict with nor require any surveys or action pursuant to Page21

19 the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Pittsburg Municipal Code Chapter ). The Project would not have a land use impact.. XI. 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? impacts to mineral resources were identified in the FIER for the Trans Bay Cable Project. The proposed Project would not have any impacts on these resources since they do not exist on the Project Site. XII. 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? Page22

20 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? The Summary of Environmental s and Measures (included as Attachment B of this document) of the Trans Bay Cable FEIR identified potential impacts due to the potential noise levels related to operations of the Converter Station (NOISE-1). The mitigation measure included construction of a sound wall which is now in place. The existing sound wall ( Measure NOISE-1) will be kept in place and a new one constructed just south of the new addition. Upon completion of the new sound wall, the existing one will be removed. With continued compliance with this mitigation measure, the potential impact would be less than. XIII. 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? impacts to Population and Housing were identified in the FIER for the Trans Bay Cable Project. The proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in the area since it is surrounded by existing development. The Project Site is a portion of the existing Trans Bay Cable Converter Station site and does not contain housing. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have an impact on Population and Housing. Page23

21 XIV. 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 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? The Summary of Environmental s and Measures (included as Attachment B of this document) of the Trans Bay Cable FEIR identified potential impacts due to the potential Construction-related Fire Hazards (PS-1) s to Existing Underground Utilities (PS-2) and Operations Fire Hazards (PS-3). The mitigation measures PS-1, -2 and -3 were incorporated into the design, construction and operation of the existing Trans Bay Cable Converter Station. The proposed Project would not have these impacts because they related specifically related to the initial construction on the Project Site and the use of materials related to the Converter Station facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on Public Services XV. 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? Page24

22 impacts to Recreation were identified in the FEIR for the Trans Bay Cable Project. The Project Site is located in a mixed commercial/industrial area. The Project Site is currently occupied by the Trans Bay Cable Converter Station, and the proposed Project would be constructed on the southern portion of this property. The proposed Project would have no impact on existing neighborhood or regional parks and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Page25

23 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards 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) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The Summary of Environmental s and Measures (included as Attachment B of this document) of the Trans Bay Cable FEIR identified potential Cumulative Traffic s (TRAFFIC-1) and the potential impact on traffic for oversized loads (TRAFFIC-2). The mitigation measures (TRAFFIC-1 and 2) included coordination to reduce cumulative traffic impacts during construction and coordination and proper permitting for oversized loads. With the incorporation of these mitigation measures into the proposed Project, the potential impact would be less than. Page26

24 XVII. 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 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 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? The proposed Project would have no impact on the above listed Utilities and Public Services. It is located within an area that was historically in industrial use prior to the construction of the Trans Bay Cable Converter Station). There is existing infrastructure to serve the Project Site, and the addition of 14,700 square feet of new development would not impact these facilities. Page27

25 XVIII. 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? 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 selfsustaining 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?( ) The proposed Project would be constructed on a disturbed site surrounded by predominantly industrial uses in an urbanized area. The proposed Project Site was historically been in industrial use prior to the construction of the Trans Bay Cable Converter Station) and does not contain any native plant communities or habitat. fish habitat is present on the Project Site. Considering the historic use and disturbed nature of the site and its location in an urbanized and industrial area, the proposed Project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of any fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, nor reduce the number of restrict the range or a rare or endangered plant or animal. historic or prehistoric resources are known to occur onsite. Therefore, the proposed Project would not eliminate any important example 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.) ( ) As noted in the preceding sections, The proposed Project would have no impact on agricultural or forest lands, cultural resources, water quality, mineral resources, growth, population, housing, schools, parks, libraries, or recreation, and the proposed Project would not conflict with zoning, land use, biological Page28

26 resource conservation plans, air quality protection plans, energy plans or policies, transportation, traffic and congestion management plans, or other established environmental plans or policies. Because the proposed Project would have no impact on or conflict with these environmental factors, there is no potential for the proposed Project to have a cumulative effect on these environmental factorswith other past, current or probable future projects. Air quality cumulative impacts are addressed in Section III of this Initial Study checklist and are less than with Measures incorporated into the proposed Project. As described in Section VI of this Initial Study Checklist, project impacts related to geology and soils would be less than and would be limited to potential impacts of ground shaking from regional earthquakes, including secondary hazards such as liquefaction and expansive soils These hazards, by nature, are project-specific geologic hazards that do not have the potential for cumulative effects. The proposed Project would have no impact on seismic hazards at other locations, and no other reasonably foreseeable project could affect seismic hazards at the site. Therefore, there is no cumulative impact related to seismic shaking. As described in Section XII of this Initial Study Checklist, the proposed Project would not result in a noise impact. The existing sound wall will remain in place during construction and then be replaced at a new location to provide the same level of mitigation as required in the Monitoring Program. As described in Section XVI of this Initial Study Checklist, the proposed Project would generate in long-term traffic. The storage building would typically be unattended. The office building would be used for training sessions, which would result in a negligible traffic impact. The proposed Project would not involve new construction or realignment of any roads. The proposed Project would be developed in conformance with all applicable plans, policies, programs, and ordinances related to transportation. Considering these factors, cumulative traffic impacts would be less than. As described in Section XVII of this Initial Study Checklist, the proposed Project is not expected to place a material demand on public services or utilities. Considering the factors outlined in this Section, the proposed Project would not have cumulative impacts on the environment. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?( ) The proposed Project does not have the potential for environmental effects that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, other than those addressed in preceding sections of this Initial Study Checklist. As described in preceding sections of this Initial Study checklist, the proposed Project would have no impact on agricultural or forest lands, cultural resources, water quality, mineral resources, growth, population, housing, schools, parks, libraries, or recreation, and the proposed Project would not conflict with zoning, land use, biological resource conservation plans, air quality protection plans, energy plans or policies, transportation, traffic and congestion management plans, or other established environmental plans or policies. The proposed Project would not have substantial adverse effects on aesthetics, energy consumption, greenhouse gasses, hydrology, public services, transportation or utilities and services. With recommended mitigation measures described in the TransBay Cable FEIR, it would have less than impacts related to air quality, geology and soils, traffic and noise. There would be no cumulative impacts. Page29