Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project

Transcription

1 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project City of Richmond File No. PLN Planning and Building Services Department City of Richmond 450 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, CA City of Richmond December 23, 2016

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. SUMMARY OF PROJECT INFORMATION... 1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED C. DETERMINATION D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES III. AIR QUALITY: IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES V. CULTURAL RESOURCES VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY X. LAND USE AND PLANNING XI. MINERAL RESOURCES XII. NOISE XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES XV. RECREATION XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE E. REPORT PREPARERS F. REFERENCES APPENDICES Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project

3 Environmental Checklist A. SUMMARY OF PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Richmond Planning and Building Services Department 450 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, CA Contact Person and Phone Number: Jonelyn Whales Senior Planner Planning Department City of Richmond (510) Project Location: The proposed project is on a 39-acre site located northeast of the terminus of Giant Highway, between the Union Pacific and BNSF railroad rights of way in the north part of the City of Richmond, east of Atlas Road and south of San Pablo Bay, Contra Costa County, California. The Assessor s Parcel Numbers are and (see Figures 1 and 2). 5. Project Applicant: John Diemer Vice President of Construction Onecorp 2760 N. University Drive Davie, FL ext General Plan Designation: Business/Light Industrial 7. Zoning: PA, Planned Area District Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 1

4 Project Location MILES Figure 1 Regional Location Source: Grassetti Environmental and TomTom Maps

5 Project Site 0 ¼ ½ ¾ 1 MILE Figure 2 Project Location Source: TomTom Maps and Grassetti Environmental

6 8. Description of Project: Project Overview Background In 1992, the City of Richmond approved the Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project on a 364-acre site at Point Pinole near San Pablo Bay. The project consisted of four phases, including the 39-acre Phase III that is the site of the proposed project. The approved Phase III Project included development of eight buildings totaling 470,000 square feet on the Phase III site. The curren proposed Phase III Project consists of two buildings totaling 362,700 square feet on the Phase III site. The Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified in 1992 at the time of the Planned Development approval. The EIR identified mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts, most of which were adopted as conditions of approval for the overall development plan. These mitigation measures, which are currently in force, remain applicable to the proposed project. This IS/MND evaluates potential impacts of the proposed revised Phase III project, and, if the currently applicable mitigation measures are not sufficient to reduce impacts of the revised project to less-than-significant levels, identifies additional mitigation measures as required. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR is available for public review at the City of Richmond Planning and Building Services Department at 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, California Requested Approvals The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Review Report by the City of Richmond Design Review Board, and approval of a Final Development Plan for by the City of Richmond Planning Commission, to construct two one-story, 32-foot-high warehouse buildings, one of 253,500 square feet (including expansion area) and the second of 109,200 square feet, on the 39-acre Phase III site, along with 60 outdoor trailer parking spaces and 290 standard parking spaces. No changes are proposed to the site s General Plan or zoning designations. Project Location and Site Conditions The proposed project is located on a 39-acre site northeast of the terminus of Giant Highway, between the Union Pacific and BNSF railroad rights of way in the north part of the City of Richmond, east of Atlas Road and south of San Pablo Bay, Contra Costa County, California (see Figure 2). Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 4

7 The Phase III site is currently undeveloped. Portions of the site were used for a former domestic landfill, two decommissioned oil and gas wells, a former drilling mud pit, and an acid waste pond. Remediation of contaminated surface water, groundwater, and soils on the project site is planned, in accordance with an approved Removal Action Plan (RAP) prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group in Remediation under the RAP was approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, and is separately permitted project from the proposed revised Phase III project. Remediation would require permits from the City of Richmond, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Contra Costa County Health Department. In addition, implementation of the RAP would require a small area of wetland restoration that is not yet permitted. This is because the most southwestern wetland will be removed as part of the RAP operations (see IV. Biological Resources, below, for discussion of mitigation measures that would be incorporated into the area disturbed by RAP operations). The project sponsor is currently applying for permits for the wetland restoration. If approvals are granted in time, the RAP including wetland mitigation would be implemented at the same time as construction of the proposed project. Proposed Structures and Uses The project involves construction of two warehouse buildings and associated access, parking, loading, and landscaped areas on the Phase III site (see Figure 3, Site Plan). The building on the western portion of the site would be a one-story, 32-foot-high warehouse of 253,500 square feet (203,500 square feet plus a 50,000-square-foot expansion area on the north side), of which 12,000 square feet would be office space, with 50 trailer parking spaces on the north side, 60 dock high loading doors on the east and west sides, and 185 standard parking spaces to the south and west. The building on the eastern portion of the site would be a one-story, 32-foot-high warehouse of 109,200 square feet, of which 5,000 square feet would be office space, with 10 trailer parking spaces to the west, north, and east, and 105 standard parking spaces to the south. The project buildings would be constructed with poured concrete foundation/building pads supporting poured concrete tilt-up walls. Renderings and elevations of the project buildings are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Parking A total of 290 standard vehicle parking spaces and 60 trailer parking spaces are proposed for the two buildings on the site. Per the City of Richmond s Zoning Ordinance, Section , one short-term bicycle parking space and one long-term bicycle parking space shall be provided for every 20 motor vehicle parking spaces provided on-site. This equates to 15 short-term and 15 long-term bicycle parking spaces on the project site. Access to and from the site would be via an extension, along the southern boundary of the site, of Giant Highway from its current terminus at the southwest corner of the site (see Figure 3). Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 5

8 FEET Figure 3 Site Plan Source: Herdman Rierson Architecture & Design, Inc.

9 Figure 4 Project Rendering Source: Herdman Rierson Architecture & Design, Inc.

10 Figure 5 Elevations Source: Herdman Rierson Architecture & Design, Inc.

11 Lighting The proposed exterior security lighting would illuminate the two buildings at a level no greater than the existing lighting at the Pinole Point Business Park. Nighttime operations at the project are not proposed. Lighting at the Giant Highway extension, which would be a public roadway, would be subject to standard City of Richmond Street Lighting requirements. Landscaping and Stormwater Detention Approximately 80 percent of the site would be covered by impervious surfaces including buildings, parking, and access roads. Approximately 20 percent of the site would consist of pervious surfaces, such as porous/permeable material, including the stormwater facilities (eight bio-retention basins and one flow-through planter, per project plans) that are proposed to be located throughout the project site. (See IX. Hydrology and Water Quality, below, for additional detail on project stormwater control features.) The landscape design proposes drought-tolerant and locally adapted plants in large sweeping masses of predominately low ground cover, supported by informal tree groupings. Plants would be low water use species based on Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS), developed by the California Department of Water Resources, that are either native or indigenous to the area. Planting design would meet Cal Green requirements to minimize outdoor water use by complying with California MWELO (Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance) water-efficiency standards, and grouping of plants by water-use hydro-zone definitions. The design would also assist in filtering on-site storm water before it leaves the site. In accordance with Section of the Richmond Municipal Code, one tree would be included per four parking spaces and integrated throughout the parking lot. Bay Trail Easement and Construction The project would include dedication of a 15-foot-wide trail easement along the northeast boundary of the site, and construction of a segment of the multi-purpose San Francisco Bay Trail, by the applicant, to be operated and maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District. The trail would have a 10-foot-wide paved surface with 2.5-foot-wide rocked shoulders on either side. Fencing is proposed along the south side of the trail between the trail and the project buildings, to separate the project facilities from the proposed trail. The fence would be eight feet high, black vinyl coated for aesthetic and security purposes, and would be located at least three feet away from the trail. The elevation of the trail would be lower than the building pads for the two proposed warehouses, and the fence would be placed along the top of the bank that would rise from the trail to the elevation of the buildings. The trail and fence would be at least fifteen feet from the project s paved areas, and most of the trail alignment would be more distant. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 9

12 Project Construction Schedule and Phases Project construction is proposed to begin the first full construction season after project approval. Construction of the larger building on the western portion of the site would last approximately 7 months. Construction of the smaller building on the eastern portion of the site, which may start a few months after the larger building, would last approximately 6 months. Grading is anticipated to occur during the first month of construction work. Onsite total cut and fill volume is estimated at 58,000 cubic yards. Of this, approximately 10,000 to 31,000 cubic yards would be off-hauled from the site. The separate Remedial Action Plan for the site, discussed above, includes capping the former acid waste pond on the site, but does not allow export of contaminated soil from the site. Therefore, no off-haul of soil from the site would occur. Normal construction working hours are anticipated to be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Project Construction Workers and Equipment Approximately 10 to 30 construction workers would be on the project site at one time, depending on the sequence of construction. Heavy construction equipment would include dozers, scrapers, water trucks, articulated blades, excavators, backhoes, compactors, rollers, paving machines, concrete mix trucks, cranes for concrete panel lifting, boom trucks, and forklifts. Operational Uses and Employment The two project buildings would be used as warehouses. Normal operational working hours are anticipated to be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The larger building on the western portion of the site would accommodate approximately 175 workers. The smaller building on the eastern portion of the site would accommodate approximately 50 workers. 9. Surrounding Land Uses: The project site is bounded to the north by Union Pacific Railroad tracks and the East Bay Regional Park District s Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park (followed by San Pablo Bay). Immediately west of the project site are an approximately six-acre freshwater lake and an approximately 1/2-acre freshwater pond that were constructed in the mid-1960s. Farther west are other phases of the Pinole Point Business Park consisting of commercial, office, research and warehouse land uses including Restoration Hardware, Bio-Rad Laboratories, and Whole Foods Market Distribution Center. South of the site are BNSF railroad tracks, a United Parcel Service facility, and a singlefamily residential area, Montalvin Manor. Immediately east of the site is undeveloped open space. Farther east are Montara Bay Park, Montalvin Park, and single-family residential uses. Montalvin Elementary School is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site. No convalescent homes or hospitals are located within 1,000 feet of the project site. 10. Other Public Agencies with Approvals or Permits: The project may require permits or approvals from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. 11. Project Size: The project site is 39 acres. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 10

13 12. Project Density: The Floor Area Ratio of the project is proposed to be B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklists and responses contained on the following pages: Aesthetics Agriculture & Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use & Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population & Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation & Traffic Utilities & Services Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance C. 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 Jonelyn Whales, Senior Planner Printed name Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 11

14 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Evaluation of Environmental Impacts The following checklist is formatted consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. A no impact response indicates that the project would not result in an environmental impact in a particular area of interest, either because the resource is not present, or the project does not have the potential to cause an effect on the resource. A less than significant response indicates that, while there may be potential for an environmental impact, the significance of the impact would not exceed established thresholds and/or that there are standard procedures or regulations in place that would apply to the project and hence no mitigation is required. Responses that indicated that the impact of the project would be less than significant with mitigation mean that, although there is the potential for a significant impact, feasible mitigation measures would become conditions of approval for the project if it receives approval by the City Planning Commission. A potentially significant impact response indicates that the impact would exceed established thresholds and that the impact could not be avoided by utilizing standard operating procedures and regulations, program requirements, or design features incorporated into the project or that additional analysis is required in an EIR. Public comments on this Initial Study should focus on the accuracy and completeness of the analysis contained herein. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 12

15 I. AESTHETICS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? Background: The project site is currently undeveloped open land, visually characterized by vegetated, rolling terrain with open views (see Figures 6 through 8). A grove of mature eucalyptus trees is located near the southeastern corner of the site, north of the United Parcel Service facility (see Figure 6). There are open areas to the north and to the immediate east and west of the site, and developed areas to the south and farther east and west of the site, including existing industrial and warehouse buildings. Railroad tracks, Point Pinole Regional Shoreline open space, and San Pablo Bay are visible to the north. Undeveloped open space is visible east of the site. Single-family residential areas are located farther east, and southeast, of the site. The County of Contra Costa s Montara Bay Park also is located further east of the site. Views to the southwest consist of industrial uses. Immediately west of the project site are an approximately six-acre freshwater lake and an approximately one-halfacre freshwater pond. Farther west, views from the site consist of existing buildings of the Pinole Point Business Park. The project site is visible from the end of Giant Highway, located at the southwest corner of the Phase III site. The project site also is visible across the BNSF railroad tracks from the rear yards and windows of approximately 30 residences in Montalvin Manor to the south, from portions of Montalvin Park, and, at an oblique angle, from the rear yards and windows of approximately 30 residences in the northwest corner of Tara Hills Mobile Manor to the southeast. The project site would not be visible from public streets in Montalvin Manor and Tara Hills Mobile Manor due to intervening residences, and would not be visible from Montara Bay Park due to intervening structures, trees, and topography. The project site Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 13

16 FIGURE 6: View looking east from southwest corner of site FIGURE 7: View looking north from southwest corner of site Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 14

17 FIGURE 8: View looking west from southwest corner of site could be seen from the eastern end of Point Pinole Regional Shoreline, but there are no public trails or roads in this portion of the Regional Shoreline, so viewers are minimal. Discussion: a. Scenic Vista - Less than Significant Impact. The project site has elevations similar to the surrounding open and developed areas. The proposed warehouses, which would be similar in height and bulk to existing nearby industrial and commercial structures, would be visible from the United Parcel Service facility and private residences in the Montalvin Manor residential area to the south, and at an oblique angle from Montalvin Park and Tara Hills Mobile Manor to the southeast. Views toward the project site from these areas encompass the proposed project buildings as well as existing buildings at the Pinole Point Business Park with heights and bulks similar to those of the proposed project. Because the project buildings would be located between these viewpoints and the existing buildings, although the visual character of the site would change, the resulting visual character of the site would be consistent with the height and bulk of existing visible buildings, and the general visual character, of views in this direction. The project site is located south of the eastern end of Point Pinole Regional Shoreline, but there are no public trails or roads in this portion of the Regional Shoreline from which the project site could be viewed. (Views from the proposed San Francisco Bay Trail segment on the project site are discussed below.) The project would not be visible from Montara Bay Park due to intervening structures, trees, and Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 15

18 topography. Therefore, the public views that would be affected is limited, and private views of the project would not substantially differ in character from existing views. Landscaping would be added to the parcel, including trees in the parking areas along the southern boundary of the site. As discussed in the project description, the project would include a 15-foot-wide multipurpose Bay Trail segment along its northern boundary. Fencing is proposed along the south side of the trail between it and the project buildings, to separate the project facilities from the trail. The proposed fence would be eight-foot high, and comprised of black-vinylcoated chain link for aesthetic and security purposes, and would be located at least three feet from the trail. The elevation of the trail would be lower than the building pads for the two proposed warehouses, and the fence would be placed along the top of the bank that would rise from the trail to the elevation of the buildings. The bank between the trail and project buildings, with a fence at the top of the bank, would reduce views from the trail into the project buildings. The project includes landscaping of the project side of the fence (predominately low ground cover, with informal tree groupings), which would further reduce views of the warehouse project from the trail. The landscaping would include a combination of groundcover and informal tree groupings. The trail and fence would be at least fifteen feet from the project s paved areas, and most of the trail alignment would be more distant. The fence would not affect views from the north side of the trail toward San Pablo Bay and the hills of Marin County. The proposed building would replace an open area with two warehouse buildings and paved parking areas, and would affect public views from Montalvin Park, and private views from approximately 60 residences to the south and southwest. Public views of San Pablo Bay from Montara Bay Park would not be affected, and public views from nearby residential streets would not be affected. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR found that the larger Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project could affect views, and identified Mitigation Measures 4.4-3(a) and 4.4-4, which require planting of trees to screen views of the site without further blocking existing views of San Pablo Bay, and Mitigation Measure 4.4-5, which requires berms and landscaping to screen views of the site, would also apply to the proposed project. With implementation of these mitigation measures, which are already required, the impact of the proposed project on views would be less than significant. b. Scenic Highway - No Impact. The project does not contain any scenic trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The site is not in view from any state highways or designated scenic routes (State of California, Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System, accessed November 29, 2016.) The project would remove the eucalyptus trees located near the southeastern corner of the site, but these eucalyptus trees are not considered significant scenic resources. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR found that the larger Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project would not affect scenic resources. Therefore, there would be no impact on scenic resources. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 16

19 c. Visual Quality Less than Significant Impact. The project site is currently undeveloped, but is located between two railroad lines adjacent to industrial buildings, in an area with existing industrial structures. The proposed development would infill this type of industrial development on the site. It would replace an open area that with two large warehouse buildings in an area of existing warehouses and commercial buildings which, while changing the visual character of the site, would be visually consistent with the overall visual character of the area. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR found that the larger Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project would not significantly adversely affect visual quality. The impact on the proposed project on visual quality of the site would be less than significant. d. Light and Glare Less than Significant Impact. The project would include lighting in the parking areas, landscaped areas, street signage, and building lighting. The project would comply with all applicable City standards for lighting, and the lighting levels would be no greater than that existing elsewhere at the Pinole Point Business Park, and likely would be less intrusive due to advances in lighting technology. However, as determined in the 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR, proposed lighting could result in increased nighttime light and glare visible to existing residences. The 1992 EIR identified Mitigation Measure 4.4-6, which requires direct lighting for parking areas to be aimed downward and shielded to avoid glare to adjacent residences, and planting of landscaping and trees to screen lighting fixtures and large areas of windows at the project site. This measure also applies to the proposed project. Implementation of this mitigation measure, which is already required, would reduce the impact of the proposed project on light and glare to a less-than-significant level. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 17

20 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 on the California Resources Agency, to 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 zone 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? Background: The project site is comprised of land classified as a combination Urban and Built-Up Land and Other Land by the State of California. No Prime, Unique, or Farmlands of Statewide Importance are mapped as existing on the site (California Farmland Mapping Program, California Important Farmland Finder, accessed November 29, 2016). The project site is not under a California Land Conservation (Williamson Act) contract, since no agricultural land exists on the site. In addition, no forest resources exist on the site. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 18

21 Discussion: a, b. Farmland, Williamson Act - No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area consisting of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The project would have no impact on conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program because no such designated lands are mapped on the site. The site is not under a Williamson Act Contract, and is not zoned for agricultural use. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any impacts on agricultural land. The project would result in no impact on farmland, land zoned for agricultural use, and Williamson Act contracts. c, d. Forest Lands No Impact. The project would not affect forest land or forest zoning because no such lands or zoning exist or are proposed on the site. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any impacts on forest land. The project would result in no impact on forest land or land zoned for forest or timberland use. e. Conversion of Farmland No Impact. The proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland to a nonagricultural use. No significant impacts are anticipated with regard to Agricultural Resources, since there is currently no Farmland, as defined by the California Resources Agency, on the subject parcel, nor is it zoned for agricultural use, nor protected under a California Land Conservation (Williamson Act) contract. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any impacts on agricultural land. The project would result in no impact on conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 19

22 III. AIR QUALITY: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 non-attainment 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? Background: Meteorological Effects on Air Quality The Project Site lies in the Northern Alameda/Western Contra Costa climatological subregion of the Bay Area. The westerly marine air flow through the Golden Gate is predominant in this sub-region, but the Oakland-Berkeley Hills cause it to slow and divert to the north and to the south as it approaches the East Bay shore. Thus, Richmond being northeast of the Golden Gate is in a predominant southerly flow. At the Point San Pablo meteorological station, located west-northwest of downtown Richmond, the prevailing direction is south southwesterly with over 50 percent of the winds coming from the south through southwest sector. The average wind speed is 11 miles per hour (mph). On average, Richmond's maximum summer temperatures are in the low 70's Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 20

23 with minima averaging in the mid-50s. In winter maxima range from the high 50 s to low 60 s and minima reach the low to mid-40s. Precipitation averages about 22 inches annually. The potential for air pollutants to concentrate in areas close to the Bay shore (which includes the project site) is low due to frequent good ventilation and less influx of pollutants from upwind sources. Light winds, however, mainly during the night and early morning, may promote occasional elevated pollutant levels (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Climate.) Sensitive Receptors People that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution within the general population, deemed sensitive receptors, include children, the elderly, and those that suffer from certain illnesses or disabilities. Therefore, schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals are considered to be typical locations of sensitive receptors. Residential areas are also considered sensitive receptors because people (including children, the elderly and the sick) usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater exposure to localized air pollutants. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) considers the relevant zone of influence for an assessment of air quality health risks in a CEQA study to be within 1,000 feet of a project site. Adjacent and nearby land uses to the Project site include commercial office, and warehouse land uses to the west and southwest (i.e., existing/under-construction uses in the Pinole Point Business Park and the United Parcel Service). Immediately north of the project site is the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline recreational use. The nearest existing residential land uses are just south of the Project site. No schools, convalescent homes or hospitals are located within 1,000 feet of the Project site. Existing Air Quality The BAAQMD monitors and regulates air quality in the Bay Area pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The BAAQMD adopts and enforces controls on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit and inspection programs. Other BAAQMD responsibilities include preparation of regional clean air plans and responding to citizen air quality complaints. The BAAQMD has also authored the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted its 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics (TACs), and GHG emissions in a single, integrated plan; and establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 through 2012 timeframe. The primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area CAP are to: Attain/maintain air quality standards; Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 21

24 Reduce population exposure to air pollutants and protect public health in the Bay Area; and Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate. The BAAQMD operates a set of regional ambient air quality monitoring stations where readings are taken of the six criteria pollutants considered in this Initial Study. Currently, the criteria pollutants of most concern in the Bay Area are ozone (O 3 ), PM 10 and PM 2.5. The monitoring station closest to the Project site is in San Pablo approximately 2.5 miles south of the site; here levels of O 3, PM 10, PM 2.5, CO, NO 2, and SO 2 are recorded. Table III-1 summarizes the most recent three years of data from the San Pablo air monitoring station. The federal 24-hour PM 2.5 standard was exceeded twice in 2013 and once in No other State or federal air quality standards were exceeded during the three-year period. The Bay Area is currently designated nonattainment for state and national (1-hour and 8- hour) ozone standards, for the state PM 10 standards, and for state and national (annual average and 24-hour) PM 2.5 standards. The Bay Area is designated attainment or unclassifiable with respect to the other ambient air quality standards. TABLE III-1 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY SAN PABLO, CA, Pollutant Standard Days Standard Exceeded Ozone State 1 Hour Ozone Federal 8 Hour Ozone State 8 Hour PM 10 Federal 24 Hour PM 10 State 24 Hour PM 2.5 Federal 24 Hour Carbon Monoxide State/Federal 8 Hour Nitrogen Dioxide State 1 Hour Nitrogen Dioxide Federal 1 Hour Sulfur Dioxide State 24-Hour Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries, Air Pollutant Emissions Significance Thresholds Criteria Pollutant Emissions The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed the following BAAQMD construction and/or operational pollutant emission thresholds for exhaust Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 22

25 emissions and/or if appropriate air pollutant control measures are not implemented to control fugitive dust. The BAAQMD also recommend that the cumulative air quality effects of criteria air pollutants be addressed by comparison to the same daily and annual emission thresholds, which identify cumulatively considerable contributions to regional emissions of non-attainment air pollutants. Local Pollutant Concentrations The Project would have a significant operational environmental impact if carbon monoxide emissions from the motor vehicle traffic it generates or from the cumulative traffic congestion it causes would exceed the ambient air quality standards of 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour average). a, b, and c. Air Quality Planning, Standards, Non-Attainment - Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Compliance with BAAQMD-approved CEQA thresholds of significance are the conditions for determining that a project would be consistent with all adopted control measures and would not interfere with the attainment of CAP goals. As the analysis below demonstrates, the Project would not have significant and unavoidable air quality impacts because it meets all BAAQMD CEQA thresholds after the implementation of mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study. The air quality analyses addressing these checklist items were performed using the methodologies and criteria recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (dated June 2010, updated in May 2011, and revised in May 2012). 1 The air pollutants evaluated are: carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROG) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) (both being precursors to ozone formation), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), particulate matter equal to or less than 10 micrometers (coarse particulates or PM 10 ), and particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulates or PM2.5). Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are addressed in Section VII. 1 The Air District s June 2010 adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. Although the BAAQMD s adoption of significance thresholds for air quality analysis has been subject to judicial actions, the City of Richmond has determined that BAAQMD s Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (October 2009) provide substantial evidence to support the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of Richmond has determined the BAAQMD recommended thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 23

26 Pollutant Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Construction Average Daily (lbs./day) Average Daily (lbs./day) Operational Maximum Annual (tpy) Oxides of Nitrogen (NO x ) Coarse Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM 10 ) Fine Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) 82 (exhaust) (exhaust) PM 10 /PM 2.5 Fugitive Dust BMPs a N/A N/A Notes:: BMPs = Best Management Practices N/A = Not Applicable a If BAAQMD Best Management Practices (BMPs) for fugitive dust control are implemented during construction, the impacts of such residual emissions are considered to be less than significant. Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011 May (Revised), California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Project Construction-Related Impacts The Project would construct two warehouse buildings totaling 362,700 square-feet on a 39-acre vacant site in the Pinole Point Business Park. Construction activities are expected to commence in Construction of the proposed warehouse/distribution center is expected to be complete in 2018 with the facility fully operational by sometime in 2019 at the latest. Project construction would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including fugitive dust, equipment/truck exhaust emissions and volatile organic compounds (a large fraction of which would be chemical precursors, ROG, to ozone formation) from architectural coatings used in the building finishing phases. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend quantification of construction-related equipment/activity emissions and their comparisons to established CEQA significance thresholds. The CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model, Version ) was used to quantify these construction-related emissions (see Appendix A for emissions estimate details and model input assumptions). Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 24

27 Table III-2 shows the estimated Project construction emissions and comparisons to the significance thresholds. The construction phases are assumed to be sequential with no overlap of adjacent phases. Phase overlap must not be permitted during the earlier Project construction phases (i.e., site preparation, grading and building construction) because of the potential for exceeding the NOx threshold. However, some overlap during the latter Project construction stages (i.e., building construction, paving and architectural coating) would be beneficial for ROG emissions (i.e., stretching out the application period for architectural coating would lower the daily average emissions). ROG emissions from coating solvent evaporation during the building finishing phase as currently planned would exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold. Mitigation Measure III-1: Project site preparation, grading and building construction phases shall not overlap unless the Project sponsor demonstrates to the City prior to the start of construction that project-specific construction NO x emissions will not exceed 54 lbs/day if overlap of any/all of these phases were allowed as proposed. TABLE III-2 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Construction Phase (Year) ROG NOx PM 10 PM 2.5 Unmitigated Architectural Coating (2018) Building Construction (2017) Building Construction (2018) Demolition (2017) Grading (2017) Paving (2018) Site Preparation (2017) Significance Thresholds Significant Impact? Yes No No No Mitigated Building - Finishing Significance Thresholds Significant Impact? No No No No BAAQMD regulations applicable to Project construction relate to controls on the fugitive dust generated by construction activity, restrictions on diesel-powered equipment (e.g., electrical generators, pumps, compressors, backhoes, cranes, etc.) and to ROG emissions from architectural coatings and paving materials. BAAQMD s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines require a number of Construction Mitigation Measures to control fugitive dust and exhaust emissions. Though the Project construction emission estimates indicate that equipment emissions would be below the BAAQMD Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 25

28 significance thresholds with or without the implementation of these measures, the following measures must be implemented by the Project construction contractor: BAAQMD Required Dust Control Measures: The construction contractor shall reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions by implementing BAAQMD s basic fugitive dust control measures, including: 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 miles per hour. 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. A publically visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action with 48 hours. The Air District s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. BAAQMD Required Basic Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions: Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). 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. Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from the use of architectural coatings are regulated by BAAQMD Regulation 8: Organic Compounds, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings (Rule 8-3). Rule 8-3 in its current form went into effect on January 1, 2011 and is expected to reduce Bay Area VOC emissions by 32 percent over time. It requires any development Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 26

29 project to use paints and solvents with a VOC content of 100 grams per liter or less for interior surfaces and 150 grams per liter or less for exterior surfaces. the CalEEMod model estimates that all of the Project buildings archtectural coatings would be applied during the last 4 weeks of construction. Thus, architectural coatings would be applied during about 20 workdays. According to CalEEMod model, 363,000 square feet of warehouse space would have about 726 thousand sq. ft. of interior and exterior surface to cover. Even if the paint meets the BAAQMD regulation requirements (i.e., VOC content of 100 grams per liter for interior surfaces and 150 grams per liter for exterior surfaces), the daily VOC emissions would average about 190 lbs., which is more than 3 times the 54 lbs./day BAAQMD threshold. This potentially significant impact would be reduced to a lessthan-significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure III-2: Project VOC emissions from aechitectural coating application shall be reduced to 54 lbs./day or less through the implementation of any of the following measures or some combination thereof as required: Expand the Project finishing phase to include more work days (i.e., at least 70) for architectural coating application; Use architectural coatings with a lower VOC content than BAAQMD regulations require; and/or Use building components that have had their surfaces factoryfinished and so would reduce the need for on-site painting or finishing with VOC-containing materials. Prior to the beginning of Project construction, final plans shall be submitted for City approvals that demonstrate attainment of the BAAQMD 54 lbs. /day limit on VOC emissions during construction. Project Operational Impacts Air Pollutant Emissions The CalEEMod was also used to estimate emissions that would be associated with motor vehicles, energy use (i.e., space and water heating, etc.) and other sources (i.e., maintenance emissions, etc.) expected to occur after the Project is complete. (Emission model details and input assumptions are provided in Appendix A). Project estimated operational daily and annual emissions are presented in Tables III-3 and III-4 and are compared to BAAQMD s significance thresholds. Project operational emissions would be below the BAAQMD s significance thresholds and would be less than significant for CEQA purposes. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 27

30 TABLE III-3 PROJECT DAILY OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds per day) Emission Category ROG NOx PM 10 PM 2.5 Area 8.8 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Energy < < 0.1 < 0.1 Mobile Total Project Significance Thresholds Significant Impact? No No No No TABLE III-4 PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (tons per year) Emission Category ROG NOx PM 10 PM 2.5 Area 1.6 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Energy < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Mobile Total Project Significance Thresholds Significant Impact? No No No No Cumulative Emission Impacts Since Tables III-2 through III-4 show that Project-related emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds (for construction ROG emissions, with implementation of Mitigation Measure III-1), the Project would not make cumulatively considerable contributions to the Bay Area s regional problems with ozone or particulate matter. Thus, cumulative emission impacts would be less than significant. Carbon Monoxide Concentrations The BAAQMD has identified the following screening criteria for determining whether a project s motor vehicle CO emissions would likely cause ambient air quality standards to be exceeded: The Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways, the regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 28

31 The Project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per day. The Project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per day where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The additional traffic the Project generates would not have substantial effects on traffic flow locally or regionally and would not exceed either of the quantitative traffic volume thresholds specified above. Therefore, the Project s operational CO impacts would be less than significant. d. Sensitive Receptors - Less Than Significant Impact. The air quality analyses for this checklist item uses the methodologies and criteria recommended by the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to address health risks and hazards from exposures to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), especially to the TAC diesel particulate matter (DPM). Toxic Air Contaminants Significance Project-Level Risks and Hazards Project construction-related or operational emissions of TACs or PM 2.5 that impact sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site and exceed any of the thresholds listed below are considered significant: An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer (i.e. chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0. An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) for annual average PM 2.5 concentrations. Cumulative Risks and Hazards Cumulative impacts include the combined effects of either construction-related or operational project TACs and PM 2.5 sources plus TAC and PM 2.5 impacts from all freeways, state highways and high volume roadways (i.e., the latter defined as having traffic volumes of 10,000 vehicles or more per day or 1,000 trucks per day), plus TAC and PM 2.5 impacts from all BAAQMD-permitted stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the project site. TAC or PM 2.5 combined impacts to sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site that exceed any of the thresholds listed below are considered cumulatively significant: An excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million or a chronic non-cancer hazard index (from all local sources) greater than An incremental increase of greater than 0.8 μg/m3 for annual average PM 2.5 concentrations. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 29

32 Cancer Risk Cancer risk is the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to carcinogenic substances. Following HRA guidelines established by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the BAAQMD in Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, incremental cancer risks were calculated by applying established toxicity factors to modeled TAC concentrations (see Appendix A for details). Project Construction-Related Impacts Project construction TAC concentrations were estimated by the SCREEN3 model (EPA, 1995). The maximum cancer risk from Project construction DPM for the closest residential receptor (just south of the project site) would be 3.2 per million. Thus, the cancer risk due to Project construction activities would be below the BAAQMD threshold of ten per million for all local sensitive receptors and less than significant. Operational Impacts According to the project transportation analysis, there would be 646 daily motor vehicle trips associated with Project operation - about 30% of these trips would be by heavy-duty dieselpowered trucks. Each truck would enter/exit the site once per day and, after parking at one of the facility loading docks, its engines would be turned off within five minutes (which is required under California law for heavy-duty diesel trucks in the weight class 10,000 lbs. or greater). Incremental cancer risks from Project trucks were estimated from the DPM emissions from on-site truck idling and maneuvering activity by using the SCREEN3 model. The maximum cancer risk from Project truck DPM emissions at the closest residential receptor (just south of the Project site south boundary) would be 1.3 per million. Thus, the cancer risk due to Project trucking activities would be below the BAAQMD threshold of ten per million for all local sensitive receptors and less than significant. Non-Cancer Health Hazard Chronic adverse health impacts unrelated to cancer are measured against a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of the Project s incremental TAC exposure concentration to a published reference exposure level (REL) as determined by OEHHA. To compute the total HI, individual ratios or Hazard Quotients (HQs)) of each individual TAC are added to produce an overall HI. If the overall HI is greater than 1.0, then the impact is considered to be significant. The chronic REL for DPM as determined by OEHHA is 5 µg/m 3. Project Construction-Related Impacts The non-cancer HI from Project construction at the closest residential receptor, as estimated using SCREEN3, would be 0.08, well below the BAAQMD threshold of one, and less than significant. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 30

33 Operational Impacts The Project chronic HI would be < 0.01 from DPM emitted by project trucks as estimated by SCREEN3 at the closest residential receptors south of the project site. Thus, the chronic HI would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the Project impact would be less than significant. PM 2.5 Concentration Dispersion modeling also estimated the exposure of sensitive receptors to Project-related concentrations of PM 2.5. The BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines requires inclusion only of PM 2.5 exhaust emissions in this analysis (i.e., fugitive dust emissions are addressed under BAAQMD dust control measures and are required by law to be implemented during Project construction). Project Construction-Related Impacts The modeled maximum annual PM 2.5 concentration from Project construction at the closest residential receptor would be 0.42 µg/m3, which exceeds the Project-level CEQA threshold for PM 2.5. But with implementation of Mitigation Measure III-3, the Project s maximum annual PM 2.5 concentration increment would be reduced to 0.22 µg/m, 3 which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/m3 and less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure III-3: Additional controls are required to assure that the BAAQMD s DPM concentration threshold is met at all local residences. Accordingly the construction contractor shall implement the following BAAQMD Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures for Project construction equipment to further reduce construction-related exhaust emissions: Operational Impacts All off-road equipment greater than 25 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall meet the following requirements: o All such engines shall meet or exceed USEPA/CARB Tier 3 off-road emission standards; or o All such engines shall be retrofitted with a CARB Level 2 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS) device. The modeled maximum annual PM 2.5 concentration from Project truck DPM emissions as estimated by SCREEN3 at the closest residential receptor would be < 0.01 µg/m3, well below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 and less than significant. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 31

34 Cumulative Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Impacts The BAAQMD s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines methodology for determining cumulative health risk requires the tallying of health risk from permitted stationary sources, major roadways and any other identified substantial TAC sources within 1000 feet of a project site and then adding the effects from these individual sources to determine whether the BAAQMD s cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded. BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted stationary emissions sources throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and the Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool (May, 2012) for estimating health risks from the permitted sources. Two such permitted sources are located within 1,000 feet of the project site, as shown below in Table III-5. BAAQMD has also developed a geo-referenced database of major roadways in the Bay Area and the Highway Screening Analysis Tool (May 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from such roadways. There are no such major roadways near the project site. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also require the inclusion of surface streets within 1,000 feet of a project site with annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 10,000 or greater (BAAQMD, County Surface Street Screening Tables, May 2011.) Atlas Road does not meet this criterion. Table III-5 shows the cumulative cancer risks, hazard indexes, and PM 2.5 concentrations (in µg/m 3 ) impacting the closest existing residences from BAAQMD-permitted stationary sources near the project site. The cumulative cancer risk for residential uses adjacent to Atlas Road would be < 63.0 per million. Thus, the cumulative cancer risk is below the BAAQMD threshold of 100 per million and would be less than significant. The cumulative HI for the residential uses would be < 0.1, well below the BAAQMD threshold of 10. Thus, the cumulative hazard impact would be less than significant. The cumulative annual PM 2.5 concentrations for residential uses adjacent to Atlas Road would be < 0.23 µg/m 3, below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.8 µg/m 3. Thus, the cumulative PM 2.5 impact would be less than significant. e. Odors Less Than Significant Impact. The BAAQMD s significance criteria for odors are subjective and are based on the number of odor complaints generated by a project. Generally, the BAAQMD considers any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors to cause a significant impact. Project, dieselfueled construction equipment and freight-carrying trucks would generate some odors. However, these emissions typically dissipate substantially with distance from the source and, given that the closest loading docks are located several hundred feet from the nearest existing residential uses, would be unlikely to affect a substantial number of people. Thus, odor impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 32

35 TABLE III-5 CUMULATIVE TAC IMPACTS ON THE CLOSEDT EXISTING RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS TO THE PROJECT SITE Source # Facility Type Address Cancer Risk* Hazard Index* PM 2.5 Concentration* United Parcel 1601 Atlas Road Service (Emergency Generator) G8426 United Parcel 1600 Atlas Road Service (Fueling n/a Station) Project Emission Source Project Construction Project Operation 1.25 < 0.01 < 0.01 Total Cumulative Impacts Significance Thresholds Significant Impact? No No No * The BAAQMD stationary source cancer risks, hazard indexes, and PM 2.5 concentrations represent maximum TAC impacts at locations close to the sources. The BAAQMD also provides distance adjustment factors to estimate risks, hazards and concentrations at more distant locations. The two stationary sources listed above are all located on the UPS site, at least several hundred feet from the residential area to the south of the project site. At this distance, risks, hazards and concentrations due to each stationary source would decrease substantially from the tabulated values. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 33

36 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? g) Results in a conversation of Oak Woodlands that will have a significant effect on the environment Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 34

37 Background: A biological resources study was prepared for the site by Zander Associates (Zander Associates, Biological Resources Assessment Pinole Point Business Park, Final Phase, Richmond, CA, December 15, 2016, included as Appendix B to this Initial Study). This study included a field reconnaissance (conducted on November 17, 2016) and literature review for the purpose of identifying sensitive plant and wildlife species, sensitive habitats, and biological constraints potentially occurring on the Project site. The study found that the currently undeveloped site contains vegetation consisting of grasslands comprised primarily of non-native species with patches of native perennial bunch grass. There are scattered clusters of coyote brush and one eucalyptus tree on the site. Two small seasonal wetlands were mapped in the western portion of the project area in Neither feature provides habitat substantially different from the surrounding grasslands. Wildlife expected to use the project area include species typically found in grasslands or ruderal habitats. No special status plants or animals have been observed or are expected to occur in the project area. Migratory birds could nest in the eucalyptus tree on the site. The report is available for review at the Richmond Planning and Building Services Department. a. Effect on Protected Species No Impact. The project would result in the removal of approximately 26 acres of grassland vegetation consisting of mostly non-native species and result in the loss or displacement of wildlife typically associated with grassland/ruderal habitats. Non-native grassland communities are relatively common to the region and loss of this habitat is not considered significant unless it supports special status species. A list of special status species2 considered for potential to occur in the project area was generated through review of previous environmental documents prepared for the property, information available for Point Pinole Regional Shoreline, and a query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The list does not differ substantially from the species considered in the 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR, but some name and status changes have occurred since The change in status for many species warranted removal from consideration. The list of the species considered in this assessment and the CNDDB results are shown in the biological resources study (Zander Associates, 2016). Many of the species considered are associated with salt marsh or emergent wetland habitat and would therefore not be expected to be present in the project area. One plant species, Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia), is known to occur in coastal terrace prairie habitat and has been found historically within three miles of Point Pinole; although those locations have since been extirpated. This species is typically identifiable through October/November. It has not been observed on the Pinole Point Property in the past and no plants of, or similar to, this species were observed during the November 2016 site visit. Bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris) and fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea) are 2 Special Status Species include: plants and animals listed, proposed or candidates as threatened or endangered by USFWS; listed or proposed as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW; plants ranked 1A, 1B, 2A or 2B by CNPS; animals designated as Species of Special Concern by the CDFW. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 35

38 known to occur in grassland habitats but neither species was observed in the project area during a series of appropriately timed surveys conducted in Closest recorded occurrences of these species are over five miles away in the foothills around San Pablo Reservoir. Given the level of disturbance in the project area since 1991 and the distance of known occurrences, it is unlikely these species would have subsequently become established on the site. The freshwater lake was previously sampled for California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) (CRLF) and California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (CTS) with negative results. The 1992 EIR concluded that absence of CRLF and CTS was probably due to the distance from established populations of these two taxa and the presence of bullfrog, which are known to feed on CRLF and CTS larvae. Current CNDDB records indicate the closest CRLF and CTS occurrences are greater than four miles and ten miles from the project area, respectively, with dense urban development in between. Therefore, it is unlikely that either species would have subsequently become established in the project area. The lake does not provide suitable habitat for western pond turtle as there are no basking sites or haul out locations within or along the edges and no turtles have been observed in this area. The emergent wetland and riparian vegetation associated with the lake could provide habitat for tri-colored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) and salt marsh yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa); although the 1992 EIR determined neither species was likely to be present based on site-specific conditions. The grasslands provide potential habitat for California burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) but no owls or signs of owl use (e.g. burrows with pellets, bones, feathers) were observed in the project area during the November 2016 field survey and there are no historic occurrences in the vicinity. The monarch butterfly overwinters at several sites around the bay area, including Point Pinole Regional Park. The butterflies typically arrive in October and cluster in a stand of eucalyptus trees at the western edge of the park. These trees provide the butterflies shelter from the wind and rain. Although monarch butterflies themselves are not considered special status species, their colonies are usually protected because they are very site faithful. The eucalyptus tree in the project area was surveyed during the November site visit, which coincided with the butterfly s arrival to this area, and no colonies were observed. The tree is probably too isolated and exposed to provide suitable overwintering habitat for the monarch butterfly. In summary, no special status plant or animal species have been found or would be expected to occur in or depend on the habitat present in the project area. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any impacts on special status species. Therefore, the project would have no impact on special status species. b. Riparian or Other Habitats - Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The biological resources study did not identify any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities on the project site. No portion of the open water, emergent wetland or riparian habitats associated with the freshwater lake is included in the project area. Indirect effects on Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 36

39 wetland and riparian habitats associated with the freshwater lake to the west and the stormwater basin to the east could occur as a result of project-generated runoff. However, the project is required to comply with the C.3 requirements in the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Regional Permit and stormwater treatment areas have been incorporated into the project design to control runoff and trap pollutants before flow is released into the receiving water (see Mitigation Measure IX-1, in IX. Hydrology and Water Quality, below). These treatment areas would mitigate any potential effects from project-generated runoff on adjacent wetland habitats. Indirect effects on adjacent natural habitats could also occur with the introduction of non-native plants that may be incorporated into the project landscape palette. Species such as French broom (Genista monspessulana), acacia (Acacia spp), Pampas grass (Cortaderia spp), and artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus) are highly invasive and can compromise the integrity of native habitats. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR found potentially significant impacts to wildlife habitat, and identified Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(a) requiring retention of areas of important vegetative cover and wildlife habitat, Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(b) restricting removal of trees, Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(c) requiring preservation of buckeye trees, Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(d) requiring transplanting of native bunchgrass, Mitigation Measure 4.5-2(a) requiring buffers between development and Point Pinole Regional Shoreline, Mitigation Measure 4.5-2(c) requiring setbacks from salt marshes, and Mitigation Measure 4.5-2(d) requiring protection of the edges of the plant community (ecotone) between wetland and upland. With implementation of these mitigation measures, which are already required, and Mitigation Measure IV-1, below, the impact of the proposed project on wildlife habitat would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure IV-1: Native plant species shall be incorporated into the landscape palette to the extent practicable. Use of French broom (Genista monspessulana), acacia (Acacia spp), Pampas grass (Cortaderia spp), and artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus) and any species listed by the California Invasive Plant Council at shall be prohibited. c. Wetlands - Less than Significant Impact. Two seasonal wetlands were mapped in the western portion of the project area during preparation of the Removal Action Plan (RAP) for the former landfill. Both wetlands are linear features following topographic lows that outfall to the freshwater lake through culverts. The southern-most of these wetlands is at the bottom of a small man-made ravine and the other is within what was an old channel. Neither feature exhibits a scour line, matted vegetation, or other evidence that water flows through the area. The soils are mostly non-native, consisting of fill material or landfill debris and the vegetation is not distinct from the surrounding uplands, except near the culverts where some cattail (Typha latifolia), umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis) and bulrush (Scirpus acutus) are present. The areas together total 0.03 acre. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) claimed jurisdiction over these two wetland areas in 2012 (File No S). The southern wetland (1,073 sq. ft.) is within the area of the former landfill, and therefore would be removed during implementation of the RAP. The northern wetland (188 sq. ft.) would not be affected by the RAP or construction of other facilities for the project. The southern Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 37

40 wetland provides essentially the same habitat as the adjacent grasslands and does not support any species restricted to wetland areas. Nevertheless, since it is subject to Corps jurisdiction, removal of the wetland would be considered a potentially significant impact. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR also found potentially significant impacts to wetlands, and identified Mitigation Measure 4.5-3(a) requiring detailed plans, qualified oversight, and approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for wetland mitigation; Mitigation Measure 4.5-3(b) requiring control of project-generated stormwater runoff; Mitigation Measure 4.5-3(c) requiring City of Richmond approval of grading and erosion control plans; Mitigation Measure 4.5-3(d) requiring control of oil and sediment from project parking lots; and Mitigation Measure 4.5-3(e) requiring sweeping of parking lots. With implementation of these mitigation measures, which are already required, the impact of the proposed project on wetlands would be reduced to a less than significant level. d. Wildlife Corridors - Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any impacts to wildlife movement. The project is not expected to interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife in the area. Upon completion of grading for the RAP, the area adjacent to the freshwater lake would be revegetated with grassland and the development would be upslope and set back an average of 100 feet from the edge of the blackberry brambles associated with the lake. This would maintain an open corridor adjacent to the lake facilitating wildlife movement from surrounding residential and commercial areas out to San Pablo Bay. The property immediately east of the project area, which is approximately 15 acres and includes two stormwater basins with open grasslands in between, would be dedicated open space and would also continue to provide a movement corridor for wildlife in the area. The eucalyptus tree in the project area could provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors and other migratory birds. Active nests of these species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, and their eggs and nests. As used in the act, the term take is defined as meaning, to pursue, hunt, capture, collect, kill or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect or kill, unless the context otherwise requires. Most native bird species within the study area are covered by this act. The California Fish and Game Code also provides protection for certain species as listed in Section The eucalyptus tree in the southern portion of the project area would be removed to accommodate extension of Giant Road along the southern property boundary. The tree could provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors and other migratory birds. Removal of an active nest is not permitted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. However, once the nest is no longer active and the young have fledged, construction activities can proceed and the tree can be removed. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact of the proposed project on active nests, if present, to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure IV-2 Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 38

41 Within 15 days in advance of any tree removal, or ground-disturbing activity that will commence during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the eucalyptus tree in the project area. Pre-construction surveys are not required for construction activities scheduled to occur during the non-breeding season (August 31 through January 31). Construction activities commencing during the non-breeding season and continuing into the breeding season do not require surveys (as it is assumed that any breeding birds taking up nests would be acclimated to project-related activities already under way). Nests initiated during construction activities would be presumed to be unaffected by the activity, and a buffer zone around such nests would not be necessary. However, a nest initiated during construction cannot be moved or altered. If pre-construction surveys indicate that no nests of protected birds are present or that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied, no further action is required. If active nests of protected birds are found during the surveys, then avoidance procedures shall be developed in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Avoidance measures could include establishment of construction buffers (up to several hundred feet in the case of raptors), or seasonal avoidance. If buffers are established, a no disturbance zone shall be enforced around active nests for the duration of the breeding season or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged. Once the young have fledged, tree removal or construction activities within the buffer zone can resume. The size of the buffer zone shall take into account baseline noise and human disturbance levels at the site, screening between the nest and the construction area, and sensitivity of the identified nesting species. e. Local Policies/Ordinances - Less than Significant Impact. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR found potentially significant impacts to trees, and identified Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(b) restricting removal of trees, and Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(c) requiring preservation of buckeye trees. No local policies or ordinances affecting biological resources exist which would apply to the project. The impact of the proposed project on local policies and ordinances protection biological resources would be less than significant. f. Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan - No Impact. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any impacts to conservation plans. The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan because the site is not subject to any such plan and the project would not affect any such plan. There would be no impact on conservation plans. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 39

42 g) Oak Woodland Conversion No Impact. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any impacts to oak woodlands. There are no oak woodlands on the site that could be affected by the proposed project. There would be no impact on oak woodlands. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 40

43 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Background: The riparian areas of the shoreline of Point Pinole were used by the Huchium group of the Ohlone Native American people. The City of Richmond has mapped an area of prehistoric archaeological sensitivity along the shore of San Pablo Bay, and further areas were identified in the 1992 EIR for the Point Pinole Business Park (Baseline Environmental Consulting, 1992.) The zone identified by previous archaeological investigations is located north of the Union Pacific railroad tracks along the San Pablo Bay shoreline. A record search by the Northwest Information Center identified two shellmounds on or near the site of the 364-acre Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project. Data on these two sites is sparse and it is possible that the mapped locations were in error or that the sites were buried or destroyed by subsequent grading and development. Three subsequent archaeological surveys found no evidence of prehistoric activity on the Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project site. There are no buildings on the Phase III site. a. Historic Resources No Impact. There are no historic structures on the project site, and the project would have no impact on historical resources. b, d. Archaeological Resources and Human Remains Less than Significant. Although, as discussed above, there is no evidence of prehistoric archaeological resources on the project site, unknown subsurface resources could be affected by project grading and construction. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR found a similar impact, and identified Mitigation Measure , which requires, if archaeological materials are discovered during construction, cessation of work near the find and evaluation and recommendations for further action by a qualified archaeologist, and, if human remains are discovered, contacting the County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission in Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 41

44 compliance with state law. This measure also applies to the proposed project. Implementation of this mitigation measure, which is already required, would reduce the impact of the proposed project on archaeological resources and buried human remains to a less-than-significant level. c. Paleontological Resources - Less than Significant with Mitigation. A fossil locality search was performed on November 29, 2016, using the University of California, Museum of Paleontology s (UCMP) online locality search page. No recorded localities appeared in the project site vicinity. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any paleontological resources on the project site. While the likelihood of the project affecting any significant paleontological resources is low, a mitigation measure has been added to reduce the level of impact to less than significant, in the event that paleontological resources were encountered during the construction of the project. Mitigation Measure V-1: If paleontological resources are encountered during construction, all work shall be halted within a 50-foot radius of the findings and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to ascertain the nature of the discovery, the significance of the find, and provide proper management recommendations. Project personnel shall not collect paleontological resources found. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 42

45 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 California Geologic Survey 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Background: A draft geotechnical investigation was prepared for the project by Cornerstone Earth Group (November 18, 2016). The study included a site reconnaissance; review of prior studies performed at the site; subsurface exploration, including the drilling and sampling of six test borings to depths of 15 to 30 feet below the existing site grades; laboratory testing of selected soil samples; and engineering analyses. The report is summarized below and is Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 43

46 available for review at the City of Richmond, Planning and Building Services offices. A final geotechnical engineering study will be prepared prior to building permit approval. Soils The project site is underlain by the Orinda Formation, which is composed of poorly consolidated claystone, siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate, with layers of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. The Orinda Formation materials generally weather into clayey soils, which have high clay content and plasticity. These clayey soils have extremely high expansion potentials, meaning that they shrink and swell significantly in response to seasonal fluctuations in moisture content. The Orinda Formation is overlain by surficial deposits and manmade fills in various portions of the project site, as described in more detail below. In portions of the site, the Orinda Formation is overlain by recent Bay Mud and marsh deposits, which exist along the bayshore and older slough areas where natural drainage channels meet the bay. These deposits consist of soft, highly compressible organic silts and clays that are up to 30 feet thick and become thinner toward the edges of the old sloughs. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in recent and previous site investigations, at depths ranging from approximately 8 to 18 feet below current grades, corresponding to ground water between Elevation 7 and 17 feet (above mean sea level). All measurements were taken at the time or excavation and may not represent the stabilized levels that can be higher than the initial levels encountered. Capped Former Acid Pond Area A former acid waste pond, where land disposal of lead and zinc occurred, is located in the western portion of the Phase III site. (see Figure 9 - this acid waste pond, along with the former domestic landfill and undocumented fill areas discussed immediately below, are also discussed in VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, below). Remediation of the acid waste pond site in 1986 consisted of removal of liquid wastewater and disposal to the sewage system, and encapsulation of the remaining sludge with a clay cap over a soil foundation. Subsurface conditions in this area reportedly consist of 10 to 16 feet of engineered clay fill on top of the regulatory-approved cap over the former acid waste pond. The cap consists of a 1.5- to 2.5-foot thick bridging layer of crushed rock, 2 to 3 feet of clayey soil, a foundation layer of locally available clayey soils, a minimum 2-foot-thick low permeability clay barrier, and a vegetative cover. Beneath the fill-soil and clay cap overlying the former waste pond is 0 to 30 feet of highly compressible, organic silty clay known as Bay Mud. Beneath the Bay Mud are native soils and weathered rock of the Orinda Formation. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 44

47 Figure 9 Former Acid Pond, Landfill, Oil/Gas Wells, and Drilling Mud Pit Locations Source: Cornerstone Earth Group

48 Former Domestic Landfill In the western portion of the Phase III, between the freshwater lake west of the project site and the capped acid pond area described above, a domestic landfill operated from the mid- 1940s to early 1960s. Landfill debris, up to 14 feet thick overlying native soil, consists of metal and glass fragments, minor concrete debris, and traces of wood, paper, and plastics. The debris is capped by non-debris fill material varying from approximately 1 to 12 feet in thickness. Below the landfill debris is very stiff to hard, olive gray to dark gray, lean clays, with interbedded very dense silty sand with gravel. Undocumented Fill Areas Undocumented fill materials are located in several areas of the site, including the former landfill area discussed above, and around the two decommissioned oil/gas wells and adjacent drilling mud pit, located in the southwestern corner of the Phase III site. Below the undocumented fill, and areas of the site where no fill is present, subsurface explorations generally encountered stiff to hard lean clay and sandy clay with interbedded layers of medium dense to dense clayey to silty sand. Seismic Hazards Fault Rupture The project site does not lie with an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, as designated by the California Geologic Survey (formerly California Division of Mines and Geology) under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972). The closest such fault zone is the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault zone located approximately 3/4 mile southwest of the project site. However, the potential exists for fault related surface rupture at the site. Seismic Shaking The site is located in a seismically active region of California. Significant earthquakes in the Bay Area have been associated with movements along well-defined fault zones. Earthquakes occurring along any of a number of other Bay Area faults have the potential to produce strong ground shaking at the site. The primary seismic risks at the site are from earthquakes along the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault. This fault is considered historically active with several fault segments located within approximately 3/4 mile of the project site. Ground Failure Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of a water-saturated, cohesionless (sandy) soil into a viscous liquid during strong- to violent ground shaking. Liquefaction can result in loss of support for foundations from differential settlement or flow-related failures on sloping ground or where open faces (such as creek channels) are present (lateral spreading). The potential for liquefaction at a site is usually determined based on the results of a subsurface geotechnical investigation and the groundwater conditions beneath the site. The site is not Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 46

49 located within a State Designated Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction; however, the site is not currently mapped by the California Geologic Survey. The geotechnical report found that the site has the potential for localized liquefaction-induced settlements. In the area where subsurface borings were performed, several layers could potentially experience postliquefaction total settlement at the ground surface on the order of ½ inch or less. The site does not have, and is not adjacent to, any steep slopes, therefore landslide hazards are minimal. Discussion: a) i, ii, iii Fault Rupture, Ground Shaking, Ground Failure - Less than Significant with Mitigation. As described above, the site may be subject to fault rupture, liquefaction, and differential settlement. These processes may damage or destroy the buildings and infrastructure proposed for the site if those facilities are not properly designed or located. In addition, strong seismic shaking may damage even properly designed and constructed buildings and infrastructure, and result in injury or death to occupants from falling objects, gas line ruptures, and fires. These impacts are common to many sites near active faults in California. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR also found that the site area would be subject to settlement, seismically induced ground failure, and liquefaction, and identified Mitigation Measure which requires a geotechnical investigation to address settlement impacts, Mitigation Measure 4.2-5(a) which requires construction in accordance with California and local seismic requirements, Mitigation Measure 4.2-5(b) which requires procedures to address liquefaction potential and release of hazardous substances during seismic events, and Mitigation Measure 4.2-5(c) which requires measures to reduce non-structural hazards in buildings. These measures also apply to the proposed project. The preliminary geotechnical report for the project site includes conclusions and recommendations for design and construction of the proposed project. A design-level geotechnical report has not been prepared for the project site, but will be required by the City of Richmond prior to project approval. That report will specify a foundation system design intended to reduce the risk of major seismic shaking damage. Geotechnical and seismic design criteria would be required by the City of Richmond to conform to engineering recommendations in conformance to the seismic requirements of Zone 4 of the currently adopted Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (Title 24) additions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VI-1, below, along with the mitigation measures identified in the 1992 EIR, which are already required, would ensure that potential impacts related to seismic issues are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure VI-1: The applicant shall provide a design-level geotechnical report to the City prior to any building permit approvals. The project shall comply with all foundation and other design criteria described in the preliminary and final geotechnical investigation. That report shall provide detailed design criteria for the project foundations; these criteria shall be followed in project foundation design. The project geotechnical investigation Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 47

50 shall include recommendations that all structural, architectural, and mechanical details be designed to resist earthquake ground shaking, and those measures also shall be implemented in building and infrastructure design. a. iv. Landslides - Less than Significant. The project site is located on relatively level topography in an urbanized area. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify a significant landslide potential at the site. Landslide hazards to the project would be minimal and do not require further evaluation. Therefore, potential for landslides is considered less than significant. b. Soil Erosion - Less than Significant with Mitigation. Soil erosion hazards could occur during the preliminary stages of construction, especially during initial site grading and prior to surfacing the parking areas. Soil exposed by grading activities could be subject to erosion if exposed to heavy winds or rain. In addition to causing sedimentation problems in storm drain systems, rapid water erosion could undermine engineered soils beneath foundations and paved surfaces. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR also found that soil disturbance at the site area could lead to excessive erosion, but that mitigation measures were not required because construction at the site would be subject to the City s grading ordinance, which would reduce erosion to a less-than-significant level. The project applicant would be required by the City of Richmond, as a participant in the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program, to create and implement an erosion control plan prior to the start of grading activities. This would be included in the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which would be required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP would incorporate best management practices (BMPs) during construction activities to minimize soil erosion hazard during construction activities. Soil erosion and/or loss of topsoil during construction and grading activities would be a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure VI-2: As required by the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program and the San Francisco bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the applicant shall prepare and implement a SWPPP for the construction of the project. c. Unstable Soil - Less than Significant with Mitigation. As discussed in Item VI.ai i, ii, iii, above, the project site is subject to risks associated with differential settlement. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR also found that the site area would be subject to settlement, seismically-induced ground failure, and liquefaction, and identified Mitigation Measure which requires a geotechnical investigation to address settlement impacts, Mitigation Measure 4.2-5(a) which requires construction in accordance with California and local seismic requirements, Mitigation Measure 4.2-5(b) which requires procedures to address liquefaction potential and release of hazardous substances during seismic events, and Mitigation Measure 4.2-5(c) which requires measures to reduce nonstructural hazards in buildings. The project site is not subject to lateral spreading because it is not near, or adjacent to, an open face (i.e., the freshwater lake located west of the project Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 48

51 site). These measures also apply to the proposed project. Compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the 1992 EIR, which are already required, and the geotechnical report recommendations, as required by the City of Richmond and Mitigation Measure VI-1, would reduce the potential for unstable soils at the project site to create substantial risk to life or property to a less-than-significant level. d. Expansive Soil - Less than Significant with Mitigation. The surface and near-surface soils were determined to have extremely high expansion potentials. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR also found that building foundations and paved surfaces would be subject to damage due to expansive soils, and identified Mitigation Measure 4.2-4(a) which requires a geotechnical investigation to determine appropriate foundation design, or, as an alternative, Mitigation Measure 4.2-4(b) which requires removal of near-surface soils and replacement with engineered fill prior to construction. These measures also apply to the proposed project. This potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the mitigation measures identified in the 1992 EIR, which are already in force, along with site preparation, use of engineered fill, and foundation design as specified in the project geotechnical report, the implementation of which is specified in Mitigation Measure VI.1, above. e. Inadequate Soils for Disposal - No Impact. The project would not include the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and would therefore have no impact on soils related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 49

52 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Background Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as the driving force for global climate change. The primary GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and water vapor. While the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, CO2, CH4, and N2O are also emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within earth s atmosphere. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes. Greenhouse gases are typically reported in units of carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO2e). 3 There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and will continue to contribute to global warming. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity (California Climate Change Portal, accessed September, 2015.) California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimated that in 2011 California produced 448 million gross metric tons of CO 2 e, or about 535 million U.S. tons CARB found that transportation is the source of 37.6 percent of the state s GHG emissions, followed by industrial sources at 20.8 percent and electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-state) 3 Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently measured in carbon dioxide-equivalents, which present a weighted average based on each gas s heat absorption (or global warming ) potential. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 50

53 at 19.3 percent. Commercial and residential fuel use (primarily for heating) accounted for 10.1 percent of GHG emissions. (California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for by Category as Defined in the Scoping Plan, accessed September, 2014.) In the San Francisco Bay Area, fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) and the industrial and commercial sectors are the two largest sources of GHG emissions, each accounting for approximately 36 percent of the San Francisco Bay Area s 95.8 million metric tons of CO 2 e emitted in Electricity generation accounts for approximately 16 percent of the San Francisco Bay Area s GHG emissions followed by residential fuel usage at 7 percent, off-road equipment at 3 percent and agriculture at 1 percent. (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, accessed September, 2014; City of Richmond, 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, February 2009, accessed September, 2014.) The City of Richmond published a community-wide GHG emissions inventory for the year of The inventory attributed the largest sources of GHG emissions to commercial/industrial sources such as natural gas and electrical (87.8 percent) and transportation (8.7 percent). The City of Richmond emitted approximately 5,853,020 metric tons of CO 2 e in AB 32 and the California Air Resources Board 2008 Scoping Plan Assembly Bill 32 (Núñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006, required the CARB to lower GHG emissions to 1990 levels by a 25 percent reduction statewide, with mandatory caps for significant emissions sources. AB 32 directed CARB to develop discrete early actions to reduce GHG while also preparing a scoping plan (i.e., the Climate Change Scoping Plan) in order to identify how best to reach the 2020 limit. Motivated by AB 32, the CARB estimated statewide GHG emissions in 2020 under businessas-usual (BAU) conditions (i.e., a scenario where no GHG reduction measures are taken) and identified a 28.5 percent reduction in GHG from year 2020 BAU levels as necessary to achieve the targets of AB 32. CARB has since updated the BAU forecast to reflect conditions in light of the 2008 economic downturn and measures not previously considered in the Scoping Plan baseline inventory. The revised forecast shows that a 21.6 percent GHG reduction from 2020 BAU would be necessary. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), 4 the California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, the California Renewable 4 On December 29, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued several rulings in the federal lawsuits challenging the LCFS. One of the court s rulings preliminarily enjoins the CARB from enforcing the regulation during the pendency of the litigation. In January 2012, CARB appealed the decision and on April 23, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court granted CARB s motion for a stay of the injunction while it continues to consider CARB s appeal of the lower court s decision. In a separate case, on July 15, 2013, the Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 51

54 Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the motor vehicle corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures that would ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. California Green Building Standards Code On January 12, 2010, the State Building Standards Commission unanimously adopted updates to the California Green Building Standards Code, which went into effect on January 1, CALGreen is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial and school buildings. CALGreen does not prevent a local jurisdiction from adopting a more stringent code as state law provides methods for local enhancements. CALGreen recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances, and defers to them as the ruling guidance provided they provide a minimum 50 percent diversion requirement. CALGreen also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling infrastructure. State building code provides the minimum standard, which buildings need to meet in order to be certified for occupancy. Enforcement is generally through the local building official. The development of CALGreen is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. In short, CALGreen is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impacts during and after construction. CALGreen contains requirements for construction site selection, storm water control during construction, construction waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation conservation, and more. CALGreen provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. CALGreen also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems, like heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems, are functioning at their maximum efficiency. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), representing California's 35 local air districts, launched the CAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Exchange (GHG Rx)(CAPCOA, Greenhouse Gas Exchange, accessed September, 2014.) The Exchange provides a reliable, low-cost, secure platform to encourage locally generated, State of California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District issued its opinion in POET, LLC v. California Air Resources Board. The Court held that the LCFS would remain in effect and that the CARB can continue to implement and enforce the 2013 regulatory standards while it corrects certain aspects of the procedures by which the LCFS was originally adopted. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 52

55 high quality GHG emission reduction credits that can be used to meet CEQA or other compliance requirements. The GHG Rx features locally generated and properly validated GHG emission reduction credits from voluntary projects within California and allow interaction between those who create the credits, potential buyers and funding organizations. Bay Area Air Quality Management District The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for air quality regulation in the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. As part of their role in air quality regulation, BAAQMD has prepared CEQA air quality guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of proposed projects and plans. The guidelines provide procedures for evaluating potential air quality impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide CEQA thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from land use projects for the first time. The BAAQMD has not defined GHG thresholds from construction activities, but recommends that significance be determined in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction targets. OPR s amendments to the CEQA Guidelines as well as BAAQMD s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and thresholds of significance have been incorporated into the analysis of potential GHG impacts associated with the Project. Richmond General Plan 2030 Energy and Climate Change In January 2007, the City of Richmond signed onto the U.S. Mayor s Climate Protection Agreement, committing to reducing GHG emissions to meet or surpass the Kyoto Protocol targets of a 7 percent reduction from 1990 levels by Additionally, in September 2007, Richmond s City Council directed staff to develop a comprehensive policy to lead by example in the fight against global warming. On September 16, 2008, the City Council passed a resolution committing to the GHG emissions targets established by California s Global Warming Solutions Act, or Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). The City of Richmond is one of a handful of cities that have passed such resolutions. The Richmond General Plan 2030 Energy and Climate Change goals are listed as follows. Action items are outlined in relation to each of the goals that pertain to sustainability and are relevant to residential development projects (City of Richmond General Plan 2013). Goal EC1: Leadership in Managing Climate Change Take steps to address climate change and to manage its effects. This entails not only pursuing ground-breaking programs and innovative strategies, but educating residents and businesses about these actions and actively monitoring results to ensure progress in critical areas. Partner with other jurisdictions and organizations to develop effective regional solutions and regulation at regional, state and federal levels. Collaborate with residents, businesses, public agencies and neighboring jurisdictions, in order to meet or exceed state requirements for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 53

56 Goal EC2 Clean and Efficient Transportation Options Expand the City s green transportation network by encouraging the use of climatefriendly technology, planning growth around multiple modes of travel and reducing automobile reliance. In addition to promoting improved public transit, partner with private developers to undertake citywide improvements that make active modes of travel, such as walking and bicycling, more comfortable and preferable options. Goal EC3 Sustainable and Efficient Energy Systems Reduce the City s consumption of energy by encouraging energy conservation, and supporting the consumption of energy produced by climate-friendly technologies. Reduce the City s overall waste stream by reducing the City s consumption of goods and materials, and by adopting a zero-waste philosophy. Renewable Energy: Promote the generation, transmission and use of a range of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind power and waste energy to meet current and future demand and encourage new development and redevelopment projects to generate a portion of their energy needs through renewable sources. Energy Efficiency and Conservation: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure and equipment. Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling: Promote waste reduction and recycling to minimize materials that are processed in landfills. Water Conservation and Reuse: Promote water conservation and recycled water use. Implement water conservation efforts for households, businesses, industries and public infrastructure. Include measures such as the following: o Require low-flow appliances and fixtures in all new development in accordance with EBMUD Water Service Regulations. o Work with water providers and water conservation agencies to create an incentives program that encourages retrofitting existing development with low-flow water fixtures; o Require new development and landscaped public areas to utilize state-ofthe-art irrigation systems that reduce water consumption including graywater systems and rainwater catchment; o Encourage use of drought-tolerant and native vegetation; o Require new plantings be grouped by hydrozones of water needs listed in the WUCOL III developed by the Department of Water Resources and the University of California Cooperative Extension (or successor document); and Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 54

57 o Require development project approvals to include a finding that all feasible and cost-effective options for conservation and water reuse are incorporated into project design including graywater systems. Goal EC4 Sustainable Development Reduce energy consumption by promoting sustainable land uses and development patterns. Pursue infill development opportunities and encourage the construction of higher-density, mixed-use projects around existing public transit infrastructure, schools, parks, neighborhood-serving retail and other critical services. Incorporate ecologically sustainable practices and materials into new development, building retrofits and streetscape improvements. Infill Development: Promote infill development throughout the City, especially in the targeted redevelopment areas of Central Richmond and avoid the displacement of existing residents. Promote new development and redevelopment projects to provide community amenities and uses that serve priority community needs and retain the existing urban limit lines. Compact Walkable Neighborhoods and Livable Streets: Promote safe and walkable neighborhoods and inter-connected streets through the design of streetscapes, public gathering places and all types of physical development. Green Buildings and Landscaping: Require energy and resource efficient buildings and landscaping in all public and private development projects. Require that newly constructed or renovated City-owned and private buildings and structures comply with the City s adopted Green Building Ordinances (City of Richmond Municipal Code, Commercial and Residential Green Building Standards.) Green Infrastructure: Develop green infrastructure standards that rely on natural processes for storm water drainage, groundwater recharge and flood management. Goal EC5 Community Revitalization and Economic Development Transform Richmond into a healthy community where green industries and businesses can flourish. Support sustainable businesses and practices that provide both community and environmental benefits while stimulating job and revenue growth. Goal EC6 Climate-Resilient Communities While the impacts of climate change on local communities are uncertain, to the extent possible, prepare to respond to and protect residents and businesses from increased risks of natural disasters such as flooding or drought. Significance Thresholds The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify a project specific threshold of either a bright line threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO 2 e per year or an efficiency threshold of 4.6 Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 55

58 metric tons of CO 2 e per year per service population (i.e., the number of residents plus the number of employees associated with a new development) as resulting in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact. Alternatively, a project that is found to be consistent with a Qualified Climate Action Plan would have a less than significant impact to global climate change. This analysis applies the 1,100 metric tons of CO 2 e per year significance criterion while also reviewing the goals, policies, and measures within the Richmond Climate Action Plan. a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. CalEEMod was used to quantify GHG emissions associated with Project construction activities (for informational purposes), as well as long-term operations associated with natural gas space and water heating, electricity, landscape maintenance, and vehicles. CalEEMod incorporates local energy emission factors and mitigation measures based on the CAPCOA s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures and the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol. Estimated construction GHG emissions that would be associated with the Project are presented in Table VII-1. The estimated construction GHG emissions are metric tons of CO2e. Of note, there is no BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold for construction-related GHG emissions. Table VII-1 also provides the estimated Project operational GHG emissions. The GHG operational impacts would be about 1619 metric tons per year, which is above the BAAQMD threshold of 1100 metric tons and thus, significant, without mitigation. The Project applicant would be free to choose the type and effectiveness of each mitigation presented in Table VII-2 as long as the total GHG reduction effectiveness is great enough to achieve the BAAQMD threshold. TABLE VII-1 Project-Related Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source GHG CO 2 e Metric Tons Per Year Construction Operations Area Sources < 1.0 Energy Mobile Solid Waste Water Total Emissions BAAQMD Significance Threshold 1,100 Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 56

59 Emission Source Potentially Significant prior to mitigation? GHG CO 2 e Metric Tons Per Year Yes Mitigation Measure VII-1: Project GHG emissions from operational sources shall be reduced to 1100 metric tons per year (a reduction of about 519 metric tons from the Project annual emissions as estimated by CalEEMod, or as determined necessary based on a project-specific calculation) or less through the implementation of any combination of the following measures or some combination thereof as required. Install Solar Panels Generate renewable energy through installing solar panels on the roof offset GHG emissions from electricity generated by fossil-fuel-fired power plants. Purchase Electricity Through Marin Clean Energy (MCE) - Marin Clean Energy (MCE) is a Community Choice Aggregator under California law that provides lower-co 2 source electricity to area residents and business within their service area. MCE delivers power via PG&E, which continues to maintain the power transmission and distribution infrastructure, deliver electricity, and handle billing. The electricity MCE customers receive is deemed 50% to 100% renewable energy. Building Component Improvements Beyond Title 24 Requirements - Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. Provide improved windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems and other features that reduce energy consumption. High Efficiency Lighting- Reduce GHG emissions associated with energy consumption by installing high efficiency light bulbs. Solid Waste Diversion- Reduce GHG emissions by increasing waste diversion from landfills through recycling and composting. Implement Commuting Measures - Implement various commuting measures for project employees (e.g., providing a transit subsidy, implementing employee parking cash-out, charging for workplace parking, providing an employee vanpool/shuttle, providing a ride sharing program, etc.) Reduce Project Water Use Reduce water use and consequent GHG emissions through imposition of a Water Use Reduction Plan and/or installation of a more efficient water distribution/use system; Purchase GHG Offsets Purchase offsets from a carbon-offset registry such as the Climate Action Reserve (CAR) that provides carbon credits generated by the projects located close to the project within the BAAQMD jurisdiction. Prior to the beginning of Project construction, final plans shall be submitted for City approval that demonstrate attainment of the BAAQMD 1100 metric ton per year limit on GHG Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 57

60 emissions (by including a completed a table similar to Table VII-2 below, together with all supporting data and model calculations. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, Project GHG emissions would be less than significant. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 58

61 TABLE VII-2 - Sample Form: Project Mitigation of GHG Emissions Mitigation Measures Examples: Install Solar Panels Reduction Category Energy Estimated Reductions (MTCO 2 e/yr) Other Conditions/ Considerations Purchase Electricity from Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Making Improvement beyond Title 24 requirements High-Efficiency Lighting Waste Diversion Solid Waste High-efficiency water heaters Purchase Offsets Water Use GHG Offsets Commuting Measures Employee Commute GHG Emissions Total 519 Target 519 b. Conflict with an applicable plan Less than Significant Impact. The City of Richmond has been working toward the adoption of a Climate Action Plan regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City has established a baseline government and community-wide inventory of GHG emissions. The Project would result in a significant impact if it would be in conflict with AB 32 State goals and the goals, policies, and measures of the applicable Climate Action Plan for reducing GHG emissions. The assumption is that AB 32 and the Climate Action Plan will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing the cumulative GHG emissions statewide by The City and State have taken these measures, because no project individually could have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global concentration of GHG. Therefore, the Project has been reviewed relative to the AB 32 measures and Richmond General Plan 2030 Energy and Climate Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 59

62 Change and it has been determined that the Project would not conflict with the goals of AB 32 and the proposed Climate Action Plan. The principal State plan and policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is AB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles and the Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) are being implemented at the statewide level, and compliance at the specific plan or project level is not addressed. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with these plans and regulations. The regulations, plans, and polices adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions that are directly applicable to the Project include Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings and the Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code. The Project would be required to comply with Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code; the Project would be developed in compliance with the requirements of these regulations. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and thus would have no impact in this area. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 60

63 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 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? Background: The western portion of the project site has been historically used for multiple industrial purposes, including steel galvanizing and munitions operations, some of which have resulted in soil and water contamination at and near the site. These uses include a domestic Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 61

64 landfill that operated from the mid-1940s to early 1960s in the approximate area of the approximately 6-acre freshwater lake located west of the Phase III site, and two decommissioned oil/gas wells and an adjacent drilling mud pit, located in the southwestern corner of the Phase III site (see Figure 9). The former domestic landfill contains waste generally consisting of metal, glass fragments, minor concrete debris, and traces of wood, paper, and plastics. The primary contaminants of concern resulting from the landfill are heavy metals. The approximately 6-acre freshwater lake, and an adjacent approximately one-half acre freshwater pond, were constructed in the mid-1960s and overlie a majority of the former landfill. Contaminants of concern in the sediment consist of heavy metals, total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In the soil near the decommissioned oil/gas wells and drilling mud pit, contaminants of concern include total petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oil (TPHmo) and total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPHd). A former acid waste pond where land disposal of lead and zinc occurred is located in the western portion of the Phase III site. Remediation in 1986 of the acid waste pond site consisted of removal of liquid wastewater and disposal to the sewage system, and encapsulation of the remaining sludge with a clay cap over a soil foundation. In addition, the deed to the property was amended to prohibit construction of sensitive land uses (i.e., residential, schools, hospitals), ground water extraction, and disturbance of the engineered cap. Following remediation, the California Department of Health Services issued a Hazardous Waste Facility Post-Closure Permit in October Discussion: a. Hazardous Materials Transport - Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project would consist of general warehouse uses. Depending on the uses of the warehouses, small amounts of hazardous materials could be used and/or stored on the site. Project occupants would be required to comply with all Federal and State safety regulations relating to the transport, use, handling, disposal, and storage of hazardous materials and wastes, and businesses are required by law to ensure employee safety by identifying hazardous materials, and adequately training workers. Therefore, the hazards to the public would be minimized and the proposed project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or environment. Similarly, the 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR identified a potentially significant impact due to increased use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials as a result of the project, but found that compliance with existing regulations would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Construction activities would require the use of certain hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, and glues. Inadvertent release of large quantities of these materials into the environment could adversely impact soil, surface waters, or groundwater quality. On-site storage and/or use of large quantities of materials capable of impacting soil and groundwater would not typically be required for a project of the size and type proposed. In addition, any use of the site that involved use of substantial quantities of hazardous materials would require a Conditional Use Permit from the City, which would trigger additional environmental review. The potentially significant risk associated with hazardous materials used during Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 62

65 construction would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures V-2, above, and IX-2, in Section IX. Hydrology, below. b. Hazardous Emissions Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A Final Removal Action Plan for the Pinole Point Business Park Phase 3 was prepared for the project site by Cornerstone Earth Group, dated February 10, The Removal Action Plan (RAP) was approved by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board in a letter to the project sponsor dated March 15, The RAP considered the former domestic landfill, freshwater lake and pond decommissioned oil/gas wells, drilling mud pit, and capped waste pond, and identified Contaminants of Concern (COC) including heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons, as mentioned above. The RAP found that the sources of the COC are the domestic wastes from the former landfill and petroleum products related to the oil/gas wells and associated drilling mud pit. These wastes are relatively inert; heavy metals are relatively immobile and the residual petroleum hydrocarbons and PCBs also have low mobility in soil. Contaminant releases from the project site to San Pablo Bay have not been established, and soil-gas surveys indicated that landfill gases are insignificant. The RAP considered three removal action alternatives and recommended a Capping Alternative (which was approved by the Regional Water Quality Board in the letter mentioned above). The Capping Alternative consists of: No action within the Riparian Line (the Riparian Line encompasses the wetland area of the lake plus the adjacent area that is either inundated or saturated sufficiently to support wetland vegetation). Capping of landfill materials outside the Riparian Line with (1) a two-foot thick foundation layer; (2) overlain by a one-foot thick low permeability layer; and (3) overlain by either a one-foot thick vegetative layer or pavement section. In lieu of the vegetative layer or pavement section, commercial building(s) may be constructed outside of a 50-foot setback from the Riparian Line. Decommissioning the two oil/gas wells in accordance with California Department of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources regulations. Institutional controls consisting of a land-use covenant restricting site use in the capped landfill, freshwater lake and pond, and wetland areas, and a financial assurance plan to cover long-term operation and maintenance activities. Long-term monitoring including preparation of a site monitoring and postclosure maintenance plan, and performing groundwater and landfill gas monitoring per California Code of Regulations Title 27 requirements regarding waste disposal sites. As discussed in Project Description, above, a small area of wetland mitigation that is required to implement the RWQCB-approved remediation was not addressed in the RAP. This is because the most southwestern wetland will be removed as part of the RAP operations (see IV. Biological Resources, above, for discussion of mitigation measures that would be incorporated into the area disturbed by RAP operations). At the time this IS/MND Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 63

66 was prepared, the project sponsor was in the process of completing the application for the wetland mitigation, with implementation of the RAP to begin when the wetland mitigation is approved. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR identified potentially significant impacts due to soil and water contamination from historical steel galvanizing and munitions operations, buried hazardous materials from munitions operations, past and future releases of petroleum products, public exposure to hazardous materials from freight trains passing the site, public exposure to PCBs, and development in the vicinity of the capped acid pond. To mitigate these impacts, the 1992 EIR identified Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(a) requiring additional investigation and possible remediation at the capped acid pond, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(b) requiring assessment of sediment of the approximately 6-acre freshwater lake and possible remediation, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(c) requiring appropriate handling and disposal of lead waste and lead-contaminated soil encountered during project construction, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(d) requiring remediation of soil contaminated with heavy metals, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(e) requiring a Health and Safety Plan for project construction, Mitigation Measures 4.6-2(a) and 4.6-2(b) requiring a site reconnaissance for and assessment of materials remaining from munitions operations, Mitigation Measure requiring site-specific health and safety plans and possible remediation for construction near underground storage tanks, pipelines, and areas with known fuel releases, Mitigation Measure requiring safety buffer zones between railroads and developed areas, Mitigation Measure requiring investigation of oil-stained areas and possible remediation for PCBs, and Mitigation Measure requiring geotechnical evaluation prior to development over the capped acid pond. Approval of a Tentative Tract Map for the Pinole Point Business Park in 1999 included the requirement that the applicant provide for a trained consultant to monitor selected construction work and provide appropriate plans, training, and reporting if hazardous materials are encountered during construction. ll these measures also are applicable to the proposed project. Implementation of the above mitigation measures identified in the 1992 EIR, which are already required, along with the following mitigation measures, would ensure that potential impacts related to release of hazardous materials are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure VIII-1: Prior to any project approvals, the applicant shall ensure that the Final Removal Action Plan (RAP) for the Pinole Point Business Park Phase 3 prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group, dated February 10, 2013, is implemented, including obtaining the permits listed in the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board (RWQCB) letter of March 15, 2013 concurring with the RAP. Also prior to any project approvals, the applicant shall ensure that the wetland mitigation required by the RWQCB as part of the site remediation is permitted and implemented. Mitigation Measure VIII-2: Prior to any project approvals, the applicant shall obtain concurrence from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board (RWQCB) that the proposed project is consistent with Final Removal Action Plan (RAP) for the Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 64

67 Pinole Point Business Park Phase 3 prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group, dated February 10, c. Hazardous Materials Release - Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within approximately 1,000 feet of an elementary school. However, the project would consist of general warehouse uses and would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. As described above, small amounts of hazardous materials could be used and/or stored on the site. Project occupants would be required to comply with all Federal and State safety regulations relating to the transport, use, handling, disposal, and storage of hazardous materials and wastes, and businesses are required by law to ensure employee safety by identifying hazardous materials, and adequately training workers. Similarly, the 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR identified the potential for increased use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, but concluded that compliance with existing regulations would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the hazards to the public would be minimized and the proposed project would pose a less-than-significant hazard to existing and proposed schools. d. Hazardous Site List - Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project site is not on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section , commonly called the Cortese List. Based on a review of government lists of sites associated with hazardous materials, the 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR identified two sites on or near the proposed project site: 1. Bethlehem Steel Company, formerly located adjacent to the project site to the south: soil contaminated with lead and zinc by former steel galvanizing operations, and the capped acid waste pond on the project site. 2. United Parcel Service, currently located adjacent to the project site to the south: soil and groundwater contamination due to former underground storage tanks. As discussed in VIII.b, above, the Removal Action Plan considers contamination at the project site, including contamination that may be associated with the two listed sites above. Implementation of Mitigation Measures VIII-1 and VIII-2, above, along with mitigation measures identified in the 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR, which are already in force, would reduce hazards to the public and the environment from the two sites listed above to a less than significant level. e. Public Airport Hazards - No Impact. The closest public use airport to the project site is the Oakland International Airport, located in the city of Oakland, approximately seventeen miles southeast of the project site. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any impacts associated with airports. Therefore, no impact would result. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 65

68 f. Private Airport Hazards - No Impact. The closest private airstrip to the project site is Buchanan Field in Concord, approximately fifteen miles east of the project site. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any impacts associated with airports. Therefore, no impact would result. g. Emergency Response Plan - No Impact. The project would not interfere with any roadways or other emergency access-ways. Therefore, it would not establish any barrier that would interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any impacts associated with emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, no impact would result. h. Wildland Fires - No Impact. The project site is located in a built-out, urban area and is not intermixed or located adjacent to substantial areas of wildlands. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildland fires. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any impacts associated with wildland fires. Therefore, no impact would result. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 66

69 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 storm water 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? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 67

70 Background: The site is located on hummocky terrain near San Pablo Bay, with elevations ranging from approximately 14 feet to 41 feet above mean seal level. The site is located in the San Pablo Basin and the Garrity Watershed. The topography of the site is varied, but slopes generally to the north towards San Pablo Bay. The natural topography and drainage channel configurations of the area have been significantly altered by grading for industrial uses and roadways, as well as for remediation of soil and groundwater contamination on the site. Alterations include inversion of the natural topography at the location of the former acid waste pit, where the former stream valley was filled to form a low mound. Surface water is now directed around the capped pond area by a 54-inch storm drain located east of the former stream channel. A remnant man-made ditch, approximately 20 feet wide and five to eight feet deep, is located at the western edge of the site. (Cornerstone Earth Group, Draft Geotechnical Investigation, November 18, 2016.) The project site is not located in a 100-year or 500-year flood zone, but much of the area north of the Union Pacific railroad tracks, adjacent to the project to the north, is subject to flooding during the 100-year coastal flood. (City of Richmond, General Plan 2030, Map 7.1 Floodplains and Watersheds.) Discussion: a and f. Water Quality Standards Less than Significant with Mitigation. To address the issue of changes in surface water quality as a result of development and construction activities, the federal government implemented the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). NPDES is an amendment of the federal Clean Water Act from 1987 that mandates that each population center obtain a permit to discharge stormwater. The limits vary by category of industry and are based on a level of treatment that uses the best available technology. Additionally, the 1987 amendments required that municipal stormwater discharges obtain NPDES permit coverage, which, in effect, prohibited nonstormwater discharges into municipal storm drain systems and required the implementation of controls to reduce pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. Because the project would disturb more than one acre of land, storm water that would be discharged from the site during construction activity would be subject to regulation under the NPDES program. The California State Water Resources Board is responsible for establishing water quality standards statewide, and designates the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for regulation of discharges of wastes and runoff to San Francisco Bay, and as well as issuing permits for discharges of wastewater and runoff. Development projects, either during construction or from use, may result in a variety of types of pollution discharges in violation of water quality standards or requirements, depending on size, location, topography, nearby creeks and drainages, soil conditions, and connections to public water and sewer systems. Construction activity and final development characteristics of developments may result in violations of water quality standards or discharge requirements, and have adverse impacts on water quality. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 68

71 As discussed in VI. Geology and Soils, above, the project applicant would be required by the City of Richmond, as a participant in the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program, to create and implement an erosion control plan prior to the start of grading activities. This would be included in the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which would be required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP would incorporate best management practices (BMPs) during construction activities to minimize soil erosion hazard during construction activities. Construction Impacts Construction of the proposed project, as well as grading and excavation activities, may result in temporary impacts to surface water quality. Project grading and construction activities could affect the water quality of storm water surface runoff. Construction of the proposed buildings and paving of streets, sidewalks, and parking areas would also result in a disturbance to the underlying soils, thereby increasing the potential for sedimentation and erosion. When disturbance to underlying soils occurs, the surface runoff that flows across the site may contain sediments that are ultimately discharged into the storm drainage system. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR identified the potential for increased water contamination due to construction, and stipulated Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(a), which requires control of onsite water quality adequate for human health and safety; Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(2), which requires monitoring of effluent from the 54-inch drain on the site, and extension of the drain if necessary; Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a), which requires an erosion and sediment control plan; Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b), which requires monitoring of erosion control structures; and Mitigation Measure 4.3-4, which requires control of discharge of pumped groundwater from dewatering. These mitigation measures remain applicable to the proposed project. As described in Section VI., Geology and Soils, above, the project would be required to include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control construction stormwater quality. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VI-2, which requires a SWPPP (see VI.b, Geology and Soils, above), and the applicable mitigation measures identified in the 1992 EIR, listed above, which are already required, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Post-Construction Impacts After construction, runoff from the site could include oil and grease from project roadways, and herbicides and pesticides associated with landscaping. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Permit Number CAS612008) (MRP). Under provisions of the MRP, projects that add and/or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, or 5,000 square feet of uncovered parking area, are required to design and construct stormwater treatment controls to treat postconstruction stormwater runoff. Amendments to the MRP require all of the post-construction Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 69

72 runoff to be treated by using Low Impact Development (LID) treatment controls, such as biotreatment facilities. The MRP also identifies hydromodification management requirements. Projects must meet one of the following four options to show compliance with the Hydromodification Management Standard: (1) no net increase in impervious area, (2) implementation of hydrograph modification Integrated Management Practices, (3) estimated post-project runoff durations and peak flows do not exceed pre-project durations and peak flows, or (4) projected increases in runoff peaks and durations will not accelerate erosion of receiving stream reaches. The City of Richmond s Municipal Code requires new development that might result in the release of stormwater pollutants to undertake all practicable measures to reduce such pollutants and specifies building and design measures that reduce stormwater pollution. Detailed standards for the building construction within designated flood zones are also included. During construction, discharges of stockpiled fill materials or erosion of exposed soil into local storm drains and culverts during rainstorms could have adverse water quality impacts on San Pablo and San Francisco Bays. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR identified the potential for increased water contamination due to project operation, and stipulated Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(a), which requires control of onsite water quality adequate for human health and safety; Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(b), which requires measures to reduce contamination in runoff from the site; Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(c), which prohibits use of water-soluble, toxic, and persistent pesticides and requires regular sweeping of paved surfaces to control suspended and water-soluble substances; Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(2), which requires monitoring of flows from the 54-inch drain on the site, and extension of the drain if necessary; Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a), which requires an erosion and sediment control plan; and Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b), which requires monitoring of erosion control structures. These mitigation measures remain applicable to the proposed project. A Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) has been prepared for the project and submitted to the City for review. The SWCP is based on the principle of Low Impact Development (LID), a stormwater management approach that mimics a site's predevelopment hydrology by using design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, and detain runoff close to its source. The SWCP includes nine stormwater facilities (eight bioretention basins and one flowthrough planter, with a total area of 63,613 square feet) located throughout the project site. Stormwater runoff would be directed from impervious surfaces on the project site to nearby stormwater facilities, where contaminants and sediment would be filtered out before infiltrating into the groundwater. The SWCP includes periodic maintenance of all stormwater retention facilities, and periodic parking lot sweeping and trash interception/pickup. Implementation of the following mitigation measures, along with Mitigation Measure VI-2, above, and the mitigation measures identified in the 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 70

73 Development Project EIR, above, which are already required, would reduce impacts related to water quality to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure IX-1: For post-construction stormwater discharges, the project shall prepare and implement a C.3 Stormwater Control Plan, including ongoing maintenance of all stormwater retention facilities, and periodic parking lot sweeping and trash interception/pickup. b. Groundwater Supplies Less than Significant Impact. The project site would be served by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). The project site does not represent a major groundwater recharge resource, because of its small size and because it is mostly surrounded by development. The project is not expected to deplete groundwater supplies and would not substantially affect recharge or local groundwater table levels. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any impacts on groundwater supplies. Impacts on groundwater supplies would be less than significant. c, d, and e. Drainage - Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction of the proposed project would alter site drainage, and could result in erosion, siltation, flooding, or polluted runoff, or exceedance of the capacity of existing and planned drainage systems. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR identified the potential for increased stormwater runoff, and stipulated Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(a), which requires use of porous pavement wherever possible, and use of grass swales; Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(c) and 4.3-1(d), which require detention ponds; and Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(f), which requires maintenance of stormwater facilities. The 1992 EIR also identified the potential for increased urban contaminants, and stipulated Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(a), which requires control of onsite water quality adequate for human health and safety; Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(b), which requires measures to reduce contamination in runoff from the site; Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(c), which prohibits use of water-soluble, toxic, and persistent pesticides and requires regular sweeping of paved surfaces to control suspended and water-soluble substances; Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(2), which requires monitoring of effluent from the 54- inch drain on the site, and extension of the drain if necessary; Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a), which requires an erosion and sediment control plan; and Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b), which requires monitoring of erosion control structures. These mitigation measures remain applicable to the proposed project. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the 1992 EIR, above, which are already in force, along with Mitigation Measure VI-2, in Geology and Soils VI.b above, and Mitigation Measure IX-2, in Item IX.a and f above, would reduce the impacts on erosion, siltation, flooding, polluted runoff, and capacity of existing and planned drainage systems to a less-than-significant level. g. Housing within Flood Zone No Impact. The project does not propose any housing. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR does not identify any impacts on housing within a 100-year flood hazard zone. There would be no impact. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 71

74 h. Flooding No Impact. The project site is not located within the 100-year flood zone. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR does not identify any impacts on structures constructed within a 100-year flood hazard zone. There would be no impact. i. Dam failure Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the inundation area of the Briones and San Pablo Dams, which are located approximately six miles east of the project site. Due to the intervening distance between the two dams and the project site, it is not likely that any floodwaters would reach the site with enough speed or depth to cause property damage or personal injury. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR does not identify any flooding impacts associated with dam or levee failure. This impact would be less than significant. j. Tsunami, Seiche, or Mudflow - Less Than Significant Impact. The United States Geologic Service has estimated that the San Francisco Bay will experience a tsunami once every 200 years. A probable maximum tsunami wave of about 7.0 feet above Mean Sea Level (msl) Datum is estimated to occur at 500-year intervals. Any damage from tsunamis in the Richmond area is expected to be limited to the immediate shoreline area. The project site is not located in an area at risk from a tsunami (City of Richmond General Plan 2030.) The project site is also not susceptible to seiche impacts, due to its distance from the Bay. The Bay Area has not been adversely affected by seiches during its history. Inundation by mudflow is considered to be not probable due to the relatively flat topography of the project area. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR does not identify any impacts associated with seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, impacts from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be less than significant. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 72

75 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? Background: The project site is bounded to the north by the East Bay Regional Park District s Point Pinole Regional Shoreline Park and Union Pacific Railroad tracks (followed by San Pablo Bay). Immediately west of the project site are an approximately six-acre freshwater lake and an approximately 1.5-acre freshwater pond that were constructed in the mid-1960s. Farther west are other phases of the Pinole Point Business Park consisting of commercial office, research and warehouse land uses including Restoration Hardware, Bio-Rad Laboratories, and Whole Foods Market Distribution Center. South of the site are BNSF railroad tracks, a United Parcel Service facility, and a single-family residential area, Montalvin Manor. Immediately east of the site is undeveloped open space. Farther east are Montara Bay Park, Montalvin Park, and single-family residential uses. The project site is currently zoned as PA, Planned Area District, and has a General Plan Designation of Business/Light Industrial Discussion: a. Division of Community No Impact. The project proposes two industrial warehouses on an undeveloped site that is bounded to the north and south by railroad tracks, and located adjacent to existing industrial and commercial uses. The project would not physically divide an established community. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR does not identify any impacts associated with community division. There would be no impact. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 73

76 b. Plan Conflict Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be consistent with the site s Business/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation and base zoning district (Planned Area District). The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the proposed project (0.184) and height (32 feet) would be less than the maximum for the Business/Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation (FAR of 0.25 to 0.3 and height of 55 feet). The project would be consistent with the Industrial/Office Flex uses designated for the Phase III site in the Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project that was approved in Because it would have fewer buildings and less total floor area than was approved for the Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project, it would be consistent with the density of that Project. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR does not identify any conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations at the Phase III project site. The impact of consistency with plans and policies would be less than significant. c. Habitat Plan Conflict - No Impact. No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans apply to the project site. The 1992 EIR does not identify and conflicts with existing conservation plans. There would be no impact on such plans. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 74

77 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No 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? Background: There are no known mineral resources on the site. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Richmond General Plan does not identify any mineral resources in the vicinity of the project. Discussion: a. and b. Mineral Resources - No Impact. The site contains no known mineral resources. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR does not identify any impacts on mineral resources. There would be no impact from the Phase III project. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 75

78 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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-born vibration or ground-born 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? Background Noise is typically defined as unwanted sound. Noise levels that are generally considered acceptable or unacceptable can characterize various environments. Lower levels are expected in rural or suburban areas than what would be expected for commercial or industrial zones. The A-weighted decibel scale (dba) 5 is cited in most noise criteria. The most commonly used noise descriptors are the equivalent sound level over a given time 5 A decibel (db) is a unit of sound energy intensity. Sound waves, traveling outward from a source, exert a sound pressure level (commonly called sound level ) measured in db. An A-weighted decibel (dba) is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency response to the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 76

79 period (Leq) 6 ; average day-night 24-hour average sound level (Ldn) 7 ; and community noise equivalent level (CNEL) 8. Table Noise-1 identifies noise levels in decibels for common sounds. Table Noise-1 Typical Noise Levels Noise Level decibels (dba) 90+ Outdoor Activity Gas lawn mower at 3 feet, jet flyover at 1,000 feet Indoor Activity Rock Band Diesel truck at 50 feet Loud television at 3 feet Gas lawn mower at 100 feet, noisy urban area Garbage disposal at 3 feet, vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet Quiet urban daytime, traffic at 300 feet Large business office, dishwasher next room Quiet rural, suburban nighttime Concert hall (background), library, bedroom at night N/A Broadcast / recording studio 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: (modified from California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement, October 1998) The primary existing noise sources in the Project site s section of the Point Pinole Business Park are trains on the Union Pacific railroad tracks just to the south and noise produced at adjacent/nearby commercial/industrial uses. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project 6 The Equivalent Sound Level (L eq ) is a single value of a constant sound level for the same measurement period duration, which has sound energy equal to the time varying sound energy in the measurement period. 7 L dn is the day night average sound level that is equal to the 24 hour A weighted equivalent sound level with a ten decibel penalty applied to night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 8 CNEL is the average A weighted noise level during a 24 hour day, obtained by addition of five decibels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m., and an addition of a ten decibel penalty in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 77

80 site would be the existing residential area just across the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the south The noise section of the Public Safety and Noise Element of the City of Richmond General Plan seeks to ensure that noise levels are consistent with acceptable standards. The Element s Table 12.1 Noise Exposure Land Use Compatibility Standards sets thresholds of significance for these effects, using the State of California General Plan Guidelines. City of Richmond noise standards are also found in the City s Municipal Code Section The Code limits noise from industrial activities to 75 dba, as measured at the boundary of the district, which is a level not to be exceeded more than 30 minutes out of an hour. The code also limits noise from industrial activities to 65 dba, as measured at any boundary of Residential Zone, which is also a level not to be exceeded more than 40 minutes out of an hour. In addition, the maximum noise level, as measured in dba, not to be exceeded more than five minutes in any hour, between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., measured at any boundary of a Residential Zone is 50 or at the ambient noise level. Goal SN4 of the Public Safety and Noise Element is Acceptable Noise Levels and under Policy SN4.1 states: Noise Levels. Work with regulatory agencies to monitor and enforce noise standards in the community. Reduce or mitigate objectionable noise sources and require new noise sources to comply with noise standards. Regulate both indoor and outdoor noise levels to protect health and safety. Use a combination of noise standards and existing noise levels to determine impacts and mitigation measures. The City of Richmond Municipal Code Section , Temporary Construction Activity, requires that where technically and economically feasible mobile equipment shall not exceed 85 dba weekdays 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 70dBA on weekends, including legal holidays between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. For stationary construction equipment, the maximum sound levels shall be 70 dba weekdays, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 65 dba weekends, including legal holidays 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Municipal Code Section states that: It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation, firm or association to make, crate or continue, or cause, permit, maintain, or suffer to be made or continued, any loud, raucous, unnecessary, and unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area or that exceeds the maximum dba levels set forth herein or that violates any provision of this Chapter. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 78

81 Discussion: a, b, c. Exposure to Noise or Vibration from Permanent Sources Less than Significant with Mitigation. Operational Noise After construction, project operations could produce noise through movement by trucks transporting products to be warehoused at the site or shipped from the site and from loading/unloading activities at the Project buildings loading docks. The nearest sensitive receptors are the existing residential uses just south of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, which border the project site to its south. The primary Project postconstruction noise-producing activities would be truck movements and loading/unloading activities at the loading docks. But most of the Project loading docks would be located on the west, north and east sides of the larger Project warehouse building, which is located more than 500 feet from the closest residence. Trucks using the loading docks on the larger building s west and north sides would have the path of noise propagation from truck to residence blocked by the building structure itself. For trucks using the loading docks on the larger building s east side, their noise impact on the closest residential would be substantially attenuated by distance (i.e., more than 500 feet). Thus, noise impacts to the closest residential from on-site truck movements and loading/unloading activity would be less than significant. Vibration Ground-borne vibration can have a substantial impact when there is major construction within 25 feet of any building or 100 feet of a historic building (Caltrans, 2002 and Caltrans, 2004). The existing residential buildings south of the project site are located more than 100 feet away from closet locus of construction activity. Therefore, no significant impacts due to ground-borne vibration would result from the Project. d. Substantial Temporary Increase of Ambient Noise Levels Less Than Significant Impact. Construction Noise Project construction is expected to last about a year. This analysis assumes that construction would be limited to daytime hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Construction activities would require the use of numerous pieces of noise-generating equipment, such as excavating machinery (e.g., backhoes, bulldozers, excavators, trenchers, front loaders, etc.) Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 79

82 and other construction equipment (e.g., compactors, scrapers, graders, etc.). Construction worker traffic and construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along local haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. Construction activities would occur primarily during the daytime, increasing the ambient noise levels above existing conditions, which could be annoying to people at sensitive receptor locations in the area. The noise levels generated by construction equipment would vary greatly depending upon factors such as the type and specific model of the equipment, the operation being performed, the condition of the equipment and the prevailing wind direction. The maximum noise levels for various types of construction equipment that would be required to build the project are provided in Table XII-7 below, Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment. The maximum noise levels from most of the Project s construction equipment at 50 feet would be in the mid to high 80-dBA range. The highest noise levels associated with construction activities typically occur during ground excavation and finishing. Table XII-8 gives average typical construction activities noise levels at 50 feet for all construction phases. Table XII-7: Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment (L max ) Construction Equipment Noise Level (dba at 50 feet) Pile Driver 101 Dump Truck 88 Portable Air Compressor 81 Concrete Mixer (Truck) 85 Scraper 88 Pump 76 Jackhammer 88 Dozer 87 Paver 89 Generator 76 Backhoe 85 Notes: dba = A-weighted decibel; L max = maximum sound level Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006 Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 80

83 Table XII-8: Typical Construction Activities Noise Levels Construction Phase Noise Level (dba Leq) Ground Clearing 83 Excavation 88 Foundations 81 Erection 81 Finishing 88 Notes: Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase. dba = A-weighted decibel; Leq = equivalent sound level Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Legal Compilation, 1973 Construction activities associated with the Project would produce noise audible to the residents of the adjacent properties to the south. Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at a rate of 6.0 to 7.5 dba per doubling of distance from the source. Where topography or physical structures obstruct the line of sight from the noise-producing equipment to the receptor location, noise levels would be further reduced (generally by at least 5 dba). Construction of the Project would need to comply with the City s construction noise control regulations listed below. City of Richmond Construction Noise Regulations The City of Richmond s Municipal Code lists the following construction regulations: Excavation, grading, and earthwork construction operations shall be controlled to prevent nuisances to public and private ownerships because of noise and/or vibration. Grading operations located within 500 feet of residential occupancies shall be limited to the hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, or as approved by the Building Official, except that maintenance and service work on equipment may be performed until 9:00 p.m. Grading and pile driving operations within ¼ mile of residential units shall be limited to between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., or as otherwise restricted as part of an approval. Use of pile drivers, sources of impulsive sound and jackhammers shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays, except for emergencies or as approved in advance by the Building Official. All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited. All stationery noise-generating construction equipment such as tree grinders and air compressors are to be located as far as is practical from existing residences. Quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, are to be selected whenever possible. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 81

84 The Project would also be required to comply with the construction regulations included in the Richmond Municipal Code. This compliance would limit grading activities to the hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, or as approved by the City s Building Official, except that maintenance and service work on equipment may be performed until 9 p.m. All other construction activities would be limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday. However, even when restricted to the allowable construction hours, construction noise can still be a nuisance when conducted in close proximity to residential and commercial receptors. Therefore, the noise impact from construction would be considered a significant short-term impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure XII-1 would reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level. Mitigation Measure XII-1: The Project applicant shall implement technically and economically feasible measures construction noise control measures to reduce, as feasible, the noise levels generated by the use of construction equipment below the maximum noise level standards specified in Chapter of the City of Richmond Municipal Code. e. Public Airport Noise - No Impact. The closest public use airports to the project site are the Oakland International Airport, located in Oakland, approximately seventeen miles southeast of the project site and Buchanan Field in Concord, approximately fifteen miles east of the project site. Noise from those airports would not be audible at the site. Therefore, no impact would result. f. Private Airport Noise - No Impact. There are no private airstrips in the site vicinity. Therefore, no impact would result. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 82

85 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Background: The proposed project would construct two warehouse buildings, which would be consistent with the site s zoning and General Plan designations. No residences would be constructed as part of this project. The project would extend Giant Highway from its existing terminus at the southwestern corner of the project site, but this extension would end in a cul-de-sac on the site and would not create any new connections with the existing road network. Discussion: a. Population Growth - Less than Significant Impact. The project vicinity is a mostly developed industrial and residential area, already served by roads and other infrastructure. No residential units are proposed as part of the project. The project s warehouse buildings would accommodate an estimated 225 additional jobs. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR found that additional jobs would be created at the Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project site, but that this would be a beneficial impact because it would increase the ratio of jobs per employed resident in Richmond. The 1992 EIR does not identify any adverse impacts associated with additional jobs on the site. In any case, the number of new jobs on the Phase III project site would be small relative to the current number of unemployed residents within commuting distance of the project site. For these reasons, the project s effect on growth inducement would be less than significant. b, c. Displace Housing or People No Impact. The project site contains no housing, and the proposed project would not displace any housing or people. The 1992 EIR does not Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 83

86 identify any impacts associated with displacement of housing or residents. There would be no impact. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 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: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Background: Fire Protection: Fire protection services for the project site are provided by the Richmond Fire Department (RFD). The RFD has a staff of 93 sworn personnel and four non-sworn personnel who are responsible for emergency medical services, fire suppression, mitigation of disasters, and rescue activities (City of Richmond Fire Department, accessed December 2, 2016.) The closest station to the project site is Station No. 68 located at 2904 Hilltop Drive, approximately 1.5 miles south of the site. The City of Richmond also has mutual aid agreements for exchange of fire, rescue, and emergency medical services with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, the City of Pinole Fire Department, and the City of Rodeo-Hercules Fire Department. Police Protection: Police protection services for the project site are provided by the Richmond Police Department (RPD), which is headquartered at 1701 Regatta Boulevard. The RPD has 187 authorized sworn officers and 34 civilian personnel. Average response times in 2009 were 6 minutes and 43 seconds for Priority 1 calls and 14 minutes and 50 seconds for Priority 2 calls. 9 The RPD does not have response time standards or levels of service. 9 Priority 1 calls are in progress emergencies such as shootings, robberies, burglaries and assaults. Priority 2 calls are immediate emergencies, but not in progress, where the suspect is no longer present. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 84

87 The RPD headquarters is located approximately 5 miles south of the project site. The project site is located within the Northern District (one of three police districts in the city), and within Beat 8 of the Northern District. Schools: The school closest to the project site is Montalvin Manor Elementary School, located at 300 Christine Drive, unincorporated Contra Costa County, near the intersection of Richmond Parkway and San Pablo Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site. Manzanita Middle Charter School is located at 2925 Technology Court, in the City of Richmond, at the intersection of Richmond Parkway and San Pablo Avenue. Parks: The site is adjacent to East Bay Regional Park District s Point Pinole Regional Shoreline. The park is a large natural area with scenic, multi-use trails through meadows, eucalyptus woods, bluffs and beaches. Two smaller Contra Costa County parks, the fouracre Montara Bay Park Community Center and Ball Field Complex, and the seven-acre Montalvin Park, are located east of the site. Discussion: i) Fire Protection. Less than Significant Impact. The warehouse project would be located within the urban limits of Richmond within the existing service area of the RFD. The proposed project is not expected to add residents to Richmond. The project would not preclude the RFD from meeting its service goals. The RFD would be able to continue to provide fire protection to the site and would not be required to construct new facilities or physically alter existing stations to serve the site. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR found that there could be potential impacts to fire protection services, and identified Mitigation Measure which requires fire hydrants and appropriate fire access, and Mitigation Measure , which requires fire breaks between eucalyptus trees and structures. These mitigation measures remain applicable to the proposed project. Implementation of these measures, which are already required, would reduce impacts on fire protection to a less-than-significant level. ii) Police Protection. Less than Significant Impact. The warehouse project would be located within the urban limits of Richmond within the existing service area of the RPD. The project is not expected to substantially affect the Police Department s ability to provide service. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR found that there could be potential impacts to police protection services, and identified Mitigation Measure , which requires project design to provide personal and property safety in accordance with recommendations by the Richmond Police Department. This mitigation measure remains applicable to the proposed project. Implementation of this measure, which is already required, would reduce impacts on police protection to a less-than-significant level. iii) Schools. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would accommodate approximately 225 employees on-site. Most of these employees are anticipated to already be local residents, and therefore would not result in the need for new schools, require the construction of new school facilities, or compromise the service level of the school districts. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 85

88 The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any significant impacts to schools. For these reasons, the project s impact on schools would be less than significant. iv) Parks. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in the need for additional parks. As stated above, employees are likely to be hired from the area and the project is not expected to result in a significant number of people relocating to the service area. The project would include the dedication of a multi-purpose San Francisco Bay Trail segment along its northern boundary. A trail easement would be provided by the project, with maintenance to be provided by the East Bay Regional Parks District. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any significant impacts to parks. For these reasons, the project s impact on parks would be less than significant. v) Other public facilities. No Impact. The proposed project would not affect other public facilities by increasing demand beyond anticipated levels. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed- Use Development Project EIR did not identify any impacts to other public facilities. There would be no impact. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 86

89 XV. RECREATION: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? Background: The site is adjacent to East Bay Regional Park District s Point Pinole Regional Shoreline. The park is a large natural area with scenic, multi-use trails through meadows, eucalyptus woods, bluffs and beaches. Discussion: a. Increase Park Usage - Less than Significant Impact. The project is an industrial warehouse development in a mixed industrial and residential area. No residential units are proposed as part of the project. The estimated 225 additional project employees may add incrementally to the use of Point Pinole Regional Park and associated trails, which are adjacent to the project site, and the nearby Montalvin and Montara Bay Parks, but this would not cause substantial physical deterioration of these facilities. As discussed above, most of the project employees are likely to be existing residents of the area. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR did not identify any significant impacts to parks or recreation. For these reasons, the impact on parks would be less than significant. b. Impact of Project Recreational Facilities - Less than Significant Impact. The project would include provision of an easement and construction of a recreational trail segment adjacent to the site, for maintenance and management by the EBRPD. This trail would have less than significant impacts to the environment, as detailed in the technical analyses in this document. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 87

90 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND 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, bicycle paths and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service demands and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads/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 policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) Background: This discussion is based on a traffic study prepared for the Project by PHA Transportation Consultants (PHA Transportation Consultants, December 2016). That report is included as Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 88

91 Appendix C to this report, and is summarized herein. The project site plan indicated that access to and from the site is provided via Giant Highway, Giant Road, and Atlas Road. Giant Highway is two-lane arterial road providing access to the Business Park from the south. North of its intersection with Atlas Road, it becomes Giant Road, running alongside the eastern border of the property and terminates at the northern end of the Business Park. Atlas Road is a four-lane arterial road connecting Pinole Business Park and Richmond Parkway, and Interstate I-80. The intersection at the entrance to the Business Park is controlled by a four-way stop sign. An at-grade railroad crossing is located about 300 feet east of the intersection. Internal access to and from the warehouse site would be via an extension from Giant Road, which currently terminates at a Cul-de-Sac (see project site plan). The Pinole Point Business Park Master Plan Development in As shown in the Master Plan, the Business Park was planned to be developed in four phases. The approved uses include office, light industrial, warehouses, residential and open space. Table XVI-1 shows the type of land use, sizes, and estimated construction dates for various development phases as approved in The currently proposed warehouse project is part of the Phase III development, which was approved in 1992 for 470,000 square feet of light industrial/office flex space. The PHA study assessed whether the current proposal would generate more traffic than the previously approve Phase III development, and whether the mitigation measures required as part of the 1992 approval are adequate for the currently proposed project. Based on the PHA 2014 Steelscape Project traffic study, the intersections of Atlas Road and Giant Highway, and Richmond Parkway and Giant Highway Ramps, operate at LOS A and B, indicating that there are only short delays in these locations. The intersection of Atlas Road and the site access driveway also operates at LOS A since there is no traffic using the driveway currently, except a small amount of truck traffic associated with the demolition of the current industrial buildings. The two Richmond Parkway intersections at Atlas Road and San Pablo Avenue operate at LOS C and D. Traffic is heavier at those intersections than other study intersections since both are major arterial streets and must carry a large amount of commuter traffic. The Richmond Parkway intersection at Atlas Road operates adequately during both a.m. and p.m. peak periods. However, while traffic backs up from time to time at the San Pablo Avenue intersection, vehicle queues generally dissipated quickly. It should be noted that while all study intersections currently operate at acceptable conditions, the right-turn traffic movement from the shopping center to Richmond Parkway backs up frequently during the p.m. peak period. Adding a right-turn green arrow to the shopping center approach would help improve traffic operation. Field observation also indicated that there is a circulation problem in that area particularly during the p.m. peak period. Inbound traffic to the shopping center backs up to Richmond Parkway frequently due to the short spacing between Richmond Parkway and the internal intersection. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 89

92 Significance Criteria and Minimum LOS Standards Significance criteria are used to determine whether a project impact is considered significant and therefore required mitigation. A proposed development project is considered to have a significant impact on the environment if it would cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, or delay and congestion at intersections), or change the condition of an existing street (e.g., street closures, changing direction of travel) in a manner that would substantially impact access or traffic load and capacity of the street system. The City of Richmond does not have a Level-of-Service policy for vehicle traffic and intersection operation. For the purpose of this study, the following significant criteria were used in evaluating project impact on study intersections. These criteria are consistent with policies and standards established by Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and cities in Contra Costa County. If a signalized intersection is projected to operate within expected delay ranges (i.e., LOS D or better with an average control delay of equal to or less than 55 seconds per vehicle) without the project and the project is expected to cause the intersection to operate at an unacceptable LOS (E or F); If an intersection is projected to operate at or over capacity (i.e., LOS E or F) without the project, and the project is expected to increase the average control delay by more than 5 seconds; or If the operations of a non-signalized study intersection is projected to decline with the addition of Project traffic, and if the installation of a traffic signal based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Peak-Hour Signal Warrant (Warrant 3) would be warranted. In addition to the above local criteria, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has a broad set Significant Impact criteria and guidelines for evaluating development project impacts. Discussion: a. Conflict with an Applicable Plan Regarding Effectiveness of Circulation System - Less Than Significant; b. Conflict with an Applicable Congestion Management Program - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Traffic Impacts Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 90

93 The total of 363,000 square feet of new warehouse space, as proposed, would generate 1,292 daily trips, including 109 am and 116 pm peak-hour trips. By comparison, the 470,000 square feet light industrial use project previously approved for the overall Phase III site, and considered as part of the cumulative development scenario in the 2014 PHS Steelscape Project traffic study, would generate 3,276 daily trips, including 433 am and 456 pm peakhour trips. Therefore, the proposed Project would generate much less traffic than the previously approved light industrial use. Table XVI-1 presents a trip generation analysis summary for the previously approved light industrial use and the currently proposed warehouse. In view of its design characteristics, the proposed warehouse project may be a high-cube warehouse/distribution center 10, which would generate even fewer trips. As such, a trip generation analysis was also conducted for the high-cube warehouse/distribution center for comparison. Table XVI-1 Project Trip Generation Analysis ks F AM Peak- Hour Trips PM Peak- Hour Trips Average Daily Trips Ent Exi Land Use Ent Exi Ente Ex er t r it er t Light Industrial ( ITE 110) (Approved Previously) Warehousing ( ITE 150) (Currently Proposed) High Cube Warehouse/Distribution Center (ITE 152) Generally speaking, a high-cube warehouse is a building typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 91

94 ITE Trip Generation Manual (9 th Edition) Rates for warehouse (ITE 150): Weekday daily rate 3.56/kSF, 50% in, 50% out am peak hour rate 0.30/KSF, 79% in, 21% out pm peak hour rate, 032/KSF, 25% in, 75% out Rates for High-Cube Warehouse/Distribution Center (ITE 152): Weekday daily rate 0.68/kSF, 50% in, 50% out am peak hour rate 0.11/KSF, 69% in, 31% out pm peak hour rate 012/KSF, 31% in, 69 % out Rates for light Industrial (ITE 110): Weekday daily rate 6.97/kSF, 50% in, 50% out am peak hour rate 0.92/KSF, 88% in, 12% out pm peak hour rate 097/KSF, 12% in, 88 % out The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) also defines High-cube warehouses/distribution centers are those used for the storage of materials, goods, and merchandise prior to their distribution to retail outlets, distribution centers or warehouses. These facilities are typically characterized by ceiling heights of at least 24 feet with small employment counts due to a high level of mechanization. High-cube warehouses/distribution centers generally consist of large steel or masonry shell buildings and may be occupied by or multiple tenants. At any rate, the proposed project, be it a warehouse or high-cube warehouse/distribution center, will generate much fewer trips than the light industrial use approved previously. Since the proposed warehouse project would be smaller in size and would generate less traffic than the previously approved light industrial project on the same site. No additional mitigation is required other than those discussed in the 1992 EIR. The 1992 Pinole Point Business Park Master Plan EIR indicated significant impacts at various locations when the Pinole Point Business Park is fully developed under the cumulative 2030 condition. In 2014, PHA conducted a traffic study for a project at 2995 Atlas Road, a 707,000 square feet high-cube warehouse/distribution center also at the Pinole Business Park at the former steel scape site. The report indicated the all five of the study intersections operated at acceptable conditions LOS D or better (see Table XVI-2). The 707,000 square feet high cube warehouse/distribution center project would not create unacceptable traffic conditions under the project conditions and approved projects conditions. The approved project condition in the 2014 study included the current project. However, under cumulative conditions, two of the study intersections (Richmond Parkway and Atlas Road and San Pablo Avenue and Richmond Parkway) would experience significant impacts. These intersections are fully developed and there are no practical intersection improvements available, therefore PHA recommended a TDM program for mitigation. That measure also would apply to this project. The PHA recommended TDM program and the mitigation measures recommended in the 1992 Pinole Point Master Plan EIR are attached in the Appendix. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 92

95 Mitigation Measure XVI-1: The applicants shall implement TDM (Transportation Demand Management) Program for the project, as detailed in the PHA 2016 Transportation Study (Appendix C). TDM programs are aimed to reduce traffic congestion, fuel consumption and air pollution. A TDM program for the proposed Pinole Point Warehouse Project could include the following strategies: It is recommended that the project sponsor coordinate with other employers at the Pinole Point Business Park to jointly develop and run the TDM program for the benefit of the entire business park. c. Air Traffic Levels - No Impact. The Project would not 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. Therefore, there is no impact on air traffic from the Project. d. Hazards - Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not create any hazards due to design features on the adjacent street system. All of the proposed driveways would have adequate sight distance and are expected to operate at acceptable LOS C or better under project conditions and 2030 cumulative conditions. e. Emergency Access - Less Than Significant Impact. The project would use existing driveway on Atlas Road and would not create new access driveways. The existing driveway would provide adequate access to and the site and would operate at LOS A for project conditions and cumulative conditions and without sight distance restrictions. f. Adopted Plans Supporting Alternative Transportation - Less Than Significant Impact. AC Transit (Alameda and Contra Costa Transit) provides public transit services via Line 71 and 376 to the study area and surrounding cities. Line 71 runs between El Cerrito Plaza BART to Richmond Parkway Transit Center via Carlson Blvd., Richmond BART, Rumrill Blvd., Contra Costa College, Parchester Village, Giant Highway, Atlas Rd., and Richmond Parkway. From El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station, weekday service begins at 5:00 a.m. and ends at Richmond Parkway Transit Center about 8:00 p.m. From Richmond Transit Center, weekday service begins at 5:45 a.m. and ends at El Cerrito BART Station about 8:45 p.m. Services are provided at about 30-minute intervals. Line 376 is a non-commute hour line providing clockwise service El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station to Pinole Vista via Cutting Blvd., Richmond BART, North Richmond, Contra Costa College, Parchester Village, and Richmond Pkwy. It returns via Richmond Parkway Transit Center and Hilltop Mall. Service is provided at 30-minute intervals beginning about 8:20 a.m. and ending at about 3:55 p.m. Pedestrian facilities generally include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals and multiuse trails. In the vicinity of the project site, sidewalk is the only available pedestrian facility provided on Giant Highway along the Pinole Point Business Park frontage and along the entire length of the south side of Atlas Road between the project site and Richmond Parkway. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 93

96 Existing bicycle facilities near the project site include a Class I bike path on the south side of Atlas Road, running between a point east of the railroad crossing and Richmond Parkway. There are also bike path/trails within the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline, which is immediately to the northwest of the proposed project site. The project is required by the City of Richmond Zoning Ordinance to include at least 15 short-term and 15 long-term bicycle parking spaces on the site for employees to encourage bicycle use. The project would not conflict with city policies supporting alternative transportation. The proposed project would not affect existing sidewalks and bus stops near the project site. The impact to alternative transportation plans would be less than significant. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 94

97 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 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? Background: The project is within an urban area already served by existing public services, as summarized below. Wastewater Wastewater from the project area is treated at the West County Wastewater District s Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) at 2377 Garden Tract Road in Richmond. Wastewater Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 95

98 treatment facilities such as the WWTP have a permit to discharge their wastewater. Pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act and California s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates wastewater discharges to surface waters, such as the San Francisco Bay, through a NPDES program. The RWQCB also requires waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for some discharges in addition to NPDES permits. Wastewater permits contain specific requirements that limit the pollutants in discharges. As required by the RWQCB, the WPCP monitors its wastewater to ensure that it meets all requirements. The RWQCB routinely inspects treatment facilities to ensure permit requirements are met. Water Water service to the project site is provided by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD), which has water rights to the Mokelumne River that allow for delivery of up to 325 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water. EBMUD also operates five terminal reservoirs in its service area, which contribute between 15 to 25 mgd during normal hydrological years. The Water Supply Management Program 2040 (WSMP 2040) projects water demand in the EBMUD service area to increase from 214 mgd in 2005 to 230 mgd in The WSMP 2040 meets projected growth in demand through aggressive water conservation and recycled water development, and lowers customer rationing burdens during an extended drought from the District s current policies through development of new supplemental water supply initiatives. Multiple water projects are now underway that will expand EBMUD capacity for dry years. EBMUD also provides tertiary-treated wastewater, or recycled water, in the City of Richmond and throughout the East Bay. Stormwater The City of Richmond owns and manages most storm drains in the project area and ensures that they are designed and constructed to meet existing and projected needs for the area to avoid flooding. There is a 54-inch storm drain that passes from south to north through the center of the site, which directs surface water around the capped former acid pond on the site. Solid Waste The City of Richmond is part of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA), now known as RecycleMore. Solid waste and recycling collection services in the project area are provided by Richmond Sanitary Services, an affiliate of Republic Services, Inc. Much of the garbage from the City is sent to the Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County via the Golden Bear Transfer Station, located at the end of Parr Boulevard approximately three miles southwest of the project site. As needed, RecycleMore also sends solid waste to landfills throughout the greater San Francisco Bay region including Newby Island Sanitary Landfill in Milpitas and the Altamont Landfill in Livermore. The 11 City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan 2030 Final Environmental Impact Report, August 2011, page Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 96

99 Potrero Hills Landfill has a permitted capacity of 4,330 tons/day and a total permitted capacity of 83.1 million cubic yards. The landfill has an estimated life of 31 years, after a recently concluded approval process for an expansion. (Approval of the expansion was the subject of litigation that was recently resolved in favor of the expansion. 12 ) According to the Richmond General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan would produce 55,796 tons of solid waste in 2030, an increase of 12,662 tons over 2005 levels. Discussion: a. Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements - Less than Significant Impact. The project buildings would be developed as warehouses. Sewage from the proposed project would be treated at the WPCP in accordance with their existing NPDES permit. The sewage generated by the project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, due to compliance with regulations. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR identified the potential for increased wastewater collection and treatment, and stipulated Mitigation Measure , which requires sanitary sewer systems to be designed in accordance with West County Wastewater District requirements. This mitigation measure remains applicable to the proposed project. Implementation of this mitigation measure, which is already required, would reduce impacts related to water quality to a less-than-significant level. b. Required New Water or Wastewater Treatment Facility - Less than Significant Impact. The proposed warehouse buildings would be less water-intensive than most buildings, and their water-using facilities, such as bathrooms, would be required to meet current water conservation requirements. The project s landscaping would comply with the California Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO, California Government Code 65595). Water use of the proposed project would not require construction or expansion of water treatment facilities. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR identified the potential for increased water demand, and stipulated Mitigation Measure (a), which requires coordination of pipeline improvements with EBMUD; Mitigation Measure (b), which requires use of reclaimed water to be considered; Mitigation Measure (c), which requires incorporation of water conservation measures in project design; and Mitigation Measure (d), which requires improvements to the water distribution system as needed. These mitigation measures remain applicable to the proposed project. The small quantity of additional wastewater from the project would not exceed the capacity of the existing wastewater treatment facility, or require new or expanded wastewater 12 The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission granted a marsh permit for the landfill in 2010 due to its proximity to the Suisan Marsh. A subsequent trial court order vacating the landfill s permit was reversed by the appeals court on April 29, 2014, allowing the expansion to proceed. See SPRAWLDEF v. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission, Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist., 04/29/2014, available at: Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 97

100 treatment facilities. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR identified the potential for increased wastewater collection and treatment, and stipulated Mitigation Measure , which requires sanitary sewer systems to be designed in accordance with West County Wastewater District requirements. This mitigation measure remains applicable to the proposed project. Implementation of the mitigation measures for water supply and wastewater identified above, which are already in force, would reduce impacts related to water supply and wastewater facilities to a less-than-significant level. c. New Stormwater Facilities - Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The City of Richmond owns and manages most storm drains in the project area and ensures that they are designed and constructed to meet existing and projected needs for the area to avoid flooding. As discussed in Items IX.c, d, and e, above, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(a), 4.3-1(c), 4.3-1(d), and 4.3-1(f) identified in the 1992 EIR, which are already in force, along with Mitigation Measure VI-2, in Geology and Soils VI.b above, and Mitigation Measure IX-2, in Item IX.a and f above, would reduce runoff from the site such that new or existing drainage facilities would not be required. This impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level. d. Water Supplies - Less than Significant Impact. The proposed warehouses would be less water-intensive than most buildings, and their water-using facilities, such as bathrooms, would be required to meet or exceed current water conservation requirements. The project s landscape plans would comply with the California Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO, California Government Code 65595). As discussed above, EBMUD would provide water service for the site and would have adequate capacity to serve projected development (which includes the proposed project). The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR identified the potential for increased water demand, and stipulated Mitigation Measure (a), which requires coordination of pipeline improvements with EBMUD; Mitigation Measure (b), which requires use of reclaimed water to be considered; Mitigation Measure (c), which requires incorporation of water conservation measures in project design; and Mitigation Measure (d), which requires improvements to the water distribution system as needed. These mitigation measures remain applicable to the proposed project. Implementation of these mitigation measures, which are already required, would reduce the impact on water supplies to a less than significant. e. Wastewater Service - Less than Significant Impact. Project buildings would be required to meet current water conservation requirements. Wastewater flows from project restrooms would be very small relative to total existing flows to, and capacity of, the wastewater treatment facility. As discussed above, the project is not expected to exceed the capacity of the treatment facility. This impact would be less than significant. f. Landfill Capacity Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Potrero Hills Landfill serving the project site has a permitted capacity of 4,330 tons/day and a total permitted capacity of 83.1 million cubic yards. The landfill has an estimated life of 31 years, after a recently concluded approval process for an expansion. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 98

101 According to the Richmond General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan would produce 55,796 tons of solid waste in 2030, an increase of 12,662 tons over 2005 levels. Using the General Plan solid waste generation rate of 0.42 tons of solid waste per resident per year and an estimated on-site population of 225 employees, the proposed project would generate approximately 95 tons of waste per year (City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan 2030, FEIR.) The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan, which found that the Bay Area landfills have adequate capacity to meet the City s increasing demand for solid waste facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would be served by a landfill with adequate capacity. Projections of growth in solid waste disposal at Potrero Hills Landfill include future waste generated in the City of Richmond. Although solid waste generated by the construction and operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the total quantities disposed, landfill disposal capacity is a diminishing resource that is difficult and expensive to expand or develop at new sites, and project-generated waste would contribute to the exhaustion of the capacity of the Potrero Hills Landfill and/or other regional landfills. Furthermore, the City of Richmond, as are all jurisdictions in California, is legally obligated to divert 50 percent of the waste stream from disposal. This would be a potentially significant impact on landfill capacity. The 1992 Point Pinole Mixed-Use Development Project EIR identified the potential for increased generation of solid waste, and stipulated Mitigation Measure , which requires recycling programs for all site uses. This measure remains applicable to the proposed project. Implementation of this mitigation measure, which is already required, in addition to Mitigation Measure XVII-1 below, would reduce impacts on landfill capacity to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure XVII-1: Recycling Plan for Construction: Prior to the initiation of project construction, the project sponsor shall prepare a recycling plan to cover all phases of project construction. The recycling plan shall identify a strategy for handling all waste materials that will be generated during construction, in order to divert a minimum of 50 percent by weight. The project sponsor shall provide a summary report of the diversion to the City. g. Solid Waste Statutes and Regulations - Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project site is served by existing RecycleMore waste and recycling collection services. The proposed project would be required to comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to solid waste. The 1992 EIR does not identify any impacts associated with solid waste statutes and regulations. Implementation of Mitigation Measure XVII-1, above, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 99

102 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As discussed in the Biology Section of this document, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce the impacts to biological resources and unidentified cultural resources to a less-thansignificant level. b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Cumulative impacts of the project and other planned, approved, or reasonably foreseeable projects have been assessed in this Initial Study. Based on information provided by City staff, there is one previously approved but not yet constructed project, Atlas Industrial Building (Steelscape) Project, located at 2995 Atlas Road, at the corner of Atlas Road and Giant Road, approximately one-half mile west of the proposed project. The project is a one-story, 707,820 square-feet building on a forty-one acre site, along with 159,000 square feet of outdoor loading areas and 427 parking spaces. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 100

103 As discussed in Project Description and VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, above, a separately permitted Removal Action Plan (RAP) was approved for the site. At the time this Initial Study was prepared, implementation of the RAP was awaiting permits for a small area of wetland restoration that is required before the RAP can be implemented. The project would contribute incrementally to cumulative air pollutant emissions, traffic, and noise. Project-related air quality emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction ROG emissions, with implementation of Mitigation Measure III- 1) and the Project would not make cumulatively considerable contributions to the Bay Area s regional problems with ozone or particulate matter. Thus, by complying with the regional air quality plan, cumulative air quality emission impacts of the project would be less than significant. The traffic analysis results indicated that two of the study intersections would operate at LOS F by 2030 due to region wide growth projections Richmond Parkway/Atlas Road in the p.m. peak time period and San Pablo Avenue/Richmond Parkway at a.m. and p.m. peak time periods. No street or intersection improvements are available that would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, therefore any mitigation would need to incorporate improved transportation system management, public transportation service to the area, and changes in traffic generation/peak hour roadway usage that would reduce peak-hour traffic at these two intersections. A mitigation measure (XVI-1) was identified that would reduce this cumulative impact to less than significant. As an industrial use proposed within a mostly industrial area, the project would have a lessthan-significant impact on increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Temporary construction noise would be mitigated to less than significant. The project is not expected to cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Trucks from the project would add incrementally to traffic noise on Atlas Road and Giant Highway; however, the project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Houses that could be subject to truck noise are located at least 500 feet from the nearest loading docks. When truck traffic amounts are combined from this project, existing traffic, and proposed industrial-related truck trips, noise impact thresholds for sensitive receptors along roadways are not expected to be exceeded. The project would not result in cumulatively considerable noise impacts and, therefore, no significant cumulative noise impacts are expected. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As discussed in Section VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project would follow all laws and regulations involving the use and transport of hazardous materials and would not cause potential health risks to the public. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce the impacts of Hazards and Hazardous Materials to a less-than-significant level. Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 101

104 E. REPORT PREPARERS City of Richmond Jonelyn Whales, Senior Planner Grassetti Environmental Consulting, Inc. Richard Grassetti, Principal Michael Kent, Environmental Planner Pang Ho Associates, Traffic Consultant Geoff Hornek, Air Quality Consultant Rich Denney, Graphic Consultant Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 102

105 F. REFERENCES Publications: Baseline Environmental Consulting, Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project Environmental Impact Report, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Climatology Bay-Area/Bay-Area-Climatology.aspx, October 4, 2010., Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Base Year 2007, Updated: February 2010, 20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/regionalinventory2007_2_10.ashx, accessed September, 2014., California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May, 2011 (Revised)., Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries, Area/Air-Quality-Summaries.aspx, 2014., County Surface Street Screening Tables, May California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Greenhouse Gas Exchange, accessed September, California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for by Category as Defined in the Scoping Plan, accessed September, California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highways Program, accessed November 29, 2016). Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations, prepared by the Division of Environmental Analysis, Office of Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management, Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, Prepared by Jones & Stokes, Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 103

106 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping Program, California Important Farmland Finder, accessed November 29, California Climate Change Portal. Frequently Asked Questions about Global Climate Change. Available Online at: California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, accessed December 1, CalRecycle, Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress Report, 2012, accessed June 20, 2014., waste diversion rate, Detail.aspx?JurisdictionID=568&Year=2006, accessed September, City of Richmond, Commercial and Residential Green Building Standards, 16_Richmond_Green_Building_Ordinance.pdf., Fire Department accessed December 2, 2016., General Plan 2030, Map 7.1 Floodplains and Watersheds., General Plan 2030 Energy and Climate Change, General Plan 2030, Map 12.5 Tsunami Inundation Zone. General Plan 2030 Final Environmental Impact Report, August 2011., Municipal Code Section , Noise Standards., Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, February 2, 2012., 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, February 2009, accessed September, Climate Action Reserve, accessed September, Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 104

107 Cornerstone Earth Group, Final Removal Action Plan, Pinole Point Business Park Phase 3, Former Landfill, Richmond, California, November 18, Cornerstone Earth Group, Geotechnical Investigation, Giant Road Warehouse, Terminus of Giant Road, Richmond, California, November 18, Keith E. Robertson, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Letter to Bruce Carrier, Pinole Point Properties, Subject: Concurrence with the Final Removal Action Plan for the Pinole Point Business Park Phase 3 Former Landfill, Richmond, Contra Costa County, March 15, Milani & Associates, Draft Stormwater Control Plan, APN & 46, November PHA Transportation Consultants (2014), Atlas Road Warehouse/Distribution Center Traffic Impact Study, for City of Richmond, September PHA Transportation Consultants (2016), Letter Report to Richard Grassetti, Grassetti Environmental Consulting, Re: Proposed Pinole Point Business Park Warehouse, December 16, PG&E-MCE Joint Rate Comparisons. E-20S/COM-20S, unitychoiceaggregation/mce_rateclasscomparison.pdf), accessed September, University of California at Berkeley, Renewable & Appropriate Energy Laboratory, accessed September West County Wastewater District, District Wide Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, August Zander Associates, Biological Resources Assessment Pinole Point Business Park, Final Phase, Richmond, CA, December 15, Persons Referenced: Ms. Jonelyn Whales, Senior Planner, Planning Department, City of Richmond, Various Communications, November/December, Revised Phase III of the Point Pinole Mixed Use Development Project 105

108 Appendix A: Air Quality Calculations Revised Phase III of the Pinole PoInt Mixed Use Development Project 107

109 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 1 of 3 Pinole Point Phase III - Contra Costa County, Summary Report Pinole Point Phase III Contra Costa, Summary Report Date: 12/15/2016 3:23 PM 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail sqft , Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58 Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2018 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (lb/mwhr) CH4 Intensity (lb/mwhr) N2O Intensity (lb/mwhr) User Entered Comments Only CalEEMod defaults were used. Project Characteristics - Land Use Peak Daily Emissions Peak Daily Construction Emissions Peak Daily Construction Emissions

110 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 2 of 3 Pinole Point Phase III - Contra Costa County, Summary Report Date: 12/15/2016 3:23 PM Unmitigated Mitigated ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Year Phase lb/day 2018 Architectural Coating W W S e-003 S S S W W S e-003 S S S 2017 Building Construction W W S S W W W W S S W W 2018 Building Construction W W S S W W W W S S W W 2017 Demolition W W S S S S W W S S S S 2017 Grading W W S S S S W W S S S S 2018 Paving W W S S S S W W S S S S 2017 Site Preparation W W S S S S W W S S S S Peak Daily Total W W S S S S W W S S S S Air District Threshold Exceed Significance? Peak Daily Operational Emissions Peak Daily Operational Emissions Unmitigated Mitigated ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Operational Activity lb/day On-Site Area S e-004 S S S e-004 S e-004 S S e-004 S S S e-004 S e-004 S On-Site Energy S S S e-004 S S S S S S e-004 S S S Off-Site Mobile S W S S W W S W S S W W Peak Daily Total S W S S W W S W S S W W Air District Threshold Exceed Significance?

111 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Annual GHG Emissions Annual GHG Annual GHG Page 3 of 3 Pinole Point Phase III - Contra Costa County, Summary Report Date: 12/15/2016 3:23 PM Unmitigated Mitigated CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e GHG Activity Year MT/yr Construction Construction Operational , , , , Total Significance Threshold Exceed Significance?

112 Appendix B: Biological Resources Report Revised Phase III of the Pinole PoInt Mixed Use Development Project 108

113 ZANDER ASSOCIATES Environmental Consultants December 15, 2016 John Diemer 6200 GR, LLC 2760 N. University Dr. Davie, FL Biological Resources Assessment Pinole Point Business Park, Final Phase Richmond, CA Dear John: Zander Associates is providing this assessment of biological resources for the final development phase of the Pinole Point Business Park in Richmond, California to update existing conditions and confirm that biological resource impacts and mitigation measures are essentially the same as previously described in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Business Park. To prepare this assessment, we reviewed the previous environmental documents for the site and queried the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for any new records of special status species in the vicinity. A site visit was conducted on November 17, 2016 to characterize existing vegetation and wildlife habitats. This letter provides the results of our assessment. Background The FEIR for the Pinole Point Business Park was certified by the City of Richmond in 1996 (SCH No ). The project area under review for this assessment (project area) was included in Sub-Area 3 referenced in the FEIR and constitutes all of the land in that sub area east of the freshwater lake. The FEIR anticipated development in this portion of Sub-Area 3, with appropriate setbacks from the nearby freshwater lake and associated wetland and riparian habitats. A capped acid pond created as a result of previous land use activities by Bethlehem Steel Company and a former domestic landfill are also located in the project area. The acid pond was undergoing post-closure monitoring at the time of the FEIR and the landfill was addressed later in a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) prepared in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code. The project area comprises the final phase of development for the Business Park. Existing Conditions The project area is the last remaining land designated for development within the Pinole Point Business Park. It is bordered to the west by the freshwater lake, to the north and south by active railroad tracks, and to the east by a seasonally inundated stormwater basin. The site has been 1569 Solano Ave. #255 Berkeley, CA telephone: (415) fax: (415)

114 John Diemer December 15, 2016 Page 2 Zander Associates subjected to various levels of disturbance as a result of previous land use activities. The capped acid pond and former domestic landfill are within the project area limits, and soil was deposited in the area during construction activities for earlier phases of the business park. The capped acid pond has been re-vegetated with annual grasses. A portion of the landfill will be capped as a component of the last development phase and the soil deposited during earlier construction phases has been worked into the landscape. The dominant vegetation consists of grassland containing mostly non-native annual grass and forb species with patches of native perennial bunch grass (Stipa pulchra). A few clusters of coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) are scattered throughout the grasslands, except over the capped acid pond. A large eucalyptus tree stands at the southern boundary near the railroad tracks. The western boundary follows, and in some areas includes, a dense blackberry bramble associated with the edge of the freshwater lake. No portion of the open water, emergent wetland or riparian habitats associated with the lake is included in the project area. The eastern boundary parallels the edge of a seasonally inundated stormwater basin that supports a large stand of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) where the culvert from the adjacent residential area outfalls and there is emergent wetland vegetation near the center where water appears to concentrate. The project area is elevated above the basin and does not include any of these wetland habitats. Two seasonal wetlands were mapped in the western portion of the project area during preparation of the RAP for the former landfill. Both wetlands are linear features following topographic lows that outfall to the freshwater lake through culverts. The southern-most of these wetlands is at the bottom of a small man-made ravine and the other is within what was an old channel. Neither feature exhibits a scour line, matted vegetation, or other evidence that water flows through the area. The soils are mostly non-native, consisting of fill material or landfill debris and the vegetation is not distinct from the surrounding uplands, except near the culverts where some cattail (Typha latifolia), umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis) and bulrush (Scirpus acutus) are present. The areas together total 0.03 acre. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) claimed jurisdiction over these two wetland areas in 2012 (File No S). Wildlife expected to use the project area include species typically found in grasslands or ruderal habitats, although shorebirds and other marshland species could occasionally forage on the site due to its proximity to the bay. Red foxes have been known to frequent the area, particularly when the steel plant was operating as the gate guards would feed them. Feral cats, jackrabbits, and deer have also been reported on the property. Monarch butterflies are known to overwinter in a eucalyptus grove at nearby Point Pinole Regional Park and could also use the eucalyptus trees on the subject property, although microclimate conditions may not be suitable. Raptors such as the red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper s hawk and osprey could forage in the grasslands and establish nests in the eucalyptus tree. The seasonal wetlands are expected to support fauna similar to the surrounding grasslands as the habitat characteristics are not substantially different.

115 John Diemer December 15, 2016 Page 3 Zander Associates Special Status Species A list of special status species 1 considered for potential to occur in the project area was generated through review of previous environmental documents prepared for the property, information available for Point Pinole Regional Shoreline, and a query of the CNDDB. The list does not differ substantially from the species considered in the FEIR for the Business Park but some name and status changes have occurred since The change in status for many species warranted removal from consideration. The list of the species considered in this assessment is provided in Table 1 and the CNDDB results are shown on Figure 2. Many of the species considered are associated with salt marsh or emergent wetland habitat and would therefore not be expected to be present in the project area. One plant species, Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia), is known to occur in coastal terrace prairie habitat and has been found historically within three miles of Point Pinole; although those locations have since been extirpated. This species is typically identifiable through October/November. It has not been observed on the Pinole Point Property in the past and no plants of, or similar to, this species were observed during the November 2016 site visit. Bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris) and fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea) are known to occur in grassland habitats but neither species was observed in the project area during a series of appropriately-timed surveys conducted in Closest recorded occurrences of these species are over five miles away in the foothills around San Pablo Reservoir. Given the level of disturbance in the project area since 1991 and the distance of known occurrences, it is unlikely these species would have subsequently become established on the site. The freshwater lake was previously sampled for California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)(crlf) and California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense)(cts) with negative results. The FEIR concluded that absence of CRLF and CTS was probably due to the distance from established populations of these two taxa and the presence of bullfrog, which are known to feed on CRLF and CTS larvae. Current CNDDB records indicate the closest CRLF and CTS occurrences are greater than four miles and ten miles from the project area, respectively, with dense urban development in between. Therefore, it is unlikely that either species would have subsequently become established in the project area. The lake does not provide suitable habitat for western pond turtle as there are no basking sites or haul out locations within or along the edges and no turtles have been observed in this area. The emergent wetland and riparian vegetation associated with the lake could provide habitat for tri-colored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) and salt marsh yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa); although the FEIR determined neither species was likely to be present based on site-specific conditions. The grasslands provide potential habitat for California burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) but no owls or signs of owl use (e.g. burrows with pellets, bones, feathers) were observed in the project area during the November 2016 field survey and there are no historic occurrences in the vicinity. 1 Special Status Species include: plants and animals listed, proposed or candidates as threatened or endangered by USFWS; listed or proposed as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW; plants ranked 1A, 1B, 2A or 2B by CNPS; animals designated as Species of Special Concern by the CDFW.

116 John Diemer December 15, 2016 Page 4 Zander Associates The monarch butterfly overwinters at several sites around the bay area, including Point Pinole Regional Park. The butterflies typically arrive in October and cluster in a stand of eucalyptus trees at the western edge of the park. These trees provide the butterflies shelter from the wind and rain. Although monarch butterflies themselves are not considered special status species, their colonies are usually protected because they are very site faithful. The eucalyptus tree in the project area was surveyed during the November site visit, which coincided with the butterfly s arrival to this area, and no colonies were observed. The tree is probably too isolated and exposed to provide suitable overwintering habitat for the monarch butterfly. The eucalyptus tree in the project area could provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors and other migratory birds. Active nests of these species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, and their eggs and nests. As used in the act, the term take is defined as meaning, to pursue, hunt, capture, collect, kill or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect or kill, unless the context otherwise requires. Most native bird species within the study area are covered by this act. The California Fish and Game Code also provides protection for certain species as listed in Section Analysis of Potential Project Effects The analysis of potential project effects presented in this section is based on review of the Site Development Plan prepared by Milani & Associates (November 2016) and the Final Removal Action Plan prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group (February 10, 2013). The final development phase of the Pinole Point Business Park includes: implementation of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) to cap the former domestic landfill; construction of two warehouse-style buildings with associated parking, landscaping, and stormwater treatment facilities; and construction of a segment of the Bay Trail through the site. The evaluation of project effects presented below follows the environmental checklist provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The project will result in the removal of approximately 26 acres of grassland vegetation consisting of mostly non-native species and result in the loss or displacement of wildlife typically associated with grassland/ruderal habitats. Non-native grassland communities are relatively common to the region and loss of this habitat is not considered significant unless it supports special status species. As described above, no special status plant or animal species have been found or would be expected to occur in or depend on the habitat present in the project area. Two seasonal wetlands totaling 0.03 acre occur in the western portion of the project area. The Corps asserted jurisdiction over both wetland areas under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The southern wetland (1,073 sq. ft.) is within the area of the former landfill and therefore will be removed during implementation of the RAP. The northern wetland (188 sq. ft.) will not be affected by the RAP or construction of other facilities for the project. The southern wetland provides essentially the same habitat as the adjacent grasslands and does not support any species

117 John Diemer December 15, 2016 Page 5 Zander Associates restricted to wetland areas. Nevertheless, since it is subject to Corps jurisdiction, removal of the wetland would be considered potentially significant. Suitable mitigation could be provided onsite by reconstructing the wetland in approximately the same area once the landfill is capped; pending approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board who is overseeing implementation of the RAP. Other onsite options may also be feasible. Disturbance of the southern wetland will require authorization from the Corps ( 404 of the Clean Water Act) and Regional Water Quality Control Board ( 401 of the Clean Water Act). Specific mitigation design will be required by these agencies prior to issuing their respective authorizations. The eucalyptus tree in the southern portion of the project area will be removed to accommodate extension of Giant Road along the southern property boundary. The tree could provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors and other migratory birds. Removal of an active nest is not permitted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. However, once the nest is no longer active and the young have fledged, construction activities can proceed and the tree can be removed. The following measures are recommended to avoid impacts to an active nest, if present. Within 15 days in advance of any tree removal, or ground-disturbing activity that will commence during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified wildlife biologist will conduct a pre-construction survey of the eucalyptus tree in the project area. Pre-construction surveys are not required for construction activities scheduled to occur during the non-breeding season (August 31 through January 31). Construction activities commencing during the nonbreeding season and continuing into the breeding season do not require surveys (as it is assumed that any breeding birds taking up nests would be acclimated to project-related activities already under way). Nests initiated during construction activities would be presumed to be unaffected by the activity, and a buffer zone around such nests would not be necessary. However, a nest initiated during construction cannot be moved or altered. If pre-construction surveys indicate that no nests of protected birds are present or that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied, no further action is required. If active nests of protected birds are found during the surveys, then avoidance procedures should be developed in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Avoidance measures could include establishment of construction buffers (up to several hundred feet in the case of raptors), or seasonal avoidance. If buffers are established, a no disturbance zone should be enforced around active nests for the duration of the breeding season or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged. Once the young have fledged, tree removal or construction activities within the buffer zone can resume. The size of the buffer zone should take into account baseline noise and human disturbance levels at the site, screening between the nest and the construction area, and sensitivity of the identified nesting species. The project is not expected to interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife in the area. Upon completion of grading for the RAP, the area adjacent to the freshwater lake will be revegetated with grassland and the development will be upslope and set back an average of 100 feet from the edge of the blackberry brambles associated with the lake. This will maintain an open corridor adjacent to the lake facilitating wildlife movement from surrounding residential and commercial areas out to San Pablo Bay. The property immediately east of the project area,

118 John Diemer December 15, 2016 Page 6 Zander Associates which is approximately 15 acres and includes two stormwater basins with open grasslands in between, will be dedicated open space and will also continue to provide a movement corridor for wildlife in the area. Indirect effects on wetland and riparian habitats associated with the freshwater lake to the west and the stormwater basin to the east could occur as a result of project-generated runoff. However, the project is required to comply with the C.3 requirements in the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Regional Permit and stormwater treatment areas have been incorporated into the project design to control runoff and trap pollutants before flow is released into the receiving water. These treatment areas will mitigate any potential effects from project-generated runoff on adjacent wetland habitats. Indirect effects on adjacent natural habitats could also occur with the introduction of non-native plants that may be incorporated into the project landscape palette. Species such as French broom (Genista monspessulana), acacia (Acacia spp), Pampas grass (Cortaderia spp), and artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus) are highly invasive and can compromise the integrity of native habitats. This potential effect can be avoided by incorporating native plant species in the landscape palette to the extent practicable and prohibiting use of the above-listed species or any species listed by the California Invasive Plant Council at There are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans covering the project area and the project would not conflict with any of the policies set forth in the Conservation, Natural Resources and Open Space element of the Richmond General Plan Summary The final development phase of the Pinole Point Business Park includes approximately 26 acres of currently undeveloped land at the eastern edge of the designated development area. The project components include: implementation of a Remedial Action Plan to cap a former domestic landfill present in the western portion of the site; construction of two warehouse-style buildings with associated parking, landscaping, and stormwater treatment facilities; and construction of a segment of the Bay Trail through the site. The existing vegetation consists of grasslands comprised primarily of non-native species with patches of native perennial bunch grass. There are scattered clusters of coyote brush and one eucalyptus tree on the site. Two small seasonal wetlands were mapped in the western portion of the project area in Neither feature provides habitat substantially different from the surrounding grasslands. Wildlife expected to use the project area include species typically found in grasslands or ruderal habitats. No special status plants or animals have been observed or are expected to occur in the project area. Migratory birds could nest in the eucalyptus tree on the site. Project direct effects include removal of approximately 26 acres of non-native grasslands, 1,073 sq. ft. of seasonal wetland, and a eucalyptus tree. Project indirect effects include potential degradation of offsite wetland and riparian habitats through as a result of project-generated runoff and/or introduction of non-native invasive plants. Removal of non-native grassland habitat is less than significant because no special-status species are known to use this habitat in the project area. Removal of the seasonal wetland and eucalyptus tree are potentially significant

119 John Diemer December 15, 2016 Page 7 Zander Associates but can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Degradation of offsite habitats is also potentially significant but can be mitigated. The project effects and mitigation measures identified in this assessment are essentially the same as those previously described in the Final Environmental Impact Report for this portion of the Business Park. Should you have any questions regarding this assessment or require further assistance with the project, please don t hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Leslie Zander Principal Biologist Attachments: Table 1: Special Status Plant and Animal Species Known or Suspected to Occur in the Point Pinole Area Figure 1: Site Location Figure 2: CNDDB

120 Table 1: Special Status Plant and Animal Species Known or Suspected to Occur in the Point Pinole Area PLANTS Status 1 Fed/CA/CNPS Amsinkia lunaris --/--/1B.2 bent-flowered fiddleneck Chloropyron maritimum ssp palustris --/--/1B.2 Point Reyes salty bird s beak Chloropyron molle ssp molle E/R/1B.2 soft salty bird s beak Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi --/--/2B.1 Bolander s water hemlock Cirsium andrewsii --/--/1B.2 Franciscan thistle Cryptantha hooveri --/--/1A Hoover s cryptantha Fritillaria liliacea --/--/1B.2 Fragrant fritillary Holocarpha macradenia T/E/1B.1 Santa Cruz tarplant Lasthenia conjugens E/--/1B.1 Contra Costa goldfields Lathryus jepsonii var jepsonii --/--/1B.2 delta tule pea Lilaeopsis masonii --/--1B.2 Mason s lilaeopsis Symphyotrichum lentum --/E/1B.1 Suisun marsh aster Suaeda californica --/--/1B.2 California seablite ANIMALS Status 1 AMPHIBIANS / REPTILES Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Actinemys marmorata pallida Southwestern pond turtle BIRDS Circus cyaneus northern harrier Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Fed/CA T/T T/CSC --/CSC --/SSC D/E Habitat and Blooming Period Valley grassland, and foothill woodland; March- June Coastal salt marsh, wetland, riparian; June- October Coastal salt marsh, wetland, riparian; July- November Coastal salt marsh; July-September Coastal scrub, wetland, riparian; March-July Valley and foothill grasslands; April-May Coastal scrub, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grasslands; February-April Coastal prairie and grassland; June-October Low flats and borders of vernal pools: April- May Brackish water marshes and swamps; May-June Brackish water marshes and swamps; June- August Freshwater and brackish marsh; May-October Coastal salt marsh; July-October Habitat Grasslands and open oak woodlands with ground squirrel or gopher burrows for underground retreats, and breeding ponds such as seasonal wetlands, vernal pools or slowmoving streams that do not support predatory fish or frog populations Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water within streams, marshes, and occasionally ponds with dense, shrubby, or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires aquatic habitats with permanent or persistent water and protected areas for basking such as partially submerged rocks or logs, floating vegetation mats or open mud banks Marshes and open grasslands. Nests in marsh vegetation or in tall grass. Found primarily along the coast near rivers and large lakes. During migration, found in mountain range and open country.

121 Table 1: Special Status Plant and Animal Species Known or Suspected to Occurin the Point Pinole Area ANIMALS Status 1 Rallus longirostris obsoletus California clapper rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail Asio flammeus short-eared owl Athene cunicularia burrowing owl Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat Melospiza melodia samuelis San Pablo song sparrow Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird MAMMALS Reithrodontomys raviventris salt-marsh harvest mouse Microtus californicus sanpabloensis San Pablo vole Sorex ornatus sinuosus Suisun shrew Sorex vagrans halicoetes salt marsh wandering shrew Fed/CA E/E --/T --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC E/E --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC Habitat Perennial inhabitant of tidal salt marshes of the greater San Francisco Bay, although some individuals use brackish marshes during the spring breeding season. Requires high marshes with little annual and/or daily fluctuations in water levels. Prefers marshlands with unrestricted tidal influence Tule patches/tall grass needed for nesting/daytime seclusion. Nests on dry ground in depression concealed in vegetation. Ground nester in open dry annual or perennial grasslands with low-growing vegetation, dependent upon burrowing mammals (i.e. California ground squirrel) Requires thick, continuous cover down to water surface for foraging; tall grasses, tule patches, willows for nesting. Inhabits tidal sloughs in the pickleweed marshes; nests in Grindelia bordering slough channels. Freshwater marsh; requires open water, protected nesting substrate, & foraging area with insect prey nearby. Pickleweed marsh with higher areas for flood escape Salt marshes of San Pablo Creek; constructs burrow in soft soil; feeds on grasses, sedges and herbs. Tidal marshes of the northern shores of San Pablo and Suisun bays; requires driftweed and other litter above mean hightide for nesting and foraging. Tidal marshes where abundant driftwood is scattered among pickleweed. 1. Status Explanations Federal (Fed) E = listed as endangered under federal ESAt T = listed as threatened under federal ESA D = delisted -- = no designation California State (CA) R = listed as rare under CESA E = listed as endangered under CESA T = listed as threatened under CESA SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern -- = no designation California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1A presumed extinct in California 1B rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere Threat Rank 0.1-Seriously threatened in California 0.2-Fairly threatened in California 0.3-Not very threatened in California

122 Legend Project Area San Pablo Bay ^_ Lettia Road Montalvin Drive Christine Drive Zander Associates Environmental Consultants 1569 Solano Ave. #255 Berkeley, CA Feet Site Location Pinole Point Business Park, Final Phase Richmond, California Date: 12/16 Figure 1

123 5 Spirinchus thaleichthys Spirinchus thaleichthys Isocoma arguta Fritillaria liliacea Antrozous pallidus Trifolium hydrophilum Thaleichthys pacificus Astragalus tener var. tener Melospiza melodia samuelis Melospiza melodia samuelis Bombus occidentalis Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi Fritillaria liliacea Bombus occidentalis Amsinckia lunaris Trifolium hydrophilum Amsinckia lunaris Branta hutchinsii leucopareia Fritillaria liliacea Fritillaria liliacea Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi Melospiza melodia samuelis Emys marmorata Antrozous pallidus Amsinckia lunaris Helianthella castanea Melospiza melodia pusillula Helianthella castanea Microtus californicus sanpabloensis Symphyotrichum lentum Danaus plexippus pop. 1 Danaus plexippus pop. 1 Phalacrocorax auritus Lasionycteris noctivagans Suaeda californica Rana draytonii Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi Dirca occidentalis Holocarpha macradenia Microtus californicus sanpabloensis Microtus californicus sanpabloensis Arctostaphylos pallida Holocarpha macradenia Holocarpha macradenia Helianthella castanea Emys marmorata Microtus californicus sanpabloensis Rana draytonii Rana draytonii Rana draytonii Rana draytonii Rana draytonii Rana draytonii Rana draytonii Rana draytonii Elanus leucurus Accipiter cooperii Dirca occidentalis Dirca occidentalis Cirsium andrewsii Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus Chloropyron molle ssp. molle Athene cunicularia Helianthella castanea Dirca occidentalis Helianthella castanea Helianthella castanea Helianthella castanea Arctostaphylos pallida Hoita strobilina Holocarpha macradenia Lasthenia conjugens Holocarpha macradenia Holocarpha macradenia Holocarpha macradenia Holocarpha macradenia Holocarpha macradenia Holocarpha macradenia Holocarpha macradenia Holocarpha macradenia Holocarpha macradenia Haliaeetus leucocephalus Rallus longirostris obsoletus Chloropyron molle ssp. molle Arctostaphylos pallida Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus Holocarpha macradenia Hoita strobilina Helianthella castanea Hoita strobilina Helianthella castanea Holocarpha macradenia Holocarpha macradenia Holocarpha macradenia Holocarpha macradenia Emys marmorata Helianthella castanea Helianthella castanea Holocarpha macradenia Site Location Zander Associates Environmental Consultants 1569 Solano Ave. #255 Berkeley, CA California Natural Diversity Database 3 and 5 Mile Radius Pinole Point Business Park Final Phase Richmond, California Figure Miles Legend 3-Mile Radius Around Project 5-Mile Radius Around Project Plant (80m) Plant (specific) Plant (non-specific) Plant (circular) Animal (80m) Animal (specific) Animal (non-specific) Animal (circular) Natural/Native Occurrence Communities

124 Appendix C: Traffic Analysis Revised Phase III of the Pinole PoInt Mixed Use Development Project 109

125 PHA Transportation Consultants 2711 Stuart Street Berkeley CA Phone (510) Web December 16, 2016 Richard Grassetti Grassetti Environmental Consulting Via Re: Proposed Pinole Point Business Park Warehouse Dear Richard: In response to your request, PHA Transportation Consultants (PHA) has conducted a focused traffic analysis to evaluate the potential impact of a proposed warehouse project in the Pinole Point Business Park, Richmond. Based on the information provided to us, the project will consist of two buildings, one with 253,500 square feet, while the other with 109,200 square feet, for a total of 363,000 square feet. The project will provide 290 standard parking spaces plus 60 trailer parking spaces. The project site plan indicated that access to and from the site is provided via Giant Highway, Giant Road, and Atlas Road. Giant Highway is two-lane arterial road providing access to the Business Park from the south. North of its intersection with Atlas Road, it becomes Giant Road, running alongside the eastern border of the property and terminates at the northern end of the Business Park. Atlas Road is a four-lane arterial road connecting Pinole Business Park and Richmond Parkway, and Interstate I-80. The intersection at the entrance to the Business Park is controlled by a four-way stop sign. An at-grade railroad crossing is located about 300 feet east of the intersection. Internal access to and from the warehouse site would be via an extension from Giant Road, which currently terminates at a Cul-de-Sac (see project site plan). Figure 1 shows the project site location. Background According to Richmond Planning Staff, the proposed warehouse project was previously approved as a part of the Pinole Point Business Park Master Plan Development in As shown in the Master Plan, the Business Park is expected to be developed in four phases. The approved uses include office, light industrial, warehouses, residential and open space. Table 1 shows the type of land use, sizes, and estimated construction dates for various development phases as approved in The currently proposed warehouse project is part of the Phase III development previously approved for a 470,000 square feet of light industrial/office flex space. 1

126 Proposed Warehouse Project Site Figure 1 Proposed Warehouse Site Location 2

127 The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not the current proposal would generate more traffic than it was approved previously as a 470,000 light industrial space or as warehouses; and whether or not the mitigation measures required as part of the 1992 approval would still be needed or adjusted. Table 1 Pinole Point Business Park Approved Uses Phase I Estimated Date of Construction Warehouse ,000 SF Industrial/Office Flex ,000 SF Multi-family Residential DU Open Space 4.5 Acres Phase II Industrial/Office Flex ,000 SF Single family Residential DU Open Space 23 Acres Phase IIA Office ,000 SF Phase III Industrial/Office Flex ,000 SF Open Space 15 Acres Phase IIIA Office SF Open Space 9 acres Phase 4 Industrial/Office Flex ,000 SF Open Space 3.5 Acres Phase IVA Office ,000 SF Open Space 97 Acres Source: Pinole Point Business Park EIR-1992, Baseline Environmental Consulting Firm. 3

128 Proposed Project The 363,000 square feet warehouse as proposed, is expected to generate 1,292 daily trips, including 109 am and 116 pm peak-hour trips. By comparison, the 470,000 square feet light industrial use project previously approved would generate 3,276 daily trips, including 433 am and 456 pm peak-hour trips. In short, the proposed warehouse will generate much less traffic than the previous approved light industrial use. Table 2 presents a trip generation analysis summary for the previously approved light industrial use and the currently proposed warehouse. In view of its design characteristics, the proposed warehouse project may be a high-cube warehouse/distribution center, which will generate even fewer trips. As such, a trip generation analysis was also conducted for the high-cube warehouse/distribution center for comparison. Table 2 Project Trip Generation Analysis AM Peak- Hour Trips PM Peak- Hour Trips Average Daily Trips Land Use ksf Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Light Industrial ( ITE 110) (Approved Previously) Warehousing ( ITE 150) (Currently Proposed) High Cube Warehouse/Distribution Center (ITE 152) ITE Trip Generation Manual (9 th Edition) Rates for warehouse (ITE 150): Weekday daily rate 3.56/kSF, 50% in, 50% out am peak hour rate 0.30/KSF, 79% in, 21% out pm peak hour rate, 032/KSF, 25% in, 75% out Rates for High-Cube Warehouse/Distribution Center (ITE 152): Weekday daily rate 0.68/kSF, 50% in, 50% out am peak hour rate 0.11/KSF, 69% in, 31% out pm peak hour rate 012/KSF, 31% in, 69 % out Rates for light Industrial (ITE 110): Weekday daily rate 6.97/kSF, 50% in, 50% out am peak hour rate 0.92/KSF, 88% in, 12% out pm peak hour rate 097/KSF, 12% in, 88 % out Generally speaking, a high-cube warehouse is a building typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. Figure 2 shows the proposed project site plan. 4

129 Figure 2 Proposed Warehouse Project Site Plan Project Proponent 5

130 The Institute of Transportation Engineer (ITE) also defines High-cube warehouses/distribution centers are those used for the storage of materials, goods, and merchandise prior to their distribution to retail outlets, distribution centers or warehouses. These facilities are typically characterized by ceiling heights of at least 24 feet with small employment counts due to a high level of mechanization. High-cube warehouses/distribution centers generally consist of large steel or masonry shell buildings and may be occupied by or multiple tenants. At any rate, the proposed project, be it a warehouse or high-cube warehouse/distribution center, will generate much fewer trips than the light industrial use approved previously. Since the proposed warehouse project will be smaller in size and will generate less traffic than the previously approved light industrial project on the same site. No additional mitigation is required other than those discussed in the 1992 EIR. The 1992 Pinole Point Business Park Master Plan EIR indicated significant impacts at various locations when the Pinole Point Business Park is fully developed under the cumulative 2030 condition. In 2014, PHA conducted a traffic study for a project at 2995 Atlas Road, a 707,000 square feet high-cube warehouse/distribution center also at the Pinole Business Park at the former steel scape site. The report indicated the all five of the study intersections operated at acceptable conditions LOS D or better. The 707,000 square feet high cube warehouse/distribution center project would not create unacceptable traffic conditions under the project conditions and approved projects conditions. Richmond Planning staff confirmed that the approved project condition in the 2014 study included the current project. However, since two of the study intersections receiving significant impacts are fully developed and there are no practical solutions available, PHA recommended a TDM program for mitigation. The PHA recommended TDM program and the mitigation measures recommended in the 1992 Pinole Point Master Plan EIR are attached in the Appendix. 6

131 Study Intersections Table 3 Study Intersection LOS Analysis Summary 2995 Atlas Road Warehouse/Distribution Center Traffic Study Richmond Peak Period Existing Conditions Approved Projects Conditions Approved Projects+ Project Conditions Cumulative 2030 Conditions Cumulative Project Conditions Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Giant Rd./Atlas Rd. AM 6.8 A 6.9 A 7.3 A 7.5 A 8.0 A (all-way stop) PM 6.8 A 7.0 A 7.4 A 7.6 A 8.2 A 2 Richmond Pkwy./Atlas Rd. AM 18.4 B 18.8 B 19.6 B 30.5 C 32.6 D (signalized) PM 25.3 C 27.9 C 32.3 C F a F 3 San Pablo Ave./Richmond Pkwy. AM 34.7 D 36.0 D 37.6 D F F (signalized) PM 49.9 D 50.5 D 50.7 D F F 4 Giant Rd./Richmond Pkwy. Ramps AM 13.3 B 13.3 B 13.4 B 14.3 B 14.5 B (signalized) PM 12.3 B 12.4 B 12.5 B 13.9 B 14.1 B 5 Site Driveway/Atlas Rd. AM 6.8 A 6.8 A 6.8 A 6.8 A 6.8 A (all-way stop) PM 6.8 A 6.8 A 7.2 A 7.2 A 7.2 A Study intersection traffic LOS was calculated with the methodology discussed in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual using SYNCHRO computer software. For signalized intersection, delays represents the average delays for the intersection as a whole. For side street stop control intersections, the delays and LOS are for the side street traffic with the highest traffic volumes. Traffic from main street approaches without traffic control generally operates at LOS A. Delay is measured in second per vehicle, LOS=Level-of-Service. a With an employer sponsor TDM program, p.m. peak delays can be reduced to seconds, less than 5 seconds significant impact threshold. 7

132 Conclusion In summary, the currently proposed warehouse project is smaller in size, intensity, and will generate less traffic than the previously approved light industrial use for the site. No additional mitigation is recommended. However, since previous studies (the 1992 Master Plan study and the 2014 PHA traffic study) indicated the completion of the Pinole Point Business Park will create significant traffic impacts in the area, and the fact that the development of Pinole Point Business Park is not complete, we recommended all previous mitigation measures should remain in place until the completion of the Pinole Point Business Park Development. At that time, we may revisit the project to determine whether or not any mitigation should be added or reduced. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Pang Ho, AICP Principal Attachment: Appendixes 8

133 PHA Recommended TDM Program for Mitigation The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) below recommended to mitigate the potential significant impacts for the 2030 cumulative conditions for the 2995 Road warehouse project should remain for the currently proposed warehouse project. TDM (Transportation Demand Management) programs are aimed to reduce traffic congestion fuel consumption and air pollutions. It is recommended that the project sponsor for the Atlas Road Warehouse/Distribution Center to coordinate with other employers at the Pinole Business Park to jointly develop and run the TDM program for the benefit of the entire business park. A TDM program for the proposed Atlas Road Warehouse/Distribution Center could include the following strategies: Flexible Work Hours Flexible work hours are programs allowing employees a degree of freedom in choosing their starting and quitting times. Transit Subsidies Employers can reduce the cost of taking transit by offering prepaid or discounted transit passes to employees who agree to commute by transit. This benefit can vary from a modest share of the actual cost to full absorption of the cost. Rideshare Matching Services Rideshare matching services put compatible commuters in touch with one another to enable carpooling. Employers can facilitate formation of ridesharing arrangements by employees in a number of ways, ranging from simple in-house employee match listings to computerized matching programs. These services may be unique to the given employer or can pool matching candidates from a larger area ranging from multiple employers in a building or complex to large regional matching systems. Guaranteed Ride Home Guaranteed ride home programs provide backup transportation to employees who ride-share or use transit if they need to return home suddenly for an emergency or if they must work late and therefore cannot connect with the mode they used to travel to the site on that day. Generally, these programs provide vouchers for the person to travel home by taxi, although some employers permit use of company vehicles as well. Bicycle Storage, Lockers, and Changing Facilities Changing facilities and showers and secure bicycle parking are key features for an employer or institution interested in encouraging bicycle use. Such facilities may be combined with an exercise facility and may encourage healthy habits.

134 Preferential Parking Employers may set aside reserved parking spaces as an incentive to carpool or vanpool. This is a non-monetary benefit that can be an important incentive if parking is tight or if the parking lot is large and the reserved spaces are near the building entrance. Reserved spaces may also be sheltered versus outdoors, lessening the impact of severe weather. Shuttle Bus Services Some employers choose to operate shuttle bus services to provide easy connections with nearby rapid transit services or other important facilities. Shuttle services may be an individual employer effort or a collective effort of a few sites and employers. In some instances, shuttles are also used for local circulation during the midday, lessening the need to bring a personal vehicle to the job site. Staggered Work Hours Staggered work hours are fixed-scheduling of work that normally spreads the employee starting and quitting times over a 1- to 3-hour period, with individual groups of employees designated to report and leave at 15 to 30 minute intervals. Staggered work hours are generally employed in large facilities, especially manufacturing, where work schedules are otherwise regular. On-Site Transit Information and Pass Sales Providing transit information on-site can lower the barriers that may prevent people from trying transit. Convenient purchase of transit passes may also facilitate trying out transit use. In addition, on-site sales may support introduction of site specific transit pass discounts. Transportation Coordinator Designate a transportation coordinator on the site to provide trip planning and assistance to commuters. The presence of an on-site coordinator can make it easier to obtain information about alternatives to single occupancy vehicle commutes.

135