DOCSLIB.ORG

Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Central Larkspur Specific Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Central Larkspur Specific Plan Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Central Larkspur Specific Plan SCH #2001112092 Volume 1 - DEIR Text Prepared by: EDAW 2022 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814 November 14, 2003 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Central Larkspur Specific Plan SCH #2001112092 Volume 1 - DEIR Text Prepared for: City of Larkspur 400 Magnolia Avenue Larkspur, CA 94939 Contact: Robert Pendoley Consulting Planner 415/472-3614 Prepared by: EDAW 2022 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Sydney Coatsworth Principal-in-Charge 916/414-5800 November 14, 2003 2T099.01 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter/Section Page VOLUME I EIR TEXT ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................vi 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 CEQA Environmental Process ............................................................................ 1-2 1.3 Permits and Other Approvals that May Use This EIR to Implement the Project .................................................................................................................. 1-5 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Project Location................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Project Setting ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................... 2-5 2.4 Project Characteristics ......................................................................................... 2-8 2.5 Methodology and Assumptions for the EIR Analysis....................................... 2-18 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Site Location and Description............................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Purpose of and Need for the Project.................................................................. 3-2 3.4 Project Overview and Components.................................................................... 3-3 3.5 Project Background............................................................................................. 3-5 3.6 Scope and Content .............................................................................................. 3-5 3.7 Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Unavoidable Significant Impacts .............. 3-6 3.8 Permits and Other Approvals that May Use this EIR to Implement the Project .................................................................................................................. 3-6 3.9 Alternatives to the Proposed Project .................................................................. 3-7 3.10 Evaluation of Alternatives and Identification of the Environmentally Superior Alternative............................................................................................ 3-7 3.11 Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved during Environmental Review.................................................................................................................. 3-8 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Land Use/Plans and Policies ............................................................................ 4.1-1 4.2 Housing and Population .................................................................................. 4.2-1 4.3 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 4.3-1 4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................... 4.4-1 4.5 Biological Resources......................................................................................... 4.5-1 4.6 Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 4.6-1 4.7 Traffic and Circulation..................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.8 Noise ................................................................................................................. 4.8-1 4.9 Public Services and Facilities............................................................................ 4.9-1 4.10 Visual Quality and Aesthetics......................................................................... 4.10-1 Central Larkspur Specific Plan Revised Draft EIR EDAW City of Larkspur i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Chapter/Section Page 4.11 Historical, Cultural and Archaeological Resources ....................................... 4.11-1 4.12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................ 4.12-1 5 OTHER CEQA-MANDATED SECTIONS.......................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts.................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Significant and Irreversible Commitment of Resources.............................................................. 5-3 6 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT ................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Alternatives Considered ...................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 No Project Alternative......................................................................................... 6-2 6.4 Low Density Alternative ...................................................................................... 6-9 6.5 Residential Focus Alternative............................................................................ 6-14 6.6 Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives .......................................... 6-20 6.7 Evaluation of Alternatives ................................................................................. 6-24 7 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Printed References .............................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Personal Communications .................................................................................. 7-9 8 REPORT PREPARATION................................................................................................. 8-1 EXHIBITS 2-1 Specific Plan Area Location and Setting................................................................ 2-2 2-2 Central Larkspur Specific Plan Area ..................................................................... 2-3 2-3 Annotated Aerial View of Plan Area and Environs ............................................... 2-4 2-4 Specific Plan Subareas ............................................................................................ 2-9 4.1-1 Location of Central Larkspur Specific Plan in Relation to Larkspur Downtown Specific Plan and Historic District.................................................... 4.1-2 4.3-1 Regional Fault System......................................................................................... 4.3-4 4.4-1 100 and 500–Year Flood Limits.......................................................................... 4.4-3 4.4-2 Specific Plan Area Drainage................................................................................ 4.4-7 4.5-1 Views of Subarea 3 .............................................................................................. 4.5-3 4.5-2 Views of Larkspur Creek .................................................................................... 4.5-4 4.5-3 Sensitive Biological Resources in the Vicinity of the Specific Plan Area ........... 4.5-7 4.7-1 Local Roadway Network Study Intersection Locations ..................................... 4.7-2 4.7-2 Existing Lane Geometries ................................................................................... 4.7-7 4.7-3 Existing A.M. (P.M.) Peak-Hour Volumes ....................................................... 4.7-11 4.7-4 Golden Gate Transit Bus Routes in the Study Area ........................................ 4.7-13 4.7-5 Specific Plan A.M. (P.M.) Peak-Hour Volumes................................................ 4.7-24 EDAW Central Larkspur Specific Plan Revised Draft EIR Table of Contents ii City of Larkspur TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Chapter/Section Page 4.7-6 Existing Plus Specific Plan A.M. (P.M.) Peak-Hour Volumes.......................... 4.7-27 4.7-7 Existing Plus Cumulative (No Specific Plan) A.M. (P.M.) Peak-Hour Volumes............................................................................................................. 4.7-37 4.7-8 Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Specific Plan A.M. (P.M.) Peak-Hour Volumes............................................................................................................. 4.7-38
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geology and Soils
    4.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This section describes the geology, soils, and seismicity of the Specific Plan area. The information presented below has been developed based on several sources of data. These sources include Geotechnical Investigation for the Niven Nursery Site (Harza Engineering Company 1998a) (Appendix C-1); Review of Geologic Conditions for the Central Larkspur Area Specific Plan, Larkspur, California (World Environmental Science & Technology 1999) (Appendix C-2); personal communication with Miller Pacific Engineering Group (Appendix C-3); and review of published literature, maps, and Internet sites on geology, soils, and seismicity of the area. 4.3.1 EXISTING SETTING REGIONAL SETTING The Specific Plan area lies in the central portion of the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area. The northwest to southeast trending ridges and valleys of the Coast Ranges have formed in response to the active tectonism of the region. Tectonics of the region are controlled by the San Andreas Fault System. The northwest to southeast striking San Andreas fault represents the boundary between the Pacific Plate, primarily offshore to the east-southeast, and the North American Plate, primarily onshore to the west- northwest. In response to the relative northwest movement of the Pacific Plate with respect to the North American Plate, other faults have formed. These include fault structures such as the Hayward fault, the Rogers Creek fault, and the Calaveras fault, all located within 25 miles of the site. Large-magnitude earthquakes could be generated on any of these regional active faults. The regional geology of the area is characterized as part of the Franciscan Complex of Jurassic to Cretaceous age.
    [Show full text]
  • And Induced Seismicity
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR " GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SUMMARIES OF TECHNICAL REPORTS, VOLUME XIII Prepared by Participants in NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM Compiled by Barbara B. Charonnat External Research Program Thelma R. Rodriguez Earthquake Prediction Wanda H. Seiders Earthquake Hazards and Risk Assessment Global Seismology and Induced Seismicity The research results described in the following summaries were submitted by the investigators on November 30, 1981 and cover the 6-month period from April 1, 1981 through October 31, 1981. These reports include both work performed under contracts administered by the Geological Survey and work by members of the Geological Survey. The report summaries are grouped into the four major elements of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: Earthquake Hazards and Risk Assessment (H) Robert D. Brown, Jr., Coordinator U.S. Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Road, MS-77 Menlo Park, California 94025 Earthquake Prediction (P) James H. Dieterich, Coordinator U.S. Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Road, MS-77 Menlo Park, California 94025 Global Seismology (G) Eric R. Engdahl, Coordinator U.S. Geological Survey Denver Federal Center, MS-967 Denver, Colorado 80225 Induced Seismicity (IS) Mark D. Zoback, Coordinator U.S. Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Road, MS-77 Menlo Park, California 94025 Open File Report No. 82-6£ This report has not been reviewed for conformity with USGS editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Parts of it were prepared under contract to the U.S. Geological Survey and the opinions and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the USGS. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS.
    [Show full text]
  • Certified By.
    A DISLOCATION APPROACH TO PLATE INTERACTION by RAYMON LEE BROWN, JR, B.S., University of Texas (1967) M.S., University of Hawaii (1969) SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY August, 1975 Signature of Author . .,.-,...- .... , DepartmentCertified by.of ..-........Earth and& Planetary. _Sciences, * Thesis Supervisor Accepted by ................... ......... , ... * ..... Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Students pEC 17 1975) ~~~~~~~~1WRa e i I 4, : 2 Abstract A Dislocation Approach to Plate Interaction by Raymon Lee Brown, Jr. Submitted to the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences on August 25, 1975 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy A dislocation can be described in terms of a surface of discontinuity or the line which circumscribes this surface. We have applied the solutions of Yoffe (1960) and Comninou (1973) for an angular dislocation line to the problem of calculating the fields due to general polygonal dislocations. Next, anumerical method has been developed explicitly for finite sources (Finite Source Method or FSM) which allows the computation of fields from a dislocation that penetrates several layers of a layered half-space. The speed of the FSM allows the calculation of many models which are not econom- ically possible by other means. It is used here to model 3 earthquakes in layered media and plate bottom effects due to the interaction of lithospheric plates. Finally,
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 145 P&O Committee Meeting March 2, 2015
    MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY Jointly with the PLANNING & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE March 2, 2015, 8:30 a.m. MWDOC Conference Room 101 P&O Committee: Staff: R. Hunter, K. Seckel, R. Bell, Director Osborne, Chair H. De La Torre, P. Meszaros, J. Berg Director Barbre Director Hinman Ex Officio Member: L. Dick MWDOC Committee meetings are noticed and held as joint meetings of the Committee and the entire Board of Directors and all members of the Board of Directors may attend and participate in the discussion. Each Committee has designated Committee members, and other members of the Board are designated alternate committee members. If less than a quorum of the full Board is in attendance, the Board meeting will be adjourned for lack of a quorum and the meeting will proceed as a meeting of the Committee with those Committee members and alternate members in attendance acting as the Committee. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Public comments on agenda items and items under the jurisdiction of the Committee should be made at this time. ITEMS RECEIVED TOO LATE TO BE AGENDIZED - Determine there is a need to take immediate action on item(s) and that the need for action came to the attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the Agenda. (Requires a unanimous vote of the Committee) ITEMS DISTRIBUTED TO THE BOARD LESS THAN 72 HOURS PRIOR TO MEETING -- Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5, non-exempt public records that relate to open session agenda items and are distributed to a majority of the Board less than seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection in the lobby of the District’s business office located at 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, California 92708, during regular business hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase I, 2Nd Report
    Development of Hydrologic Characterization Technology of Fault Zones: Phase I, 2nd Report Kenzi Karasaki, Celia Tiemi Onishi, Bill Black and Sebastien Biraud Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory March 2009 NUMO-LBNL Collaborative Research Project Report This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor the Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or the Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, or the Regents of the University of California. ii Executive Summary This is the year-end report of the 2nd year of the NUMO-LBNL collaborative project: Development of Hydrologic Characterization Technology of Fault Zones under NUMO-DOE/LBNL collaboration agreement, the task description of which can be found in the Appendix 3. Literature survey of published information on the relationship between geologic and hydrologic characteristics of faults was conducted. The survey concluded that it may be possible to classify faults by indicators based on various geometric and geologic attributes that may indirectly relate to the hydrologic property of faults.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 5 GEOLOGY, SOILS, and SEISMICITY the Geologic, Soil and Seismic Impact Evaluation of the Proposed Bulk Materials Process
    CHAPTER 5 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY The geologic, soil and seismic impact evaluation of the proposed Bulk Materials Processing Center (BMPC) use permit amendment changes and related actions (Project) are addressed in this chapter. The geologic environment of the West Contra Costa County Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL) plays a major role in the design and construction of the improvements and in the analysis of issues in this chapter. A. SETTING 1. Regional The regional setting of the WCCSL area is discussed in this section. Discussion is included on the physiography, geology, faults, earthquakes, and soils. a. Physiography. The San Francisco Bay estuary extends from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta and includes San Pablo, Richardson, and Suisun Bays. The shorelines of the estuary margins are characterized by low elevation marsh and tide lands that are dominated by marsh flats and meandering creek channels with few isolated areas of higher elevations. Prior to 1850, marshes covered an area of about 860 square miles. Since the Gold Rush era, most pre-existing marshes have been levied or filled; these activities have promoted the erosion of some of the existing marshes and have assisted in the creation of other new marshes by both accident and design. All but approximately an area of 33 square miles of these marshes have been levied or filled during the past 125 years. Concurrently, human activities have caused the delivery of enormous quantities of sediment to the bays, thereby contributing to the creation of nearly 29 square miles of marsh.70 b. Geology. The San Francisco Bay Area lies within the Coast Ranges geologic and physiographic province.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.5 Biological Resources
    3.5 Biological Resources 3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section describes the existing biological resources that occur on the project site and vicinity. This assessment of the existing conditions of biological resources is based upon biological field surveys, which were conducted to document existing habitat types and to assess the potential for occurrence of federally and/or state listed species within the project site. The general and site-specific discussion of biological resources contained herein provides the environmental baseline concerning environmental impacts that were identified and measured. Environmental impacts are discussed in Section 4.0. 3.5.1 RECENT BIOLOGICAL STUDIES Several studies have been conducted for the project site. These include: • The Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Naval Fuel Depot (NFD) Point Molate Richmond, California February, 2002(NFD EIR/EIS), (Appendix U); • A Special-Status Plant Survey and Habitat Assessment for NFD Point Molate (Tetra Tech, 1998); • A Final Habitat Assessment for the California Red-Legged Frog at NFD Point Molate (Uribe and Associates, 1998); • The Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Waters of the United States for the Point Molate Project Contra Costa County California (WWR, 2007a) (Appendix L); and • The Natural Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures Report Point Molate (WWR, 2007b). • Biological Assessment: Point Molate Mixed Use Tribal Destination Resort and Casino (AES, 2009) (Appendix J). Concurrence on the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) finding of not likely to adversely affect candidate, threatened, or endangered species was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS ) in February, 2009 (Appendix J).
    [Show full text]
  • The Guidiville Rancheria of California V United States of America
    Case 4:12-cv-01326-YGR Document 361 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 344 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 OAKLAND DIVISION 11 12 THE GUIDIVILLE RANCHERIA OF Case No. CV 12-1326 YGR CALIFORNIA, et al., 13 JUDGMENT [PROPOSED] 14 Plaintiffs, 15 vs. 16 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 17 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. CV 12-1326-YGR [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT Case 4:12-cv-01326-YGR Document 361 Filed 04/12/18 Page 2 of 344 1 In March 2012, plaintiffs Guidiville Rancheria of California (Tribe) and Upstream Point 2 Molate LLC (Upstream) (together, Plaintiffs) commenced the above-captioned action (Action) 3 against defendant City of Richmond (City). The controversy concerns a Land Disposition 4 Agreement (LDA) and its amendments, between Upstream and the City, the subject of which was 5 a proposed development of property located at the former Navy Fuel Depot Point Molate in 6 Richmond, California. 7 Following the signing of the LDA in 2004 and in accordance with the California 8 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Court finds that the City conducted a multi-year review 9 of potential environmental impacts resulting from several proposed projects, including a project 10 with residential units.1 In 2011, the City certified a final environmental impact report (EIR) for 11 potential projects at Point Molate. No party challenged the EIR. 12 In this Action, Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the City breached the LDA; the City denies 13 Plaintiffs’ claims.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 49; No. 2, pp. 123-162 April, ]959 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America Vol. 49 APRIL, 1959 No. 2 SEISMIC REGIONALIZATION By C. F. RICHTER ABSTRACT In the USSR earthquake risk is now officially mapped by division into areas numbered with the degrees of the Modified Mercalli intensity scale, to show maximum reasonably expectable intensity during future earthquakes on ground of the prevailing character. This paper presents and discusses maps on the same plan for the Los Angeles Basin and its vicinity, for California, and for the United States. The effect of variation of ground from point to point can be shown only on a large scale. This is microregionalization; the map for the Los Angeles Basin is an example. Small-scale regionaliza- tion maps require generalization. Prevailing ground is selected, not strictly by percentage of area, but by considering the foundation likely to be used for construction, in mountainous areas mostly small alluvial patches less stable than the surrounding rock. Regionalization and especially mieroregionalization can be used in construction and planning, as indicating maximum effects to be considered in designing permanent structures. In adjusting insurance rates, and in designing temporary structures, statistical frequency of occurrence is also involved. Over small areas, regionalization depends largely on local variation of ground and geology; over large areas, distance from active faults must be considered. Attention Should be given to the effect of structural trends and of wave path on the form of isoseismal curves. Mapping for the Los Angeles Basin area is reasonably definite.
    [Show full text]
  • By Alameda County Environmental Health 2:29 Pm
    TECHNICAL REPORT WORKPLAN - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FOR SOIL, GROUNDWATER Case #RO0003163 AND GEO TRACKER GLOBAL ID TI0000006546 AT ELEGANT CLEANER LOCATED AT 1208 LINCOLN AVENUE, ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA 94501-2326 Prepared for: Mr. REZA SHEIKHAI, 1208 LINCOLN AVENUE, ALAMEDA, CA 94501/Open Bank, 1000 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Prepared by: Dave Drilling Environmental Engineering, Inc. (DDEE) 2283/2285 Willow Avenue, Bay Point, CA 94565. Phone: (510) 258 – 5167 July 30, 2015. i TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION ..................................... 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVE ....................................................................................................................... 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND HISTORY………………………………………………………. 1.3 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY……………………………………………………………………………………….. 1.4 LOCAL GEOLOGY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1.5 REGIONAL GEOLOGY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1.6 REGIONAL STRATIGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1.7 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFERS………………………………………………………………………….. 2.0 CLIMATE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3.0 PRE-FIELD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 3.1 TASK ORDER MEETING ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    Case 4:12-cv-01326-YGR Document 361 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 344 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 OAKLAND DIVISION 11 12 THE GUIDIVILLE RANCHERIA OF Case No. CV 12-1326 YGR CALIFORNIA, et al., 13 JUDGMENT [PROPOSED] 14 Plaintiffs, 15 vs. 16 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 17 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. CV 12-1326-YGR [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT Case 4:12-cv-01326-YGR Document 361 Filed 04/12/18 Page 2 of 344 1 In March 2012, plaintiffs Guidiville Rancheria of California (Tribe) and Upstream Point 2 Molate LLC (Upstream) (together, Plaintiffs) commenced the above-captioned action (Action) 3 against defendant City of Richmond (City). The controversy concerns a Land Disposition 4 Agreement (LDA) and its amendments, between Upstream and the City, the subject of which was 5 a proposed development of property located at the former Navy Fuel Depot Point Molate in 6 Richmond, California. 7 Following the signing of the LDA in 2004 and in accordance with the California 8 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Court finds that the City conducted a multi-year review 9 of potential environmental impacts resulting from several proposed projects, including a project 10 with residential units.1 In 2011, the City certified a final environmental impact report (EIR) for 11 potential projects at Point Molate. No party challenged the EIR. 12 In this Action, Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the City breached the LDA; the City denies 13 Plaintiffs’ claims.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitigated Negative Declaration for Chevron Tank Replacements
    Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for Chevron Tank Replacements Prepared By: City of Richmond 450 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, California 94804 Contact: Lamont Thompson, Senior Planner (510) 620-6947 Contents 1.0 Summary......................................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Environmental Checklist..............................................................................................................................9 2.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................9 2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected........................................................................................9 2.3 Determination ....................................................................................................................................10 2.4 Environmental Checklist and Discussion .........................................................................................11 I. AESTHETICS..........................................................................................................................11 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES.....................................................................15 III. AIR QUALITY..........................................................................................................................16 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..................................................................................................26
    [Show full text]