HILLTOP SPECULATIVE SCHOOL Initial Study
Prepared for July 2014 City of Richmond 450 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor Richmond, California 94804 Contact: Kieron Slaughter, Associate Planner
110 LINDEN STREET | OAKLAND, CA | 94607 5 1 0 . 8 3 6 . 6 5 9 4 | s t u d i o b o n d y . c o m
SPEC SCHOOL
PROJECT NO:: 1309.00
3000-3050 HILLTOP MALL ROAD RICHMOND, CA | 94806
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS INC. 4970 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 100 LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 CONTACT: WILLIAM TOY 650.810.2937 P 650.938.5538 F E-MAIL: [email protected]
CIVIL ENGINEER SANDIS 636 9TH STREET OAKLAND, CA 94607 CONTACT: MICHAEL KUYKENDALL 510.873.8866 P 510.873.8868 F Shane Drive E-MAIL: [email protected] LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WILSON & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 815 SAN DIEGO ROAD BERKELEY, CA 94707 CONTACT: CHARLES WILSON 510.644.9602 P 510.644.9604 F E-MAIL: [email protected] ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER ACOUSTIC ARTS AND ENGINEERING 2271 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, SUITE B BERKELEY, CA 94703 CONTACT: TIM SCHMIDT 510.845.2661 P E-MAIL: [email protected]
SUSTAINABILITY CONSULTANT [i3] INTEGRAL IMPACT INC. 1566 HAMPSHIRE STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 CONTACT: PRUDENCE FERREIRA 415.693.4302 P E-MAIL: [email protected]
Hilltop Mall Drive
2' 4' 10' 20' N.T.S.
3D RENDERINGS HILLTOP SPECULATIVE SCHOOL Initial Study
Prepared for July 2014 City of Richmond 450 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor Richmond, California 94804 Contact: Kieron Slaughter, Associate Planner
550 Kearny Street Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 415.896.5900 www.esassoc.com
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Palm Springs
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
Santa Cruz
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
130984 TABLE OF CONTENTS Hilltop Speculative School Initial Study
Page Environmental Checklist S-1 Summary Information S-1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected S-2 1. Project Description 1-1 1.1 Project Overview 1-1 1.2 Project Site and Vicinity 1-1 1.3 Existing General Plan and Zoning 1-7 1.4 Project Characteristics 1-7 1.5 Project Approvals 1-13 2. Environmental Checklist 2-1 2.1 Aesthetics 2-1 2.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources 2-4 2.3 Air Quality 2-6 2.4 Biological Resources 2-17 2.5 Cultural Resources 2-23 2.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 2-28 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2-35 2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2-39 2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 2-43 2.10 Land Use and Land Use Planning 2-49 2.11 Mineral Resources 2-50 2.12 Noise 2-51 2.13 Population and Housing 2-56 2.14 Public Services 2-57 2.15 Recreation 2-59 2.16 Transportation and Traffic 2-60 2.17 Utilities and Service Systems 2-80 2.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance 2-84 3. Report Preparers 3-1 3.1 Environmental Consultants 3-1
Hilltop Speculative School i ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 1, 2014 Table of Contents
Page Appendices A. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Detail A-1 B. Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area B-1 C. Transportation Impact Study B-1
List of Tables AIR-1 Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds for Construction 2-7 AIR-2 Average Daily Construction-Related Pollutant Emissions without Mitigation 2-11 AIR-3 Unmitigated Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions 2-13 AIR-4 Health Impacts from Existing Sources for New School Receptors 2-15 GHG-1 Estimated Construction-Related GHG Emissions 2-36 GHG-2 Unmitigated Project Increment Operational GHG Emissions 2-37 NOI-1 Maximum Noise Level in DBA 2-52 NOI-2 Traffic Noise Increases In The Project Area 2-54 TRA-1 Pedestrian Intersection Volumes 2-62 TRA-2 Bicyclist Intersection Volumes 2-63 TRA-3 Collisions by Party Category (Five Years between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2012) 2-64 TRA-4 General Level of Service Definitions 2-67 TRA-5 Intersection Level of Service Definitions 2-68 TRA-6 Intersection Level of Service – Existing Conditions 2-68 TRA-7 Trip Generation 2-70 TRA-8 Intersection Level of Service – Existing Plus Project Conditions 2-71 TRA-9 Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative AM Peak Hour Conditions 2-72 TRA-10 Off-Street Parking– City Zoning Code Requirements 2-78
List of Figures 1-1 Site Location Map 1-2 1-2 Existing Site Conditions Looking East from Shane Drive 1-4 1-3 Existing Site Conditions Looking Southwest toward Hilltop Drive 1-5 1-4 Surrounding Context 1-6 1-5 Proposed Site Plan 1-8 1-6 Illustrative View Looking Southwest 1-10 TRA-1 Project Location and Study Intersections 2-66
Hilltop Speculative School ii ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 1, 2014 INITIAL STUDY Environmental Checklist
Summary Information
1. Project Title: Hilltop Speculative School
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Richmond Planning and Building Services Department 450 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, CA 94804 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Kieron Slaughter, Associate Planner City of Richmond, Planning Department Phone: (510) 620-6887 4. Project Location: 3000-3050 Hilltop Mall Road Richmond, CA 94806 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Hilltop Community Ventures 5860 W. Las Positas Blvd., Suite 21 Pleasanton, CA 94588 (925) 224-8278 6. General Plan Designation(s): High Intensity Mixed-Use (Major Activity Center) 7. Zoning Designation(s): C-3 Regional Commercial 8. Description of Project: The proposed Hilltop Speculative School project involves construction of a new speculative middle and high school campus. The school would accommodate an enrollment of up to 1,400 students in grades 6 through 12 (or a portion of those grades) and up to 108 staff. The project would demolish approximately 55,533 square feet of existing one-story commercial buildings and construct a complex of two classroom buildings, a gymnasium and central athletic playfield, outdoor use areas, and associated parking and infrastructure improvements. The two proposed classroom buildings each would be two stories and a maximum of 30’-6” tall with a total building floor area of 61,147 square feet. The proposed gymnasium would be a maximum of 32’-0” tall with a total floor area of 12,081 square feet. Minimal grading is proposed to the existing property, which slopes steeply upward along its east, west and south perimeters. The proposed development would be situated in the relatively flat central and north areas of the site. The project sponsor seeks approvals to develop the project in advance of a designated school operator(s). The school is projected to be constructed and operational by fall 2015.
Hilltop Speculative School S-1 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 Initial Study
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting. Land uses adjacent to the project site include low- rise commercial office buildings, a regional shopping mall, and a vegetated parcel that contains a public utility water tank. Other uses in the vicinity of the site include a church, automobile oil change business, and a primarily single-family residential neighborhood. Interstate 80 (I-80) is located approximately one-half mile east of the project site. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) for approval of new service requests and new water meter installations. San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for General Stormwater Permit (SWPPP – Notice of Intent) and Municipal Stormwater Permit (MS4) Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 1 (General Requirements) for all portable construction equipment subject to that rule. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The proposed project could potentially affect the environmental factor(s) checked below. The following pages present a more detailed checklist and discussion of each environmental factor.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology, Soils and Seismicity Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial study:
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, no further environmental documentation is required.
Hilltop Speculative School S-2 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014
CHAPTER 1 Project Description
1.1 Project Overview
Hilltop Community Ventures (project sponsor) proposes the construction of a state of the art speculative charter or private middle and high school campus on approximately 8.38 acres of developed land at 3000-3050 Hilltop Mall Road in Richmond, California. The Hilltop Speculative School (proposed project) would demolish existing commercial buildings and construct a complex of two classroom buildings, a gymnasium and central athletic playfield, outdoor use areas, and associated parking and infrastructure improvements. The project sponsor seeks approvals to develop the proposed facilities and site improvements in advance of a designated school operator(s).
The City of Richmond, serving as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has conducted the required environmental review for the project pursuant to CEQA, prior to approval of the project. In accordance with Section 15071 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared this Initial Study to determine the potential environmental consequences of approval and implementation of the project. This Initial Study provides the necessary information to inform City decision makers, other responsible agencies, and the public of the nature of the project and its potential effect on the environment.
1.2 Project Site and Vicinity
Project Location The project site is located at 3000 – 3050 Hilltop Mall Road in the City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California. (See Figure 1-1, Site Location Map.) The project site is approximately 8.38 acres composed of five parcels that the project would merge into a single parcel. The Assessor Parcel Numbers [APNs] are 405-303-006, 405-303-007, 405-303-008, 405-303-009, and 405-303-010.
The project site is bound on the north by Hilltop Mall Road, which separates the site from Hilltop Mall, a regional shopping center. The site is bound on the south by Hilltop Drive, on the east by a commercial building and public utility water tank surrounded by heavy vegetation, and to the west by Shane Drive, a north-south connector between Hilltop Drive and Hilltop Mall Road. Interstate 80 (I-80) and its on- and off-ramps are located approximately one-half mile east of the project site.
Hilltop Speculative School 1-1 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 Wa ve F rly la Dr 80 n SANTA ROSA VACAVILLE ne NAPA ry 101 R Project Site FAIRFIELD d
R ic NOVATO VALLEJO hm on d Pkw SAN CONCORD y RAFAEL RICHMOND ve A WALNUT BERKELEY CREEK H o il l lto OAKLAND b 680 p a D r SAN P SAN ALAMEDA FRANCISCO RAMON n a 580 DALY CITY S HAYWARD
280 FREMONT SAN MATEO 880 L Pacific Ocean REDWOOD a CITY k lz e P si to r MOUNTAIN 101 u VIEW A D d r 280 e D e SAN e D m g JOSE y lu id r a B r k W h oo t erl r Ov o
N
Hil y ltop M all a Rd W e Hi s llvie lo w K Dr
y
a
W 80
d o o r w D e g Hilltop Mall y id R a w r r i D a F a y w e W gvie id Lon s H e r il PROJECT SITE e D lt r w op T ie ev M rov all G Rd H Garrity W ate i ay hg ll ig Dr v H ie w D Hilltop Dr ir r w C evie r at r D G ille Mcke M nzi ert e D ob r Dr R Henderson y Gilm a a D
r A W
l Dr B t de a a me
l r e Fai
r
l M f a E s i y r Wis a wall Dr t Dr W Mu m D o llens Gro a Dr r r y D B G D d r om in R e i er m r r E r D s t m r r Benja er s in D y a in C o c g t s M n h i am n D ly r r D G e r n r O D a D xf y h e or le S tt d rk le Av a o e B C Rd H en u O Bri ll D r
r t r D D n S ry n d u A r rb Jo a te n n a C Bar
ve D Parker Rd A u a k r l e oyo D L ve A rt A v la ga e i Mo za W ra on g G 0 2000 a
R d Feet
Hilltop Speculative School . 130984 SOURCE: ESRI ; ESA Figure 1-1 Site Location Map 1. Project Description
Existing Site Uses The site currently has 55,533 square feet of one-story commercial development made up of three buildings: an existing vacant grocery store (previously Lucky’s) and adjacent occupied retail spaces that include medical services restaurants, and two freestanding bank buildings one of which is vacant. While specific businesses on the site have varied over time, the existing development was created on the project site between 1976 and 1978. The largely vacant facilities (the former grocery store and one of the free-standing bank buildings are vacant, but could be leased) are in moderate condition due to age and lack of maintenance; the existing paved parking lot is in reasonably good conditions, with mature, overgrown landscaping in the islands throughout. Lighting poles exist throughout the surface parking lot.
Existing Site Characteristics The topography of the project site slopes from the south to the north. The asphalt parking in the central portion is relatively flat, and the western and southern property boundaries contain a unpaved and vegetated area that slopes upward approximately 30-45 degrees to the south and west toward Hilltop Drive, which is the rear of the project site. Mature trees and landscaping exists along the street frontages of Shane Drive and Hilltop Mall Road. (See Figure 1-2, Existing Site Conditions, Looking East from Shane Drive, and Figure 1-3, Existing Site Conditions, Looking Southwest toward Hilltop Drive.)
The elevation of the project site is approximately 192 feet above mean sea level. Based on the surface topography of the site (and subsurface investigations conducted at nearby sites), shallow groundwater flow is likely generally toward the north-northwest, toward the San Pablo Bay.
There are no known existing or abandoned water wells located on the project site. An above- ground Pacific, Gas, and Electric (PGE) transformer is located in the eastern portion of the site near the loading area of the former grocery store. Also, a high-pressure natural gas transmission pipeline owned and operated by PG&E is located within the Hilltop Drive right-of-way, immediately south of the project site.
The project site is fully served by all public utilities. A concrete drainage ditch exists along the east and most of the south border of the project site.
Surrounding Uses Land uses adjacent to the project site are primarily low-rise (two- to three-story) commercial office buildings and the regional shopping mall. The adjacent building to the east houses the offices of the American Auto Association (AAA), and a medical office building is located to the west (across Shane Drive). Consistent with the development pattern in the area, both of these structures are set back from the street and surrounded by landscaped parking areas, similar to the proposed campus. Hilltop Mall is directly north of the project site, with Wal-Mart as the nearest tenant. (See Figure 1-4, Surrounding Context.)
Hilltop Speculative School 1-3 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 Hilltop Speculative School . 130984 SOURCE: SGI, 2013 Figure 1-2 Existing Site Conditions Looking East from Shane Drive Hilltop Speculative School . 130984 SOURCE: SGI, 2013 Figure 1-3 Existing Site Conditions Looking Southwest toward Hilltop Drive HILLTOP MALL ROAD
Hilltop Mall Complex
BLUME DRIVE
Townhomes GARRITY WAY Multi-Family Residential Commercial Commercial Uses ROBERTHilltop MILLER DRIVE Uses Fire Station PROJECT Hotel SITE EBMUD Reservoir
HILLTOP DRIVE Auto Oil Changer Church Single Family Residential Single Family Residential K-8 School
North Reservoir
0 500
Feet I-80
INQUIRY #: 3672919.5 YEAR: 2012 Hilltop Speculative School . 130984 SOURCE: SGI, 2013; ESA = 500' Figure 1-4 Surrounding Context 1. Project Description
The mall is separated from the project site by Hilltop Mall Road and the mall’s expansive parking lot. As previously described, the project site slopes up steeply to Hilltop Drive. Therefore, uses across Hilltop Drive are not directly visible from the project site, although the project site is visible from the higher elevations of Hilltop and Shane Drives. Across Hilltop Drive is the large Hilltop Community Church and an automobile oil change station. A private elementary / middle school (K-8) is located within the Hilltop Community Church property. As shown in Figure 1-4, residential neighborhoods of primarily one- and two-family units exist south of those uses and across Shane Avenue, north of Hilltop Drive.
Access and Transportation Vehicular access to the project site is currently from a right-in/right-out-only driveway on Shane Avenue that is only accessible to northbound vehicles. Two in-out driveways provide access and egress to and from the project site along Hilltop Mall Road.
Eight AC Transit bus lines terminate adjacent to and across the street from the project site. The project site is also adjacent to a planned Class II bicycle lane along Hilltop Drive designated in the Richmond Bicycle Master Plan. Sidewalks near the project site are currently along the west side of Shane Drive (opposite the project site).
1.3 Existing General Plan and Zoning
The project site is within the City’s “C-3 Regional Commercial” zoning district, which allows the proposed secondary school use as a permitted use. The site has the land use designation of “High Intensity Mixed-Use (Major Activity Center)” in the City’s General Plan.
1.4 Project Characteristics
Overall Development The project sponsor seeks approvals to develop, speculatively, the proposed facilities and site improvements in advance of one or more designated operator(s), and the proposed campus layout and building characteristics are designed to accommodate potentially two separate schools.1
The proposed project would redevelop all uses and facilities on the project site. Specifically, the three existing buildings (former supermarket and retail building and two free-standing bank buildings) would be demolished to allow for construction of the new school campus. The only facility to remain is the existing concrete drainage ditch along the east and most of the south edges of the project site. (See Figure 1-5, Proposed Site Plan.)
1 Use of singular “school” throughout this Initial Study encompasses full development of, and operations on, the site, regardless of whether more than one operator is ultimately selected.
Hilltop Speculative School 1-7 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 New Sidewalks Hilltop Mall Road
110 LINDEN STREET | OAKLAND, CA | 94607 5 1 0 . 8 3 6 . 6 5 9 4 | s t u d i o b o n d y . c o m
Parking SPEC SCHOOL 3 Bio-Retention 4 Area (typ.)
PROJECT NO:: 1309.00
3000-3050 HILLTOP MALL ROAD Internal Drive and Drop-off/Pick-up RICHMOND, CA | 94806
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS INC. 4970 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 100 LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 CONTACT: WILLIAM TOY 650.810.2937 P 650.938.5538 F Shane Drive E-MAIL: [email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER SANDIS 636 9TH STREET Classroom OAKLAND, CA 94607 Classroom CONTACT: MICHAEL KUYKENDALL 510.873.8866 P Building A 510.873.8868 F 5 Building B E-MAIL: [email protected]
Athletic Field LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WILSON & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 815 SAN DIEGO ROAD BERKELEY, CA 94707 CONTACT: CHARLES WILSON 510.644.9602 P Natural Grass 510.644.9604 F E-MAIL: [email protected] Area (typ.) ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER ACOUSTIC ARTS AND ENGINEERING 2271 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, SUITE B BERKELEY, CA 94703 CONTACT: TIM SCHMIDT 510.845.2661 P E-MAIL: [email protected]
1 1 SUSTAINABILITY CONSULTANT [i3] INTEGRAL IMPACT INC. 1566 HAMPSHIRE STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 Fire Access Drive CONTACT: PRUDENCE FERREIRA Natural Grass 415.693.4302 P E-MAIL: [email protected] Bio-Retention Area (typ.) Area (typ.) Gymnasium
2
Existing Concrete Drainage
6 Existing Mature Tree to Remain (typ.) Hilltop Drive
0 N 100
Feet 1 Bicycle Parking 3 Electric Vehicle Changing Station 5 New Mid-Block Pedestrian Crosswalk Proposed 2 Basketball Court 4 Trash Enclosure 6 Class 2 Bicycle Lane Proposed
15' 30' 60' Hilltop Speculative School . 130984 1" = 30'-0" SOURCE: Hilltop Community Ventures, Studio Bondy Architecture, 2014 Figure 1-5 Proposed Site Plan SITE PLAN 1. Project Description
Overall proposed development by the project includes the following:
134,375 gross square feet of new buildings, consisting of two 61,147 square-foot classroom buildings and one 12,081 square-foot gymnasium
One-half-acre grass athletic playfield Outdoor gathering, teaching, and play areas
New asphalt-paved parking areas, driveways, and 111 parking stalls including four (4) electric charging stations
New landscaping and trees throughout redeveloped portions of the site Natural grass and bio-retention areas
Approximately 60 bicycle parking spaces and bicycle paths onsite
New off-site sidewalks along the west side of Shane Drive and along the south side of Hilltop Mall Road, both adjacent to project site
New, protected (buffered) off-site bicycle lane along Hilltop Drive, adjacent to the project site
New mid-block pedestrian cross-walk across Shane Drive
New median barrier along Shane Drive
New utility infrastructure, including sewer, storm water, electric, and gas service on site
The proposed project also involves consolidation of the five (5) existing parcels that make up the site into a single parcel.
The new school campus would be configured with the proposed buildings in a U-shaped to maximize function and security. (See Figure 1-6, Illustrative View Looking Southwest.) The layout of the new buildings on the site would surround a central protected school yard / central athletic playfield on the east, west, and south. The main athletic playfield is located in the center of the campus, immediately south of the drop off and pick up area and new parking lot. An additional athletic field (basketball court) would be developed in the southwest corner of the site. The spaces between the buildings and the existing hillside to the east and south of the site would form quiet outdoor gathering and teaching spaces. The proposed new parking area would be located along Hilltop Mall Road to separate the outdoor campus areas from roadway traffic.
Hilltop Speculative School 1-9 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 110 LINDEN STREET | OAKLAND, CA | 94607 5 1 0 . 8 3 6 . 6 5 9 4 | s t u d i o b o n d y . c o m
SPEC SCHOOL
PROJECT NO:: 1309.00
3000-3050 HILLTOP MALL ROAD RICHMOND, CA | 94806
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS INC. 4970 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 100 LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 CONTACT: WILLIAM TOY 650.810.2937 P 650.938.5538 F E-MAIL: [email protected]
CIVIL ENGINEER SANDIS Classroom Building A 636 9TH STREET Gymnasium OAKLAND, CA 94607 CONTACT: MICHAEL KUYKENDALL 510.873.8866 P 510.873.8868 F Shane Drive E-MAIL: [email protected] LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WILSON & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 815 SAN DIEGO ROAD BERKELEY, CA 94707 CONTACT: CHARLES WILSON 510.644.9602 P 510.644.9604 F E-MAIL: [email protected] ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER ACOUSTIC ARTS AND ENGINEERING Athletic Field 2271 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, SUITE B BERKELEY, CA 94703 CONTACT: TIM SCHMIDT 510.845.2661 P Classroom Building B E-MAIL: [email protected]
SUSTAINABILITY CONSULTANT [i3] INTEGRAL IMPACT INC. 1566 HAMPSHIRE STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 CONTACT: PRUDENCE FERREIRA 415.693.4302 P Parking Lot E-MAIL: [email protected] Internal Drive and Drop-off/Pick-up
Parking Lot
Hilltop Mall Drive
2' 4' 10' 20' N.T.S.
3D RENDERINGS
Hilltop Speculative School . 130984 SOURCE: Hilltop Community Ventures, Studio Bondy Architecture, 2014 Figure 1-6 Illustrative View Looking Southwest 1. Project Description
School Population, Program and Hours The proposed campus would accommodate an enrollment of up to 1,400 students in grades 6 through 12 (or a portion of those grades) and up to 108 staff.2
Daily start times for the academic school day would be between 7:00 am and 10:00 am, and daily end times would be between 2:00 pm and 4:30 pm. The precise schedule would be determined when an operator(s) is selected. If more than one operator is on the facility, start and end times would be staggered as needed to ensure safe and functional drop off and pick up circulation.
In addition to regular daily weekday academic programs, the proposed school would also have programs during other times. Additional programs could include before school, after school, night, and weekend activities and events similar to other schools. These activities would include homework clubs, intra or intermural sports, back to school nights, dances, community activities, picnics, and school fairs.
New Buildings As shown in Figures 1-5 and 1-6, the project would construct the two classroom buildings, one each on the east and west sides of the campus’ “U” configuration, and the gymnasium would be developed on the southern portion of the site. Each of the buildings would be two-stories tall and concrete tilt-up construction. The two classroom buildings would be up to 31’-6” tall, and the proposed gymnasium building would be up to 32’-0” tall, excluding utility screens/parapets up to 10’-0” tall.
To accommodate the potential for more than one operator on the campus, separate identities would be designed for the two classroom buildings. This would be achieved through their location on the project site, exterior accent colors, and other design elements that would create a distinct identity within a cohesive campus design. Each of the two classroom buildings would have a separate entrance at either end of the drop off area. Also, the proposed buildings would be compatible with and similar in height, scale, setbacks and architectural character and materials to adjacent commercial development.
Site Grading and Stormwater Management The project site is relatively flat in the central and northern (front-most) areas, with steep undeveloped hillsides along the east, south and west edges. The topography and existing vegetation in these border areas of the site would not be altered/graded, except as needed to continue the existing hillside slope down to newly proposed concrete curbs and gutters behind (east and south) the new east classroom building and the gymnasium. Proposed cuts into the site would be less than approximately five feet in depth; the total amount of soil proposed to be excavated at the site is estimated at 10,000 cubic yards, and the total amount of soil proposed to be filled at the site is estimated at 18,000 cubic yards. The project proposes to balance the grading
2 The distribution of middle and high school students on site, within the 1,400 student cap, would be limited by that which can be accommodated by the parking provided onsite, per applicable parking regulations (see Parking and Circulation, below).
Hilltop Speculative School 1-11 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 1. Project Description
at the site, with no need for off-haul or import of soils. Finished floor elevations of the new buildings would be near existing grade, and no new retaining walls are proposed.
The stormwater management plan includes several bio-retention areas proposed throughout the campus. As shown in Figure 1-5, the bio-retention areas would occur primarily at the foot of the hillside along Shane Drive, behind the new west classroom building, in the northeast and northwest corners of the site; around the central athletic playfield; and in the parking lot area. New curbing is proposed around the parking area, some of which will be perforated to allow stormwater to flow into the bio-retention areas. The existing concrete drainage ditch along the east and most of the south edge of the site would remain.
The project site currently has 58 percent impervious surface consisting of pavement (asphalt) and structures. The proposed site plan minimizes hardscape where feasible and introduces new landscaping that would result in an approximately 15 percent less impervious surface compared to existing conditions.
Parking and Circulation
Parking / Vehicular Circulation The project would include a new asphalt parking lot onsite, fronting Hilltop Mall Road. The total of up to 111 spaces would include five accessible spaces and four spaces equipped with electric vehicle charging stations. Motor vehicles would access the campus from northbound Shane Drive and from Hilltop Mall Road. Both driveways lead to a single internal roadway and a single-loop parking lot and drop off/pick up area (see Figures 1-5 and 1-6). All of these parking and circulation facilities would be located north and separate from the main campus buildings and outdoor use areas. Vehicle access south of the main internal roadway would be limited to emergency vehicles and bicycles. The proposed site plan provides the flexibility to accommodate double-lane, one directional flow circulation (counterclockwise) through the parking lot and internal road during peak times of drop off/pick up as necessary.
Pedestrian / Bicycles The project would develop new sidewalks offsite and adjacent to project site; they would occur along the south side of Hilltop Mall Road and along the east side of Shane Drive, between Hilltop Mall Road and the Shane Drive driveway. The entire campus would have perimeter fencing, and pedestrian access points would occur at the driveway entrances where crosswalks with special pavement would be introduced. The project also would include a new crosswalk across Shane Drive at Hilltop Mall Road and a new stop sign on north bound Shane Drive at Hilltop Mall Road. Bicycle racks to accommodate at least 60 bicycles would be located in the central most areas of the project site.
Site Landscaping The proposed landscaping plan would introduce new formal and natural landscaping and trees throughout the new campus. Equally spaced trees would be in the parking areas, along the main
Hilltop Speculative School 1-12 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 1. Project Description
through-road, and around the central athletic playfield. Natural landscapes of a mix of grasses, shrubs and groundcovers would be introduced primarily along the perimeter of the new buildings. All existing trees on developed portions of the project site would be removed. The majority of healthy, desirable existing vegetation at the east, south and west edges of the property behind the proposed buildings would be retained. Specifically, of the total existing 253 trees onsite, 107 would be removed, primarily trees of low value or fair to poor condition. A total of 160 new trees would be introduced to the project site, resulting in a net gain of 53 trees. A new automatic irrigation system would be introduced in the formal planting areas, employing water-conservation features and smart technology.
Sustainability The project incorporates sustainability considerations in its overall concept as well as its site and building design. Overall, the redevelopment of the existing underutilized property located in proximity to public transportation and future bicycle lanes proposed as a part of the project and the City’s Bicycle Master Plan is a sustainability strategy. Further, as previously mentioned, the project site would increase the amount of pervious surfaces (grass and landscaping with smart irrigation technology) on the site compared to existing conditions, and reducing the volume of stormwater runoff from the property.
Individual buildings would use the latest in energy-saving building strategies and technologies, and would be constructed using high-quality, durable materials to reduce future maintenance and associated ecological footprint. Electric vehicle charging stations would be provided in the parking area, and up to 60 bicycles and designated safe bicycle routes onsite would be implemented to encourage and facilitate the use of bicycles by students and staff to get to and from campus.
Construction Construction is proposed to begin in fall 2014 and last approximately 12 months. The proposed buildings would be constructed concurrently, with the full campus planned for completion and occupancy in fall 2015.
Construction activity would involve temporary closure of traffic lanes during construction to allow for the construction of proposed sidewalks and utility installations on Hilltop Mall Road and Shane Drive. A maximum of approximately 125 construction workers and up to 60 construction vehicles could be onsite during major construction activities. All construction worker parking and equipment staging would occur on the project site.
1.5 Project Approvals
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is intended to provide the information and environmental analysis and CEQA clearance necessary to assist the public agency decision- makers in considering all of the approvals necessary for the proposed project. At the time this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, the discretionary actions or approvals
Hilltop Speculative School 1-13 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 1. Project Description
and other considerations and approvals required for the project include those listed below, without limitation.
City of Richmond As Lead Agency under CEQA for the project, the City of Richmond is responsible for reviewing and approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City will use the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in its decision-making for considering whether to grant the following approvals required for the project:
Design Review – The project would require City of Richmond design review approval for new construction.
Encroachment and Construction Permits – The project would require City approval of encroachment and obstruction permits to work within and close to various public rights-of- way.
Excavation Permits – The project would require City approval of excavation permits to conduct excavation activities on the project site.
Demolition Permits – The project would require City approval of demolition permits to conduct demolition of existing structures and facilities on the project site.
Tentative Parcel Map / Lot Line Adjustment – The project would require City approval and County recordation of a tentative parcel map / lot line adjustment for the proposed merger of five existing parcels into one parcel.
Other Agencies Portions of the project may require review and approval by a number of other public and quasi- public agencies with jurisdiction over specific aspects of the project. It is anticipated that these other agencies will rely upon this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in their review and decision-making processes. These agencies could include, but would not be limited to, the following:
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) for approval of new service requests and new water meter installations.
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for General Stormwater Permit (SWPPP – Notice of Intent) and Municipal Stormwater Permit (MS4)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 1 (General Requirements) for all portable construction equipment subject to that rule.
Hilltop Speculative School 1-14 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014
CHAPTER 2 Environmental Checklist
2.1 Aesthetics
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion a) Less than Significant. (Scenic Vista) There are no scenic vistas visible from areas near the project site that would encompass the project site or the proposed new development. This is primarily because of the bowl like topography of both the project site as well as the Hilltop District area, which slopes downward from Hilltop Drive and Blume Drive toward the expansive Hilltop Mall (mall) complex. Scenic vistas across the project site from higher elevation area in the larger vicinity could potentially include San Pablo Bay approximately two miles to the west and north, or even Hilltop Lake located just north of mall complex. However, vistas that include these resources are also limited by intervening development as well as stands and rows of mature vegetation (particularly south of the mall complex and surrounding the project site).
The project would not alter the topography of the project site. The proposed development on the project site would be located along the edges of the site, largely “tucked” into the three-sided bowl like topography. The new buildings would be between 31’-6” and 32’-0” tall, with utility screens/parapets up to ten additional feet on portions of the building roofs. Existing development is primarily tucked along the east edge of the site and on two pads along Hilltop Mall Road (see Figure 1-4, Site Context), and range from approximately 20 to 30 feet tall, including roof parapets. Therefore, compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would not result in development that is substantially taller or configured in a manner that could adversely affect views across the project site. In summary, the
Hilltop Speculative School 2-1 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The impact would be less than significant. b) No Impact. (Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway) Interstate 80 (I-80) is the nearest freeway to the project site and is approximately one-half mile to the east. I-80 is not an officially designated state scenic highway. There are no officially designated state scenic highways or eligible state scenic highways in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project could not substantially damage resources within a state scenic highway. c) Less than Significant. (Visual Character and Visual Quality) The proposed project would result in a visual change to the project site because it would demolish all existing buildings on the project site and develop a school campus composed of three new two-story buildings and a central athletic field. The existing visual character of the site is that of low-rise commercial buildings of one to two stories in height and minimal design detail, articulation, or notable architectural theme or style. Existing buildings in the area are set back from the street and surrounded by landscaped parking areas. The existing buildings on the project site are approximately 35 years old and have experienced minimal maintenance or use in the past several years. The paved parking area is in relatively good condition with mature landscaping in the islands throughout and particularly along the Hilltop Drive frontage.
The reuse of the project site as a middle/high school campus would represent a change over existing conditions, as the property has been a largely unused, paved parking lot for several years; the level and frequency of activity generated by the active uses remaining on the site is minimal. The proposed development would be consistent with the development pattern and building styles on and around the project site. As depicted in Figure 1-6, the proposed campus building would be of relatively low, rectangular buildings set back from the street, with parking and vehicular circulation areas fronting Hilltop Drive with a heavily landscaped frontage.
The majority of existing landscaping along the perimeter of the site, which is one of the sites most distinguishing characteristics (along with its three-sided bowl like topography) would be retained, although most of the existing vegetation and landscaping in the existing parking area and Hilltop Mall Drive frontage would need to be removed for construction. After construction, however, the project site would be replenished with a mix new formal and natural landscaping and trees throughout the new campus, including landscaping of shrubs, grasses, perennials, groundcovers and trees comparable to existing conditions, as well as a new sidewalk along Hilltop Drive adjacent to the site. In summary, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The impact would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant. (Light and Glare) The project site is located in an urban environment that includes existing sources of light and glare associated with nearby commercial land uses, including lighting in the expansive parking lot of the mall complex, as well as nearby buildings with glass facades that could create glare effects in certain
Hilltop Speculative School 2-2 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
daytime conditions. There are no uses nearby that would be sensitive to the level of lighting generated by the project, which would be the same as that in the area.
New lighting proposed by the project would include fixed exterior lighting for the parking area, pedestrian walkways, the athletic field, and for security purposes. Exterior lighting would consist mainly of shielded light fixtures that would project light downward, causing illumination to be relatively low. Evening use of the school facilities would result in visible light emanating from building interiors and from vehicle headlights as automobiles arrive and depart from parking areas during nighttime use of the campus. Ambient light generated by the school complex would be of a scale and intensity typical of the uses surrounding the project site, including in the evening, where nighttime uses include the mall complex and parking and restaurants. Also, nighttime lighting effects would be minimized and partially screened by existing and proposed trees and other landscaping, as well as its depressed elevation from Hilltop Drive.
In summary, the proposed project would not result in adverse light or glare impacts in the surrounding area. The impact would be less than significant.
References California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2014. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, available online at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm, accessed May 10, 2014.
Hilltop Community Ventures, 2014. Project Description and Plans: Preliminary Landscape Plan, Existing Tree Exhibits, Site Photometric Plan, March 31, 2014
U.S. Department of Transportation, 2014. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, available online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/, accessed May 10, 2014.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-3 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion a-e) No Impact. The project site is not located on or near any agricultural land, forest land, or timberland, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. The project site, as with the majority of developed land in the City of Richmond, is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2004; Department of Conservation, 2014). The site is not classified as Prime Agricultural Farmland, Unique Agricultural Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use; would not conflict with existing zoning or cause the rezoning of forest land or timberland or convert forest land to non-forest use; and would have no effect on farmland or any property subject to a Williamson Act contract.
References California, State of. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2004. A Guide to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Website: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/ Documents/fmmp_guide_2004.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2014.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-4 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
California Department of Conservation. Division of Land Resource Protection. California Important Farmland Finder. Contra Costa County. Website: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html. Accessed: May 15, 2014.
City of Richmond, 2012.Richmond General Plan 2030, Land Use Map. 2012.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-5 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.3 Air Quality
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is 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?
Setting The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency with jurisdiction over the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB).3 The BAAQMD is responsible for attaining and maintaining air quality in the SFBAAB within federal and state air quality standards, as established by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), respectively. Specifically, the BAAQMD has the responsibility to monitor ambient air pollutant levels throughout the SFBAAB and to develop and implement strategies to attain the applicable federal and state standards. The CAA and the CCAA require plans to be developed for areas that do not meet air quality standards, generally. The most recent air quality plan, the 2010 Clean Air Plan, was adopted by the BAAQMD on September 15, 2010. The 2010 Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the CCAA to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan; and establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented. The 2010 Clean Air Plan contains the following primary goals:
Attain air quality standards; Reduce population exposure and protect public health in the San Francisco Bay Area; and Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate.
3 Includes San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Napa Counties and portions of Sonoma and Solano Counties.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-6 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
The 2010 Clean Air Plan represents the most current applicable air quality plan for the SFBAAB. Consistency with this plan is the basis for determining whether the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of air quality plans in criterion “a”, above.
Criteria Air Pollutants In accordance with the state and federal CAAs, air pollutant standards are identified for the following six criteria air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. These air pollutants are termed criteria air pollutants because they are regulated by developing specific public health- and welfare-based criteria as the basis for setting permissible levels. In general, the SFBAAB experiences low concentrations of most pollutants when compared to federal or state standards and is designated as either in attainment4 or unclassified for most criteria pollutants. However, the SFBAAB is designated as non-attainment5 for ozone and particulate matter.
By its very nature, regional air pollution is largely a cumulative impact in that no single project is sufficient in size to result in non-attainment of air quality standards by itself. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulative air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be cumulatively considerable.
Table AIR-1 identifies air quality significance thresholds followed by a discussion of each threshold. Projects that would result in criteria air pollutant emissions below these significance thresholds would not violate an air quality standard, contribute substantially to an air quality violation, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants within the SFBAAB.
TABLE AIR-1 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Pollutant Average Daily Emissions (lbs./day)
ROG 54
NOx 54
PM10 82 (exhaust)
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) SOURCE: CCSF 2012
The potential for a project to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants, which may contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, are based on the state and federal CAAs emissions limits for stationary sources established by the federal New Source Review (NSR) program. Similarly, to ensure that new stationary sources do not cause or contribute to a violation of an air quality standard, BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2 requires that
4 Attainment status refers to those regions that are meeting federal and/or state standards for a specified criteria pollutant. Unclassified refers to regions where there is not enough data to determine the region’s attainment status for a specified criteria air pollutant. 5 Non-attainment refers to regions that do not meet federal and/or state standards for a specified criteria pollutant.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-7 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
any new source that emits criteria air pollutants above a specified emissions limit must offset those emissions.
The air quality analysis in criterion “c” below focuses primarily on the emissions of ozone and 6 particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) because the SFBAAB is designated as non-attainment for these pollutants. These pollutants are described as follows:
Ozone Precursors. As discussed previously, the SFBAAB is currently designated as non- attainment for ozone and particulate matter. Ozone is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving reactive organic gases
(ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), referred to as ozone precursors. The potential for a project to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants, which may contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, are based on the state and federal Clean Air Acts emissions limits for stationary sources. To ensure that new stationary sources do not cause or contribute to a violation of an air quality standard, BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2 requires that any new source that emits criteria air pollutants above a specified emissions limit must offset those emissions. For ozone precursors ROG and NOx, the offset emissions level is an annual average of 10 tons per year (or 54 pounds [lbs.] per day). These levels represent emissions by which new sources are not anticipated to contribute to an air quality violation or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants.
Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The federal NSR program was created by the federal CAA to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed in a manner that is consistent with attainment of federal health based ambient air quality standards. For PM10 and PM2.5, the emissions limit under NSR is 15 tons per year (82 lbs. per day) and 10 tons per year (54 lbs. per day), respectively. These emissions limits represent levels at which a source is not expected to have an impact on air quality. Although the regulations specified above apply to new or modified stationary sources, land use development projects result in ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions as a result of increases in vehicle trips, architectural coating and construction activities. Therefore, the above thresholds can be applied to the construction and operational phases of land use projects and those projects that result in emissions below these thresholds would not be considered to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in ozone precursors or particulate matter. Due to the temporary nature of construction activities, only the average daily thresholds are applicable to construction phase emissions.
Fugitive Dust. Fugitive dust emissions are typically generated during the construction phase of a project (see criterion “b”). Studies have shown that the application of best management practices (BMPs) at construction sites significantly control fugitive dust. Individual measures have been shown to reduce fugitive dust by anywhere from 30 to 90 percent. The BAAQMD has identified a number of BMPs to control fugitive dust emissions from construction activities.
6 PM10 is often termed “coarse” particulate matter and is made of particulates that are 10 microns in diameter or smaller. PM2.5, termed “fine” particulate matter, is composed of particles that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-8 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Local Health Risks and Hazards In addition to criteria air pollutants, individual projects may emit toxic air contaminants (TACs). TACs collectively refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that are capable of causing chronic (i.e., of long-duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short-term) adverse effects to human health, including carcinogenic effects. Human health effects of TACs include birth defects, neurological damage, cancer, and death. There are hundreds of different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Individual TACs vary greatly in the health risk they present; at a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than another.
Unlike criteria air pollutants, TACs do not have ambient air quality standards but are regulated by the BAAQMD using a risk-based approach to determine which sources and pollutants to control as well as the degree of control. A health risk assessment is an analysis in which human health exposure to toxic substances is estimated, and considered together with information regarding the toxic potency of the substances, to provide quantitative estimates of health risks.7
Air pollution does not affect every individual in the population in the same way, and some groups are more sensitive to adverse health effects than others. Land uses such as residences, schools, children’s day care centers, hospitals, and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be the most sensitive to poor air quality because the population groups associated with these uses have increased susceptibility to respiratory distress or, as in the case of residential receptors, their exposure time is greater than for other land uses. Therefore, these land uses are referred to as sensitive receptors. Exposures to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are strongly associated with mortality, respiratory diseases, and lung development in children, and other endpoints such as hospitalization for cardiopulmonary disease (SFDPH, 2008). In addition to PM2.5, diesel particulate matter (DPM) is also of concern. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) identified DPM as a TAC in 1998, primarily based on evidence demonstrating cancer effects in humans. The estimated cancer risk from exposure to diesel exhaust is much higher than the risk associated with any other TAC routinely measured in the region.
Excess Cancer Risk. As described by the BAAQMD, the USEPA considers a cancer risk of 100 per million to be within the “acceptable” range of cancer risk. Furthermore, in the 1989 preamble to the benzene National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) rulemaking,8 the USEPA states that it “…strives to provide maximum feasible protection against risks to health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no higher than approximately one in one million and (2) limiting to no higher than approximately one in ten thousand [100 in one million] the estimated risk that a person living near a plant would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years.” The 100 per one million excess cancer cases is also consistent with the ambient cancer risk in the most pristine portions of the Bay Area based on BAAQMD regional modeling (BAAQMD, 2009).
7 In general, a health risk assessment is required if the BAAQMD concludes that projected emissions of a specific air toxic compound from a proposed new or modified source suggest a potential public health risk. The applicant is then subject to a health risk assessment for the source in question. Such an assessment generally evaluates chronic, long-term effects, estimating the increased risk of cancer as a result of exposure to one or more TACs. 8 54 Federal Register 38044, September 14, 1989.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-9 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Fine Particulate Matter. In April 2011, the USEPA published Policy Assessment for the Particulate Matter Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, “Particulate Matter
Policy Assessment.” In this document, USEPA staff conclude that the current federal annual PM2.5 standard of 15 µg/m3 should be revised to a level within the range of 13 to 11 µg/m3, with evidence strongly supporting a standard within the range of 12 to 11 µg/m3.
Discussion a) Less than Significant. (Air Quality Plan) The most recently adopted air quality plan in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is the BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan. The 2010 Clean Air Plan is a roadmap showing how the San Francisco Bay Area will achieve compliance with the State one-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air basins. The control strategy includes stationary source control measures to be implemented through BAAQMD regulations; mobile source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), local governments, transit agencies, and others. The 2010 Clean Air Plan also represents the Bay Area’s most recent triennial assessment of the region’s strategy to attain the State one-hour ozone standard.
BAAQMD guidance states that “if approval of a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation, the project would be considered consistent with the 2010 Clean Air Plan.” As indicated in the discussion of the following criteria “b through d”, the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Therefore, based on BAAQMD guidance, the project is considered consistent with the 2010 Clean Air Plan (air quality plan). The impact is less than significant impact. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. (Air Quality Standards/Local Criteria Pollutants) Construction Construction of the proposed project would result in emissions of criteria pollutants from the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, haul truck trips, and vehicle trips generated from
construction workers traveling to and from the site. In addition, fugitive dust or PM10 emissions would result from excavation, trenching, and other construction activities. These emissions include the ozone precursor compounds ROG and NOx as well as particulate
emissions (PM10 and PM2.5). As the San Francisco Bay Area air basin is already designated
as a non-attainment area with respect to ozone, PM10 and PM2.5, BAAQMD has developed thresholds that represent cumulatively considerable contributions of these non-attainment pollutants or their precursors (also see criterion “c” below).
Construction-related emissions from the proposed project were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), assuming construction of a middle/high school with a 1,400 student design capacity, over an approximately 8.38 acre site. Demolition and removal of approximately 55, 533 square feet of existing buildings would be required.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-10 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Construction was assumed to occur over approximately a 12-month period beginning in fall of 2014. Construction activities were divided into four phases: site preparation, grading, building construction, and architectural coating. All model inputs and outputs are provided in Appendix A.
As can be seen in Table AIR-2, estimated peak-day construction-related exhaust emissions
would not exceed the thresholds for NOx, ROG, PM10 or PM2.5. Because estimated emissions are below the daily thresholds, this impact is less than significant. Because these thresholds were created to be protective of human health, the impact to human health from project construction-related pollutant emissions also would be less than significant.
TABLE AIR-2 AVERAGE DAILY CONSTRUCTION-RELATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds per day) WITHOUT MITIGATION
Year ROG NOx Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5
Project Emissions 11.67 35.46 2.10 1.96 BAAQMD Considered Construction Threshold 54 54 82 54 Potential Significant Impact? No No No No
SOURCE: ESA (Appendix A)
The BAAQMD’s approach to analysis of construction-related particulate impacts (other than exhaust PM) is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive dust control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. The BAAQMD considers construction-related fugitive dust impacts of projects to be less than significant if a suite of recommended dust-control measures are implemented. Therefore, BAAQMD-identified Best Management Practices for control of fugitive dust are included as a mitigation measure. BAAQMD recognizes the Best Management Practices in Mitigation Measure AIR-1 to be sufficient to reduce construction-related non-exhaust particulate matter impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The following BAAQMD Best Management Practices for particulate control will be required for all construction activities within the project site. These measures will reduce particulate emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities and also by vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved project sites:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. 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.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-11 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5. 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. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, § 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. 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.
8. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours of a complaint or issue notification. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Operations Operational emissions of criteria pollutants were estimated using the CalEEMod version 2013.2.2 emissions inventory model. All model inputs and outputs are provided in Appendix A.
One of the major sources of operational emissions would be vehicle emissions from students, parents and staff commuting to and from the site, and deliveries, etc. Project operations would generate an estimated 3,125 daily vehicle trips, as described in Section 2.16, Transportation and Traffic. In addition to exhaust emissions, vehicles would also
generate PM10 or PM2.5 from entrained road dust and tire and brake wear.
Emissions would also be generated by onsite natural gas combustion, operation of landscape maintenance equipment, and maintenance application of paint and other architectural coatings.
Table AIR-3 presents estimated operational emissions. As shown in the table, without mitigation, operational emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds for NOx,
ROG, PM10 or PM2.5 as they would be below threshold levels. Operational emissions from the proposed project would be less than significant. Because these thresholds were created to be protective of human health, the impact to human health from operational emissions also would be less than significant.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-12 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
TABLE AIR-3 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)
Air Pollutant ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sourcesa 12.44 28.15 17.65 4.93 Area Sourcesa 4.52 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Natural gas combustion 0.09 0.86 0.07 0.07 Total 17.05 29.01 17.71 4.99 Regional Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No No No No
a Mobile sources are motor vehicles and trucks. Area sources include landscape maintenance (equipment used for these activities such as gasoline-powered lawnmowers and blowers), maintenance application of paints and other interior and exterior surface coatings, and increased use of consumer products that result in emissions of ROG. Natural gas combustion is for space and water heating. SOURCE: ESA, 2014 (see Appendix A).
Also, the proposed project would generate vehicle trips that may result in localized increases in traffic volumes and potentially congested intersections where localized concentrations of CO could accumulate. BAAQMD Revised Draft Options and Justification Report for CEQA Thresholds of Significance identify a proxy threshold9 of 550 pounds per day of CO for vehicle emissions. The CalEEMod estimator model predicts the project would generate 136.7 pounds per day of CO which is substantially below the proxy threshold. The impact is considered to be less than significant. c) Less than Significant (Cumulatively Considerable). (Cumulatively Considerable Regional Criteria Pollutants) Project-level thresholds identified in BAAQMD’s Justification Report reflect the level at which a project’s individual contribution would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing air quality problem; therefore, if project impacts are identified as significant, impacts would also be cumulatively considerable. If a project’s individual contribution is less than significant, the cumulative impact of that project would not be cumulatively considerable.
As described above for criterion “b”, the construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions project would not exceed the thresholds. Therefore, development of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. d) Less than Significant. (Toxic Air Contaminants / Sensitive Receptors)
9 A proxy threshold is a substitute threshold described by BAAQMD in its 2009 Justification Report on significance thresholds for air quality in the form of a mass emissions threshold, traffic LOS threshold, and a traffic volume threshold. If below the proxy thresholds, then no quantification is done and no comparison to the ambient standards is completed.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-13 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Construction Construction of the proposed project would result in emissions of criteria pollutants from the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, haul truck trips, and vehicle trips generated from
construction workers traveling to and from the site. In addition, fugitive dust or PM10 emissions would result from excavation, trenching, and other construction activities.
Construction-related activities could result in the generation of TACs, specifically diesel PM, from on-road haul trucks and off-road equipment exhaust emissions. Due to the variable nature of construction activity, the generation of TAC emissions in most cases would be temporary, especially considering the short amount of time such equipment is typically within an influential distance that would result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations. Concentrations of mobile-source diesel PM emissions are typically reduced by 70 percent at a distance of approximately 500 feet.
The nearest sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 230 feet to the south, across Hilltop Drive (and behind a soundwall along the south side of Hilltop Drive). BAAQMD specifically defines sensitive receptors as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals and residential areas.
The state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recommends that districts assume a minimum of two years of exposure for health risk analysis which is more than the proposed 12 month construction duration of the proposed project. Consequently the overall duration of construction would be sufficiently short to avoid any expected health impacts to adjacent sensitive land uses (BAAQMD, 2010b).
Operations The proposed project would not result in the siting of a new source of toxic air contaminants (TAC). Common stationary source types of TAC emissions include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and diesel backup generators, which are subject to BAAQMD permit requirements. The other, often more common source type is on-road diesel vehicles on freeways and high volume roadways. The proposed project would not result in construction of a new source of TAC or result in a substantial increase in diesel truck operations.
The proposed project would site a new sensitive receptor, a school land use. The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include standards and methods for determining the significance of health risk impacts for new receptors resulting from the proposed project. The method for determining health risk requires the review of health risk from permitted sources and major roadways in the vicinity of a project (i.e., within a 1,000-foot radius of the source), then adding the project impacts to determine whether the health risk thresholds for new receptors are exceeded.
BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted emissions sources throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, and has developed the Stationary Source Risk &
Hilltop Speculative School 2-14 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Hazard Analysis Tool (dated May 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from permitted sources.
BAAQMD has also developed a geo-referenced database of major roadways throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and has developed the Highway Screening Analysis Tool (dated May 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from roadways. Interstate 80 is located over 2,000 feet east of the proposed project site. Thus, the health impacts from this roadway need not be considered in this analysis.
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also require the inclusion of surface streets within 1,000 feet of the project with annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 10,000 or greater. Upon review the health impacts from Hilltop Drive with an estimated 22,000 AADT and located within 50 feet of the project site was included.
A summary of the cumulative health impacts from existing permitted stationary sources and roadways for the new school project is found in Table AIR-4.
TABLE AIR-4 HEALTH IMPACTS FROM EXISTING SOURCES FOR NEW SCHOOL RECEPTORS
Cancer Risk PM2.5 (persons per Hazard Concentration Site # Facility Type Address million) Impact (µg/m3)
16304 Verizon Wireless 3135 Hilltop Drive 3.92 0.001 0.0009 16261 Macy’s 2500 Hilltop Mall 0 0 0.001 16394 J.C. Penny 1000 Hilltop Mall 0 0 0 Roadway Sources Hilltop Drive 3.14 NA 0.113 Highest Single Source Impact 3.92 0.001 0.113 BAAQMD Significance Criteria (new receptor) 10 1 0.3 Potentially Significant Impact? No No No SOURCE: BAAQMD 2012 and ESA 2014.
Nearby sources of emissions in the area would have a health impact on the new school use proposed by the project. The highest cancer risk from any of the nearby sources would be 3.92 persons per million (due to a nearby back-up diesel generator). Thus, the cancer risk for new receptors is below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and would be less than significant.
The highest hazard index from nearby sources would be 0.001; well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact on the proposed school use would be less than significant. The 3 highest annual PM2.5 concentrations would be 0.11 µg/m as a result of roadway traffic on
Hilltop Drive. This PM2.5 concentration at the proposed school site would be below the 3 BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/m , and hence is considered less than significant.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-15 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
e) Less than Significant. (Odors) As a general matter, the types of land use development that pose potential odor problems include wastewater treatment plants, refineries, landfills, composting facilities and transfer stations. The project does not propose such uses. Therefore the project would not create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. The impact would be less than significant.
References Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds of Significance, October, 2009.
BAAQMD, 2010a. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, 2010.
BAAQMD 2010b. Screening Tables for Toxics Evaluation During Construction, available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA /CEQA_Construction_Screening_Approach.ashx?la=en, May 2010.
BAAQMD, 2011a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2011.
BAAQMD, 2011b. County Surface Street Screening Tables, May 2011 and CEHTP Traffic Linkage Service Demonstration, available online at http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp, May 2011.
BAAQMD, 2012. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2012.
California Air Resources Board (ARB), 1998. Fact Sheet, “The Toxic Air Contaminant Identification Process: Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines,” October 1998.
CARB, 2004. Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide Updated Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal Planning Areas, 2004.
San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH), 2008. Assessment and Mitigation of Air Pollutant Health Effects from Intra-Urban Roadways: Guidance for Land Use Planning and Environmental Review, May 2008.
San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH), 2008. Assessment and Mitigation of Air Pollutant Health Effects from Intra-Urban Roadways: Guidance for Land Use Planning and Environmental Review, May 2008.
Western Regional Air Partnership, 2006. WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook. September 7, 2006. Available online at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/dejf/fdh/content/FDHandbook_Rev_06.pdf, accessed February 16, 2012.
______
Hilltop Speculative School 2-16 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.4 Biological Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. (Special-status Species) The project site is mostly developed, but does include some undeveloped portions around the margins. Eucalyptus woodland and ruderal grassland dominates the undeveloped portion of the site on the perimeter slopes, while the existing buildings and parking lot comprise the developed portion of the site. ESA conducted a reconnaissance-level field survey of the site on May 21, 2014, to document existing biological conditions, assess vegetation and wildlife habitats, and identify the potential for special-status10 species to occur within the study area. The findings relative to biological conditions at the site are summarized below.
10 The term “special-status” species includes those species that are listed and receive specific protection defined in federal or state endangered species legislation, as well as species not formally listed as Threatened or Endangered, but designated as “Rare” or “Sensitive” on the basis of adopted policies and expertise of state resource agencies or organizations, or local agencies such as counties, cities, and special districts. A principle source for this designation is the California “Special Animals List” (CDFG, 2009). Certain plants that are listed by the California Native Plant Society are also accorded special status.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-17 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Developed Area The developed portion of the project site includes the three buildings and parking area. Landscaping trees and shrubs and overgrown grasses and weeds surround the main buildings and the parking area.
Eucalyptus Woodland The eucalyptus woodland consists of a narrow strip of woodland along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. The woodland contains an open to relatively dense tree canopy with an understory of annual grassland and ruderal weedy species. The canopy is dominated by non-native eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus globulus, Eucalyptus spp.) as well as occasional ornamental pine trees (Pinus spp.), blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), and weeping willow (Salix babylonica). The understory includes a variety of non-native annual grasses and herbs. Although the eucalyptus woodland is dominated by non-native tree species, they often provide suitable nesting habitat for birds.
Ruderal Grassland Ruderal grassland habitat occurs in the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the existing parking lot. Ruderal grasslands are typically associated with ground disturbance, including grading, vehicle use, and/or intensive vegetation maintenance. Due to the disturbance regime, these areas are dominated by assemblages of introduced weedy species. Ruderal grassland at the project site is dominated by non-native grasses and forb species that are adapted to regular disturbance, including common sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), ox eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), wild oats (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus). Ruderal grassland may provide habitat for common wildlife species such as such as western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), field mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), California vole (Microtus californicus), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura).
Special-Status Species A list of special-status species that have the potential to occur within the project site vicinity (see Appendix B) was compiled based on data contained in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW, 2014a); the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) list of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by the proposed project (USFWS, 2014a); and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS, 2014). Of the special-status animals listed in Appendix B, only species classified as having a medium or high potential for occurrence at the project area, and for which suitable habitat exists on or adjacent to the project site, were considered in the impact analysis for the proposed project. The majority of the special-status species identified in the database searches were determined to not have potential to occur within the project site due to lack of suitable habitat.
Special-status animals that could occur within the project site and potentially be impacted by the project include pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), as well as protected nesting migratory birds
Hilltop Speculative School 2-18 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
and raptors. Construction activities and/or tree removal may adversely impact special-status bats and nesting birds. Potential impacts to these special-status species are discussed below.
No special-status plants were observed during the site visit and none are expected to occur within the project site due to the history of development and disturbance at the site, and a lack of suitable habitats and substrates, such as serpentine soils. However, construction activity or the removal of vegetation could adversely affect special-status species bats and birds.
Special-Status Bats Potential roosting and foraging habitat for the pallid bat, silver-haired bat, and hoary bat occurs in the trees within and adjacent to the project site, and in vacant buildings on the project site. Maternity colonies would not expect to be found within the project site due to the site’s proximity to commercial development. The pallid bat is a California species of special concern. The silver-haired bat and hoary bat do not have any state or federal listing, but are listed as “Medium Priority” by the Western Bat Working Group. A Medium Priority listing “indicates a level of concern that should warrant closer evaluation, more research, and conservation actions of both the species and possible threats.” Bats are nocturnal, and habitats for day and night roosts can include buildings, caves, foliage in medium to large trees, or hollow trees (Zeiner et al, 1990). Many bat species are very sensitive to disturbance, and a single visit by humans may result in roost abandonment.
Pallid, silver-haired, and hoary bats have been documented within the project vicinity. Roosting special-status bats could be present in trees or buildings within or adjacent to the project site, and as stated above, noise associated with construction could significantly impact their behavior. Also, removal of any trees or renovation or demolition of buildings containing special-status bat species in the project site would be a significant impact. These impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Preconstruction Surveys for Special-Status Bats. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures:
Prior to construction or demolition activities, a qualified biologist [i.e., a biologist holding a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) collection permit and a Memorandum of Understanding with the CDFW allowing the biologist to handle and collect bats] shall survey for bats. The biologist shall survey the buildings on site, as well as trees providing potential roosting habitat and within 25011 feet of proposed construction activities. For areas that are inaccessible, visual surveys may be conducted from areas where access is available (i.e. from the project site and public streets). If no evidence of bats (i.e., visual or acoustic detection, guano, staining, strong odors) is detected, no further mitigation is required.
11 A distance of 250 feet from the proposed project site generally encompasses trees located in the AAA site and the west portion of the EBMUD Reservoir property to the east; the south side of Hilltop Drive; the west side of Shane Drive into the parking lot associated with the commercial office site; and into the Hilltop Mall parking lot north of Hilltop Drive. No vacant buildings exist within these areas.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-19 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
If maternity colonies are identified within 250 feet of the project site during preconstruction surveys or project construction, the construction contractor shall create a no-disturbance buffer acceptable in size to the qualified biologist around the bat roosts. Bat roosts initiated within 250 feet of the project site after construction has already begun are presumed to be unaffected by project- related disturbance, and no buffer would be necessary. However, the “take” of individuals (e.g., direct mortality of individuals, or destruction of roosts while bats are present) is prohibited.
Trees or buildings with evidence of bat activity shall be removed during the time that is least likely to affect bats as determined by a qualified bat biologist. In general, roosts should not be removed between April 15 and August 15 if maternity colonies are present or if bats are present and in torpor12, which typically occurs when temperatures are less than 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Non- maternity bat roosts shall be removed by a qualified biologist, by either making the roost unsuitable for bats by opening the roost area to allow airflow through the cavity, or excluding the bats using one-way doors, funnels, or flaps.
All special-status bat roosts that are destroyed shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with a roost suitable for the displaced species. Replacement may include installation of a bat box or other suitable roosting structure. The roost shall be modified as necessary to provide a suitable roosting environment for the target bat species.
Special-Status Birds Trees, shrubs, and buildings in and around the project site provide suitable habitat for breeding birds. Direct impacts on nesting raptors or migratory birds or their habitat such as removal of trees could result in substantial lowered reproductive success or habitat loss, thereby potentially adversely affecting local population levels. The raptor or bird species could be adversely affected if active nesting, roosting, or foraging sites are either removed or exposed to a substantial increase in noise or human presence during project activities.13 The impact would be less than significant if construction activities occur during the non- breeding season (i.e., from September 1 through January 31). However, construction activities conducted during the breeding season between February 1 and August 31 could affect species adversely and result in a significant impact. In the event construction or vegetation removal must be performed during the breeding season, potential impacts to breeding or nesting birds would be minimized to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Preconstruction Surveys for Special-Status Birds. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures:
12 Torpor is defined as a state of lowered physiological activity typically characterized by reduced metabolism, heart rate, respiration, and body temperature that occurs in varying degrees especially in hibernating and estivating animals. 13 Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), migratory bird species and their nests and eggs are protected from injury or death. Most native breeding birds are also protected under Section 3503 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code (Code), and raptors are protected under Section 3503.5 of the Code. In addition, both Section 3513 of the Code and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S. Code, Sec. 703 Supp. I, 1989) prohibit the killing, possession, or trading of migratory birds. Finally, Section 3800 of the Code prohibits the taking of non-game birds, which are defined as birds occurring naturally in California that are neither game birds nor fully protected species.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-20 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
For raptors, a preconstruction survey for nests and nesting birds shall be conducted within two weeks prior to initiation of construction activities at the project site if work will occur during the breeding season. A qualified biologist shall survey all potential nesting sites in the construction limits and within 50014 feet and in line of sight of the construction limits. For areas that are inaccessible, visual surveys may be conducted from areas where access is available (i.e. from the project site and public streets). If active nests are located, work shall not occur within 500 feet of the nest until an appropriate buffer zone has been established in coordination with the qualified biologist.
For other nesting birds, a preconstruction survey for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than two weeks before construction. The survey shall be conducted within 25015 feet of the work areas. For areas that are inaccessible, visual surveys may be conducted from areas where access is available (i.e., from the project site or public streets). If construction will affect the nest, as determined by CDFW and a qualified biologist, then work will not occur within 250 feet of the nest until a qualified biologist has established an appropriate buffer zone.
Buffered zones shall be avoided during construction activities until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned. b) No Impact. (Riparian Habitat / Sensitive Natural Community) The project has been previously graded and developed for the commercial shopping center, and existing vegetation includes eucalyptus woodland and ruderal grasslands (discussed under “a”), and overgrown landscaping in the existing parking lot. No sensitive natural communities are located within or adjacent to the project site, therefore the project would not impact such communities. c) No Impact. (Wetlands) No federally protected wetlands, vernal pools, marshes, ponds, lakes, or riparian wetlands are located within or adjacent to the project site, therefore the project could not impact such resources. d) No Impact. (Wildlife Corridors) The project site is located in an urbanized area and is surrounded by commercial development. Any historically present terrestrial wildlife corridors have already been disrupted by previously development and activity. Therefore, the project would not substantially interfere 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) Less than Significant. (Local Policies or Ordinances) The project would comply with all local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, in particular, Chapter 10.08 of
14 A distance of 500 feet from the proposed project site generally encompasses trees located east to Blume Drive and Garrity Way; the south side of Hilltop Drive; the west side of Shane Drive including two commercial lots and vegetation along on the north side of Hilltop Drive; and into the Hilltop Mall parking lot north of Hilltop Drive. No vacant buildings exist within these areas. 15 A distance of 250 feet from the proposed project site generally encompasses trees located in the AAA site and the west portion of the EBMUD Reservoir property to the east; the south side of Hilltop Drive; the west side of Shane Drive into the parking lot associated with the commercial office site; and into the Hilltop Mall parking lot north of Hilltop Drive. No vacant buildings exist within these areas.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-21 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
the City of Richmond Code of Ordinances, which regulates the trimming, pruning, care, planting, removal and moving of trees, shrubs or plants on public property in the City. While all trees proposed for removal for the project appear to be located within the project site, if any additional trees are required for removal from the public right of way to accommodate construction, the project sponsor would comply with the City ordinance, to the extent the ordinance applies.
Specifically, the project sponsor would prepare and submit an application for tree removal and obtain a Tree Removal Permit from the Recreation and Parks Director of the City of Richmond for any public trees, shrubs or plants that would be pruned or removed as part of the project. In addition, the project would protect during construction any trees, shrubs or plants on public ground in order to prevent injury. No other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources are anticipated to apply to the project since the project site is not located within an area of special habitat or conservation (see “f” below). In summary, the project would comply with all local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The impact would be less than significant. f) No Impact. (Habitat Conservation Plan) The project site is not subject to the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project could not conflict with the provisions of such plans and result in an adverse impact.
References California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2011. Special Animals List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, CA, 2011.
CDFW, 2014a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5 computer program (v5.0). California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Sacramento, CA, 2014a.
CDFW, 2014b. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, CA. Quarterly publication. 73 pp., 2014b.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS), 2014. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8.02). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA, 2014.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2014a. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by Projects in the Richmond, California 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Division. Document Number: 140522122202.
USFWS, 2014b. Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species. Critical Habitat Portal Online Mapper. available online at http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/, accessed 2014.
Zeiner, D.C., Laudenslayer, W.F., Mayer, W.E., and White, M., ed. 1990. California’s Wildlife, Volume III, Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA, 1990.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-22 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.5 Cultural Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion a) No Impact. (Historical Resource) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 requires the lead agency to consider the effects of a project on historical resources. A historical resource is defined as any building, structure, site, or object listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or determined by a lead agency to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, or cultural annals of California. Generally, resources must be older than 45 years to qualify for listing on the CRHR. This discussion considers architectural/structural resources only.
The project site is not located within any historic district or in proximity to a known historical resource. The buildings to be demolished do not meet the minimum age threshold for consideration as a historical resource. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect the significance of a historical resource. The impact would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. (Archaeological Resource) A significant impact would occur if the project were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. This discussion considers archaeological resources, both as historical resources according to Section 15064.5 as well as unique archaeological resources as defined in Section 21083.2 (g).
ESA staff conducted a records search in connection with this project at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University on November 12, 2014 (File No. 13-0755). The review included the project site and a one-half-mile radius. Previous surveys, studies, and archaeological site records were accessed. Records were also reviewed in the Historic Property Data File for Contra Costa County that contains information on resources of recognized historical significance. The purpose of the records search was to (1) determine whether known archaeological resources have been recorded within or adjacent to the project site; (2) assess the likelihood for unrecorded cultural resources to be present based on historical
Hilltop Speculative School 2-23 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
references and the distribution of nearby sites; and (3) develop a context for the identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources.
No previously recorded cultural resources are listed in the databases at the NWIC. The nearest archaeological sites are concentrated along nearby major creeks (Wildcat and San Pablo) and their tributaries, or are clustered along the historic shoreline.
An ESA archaeologist conducted a pedestrian survey of the project site on June 27, 2014. The parcel is extensively developed, with three commercial buildings and an asphalt parking lot covering the majority of the proposed project footprint. In addition, the undeveloped areas have been disturbed during construction of the buildings, lot, and adjacent roadways. Visibility was generally very limited with exceptions along the northeast edge of the parcel, the base of a grassy hill that slopes up 30 degrees toward Hilltop Drive, and the southwest corner of the parcel. Visibility was approximately 30–50 percent in many undeveloped areas, allowing for inspection of the ground surface, which features grayish brown clay loam with rounded pebbles and angular gravels that likely represent fill. No cultural materials or other evidence of past human use and occupation were identified during the survey.
Based on the results of the records search and surface survey, as well as the previous disturbance to the project site during original construction and the project location on a moderately sloped hillside, it has been determined that the project site has a low sensitivity for archaeological resources. Despite the low archaeological sensitivity, the inadvertent discovery of cultural materials cannot be entirely discounted. Incorporation of the following Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts of the accidental discovery of archaeological resources to less than significant by requiring the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological materials are found.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. If prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are unearthed during ground- disturbing activities, all work shall halt within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology, can assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered-stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency (City) and the culturally-affiliated Native American group(s), shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the City and the culturally-affiliated Native American group(s), shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan. Treatment of unique archaeological resources
Hilltop Speculative School 2-24 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
shall follow the applicable requirements of PRC Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be not limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. (Paleontological Resource) A significant impact would occur if the project would destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or a unique geologic feature. Paleontological resources are the fossilized evidence of past life found in the geologic record. Despite the tremendous volume of sedimentary rock deposits preserved worldwide, and the enormous number of organisms that have lived through time, preservation of plant or animal remains as fossils is an extremely rare occurrence. Because of the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils—particularly vertebrate fossils—are considered to be nonrenewable resources. Because of their rarity, and the scientific information they can provide, fossils are highly significant records of ancient life.
Rock formations that are considered of paleontological sensitivity are those units that have yielded significant vertebrate or invertebrate fossil remains. This includes, but is not limited to, sedimentary rock units that contain significant paleontological resources anywhere within its geographic extent. The project site is underlain by Tertiary-age sedimentary rock formations. According to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s standard assessment, this geologic unit has a high potential to contain significant paleontological resources (SVP, 1995). A search of the paleontological locality database of the University of California, Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) concludes that the most common geologic unit represented in UCMP collections was Tertiary-age sedimentary rock formations (UCMP, 2014). Over 5,000 fossils have been identified in Tertiary-age formations in Contra Costa County.
Despite the general sensitivity of the project site geologic formation, ground disturbance associated with the proposed project would not require substantial excavation to depths at which paleontological resources are generally encountered. While damage or destruction of unique paleontological resources for the proposed project is unlikely, the possibility cannot be entirely dismissed. Thus, the potential impact to paleontological resources is considered potentially significant. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce this potential impact to less than significant by ensuring that if fossils are encountered, their significance is assessed by a qualified paleontologist, recorded, and salvaged if appropriate.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Halt Work if Paleontological Resources are Identified During Construction. If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find shall be halted until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate salvage measures in conformance with
Hilltop Speculative School 2-25 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Guidelines (SVP, 1995; SVP, 1996). The assessment shall include an assessment of the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume. If avoidance of the resource is determined to be unfeasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important. . Treatment shall be consistent with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Guidelines and currently accepted scientific practice, and include preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection, and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review by its qualified consultant or staff and approval prior to implementation. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. (Human Remains) A significant impact would occur if the project would disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. There is no indication that the project site has been used for burial purposes in the recent or distant past. It is unlikely that human remains would be encountered in the project site. However, in the event of the discovery of any human remains during project construction activities, work would be halted. Damage to human remains would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5; Health and Safety Code § 7050.5; Public Resources Code § 5097.94 and § 5097.98 must be followed. If during the course of project development there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD shall make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98.
2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in an appropriately designated location (i.e. an existing cemetery) or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
Hilltop Speculative School 2-26 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
References ESA, 2013. Records Search Results, Hilltop Community Ventures – Hilltop Speculative School. CHRIS/NWIC File No. 13-0755. Dated November 12, 2013.
City of Richmond, 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030, Historical Resources Map, 2012.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), 1995..Assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to nonrenewable paleontologic resources: standard guidelines, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, Vol. 163, pp. 22–27, 1995.
SVP, 1996. Conditions of receivership for paleontologic salvage collections: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, vol. 166, p. 31-32, 1996.
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), collections database http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/collections.php, June 29, 2014.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-27 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Discussion a.i) Less than Significant. (Fault Rupture) The proposed project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region of intense seismic activity. However, the project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, as defined by the California State Department of Conservation, Geological Survey (CGS, formerly known as Division of Mines and Geology), and no active or potentially active faults exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone is the Hayward fault, located approximately 0.7 miles southwest of the site (CDMG, 2012). Because the site is not located on an active or potentially active fault, the potential for surface fault rupture is low and the impact is considered less than significant. a.ii) Less than Significant with Mitigation. (Seismic Ground Shaking) Due to the project’s proximity to the Hayward Fault Zone and the relatively high probability of a large earthquake on one or more of the region’s principal active faults in the next 30 years, the
Hilltop Speculative School 2-28 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
project site is likely to experience one or more large earthquakes at some point during its operational lifetime. Earthquakes on active or potentially active faults, depending on magnitude and distance from the project site, could produce a range of ground shaking intensities at the project site. Accounting for the wide range of possible earthquake sources, the Bay Area as a whole is estimated to have a 63 percent chance of experiencing an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or higher before 2036 (USGS, 2008).
Under the proposed project, the site would be occupied by middle and high school students and staff who could potentially be exposed to safety risks in the event of a large earthquake. Existing structures on the project site would be demolished and replaced with new structures in compliance with the general provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) (CCR Title 24). The Private School Building Safety Act of 1987 consists of requirements that have been incorporated into the California Building Standards Code, and the project is being designed to meet the 2013 California Building Standards Code.
In its geologic hazards evaluation of the project site, Rockridge Geotechnical identifies project-specific recommendations to address earthwork, the presence of undocumented fills on the site (which may be subject to long-term settlement), vehicular and pedestrian pavements, concrete slab-on-grade floorings, and recommend a foundation designs for all structures that are appropriate for the site’s soil type and the maximum seismic ground motions that can be reasonably anticipated. The recommendations developed by Rockridge Geotechnical are standard in the engineering practice in California and are consistent with provisions of the CBC (Rockridge, 2013). The recommendations include removal and replacement of undocumented fills; proper scarification, compaction and moisture conditioning of subgrade soils; use of appropriate thickness and type of aggregate and backfill; underdrains and/or drain inlets under bioswales and curbing; and use of individual spread footings at interior column locations and continuous, deepened perimeter footings on the proposed new buildings.
The project will incorporate all recommendations from the geotechnical investigation report which would reduce the effect of strong seismic ground shaking. In addition, the effect of the proposed project on seismically induced ground shaking would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Potential secondary impacts of an earthquake, such as liquefaction, landslides and other ground failure are addressed below (items a.iii and a.iv).
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Design-level Geotechnical Investigations. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist shall prepare a design-level geotechnical investigation to provide final site preparation and design recommendations to meet the requirements of Building Code Chapter 18, Section 1803, related to site-specific geologic conditions, including seismic-related ground failure, shaking, and liquefaction. The recommendations of the design-level geotechnical investigation shall be incorporated into the project plans and provided to the City of Richmond for review and approval.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-29 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
a.iii) Less than Significant. (Liquefaction) Liquefaction is the sudden temporary loss of shear strength in saturated, loose to medium dense, granular sediments subjected to ground shaking. It generally occurs when seismically induced ground shaking causes pore water pressure to increase to a point equal to the overburden pressure. Liquefaction can cause foundation failure of buildings and other facilities due to the reduction of foundation bearing strength. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are Quaternary-aged, clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands or silts below the ground water table. Soil that liquefies can manifest a number of failures, including lateral spreading16 and seismic settlement.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has produced liquefaction hazard maps, which show the project site as having a very low susceptibility to liquefaction (ABAG, 2003). This very low susceptibility is due to the cohesive soils onsite and the shallow depth to bedrock. Further, considering groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory borings during drilling at the project site, and the borings all were bottomed in bedrock, the potential for liquefaction and liquefaction-induced ground failures (i.e. lateral spreading) to occur at the site is nil. For these reasons, the impact of the project with respect to liquefaction, lateral spreading and seismic settlement is less than significant. a.iv) Less than Significant. (Landslides) Slope failures, including landslides, include many phenomena that involve the down-slope displacement and movement of material, either triggered by static (i.e., gravity) or dynamic (i.e., earthquake) forces. Slope failure is dependent on degree of incline, subsurface material properties, precipitation, excavation, and seismicity. The type of failure can include deep-seated massive slope movements or shallow slump type movements. The project site is designated by the City of Richmond’s General Plan 2030 Landslide Potential Map 12.1 as a “Category 1 stable area”. This area is defined as an area of 0 - 5 percent slope that are not underlain by landslide deposits. Further, the geotechnical investigation conducted at the site did not identify any conditions associated with slope failure, including landslides. The impact of the project with respect to landslides is less than significant. b) Less than Significant. (Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoil) Construction activities associated with the proposed project would require earthmoving, grading, and compaction. These activities may expose areas of soil that have previously been covered with asphalt, concrete, or landscaping. This temporary loss of erosion control would expose bare soil, which would be subjected to erosion by wind and storm water runoff. Concentrated water erosion, if not managed or controlled, can eventually result in substantial soil loss and/or discharging of sediment into utilities, adjacent lots, or nearby creeks and drainages.
Because disturbance associated with the proposed project would exceed one acre, the project sponsor and/or its contractor would obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water
16 Lateral spreading (sometimes called ground or earth lurching) typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying material toward an open face such as an excavation, channel, or body of water. Generally in soils, this movement is due to failure along a weak plane and may be associated with liquefaction.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-30 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit), which involves preparing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for all construction phases of the proposed project. As fully described in Section 2.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the construction contractor would be required to develop and implement a SWPPP in order to minimize potential erosion and subsequent sedimentation of storm water runoff. This SWPPP would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion associated with grading, trenching, and other ground surface-disturbing activities.
Since BMPs have been recognized as methods to effectively prevent or minimize the erosion, and the project sponsor would adhere to erosion control measures outlined in the SWPPP, the potential for construction-related erosion impacts of the project would be less than significant. For the above reasons, impacts of erosion and soil loss would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. c, d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. (Unstable and/or Expansive Soils) Cyclic densification (also referred to as differential compaction of sand above groundwater table (non-saturated sand) can occur during an earthquake, resulting in settlement of the ground surface and overlying improvements. The project site is underlain by up to five feet of relatively dense granular soil, stiff clay, and bedrock. Therefore, the project site does not have conditions that would present the potential for cyclic densification to occur at the site (Rockridge, 2013).
One of the primary geotechnical concerns at the site is the presence of moderately to highly expansive near surface clay, and providing adequate vertical and lateral support for the proposed buildings as a result.17 The effects of expansive soils could damage foundations and aboveground structures, paved parking areas, and concrete slabs. Surface structures with foundations constructed in expansive soils could experience expansion and contraction depending on the season and the amount of surface water infiltration. The expansion and contraction due to the behavior of expansive soils could exert enough pressure on the structures to result in cracking, settlement, and uplift.
The geotechnical report for the project identified recommendations to reduce the potential for water to become trapped in trenches beneath the buildings or pavements. This trapped water can cause heaving of soils beneath slabs and softening of subgrade soil beneath pavements. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2, which ensures compliance with the project-specific geotechnical report recommendations (as well as Mitigation Measure GEO-1, discussed above), the potential hazard from unstable or expansive soils associated with the project would be reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Project-specific Geotechnical Recommendations. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist shall ensure adherence to the following recommendations identified in the Geotechncial Investigation – Proposed Building Complex, 3042 Hilltop Mall Road (Rockridge, 2013). The following recommendations shall be
17 Expansive soil undergoes large volume changes with changes in moisture content.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-31 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
incorporated into the project plans and provided to the City of Richmond for review and approval, subject to any modifications identified in the design-level geotechnical investigation to be conducted pursuant to Mitigation Measure GEO-1:
At-Grade and Perimeter Subgrades. Underlie at-grade slabs-on-grade by at least 12 inches (measured below the bottom of capillary moisture break) of non expansive soil consisting of select fill or lime-treated on-site soil. Extend the non-expansive soil at least five feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed buildings where pavements will be constructed, except where constrained by the property line.
Concrete Subgrade. Over excavate the subgrade for proposed concrete flatwork to accommodate at least 12 inches of non-expansive soil. The native soil exposed at the base of the excavations shall be scarified to a depth of at least eight inches, moisture-conditioned to at least four percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted to between 87 and 92 percent relative compaction. Where bedrock is encountered at the bottom of the planned excavation, scarification and recompaction will not be required.
Pavement Subgrade. The upper eight inches of the soil subgrade beneath pavements shall also be scarified, moisture-conditioned, and recompacted. Where bedrock is encountered at the pavement subgrade, scarification and recompaction will not be required. The scarification and recompaction should extend at least two feet beyond the perimeters of the pavements, except where constrained by the property line. The scarified soil subgrade shall be moisture- conditioned and compacted in accordance with the requirements provided in Table 2 of the Geotechncial Investigation report (Rockridge, 2013). The subgrade beneath pavements shall be firm and non-yielding under construction equipment wheel loads.
Exterior Concrete Flatwork. Underlay exterior concrete flatwork, including exterior concrete flatwork (including sidewalks) by at least 12 inches of non-expansive soil consisting of select fill or lime-treated on-site soil. Select fill and lime-treated on-site soil beneath exterior slabs-on-grade shall be moisture- conditioned and compacted in accordance with the requirements provided in Table 2 of the Geotechncial Investigation report (Rockridge, 2013).
Select Fill. Imported fill to the site shall meet the requirements of “select fill” specified in Section 7.1.1. of the Geotechncial Investigation report (Rockridge, 2013), and shall comply with the compaction requirements presented in Table 2 of the Geotechncial Investigation report (Rockridge, 2013).
Lime-treatment. If the non-expansive soil to be placed beneath the building pads and exterior concrete flatwork is to consist of lime-treated on-site soil, the upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade shall be treated in place with four percent dolomitic quicklime by dry weight of soil.
Utility Trench Backfill. To provide uniform support, the project sponsor and/or its contractor shall install bed pipes or conduits on a minimum of four inches of sand or fine gravel. After the pipes and conduits are tested, inspected (if required) and approved, the project sponsor and/or its contractor shall cover them to a depth of six inches with sand or fine gravel, which shall be mechanically tamped. The project sponsor and/or its contractor shall eliminate
Hilltop Speculative School 2-32 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
the pipe bedding and cover where an impermeable plug is required, as described in Section 7.1.4 of the Geotechncial Investigation report (Rockridge, 2013). Bottom foundations for the proposed buildings shall be designed and constructed to a depth below an imaginary line extending up at a 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) inclination from the base of utility trenches. Alternatively, the portion of the utility trench (excluding bedding) that is below the 1.5:1 line shall be backfilled with controlled low-strength material (CLSM) with a 28-day unconfined compressive strength of at least 100 pounds per square inch (psi).
Utility Trench and Building Pads and Foundations. Where utility trenches enter the building pads, install an impermeable plug consisting of CLSM, at least three feet in length, where the trenches enter the building footprints. Furthermore, place a similar plug at the edge of the pavement where sand-or gravel-backfilled trenches cross planter areas and pass below asphalt or concrete pavements.
Drainage. To reduce the potential for water to become trapped in trenches beneath the buildings or pavements and potentially resulting in heaving of soils beneath slabs and softening of subgrade soil beneath pavements, provide positive surface drainage around the buildings to direct surface water away from the foundations. To reduce the potential for water ponding adjacent to the buildings, the ground surface within a horizontal distance of five feet from the buildings shall slope down away from the buildings with a surface gradient of at least two percent in unpaved areas and one percent in paved areas. Discharge roof downspouts into controlled drainage facilities to keep the water away from the foundations.
Landscaping. Avoid the use of water-intensive landscaping around the perimeter of the buildings to reduce the amount of water introduced to the expansive clay subgrade. Bioswales constructed at the site shall be provided with underdrains and/or drain inlets because of the low permeability of the near-surface soil. Construct bioswales no closer than five feet from the buildings.
Tree-Induced Building Settlement. To reduce the risk of tree-induced, building settlement, the following species of trees shall not be planted within 25 feet of the proposed buildings: Eucalyptus, Populus, Quercus, Crataegus, Salix, Sorbus (simple-leafed), Ulmus, Cupressus, Chamaecyparis, and Cupressocyparis. A tree specialist shall be consulted prior to selection of trees to be planted at the site.
Spread Footings. Proposed buildings shall be supported on individual spread footings at interior column locations and continuous, deepened perimeter footings. Continuous footings shall be at least 16 inches wide and isolated spread footings shall be at least 24 inches wide. All footings shall meet the recommended requirements for location, embedment depths, bearing pressures and total design loads specified in Section 7.2 of the Geotechncial Investigation report (Rockridge, 2013).
Concrete Slab-on-Grade Floor. The subgrade for slab-on-grade floors (prepared pursuant to No. 1-4, above) shall and maintained in a moist condition until covered by capillary moisture break and vapor barrier/or concrete, pursuant to the specifications in Section 7.4.1 of the Geotechncial Investigation report (Rockridge, 2013).
Hilltop Speculative School 2-33 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Pavement Design. All Flexible (Asphalt Concrete) Pavement and Rigid (Portland Cement Concrete) Pavement shall adhere to the design specifications in Section 7.4 of the Geotechncial Investigation report (Rockridge, 2013). e) No Impact. (Alternative-Wastewater-Supporting Soils) Implementation of the proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater treatment disposal systems to handle wastewater generation. The proposed project would continue to utilize the City of Richmond sanitary sewer system for disposal of wastewater. Therefore, no impacts would result from soils that are incapable of adequately supporting alternative wastewater systems.
References Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2012. Earthquake Shaking Maps and Information, derived from Earthquake Shaking Potential for the San Francisco Bay Region Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map, 2003, by the California Seismic Safety Commission, California Geological Survey, California Office of Emergency Services, and the United States Geological Survey, available online at http://quake.abag.ca.gov/earthquakes, accessed May 30, 2014.
California State Department of Conservation, Geological Survey (CGS), 1982. Richmond Quadrangle Fault Zone Map, available online at: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/RICHMOND/maps/RICHMOND.PDF, accessed June 28, 2014.
City of Richmond, 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030, Public Safety and Noise Element and Maps 12.1-12.4, 2012.
Rockridge Geotechnical, 2013. Geotechncial Investigation – Proposed Building Complex, 3042 Hilltop Mall Road, Richmond, California, prepared for Chamberlin Associates, November 26, 2013.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS), 2008. Forecasting California’s Earthquakes—What Can We Expect in the Next 30 Years?, Prepared by Edward H. Field, Kevin R. Milner, and the 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, USGS Fact Sheet 2008-3027, 2008.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-34 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Setting GHG emissions and global climate change represent cumulative impacts. GHG emissions cumulatively contribute to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change. No single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature; instead, the combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future projects have contributed and will contribute to global climate change and its associated environmental impacts.
BAAQMD has prepared guidelines and methodologies for analyzing GHGs. These guidelines are consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.4 and 15183.5 which address the analysis and determination of significant impacts from a proposed project’s GHG emissions. Additionally, the City of Richmond has adopted an Energy and Climate Change Element as part of its 2030 General Plan which presents a comprehensive assortment of GHG policies and implementing actions for the City of Richmond.
Discussion a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. (GHG Emissions) Construction Emissions Construction emissions from the proposed project were estimated using the CalEEMod emissions model. Sources would include fossil fuel combustion by construction vehicles and equipment. Construction-related GHG emissions for each calendar year of the anticipated one-year construction period are presented in Table GHG-1. All model inputs and output are provided in Appendix A. Estimated emissions are 193 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases (CO2e) in 2014 and 277 metric tons CO2e in 2015. BAAQMD has not proposed a quantitative threshold relative to construction-related emissions. In lieu of any proposed or adopted thresholds relative to construction-related emissions, these emissions are considered significant unless best management practices are implemented to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as feasible. Consequently, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 is identified to ensure implementation of best management
Hilltop Speculative School 2-35 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
practices during construction. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of this mitigation measure.
TABLE GHG-1 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Source Total Emissions (MT CO2e)
(1-year total) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
2014 (partial year) 193 0.04 <0.01 193 2015 (partial year) 276 0.05 <0.01 277 Total – – – 277
Project CO2 emissions estimates were made using CalEEMod v.2013.2.2.
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: The following BAAQMD-suggested measures shall be implemented during project construction:
Use locally sourced building materials for at least 10% of overall materials brought to site; and
Recycle or reuse at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials.
Operational Emissions Area, Energy, and Indirect Sources Operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would result from electrical and natural gas usage, water and wastewater transport (the energy used to pump water and wastewater to and from the project site), vehicle trips, and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electrical usage are generated when energy consumed on the site is generated by the electrical supplier, PG&E. GHG emissions from natural gas are direct emissions resulting from on-site combustion for heating and other purposes. GHG emissions from water and wastewater transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to transport water from its source, and the energy required to treat wastewater and transport it to its treated discharge point. Solid waste-related emissions are generated when the increased waste generated by the project is disposed in a landfill where it will decompose, producing methane gas.18
GHG emissions from electrical usage, natural gas combustion, mobile transportation, water and wastewater conveyance, and solid waste were estimated using the CalEEMod model, and are presented in Table GHG-2. Energy use (electrical and natural gas) represents approximately 15 percent of estimated operational GHG emissions and include improvements required by the 2013 update to the Title 24 Building Code. Solid waste
18 CH4 from decomposition of municipal solid waste deposited in landfills is counted as an anthropogenic (human- produced) GHG (USEPA, 2006). Waste in the City of Richmond is disposed at Keller Canyon landfill which has methane capture and energy recovery which is considered in the modeling results.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-36 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
represents approximately 3 percent of operational GHG emissions and water usage represents less than 1 percent.
TABLE GHG-2 UNMITIGATED PROJECT INCREMENT OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Total Emissions (MT CO2e)/Year
Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
Area Sources 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 Energy Sources 390 0.01 <0.01 392 Mobile Sources 2,047 0.09 <0.01 2,049 Solid Waste 51.9 3.07 <0.01 116 Water and Wastewater 27.8 0.20 <0.01 33.6 Total 1,106 0.84 <0.01 2,591 Total emissions per service population (1,400 students + 108 1.72 staff)) Threshold 4.6 Significant? No
Columns may not total precisely due to rounding.
Mobile Emission Sources Once operational and fully occupied, the proposed development would result in an increase of an estimated 3,125 daily vehicle trips above existing levels, as described in Section 2.12, Transportation and Traffic. GHG emissions from motor vehicle sources were calculated using the CalEEMod. Table GHG-2 presents the incremental mobile source GHG emissions associated with the project, which represent approximately 79 percent of the total operational GHG emissions.
As shown in Table GHG-2, the sum of both direct and indirect GHG emissions resulting from 19 operation of the project would result in an estimated 2,591 metric tons per year of CO2e. Assuming that the project would provide for 1,400 students and 108 staff, these emissions would accommodate a service population of 1,508. Emissions per service population would be 1.72. Annual emissions would be less than the service population threshold of 4.6 metric ton per year per service population. The project impact would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant. (GHG Emissions Reduction Policies/Plan) The State of California’s Climate Change Scoping Plan identifies 39 Recommended Actions (qualitative measures) to address climate change. Of the 39 measures identified, those that would be considered to have the greatest potential applications to the project would be those actions related to electricity and natural gas use (E), and green building design (GB).
19 CO2e in all calculations of project impact include CO2, CH4 and N2O.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-37 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Scoping Plan Actions E-1 and GB-1 together aim to reduce electricity demand by increased efficiency of Utility Energy Programs and adoption of more stringent building and appliance standards. The proposed project would be designed to meet Title 24 building energy requirements which were recently updated in 2013 to address these Scoping Plan Actions.
The project incorporates sustainability considerations in its overall concept as well as its site and building design. Overall, the redevelopment of the existing underutilized property is located in proximity to public transportation and future bicycle facilities proposed by the project and the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, which aligns with the sustainability measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which in turn reduces GHG emissions .
Individual buildings would use the latest in energy-saving building strategies and technologies, and would be constructed using high quality, durable materials to reduce future maintenance and associated ecological footprint. Electric vehicle charging stations would be provided in the parking area, and up to 60 bicycles and a designated safe bicycle route onsite would be implemented to encourage and facilitate the use of bicycles by students and staff to get to and from campus. These measures are all consistent with the policies of the City of Richmond Energy and Climate Change Element.
Overall, as the proposed project would implement a variety of green building design measures it would be consistent with the Recommended Actions of the Climate Change Scoping Plan adopted by CARB to achieve the goals of AB 32. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the GHG reduction measures identified in CARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan or other applicable plan or policy for reducing GHG emissions. Implementation of these measures would ensure that the proposed project’s contribution to significant cumulative GHG emissions is less than cumulatively considerable.
References Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Revised Draft Options and Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds of Significance. October, 2009. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2012. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2008. CEQA and Climate Change, January 2008.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-38 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or 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 65962.5 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?
Discussion a, b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. (Routine Transport/Use/Disposal; Upset) A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) was performed at the project site, which included a site reconnaissance and review of government and historical documents related to the site and surrounding area (The Source Group [SGI], 2013). All practices conformed to or exceeded the recommendations of ASTM Standard 1527-05, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.” The regulatory database records search conducted for and presented in the Phase I report indicates that the project site is not listed on any of the databases reviewed.
The Phase I did identify certain conditions that could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. They include the following:
Hilltop Speculative School 2-39 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
The possible presence of localized polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) related to the presence of a PGE transformer on the project site, which may have been installed prior to the late 1970s. Based on the condition of the transformer, a PCB release is unlikely. However, the installation date of the transformer is likely prior to 1979 and, therefore, it may contain PCBs.
The possible presence of asbestos containing material (ACMs) and lead-based paints (LBPs) related to the presence of structures on the project site, which were constructed (and painted) prior to the late 1970s.
The following Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 includes the recommendations presented in the Phase I report, and would reduced the potential impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: PBC, LBP and ACM Investigation and Removal. Prior to any demolition or grading activity on the project site, the construction contractor shall:
1) Provide to the City written evidence by a qualified electrician that the on-site transformer was inspected by a qualified contractor and found to not contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If adequate documentation is not provided, conduct limited shallow soil sampling to assess the potential presence of PCBs in shallow soil. If PCBs are detected, appropriate mitigation shall be conducted in accordance with all applicable regulatory agency requirements, including 22 CCR § 66268.45 and Chapter 6.11 Division 20 of California Health and Safety Code.
2) Perform a lead-based paint survey of the structures by a State-licensed lead testing consultant, and ensure proper handling and disposal, if present. The assessment shall be conducted in accordance with Title 22 CCR § 69100 et sec, and BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 1. If lead-based paint is found to be present, the remediation shall be conducted in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.8.
3) Perform an asbestos survey to assess the possible presence of asbestos containing material (ACMs) prior to redevelopment of project site to ensure proper handling and disposal, if present. If asbestos is found to be present, prepare an Asbestos Plan in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, and obtain approval by BAAQMD prior to demolition.
Construction 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. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would reduce any risk associated with hazardous materials used during construction to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Construction BMPs for Hazardous Materials. Throughout project construction activities for the project, the construction contractor shall require the use of construction best management practices (BMPs) typically implemented as part of its construction activities. These shall include (a) Follow manufacturer’s recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction; (b) Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks; (c) During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly contain
Hilltop Speculative School 2-40 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
and remove grease and oils; and (d) Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.
A pipeline risk analysis was conducted to assess the potential safety hazards posed to the project site by a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) high-pressure natural gas transmission pipeline that is located within the Hilltop Drive right-of-way, immediately south of the project site (J. House Environmental, 2013). Results of the analysis indicate that the estimated level of annual individual risk associated with development of a school facility near the pipeline does not exceed California Department of Education risk threshold values. Also, the project would not include student use areas within 50 feet of the pipeline. The analysis recommends the following Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 to ensure that any potential effect would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: High-Pressure Gas Pipeline. To provide an added degree of risk management to the project, the project sponsor shall prepare an emergency response plan that identifies the presence of the PG&E high-pressure natural gas pipeline located south of the project site (within Hilltop Drive) and include an emergency contact list with phone numbers to be used in the event of an incident. Also, no student use areas shall be located within 50 feet of the pipeline. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. (School Proximity)The proposed use of the site is a middle/high school, including the incorporation of new classrooms, recreational facilities, and other associated educational facilities. Also, a K-8 school (Canterbury School) is located across Hilltop Drive in the church complex, and is approximately 500 feet south of the project site. As discussed for criteria “a, b” above, the proposed school would involve storage and use of limited quantities of hazardous materials such as cleaners, toners, correction fluid, paints, lubricants, kitchen and restroom cleaners, pesticides and other maintenance materials. Use of these typical hazardous materials during construction or project operation would occur in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, and construction activities would comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, above. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant health risk related to potential upset and accident conditions. The potential impact would be less than significant. d) No Impact. (Hazardous Materials Site) The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e, f) No Impact. (Airport Land Use Plan; Private Airstrip) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project would not result in any airport-related hazards for people residing or working in the project area. g) Less than Significant. (Emergency Response/Evacuation Plan) The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on an emergency response plan or evacuation plan, as it would not alter any existing public roadways or vehicular circulation patterns. The project
Hilltop Speculative School 2-41 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
would provide an emergency fire access lane around the proposed central athletic field, which is directly proximate to the proposed buildings on the campus (see Figure 1-5). (See also Section 16, Transportation and Traffic, for additional discussion of emergency access.) h) Less than Significant. (Wildland Fires) The project site is located in a built-out, urban area and is not intermixed or located adjacent to wildlands. Specifically, the project site is located in a “Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as determined by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE). Also, the proposed school buildings would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and fire suppression systems. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildland fires.
References Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2014. CAL FIRE Wildfire Threat Map, available at http://gis3.abag.ca.gov/Website/Fire_Threat/viewer.htm, accessed on June 2, 2014.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE), 2008. Richmond-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas Map, November 24, 2008.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2014. EnviroStor Database, available at www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov, accessed on May 12, 2014.
City of Richmond, 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030. Public Safety and Noise Element, 2012.
J. House Environmental Inc., 2013. Natural Gas Pipeline Risk Analysis 3000-3050 Hilltop Mall Road Richmond, California. June 2013.
The Source Group (SGI), 2013., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 3000 – 3050 Hilltop Mall Road Richmond, California, October 2, 2013.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-42 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or by other means, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or by other means, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that 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) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Discussion a) Less than Significant. (Water Quality Standards / Waste Discharge Requirements)
Construction The proposed project could result in potential water quality impacts during construction, which would involve earthmoving, grading, and compaction. These activities have the potential to dislodge soil and cause soil erosion on areas previously covered by asphalt, concrete, or landscaping. This temporary loss of erosion control would expose bare soil that could be transported by stormwater runoff or by non-stormwater flows (i.e., water used
Hilltop Speculative School 2-43 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
during construction). Concentrated water erosion, if not managed or controlled, can eventually result in substantial soil loss and/or discharging of sediment into utilities, adjacent lots, or nearby creeks and drainages.
Project construction would also involve the temporary storage of construction materials, as well as the use of motorized heavy equipment, including trucks and other construction vehicles that require fuel, lubricating grease, and other fluids. Accidental hazardous materials release or spill from construction related vehicles, materials or equipment could also adversely affect surface water quality, or infiltrate into soil, thereby affecting groundwater quality. Therefore, potential soil erosion on bare, exposed soils and/or release or spills of construction-related hazardous materials, if not adequately controlled, could result in significant water quality impacts in nearby surface water or the underlying groundwater.
Because construction activity is a common cause of adverse impacts on water quality, local ordinances, permitting requirements, and applicable local and state water quality regulations have been developed to control a broad array of construction activities that most commonly pose a threat to water quality. Overall, water quality in surface and groundwater bodies is regulated in the project vicinity by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB is responsible for implementation of state and federal water quality protection guidelines in the Bay Area.
As previously discussed in Section 2.6, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, because disturbance associated with the proposed project would exceed one acre, the project sponsor and/or its contractor must obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit), which involves preparing a SWPPP for all phases of the proposed project. Development and implementation of a SWPPP minimizes potential erosion and subsequent sedimentation of storm water runoff. Overall, the SWPPP is the standard regulation governing construction period runoff, while the NPDES permit governs the control of stormwater runoff during operation. Together, these documents ensure that project construction and operation would comply with the applicable water quality and waste discharge standards and would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality from stormwater runoff or violate any waste discharge requirements.
The SWPPP would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion associated with grading, trenching, and other ground surface-disturbing activities. Specific BMPs would include, but are not limited to the following:
Erosion Control measures to prevent the movement of soil by wind or water during project construction and that may include watering and physical barriers; Sediment Control features to prevent the offsite conveyance of sediments, including onsite catch basin inlet protection; Tracking of Soil measures to effectively minimize the tracking of soil by vehicles and that may include gravel driveways, wheel washes, and street sweeping;
Hilltop Speculative School 2-44 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Wastes and Cleanup measures to address storage and disposal related to debris, trash, concrete, asphalt, paint, coatings, solvents, and other construction related materials at the project site; and Other Reasonable BMPs to keep pollutants away from stormwater.
Since BMPs have been recognized through field practice as methods to effectively prevent or minimize erosion, and maintain water quality, the project sponsor would adhere to BMPs outlined in the SWPPP, the potential for construction-related erosion impacts of the project to water quality would be less than significant.
Operation and Maintenance Changes in the location, frequency, rate and volume of stormwater runoff from the project site could also occur in association with changes in site layout and topography, and/or the impervious surface areas (e.g., parking lots, driveways, building footprints, and/or other paved areas). If drainage systems are inadequate to handle potential increases in stormwater flows or changes in stormwater discharge locations, adverse impacts of water quality could occur through scour and erosion of onsite soils into nearby water courses or the entrainment of non-point source pollutants (e.g., trash or grease).
Hilltop Lake is a manmade lake that serves as a flood control area located downhill and north of the project site and beyond the Hilltop Mall complex. The lake discharges into an engineered, but unlined, portion of Garrity Creek, which is in the tributary area of Hilltop Lake, and ultimately flows into the Bay. City storm drain pipes discharge into the lake, and drainage from the project site would be collected by City pipes (as discussed in Section 2.17, Utilities and Service Systems).
The RWQCB is responsible for implementation of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), which governs the control and treatment of stormwater to protect water quality during project operations. MRP Provision C.3 requires appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in projects to address stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from development projects. Such measures include minimizing the coverage and connectivity of impervious surfaces, installing bioswales or vegetated strips, and encouraging onsite detention and infiltration of stormwater (i.e., bio-retention facilities). The County of Contra Costa’s Stormwater C.3 Guidebook outlines a range of stormwater runoff treatment strategies and recommends bio- retention facilities for sites with permeable native soils, roof drainage, parking lots, and extensive landscaping, like the proposed project and project site. Stormwater on the project site would be collected and detained in several bio-retention areas and natural grass areas proposed throughout the campus (see Figure 1-5).
Bio-retention is considered highly effective at reducing pollutants by passing storm waters over or through a buffer and subsequently distributing waters evenly along a ponding area. The waters stored in the bio-retention area filtrate into the underlying soils over a period of days. The bio-retention areas would occur primarily at the foot of the hillside of the project site along Shane Drive, behind the new west classroom building, in the northeast and
Hilltop Speculative School 2-45 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
northwest corners of the site; around the central athletic playfield; and in the parking lot area. New curbing is proposed around the parking area, some of which will be perforated to allow stormwater to flow into the bio-retention areas.
Since the project would be required to comply with the requirements of Provision C.3, including the SWPPP and associated BMPs, the impacts to water quality and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant. (Groundwater Supply/Recharge) The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) would provide domestic water to the project site, and it does not use groundwater as a municipal water supply. The project site is located in an urban area and is not identified as a groundwater recharge location. Further, groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory borings during drilling at the project site for soils investigations in the geotechnical report conducted for the project by Rockridge Geotechnical, 2013. In addition, the project would increase the amount of pervious surface at the site. Therefore, the project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c, d, e) Less than Significant. (Drainage Patterns, Erosion, Capacity) No stream or waterways exist on or near the project site. The site is currently developed with buildings and pavement totaling about 58 percent of the site, with open soils and grasses throughout and around the perimeter, some of which will not be altered by the project. The project would decrease the portion of impervious surface coverage onsite to 49 percent, a reduction of approximately 15 percent compared to existing conditions. 20 While benefiting water quality, the provision of bio-retention basins (discussed under criterion “a”, above) would further reduce the rate of stormwater runoff in compliance with Provision C.3 (discussed under criterion “a”). Therefore, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. Impacts would be less than significant.
The project would not substantially change the grade of the project site, but would alter the existing drainage pattern since the building and roadway development would be changed. However, implementation of the project would not alter drainage patterns in a manner that could increase the rate or amount of surface runoff that could cause flooding on- or offsite. The existing 10-Year Peak stormwater runoff flow rate is 13.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) and would be reduced by the project to 13.1 cfs. Similarly, existing 10-year Daily stormwater runoff flow rate is 74,000 cf, which would be reduced to 73,150 cf. The potential impacts regarding the rate or amount of surface runoff would be less than significant.
The preliminary grading and drainage plan for the project (Sandis, 2014) indicates that stormwater runoff would flow across the site to the north and northwest given the site topography, which would not be substantially changed from existing conditions. The existing storm drain runoff would flow into the existing City system, connecting to the
20 Total site area is 365,130 square feet, 212,330 square feet of which is impervious area. The project proposes to reduce the impervious area to 179,570 square feet.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-46 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
existing 24-inch storm drain pipe at the northwest corner of the site, at Shane Drive. As previously mentioned, the rate and volume of runoff would be reduce from existing conditions given the reduction of impervious surfaces on the site, as well as the bio- retention areas proposed throughout the project site that would slow stormwater runoff so it would be released in a metered fashion that can be accommodated by the existing storm drain system. Therefore, the project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the existing capacity of the stormwater system. The impacts would be less than significant. f) Less than Significant. (Otherwise Degrade Water Quality) As previously discussed under criteria “a” through “e”, the project would be subject to RWQCB permit requirements, including the implementation of SWPPP BMPs during project construction, and NPDES permit conditions governing ongoing project operations. In compliance with Provision C.3, the project proposes bio-retention areas that would accommodate the projected volume of stormwater runoff, ensuring that water quality would not be degraded. Impacts would be less than significant. g, h) No Impact. (100 Flood Hazard) The proposed project would not involve construction of new housing. Nor does the project site exist within a 100-year or 500-year flood plain as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood hazard mapping. The project would not have an impact. i, j) No Impact. (Risk of Flood, Seiche, Tsunami, Mudflow) As noted above, the project site is not within a 100- or 500- FEMA flood hazard zone. There are no impounded water bodies upstream from the project site. The North Reservoir (see Figure 1) is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site, across Hilltop Drive and at a substantially lower elevation than the project site and in a different watershed. Thus, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss or injury from flooding due to the failure of a levee. The project is not mapped by the California Geological Survey as being within a potential tsunami inundation zone, thus it is unlikely these phenomena would occur at the project site, particularly since there are no large bodies of water in the immediate area. Also, the project site is relatively flat and therefore would not be subject to mudflow. Impacts would be less than significant.
References California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), 2012. My Hazards Awareness Map, 2200 Hilltop Mall Drive, San Pablo, California, available at http://myhazards.calema.ca.gov/, accessed on June 13, 2014.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). California Stormwater BMP Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment. available at https://www.casqa.org/sites/default/files/BMPHandbooks/BMP_NewDevRedev_Complete. pdf accessed on June 10 2014. City of Richmond, 2012a. Richmond General Plan 2030, Tsunami Inundation Map 12.5, 2012.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-47 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
City of Richmond, 2012b. Richmond General Plan 2030, Floodplains and Watersheds Map 7.1, 2012.
Rockridge Geotechnical, 2013. Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Building Complex, 3042 Hilltop Mall Road, Richmond, California, prepared for Chamberlin Associates, November 26, 2013.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-48 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.10 Land Use and Land Use Planning
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
LAND USE AND LAND USE PLANNING — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion a, b) Less than Significant. (Community Division / Land use Consistency). The project site is located in a built-out, urban area comprising of various commercial land uses. Land uses adjacent to the project site are primarily low-rise (two- to three-story) commercial office buildings and the regional shopping mall. The adjacent building to the east houses the offices of the American Auto Association (AAA), and a medical office building is located to the west (across Shane Drive). (See Figure 1-4, Surrounding Context.) The proposed school project is consistent with surrounding land uses and the development pattern of the Hilltop Mall area. Therefore, the project would not physically divide this established community.
The proposed project is a middle /high school campus, which is a permitted activity under the existing “C-3 Regional Commercial.” Also, the project is consistent with the “High Intensity Mixed-Use (Major Activity Center)” General Plan land use designation. c) No Impact. (Conservation Plan) As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan exists on or near the project site. Therefore, no impact would result.
References City of Richmond, 2012a. Richmond General Plan 2030, Land Use Map. Map 12.6, 2012.
City of Richmond, 2012b. Richmond General Plan 2030, Community Facilities and Infrastructure Element. Map 12.6, 2012.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-49 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.11 Mineral Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Discussion a, b) No Impact. (Mineral Resources) The project site is not known to contain mineral resources or aggregate deposits. The project site is not mapped as a significant “Mineral Resource Zone” by the State of California or the City of Richmond. Additionally, the project site has not historically supported mineral extraction operations. This precludes the possibility of the loss of mineral resources of statewide or local importance. No impacts would occur.
References California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1996. Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region, available at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_96-03/OFR_96- 03_Plate1.pdf, accessed on June 28, 2014. City of Richmond, 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030. Land Use and Urban Design Element, 2012.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-50 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.12 Noise
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
NOISE — Would the project: a) Result in 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) Result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, in an area within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion a) Less than Significant. (Plans, Policies and Ordinances and Noise Compatibility) The City of Richmond Noise Ordinance is contained in the Richmond Municipal Code. The current Noise Ordinance addresses noise-related issues in the community through a combination of time restrictions, prohibition acts, and exemptions. Section 9.52.050 of the Municipal Code also contains quantitative noise limits in the form of maximum noise levels, expressed in dBA, that are not to be exceeded by more than 30 minutes during any hour and vary by zoning district. The maximum noise levels established in the ordinance are provided in the following Table NOI-1.
The Public Safety and Noise Element of the Richmond General Plan 2030 establishes a community noise exposure levels that are consistent with the Noise Ordinance. “Normally Acceptable” noise levels established in General Plan 2030 include 60 dBA for low density residential, 65 dBA for multifamily residential and transient lodging (motels, hotels) and 70 dBA for schools, libraries, churches, hospitals and nursing homes.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-51 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
TABLE NOI-1 MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL IN DBA (LEVELS NOT TO BE EXCEEDED MORE THAN 30 MINUTES IN ANY HOUR)
Between 10pm and 7ama Measured at Property Measured at Any Measured at Any Line or District Boundary of a Boundary of a Residential Zoning District Boundary Residential Zone Zone
Single Family Residential 60 N/A N/A Multifamily Residential 65 N/A N/A Commercial 70 60 50 or ambient noise level Lt. Industrial and Office Flex* 70 60 50 or ambient noise level Heavy and Marine Industrial 75 65 50 or ambient noise level Public Facilities and Community Use 65 60 50 or ambient noise level Open Space and Recreational 65 60 50 or ambient noise level Districts (a) Restricted hours may be modified through condition of an approved conditional use permit. Section subsections of this Chapter also provide for additional restricted hours and the most restrictive hours shall be controlling. (b) In determining whether any noise exceeds the maximum exterior noise limits set forth in this section, measurements shall be taken at the property line of the property from which the noise emanates, except that for noise emanating from property in an M-3 or M-4 zoning districts, measurement shall be taken at boundary of the zoning district in which the property is located. (c) No person shall operate or cause to be operated within a dwelling unit, any source of sound that causes the sound level when measured inside a neighboring dwelling unit to exceed the allowable noise level, for any period of time. (d) In the event the noise, as judged by the enforcing authority, contains a steady, pure tone such as a whine, screech or hum, or is an impulsive sound such as hammering or riveting, or contains music or speech, the standard limits set forth above shall be reduced by 5 decibels. (e) The exterior noise limits for any source of noise within any residential zone shall be reduced by 10 dBA between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am . The exterior noise limits for any source of noise in any zone other than a residential zone shall be reduced between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am so that when the noise measured ant the property line of a “noise sensitive use” does not exceed 50 dBA. SOURCE: City of Richmond Noise Ordinance, 2012
Existing Noise Environment The noise environment surrounding the project site is influenced primarily by local traffic. To quantify the existing noise environment, short-term noise level measurements were taken on the project site. The noise measurements were collected using a calibrated Metrosonics dB308 sound level meter set at the location of the proposed classroom building that would be closest to Hilltop Drive (the highest travel area roadway). The noise measurements indicated the existing average daytime noise level at the site is 58.9 dBA. Therefore, this noise level would be in the “normally acceptable” category for school land uses.
The proposed project would generate temporary construction noise at levels that could be noticeable by adjacent uses. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to where construction activity would occur on the site are a church/school and residences located approximately 230 feet to the south and southwest, respectively, across Hilltop Drive. Further, a permanent sound wall runs along the south side of Hilltop Drive, separating the residences from noise generated on the roadway north of the wall. Despite the distances to these uses over which construction noise on the project site would attenuate, the City imposes noise control measures, in accordance with the City’s Noise Ordinance, on all construction projects. Adherence to these measures ensures the temporary effects of any construction related activities would have a less than significant impact (see criterion “d” below). Therefore the
Hilltop Speculative School 2-52 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
proposed project would not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local noise ordinance. b) Less than Significant. (Groundborne Vibration) The metric for measuring groundborne noise and vibration is peak ground velocity (measured in inches per second). Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in strength with distance. For most structures, a peak particle velocity (PPV) threshold of 0.5 inch per second is sufficient to avoid structural damage. For purposes of this analysis, vibration impacts would be considered significant if the project involved any construction or other activities that would create vibration in excess of 0.2 inch per second PPV at any nearby sensitive receptors, pursuant to Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) criteria for vibration damage.
Pile driving or other significant vibration causing construction activity is not needed or proposed as part of project construction. Project construction will involve minimal excavation activities, and while other groundborne vibration and groundborne noise may occur from other construction equipment and work, activities for the proposed project would not induce strong vibration effects. Specifically, ground vibration generated by the proposed construction activities would be primarily associated with the use of jackhammers, loaded trucks, and other mobile equipment, which would result in vibration levels of less than 0.08 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. Most ground vibration during construction would consist of onsite truck activity, which typically generates levels less than 0.08 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. In addition, the nearest sensitive receptors are approximately 230 feet south of the project site.
Therefore, vibration levels produced by construction activities are not expected to exceed the peak threshold (0.2 inch per second PPV). In addition, the project would not include any permanent operational activity that would result in excessive or perceptible vibration, and the operational impact of the project on increased vibration levels would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant. (Permanent Change to Ambient Noise Levels) The proposed project would contribute to increased traffic volumes on local roadways. Noise level predictions were made using traffic data and Version 2.5 of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM) for two scenarios: Existing and Existing Plus Project.
Traffic data were obtained from the a.m. peak hour turning movement counts provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis report and presented below in Section 2.16, Transportation and Traffic. Two segments of Hilltop Drive adjacent to residential neighborhoods were chosen for the analysis. The segment of Hilltop Drive between Robert Miller Drive and Shane Drive was chosen since it has the largest increase in traffic volumes (when compared to existing volumes) as a result of the proposed project. The segment between Shane Drive and Blume Drive was chosen since it has the highest overall traffic volumes in the study area. Receptor placement in the model corresponds to a distance of 50 feet from the edge of
Hilltop Speculative School 2-53 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
pavement (EOP) for the outside travel lane, with the peak directional traffic assigned to the closest travel lanes.
The results of the modeling are shown in Table NOI-2 for the existing (baseline 2014), and existing plus project traffic scenarios.
The Project would contribute up to a 1.4 dB(A) increase in roadway noise levels at adjacent receptors. Caltrans identifies an increase of 3.0 dB(A) to be a barely perceptible increase (FTA, 2009). Therefore, operational increases in roadway noise resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. It should be noted that existing traffic noise levels (based on the modeling conducted and described herein) without the proposed project are in excess of those limits set forth in the City of Richmond Municipal Code and detailed in Table NOI-1 above, but the project’s contribution to this cumulative noise impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
TABLE NOI-2 TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES IN THE PROJECT AREAa
Existing Traffic Noise Existing Plus Project Increase Hilltop Drive Road Segment (dB(A)) Project (dB(A)) (dB(A))
Between R. Miller Drive and Shane Drive 65.9 67.3 1.4 Between Shane Drive and Blume Drive 67.3 67.7 0.4 a These listed values represent the modeled noise levels from motor vehicle traffic along the specified roadways and are based on traffic data from the Transportation Impacts Analysis Report prepared for the project (see Section 2.16). Roadway Edge of Pavement (EOP) to receptor distance is assumed to be 50 feet. Vehicle mix on these road segments is assumed to be 98 percent auto, one percent medium trucks, and one percent heavy trucks. The speed limit for these segments is based on the posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph). SOURCE: ESA, 2014.
d) Less than Significant. (Temporary Change to Ambient Noise Levels) As introduced under criteria “a” and “b”, the distance between the project site construction area and the nearest noise-sensitive receptors suggest that construction noise would not be a potential nuisance to those receptors. Construction-related activities (e.g., paving, excavating, etc.) may cause noise levels to temporarily fluctuate above standard noise levels. Such equipment can generate noise at a level of about 85 dBA at 50 feet from the source. The closest residential receptors are located approximately 230 feet south of the project site. As sound levels are reduced by 6.0 dBA for every doubling of distance, a sound level of 85 dBA at 50 feet would be reduced to less than approximately 73 dBA at a distance of 230 feet. This is a conservative estimate because it does not factor in the permanent sound wall that separates the residences from sound coming from the north.
While construction activities would temporarily increase noise in the project area, the City imposes the following noise control measures in accordance with the Noise Ordinance under Chapter 9.52 of the City of Richmond Municipal Code:
All construction and transport equipment shall be muffled in accordance with State and Federal laws.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-54 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
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. During construction, trucks and equipment should be running only when necessary.
Mobile construction equipment (intermittent, short-term operation of less than 15 days) may not exceed 80 dBA on weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and may not exceed 65 dBA on weekends and legal holidays from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The use of stationary construction equipment may not exceed 65 dBA on weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and may not exceed 60 dBA on weekends and legal holidays from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 pm. No construction would occur on weekends or holidays. In addition, consistency with standard conditions outlined above, which are imposed by the City on all construction projects, ensures that the temporary effects of any temporary (construction related) activities would have a less than significant impact on surrounding uses. e) No Impact. (Exposure Near Public Airport) Oakland International Airport exists approximately 20 miles south of the City of Richmond, and San Francisco International Airport is located approximately 30 miles southwest of the City of Richmond. The City of Richmond is located outside the 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL) noise impact area for both airports. f) No Impact. (Exposure Near Private Airstrip) The Project is not in an area within two miles of private airstrip facilities. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required.
References City of Richmond, 2011. Municipal Code, Chapter 9.52 Noise Ordinance, 2011. City of Richmond, 2012.Richmond General Plan 2030, Public Safety and Noise Element and Map 12.1, 2012. Federal Transportation Administration (FTA), 2009. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 12-12. 2006 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement, November 2009.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-55 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.13 Population and Housing
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
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 units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion a) Less than Significant. (Population Growth) The proposed project would not include new homes or new infrastructure that could induce substantial population growth in the area. The proposed school would accommodate up to 1,400 students and 108 staff. It is not assumed or likely that all of the new onsite population would be relocating residency to Richmond from another jurisdiction (particularly if residency in Richmond is not a requisite for enrollment). However, it is reasonable to assume that a certain portion of staff at the proposed school may relocate to Richmond as a result of employment at this location. Regardless, the level of population growth that would be directly associated with the proposed new school would not be substantial. Potential impacts regarding inducement of population growth would be less than significant. b, c) No Impact. (Displacement) Existing uses on the project site are commercial uses. The proposed project would not displace any existing housing or generate a demand for housing elsewhere. Furthermore, the project would not result in a displacement of people from the project site. Therefore, no impact would result.
References Hilltop Community Ventures, 2014. Hilltop Speculative School, Project Description, 2014.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-56 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.14 Public Services
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the need for, new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities?
Discussion a.i-ii) Less than Significant. (Police and Fire Services) The project site is located in a developed urban area already served by public services. The Richmond Fire Department and Richmond Police Department would serve the project site. Richmond Fire Station 68 is located less than a mile away from the site at 2908 Hilltop Drive (southeast corner of Robert Miller Drive and Hilltop Drive). The project site is located in Richmond Police Beat 8, which extends generally from I-80, west to San Pablo Avenue (near the project site) and further to San Pablo Bay, north to Richmond Parkway, and south generally to Rheem Creek.
The proposed school use will notably increase the population on the project site from existing conditions. However, it is not anticipated to substantially increase the demand for fire and/or emergency and police service such that new or physically altered fire or emergency or polices service facilities would be required. (See Section 13. Population and Housing.) The impact would be less than significant. a.iii) Less than Significant. (Schools) The West Contra Costa Unified School District (District) provides most of the public education services in Richmond, and there is a range of private and public elementary schools in the project vicinity, including the private Canterbury School (K-8) across Hilltop Drive. The proposed project would not have a direct impact on existing school facilities or services, requiring the development of new or expanded school facilities, and the effect would be less than significant. Also, the project itself would develop a new school, and any physical impacts associated with its construction are identified in this document as less than significant, or mitigated to less than significant.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-57 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
a.iv) Less than Significant. (Recreation) Refer to Section 15, Recreation, for a discussion of the need for additional park and recreational facilities, and the potential environmental impacts associated with the provision of new facilities. a.v) No Impact. (Other Services) The proposed project would not adversely affect any other public facilities in the project area. See Section 13, Population and Housing, where the potential effects of increased population resulting from the project are discussed.
References City of Richmond, 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030. Police and Fire Services Map 12, 2012.
West County Unified School District, 2013. Official website: http://www.wccusd.net/page/, accessed on May 22, 2013.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-58 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.15 Recreation
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
RECREATION — Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Discussion a, b) Less than Significant. (Accelerated Deterioration; New/Expanded Facilities) The projected enrollment at the school would be up to 1,400 students and 108 staff. Given the nature and commercial setting of the proposed new middle/high school with onsite recreation facilities and play areas, this new population would not substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks in the vicinity or cause substantial physical deterioration of those facilities. It is not expected that students or staff who are not currently residents of the area, would start to utilize nearby City of Richmond parks and recreation facilities in the area to a degree that would cause or accelerate the substantial physical deterioration of the facilities. These facilities include Hilltop Park located approximately one-half mile southwest on Robert Miller Drive south of Hilltop Drive, and Hilltop Lake Park just north of the Hilltop Mall complex.
Any potential environmental effects associated with the construction of new recreational facilities on the school site are assessed under the applicable environmental resource topics in this document. Any potential impacts associated with that construction are less than significant or have been reduced to less than significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the analysis in this document.
References City of Richmond, 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030, Parks and Recreation Map 10, 2012.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-59 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.16 Transportation and Traffic
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
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 and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location, that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Setting This section provides a summary of existing and cumulative transportation conditions associated with the proposed project, taken from the Hilltop Spec School Transportation Impact Study (Kittelson & Associates, July 2014). The complete study is available in Appendix C to this document.
Roadway Network The regional roadway network in the study area is comprised of Interstate 80 (I-80), a transcontinental highway that runs between California and New Jersey. Locally, it operates from its terminus in downtown San Francisco northeast across the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to Oakland and other East Bay cities and across the Carquinez Bridge towards Sacramento. It also provides direct connections with other interstate freeways such as Interstate 580 and Interstate 880. Access to I-80 to/from the study area is primarily provided via the Hilltop Drive interchange approximately one-half mile from the project site and the Fitzgerald Drive/Richmond Parkway interchange approximately one mile away.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-60 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Local roads provide access to the project site and connection to the regional network. The key local roads are described below and shown clearly in Figure 1-1, Site Location Map, in Section 1 of this document.
Hilltop Mall Road is a ring road around the Hilltop Mall complex providing multiple access points to the regional shopping center. Hilltop Drive is an east-west arterial road that runs immediately south of the project site. It crosses over I-80, where it provides freeway access for the project site. Shane Drive is a local road that runs immediately west of the project site Hilltop Mall Road and Hilltop Drive. Blume Drive is a north-south roadway that connects between Hilltop Drive and Richmond Parkway to the north where it terminates at the I-80 southbound ramps. Garrity Way is a short road that runs from Hilltop Mall Road, through Blume Drive, to terminate at a cul-de-sac of a residential development to the northeast. Robert Miller Drive operates between Hilltop Mall Road and San Pablo Avenue, southwest of the project site.
Greater detail about lane configuration and pedestrian and bicycle facilities and on-street parking along each of these roads is described in Appendix C to this Initial Study Checklist.
Transit Service The transit system in the study area includes bus services provided by Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) and West Contra Costa County Transit (WestCat). The bus services provide connections to regional heavy rail services provided by Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) and Amtrak. The nearest bus stops from the project site are located on Shane Drive or within the grounds of Hilltop Mall across Hilltop Mall Road from the project site. Hilltop Mall, in particular, is identified as a transit hub for the region.
Currently, AC Transit operates six bus routes near the project site including two Transbay routes to/from San Francisco. In addition, AC Transit operates several lines (600 to 699) that provide service to local schools throughout the service area. WestCat provides fixed route bus service in the cities of Hercules and Pinole, portions of the city of Richmond, as well as unincorporated communities in West County. The project site is served by four WestCat fixed bus routes. (Table 1 and Figures 3 and 4 in Appendix C to this Initial Study list and illustrate the transit routes and service in the project vicinity.)
Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities are limited around the project site. There are no sidewalks along the frontage of the site on Hilltop Mall Road, Hilltop Drive and Shane Drive; whereas they are provided at intermittent sections on Hilltop Mall Road and Hilltop Drive and along the west side of Shane Drive.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-61 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Marked crosswalk locations are also limited in the immediate vicinity of the project site. A single high-visibility marked crosswalk is provided across the west leg of Hilltop Mall Road and Shane Drive intersection. This uncontrolled crosswalk provides the only marked crossing facility between the south side of Hilltop Mall Road and the Hilltop Mall where bus stops are located for many of the bus routes. There is no marked cross walk on the south leg across Shane Drive where a bus stop serving AC Transit routes 72, 76, LA and LC can be found. At the signalized Hilltop Drive and Shane Drive intersection, an unusual diagonal marked crosswalk is provided between the northwest corner and southeast corner. A marked crossing is also provided across the south leg of this intersection. While pedestrian ramps are present at both crosswalk locations, they lack truncated domes for visually impaired pedestrians.
Pedestrian Volumes Pedestrian counts were collected at six intersections during the AM peak period on April 30, 2014. The greatest flows of pedestrians occurred at the Hilltop Drive intersections of Shane Drive and Robert Miller Drive with eight pedestrians each during the AM peak hour on the day of the survey. The flow of pedestrians was primarily westbound at the Shane Drive intersection and eastbound at the Robert Miller Drive intersection. The intersection of Blume and Garrity had a total of six pedestrians during the AM peak hour, though there was no directional trend. The remaining three intersections had the lowest pedestrian counts. They also had no directional trend.
A majority of these pedestrians are likely walking to one of the two bus stops on Shane Drive. Considering there is a large residential area south of Hilltop Drive and ample parking at the shopping mall, it is reasonable that there are pedestrian flows from these areas towards the bus stops. Table TRA-1 below shows the observed volumes during the AM peak hour at the six study intersections.
TABLE TRA-1 PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTION VOLUMES
No. Intersection Times Volumes
1 Hilltop Drive & Blume Drive 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 3 2 Garrity Way & Blume Drive 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 6 3 Hilltop Mall Road & Garrity Way 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 4 4 Hilltop Mall Road & Shane Drive 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3 5 Hilltop Drive & Shane Drive 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 8 6 Hilltop Drive & Robert Miller Drive 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 8 Study Intersections are mapped in Figure TRA-1, below. Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2014.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-62 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Bicycle Facilities In the project vicinity, a Class I Bike Path is provided around the Hilltop Lake and Class II Bike Lanes are provided along Robert Miller Drive between Hilltop Drive and San Pablo Avenue.21
Proposed Bicycle Facilities The Richmond Bicycle Master Plan proposed a number of improvements to better connect the existing bicycle network in the city. In the project study area, the City’s Bicycle Master Plan includes Class II Bike Lanes along Hilltop Drive and Blume Drive, and Class III Bike Routes along Moyers Road and Shane Drive south of Hilltop Drive. (Error! Reference source not found. in Appendix C to this Initial Study shows existing and proposed bicycle facilities near the project vicinity.)
Bicyclist Volumes Bicycles were counted at the six study intersections during the AM peak period on April 30, 2014. Overall, there were very few bicycles in the study area. During the AM peak hour, the greatest bicycle flow was at the intersection of Shane Drive and Hilltop Mall Drive. There were a total of three bicycles, two from eastbound Hilltop Mall Road and one from northbound Shane Drive. In addition, there was a bicycle reported at the intersection of Blume Drive and Hilltop Drive traveling westbound along Hilltop Drive. There was also one bicycle reported at the Shane Drive and Hilltop Drive intersection turning left from westbound Hilltop Drive onto Shane Drive.
Based on the overall sparse activity of bicyclists in the area, there is no real directional trend. However, the intersection of Shane Drive and Hilltop Mall Road experiences the highest number of bicycle traffic. Table TRA-2 shows the AM peak hour volumes at six study intersections.
TABLE TRA-2 BICYCLIST INTERSECTION VOLUMES
No. Intersection Times Volumes
1 Hilltop Drive & Blume Drive 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 1 2 Garrity Way& Blume Drive 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 0 3 Hilltop Mall Road & Garrity Way 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 0 4 Hilltop Mall Road & Shane Drive 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 3 5 Hilltop Drive & Shane Drive 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 1 6 Hilltop Drive & Robert Miller Drive 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 0 Study Intersections are mapped in Figure TRA-1, below. Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2014.
21 Chapter 1000 of California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual defines the following classes of bicycle facilities: “Class I” provides a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized. “Class II” provides a restricted right-of-way designated lane for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. “Class III” provides a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-63 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Five-year Collision Data Collisions reports for the study area were obtained from the California Highway Patrol, which maintains the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database. The five-year analysis included all reported intersection and midblock collisions occurring from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2012 at the study locations.22 During this time period, there were a total of 73 reported collisions as shown in Table TRA-3. Overall, 5.5 percent of motor-vehicle collisions involved pedestrians, 12.3 percent involved fixed objects, and the remaining 82.2 percent involved motor vehicles only. There was no bicycle-related collision during the five-year period.
TABLE TRA-3 COLLISIONS BY PARTY CATEGORY (FIVE YEARS BETWEEN JULY 1, 2007 AND JUNE 30, 2012)
Parked Fixed Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle - Object - MV No. Intersection - MV - MV MV MV Only Total
1 Hilltop Drive & Blume Drive 0 0 0 0 11 11 2 Garrity Way & Blume Drive 0 0 0 2 3 5 3 Hilltop Mall Road & Garrity Way 0 0 0 1 13 14 4 Hilltop Mall Road & Shane Drive 2 0 0 1 5 8 5 Hilltop Drive & Shane Drive 1 0 0 4 8 13 6 Hilltop Drive & Robert Miller Drive 1 0 0 1 20 22 4 0 0 9 60 73 MV denotes Motor Vehicle Source: California Highway Patrol, Statewide Integrated Traffic Record System, June 2, 2014.
Most of the collisions reported for this period at the intersections rather than midblock. The highest number occurred at the Hilltop Drive and Robert Miller Drive intersection with a total of 22 collisions representing about 30 percent of the total collisions; while the lowest was at the Garrity Way and Blume Drive location with only five collisions or just under seven percent during the five-year period. The causes of the reported collisions vary, with unsafe speed and auto right-of-way cited as the two most common violations. (Figures 6 and 7 in Appendix C to this Initial Study illustrate the distribution of midblock versus intersection collisions, and collision causes, respectively, at each study intersection.)
Pedestrian-Motor Vehicle Collisions Of the 73 reported collisions, four involved pedestrians. Two of the incidents occurred at the Shane Drive and Hilltop Mall Road intersection, one at the Shane Drive and Hilltop Drive intersection, and one at the Robert Miller Drive and Hilltop Drive intersection. All four incidents resulted in pedestrian injuries. With the exception of the Robert Miller Drive incident, the remaining three collisions resulted from motorists’ failure to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalks. The pedestrian was found to be at fault with the Robert Miller Drive collision.
22 Intersection collisions are located less than or equal to 50 feet from an intersection and midblock collisions are located more than 50 feet from an intersection.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-64 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Fixed Object-Motor Vehicle Collisions There were nine reported collisions involving fixed objects. Driving at unsafe speed was cited as the primary factor of over half of the collisions; while driving on the wrong side of the road was the second most common factor. Four of the report collisions involving fixed objects occurred at the Shane Drive and Hilltop Drive intersection.
Existing Traffic Volumes Six intersections are selected for morning peak hour analysis in consultation with City of Richmond staff for their proximity to the project site and the time of day that the school would have the most impact. These intersections are listed below and graphically shown in Error! Reference source not found.:
1. Hilltop Drive & Blume Drive 2. Garrity Way & Blume Drive 3. Garrity Way & Hilltop Mall Road 4. Shane Drive & Hilltop Mall Road 5. Shane Drive & Hilltop Drive 6. Robert Miller Drive & Hilltop Drive
Existing traffic volumes for intersections were collected in order to establish a basis for this analysis. Intersection turning movement volumes at the study intersections were collected during the morning peak period between 7 AM and 9 AM on Wednesday, April 30. (The existing geometries and peak hour volumes are shown in Error! Reference source not found. in Appendix C to this Initial Study).
Hilltop Speculative School 2-65 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 Hilltop Spec School July 2014
Figure 1: Project Location
Hilltop Speculative School . 130984 SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Figure TRA-1 Project Location and Study Intersections
2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2. Environmental Checklist
Existing Operations Level of service (LOS) describes the operating conditions experienced by motorists. LOS is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors, including speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, driving comfort, and convenience. LOS A through LOS F covers the entire range of traffic operations that might occur. Motorists using a facility that operates at LOS “A” experience very little delay, while those using a facility that operates at LOS “F” will experience long delays. These conditions are generally described in Table TRA-4.
TABLE TRA-4 GENERAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
LOS Description
Free Flow or Insignificant Delays: Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the A traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal. Stable Operation or Minimal Delays: The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly B restricted, and control delay at signalized intersections are not significant. Stable Operation or Acceptable Delays: The ability to maneuver and change lanes is somewhat restricted, C and average travel speeds may be about 50 percent of the free flow speed. Approaching Unstable or Tolerable Delays: Small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in D delay and decreases in travel speed. Unstable Operation or Significant Delays: Significant delays may occur and average travel speeds may be E 33 percent or less of the free flow speed. Forced Flow or Excessive Delays: Congestion, high delays, and extensive queuing occur at critical F signalized intersections with urban street flow at extremely low speeds. SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2000.
Intersection analyses were conducted using the operational methodology outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000) and Synchro software tool. The HCM procedure calculates a weighted average stop delay in seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection, and assigns a level of service designation based upon the delay. For unsignalized intersection, the HCM methodology calculates a weighted average stop delay in seconds per vehicle for each controlled intersection leg and for the intersection as a whole. A level of service designation is assigned based upon the weighted average control delay per vehicle on the intersection leg with the worst delay at one- or two-way stop-controlled intersections. For all-way stop-controlled intersections, a level of service designation is based upon the weighted average control delay for all intersection legs, similar to the level of service designation for signalized intersections. Table TRA-5 presents the relationship of average delay to level of service for both signalized and stop-controlled intersections.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-67 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
TABLE TRA-5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
Average Delay Per Average Delay Per Vehicle Vehicle (Seconds) LOS Description of Traffic Conditions (Seconds)
A Free flowing. Most vehicles do not have to stop. Minimal delays. Some vehicles have to stop, >10.0 and 20.0 B >10.0 and 15.0 although waits are not bothersome. Acceptable delays. Significant numbers of >20.0 and 35.0 C vehicles have to stop because of steady, high >15.0 and 25.0 traffic volumes. Still, many pass without stopping. Tolerable delays. Many vehicles have to stop. Drivers are aware of heavier traffic. Cars may >35.0 and 55.0 D have to wait through more than one red light. >25.0 and 35.0 Queues begin to form, often on more than one approach. Significant delays. Cars may have to wait through >55.0 and 80.0 E more than one red light. Long queues form, >35.0 and 50.0 sometimes on several approaches. Excessive delays. Intersection is jammed. Many cars have to wait through more than one red light, 80.0 F >50.0 or more than 60 seconds. Traffic may back up into “up-stream” intersections. SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Washington, D.C., 2000.
The existing operations at the six study intersections are shown in better during the AM peak hour.
Table TRA-6. The results indicate that all study intersections are operating at LOS C or better during the AM peak hour.
TABLE TRA-6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING CONDITIONS
AM Peak Hour
No. North-South Cross Street East-West Cross Street Control Delay LOS
1 Blume Dr Hilltop Dr Signalized 23.1 C 2 Blume Dr Garrity Way Signalized 14.3 B 3 Hilltop Mall Rd Garrity Way MS Yield 4.4 (10.3) A (B) 4 Shane Dr Hilltop Mall Rd MS Yield 2.3 (10.0) A (A) 5 Shane Dr Hilltop Dr Signalized 16.6 B 6 Robert Miller Dr Hilltop Dr Signalized 16.8 B Delay denotes Average Vehicle Delay in Seconds LOS denotes Level of Service MS Yield denotes Minor Street Yield-Controlled Average (Worst Approach) shown for Minor Street Yield-controlled intersections Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2014.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-68 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Analysis Scenarios This transportation impact analysis was performed for existing conditions (2014) and for Year 2040 condition. Specifically, the transportation conditions are assessed for the following scenarios:
Existing Conditions with Project – Existing conditions with the addition of the proposed school project. Cumulative (Year 2040) No Project – Future cumulative conditions including projected population and employment growth as well as planned transportation system improvements contained in the latest countywide travel model for Year 2040. Cumulative (Year 2040) with Project – Cumulative conditions with the addition of the proposed school project.
Project Traffic The proposed project is comprised of a charter or private school campus of up to 1,400 middle and/or high school students. The number of trips estimated to be generated by the project and how these trips would be distributed and assigned onto the transportation network are discussed in this section.
Trip Generation Trip generation of the project is based upon information compiled in Trip Generation manual, 9th edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (2012), field observations, as well as studies conducted for similar land use as the proposed project. A traffic impact study was conducted for the Making Waves Academy, a grade 5-12 charter school similar to the proposed project in Richmond, in March 2011. The study used ITE’s rates for a K-12 private school for the AM peak hour, as their data collection resulted in rates that were similar.23 While the proposed project would serve middle and high school age students, the same ITE category (Code 536) was applied to this study based upon maximum total enrollment. Doing so was considered conservative for the proposed project, as middle and high school students are generally more likely to get to school by walking, biking, or taking public transit than elementary school students.
The ITE manual allows for adjustments when appropriate. For the project, a ten percent adjustment to the number of trips generated at the project site was made to account for the site’s proximity to the Hilltop Mall transit hub and the availability of AC Transit and WestCat buses. The ten percent reduction is based on student surveys at Unity High School, a grade 9-12 charter school in east Oakland that is located in close proximity to eight AC Transit bus routes. While the project includes middle school students as well as high school, its proximity to multiple transit routes and transit providers still make the transit reduction applicable.
23 The ITE Trip Generation manual does not have a land use category for charter schools, but the Making Waves Academy study demonstrated the AM peak hour trip generation characteristics are similar to a K-12 private school.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-69 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
As summarized in Table TRA-7, the project would generate about 3,125 trips on an average weekday including 1,021 trips during the AM peak hour. While it is anticipated that the arrival of students in the morning would be staggered with start times between 7:00 AM and 10:00 AM, the trip generation assumes that all 1,400 students would arrive during the peak hour.
TABLE TRA-7 TRIP GENERATION
Trip Rate and Directional Distribution Trips Generated
AM Peak Hour Daily AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use Category Source Amount Total In Out In Out Total
Private School K-12 ITE (536) 1,400 Stu 0.81 61% 39% 3,472 692 442 1,134 Mode Adjustment (-10%)* -347 -69 -44 -113 Total 3,125 623 398 1,021 Notes: Average trip generation rates are from Trip Generation, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012 * The 10% recommended reduction is based on student surveys at Unity High School, a grade 9-12 charter school in east Oakland with similar transit service Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2014.
To gain an understanding of the trips generated by current land uses on the project site, observations were conducted on Thursday, April 24, 2014, during the morning peak hour. The observations revealed very minimal traffic activity on-site; therefore, vehicle trips generated by existing land uses were not subtracted before trips generated by the proposed project were added. As such, this approach may result in a slightly conservative analysis.
Trip Distribution and Assignment The distribution and assignment of project-generated trips were derived from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Model and knowledge of the proposed access locations associated with the project. The CCTA Model zone within which the project is located was isolated, and the peak-hour trips for the “High School” land use category were assigned to the network, which was the most applicable land use category for the project. From this “select zone” assignment, the AM peak-hour distributions of inbound and outbound trips were estimated. (The project trip distribution percentages from the CCTA Model are presented in Error! Reference source not found. in Appendix C to this Initial Study, and project only trips are shown in Error! Reference source not found. in Appendix C.)
Discussion a, b) Less than Significant. (Conflict with Established Measures of Effectiveness / County CMP)
Hilltop Speculative School 2-70 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Thresholds The assessment of significance criterion a is based on the specific transportation impact criteria per the City of Richmond’s General Plan and discussions with City staff. The project would result in a significant impact on the circulation system if it would:
Cause existing or future level of service to degrade to LOS E or F at a signalized or unsignalized intersection; or
Cause the overall average intersection delay to increase if the signalized or unsignalized intersection is operating at LOS E or F under No Project conditions.
Existing plus Project Conditions
Intersection Operations Traffic volumes for the Existing plus Project conditions were developed using an additive approach. Estimated traffic generated by the proposed project was added to existing volumes on the roadway network to develop the volumes for the Existing plus Project conditions. (Existing plus Project turning movement volumes are shown in Error! Reference source not found. in Appendix C to this Initial Study Checklist).
As shown in Table TRA-8, with the addition of project-generated traffic, the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better and within acceptable standards during the AM peak hour. The PM peak hour was not analyzed because it is expected that AM peak hour would result in the greatest project impacts. Morning school traffic tends to be more concentrated than the afternoon and occurs at the same time as the morning peak work commute. Due to after-school activities, afternoon school traffic is more dispersed and the school’s afternoon peak occurs before the evening peak work commute.
TABLE TRA-8 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
AM Peak Hour
No North-South Cross Street East-West Cross Street Control Delay LOS
1 Blume Dr Hilltop Dr Signalized 23.0 C 2 Blume Dr Garrity Way Signalized 15.7 B 3 Hilltop Mall Rd Garrity Way MS Yield 4.1 (12.3) A (B) 4 Shane Dr Hilltop Mall Rd MS Yield 5.7 (12.8) A (B) 5 Shane Dr Hilltop Dr Signalized 27.6 C 6 Robert Miller Dr Hilltop Dr Signalized 19.4 B Delay denotes Average Vehicle Delay in Seconds LOS denotes Level of Service MS Yield denotes Minor Street Yield-Controlled Average (Worst Approach) shown for Minor Street Yield-controlled intersections SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, 2014.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-71 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
With the addition of project traffic to existing conditions, the six study intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better during the AM peak hour and would not result in unacceptable intersection operations. This would be a less than significant impact.
Cumulative Conditions and CMP Analysis
Cumulative Traffic Forecasts The CCTA Model was used to develop future volume forecast for cumulative conditions. The model includes future development throughout the region. The 2040 cumulative forecasts are consistent with regional totals for growth Projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in their Projections 2009 report (which was the basis for the latest available CCTA Model). Therefore, the traffic forecasts reflect traffic from growth in Richmond, as well as traffic in the region that may use the local roadways. Model base year (Year 2013) and future year (Year 2040) forecasts were extracted from the model and used to estimate growth. The full 27-year increment of growth projected by the model was applied to the 2014 counts to arrive at the adjusted forecasted volumes for Cumulative conditions. The City of Richmond Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 2013 to 2018 was reviewed to identify any planned improvements at the study locations. The review found paving and streetlight improvements, but no major projects that would affect this traffic analyses. (The projected AM peak hour traffic volumes for cumulative conditions [No Project] and volumes with the project are provided in Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found., respectively, in Appendix C to this Initial Study Checklist.)
The cumulative operations at the six study intersections are shown in Table TRA-9. The results indicate that all study intersections projected to operate at LOS C or better during the AM peak hour. With the addition of project-generated traffic, the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better and within acceptable standards during the AM peak hour.
TABLE TRA-9 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – CUMULATIVE AM PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS
Cumulative Cumulative + Project North-South East-West No Cross Street Cross Street Control Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Blume Dr Hilltop Dr Signalized 24.7 C 25.0 C 2 Blume Dr Garrity Way Signalized 13.4 B 15.2 B 3 Hilltop Mall Rd Garrity Way MS Yield 4.2 (9.9) A (A) 3.8 (11.4) A (B) 4 Shane Dr Hilltop Mall Rd MS Yield 3.1 (10.5) A (B) 6.2 (13.7) A (B) 5 Shane Dr Hilltop Dr Signalized 30.1 C 46.1 D 6 Robert Miller Dr Hilltop Dr Signalized 18.9 B 23.0 C Delay denotes Average Vehicle Delay in Seconds LOS denotes Level of Service MS Yield denotes Minor Street Yield-Controlled Average (Worst Approach) shown for Minor Street Yield-controlled intersections SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, 2014.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-72 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
While there is not a LOS impact at these study intersections, at the intersection of Shane Drive and Hilltop Drive, the queue due to eastbound left turns from Hilltop Drive to Shane Drive would extend beyond the left-turn pocket. This queuing would not result in a potential safety hazard and is therefore not considered a significant operational or safety impact under CEQA.
Therefore, with the addition of project traffic to cumulative conditions, the six study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM peak hour and would not result in unacceptable intersection operations. This would be a less than significant impact. Further, since the applicable level of service standards are not exceeded, the project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program.
Construction Circulation The project would be constructed over a period of approximately 12 months. Construction- related activities would include temporary and periodic disruptions to the transportation system in and around the project area, including temporary lane closures on Hilltop Mall Road and Shane Drive for installation of sidewalks and utilities. Heavy vehicles would access the project area and equipment and materials would need to be staged for construction. Short-term demolition and construction activities and staging of construction vehicles and equipment may result in degraded roadway operations because of their size and slower speeds while navigating turns.
Based on information provided by the project sponsor, all base rock would be recycled on site in order to minimize delivery of gravel trucks. It is estimated that the peak transport activities would occur during the concrete pour phase when up to 60 delivery truck loads or 120 truck trips are projected per day. Non-essential delivery trucks would be scheduled to avoid days when construction truck activities, such as concrete pour, are anticipated to be heavy due to the phasing of the construction. In addition to on-haul and off-haul trips, vehicular trips would be generated by an estimated maximum of 125 construction employees on the site at any one time. Trips associated with construction are less than those associated with operations and therefore, since operation trips will not have a significant impact on traffic, construction trips also will have a less than significant impact.
There would likely be multiple destinations for off-haul materials and origins for on-haul materials. Construction workers would also be arriving from different directions. Travel routes for employees, demolition export and material import would be determined in consultation with the City and scheduled to avoid peak traffic periods. Parking for construction workers would be provided on the project site. Construction workers would also be encouraged to carpool when traveling to the work site.
Even though construction trips would have a less than significant impact and adequate parking would be provided for workers, the following Recommendation is suggested for the project sponsor to implement to address construction period transportation and circulation:
Hilltop Speculative School 2-73 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
a) Before issuance of grading permits for the project, it is suggested that a detailed Traffic Management Plan be prepared that would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Engineering Services Department, Police Department and Fire Department. The plan should also be prepared in consultation with AC Transit, and West Contra Costa County Transit. The plan would be developed to ensure minimization of construction traffic impacts on local roadways and transit routes. As such, it could include: The estimated number of truck trips, time, and day of street closures Time of day of arrival and departure of trucks Limitations on the size and type of trucks; provision of a staging area with a limitation on the number of trucks that can be waiting Provision of a truck circulation pattern Provision of a driveway access plan to maintain safe vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle movements (e.g., steel plates, minimum distances of open trenches, and private vehicle pick up and drop off areas) Safe and efficient access routes for emergency vehicles Efficient and convenient transit routes Manual traffic control when necessary Proper advance warning and posted signage concerning street closures Provisions for pedestrian safety Provisions for temporary bus stops and detours, if necessary c) No Impact. (Air Traffic Patterns) The project site is not located within the vicinity of an airport and would be approximately a maximum of 32 feet in height. Therefore, the project would not change air traffic patterns, increase air traffic levels or result in changes that would result in substantial safety risks. As a result, the project would have no impact. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. (Design Feature Hazards) Queuing from student loading or unloading may result in hazards due to design features. It was established, based on discussions with City staff, that the project would “substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use” if it would cause the maximum vehicle queues due to on-site curbside student drop offs to exceed on-site storage and result in queues on the adjacent roadways.
At full enrollment of 1,400 students, the potential queue during morning drop off would extend beyond the project’s driveways onto the neighboring roadways by about 670 feet (about 27 vehicles). Based on the vehicle stacking length recommendation of 1.5 feet per student enrolled24, it is expected that the maximum AM queue will reach a length of 2,100 feet (or 84 cars assuming 25 feet per vehicle). This estimate takes into account the students who walk, carpool, take transit, etc.
24 Cooner, Scott et al, Traffic Operations and Safety at Schools: Recommended Guidelines, Texas Transportation Institute, January 2004, Texas Department of Transportation Report 4286-2.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-74 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
The project site plan proposes a curbside drop off lane that is 280 feet long and 1,150 feet of vehicle storage in the parking area, assuming double stacking (counter clockwise) of waiting vehicles during student drop offs (see Figure 11 in Appendix C to this Initial Study Checklist). Combined, this allows for a queue of no more than 1,430 feet on-site (or 57 cars) before the queue extends beyond the project’s driveways onto Shane Drive and Hilltop Mall Drive. This would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which provides a menu of measures, any one or a combination of which could be used to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure TRA-1: The project sponsor shall implement any one or combination of the following measures to address the adverse effects of excessive queue creating a potential safety hazard:
1. Establish Temporary Roadway Queuing Area on Shane Drive. Shane Drive is an underutilized roadway in the AM peak-hour with two lanes of traffic in the northbound direction. The distance between the project driveway and Hilltop Drive on Shane Drive is about 330 feet. The northbound outside lane could be used as a temporary queuing area during the peak arrivals. The outside travel lane northbound from Hilltop Drive would need a merge length of 125 feet, leaving about 200 feet of queuing area on Shane Drive. If implemented, the project’s operator would develop a traffic control plan with the City’s engineer. The traffic control plan would include the provision of trained traffic monitors who would safely install temporary traffic devices on Shane Drive and ensure queuing does not occur in undesignated areas of the public roadways. 2. Designate and Train Traffic Monitors: The Project’s operators could designate and train traffic monitors who would ensure that no queuing would occur on Hilltop Mall Road or in undesignated areas along Shane Drive. They would also ensure that student pick up and drops offs would not occur in undesignated areas, such as at Hilltop Mall’s parking lot, on Shane Drive, or on Hilltop Mall Road. Train monitors to safely install temporary traffic control devices on Shane Drive for the allowed queuing on Shane Drive (as indicated above). 3. Coordinate with AC Transit for School Bus Service. Providing additional school-specific bus service to the Project site would potentially reduce the number of students being driven to school in the morning and thus reduce the queue. The 1.5 feet per student used for the queue calculation was based on a study in North Carolina, which may have different characteristics and travel patterns and travel options from the Project. With several AC Transit school bus service in the area, there is an opportunity to coordinate with AC Transit for such service to the Project. 4. Establish Shared-Use Agreement with Hilltop Mall. Coordinate with Hilltop Mall’s management to develop a memorandum of understanding that could allow use of a portion of their parking lot for student pick-up and drop offs. If established, the Project’s operators would need to consider additional traffic monitors who would direct vehicle and pedestrian circulation at the Mall’s parking lot. Additionally, the Project’s operators would need to work
Hilltop Speculative School 2-75 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
with Hilltop Mall’s management to construct walkway facilities connecting the student loading/unloading area to Hilltop Mall Road and the school. 5. Staggered Start/End Times. Implementing staggered start times would reduce the queue. Establishing two separate start times with a 20-30 minute gap between would reduce the maximum queue length to 1,050 feet. As a result, the traffic generated by the Project would also be dispersed over a two hour period. Circulation of traffic on site will improve with the reduced volume. It is not anticipated that left-turn queues from Hilltop Mall Road into the project’s driveway will impede southbound traffic exiting the Hilltop Mall parking lot. The school’s peak- periods of demand, when queues might be expected in the left turn lane, do not coincide with Hilltop Mall’s peak-periods of demand. Additionally, there are several egress points from the parking lot to Hilltop Mall Road, enabling motorists to exit at other locations.
In summary, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would reduce the potential safety hazard impact due to queuing onto adjacent public streets during drop off/pick up times during school operations to less than significant. e) Less than Significant. (Inadequate Emergency Access) Both driveway entrances to the project site, along Hilltop Mall Drive and Shane Drive would provide adequate emergency access to the project site. Emergency vehicle access only is accommodated around the central athletic field, immediately adjacent to the proposed buildings and accessed directly from the main internal drive through the site. Also, having qualified traffic monitors (see Mitigation Measure TRA-1 for criterion “d” above) actively managing activities at the project site drop off/pick up and parking lot areas would ensure that emergency vehicle access to the site would be maintained, and that conflicts between emergency vehicles and other parked or circulating vehicles would be minimized to the fullest extent possible in the event of an emergency. As a result, impacts to emergency access would be less than significant. f) Less than Significant. (Transit, Bicycles and Pedestrian Facilities and Safety) The Project is located in an established commercial area with access to alternative modes of transportation.
Transit and Transit Accessibility As mentioned in the Trip Generation section, above, a 10 percent reduction to the ITE Trip Generation Manual rate was made to reflect the availability of transit service near the project area. At the 1,400-student enrollment level, this adjustment amounts to 347 daily transit trips, with 113 occurring in the AM peak hour.
As previously discussed (see Setting, above), Hilltop Mall is a regional transit hub and is served by six AC Transit and three WestCAT routes during the school’s operating hours. Because transit service to the project vicinity is tailored around retail activity, which primarily takes place in the afternoon, the additional transit ridership from the project is not
Hilltop Speculative School 2-76 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
expected to exceed the available bus capacity. There currently is existing transit service during school commute hours on six AC Transit bus lines and on three WestCAT lines.
Pedestrian Facilities The project will likely result in increased pedestrian traffic crossing Hilltop Mall Road in order to access the transit facilities near the mall (discussed above). As described in Section 1, Project Description, and illustrative in Figure 1-5, sidewalks are proposed along the project site’s frontage along Hilltop Mall Road and along the northern portion of Shane Drive through the project driveways. Sidewalks are not proposed along the remainder of the Shane Drive frontage due to mature street trees and the steep topography. Also, a sidewalk is not proposed along the Hilltop Drive frontage due to the fast-moving traffic and the desire to minimize student foot traffic there. Residential areas and street configurations in the project’s vicinity would allow students to avoid walking along Hilltop Drive and instead access the school via Shane Drive or Blume Drive.
It is anticipated that the proposed project would substantially increase foot traffic in the vicinity of the project site, particularly in close proximity to the intersection of Shane Drive and Hilltop Mall Road. The sidewalks have adequate capacity for the increased pedestrian traffic. The following Recommendations are suggested for the project sponsor to implement to improve pedestrian access and safety near the project site:
a) Install school zone oriented signage and striping to be consistent with the “School Zone” designation covered in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD 2012) Section 1.A.13 and the School Crossing sign guidelines in Section 7B.08. This may include yellow crosswalk markings and school zone signage to alert drivers to the presence of the school. b) Install high visibility crosswalk markings across the west leg of Shane Drive at Hilltop Mall Road to improve access to the transit facilities at the mall. Consider installing actuated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons to enhance the crosswalk’s visibility. c) Install STOP signs, STOP pavement markings, and standard crosswalk markings on Shane Drive and Garrity Way at Hilltop Mall Road. This may include yellow crosswalk markings and school zone signage to alert drivers to the presence of the school. d) Reduce the radius on the southeast corner of Shane Drive at Hilltop Mall Road near the school to minimize pedestrian crossing distances and increase pedestrian storage space at the corner. e) Extend the Shane Drive’s raised median to Hilltop Mall Road and provide a wheelchair-accessible median pedestrian refuge at the crosswalk. f) Restripe crosswalks at Shane Drive and Hilltop Drive with the City adopted crosswalk standards and plans or as directed by the City Engineer to improve visibility, as they are difficult to see today due to their age.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-77 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Bicycle Facilities As indicated in the Setting section, two planned bikeway facilities are located adjacent to the project site. Class II bike lanes are planned along Hilltop Drive and Class III bike routes are planned along Shane Drive. The proposed project would not likely affect the implementation of these planned facilities. As is required by the City, the project proposes to install the designated bikeway facilities along its frontage (along Hilltop Drive), which will improve bicycle access to the school.
On campus, adequate walkways are provided connecting the school buildings and athletic field to the parking lot. Bicycle racks are also provided in front of the gymnasium between the two school buildings. 60 bicycle spaces will be provided and this is anticipated to be sufficient for the demand. (See Figure 1-5, Project Site Plan, in Section 1 of this Initial Study Checklist.)
Overall, the Project would not result in the obstruction or restriction of access to existing alternative modes of transportation or related facilities; nor would the Project result in the decrease in performance of such facilities and users of these modes. As discussed above, the project sponsor will consider in coordination with the City a number of related recommendations for the project to incorporate. Based on these findings, the project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs related to transit, bicycle, or pedestrian travel. The impact would be less than significant.
Parking (Non-CEQA) The project will provide 111 parking stalls on-site and will have a maximum of 108 employees. The number of parking stalls required on site, according to the use classification of the City’s Zoning Code Section 15.04.850.050, is indicated in Table TRA-10 below. The project sponsor has applied for a 10 percent reduction in the required student parking based on the school’s proximity to transit. The school’s operator will ensure that demand for parking on-site will not exceed capacity.
TABLE TRA-10 OFF-STREET PARKING– CITY ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS
Zoning Land Use Category Application to Project Code Requirement for Parking
Public Buildings - Nursery Daycare Middle School 1 stall per 2 employees Center, Private Schools (with 12+ students) Public Buildings - High Schools High School 1 stall per 3 employees and 1 stall per 10 students* * This does not include the 10 percent reduction of the student parking requirement requested by the project applicant
References Kittelson & Associates Transportation Consultants, 2014. Hilltop Spec School, Richmond, California, Transportation Impact Study, July 2014. (Appendix C to the Initial Study Checklist)
Hilltop Speculative School 2-78 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2012. Trip Generation, 9th edition, 2012.
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual – Chapter 2: Capacity and Level of Service Concept.2000.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-79 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Conflict with 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 that would 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?
Discussion a, e) Less than Significant. (Wastewater Treatment and Capacity) The West County Wastewater District (WCWD) currently provides sewer services to properties in the project area. Up to six million gallons of effluent per day are provided to EBMUD for its North Richmond Water Reclamation Facility. Remaining wastewater is combined with Richmond Municipal Sewer District’s treated wastewater, dechlorinated and disposed of via a deep- water outfall in San Francisco Bay.
The WCWD wastewater treatment facility has the capacity to treat up to 12.5 million gallons per day (mgd), while it currently treats on average 8.0 mgd. Therefore, the increase in wastewater treatment from the project can easily be served by the District since ample capacity exists to accommodate the net increase in volume associated with the development of the school (discussed below) combined with the District’s existing commitments. Moreover, because the General Plan already designates the site for commercial development, service was already evaluated as part of the EIR prepared for General Plan 2030. As outlined within the General Plan EIR, buildout of the City would not result in violation of waste discharge requirements (WDRs), because existing measures are in place to ensure compliance with the WDRs and the proposed policies and implementing actions included as part of the General Plan.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-80 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
The current peak daily wastewater generation (design flow) from existing uses on the project site is 35,815 gpd; with the project, the peak daily generation from the site would be approximately 90,550 gpd.25 In addition to the project’s compliance with all WDRs, all infrastructure for the project would be upgraded and replaced as required, and although the project would generate substantially more wastewater that the current uses on the nearly vacant site, it is not anticipated that the increase would exceed the capacity of existing facilities. The project would construct new on-site infrastructure to connect to the existing 10-inch sanitary sewer line in Hilltop Mall Drive. No new or major extensions of the existing system would be required for the project. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements, facilities, or capacity. The impacts would be less than significant. b, c) Less than Significant. (New/Expanded Water, Wastewater Treatment, and Stormwater Drainage Facilities) As discussed under criterion “d” below for water, criteria “a and e” above for wastewater, and criteria “c through e” under previous Section 2.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would not generate net increases in the demand for water, wastewater treatment or stormwater runoff that would require new or expanded offsite facilities. Any potential environmental effects resulting from the construction of new or expanded facilities on-site to connect or flow to existing offsite infrastructure are addressed and adequately mitigated to less than significant in other sections of this document (see sections 2.3 Air Quality, 2.4 Biological Resources, 2.5 Cultural Resources, 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and 2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials . The impacts would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant. (Water Supply) EBMUD provides domestic water to the project site, and water usage is served by the City of Richmond’s existing water treatment facilities. As reported in EBMUD’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, the project water supply in the EBMUD service area in 2012 was approximately 216 mgd and is anticipated to be at least 229 mgd in 2030. The projected water demand in the EBMUD service area in 2010 was 216 mgd and is anticipated to increase to 229 mgd in 2030. This projection assumes that the existing EBMUD water conservation program would reduce annual demand by 56 mgd and the water recycling program would decrease water demand by 19 mgd. The demand is projected to increase to 247 mgd by 2040 under a 15 percent maximum customer rationing scenario.
The proposed project would result in increased water demand from the project site. The current peak daily water demand (design flow) from existing uses on the project site is 0.03 mgd (or 27,430 gpd); with the project, the peak daily water demand from the site would be nearly 0.10 mgd (or 90,550 gpd).26 It is not anticipated that the net increased water usage resulting from the project (0.7 mgd) would substantially affect the water supplies available for EBMUD to meet its current and projected demands of 216 and 229 mgd. Also, as previously mentioned, the project would replace all existing onsite utilities, which includes construction of an 8-inch diameter potable water line that would connect to an existing 8-
25 Average daily demand would be the peak daily demand shown, divided by a peaking factor of 3.75. 26 ibid.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-81 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
inch-diameter EBMUD potable water main within Shane Drive. A new 4-inch irrigation lateral and backflow mechanism also would be constructed onsite and connect to the existing main on Shane Drive. Additionally, the project, similar to all other development within the EBMUD service district, would be subject to water restrictions that may be imposed periodically by EBMUD in response to drought conditions. Therefore, development of the project would not require new or expanded entitlements. The impact would be less than significant. f) Less than Significant. (Landfill Capacity) The project would result in an increase in solid waste disposal needs compared to existing conditions on the project site. Richmond Sanitary Service serves the project site and Keller Canyon Landfill in Pittsburg, California, is the nearest landfill facility. The landfill is operated by Republic Services, Inc. and has eight to ten years of permitted capacity. Keller Canyon Landfill currently manages approximately 2,500 tons of waste per day at the facility, and can allow up to 3,500 tons of waste per day.
According to CalRecycle, the average student produces between approximately 0.6 and 1.0 pounds of waste per day, which would estimate approximately 840 to 1,400 pounds per day from the project. This is a conservative estimate since the existing uses on the project site current generate waste from the site, and since it is reasonable to anticipate that the operator(s) of the school would implement active recycling programs. The project would also comply the City’s Green Building standards, which involve standards to reduce construction-related waste associated with development projects. Taken together, the existing landfill would have adequate capacity remaining to support the solid waste generation of the project. The impact would be less than significant. g) Less than Significant. (Solid Waste Regulations) The State of California requires that all jurisdictions meet a 50-percent waste reduction mandate as established by AB 939. Richmond is a member agency of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority, a local Joint Powers Authority responsible for helping its member agencies meet the state waste diversion mandate. West County (which includes the cities of Kensington, El Cerrito, Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, Hercules, El Sobrante, Rodeo, and Crockett) had a diversion rate of 51 percent in 2006. To meet and maintain the 50-percent diversion rate, Richmond Sanitary Service offers residential and commercial co-mingled recycling collection and green waste collection services throughout its service area. The City of Richmond is meeting the diversion rate set by AB 939, and the project would be provided the recycling collection and green waste collection service to assist the City in continuing to meet and exceed its goals. The project would have a less than significant impact regarding compliance with solid waste regulations.
References CalRecycle, 2014. Public Sector and Institutions: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Institution.htm, accessed on June 11, 2014.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-82 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2011. EBMUD, 2012. Water Supply Management Program 2040 Plan, April 2012. City of Richmond, 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030, Community Facilities and Infrastructure, December 5, 2012. City of Richmond, 2014. Richmond Municipal Code. Chapter 6.46 Commercial and Residential Green Building Standards, available athttps://library.municode.com/print.aspx?h=&clientID=16579&HTMRequest=https%3a% 2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fHTML%2f16579%2flevel2%2fARTVIBURE_CH6.46CO REGRBUST.html&HTMTitle=Chapter+6.46+COMMERCIAL+AND+RESIDENTIAL+G REEN+BUILDING+STANDARDS, accessed on May 30, 2014. West County Wastewater District, 2014. Official Website: http://www.wcwd.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={ACB9867D-5727-4094-B8F7-
D6013B8BA41B}. Accessed on June 17, 201414
Hilltop Speculative School 2-83 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
2.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Would the project: a) 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) 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) Have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Based upon background research, site reconnaissance, and the characteristics of the proposed project, the project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Any potential impacts to the aforementioned biological resources would be mitigated to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. Any potential impacts to California history or prehistory would be mitigated to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3. Any potential short-term increases in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1. The substantial evidence supporting this finding is described throughout this Initial Study Checklist. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project would have potentially significant environmental effects in the following topic areas, with mitigation measures identified (mitigation designators shown in parentheses): air quality (AIR-1), biological resources (BIO-1 and BIO-2), cultural resources (CUL-1 through CUL-3), geology (GEO-1 and GEO-2), greenhouse gas emissions (GHG-1), hazardous materials (HAZ-1 through HAZ-3), and traffic hazards related to queuing (TRA-1). No project-specific significant effects were identified in this Initial Study Checklist that could not be mitigated to a less- than-significant level.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-84 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014 2. Environmental Checklist
Cumulative impacts would result from the consideration of the project’s impacts combined with those that could result from other past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects. The transportation modeling assessed the project in the cumulative setting of year 2040 identified less than significant impacts, as did the related operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions and vehicular noise effects. For other environmental topics, no significant cumulative effect has been identified in any previously certified environmental documents to which the proposed project could have a cumulatively considerable contribution. Moreover, no new or reasonably foreseeable development project or plan is underway or proposed in the project area that could result in significant cumulative effects to which the proposed project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project may have significant adverse effects on human beings in the following areas with mitigation measures identified (mitigation designator shown in parentheses): construction air quality emissions (AIR-1), geologic/seismic considerations with new development (GEO-1 and GEO-2), hazardous materials (HAZ-1 through HAZ-3). Mitigation measures corresponding with each of these aforementioned impacts, as discussed throughout this Initial Study Checklist, would reduce the effects to a less-than-significant level.
Hilltop Speculative School 2-85 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014
CHAPTER 3 Report Preparers
3.1 Environmental Consultants
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) 350 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 300 Oakland, California 94612 (510) 839-5066
Crescentia Brown, AICP Project Director Cory Barringhaus Project Manager Sarah Walker Deputy Project Manager Elizabeth Kanner CEQA QA/QC Chris Sanchez, REA Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Joshua Bolt Biological Resources Michael Mulbarger Noise Perry Jung/Ron Teitel Graphics Lisa Bautista Word Processing and Report Production
Kittelson & Associates (Transportation and Traffic) 155 Grand Ave, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 839-1742
Alice Chen, Principal Kamala Parks, Senior Planner
Hilltop Speculative School 3-1 ESA / 130984 Initial Study July 3, 2014