INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF CONCORD CONCORD VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
JANUARY 2017
LEAD AGENCY: City of Concord, Planning Division 1950 Parkside Drive Concord, CA 94519 (925) 671-3152 www.cityofconcord.org INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF CONCORD CONCORD VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
JANUARY 2017
LEAD AGENCY: City of Concord, Planning Division 1950 Parkside Drive Concord, CA 94519 (925) 671-3152 www.cityofconcord.org
PREPARED BY: Analytical Environmental Services 1801 7th Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 447-3479 www.analyticalcorp.com Section 1.0 Introduction
Table Contents SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ...... 1-3 1.1 Purpose of Study ...... 1-4 1.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...... 1-4 1.3 Significance Determination ...... 1-5 SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2-1 2.1 Location and Existing Setting ...... 2-1 2.2 Project Description ...... 2-7 2.3 Comparison with Land Use Policy ...... 2-14 2.4 Background ...... 2-18 2.5 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals ...... 2-19 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ...... 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ...... 3-2 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...... 3-5 3.3 Air Quality ...... 3-8 3.4 Biological Resources ...... 3-14 3.5 Cultural Resources ...... 3-20 3.6 Geology and Soils ...... 3-28 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 3-33 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 3-35 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 3-43 3.10 Land Use and Planning ...... 3-49 3.11 Mineral Resources ...... 3-52 3.12 Noise ...... 3-53 3.13 Population and Housing ...... 3-59 3.14 Public Services ...... 3-61 3.15 Recreation ...... 3-64 3.16 Transportation and Circulation ...... 3-65 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 3-69 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 3-73 SECTION 4.0 – PREPARERS ...... 4-1 SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES CITED ...... 5-1
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location ...... 2-2 Figure 2: Site and Vicinity ...... 2-3 Figure 3: Aerial Photograph ...... 2-4 Figure 4: Existing Impervious Area ...... 2-6 Figure 5: Architectural Rendition ...... 2-8 Figure 6: Proposed Site Plan ...... 2-9 Figure 7: Soil Types ...... 3 -30 Figure 8: Noise Monitoring Sites ...... 3-54
LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Surrounding Land Uses ...... 2-5 Table 2-2: Floor Plan Details ...... 2 -10 Table 2-3: Development Standards ...... 2 -15
Analytical Environmental Services 1-1 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 1.0 Introduction
Table 3-1: BAAQMD Attainment Status ...... 3 -10 Table 3-2: Construction Related Emissions ...... 3 -11 Table 3-3: Operation Related Emissions ...... 3 -11 Table 3-4: Typical Construction Equipment Noise ...... 3 -56 Table 3-5: Nearby Schools ...... 3 -62
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - Remedial Action Plan Appendix B - CalEEMod Files Appendix C - Protected Species Lists Appendix D - Native American Heritage Commission Letter Appendix E - Noise Monitoring Results
Analytical Environmental Services 1-2 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 1.0 Introduction
SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
The proposed Concord Village is a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study (IS) was prepared by Analytical Environmental Services for the Community and Economic Development Department, Planning Division, of the City of Concord (City). This IS was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, CEQA).
1. Project Title: Concord Village
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Concord 1950 Parkside Drive Concord, CA 94519 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ryan Lenhardt, Senior Planner (925) 671-3162 4. Project Location: 2400 Salvio Street and 2401 and 2471 Willow Pass Road, Concord, CA 94518 5. Project Sponsor’s/Applicant’s Name Nicholson Development Properties and Address: Attn: Brent Nicholson 720 North 10th St., A-128 Renton WA 98057
6. General Plan Land Use Designation: Downtown Mixed Use (DTMU)
7. Zoning: DMX (Downtown Mixed Use)
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Residential and urban development and supporting infrastructure 9. Description of Project: Application for a Use Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Design Review for a 230-unit apartment project with approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of amenity space on a 2.3-gross acre site 10. Project Entitlements: Use Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Design Review (PL15438 - UP, MP, DR)
Date Initial Study Completed: January 2017
Analytical Environmental Services 1-3 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 1.0 Introduction
1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY
This IS examines the potential effects on the environment of the City of Concord’s (City’s) potential approval of a Use Permit and a Minor Use Permit and for Design Review for a 230-unit apartment project with approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of amenity space on a 2.3-gross acre site in downtown Concord (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project assessed within this IS is described in Section 2.0 and includes provisions to address known environmental concerns regarding hazardous materials and noise. The project description, including these provisions, provides the project baseline for which environmental impacts are analyzed in Section 3.0. This IS was prepared pursuant to CEQA. This IS has identified potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures, which, when incorporated into the Proposed Project as described in Section 2.0, will reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, this IS would support a Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 This IS is organized into the following sections:
Section 1.0 - Introduction: Provides an overview of the Proposed Project, location, sponsor, when the IS was completed, environmental resources potentially affected by the Proposed Project, and the significance determination of the Proposed Project on the environment by the lead agency. Section 2.0 - Project Description: Includes project a detailed description of the Proposed Project and background information. Section 3.0 - Environmental Checklist and Discussion: Contains the Environmental Checklist form together with a discussion of the environmental issues. Mitigation measures, if necessary, are noted, following each impact discussion. The numbering sequence for each of the mitigation measures is related to their associated topical sections. Section 4.0 – List of Preparers Section 5.0 – Bibliography
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Impacts to all resources listed below are evaluated using the checklist included in Section 3.0. However, only the environmental factors that have been checked could be potentially affected by the Proposed Project, involving impacts requiring mitigation to bring it to a less-than- significant level. The unchecked resource areas were determined to have a less-than- significant impact or no impact, even without mitigation.
Analytical Environmental Services 1-4 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Section 2.0 Project Description
SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 LOCATION AND EXISTING SETTING
The project site is located within the limits of the City of Concord (City) in Contra Costa County (Figure 1). The 2.3-gross acre project site (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APNs] 126-083-011, - 012, -013) is located at 2400 Salvio Street and 2401 and 2471 Willow Pass Road in the part of the City covered by the Downtown Specific Plan (Figure 2). The project site is bordered on the north by Salvio Street with East Street to the west, Port Chicago Highway to the east, and Willow Pass Road to the south. The elevated tracks of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Pittsburg/Bay Point line are located adjacent to the northeastern corner of the project site and runs north to south/southeast. The project site is currently vacant with the exception of an unoccupied commercial building located at the corner of Willow Pass Road and East Street (formerly a bank). The remainder of the property consists of a mix of impervious asphalt, building pad areas, unpaved areas. Trees and landscaping are located around the perimeter of the site.
2.1.1 ZONING The project site is zoned DMX. The DMX district is applied to downtown areas appropriate for a cohesive mix of high density residential, commercial and office, and mixed-uses, including hotels with a minimum floor area ration (FAR) of 1.0 up to 6.0, and residential densities of 33 to 100 units per net acre. Well-designed vertical mixed-use within a single building is encouraged with retail at ground level and office and multifamily residential on upper floors. Single uses and horizontal mixed-use with retail, office, and residential uses located in separate buildings but within a single development may also occur. The DMX district is consistent with and implements the downtown mixed-use (DTMU) land use designation of the general plan.
2.1.2 EXISTING LAND USES Currently, the project site consists of mainly open space with an unoccupied commercial building (Figure 3). A number of structures were demolished due to their substandard condition including a former residence, multi-tenant commercial building, and an office for used car sales. All interior trees have been removed or cut down to stumps and the pervious areas maintained to discourage encampments.
2.1.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES The site encompasses the entire block from Salvio Street on the north to Willow Pass Road on the south and from East Street on the west to Port Chicago Highway on the east. Table 2-1 shows land uses and designations of the area surrounding the project site. The site is located in the Downtown within 1/4-mile of BART and two blocks from Todos Santos Plaza. The site and surrounding areas are zoned Downtown Mixed Use and Planned District. A mix of professional offices, commercial businesses, and residential uses surround the site.
Analytical Environmental Services 2-1 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Site
^_
^_ Project Site Contra Costa County
^_
SCALE
Miles H T R O
¢N !Ð 0 4 8
City of Concord - Concord Village Residential Project Initial Study / 215526 SOURCE: ESRI Data, 2016; AES, 12/21/2016 Figure 1 Regional Location Project Site
SCALE
Feet H T R O
¢N !Ð 0 1,000 2,000
City of Concord - Concord Village Residential Project Initial Study / 215526 SOURCE: "W aln ut Creek, CA” USGS 7.5 Min ute Top ograp hic Quadran gle, T2N R1W , Un section ed Area of W aln ut Creek, Mt. Diablo Baselin e & Meridian ; ESRI Data, 2016; AES, 12/21/2016 Figure 2 Site an d Vicin ity T S IO LV SA
E A S T S T
Project Boundary
LEGEND
Project Boundary
Feet H T R O
¢N !Ð 0 40 80
City of Concord - Concord Village Residential Project Initial Study / 215526 SOURCE: DigitalGlobe aerial phohtograph, 10/30/2015; ESRI Data, 2016; AES, 12/21/2016 Figure 3 Aerial Photograph Section 2.0 Project Description
TABLE 2-1 SURROUNDING LAND USES Direction Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning North Office, Auto dealership, Vet Downtown Mixed Use DMX hospital South Vacant commercial building Downtown Mixed Use DMX East Wisteria Residential Subdivision, Medium Density Residential PD Offices West Vacant commercial building, Downtown Mixed Use DMX medical offices
The nearest school is the Beginnings and Beyond Montessori Christian School located approximately 490 feet west of the project site. The nearest public gathering place is the Shiva Murugan Temple on Concord Boulevard approximately 750 feet southeast of the project site, east of the BART tracks. The nearest public park is Todos Santos Plaza located approximately 770 feet west of the project site.
2.1.4 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The project site is bounded on all sides by roadways and sidewalks; however, the sidewalk along southern portion of the property meanders through a vegetated strip buffering the sidewalk from Concord Boulevard. Regional access to the project site is provided via Willow Pass Road and Concord Avenue (which provides connection to Willow Pass Road west of the project site). Both provide access from State Route (SR) 242 and Interstate 680 to the project site. The Pittsburg/Bay Point BART line provides access from Pittsburg in the East Bay to Millbrae in the southern portion of the San Francisco Peninsula in San Mateo County. The nearest BART station is the Concord Station located approximately 0.25 miles south of the project site. Access to the site is currently provided via two driveways each off East Street, Salvio Street, and Willow Pass Road. Additional discussion of the surrounding transportation network is provided in Section 3.0 under Transportation and Circulation.
2.1.5 DRAINAGE There are no offsite areas draining onto the project site. The site drains by overland flow to the existing City roadway curb drainage system. Drain inlets and manholes are located on East Street near the intersection with Salvio Street, Salvio Street near the intersection with Port Chicago Highway, and on Willow Pass Road approximately 107 feet east of the intersection with East Street. There are no inlets along the frontage of the project site along Port Chicago Highway. The existing impervious area on the site, which consists of a vacant bank and paved surfaces, covers an area of approximately 1.42 acres and is shown on Figure 4.
2.1.6 INFRASTRUCTURE/UTILITIES The project site is located in an urban area and is currently served by existing utilities, including: water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electricity, and telecommunications infrastructure. Electricity and natural gas services to the site are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Existing underground electrical lines and gas mains provide electricity and gas to the project site.
Analytical Environmental Services 2-5 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SALVIO ST
E
A
S
T
S
T
LEGEND
Feet
Project Boundary H T R !¢O Existing Impervious Area (1.42 ac) N Ð 0 30 60
City of Concord - Concord Village Residential Project Initial Study / 215526 SOURCE: DigitalGlobe aerial phohtograph, 10/30/2015; ESRI Data, 2016; AES, 12/21/2016 FPigroujercet 4Boundary
Impervious - Existing Conditions
P
O
R
T
C
H
I
C
A
G
O
H
W Y Section 2.0 Project Description
WATER The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) acts as the City’s water supplier, providing water supplies to the City’s municipal system from the Sacramento/ San Joaquin Delta. CCWD serves treated and raw water to the central and eastern parts of the county.
WASTEWATER Sewage conveyance is provided by the City’s Public Works Department, with treatment provided at the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) Treatment Plant (CCCSDTP) in Martinez, California. CCCSD permits, inspects and treats wastewater discharged by the business and residences of Concord. Wastewater within CCCSD is primarily conveyed to the CCCSDTP through pipes by the force of gravity. The plant has a treatment capacity of 54 million gallons per day (mgd) and 240 mgd of wet weather flow. The facility is staffed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Wastewater moves through the District’s 1,500 miles of sewer lines, finally arriving at the plant’s headworks to begin treatment. Most of the wastewater is treated to a secondary level, disinfected by ultraviolet light, and then discharged into Suisun Bay. Approximately 600 million gallons per year are treated to a tertiary level through additional filtration and disinfection before being distributed as recycled water for landscape irrigation, industrial processes, and plant operations (CCCSD, 2009). 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to develop a five-story mixed use building on the 2.3-acre project site. The approximately 373,530 square foot (sq. ft.) building would contain 230 residential units and approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of amenity space (including a leasing office and bike shop). A rendition of the project is provided as Figure 5. The project site would include both public and private open space, including an urban plaza, a courtyard, and roof terraces. Additionally the project site will include a 334 parking space, 5 ½ story parking garage. Approximately 2.06 acres of the project site would be developed with impervious surfaces (building footprint, driveways, and sidewalk), while the remaining 0.22 acres would be kept pervious and include landscaping, courtyards, and bioretention area as depicted in the proposed site plan (Figure 6). Currently, the project site contains 1.42 acres of pervious surface.
The five-story building proposes contemporary architecture and materials and “wraps” the residential units around the parking garage. The building is oriented toward the intersection of Willow Pass Road and East Street with vehicle entries on East Street and Port Chicago Highway. A mix of studios, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units are proposed with approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of amenity space including a mail center, bike shop, and fitness studio for tenants. The apartment units range in size from approximately 400 to 1,060 sq. ft. in six different plan types. Table 2-2 provides floor plan details. Each of the units has a small deck with the exception of the smallest units that have a “Juliette-style balcony” with each of the units facing outward toward the street or inward toward an outdoor courtyard. The modern architecture incorporates regular and scored plaster, metal screens, contemporary signage, and urban lighting. Floor plan details are provided in the following table.
Analytical Environmental Services 2-7 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Concord - Concord Village Residential Project Initial Study / 215526 SOURCE: SVA Architects, 4/18/2016; AES, 12/21/2016 Figure 5 Architectural Rendition Salvio Street
H H A A A A Courtyard A A Courtyard
e 2 k 1 n U6 U6 c i U6 L U6 a 2,099 SF U2 b 2,099 SF y U6 t U6 t
e r l
l S e e
e p v
v o a
r
a r
r P
T
T
f
f
o
o
h
h t t
a Exit Stair a Hallway
Exit Stair P l
P U2 F e
C v
a
r
T
f o B F
U4 B h t
B U3 a U3 B P B B U3 U3 Community Community B B Lounge F C Lounge 1 2 U3 U3 U5 U2 540 SF U3 540 SF U3 F
ram p 5% ram p 5% F Walkway Path of Travel
EntryB 1P0 ortal
l
l
e
e
v
v
a
a r
r Courtyard
T
T l
f Entry Porta
f
5 o B14
o
h
t h
t SF
2,408 a a
U3 P P Trash U6 Trash Trash B 10 H1 U3 Lobby Room A B ormer Exit Transf k Stair c u r
T
Elev h Elev 5% Ramp s e 5% Ramp o t Up a Dn 80.5 r a 74.5 Mech. T
G g
n Parking Garage Room
w a
Motor Court Drive Portal o D
- c l l i o Bike R Trash y h 08 Encl. a B6 B22
C p w
m t a
R r h Bike 03 d e o g
A B e i p C4 M3 C4 U3 S B P H
U6 e
Up t
U3 a
G
Elev 125% Ramp Elev n Up rage Access 3. w Ga C2
74.5 Up 77.0 o
D
-
l l
th of Travel Trash Removal Path of Travel o Pa R B10 Walkway Entry Portal Path of Travel Exit V1 10 t Trash by
Lob Room Exit e U2 U2 U2 Trash Stair
e Trash r C
t Path of Travel
Trash Walkway
S
t Outside E U4 Courtyard s Lounge U3 U3 4 Community U5 a C 4 1,240.5 SF U3 Lounge U3 939 SF E 3 B 371.5 SF B Path of Travel Walkway B B Leasing Center Exit Stair 2-Story Volume Mail Bike Fitness / Lounge 930 SF Exit r Shop 2-story volume Cente l
Stair e
359 SF 285 SF 1,259 SF v Courtyard 3 a r SF
T 1,803
f
o
h U4 U4 U4 t
Urban Plaza a P D D D
Willow Pass Road
LEGEND
Feet
Project Boundary H T R !¢O Proposed Impervious Area (2.06 ac) N Ð 0 40 80
City of Concord - Concord Village Residential Project Initial Study / 215526 SOURCE: DigitalGlobe aerial phohtograph, 10/30/2015; ESRI Data, 2016; AES, 1/25/2017 Figure 6 Proposed Site Plan Section 2.0 Project Description
TABLE 2-2 FLOOR PLAN DETAILS Plan Number Sq. Ft. Total Units 1 (Creative Studio) 403 12 2 (Studio) 603 46 3 (1Br / 1 Ba) 689 39 4 (1Br / 1 Ba) 697 80 5 (2Br / 2 Ba) 963.5 10 6 (2Br / 2 Ba) 1068.5 43 Total 170,785.5 230
2.2.1 SITE ACCESS/CIRCULATION The building would be oriented toward the intersection of Willow Pass Road and East Street, where there would be a leasing office and primary pedestrian access. Vehicle access to the interior 5 ½ story parking garage is proposed along East Street and Port Chicago Highway.
Dedicated pedestrian entries for residents are located along the East Street and Port Chicago Highway sides of the building with additional gated entries to shared courtyards along Salvio Street and Willow Pass Road. Once onsite, an internal U-shaped walkway with corridors provides access to each of the units and outdoor spaces. Access throughout the building is controlled by secure doors and gates at various locations throughout the building. Two elevators provide access above the ground floor leasing center, a mail center, bike shop, and fitness/lounge area. Other site improvements include landscaped courtyards, community lounges, and rooftop sun terraces.
All vehicular access points are unsignalized, with the primary driveway off East Street restricted to right-in/right-out traffic and the secondary driveway on Port Chicago to left-in/left-out traffic. A paved service area is located along Port Chicago Highway that provides access for emergency vehicles, trash pick-up, electrical service, and resident loading and unloading. Both entries are designed for two-way circulation via a 24-foot driveway. Guest parking and secure bicycle parking is located on parking level 1 with gated access to resident parking on parking levels 2-5. The garage will be gated at night and accessible by residents via a garage door opener. Guests will have to be “buzzed in” by residents at all locations.
A total of 334 parking spaces are proposed, comprised of 240 standard sized stalls with 9’ x 19’ dimensions, 83 compact sized stalls with 8’ x 16’, and 11 ADA compliant stalls. A total of 122 bicycle parking stalls are proposed on each floor in secure corrals and 9 motorcycle stalls are proposed on parking levels 1, 2 and 6.
2.2.2 STORMWATER The Proposed Project includes the development of a stormwater drainage system, including a system of subdrains, with self-treating low-impact development (LID) areas installed along the frontage. The drainage system includes flow-through drainage boxes that further improve stormwater quality prior to discharge to the existing City storm drains. In addition, public areas
Analytical Environmental Services 2-10 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 2.0 Project Description
such as the plaza located at the intersection of East Street and Willow Pass Road would incorporate permeable pavers to reduce off-site stormwater flows. On-site drainage would be designed consistent with the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards for the San Francisco Bay Region and the Central Valley Region revised Provision "C.3" in the NPDES permit governing stormwater discharges in Contra Costa County and the corresponding Contra Costa County Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, 6th Edition.
2.2.3 GRADING The project site is relatively flat with a gradual downhill slope at the north end of the property toward the northwest corner and minimal grading would be required for the development of the project. The project site is located on expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code; however, based upon initial findings, the effects of the expansive soils are expected to pose a low impact when property addressed during construction.
2.2.4 LANDSCAPING/LIGHTING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE The streetscape is designed to engage the public and residents. Willow Pass Road features an urban plaza tailed by a double tree lined sidewalk (with benches) that wraps around the corner to East Street. The plaza is designated for the public as well as employees and residents. The spaces closer to the leasing office and fitness center feature tables, chairs and shade umbrellas that would be maintained by the owner. Willow Pass Road also features an “art screen” that doubles as a transparent enclosure of the south courtyard, but will primarily serve as an architectural element. Salvio Street will feature a soft landscape (mostly stormwater treatment) edge with simple seating areas on the inside edge of the sidewalk; two transparent screens will also line the sidewalk. All sidewalks will be widened to a minimum of eight feet with some exceptions along Port Chicago Highway. All public furnishings in the public right of way will have back rests as well as arm rests between seats and all seat walls in the right of way will have skate deterrents.
TRANSPARENT PRIVATE OPEN SPACES The south courtyard on the opposite side of the art screen on Willow Pass Road is designed as a pocket plaza with shade trees and large seat lined planters. The plaza is intended to be visible from the street, and flexible with moveable furnishings to serve every day rest or medium-sized gatherings. The north courtyards are sited along Salvio Street, and are designed to be quiet gardens for multiple small dining and lounging gatherings. The courtyards have been designed in conjunction with the adjacent interior spaces, which serve similar recreational uses. The indoor/outdoor integration is intended to feel seamless.
INNER PRIVATE OPEN SPACES The inner spaces feature a bocce court, bar area, and a drought tolerant “lawn,” as well as two adjacent roof terraces that have views to Downtown Concord. They are designed as a series of outdoor amenity spaces that provide a variety of activities and are intended to be used in the afternoon and evening by residents.
Analytical Environmental Services 2-11 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 2.0 Project Description
The ground level inner “decks” are located along the primary circulation of the building to encourage frequent use. The bocce and bar area are adjacent to each other and in close proximity to the interior lounges and north courtyards. Both roof terraces are located adjacent to a stairwell, one featuring a grilling/dining space and the other featuring a fire/lounge space.
2.2.5 INFRASTRUCTURE/UTILITIES As discussed in Section 2.1.6, the project site would continue to be served by existing utilities, including: water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electricity, and telecommunications infrastructure. Additionally, electricity and natural gas services to the site would continue to be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Existing underground electrical lines and gas mains would provide electricity and gas to the project site.
WATER The Proposed Project would connect to the existing City municipal system. Both drinking water and fire suppression water supply lines for the Proposed Project would be connected to the existing 12-inch diameter water line that runs through East Street.
WASTEWATER Sewage conveyance would continue to be provided by the City’s Public Works Department, with treatment provided by the CCCSDTP in Martinez, California. Wastewater from the Proposed Project would be conveyed to the CCCSDTP through pipes using the force of gravity. As discussed in Section 2.1.6, the plant has a treatment capacity of 54 million gallons per day (mgd) and 240 mgd of wet weather flow and is staffed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Wastewater would be treated to a secondary level, disinfected by ultraviolet light, and then discharged into Suisun Bay (CCCSD, 2009). Additionally, CCCSD would permit, inspect and treat wastewater discharged by the Proposed Project.
2.2.6 CONSTRUCTION Project improvements would be constructed in one phase and would commence in the summer of 2017. Construction activities would be limited to 7:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on the weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on weekends per the City of Concord Municipal Code Title 18, Section 150.130 (O)(6). In addition, construction contractors are required to use power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise and muffling devices. All internal combustion engines used on the Proposed Project shall be equipped with adequate mufflers and shall be in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engines or other components. Construction contractors are required locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors. To reduce noise from BART trains, double glazed windows with higher sound transmission class (STC) would be installed in units along Port Chicago Highway along with acoustically lined ducts for return airways. This is intended to reduce and buffer train noise impacts to the apartment units. All construction activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable provisions of the California State Building Code (CBC), the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and applicable City requirements. The following equipment may be utilized during construction of the Proposed Project:
Analytical Environmental Services 2-12 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 2.0 Project Description
• Tunnel boring machine • Air compressors • Pavement saw • Flat-back delivery truck • Jack hammers • Concrete trucks • Excavators • Sweepers • Front-end loaders • Road grader • 10-wheel dump trucks • Concrete pumper trucks • Bulldozers • Welding trucks • Water truck • Side boom pipe handler tractor • Paving equipment: back hoe, asphalt • Earth mover hauling trucks, compactors, paving machine, rollers Crane Trench shield
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Previous Phase I ESAs identified a former dry cleaner on the north side of the property, a former auto repair facility on the west side of the property, and historic gas stations on the west and southwest corners of the property. Activities associated with the former auto repair facility and the two historic gas stations appear to have resulted in limited soil and groundwater impacts on the southwest side of the property and contaminants of concern were identified in soil, groundwater. Accordingly, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was prepared that includes a detailed evaluation of current site environmental conditions and recommends that a Soil and Risk Management Plan (SRMP) combined with land use covenant (LUC) are the most appropriate controls to address potential environmental concerns relative to the planned new multi-tenant residential development on the site (Appendix A). On-site hazardous materials and contaminants of concern are discussed further in Section 3.8. SOIL AND RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN Based on site conditions, the SRMP predicts that the most appropriate vapor mitigation system for the site would be a passive venting system, with an option to move to active ventilation, combined with vapor barrier membrane.
LAND USE COVENANT The LUC, in the form of an environmental covenant and deed restriction, will be recorded onto the deed of the property. The LUC will prohibit onsite groundwater use and require ongoing compliance with the above mentioned SRMP.
ASBESTOS CONTAINING BUILDING MATERIALS
DEMOLITION SURVEY In accordance with Bay Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 11, Rule 2 Section 303.8, the Applicant would have the existing structure located at the intersection of East Street and Willow Pass Road thoroughly surveyed for the presence of asbestos-containing material (ACM), including Category I and Category II nonfriable ACM. The survey would be performed by a person who is certified by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and who has taken and passed an EPA-approved Building Inspector course and who conforms to
Analytical Environmental Services 2-13 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 2.0 Project Description
the procedures outlined in the course. The survey would include sampling laboratory analysis all suspected asbestos-containing materials. This survey would be made available, upon request by the BAAQMD Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO), prior to the commencement of any ACM removal or any demolition.
DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF ACMS Should the results of the survey indicate the presence of ACMs, the Applicant, through contractual obligations, would ensure compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, Section 303. Section 303 outlines the procedures required to remove ACMs, ensure oversight is provided by a qualified professional, and ensure adequate containment is provided to prevent release of asbestos fibers during removal. In addition, waste disposal of ACMs would be accomplished in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, Section 304.
LEAD-BASED PAINT The Applicant would have the existing structure located at the intersection of East Street and Willow Pass Road thoroughly surveyed for the presence of lead-based paint by a qualified environmental professional. If lead-based paint is identified and is loose and peeling, the paint would be removed by a qualified lead abatement contractor. In accordance with U.S. EPA and California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) requirements, if the paint is securely adhering to the substrate, the entire material would be disposed of as demolition debris, which is a nonhazardous waste. Loose and peeling paint would be disposed of as a State and/or federal hazardous waste, if the concentration of lead exceeds applicable waste thresholds. Hazardous wastes would be appropriately managed, labeled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with local requirements by trained workers, as described above. State and federal construction worker health and safety regulations would require air monitoring and other protective measures be conducted during demolition activities should lead-based paint be present.
2.3 COMPARISON WITH LAND USE POLICY
2.3.1 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The site’s General Plan land use designation of DMX is intended for a high density and intensity mix of residential, commercial and office development in central Concord. It allows for a mix of uses that balances jobs and housing opportunities, including offices, commercial development, hotels, public/quasi-public, and residential uses. The project provides residential uses and is thus consistent with the intent of the DMX designation to establish housing opportunities in the Downtown. The project is in substantial compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Concord General Plan, including “supporting higher density and mixed use development in Downtown and near transit centers and corridors” as outlined in General Plan Principle LU- 1.3.3.
Additionally, as conditioned, the project is consistent with General Plan policies that encourage pedestrian-oriented urban design by incorporating building elements such as ground floor patios, human-scale landscaping at the street level, and outdoor seating and building entries at the street level (Policy LU-4.2.3).
Analytical Environmental Services 2-14 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 2.0 Project Description
2.3.2 SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENCY The City adopted its Downtown Specific Plan (Plan) on June 24, 2014. The Specific Plan provides a vision for how the Downtown will integrate housing, jobs, retail, and transportation linkages including pedestrian, disability access, and vehicular traffic with transit hubs. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to set forth policies focused on what is achievable to implement in the Downtown over the next 20 to 30 years and set forth actions to be undertaken by the City.
One of the objectives of the plan is to reflect early California architecture in the design of new buildings. On September 14, 2015, the Early California Architecture Review (ECAR) Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval of the building design with recommendations to incorporate arched elements and detailing at the ground floor and use building colors indicative of early architecture. On May 28, 2015, the Design Review Board (DRB) subsequently conducted their review of the project considering the ECAR Committee’s recommendations and agreed the building design reflects early architectural themes and elements consistent with the objectives outlined in the Plan.
2.3.3 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSISTENCY As conditioned, the proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the development code and the Concord Municipal Code (CMC). The proposed use is classified as Multi-family, which is a conditionally permitted use in the DMX (Downtown Mixed Use) Zoning District. The project meets the standards for lot area, floor area ratio, setbacks, and building height of DMX zoning, satisfies applicable requirements under Development Code, Division IV, General Development Standards, and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and Concord Municipal Code as described below. Table 2-3 includes a comparison of the applicable development standards within the DMX zone with the Proposed Project.
TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Standards Required/Allowed Proposed Density (du/net acre) minimum/maximum 33 – 100 du/net acre 1101 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) minimum 1.00 1.09 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) maximum 6.0 1.09 Lot Area (square feet) minimum 10,000 91,672 Lot Width (feet) minimum Interior Lot 100 - Corner Lot 110 311 Lot Depth (feet) minimum 100 277 Building Height (feet) Minimum 30 >30 Maximum 200 69 Building Height – First floor minimum (feet, 15 102 floor to floor height) Setbacks (feet) required minimum3
Analytical Environmental Services 2-15 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 2.0 Project Description
Standards Required/Allowed Proposed Front 10 9-22 Interior Side 0 - Corner Side 10 - Rear 0 4-23 Open Space/Unit (square feet) minimum 175 1524 Parking Spaces Vehicle 411 334 Motorcycle 8 9 Bicycle Short Term 21 34 Long Term 58 88 1 Refer to discussion of Density Bonus below 2 Refer to discussion of Building Height below 3 Refer to discussion of Setbacks below 4 Refer to Landscaping/Lighting above
DENSITY BONUS A density of between 33 and 100 units per net acre is permitted in the DMX district. The proposed density is 110 units per net acre. The increased density is the result of excluding square footage for public and private easements and the relationship of the number of units divided by the net lot area, as opposed to an increase in the total number of units.
This project is located within one-half mile of the perimeter of a BART station and is located in a Transit Station Overlay District; accordingly, the maximum density may be increased up to a maximum of 25 percent for residential projects in the Transit Station Overlay District (See Development Code Section 18.105.040). The increase in density shall only be granted as a Minor Use Permit if the project includes a minimum of at least three of the elements listed in the Transit Station Overlay District. The applicant has incorporated the following three elements into the project design.
a) Continuity of building facades along the street with no interruptions in the progression of building and uses except for pedestrian access. The building encompasses an entire block with a continuous façade along all four elevations. Pedestrian entries are incorporated into the façade of the building and in outdoor spaces at multiple locations and vehicle entries are located on two sides of the building. These elements do not “interrupt” the building façade and the project reads as one building.
b) Pedestrian friendly street level building design amenities such as highly articulated facades with a variety of high quality materials and architectural detailing, visibility into buildings, awnings, paseos, or arcades, and signage oriented and scaled to the pedestrian, located directly behind the sidewalk.
Analytical Environmental Services 2-16 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 2.0 Project Description
The contemporary architecture incorporates modern materials on all four sides of the building. The building is oriented toward the intersection of Willow Pass Road and East Street where there is the most exposure to vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The ground floor units, courtyards, and amenity space are outward facing and interact with pedestrians. The aboveground units each has a small deck with the exception of the smallest units that have a “Juliette-style balcony” facing outward toward the street or inward toward an outdoor courtyard with exposure to the surrounding streets.
c) Contribution to transit-supportive facilities, such as a combination of shelters; benches; or direct connections to transit station or safe and secure bicycle storage and facilities that exceed the requirements of CDC 18.160.120 (Bicycle parking). Secure bicycle storage areas for short term and long term parking are proposed on all floors of the parking garage. The project exceeds the required number of bicycle parking stalls by providing an additional 18spaces (for a total of 97 bicycle stall spaces) to encourage alternative transportation. Bus shelters/benches are not proposed with the project given the traffic volumes and direction of traffic on two of the project frontages and the location of transit facilities in close proximity to the site. Sitting benches are however located adjacent to the leasing center at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and East Street and there is a direct pedestrian connection to BART via East Street and Park Street. For the reasons stated above, the project includes a minimum of at least three of the elements listed in the Transit Station Overlay District and therefore qualifies for a density bonus of 110 units per net acre.
SETBACKS The Development Code requires minimum setbacks for individual interior and corner lots in the DMX district. The Development Code does not however address “full block developments” where all four sides of a site are surrounded by roadways and could be considered a corner lot, which is the case with this project. Additionally, the lot shape is trapezoidal, which also lends to its unique character in terms of measuring the appropriate setback allowances.
Development Code Section 18.150.140(C)(7), titled “Determination of Setbacks on Irregular- Shaped Lots,” states, “(t)he planning division shall determine setbacks for irregular-shaped lots…on a case-by-case basis.” In general, the project meets the setbacks specified in the DMX district with one exception being the front yard setback along East Street. The City is requiring the applicant to provide a public access easement for a storm drain line that runs the width of the property. The code requires setbacks to be measured from the edge of an easement, thus in one location the setback in less than 10 feet however they vary along the frontage and are as deep as 22 feet.
Although the Downtown Specific Plan provides less clarity regarding setback requirements and refers to the “required setbacks in the City Zoning Codes,” the Plan seems to encourage smaller setback allowances by promoting “all new developments on primary streets should build to a zero front lot line.” The Plan also provides guidelines that “encourage porches, patios and
Analytical Environmental Services 2-17 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 2.0 Project Description
stoops in the building setback zone” and that “building setbacks should be landscaped to ensure privacy in case of residential ground floor use.”
Given the unique character of the lot, which is surrounded on all sides by roadways and by its unique trapezoidal shape, staff believes the proposed setbacks are appropriate as proposed. Staff feels the proposed front yard setback meets the intent of the design goals of the Downtown Specific Plan by providing an attractive landscaped buffer between the street and the building façade. The perceived setback from the face of curb will be a minimum of 21 feet within which are a landscaped strip, sidewalk, and private landscaping adjacent to the building. In most cases the setback will measure at least 10 feet or more in depth.
BUILDING HEIGHT The DMX development standards require a minimum first floor height of 15 feet. The intent of the regulation is to account for ground floor retail uses. Tall ceiling heights at the ground floor are a critical part of what makes a retail space function properly and feel inviting for pedestrians walking next to the building. Low ceilings make uninviting spaces that rent for less, feel cramped, are less visible from the street, and do not allow commercial uses to flourish. The prominent corner of the building includes a leasing office and amenity space that is designed as a two-story volume even though ground floor retail is not required nor is it proposed at this time. The building design at this location would however provide the flexibility to incorporate a retail use in the future. 2.4 BACKGROUND
On April 29, 2015, Washington-based developer Nicholson Development Properties submitted a Preliminary Application and conceptual design review for a 231-unit apartment project with approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of amenity space at the “Green House” property, the block bounded by Salvio Street, Willow Pass Road, East Street, and Port Chicago Highway. On May 28, 2015, the DRB conducted conceptual design review of the project. The DRB provided specific direction to the applicant to be incorporated into the formal application submittal.
On May 26, 2015, a neighborhood meeting was conducted. The property owner and two tenants from the Parker Professional Plaza adjacent to the site attended the meeting, were supportive of the project, and had questions about the site design, building architecture, parking, and the price of the apartment units.
On July 1, 2015, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the project and provided direction to staff and the applicant to address the inconsistencies between the proposal and the Development Code requirements. The Planning Commission made recommendations regarding setbacks, parking, building design, and the introduction of a commercial tenant(s) on the ground floor.
On September 1, 2015, Mayor Grayson established the ECAR Committee consisting of the Design Review Board Vice Chair, Kirk Shelby, Council member Ron Leone, and himself to review new buildings in the Downtown Specific Plan area to determine whether they reflect early
Analytical Environmental Services 2-18 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 2.0 Project Description
California architecture. The process did not supplant the Design Review Board but it allowed the Committee to review and provide input on building architecture.
On September 14, 2015, the Committee reviewed the project. The applicant presented the original building elevations and two elevation studies for the Committee to consider. The studies proposed arched elements on the ground floor elevations at East Street and Willow Pass Road and introduced two different color schemes. The Committee liked elements of each color scheme and the arches and use of scored plaster of one of the studies.
On October 15, 2015, the applicant submitted a formal development application including a Use Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Design Review. The application was reviewed by the Development Advisory Committee (DAC) on November 10, 2015 and deemed incomplete by staff on November 13, 2015.
On November 18, 2015, a second neighborhood meeting was conducted and attended by local business owners, each of which was supportive of the project and had questions about the entitlement process and timing for construction. On November 19, 2015, the Design Review Board conducted preliminary design review and provided the applicant with comments about the building architecture. The Board primarily focused on the design of the arched elements and ways to incorporate materials to make them “special elements” that relate to and improve the pedestrian experience.
The applicant submitted revised plans on April 26, 2016. The Board conducted final design review on May 12, 2016 and approved the building architecture and directed the applicant to return with a complete landscape plan including a detailed plant list with quantities and typical spacing of materials, information on special paving, and elevations of the proposed decorative fencing.
On June 14, 2016, the applicant submitted additional details in response to the Board’s request for information and the Board granted final design review approval on June 23, 2016 with conditions.
On June 28, 2016, the DAC reviewed the revised submittal and staff deemed the application complete on July 21, 2016.
On August 17, 2016, during the Planning Commission’s consideration of the project at public hearing, the law firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo sent a letter to the Planning Commission on behalf of the Concord Residents requesting that the commission deny approvals of the Proposed Project. The letter claimed that the Proposed Project was not exempt from CEQA, did not comply with the Downtown Concord Specific Plan, and was detrimental to construction workers and residents. As a result of these claims, the public hearing was continued and this IS/MND was produced to address concerns specifically related to hazardous waste, water, and air quality, as well as identify any available mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts.
Analytical Environmental Services 2-19 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 2.0 Project Description
2.5 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS
As part of the implementation of the Proposed Project, the following permits and approvals may be necessary:
CITY OF CONCORD Pursuant to Development Code Section 18.405.020, if an applicant submits more than one planning permit application for the same project, all applications shall be filed and processed concurrently and each application shall be considered and acted upon by the appropriate review authority. The City (Planning Commission based on the requested entitlements) will review the project to determine if a Use Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Design Review should be provided for the Proposed Project.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (SFBRWQCB) Approval of the project’s coverage under the General Construction Storm Water NPDES Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity because project construction results in one (1) acre or more of ground disturbance. Approval of a SWPPP for construction activities.
Analytical Environmental Services 2-20 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an IS should provide the lead agency with sufficient information to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), negative declaration (ND), or Mitigated ND (MND) for a proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines state that an IS may identify environmental impacts by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that conclusions are briefly explained and supported by relevant evidence. If it is determined that a particular physical impact to the environment could occur, then the checklist must indicate whether the impact is Potentially Significant, Less Than Significant with Mitigation, or Less Than Significant. Findings of No Impact for issues that can be demonstrated not to apply to a proposed project do not require further discussion.
This IS was prepared to assess the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project in accordance with CEQA to provide State permitting agencies with sufficient information to determine whether to prepare an EIR, ND or MND for the Proposed Project.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-1 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.1 AESTHETICS
Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
3.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is currently vacant with the exception of an unoccupied commercial building located at the southwestern corner at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and East Street (formerly a bank). The remainder of the property consists of a mix of impervious asphalt, building pad areas, and unpaved areas. Limited trees and remnants of onsite landscaping are located around the perimeter of the site. The project site is surrounded entirely by city streets, with commercial buildings to the north, south, and west, and high density residential buildings to the east. BART tracks run parallel to the project site immediately to the east.
CITY PLANNING In accordance with Municipal Code Section 17.35.120 and to ensure high quality site design, the Planning Division may provide the Design Review Board with a tentative map of the Proposed Project. In accordance with Development Code Section 18.400, the Design Review Board provides recommendations to the approving body regarding elements such as, but not limited to: siting of buildings and project grading, architectural relationship among project buildings and with neighboring properties, layout of streets and driveways, landscaping, walls and fences, and lighting (City of Concord, 2015b). Accordingly, the Design Review Board conducted a preliminary design review of the Proposed Project on November 19, 2015 and provided the applicant with comments about the building architecture. The comments were primarily focused on the design of the arched elements, methods to incorporate “special elements,” and suggested improvements to the pedestrian experience. The DRB conducted a
Analytical Environmental Services 3-2 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
final design review on May 12, 2016 and recommended the design for approval with the following items to return as a staff report:
1. Complete landscape plan including a detailed plant list with quantities and typical spacing of materials; 2. Information on special paving; and 3. Elevation of the proposed decorative fencing All conditions were included within the updated project plans and the Design Review Board granted final design review approval on June 23, 2016.
3.1.2 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTIONS A AND B The scenic quality of the City is characterized by its location within the Ygnacio Valley and Clayton Valley and the rolling hillsides of Los Medanos Hills to the east, Mt. Diablo to the southeast, and the Suisun Bay to the north. Due to the flat nature of the City, views of the surrounding scenic vistas are prominent, especially the views from Todos Santos Plaza, west of the project site (City of Concord, 2007). The project site is not immediately adjacent to Todos Santos Plaza, separated by two blocks, and therefore would not adversely affect views of this scenic vista.
The Proposed Project would replace the existing open lot and a vacant bank with views of a mixed use residential building. Additionally, views along surrounding roadways would not be obstructed due to the heights of the surrounding buildings located throughout downtown. The project site is not located within a state scenic highway and thus will not damage scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within the viewshed of such a highway. No Impact. QUESTION C Development of the Proposed Project would result in improved conditions as well as aesthetic features compatible with the historical and visual character of the City. The Proposed Project features were recommended for approval by the Design Review Board. While the proposed building would be five stories in height in an area dominated by single story residences, the proposed project complies with the building height requirements of DMX zoning and satisfies all applicable development codes and is compatible with the other taller buildings visible along Willow Pass Road located throughout downtown Concord, such as the existing four-story multi- family residential unit located at 1825 Galindo Street. This development covers an area similar to the Proposed Project. Additionally, the Proposed Project includes design features such as an “art screen” that doubles as a transparent enclosure, double tree lined sidewalks, and preservation of many existing trees. Accordingly, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to the existing visual character. Less than Significant.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-3 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
QUESTION D Currently the site contains remnants of lighting from past uses. The Proposed Project includes residential exterior lighting which will minimize glare and improve nighttime visibility and increase safety for pedestrians and vehicles. With the implementation of the Lighting Plan as proposed by the Applicant; light from the Proposed Project’s final design would be consistent with the surrounding uses, including the existing street lighting, and would not add substantial sources of new daytime or nighttime lighting or glare. Less Than Significant.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-4 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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 Range Assessment Project and 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 uses? 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?
3.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located in downtown Concord and surrounded entirely by commercial development and urban residential buildings. The project site is relatively flat and contains limited vegetation, including street trees and remnants of onsite landscaping. There is a vacant bank on the southwest corner of the property and ornamental vegetation has not been
Analytical Environmental Services 3-5 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
maintained. The property has not been used for agricultural purposes nor has it been used as forest land or timber harvest.
3.2.2 REGULATORY SETTING FARMLAND MAPPING AND MONITORING PROGRAM The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the California Department of Conservation (CDC) analyze farmland losses. In 1975, the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) began a mapping program to produce agricultural resource maps based on soil quality and land use nationwide. In 1982, the State of California created the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) within the CDC to carry out the mapping activity from the USDA-SCS on a continuing basis. The FMMP produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status and is based on information obtained from aerial photographs and data from the NRCS (NRCS, 2015).
WILLIAMSON ACT The California Legislature passed the California Land Conservation Act (commonly referred to as the “Williamson Act”) in 1965 to preserve agricultural lands and open space by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. Under the Williamson Act, private landowners contract with counties and cities to voluntarily restrict privately-owned land to agricultural and compatible open-space uses. In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use, rather than their potential market value. The vehicle for these agreements is a rolling-term, ten-year contract that is automatically renewed unless either party files a “notice of nonrenewal.” The project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract (California Department of Conservation, 2013).
CITY PLANNING The City of Concord is dominated by urban/residential/commercial zoned land. There is no land that is zoned for agriculture, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. However, permitted agricultural uses are allowed in the OS, PR, RLC, and WRC districts in the City. Outside of the open space land use designated for the CCCFCD easement, the nearest land use where agricultural operations can be permitted is located approximately one mile east of the project site. Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance have not been identified within the City (FMMP, 2015).
3.2.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTIONS A THROUGH E The Proposed Project is not located on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance and would not convert any farmland to a non-agricultural use. As stated above, there is no existing agricultural zoned land or forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production within the city limits of Concord and there are no land uses allowing permitted agricultural operations within one mile of the project site. Accordingly, there
Analytical Environmental Services 3-6 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
would be no conflict with existing zoning nor would the Proposed Project conflict with the Williamson Act as the project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. No Impact.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-7 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.3 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 that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
3.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Two types of air pollutants affect air quality in Concord: criteria air pollutants (CAPs) and toxic air contaminants (TACs). The major source of air pollutants in Concord is motor vehicle emissions. Heavy commute patterns throughout the San Francisco Bay Area have resulted in poor regional air quality levels.
Air quality issues in the City are under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), as Contra Costa County is one of the seven counties that comprise the San Francisco Bay Area air basin. The project site is located within the city limits of Concord and is surrounded by residential and urban developed land.
3.3.2 REGULATORY SETTING The 1977 Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) required the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare. NAAQS have been established for the six “criteria” air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter (PM), and lead. PM is designated into two size classes, course particulate matter 10
Analytical Environmental Services 3-8 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
micrometers or less in diameter (PM10) and fine particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5). The smaller size of PM2.5 allows it to enter the cardiovascular system and cause more serious health problems. For this reason the NAAQS sets a more stringent standard on PM2.5 in ambient air quality. Pursuant to the 1990 CAA Amendments (CAAA), the EPA has classified air basins (or portions thereof) as either “attainment” or “non-attainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS have been achieved. The region’s attainment status for the NAAQS is listed in Table 3-1.
California has adopted ambient standards that are more stringent than the Federal standards for the criteria air pollutants. Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), patterned after the Federal CAA, areas have been designated as attainment or non-attainment with respect to CAAQS. The region’s attainment status for the CAAQS is listed in Table 3-1. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT The BAAQMD controls criteria and toxic air pollutants. The primary role of cities in achieving and maintaining regional air quality is through land use decision-making, which can affect vehicle miles traveled, and through other measures that manage the emission of pollutants. BAAQMD identifies specific Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) that, together with other approaches, may help reduce emissions in Concord, which contributes to regional pollution control and greenhouse gas reduction efforts.
The BAAQMD notes a particular need to reduce exposure to particulates and air toxics related to freeways and major arterials, especially those with high volumes of truck traffic, as well as exposure related to goods movement and distribution centers. Ambient concentrations of toxic air contaminants are similar throughout the urbanized area of the Bay Area. BAAQMD regulates toxic air contaminants from stationary sources through their permit process; mobile sources of toxic air contaminants are regulated indirectly through vehicle emissions standards and fuel specifications.
BAAQMD operates a regional network of air pollution monitoring stations that provide information on ambient concentrations of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. One station is operated within the City limits: station number 2018, located at 2975 Treat Boulevard (2 miles south of the project site).
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA City regulations for air quality fall under the BAAQMD’s jurisdiction. In June of 2010, the BAAQMD adopted Draft CEQA Guidelines, including significance thresholds and project screening criteria to determine if project specific air quality analysis is required. However, a lawsuit was filed contending that the adoption of the thresholds and criteria the Air District did not follow the CEQA process. The responsible court found that the BAAQMD did not comply with CEQA and that an assessment of the potential environmental impacts from the adoption of the thresholds and criteria was required. The court did not determine whether the thresholds are or are not based on substantial evidence and thus valid on the merits. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the Air District had complied with CEQA.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-9 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
TABLE 3-1 BAAQMD ATTAINMENT STATUS
California Standards National Standards Averaging Pollutant Concentration Attainment Time Concentration Attainment Status Status 0.070 ppm Non- 0.070 ppm Primary Non- 8 Hour (137µg/m3) attainment same as secondary attainment Ozone 0.09 ppm (180 Non- 1 Hour µg/m3) attainment 9.0 ppm (10 9 ppm 8 Hour Attainment Attainment mg/m3) (10 mg/m3) Carbon Monoxide 20 ppm 35 ppm 1 Hour Attainment Attainment (23 mg/m3) (40 mg/m3) 0.18 ppm (339 1 Hour Attainment 0.100 ppm Unclassified µg/m3) Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.030 ppm (57 0.053 ppm (100 Arithmetic Attainment µg/m3) µg/m3) Mean 0.04 ppm (105 0.14 ppm (365 24 Hour Attainment Attainment µg/m3) µg/m3) 0.25 ppm (655 0.075 ppm (196 1 Hour Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide µg/m3) µg/m3) Annual 0.030 ppm (80 Arithmetic Attainment µg/m3) Mean Annual Non- Arithmetic 20 µg/m3 Particulate Matter attainment Mean (PM10) Non- 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Unclassified attainment Annual Non- Arithmetic 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Unclassified Particulate Matter attainment Mean Fine (PM2.5) Non- 24 Hour 35 µg/m3 attainment Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Attainment 30 day 1.5 µg/m3 Attainment Average Lead Calendar 1.5 µg/m3 Attainment Quarter 0.03 ppm (42 Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour Unclassified N/A N/A µg/m3 Vinyl Chloride 0.010 ppm (26 No information 24 Hour N/A N/A (chloroethene) µg/m3 available 8 Hour 10-mile Visibility Reducing (10:00 to nominal visual Unclassified N/A N/A particles 18:00 PST) range Source: BAAQMD, 2014
However, the court’s order permits the BAAQMD to develop and disseminate the CEQA Guidelines, as long as they do not implement the thresholds of significance. Accordingly, an updated CEQA guidance document was approved in May of 2012 (BAAQMD, 2012). The updated guidance document states that in accordance with the court order, the CEQA lead agency assessing air quality impacts within the BAAQMD’s jurisdiction will need to determine appropriate air quality thresholds. Because the Court did not invalidate the significance
Analytical Environmental Services 3-10 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
thresholds and screening criteria, the City, acting as Lead Agency under CEQA for the Proposed Project, has adopted the May 2010 Draft CEQA Guidelines including significance thresholds and associate screening criteria to address impacts to air quality.
Section 3.1.1 of the May 2010 Draft CEQA Guidelines states that if a project meets the screening criteria in Table 3-1, the project would not result in the generation of operational or construction-related CAPs or precursors that exceed the CEQA thresholds of significance. For multi-family mid-rise residential, the screening criteria for construction emissions is 240 and for operational emissions the threshold to quantify and assess is 494 residences or less. For projects which do not meet the screening criteria, BAAQMD has adopted thresholds presented in Table 3-2 and Table 3-3.
TABLE 3-2 CONSTRUCTION RELATED EMISSIONS Exhaust Exhaust ROG NOx Year PM10 PM2.5 lb/day 2017 11.06 29.41 1.69 1.62 2018 10.47 26.60 1.45 1.39 Maximum 11.06 29.41 1.69 1.62 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold No No No No Source: BAAQMD, 2010; CalEEMod, 2016
TABLE 3-3 OPERATION RELATED EMISSIONS Exhaust Exhaust ROG NOx Category PM10 PM2.5 lb/day Area 3.11 0.22 0.10 0.10 Energy 0.08 0.66 0.05 0.05 Mobile 3.17 11.51 0.10 0.09 Total 6.36 12.40 0.26 0.25 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold No No No No
Source: BAAQMD, 2010; CalEEMod, 2016
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Sensitive receptors are facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, and residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-11 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
There are several sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. The closest sensitive receptors are five residences located approximately 65 feet from the project site boundary on the east side. Additionally, there is an adult daycare approximately 100 feet to the north, and the closest school is the Beginnings and Beyond Montessori Christian School approximately 490 feet west of the project site.
3.3.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTIONS A, B, AND C Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the construction and operation of 230 new residences within the air basin. In accordance with the screening criteria adopted by the City for the Proposed Project, the construction of 230 new residences would not result in emission exceeding the significance thresholds for CAPs and associated precursors during the construction or operational phase of the project.
For full disclosure, project-related emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Calculations are provided as Appendix B. As shown in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 emissions from construction and operation, respectively, are less than the associated BAAQMD. Therefore, in accordance with the May 2010 Draft CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan set forth by the BAAQMD to meet the NAAQS (BAAQMD, 2010). Accordingly, there would not be a violation of any air quality standard or contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation. However, BAAQMD does not have adopted thresholds for fugitive dust emissions and requires that all projects employ best management practices (BMPs) which are included as Mitigation Measure AQ-1. In accordance with the results of the screening criteria for operational emissions and construction related emissions, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any CAP. Less Than Significant with Mitigation.
QUESTION D The project site’s previous land uses, including a dry cleaners and a car dealership, have released hazardous materials, and as a result have the potential to emit TACs. Over the past decade, multiple site assessments have been conducted to identify potential hazards and are summarized in Appendix A. A preliminary risk evaluation identified groundwater volatilization to an enclosed space as a moderate risk to the Proposed Project, and all other risks were determined to be low (Appendix A). To mitigate potential construction-related direct exposure, site management practices will be implemented and are included in Section 2.2.6. In order to mitigate long-term indoor Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) risks, engineering controls, such as sub- slab passive venting and installation of a vapor barrier, will be installed and are also included in Section 2.2.6. These measures have been approved by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board as “an acceptable approach to address residual pollution at the Site in preparation for the planned redevelopment as a residential apartment building” (Appendix A). Therefore, with the incorporation of the RAP, as a component of the Proposed Project, sensitive receptor exposure would be less than significant. Less Than Significant.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-12 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
QUESTION E The Proposed Project would be consistent with surrounding land uses such as residential housing. Construction equipment has the potential to emit odor in the vicinity of the project site, however, construction odors are not anticipated to be detected beyond the project site boundaries. Under the BAAQMD Guidelines, the Proposed Project is not considered an odor generating land use. Additionally, in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 7, the Proposed Project would be restricted from emitting quantities of pollutants that would cause detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any persons or to the public. The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors, as defined above, to substantial pollutant concentrations or odors. Less Than Significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES AQ-1 The following BMPs will be implemented during construction. a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. 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. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. 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. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-13 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.4 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 CDFW or USFWS? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally- protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the federal 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 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?
3.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Proposed Project is surrounded entirely by urban/developed commercial buildings and high-density residences. The project sites contains a disturbed dirt lot covering the majority of the property, and a commercial development on the southwest corner of the property. On the north, northeast, south, and southwest portions of the edge of the property boundary are ornamental shrubs and other types of landscaping including various large trees. Exposed soils on the site are highly disturbed and occasionally used for pedestrian crossing and vehicle
Analytical Environmental Services 3-14 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
parking, although this is not a permitted parking area. There is no grassland areas or riparian habitat located on or near the project site. The project site is isolated from any other open space/ native habitat, with the closest undeveloped area approximately 0.9 miles west.
CRITICAL HABITAT A California Native Diversity Database (CNDDB) and Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) map was consulted for areas marked as critical habitat for listed species (see Appendix C). Critical habitat for Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis euryzanthus and California red-legged frog Rana daytonii occur within a five-mile radius of the project site. No critical habitat is located within the project site property or within one mile of the project site.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES For the purposes of this assessment, special status has been defined to include those species that are:
. Listed as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) (or formally proposed for, or candidates for, listing); . Listed as endangered or threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (or proposed for listing); . Designated as endangered or rare, pursuant to California Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Code (§1901); . Designated as fully protected, pursuant to CDFW Code (§3511, §4700, or §5050); . Designated as species of concern to the CDFW; . Covered under the International Migratory Bird Treaty Act; or . Defined as rare or endangered under CEQA.
SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE An Official Special Status Species List was generated from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) system web site (see Appendix C). The list identifies two amphibian species, two bird species, one crustacean species, two fish species, two flowering plant species, two insect species, and two reptile species that are proposed, candidate, threatened, or endangered federal status and have the potential to occur on the project site. These are listed below. Critical habitat and details for each are further discussed in Appendix C.
. California Red-Legged Frog . California Tiger Salamander . California Clapper Rail . California Least Tern . Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp . Delta Smelt . Steelhead
Analytical Environmental Services 3-15 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
. Antioch Dunes Evening-primrose . Contra Costa Goldfields . Callippe Silverspot Butterfly . San Bruno Elfin Butterfly . Alameda Whipsnake . Giant Garter Snake
Due to the developed nature of the site, no protected species are likely to occur as no habitat exists to support a population of the above mentioned protected species. The site is completely surrounding by readily used roadways providing a barrier to species migrating onto the project site.
3.4.2 REGULATORY SETTING FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (FESA) Under FESA, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce have the joint authority to list a species as threatened or endangered (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1533c). The purposes of FESA are to provide a means to conserve the ecosystems that endangered and threatened species depend on and to provide a program for conservation and recovery of the species with the intent of removing the species from a listed, protected status. Regulatory protection is given to any species listed as endangered or threatened.
The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are the federal agencies that enforce FESA. Pursuant to the requirements of FESA, an agency reviewing a project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed threatened or endangered species may be present in the project area and determine whether the Proposed Project will have an impact on such species. Under FESA, habitat loss is considered to be an impact to the species. In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed for listing under FESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species (16 U.S.C. 1536).
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE (CDFW) California Law, Fish and Game Code sections 3503 and 3503.5 provide protection of birds and birds’ nests by prohibiting the take of birds, their nests, or their eggs.
California Law, Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., requires notification to the CDFW for proposed projects that may: divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; use material from a streambed; or result in the disposal or deposition of debris, waste, or other material where it may pass into any river stream, or lake.
CEQA GUIDELINES Several federal and state statutes protect rare, threatened, and endangered species. The CEQA Guidelines Article 20, Section 15380 provides that a species not listed on the federal or
Analytical Environmental Services 3-16 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
state list of protected species may be considered rare, threatened, or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions of endangered, rare, or threatened provided in FESA and CESA. This section of the Guidelines gives public agencies the ability to protect a species from any potential impacts of proposed projects until the respective government agency has the opportunity to designate (list) a species as protected, if warranted.
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains an extensive list of plant species that it considers to be rare, threatened, or endangered, but have no designated status or protection under federal or state endangered species legislation. Impacts to CNPS listed species (e.g., CNPS list 1B and 2) are considered pursuant during CEQA environmental review.
CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (CESA) Under CESA, it is unlawful to take a State-listed endangered or threatened species. Fish and Game Code section 86 defines take as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.” CESA take authorization, over CDFW, if there is potential for take of a State-listed plant or wildlife species.
MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT (MBTA) Migratory birds are protected under the federal MBTA of 1918 (16 U.S.C 703-711). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed under 50 CFR 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). The direct injury or death of a migratory bird, due to construction activities or other construction-related disturbance that causes nest abandonment, nestling abandonment, or forced fledging would be considered take under federal law. As such, project-related disturbances must be reduced or eliminated during the nesting season.
3.4.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTION A The Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) because no species within these categories have a potential to occur on the project site as discussed above in Section 3.4.1. Less Than Significant.
QUESTION B The project site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community as identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the CDFW or USFWS. No Impact.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-17 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
QUESTION C The Proposed Project is not located on or near a federally protected wetland, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and will not have an adverse effect through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or any other means. No Impact.
QUESTION D The project site is not located within a wildlife nursery site. The Proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish species. Nesting habitat for migratory birds and other birds of prey protected under the MBTA may include the trees scheduled for removal within the project site and vicinity. Potential disruption of nesting migratory birds and other birds of prey during construction could result in nest abandonment or mortality. Likewise, increased human activity and traffic, elevated noise levels, and operation of machinery could also impact birds if their nests are located within the vicinity of development areas. These impacts are potentially significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1 through Bio-3, impacts would be less than significant. Less Than Significant with Mitigation. QUESTION E The Proposed Project would preserve twelve trees, and remove twenty trees on the project site. Additional landscaping and trees would be planted to replace removed trees in areas that are consistent with the design of the Proposed Project. This is in accordance with the City tree ordinance for the preservation of the City’s mature and special trees. The Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources. Less Than Significant.
QUESTION F The project site is not located on or near an area of Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan and thus would not affect any such plans or areas. No Impact. MITIGATION MEASURES Bio-1 A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction bird survey for nesting birds within 14 days prior to commencement of construction activities if anticipated to commence during the appropriate nesting season (between February 1 and August 31). The qualified biologist shall document and submit the results of the pre-construction survey in a letter to CDFW and the City within 30 days following the survey. The letter shall include: a description of the methodology including dates of field visits, the names of survey personnel, a list of references cited and persons contacted, and a map showing the location(s) of any bird nests observed on the project site. If no active nests are identified during the pre-construction survey then no further mitigation is required. Evidence, in the form of a letter report documenting the results of the survey, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department prior to commencement of construction activities.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-18 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Bio-2 If any active nests are identified during the pre-construction survey within the project site, a buffer zone will be established around the nests. A qualified biologist will monitor nests weekly during construction to evaluate potential nesting disturbance by construction activities. The biologist will delimit the buffer zone with construction tape or pin flags within 250 feet of the active nest and maintain the buffer zone until the end of the breeding season or until the young have fledged. Guidance from CDFW will be requested if establishing a 250-foot buffer zone is impractical. Guidance from CDFW will be requested if the nestlings within the active nest appear disturbed.
Bio-3 Twenty trees are anticipated for removal and should be removed outside of the nesting season (February 1 and August 31). If trees are anticipated to be removed during the nesting season, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If the survey shows that there is no evidence of active nests, then the tree shall be removed within ten days following the survey. If active nests are located within trees identified for removal, a 250-foot buffer shall be installed around the tree. Guidance from CDFW will be requested if the 250-foot buffer is infeasible.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-19 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.5 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 as defined in §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? e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21704?
3.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING METHODS A cultural resources assessment, including field survey, was conducted by Charlane Gross, an AES professional Archaeologist. A background record search was performed at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System on November 9, 2016 (IC File Number 16-0718). Additional research was conducted using files and literature maintained at AES, as well as internet resources. The record search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places; The California Register of Historical Resources; California Points of Historical Interest; California Inventory of Historic Resources; California Historical Landmarks; Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data Files for Contra Costa County; and Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility.
PREHISTORY The proposed project site is located at the northeastern edge of an area that was occupied by the Penutian–speaking Bay Miwok at the time the Spanish arrived in northern California in the 18th century. Their territory encompassed much of the San Francisco Bay area and extended eastward to the Central Valley. The Bay Miwok are known to have occupied this region at least since 300 A.D., though their presence may date back as far as 2500 B.C. At the time of contact
Analytical Environmental Services 3-20 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
with the Europeans, there were an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 Native Americans living in the coastal area stretching from Point Sur in Monterey County, northward through the Coast Ranges to the Sacramento River Delta and eastward to the San Joaquin River. The Bay Miwok were one of five geographically and linguistically distinct groups in the area, including Costanoan, Patwin, Wappo, Coast Miwok and Bay Miwok (Basin, 2013; ESA, 2009).
The Bay Miwok Indians were organized in triblets of related families, who were well-placed to exploit the rich resources offered by estuaries and grasslands. Proximity to Spanish missions led to early resettlement and conversion at the same time European diseases were taking significant toll on the population by the first half of the 19th century (Basin, 2013; ESA, 2009).
HISTORY The first expedition into the East Bay occurred in 1772 when Pedro Fages and his party explored the San Francisco Bay and Carquinez Strait, including the Diablo and Livermore Valleys near Concord. In the spring of 1776, Captain Juan Bautista de Anza established the San Francisco Presidio and by April 1, de Anza’s men had traveled through San Francisco, down the peninsula and up the East Bay shoreline, passing through Antioch and the plains of eastern Contra Costa County toward Tracy (Basin, 2013; ESA, 2009).
The establishment of the Mission Dolores in San Francisco in the same year began the “Mission Period” in the San Francisco Bay area, part of an effort by the Spanish to spread Christianity through the establishment of 21 Roman Catholic missions in Alta California in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The missions in the East Bay were used to graze thousands of cattle and sheep, as well as for grain production and housed several hundred native Bay Miwok Indian converts (Basin, 2013; ESA, 2009).
In 1833–34, the Mexican government secularized the Spanish missions and many mission lands were also subsequently granted to individuals who established the great ranchos, or vast cattle raising estates. The project site was part of the Rancho Monte del Diablo, granted to Salvio Pacheco in 1834 (Basin, 2013; Beck and Haase, 1974; ESA, 2009; Hoover, et al., 2002).
A review of historical maps (1897, 1915, 1947, 1949, 1959, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1995, 1996, and 2012) shows two structures within the Proposed Project site on the Concord 15’ quadrangle map in 1897, one in the southeast corner and one in the northwest corner. By the 1915 Concord 15’ quadrangle, the northwest structure is still there, but railroad and road construction along the eastern boundary has eliminated the other structure (EDR, 2016a). Subsequent quadrangle maps do not depict individual residences within the City of Concord area.
A review of aerial photographs includes photos from 1939, 1946, 1949, 1950, 1958, 1963, 1966, 1974, 1979, 1982, 1993, 1998, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2012 (EDR, 2016b). In 1939, there appear to be structures in the northwest, north central, and south central parts of the Proposed Project site; more structures are apparent by 1946, when the western half of the block appears to be fully developed with residences and some landscaping (tree rows) is visible. That pattern continues until 1958, when commercial buildings and parking lots appear, though a residence fronting on Salvio Street (in the north central part of the block) is visible up to the
Analytical Environmental Services 3-21 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
2012 aerial. A review of historic aerials on Google Earth shows that the residence was razed between 2013 and 2014. The bank building, the only structure currently on the property, was built between 1974 and 1979, when it first appears on an aerial.
3.5.2 REGULATORY SETTING CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA requires that, for projects financed by, or requiring the discretionary approval of public agencies in California, the effects that a proposed project has on historical or unique archaeological resources be considered (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2). Historical resources include: buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance (PRC Section 50201). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 define three cases in which a property may qualify as a historical resource for the purpose of CEQA review:
1. If it is listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); or
2. It is included in a local register of historical resource or identified as significant in a qualifying historical resource survey; or
3. The resource appears in, or is determined eligible for the listing, in the CRHR. Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 define eligibility requirements and states that a resource may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR if it:
a. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; b. is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c. embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or d. has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Sites younger than 45 years, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for listing in the CRHR. Properties must retain integrity to be eligible for listing on the CRHR. Properties that are listed in, or are eligible for, listing in the National Register of Historic Places are automatically considered eligible for listing in the CRHR, and thus are significant historical resources for the purpose of CEQA (PRC section 5024.1(d)(1)).
1. The resource is included in a local register of historic resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the PRC, or is identified as significant in a historical resources survey that meets the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the PRC (unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant).
Analytical Environmental Services 3-22 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
2. The lead agency determines that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC section 5020.1(j), 5024.1, or significant as supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 governs the treatment of unique archaeological resources, defined as “an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated” as meeting any of the following criteria:
. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; . has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best example of its type; or . is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES REGULATORY SETTING CEQA provides protection for unique paleontological resources and unique geologic features, and requires that planners consider impacts to such resources in the project review process. The Act distinguishes between ubiquitous fossils that are of little scientific consequence, and those, which are of some importance by providing protection for the latter. While CEQA does not precisely define unique paleontological resources, criteria established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) provide guidance. The SVP defines a significant paleontological resource as one that meets one or more of the following criteria (SVP, 1995):
. Provides important information shedding light on evolutionary trends and/or helping to relate living organisms to extinct organisms; . provides important information regarding the development of biological communities; . demonstrates unusual circumstances in the history of life; . represents a rare taxon or a rare or unique occurrence, is in short supply and in danger of being destroyed or depleted; . has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or . provides important information used to correlate strata for which it may be difficult to obtain other types of age dates.
CEQA similarly fails to define precisely a unique geologic feature. For the purpose of this analysis, a unique geologic feature is a resource or formation that:
. Is the best example locally or regionally; . embodies distinct characteristics of a geologic principal that is exclusive locally or regionally;
Analytical Environmental Services 3-23 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
. provides a key piece of geologic information important in geology or geologic history; . is a type locality of a geologic feature; or . contains a mineral not known to occur elsewhere locally or regionally; or is a common teaching tool.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 prohibits “knowing and willful” excavation, removal, destruction, injury, or defacement of paleontological resources on public lands without prior permission from the appropriate agency. Public lands include those “owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.” If paleontological resources are identified within a given project area, the lead agency must consider those resources when evaluating a proposed project’s impacts. The level of consideration may vary with the importance of the resource in question.
ASSEMBLY BILL 52 On September 25, 2014, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., signed Assembly Bill No. 52 (“AB 52”) into law. The new law expands CEQA to provide that any public or private “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” The law will apply to any project that has a notice of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015. More specifically, the law creates a new category of resources in CEQA called “tribal cultural resources” and seeks to engage the expertise of Native American tribes in the protection and preservation of those resources. To fulfill that purpose, the new law requires the lead agency to consult with a local Native American tribe as part of the environmental review process.
AB 52 requires consultation with California Native American tribes before the release of any environmental document (e.g., mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report). The process is initiated by contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a list of tribes specifically identified for AB 52; after receipt of results, the Lead Agency has 14 days to notify all tribes who have previously signed up for notification within set geographies. The lead agency must consult with a tribe within the geographical area of the project if the tribe (1) requested the lead agency to inform it of proposed projects within its area, and (2) the tribe responds within 30 days of receiving notification and requests consultation. During consultation, the parties may discuss possible mitigation measures to avoid or lessen the impact on tribal cultural resources. To protect the resource, any information submitted by a tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed to the public.
3.5.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTION A No historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines 15064.5, were identified either during the background research or the field survey. One on-site building is technically historic, but
Analytical Environmental Services 3-24 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
lacks any association with persons or events significant in California history (CRHR criteria 1 and 2), does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction (CRHR Criterion 3), and is unlikely to yield information important in prehistory or history (CRHR Criterion 4). Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project will have no impact on historical resources. Less Than Significant. QUESTION B It is unlikely that archaeological resources exist within the Proposed Project site due to the lack of water sources or other features that would attract prehistoric use or occupation of the area. The closest natural water source, Galindo Creek, is approximately 0.5 miles to the south of the project site, indicating a low potential for buried prehistoric resources. While no significant archaeological deposits or site indicators were observed during the December 1, 2016 field survey, there is some potential for buried resources which could be uncovered during future ground-disturbing activities. These might include, but are not limited to: flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding implements such as millingstones, manos, mortars and pestles; midden soils, fragments of bone, shellfish, and fire affected rock; construction materials and building foundations; wells or privies; deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse; and vertebrate and invertebrate fossils. If these or similar resources are uncovered at the Proposed Project site, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist can evaluate. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, impacts to archaeological resources discovered during construction of the Proposed Project would be reduced to less than significant. Less Than Significant With Mitigation. QUESTION C No significant paleontological deposits or site indicators were observed during the December 1, 2016 field survey. The project site is located on recent alluvial deposits underlain by Pleistocene alluvial fans, however; construction impacts are unlikely to penetrate deep enough to affect any paleontological materials. Further, an on-line search of the University Of California Museum Of Paleontology on November 30, 2016 failed to identify any fossil localities in or near the project site. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project will have no impact on paleontological resources. No Impact. QUESTION D It is unlikely that human remains are located within the Proposed Project site due to the lack of water sources or other features that would attract prehistoric use or occupation of the area. If any human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, impacts to these remains would be potentially significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2, impacts to human remains discovered during construction would be reduced to less than significant. Less Than Significant With Mitigation. QUESTION E A request was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 7, 2016 and a reply was received on November 16, 2016. The NAHC stated that a search of the Sacred Lands files failed to identify any resources. The NAHC provided a list of six individuals who
Analytical Environmental Services 3-25 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
might have information regarding the project site. A letter detailing information about the Proposed Project as well as a map of the site location was sent to each individual on November 30, 2016. Follow-up telephone calls were made on December 8, 2016. Only three individuals could be reached. The first, Irenne Zwerlein, Chairperson of Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, said that they defer to Andrew Galvan. A phone message was left for Mr. Galvan; however, no response has been received to date. The second, Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson of Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan stated that she had no concerns about the project. The third, a reply dated December 12, 2016 was received from Wilton Rancheria. Wilton claimed that the Proposed Project site lies within their ancestral territory. In their response, the Wilton Rancheria did not claim to know of any cultural resources within the Proposed Project area, but did say that they would like copies of any or all documents, search results, or assessments developed for the project, as well as wanting to participate in any field surveys. After all information has been received, the Wilton Rancheria letter stated that for a fee, they would review the project, comparing submitted records with their database.
Messages were left for the other individuals identified by the NAHC with no response received to date, including: Rosemary Cambra, Muweka Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, Katherine Perez of the North Valley Yokuts Tribe. Less Than Significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES CR-1 Stop potentially damaging work if archaeological resources are uncovered during construction, assess the significance of the find, and pursue appropriate management. If previously unrecorded cultural resources (e.g., unusual amounts of shell, animal bone, bottle glass, ceramics, structure/building remains, etc.) are encountered during surveys of previously unexamined area where ground disturbance is planned or during project- related ground-disturbing activities, all ground-disturbing activities shall be halted within a 100-foot radius of the find. A qualified professional archaeologist shall identify the materials, determine their possible significance, and formulate appropriate measures for their treatment, which shall be implemented by the project applicants and their contractors. Potential treatment methods for significant and potentially significant resources may include, but would not be limited to avoidance of the resource through changes in construction methods or project design or implementation of a program of testing and data recovery, in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements.
CR-2 Stop potentially damaging work if human remains are uncovered during construction, assess the significance of the find, and pursue appropriate management. California law recognizes the need to protect interred human remains, particularly Native American burials and items of cultural patrimony, from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of discovered human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and §7052 and California Public Resources Code §5097. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are
Analytical Environmental Services 3-26 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, all such activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall be halted immediately and the project applicants’ designated representative shall be notified. The project applicants shall immediately notify the county coroner and a qualified professional archaeologist. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact the NAHC by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (Health and Safety Code Section 7050[c]). The project applicant or its appointed representative and the professional archaeologist shall contact the Most Likely Descendent (MLD), as determined by the NAHC, regarding the remains. The MLD, in cooperation with the property owner and the lead agencies shall determine the ultimate disposition of the remains.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-27 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in 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 & 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 soils, 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 alternate wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
3.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Coast Ranges are characterized by a series of northwest-trending valleys and mountain ranges and
Analytical Environmental Services 3-28 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
dominated by irregular knobby topography (California Geological Survey, 2002). The site is located in a broad valley underlain by thick alluvial deposits. The flat parcel sits slightly higher than its street frontages and slopes gently downhill toward the northwest corner of the site, therefore not susceptible to landslides.
SEISMICITY The closest fault line is the Concord Fault located approximately 600 feet west of the project site. Additional faults located in the project vicinity include: Green Valley Fault approximately 7.5 miles to the north, Franklin fault approximately 7 miles to the west, Clayton fault approximately 4 miles southeast of the site, Hayward fault approximately 15 miles to the west, and San Andreas fault located approximately 40 miles to the west of the project site (Department of Conservation, 2010). Because of the proximity of the faults, the region is considered seismically active. Numerous, small, earthquakes occur every year in the region, and large earthquakes have been recorded and can be expected to occur in the future.
The primary seismic hazards in the project site are considered to be ground shaking and ground failure. Ground shaking occurs as energy. It is transmitted as elastic waves up through the bedrock to become a series of complex waves or oscillations in the ground surface. Such ground shaking is one of the main causes of earthquake damage. According to the Seismic Shaking Hazards in California map, the project site is located in an area with relative high potential for peak ground acceleration during a seismic event (CGS, 2015). Liquefaction and landslides can increase damage from ground shaking. Liquefaction changes water-saturated soil to a semi-liquid state, removing support from foundations and causing buildings to sink. Liquefaction is determined by a number of factors, including soil type, depth to water, soil density, and the duration and intensity of ground shaking (USGS, 2006).
SOIL AND SOIL HAZARDS Soil survey reports for the Proposed Project site and surrounding off-reservation areas are available online through the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), a sub-unit of the United States Department of Agriculture. Each NRCS survey maps soil units and provides a summary of major physical characteristics with recommendations based on the soil characteristics. Soils mapped on the Proposed Project site and surrounding off-reservation lands consist entirely of well-drained Balcom clay loam and Zamora silty clay loam (NRCS, 2016). A soil map is provided in Figure 7, and soil descriptions are discussed below.
As shown in Figure 7, the northeastern portion of the project site consist of ZaA: Zamora silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This type of soil occurs at elevations of 100 to 500 feet is formed from a parent material of Alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. It has a depth to water table of greater than 80 inches and is not subject to flooding or ponding (NRCS, 2016).
The western portion of the Proposed Project site and the areas north of the site consist of BaA: Balcom clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 14. This type of soil occurs at elevations of 0 to 1,110 feet and, like ZaA, is formed from a parent material of residuum weathered from calcareous sandstone. It also has a depth to water table of greater than 80 inches and is not subject to flooding or ponding (NRCS, 2016).
Analytical Environmental Services 3-29 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SALVIO ST
EAST ST
Project Boundary
LEGEND Feet H Project Boundary T R O
¢N SOIL TYPES ADJACENT TO PROJECT !Ð 0 40 80 BaA - Botella clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 14
ZaA - Zamora silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
City of Concord - Concord Village Residential Project Initial Study / 215526 SOURCE: DigitalGlobe aerial phohtograph, 10/30/2015; ESRI Data, 2016; AES, 12/21/2016 Figure 7 Soil Types Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
3.6.2 REGULATORY SETTING ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONING ACT The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972; it prohibits the placement of structures intended for human occupancy from being built across active fault traces in California. The Act requires delineation of zones (Alquist-Priolo zones) along active faults in order to address seismic concerns as they relate to public safety and project design. The Act only addresses the hazards of surface fault rupture and is not intended to regulate activities relating to other earthquake hazards such as liquefaction, landslides, or tsunamis. Cities and counties are required to regulate development projects within Alquist-Priolo zones.
SEISMIC HAZARDS MAPPING ACT This Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires cities, counties, and local permitting agencies to regulate urbanization development and redevelopment projects within seismic hazard zones that have been delineated by the State Geologist. Before a development permit can be granted to a proposed project located near a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical investigation of the site must be conducted and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project design.
3.6.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTION A The Proposed Project would not be developed on a fault line as delineated in the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area and therefore no adverse impacts from fault rupture would result from project development (Department of Conservation, 2010). However, due to the close proximity to a fault line, there would be a potential for strong seismic ground shaking or seismic-related ground failure. The residences are required to be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code, including Section 1803 Geotechnical Investigations and Section 1804 Excavation, Grading, and Fill, and associated seismic provisions for this region of California. Due to the relatively flat topography and soil structure, there would not be a risk for landslides based on the activities of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death. Less Than Significant. QUESTION B Underlying soils at the project site would be temporarily exposed during grading activities, which could lead to an increase in erosion. Exposed soils are more likely to erode during rainfall or high winds because stabilizing vegetation and infrastructure has been removed.
The State Water Resources Control Board requires the project applicant to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or exaction that disturb at least one acre of land area. The NPDES permit requires that the Proposed Proponent prepare and submit to the City of approval a Project Specific Storm Water
Analytical Environmental Services 3-31 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control soil erosion during construction because the site is larger than one acre. The SWPPP would identify a combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate sediment discharge to surface water during construction. With compliance to the requirements noted in the SWPPP, the potential for erosion impacts during construction would be less than significant.
Following construction, erosion on the project site would be minimized, as the site would be landscaped and covered with impervious surfaces. Additionally, the Proposed Project is required to comply with all City development standards and with the inclusion of the grading and drainage plan impacts would be less than significant in relation to soil erosion during operation. Less Than Significant. QUESTION C The Proposed Project is not located on a geological soil that is unstable or would become stable as a result of the Proposed Project activities. There is no evidence of on-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse on or near the project site. The site is relatively flat and not susceptible to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. No Impact. QUESTION D While the project site is located on expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, conventional grading operations, incorporating fill placement specifications tailored to the expansive characteristics of the soil, and use of a mat foundation (either post- tensioned or conventionally reinforced) are common, generally cost-effective measures to address the expansive potential of the foundation soils. Based upon the initial findings, the effects of expansive soils are expected to pose a low impact when properly addressed during construction. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts as a result of expansive soils during construction will be less than significant. Less Than Significant. QUESTION E Sewer lines are available to the project site and are currently connected. No septic tanks are proposed to be used and therefore the Proposed Project site would not have an impact on the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No Impact. MITIGATION MEASURES GEO-1 To mitigate impacts resulting from expansive soil, one or a combination of the following measures shall be required: a. Removal and replacement with non-expansive soils. b. Lime treatment of soils. c. Design of pavement sections to withstand potential swelling pressures. d. Contractors shall water the soils in order to minimize the potential for adverse impacts from soil expansion and contraction.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-32 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
3.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located within the city limits of Concord and is surrounded by downtown and pedestrian oriented mixed use. BART’s Concord Station is located approximately 0.25 miles south of the project site. The City adopted a Citywide Climate Action Plan (CAP) July 23, 2013 which utilizes BAAQMD as its regulatory authority (City of Concord, 2013).
3.7.2 REGULATORY SETTING In references to greenhouse gases (GHGs) on a global level, activities such as motor vehicle use, manufacturing, and power plant operations are generating carbon dioxide, methane, and other GHGs faster than the earth’s atmosphere can absorb them. These emissions are expected to lead to global temperature increases in the next century, potentially affecting Concord’s flora and fauna, water supply, and climate.
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, approved by the State legislature in 2006, required the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations and programs to reduce the state’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Subsequently, Senate Bill (SB) 375 was adopted to reduce statewide motor vehicle emissions, in part by improving coordination between land use, transportation and housing decisions. The City is taking action to address climate change through its land use and transportation policies. The City Citywide CAP outlines the strategies for achieving this objective. The most basic elements of this CAP are to concentrate new development around BART; build at densities that support transit use; develop a well-connected bicycle and pedestrian system; provide a balanced mix of employment, services, and housing to minimize trip lengths; and incorporate advanced energy conservation and efficiency measures in the design of new buildings and infrastructure.
The CAP meets the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 and thus is considered a qualified CAP eligible for CEQA streaming. Thus, if a project complies with the requirements set forth in the City’s CAP, the impacts to greenhouse gasses are less than
Analytical Environmental Services 3-33 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
significant.
3.7.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTIONS A AND B The Proposed Project is in compliance with the City’s CAP as it is enforced through the City’s General Plan and development code. The Proposed Project meets the development standards set forth in Article V of the municipal code and is consistent with the General Plans land use designation (City of Concord, 2016). Additionally, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. In accordance with the results of the screening criteria, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of GHGs. Less Than Significant.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-34 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.8 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 ¼ 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 §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or to 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 a 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?
Analytical Environmental Services 3-35 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
3.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING EXISTING CONDITIONS Bank Building The unoccupied bank building on the project site was built between 1974 and 1979 and therefore may contain asbestos and/or lead-based paint within the structure and building/finishing materials. State-level agencies, in conjunction with the USEPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), regulate removal, abatement, and transport procedures for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). ACMs are materials that contain asbestos, a naturally-occurring fibrous mineral that has been mined for its useful thermal properties and tensile strength. Releases of asbestos from industrial, demolition, or construction activities are prohibited by these regulations, therefore medical evaluation and monitoring is required for employees performing activities that could expose them to asbestos. Additionally, the regulations include mandatory warnings and practices that must be followed to reduce the risk for asbestos emissions and exposure. Federal, state, and local agencies must be notified prior to the onset of demolition or construction activities with the potential to release asbestos.
Prior to 1978, lead-based paint (LBP), which can result in lead poisoning when consumed or inhaled, was widely used to coat and decorate buildings. Lead poisoning can cause anemia and damage to the brain and nervous system. Like ACMs, LBP generally does not pose a health risk to occupants when left undisturbed; however, deterioration, damage, or disturbance will result in hazardous exposure. In 1978, the use of LBP was banned. Therefore, only buildings built before 1978, including those at the project site, are presumed to contain LBP.
Previous Environmental Site Assessments Over the last ten years, several soil, groundwater, and soil vapor investigations have been conducted at the site by EAI, Treadwell & Rollo (T&R), and CPI Geologic (CPI) in response to historical uses on the site.
In July 2005, EAI conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) that identified three potential environmental concerns for the site: (1) A dry cleaning facility on the north side of the project site at 2482-2488 Salvio Street, in operation since the 1960s; (2) An auto repair shop on the west side of the project site at 1940 East Street, in operation since the 1940s; and (3) A gas station on the west side of the project site at the corner of East Street and Salvio Street, in business during 1926.
In 2005 and 2006, EAI conducted Phase II ESA activities that included the drilling and sampling of seven borings and the installation and sampling of four groundwater monitoring wells on the project site Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in shallow soil at the site primarily in the western and southern parts of the Site. Total petroleum hydrocarbons quantified as diesel (TPH-d) and motor oil (TPH-mo) at concentrations greater than their respective soil ESLs for residential use in two locations in the vicinity of the automobile repair shop. TPH-d in these samples was also greater than the commercial/industrial for shallow soil. Both of these
Analytical Environmental Services 3-36 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
locations are within the areas of the planned parking garage and entrance ramp and will be excavated and removed during Site redevelopment. No other petroleum hydrocarbons were found in soil at concentrations greater than residential or commercial/industrial ESLs. Samples of TPH-d were also greater than the commercial/industrial ESL for shallow soil. No other petroleum hydrocarbons were found in soil at concentrations greater than residential or commercial/industrial ESLs.
In 2007 and 2008, T&W conducted a Phase I ESA that identified a former gas station on the south side of the site, at the corner of East Street and Willow Pass Road. Soil vapor sampling identified the VOCs tetrachloroethene/ perchloroethylene (PCE), benzene, and toluene on the project site from samples collected at 15.5 to 16.5 feet below ground surface. Five samples from the central and northern portions of the project site identified PCEs with concentrations greater than the PCE residential and commercial/industrial Environmental Screening Levels (ESL). Additionally, three samples, from one sample point, were found to have concentrations less than either ESL. The highest PCE concentration, 25,000 micrograms per cubic meters (µg/m3), was found near the center of the project site which has no identified contaminant source. The lowest detected PCE concentration, of 240 µg/m3, was found adjacent to the dry cleaner facility at 2482 Salvio Street. Benzene was found in three locations on the project site at concentrations greater than the benzene residential ESL, but less than the benzene commercial/industrial ESL. Two of these samples were found adjacent to the dry cleaner and one in the area of the former automobile repair shop (1940 East Street). Toluene was detected in soil vapor at five locations in the central part of the project site. Due to the presence of PCE in groundwater from previous EAI borings, the T&R Phase I ESA indicated the possibility of PCE-impacted groundwater migrating onto the site from unidentified upgradient (east to southeast) sources.
Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
In response to various studies conducted on the project site, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was developed by Gribi Associates (Appendix A). The RAP identifies the sources of contamination, provides a preliminary risk evaluation of all potential exposure pathways for the Proposed Project, and provides recommendations to safely develop the project.
For PCE, the RAP concluded that distribution of the soil vapor chemicals indicates contamination is present within either soil or groundwater in the southeast-central portion of the project site or off-site groundwater to the east, and a benzene contaminant source of soil near the former dry cleaner and former automobile repair shop.
These low-permeability soils have resulted in relatively small and localized soil and groundwater hydrocarbon plumes on the site. Previous investigations identified three small soil hydrocarbon plumes, with associated small groundwater hydrocarbon plumes, on the west-southwest side of the property. These hydrocarbon impacts appear to be old and degraded, as demonstrated by the lack of significant volatile hydrocarbon constituents associated with these plumes. The groundwater PCE plume, and associated soil gas PCE plume, is more wide-spread than the hydrocarbon plumes, extending from the east edge of the property to the west edge of the
Analytical Environmental Services 3-37 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
property and beyond. Groundwater is present below 20 feet in depth, and PCE plume migration appears to be associated with normal groundwater flow, and not associated with any preferential migratory pathways.
Soil gas hydrocarbon impacts are generally low, sporadic and diffuse. The soil gas PCE plume is similar to the groundwater PCE plume, with higher PCE soil as concentrations at 15-16 feet are lower than PCE soil gas concentrations at 5 feet in depth. The soil gas PCE plume at depths of 5 feet are laterally dispersed towards the north and south relative to the groundwater PCE plume. As stated in the RAP, the possible exposure pathways exist relative to the air exposure (volatilization to ambient and enclosed air from soil and groundwater) and soil exposure (direct exposure to soil) pathways. Potential impacts associated with ambient air exposure, from soil or groundwater exposure, is expected to be low at the project site. Potential impacts associated with enclosed air exposure, from groundwater volatilization, are expected to be moderate, given the elevated concentrations of PCE soil gas beneath the project site. During construction, there is potential for direct exposure to hydrocarbon-impacted soils; however, the areas identified as containing soil hydrocarbon impacts are relatively small in size and involve diesel and motor oil- range hydrocarbons.
In order to decrease potential direct exposure concerns related to construction, implementation of site management measures were recommended in order to control potential effects during grading and foundation construction. To mitigate potential long-term indoor PCE risks, installation of engineering controls were recommended to be installed during project development. These measures have been included as the project description in Section 2.2.
The RAP was preliminarily approved (awaiting public comment) by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board finding that the RAP provides “an acceptable approach to address residual pollution at the Site in preparation for the planned redevelopment as a residential apartment building”.
AIRPORT HAZARD ZONES Airports and air strips are considered to contain harmful material and are considered a potential hazardous zone. The Proposed Project is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the Buchanan Field Airport, however, not within the airport influence area, per the Development Code. The airport influence area is defined as area extending 14,000 feet from the ends of the specified runways. The two Buchanan Field Airport runways run northeast to southwest and north-northwest to south-southeast, bypassing the project location which is located southeast of the runways.
WILDLANDS The project site is within an urban neighborhood surrounded by commercial and residential land use, which is typically not extremely susceptible to wildland fire. The project site is not located in a non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2009).
Analytical Environmental Services 3-38 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
3.8.2 REGULATORY SETTING A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, State, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. A hazardous material is defined in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as: “A substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed” (CCR, Title 22, Section 66260.10).
CORTESE LIST California Government Code Section 65962.5(a) states that the DTSC shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, a list detailing the following (commonly known as the Cortese List):
1. All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code. 2. All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to Article 11 (commencing with Section 25220) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. 3. All information received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25242 of the Health and Safety Code on hazardous waste disposals on public land. 4. All sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code.
ASBESTOS CONTAINING BUILDING MATERIALS Under District Regulation 11, Rule 2, the BAAQMD regulates the demolition of buildings and structures which may contain asbestos. Because asbestos has been used extensively in residential, commercial, and industrial construction, BAAQMD Regulation 11-2-401.3 requires that for every demolition (even if there is no asbestos present), a notification must be made to the BAAQMD at least 10 working days (except in special circumstances) prior to commencement of demolition.
DATABASE SEARCHES EnviroStor is a DTSC data management system for tracking hazardous material incidents in California. The database includes information on contaminated sites and lists facilities that process or transfer toxic waste, including sites found on the Cortese List. The database includes federally designated sites, state response sites, military sites, school sites and voluntary cleanup sites. Each entry in the database contains a report that includes information on the current address, site status, past contaminating uses, history of the site, current and
Analytical Environmental Services 3-39 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
historical toxic substances present, land use restrictions, potential environmental impacts of present toxic substances, and completed or planned projects. Sites that were once listed as contaminated, but have been cleaned up or been completed, are also specially listed.
A search of the Proposed Project area indicated that two sites are listed on the EnviroStor database within 1,000 feet of the project site, one of which is located on the project site and pertains to petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents (further described below) (DTSC, 2016). The second site is a certified case located approximately 800 feet northeast of the project site.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) provides an online database system (GeoTracker) that provides information on hazardous materials incidents in California. The GeoTracker data management system indicates multiple sites within 1,000 feet of the project site. All sites indicated by GeoTracker were also listed on EnviroStor and are discussed above.
3.8.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTION A AND B The Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials as all federal, state, and local regulations and mandatory steps will be taken to ensure any hazardous materials are properly transported, used, and disposed of. During grading and construction activities, it is anticipated that limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, paints, etc. would be brought onto the site. Temporary storage units (bulk above-ground storage tanks, 55-gallon drums, sheds/trailers, etc.) would be used by contractors for fueling and maintenance purposes. As with any liquid and solid, the handling and transfer between one container to another has the potential for an accidental release. Construction contractors will be required to comply with applicable federal and State environmental and workplace safety laws. Adherence to these regulatory requirements would ensure that this impact is less than significant.
The demolition of the existing building on the project site requires compliance with BAAQMD guidelines to ensure minimal releases of ACMs and LBP. As stated in Section 2.2, the Applicant would ensure the Proposed Project would be constructed in compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 and LBP removal protocols, therefore resulting in a less than significant impact in relation to asbestos and lead. Less Than Significant. QUESTION C The Proposed Project location is located within 0.25 miles of four schools. The closest school is the Beginnings and Beyond Montessori Christian School approximately 0.09 miles west of the project site. The Olympic Continuation High School and Crossroads High School located approximately 0.10 miles from the project site, and A White Dove Preschool located approximately 0.19 miles from the project site. The project involves the construction of a residential apartment building and would not be a substantial emitter of hazardous materials or hazardous waste. In addition, through compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2
Analytical Environmental Services 3-40 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 and LBP removal protocols, demolition activities associated with the Proposed Project would result in a minimal potential for asbestos and lead emissions. Less Than Significant. QUESTION D There are currently four listings, described below, of hazardous materials incidents pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 (Cortese List) within 500 feet of the project site (Geotracker, 2016).
1. Salvio Street Empty Lot (project site): The soil and groundwater have been impacted from past uses which include an automotive shop and a dry cleaning facility. Contaminants include diesel, motor oil, and dry cleaning solvents. The cleanup status is open as of June, 2013. However, a RAP addressing onsite residual pollution was submitted on July 15, 2016.
2. Former Pacific National Bank (2401 Willow Pass Road): The operation of a gasoline filling and service station, in use from 1926 through sometime between 1974 and 1976, resulted in the site’s contamination. The former bank building was built at the site in 1978 or 1979 and it is assumed that all underground storage tanks have been removed. This was a Category 1 Cleanup site with soil and groundwater contaminated with diesel and gasoline. No active remediation was completed on the site as concentrations found onsite did not exceed environmental screening levels and were deemed not to be a threat to human health or the environment. The Regional Water Board issued a case closure in December, 2012.
3. UNOCAL (2383 Salvio St): Underground storage tanks were previously located on the site. Gasoline was potentially contaminating groundwater but was deemed not a threat to human health or the environment. The case was closed in February, 1999.
4. Chevron #9-5657 (2380 Willow Pass Road): The site formerly contained a gas station with 5 pumps that potentially contaminated the groundwater with gasoline. The site has since been monitored for sixteen years and no further action is required. The case was closed in October, 2012.
As discussed in Section 2.2, soil vapor mitigation measures, as recommended in the RAP, will be implemented to control potential risks during initial grading and foundation construction. To prevent potential long-term indoor PCE risks, additional engineering controls will be installed during site development. With implementation of these preventative measures, potential impacts to the residents resulting from on-site hazardous materials would be less than significant. Less Than Significant.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-41 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
QUESTIONS E AND F The Proposed Project is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast the Buchanan Field Airport, however, not within the airport influence area, per the Development Code (City of Concord, 2015b). The airport influence area is defined as area extending 14,000 feet from the ends of the specified runways. The two Buchanan Field Airport runways run northeast to southwest and north-northwest to south-southeast, bypassing the project location which is located southeast of the runways. Therefore, airplanes will not fly directly over the project site, and there would be no safety hazards associated with airports. Additionally, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, No Impact. QUESTION G The Proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Proposed Project would be developed on existing open space and developed areas and would not result in the blockage of access routes or evacuation routes adopted within an emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be subject to review by the CCPD as well as the CCCFPD for compliance with adopted emergency response plans. No Impact. QUESTION H The project site is surrounded by urban development on all sides. The project area is within a low and moderate fire hazard area as listed by the city wildfire hazards map mapping (City of Concord, 2006). According to the California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, the project site is not located in a non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2009). Therefore, the Proposed Project will not be exposed to risks from wildland fires. No Impact.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-42 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
Analytical Environmental Services 3-43 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
3.9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Concord sits south of Suisun Bay. Surface water bodies within Concord include Mallard Reservoir, Walnut Creek, Pacheco Creek, Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Pine Creek, Galindo Creek, Grayson Creek, Clayton Canal, Contra Costa Canal, and slough and wetlands located along the bay. The City is primarily in the Mt. Diablo Creek and Walnut Creek watersheds and is underlain by two groundwater basins, Clayton Valley and Ygnacio Valley.
The project site is located within an urban setting with storm water draining to the City municipal system (discussed below under Flooding). Due to the downtown location, the project site has no direct access to surface waters and does not currently discharge directly to a surface water feature. The City is incorporated into the Contra Costa Clean Water Project and associated NPDES Permit for municipal storm water systems (Municipal Regional Permit). Provision C.3 in the Municipal Regional Permit requires site designs for new developments and redevelopments to minimize the area of new roofs and paving. Where feasible, pervious surfaces should be used instead of paving so that runoff can infiltrate to the underlying soil. Remaining runoff from impervious areas must be captured and used or treated using a bioretention system. In some developments, the rates and durations of site runoff must also be controlled. The C.3 requirements are separate from, and in addition to, requirements for erosion and sediment control and for pollution prevention measures during construction. Adherence to the C.3 requirements minimizes water quality impacts from new development in order to maintain regional compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit.
FLOODING The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for predicting the potential for flooding in most areas. FEMA routinely performs this function through the update and issuance of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which depict various levels of predicted inundation. As shown on FIRM parcel no. 06013C0282F, dated June 16, 2009, the Project Site is not located within any FEMA flood zones (FEMA, 2009). There are no offsite areas draining onto the project site. The site drains by a stormwater drainage system that includes flow- through drainage boxes that improve stormwater quality prior to discharge into the existing City storm drains. In addition, public areas, such as the plaza located at the intersection of East
Analytical Environmental Services 3-44 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Street and Willow Pass Road, would incorporate permeable pavers to reduce off-site stormwater flows.
3.9.2 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTION A
STORMWATER Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project applicant is required to obtain a NPDES permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or exaction that disturb at least one acre of land area. The NPDES permit requires that the Proposed Proponent prepare and submit to the City of approval a Project Specific SWPPP to control stormwater runoff during construction because the site is larger than one acre. The SWPPP would specify the BMP’s that the Proposed Project would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized and treated prior to being discharged from the subject property.
As discussed in Section 2.2.2, the Proposed Project has been designed to conform to the storm water quality requirements of the City of Concord Design Review Application Checklist and the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program’s Stormwater C.3 Guidebook (C.3 Guidebook). The Proposed Project would maintain bioretention areas in order to improve stormwater quality prior to discharging into existing city storm drains. With the project site design in compliance with the C.3 Guidebook, the Proposed Project will comply with the Municipal Regional Permit and associated waste discharge requirements. Therefore, subsequent treatment of the waste generated by the new development would not result in violation of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) waste discharge requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit and water quality would not be significantly impacted. Less Than Significant. WASTEWATER Wastewater would be conveyed to the CCCSD Wastewater Treatment Plant in Martinez (WWTP) for treatment and disposal. The WWTP operates under an NPDES permit and associated waste discharge requirements issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under order number R2-2012-0016 (Order) that prevent impacts to receiving water quality. The Order establishes numerical limitations for biological activity (carbonaceous biological oxygen demand), total suspended solids, oil and grease, pH, bacteria, copper, cyanide, dioxin-TEQ, acrylonitrile, Bis(2-ehtylhecy) phthalate, and ammonia. The CCCSD treatment system was designed to handle residential waste and must satisfy the numerical requirements or the RWQCB has the authority to levy penalties, impose cease and desist orders, and issue moratoriums for new sewer service connections if waste discharge requirements are violated (RWQCB, 2012). The proposed residences would generate waste that is within the design parameters of the wastewater treatment facility and therefore would not introduce a new source of pollutants that could result in exceeding the numerical limitations. The addition of residential wastewater would not cause CCCSD to exceed wastewater treatment requirements as established by the Order to protect water quality (infrastructure
Analytical Environmental Services 3-45 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
capacity is assessed in Section 3.17); thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. Less Than Significant. QUESTION B Groundwater at the site was found flowing northwest to west-northwest at depths of 19 to 22 feet below the ground surface (Treadwell & Rollo, 2009). Potable water would be supplied by the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) and no groundwater wells would be developed on site. The primary source of water residents of the CCWD is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, therefore minimal groundwater will be drawn as a result of the Proposed Project. Less Than Significant.
QUESTION C AND D Stormwater generated under the Proposed Project would drain by overland flow to the existing City roadway curb drainage municipal system, consistent with existing conditions. Drain inlets and manholes are located on East Street near the intersection of Salvio Street with Port Chicago Highway, and on Willow Pass Road approximately 107 feet east of the intersection with East Street. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not significantly alter these drainage patterns existing on the project site or surrounding area.
There are no streams or natural surface drainages on or near the project site. The Proposed Project would not alter the course of any stream, river, nor substantially increase the amount of runoff which would result in flooding and erosion. No Impact.
QUESTION E The project site would contain bioretention areas, including flow through planters and permeable pavers that will convey runoff and reduce runoff pollutants, preventing additional runoff from new impervious surface. Additionally, as noted in the previous response, the developed site runoff would be discharged into existing drain inlets and manholes located on adjacent streets. Due to the downtown/urban natures of the surrounding area, the drainage structure was designed to convey runoff from developed sites, which includes the project site. The added runoff from the developed site would not exceed the capacity of regional drainage and the Proposed Projects impact would be less than significant. The bioretention area would also reduce the Proposed Project’s peak stormwater flow rate to a level below the existing peak stormwater runoff rate at the project site. According, the Proposed Project would not create runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Refer to Question A regarding the storm water quality of runoff generated by the Proposed Project. Less Than Significant.
QUESTION F Stormwater runoff from the project site is either absorbed onsite or flows to the City’s stormwater drainage system. The site currently consists of 1.42 acres of impervious surface. Under the Proposed Project, impervious surface would increase to 2.08 acres, which is approximately 90 percent of the project site.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-46 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
During construction, construction equipment and materials have the potential to leak, thereby discharging pollutants into stormwater. Construction site pollutants include particulate matter, sediment, oils and greases, concrete, and adhesives. Discharge of these pollutants could result in contamination of area drainages, causing an exceedance of water quality objectives. Demolition activities associated with the Proposed Project have the potential to result in soil erosion, siltation, and contamination of stormwater.
The City operates under a Phase I NPDES permit for stormwater municipal discharges to surface waters (NPDES No. CAS612008) (CRWQCB, 2009). The permit requires that new development projects must implement construction site inspections and control programs to prevent site pollutant discharge into storm drains. Pursuant to the NPDES, all projects must provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must incorporate BMPs and monitoring programs. Compliance with City requirements to protect storm water inlets would require the developer to implement BMPs such as the use of straw bales, sandbags, gravel traps, and filters; erosion control measures such as vegetation and physical stabilization; and sediment control measure such as fences, dams, barriers, berms, traps, and basins. City staff also inspect and enforce the erosion, sediment and pollution control requirements in accordance with City codes (Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance).
With compliance of City regulations and permit requirements along with implementation of BMPs outlined in the SWPPP, construction activities would result in a less-than-significant impact related to water quality degradation.
Although the Proposed Project would increase impervious surface by 20 percent, operation of the Proposed Project would not cause a degradation of water quality due to the incorporated design features that specifically address storm water quality. Design features include a system of subdrains, with self-treating low-impact development (LID) areas installed along the frontage. Less Than Significant.
QUESTION G AND H As shown on FIRM parcel no. 06013C0282F, dated June 16, 2009, the Project Site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area (FEMA, 2009). Therefore, the project would not place housing in a flood hazard area or impede or redirect flood flows within a flood hazard area. No Impact. QUESTION I The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including the failure of a dam or levee as there are no dams or levees upstream or on the project site. No Impact. QUESTION J The Pacific Ocean is located approximately 65 miles west of the project site; therefore, there are no tsunami inundation areas in the Walnut Creek Quadrangle where the project site is located.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-47 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
The closest tsunami inundation is in the Benicia Quadrangle, located northwest of the project site (DOC, 2016). The project site is not located adjacent to a lake nor the portion of the Bay susceptible to seiche. The closest body of water is Mallard Reservoir, approximately 2.4 miles north of the project site. The project site is located in an area with generally flat topography. Because there are no drastic changes in elevation, there are no risks of mudflows onto the project site or as result from development of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would not cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No Impact.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-48 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is with the Downtown Mixed Use (DTMU) designation, intended for high density and intensity mix of residential, commercial, and office development in Central Concord. The project site is not within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other conservation plan.
3.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING The Development code defines Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) zone is intended for high density and a mix of residential, commercial, and office development (City of Concord, 2015b). It is zoned to allow for a mix of uses that balance jobs and housing opportunities and includes offices, commercial development, hotels, public, and residential uses. The zoning designation allows for residential densities that range from 33 units per acre to a maximum of 100 units per acre. In addition, the zoning designation has floor area ratio (FAR) limitations ranging from 1.0 to 6.0.
3.10.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTION A The project site currently consists of commercial land use, although a majority of the project site is undeveloped. Implementation of the Proposed Project would be a continuation of the surrounding development. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not impact the transportation network nor establish a barrier for residents to move amongst the community. The project site provides housing to bring more residents closer to central downtown and regional transportation (BART), further increasing connectivity. Additionally, all adjacent sidewalks, with some exceptions along Port Chicago Highway, would be widened to a minimum
Analytical Environmental Services 3-49 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
of eight feet allowing for easier pedestrian access. Consequently, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact in dividing the established community. Less Than Significant. QUESTION B The project provides residential and commercial uses and is thus consistent with the intent of the Downtown Mixed Use designation to establish housing opportunities in the Downtown. The project is in substantial compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, including “supporting higher density and mixed use development in Downtown and near transit centers and corridors” as outlined in General Plan Principle LU-1.3.3. The Proposed Project fulfills Policy LU-1.3.1 which encourages a variety of housing types on infill development sites. The Proposed Project supports a higher density of development (LU-1.3.3) and includes a mixture of townhomes, studio apartments, as well as one and two bedroom apartments providing the diversity for infill projects under LU-1.3.1. Additionally, the Proposed Project is consistent with Policy LU-4.2.3 that encourage pedestrian-oriented urban design by incorporating building elements including an urban public plaza, tree lined sidewalks, and secure bike parking on the ground floor. The Proposed Project is consistent with policies that encourage a variety of living opportunities through a range of housing types and prices. The Proposed Project includes six unit types at different rental rates and proposes high density development within a 5-minute walk of transit and BART that is consistent with the strategy to increase the amount of residential units in Downtown. For these reasons and others, the Proposed Project is consistent with the Specific Plan.
The proposed density of the project is 110 units per net acre. The higher density is the result of excluding square footage for public and private easements and the relationship of the number of units divided by the net lot area, as opposed to an increase in the total number of units.
This project is located within one-half mile of the perimeter of a BART station and is within a Transit Station Overlay District. Pursuant to Development Code Section 18.105.040, the maximum density may be increased up to 25 percent for residential projects within the Transit Station Overlay District (City of Concord, 2015b). The increase in density shall only be granted as a Minor Use Permit if the project includes at least three of the elements listed in the Transit Station Overlay District. To comply with the development code, the Proposed Project has incorporated three elements into the project design. Refer to Section 2.3.3 for density bonus analysis. With the approval of a minor use permit, the Proposed Project qualifies for a density bonus of 110 units per net acre. As conditioned, the proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the development code and the City Municipal Code. The proposed use is classified as Multi-family, which is a conditionally permitted use in the DMX Zoning District. The project meets the standards for lot area, floor area ratio, setbacks, and building height of DMX zoning, satisfies applicable requirements under Development Code, Division IV, General Development Standards, and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and Concord Municipal Code. Accordingly, implementation of the
Analytical Environmental Services 3-50 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to the applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. Less Than Significant. QUESTION C The Proposed Project is not in conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan as the project site is outside of the Eastern Contra Costa County habitat Conservation Plan. No Impact.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-51 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future 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?
3.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is not currently being mined nor does it have a known valuable mineral resource (California Department of Natural Resources, 2015). The project site is not a main access point for any other mined resources in the area. Mineral and aggregate resources exist in areas on the southern limits of the City. Access to these resources is restricted by existing developed areas in residential neighborhoods and commercial developments along with existing roadways.
3.11.2 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTIONS A AND B Based on the lack of valuable mineral resources on the project site, the Proposed Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and residents of the state, nor would it result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No Impact.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-52 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.12 NOISE
Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing in or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing in or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
3.12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The major existing noise source in Concord is vehicle traffic, including the BART system which is located directly east of the project site. The BART tracks are elevated, reducing the noise amplified towards the project site, however the BART train does cause light vibrations and a low-toned noise that can be heard from the project site. BART runs every fifteen minutes on average for 20 hours (4:00 a.m. to midnight) each weekday, 18 hours (6:00 a.m. to midnight) on Saturdays, and 14 hours (8:00 a.m. to midnight) on Sundays. To the north, south, and west of the project site, the main noise sources are from commercial and downtown daily noise.
In order to characterize existing ambient noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site, a four hour noise measurement was conducted at the site on December 15, 2016 from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm (Appendix E). The location of the noise monitoring site is shown on Figure 8. Quest Sound Pro SE/DL sound level meters were used for the four hour ambient noise level measurement. An acoustical calibrator was used to calibrate the sound level meter before and
Analytical Environmental Services 3-53 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SALVIO ST
Site !(
EAST ST
Project Boundary
LEGEND
Project Boundary
!( Noise Monitoring Site
Feet H T R O
¢N !Ð 0 40 80
City of Concord - Concord Village Residential Project Initial Study / 215526 SOURCE: DigitalGlobe aerial phohtograph, 10/30/2015; ESRI Data, 2016; AES, 12/21/2016 Figure 8 Noise Monitoring Site Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
after use. All instrumentation satisfies the Type II (precision) requirements. The noise monitoring result showed that the ambient noise level in the vicinity of the project site was 66 dBA, Leq. The primary source of noise in the vicinity of the project site is traffic on adjacent streets. The BART train tracks are located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site and did add to the ambient noise level (the BART trains pass the project site at approximate 15 minute intervals); however, as shown in Appendix E - Noise Monitoring: Logged Data Chart, BART increases the ambient noise level by approximately 4 dBA, Leq.
SENSITIVE NOISE RECEPTORS Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, and parks and other outdoor recreation areas generally are more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. A sensitive receptor is defined as any living entity or aggregate of entities whose comfort, health, or wellbeing could be impaired or endangered by the existence of noise.
There are several sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. The closest sensitive receptors are five residences located approximately100 feet east of the project boundary. The Beginnings and Beyond Montessori Christian School is located approximately 475 feet west of the project site and the Olympic Continuation High School and Crossroads High School are located approximately 528 feet from the project site. Additionally, A White Dove Preschool is located approximately 100 feet north of the project site and Todos Santos Plaza is located approximately 790 feet southwest of the project site.
3.12.2 REGULATORY SETTING CITY OF CONCORD NOISE RESTRICTIONS City Municipal Code section 8.25020(1)(y) restricts the hours that construction work can take place to reduce noise impacts on the public near construction projects. Allowed construction times are Monday-Friday 7:30 am until 6:00 pm and 8:00 am until 5:00 pm on the weekends. Construction activities will not take place outside of the allowed hours unless otherwise indicated on the use permit or building permit or imposed under an environmental mitigation and monitoring program.
In connection with existing environmental conditions at the project site, CEQA does not require evaluation or mitigation of impacts of the environment of a proposed project, unless the proposed project risks exacerbating the existing condition. Accordingly, this review considered whether the Proposed Project exacerbates the existing environmental effects of BART noise at the project site (CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369).
3.12.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTION A Based on Table 3-4, the construction noise at the project site would be 89 dBA, Leq. This is a
Analytical Environmental Services 3-55 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
conservative maximum noise level based on the assumption that louder equipment, such as jackhammers, may be used daily. An attenuation factor of 8.0 dBA per doubling of distance is appropriate given the large amount of obstructing buildings in the vicinity of the project site. Sound levels at nearby sensitive receptors (approximately 100 feet east of the project site boundary) during construction would be 81 dBA, Leq, which is greater than the City of Concord threshold of 70 dBA, Leq for Mixed Use and High Density Residential areas (City of Concord, 2015a). However, according to the City of Concord Municipal Code Title 18, Section 150.130 (O)(6) construction is exempt from exceeding the 70 dBA, Leq threshold if the project construction activities occur between the hours of 7:30 am to 6:00 pm. Section 2.2.6 provides construction procedures that show compliance with the City of Concord Municipal Code Title 18, Section 150.130 (O)(6). Therefore, construction activities would not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, or exacerbation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
TABLE 3-4 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dB at 50 feet Backhoe 78 Compactor 83 Compressor (air) 78 Dozer 82 Dump Truck 76 Excavator 81 Generator 81 Jackhammer 89 Pneumatic Tools 85 SOURCE: FWHA, 2006
Post-construction operation would not expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan. On-site and off-site work associated with the Proposed Project would occur only between the allowed hours. As indicated from the on-site noise monitoring, a BART train passing by increases ambient noise levels at the project site by four decibels. Humans typically perceive noise increases of three decibels and above. Accordingly, the applicant has included sound dampening construction techniques to offset the increase each time BART trains pass by the project site. Accordingly, ambient noise levels would be consistent with the local surroundings of downtown area. Less Than Significant.
QUESTION B Current conditions include BART tracks directly east of the project site. BART tracks are a known source of ground-borne vibration and ground-borne vibration noise that can affect the Proposed Project. Ground-borne vibration and ground-borne vibration noise from trains traveling on tracks generally occurs when the tracks are in direct contact with the ground. The
Analytical Environmental Services 3-56 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
BART tracks located adjacent to the project site are raised, and therefore, do not create significant ground-borne vibration or ground-borne vibration noise. Excessive vibration has the potential to be generated during construction that requires the use of equipment with high vibration levels (i.e., compactors, large dozers, pile drives, jack hammers, etc.) occurring within 25 to 100 feet of an existing structure. The nearest sensitive receptor is approximately 100 feet from where construction would occur (refer to Section 3.12.1). Impact pile driving, which typically produces the highest vibration levels, is not anticipated to occur. No pile drivers, blasting, or major earthmoving with large dozers would take place during construction. All equipment, as stated in Section 2.2.6, would be considered standard construction equipment and would not produce substantial vibration of the project areas. Given the infrequent use of heavy equipment and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, exposure to ground-borne vibration from construction activities would not be detected at the nearest sensitive receptor. The long-term operation of the Proposed Project includes no operations that would result in the exposure of residents to excessive groundbourne vibration. The Proposed Project includes a residential building and does not include equipment or facilities that would generate or exacerbate groundbourne vibration. Less Than Significant. QUESTION C The Proposed Project consists of a 230 unit building which is consistent with the surrounding residential and commercial land uses. The site is located on the corner of Willow Pass Road and Port Chicago, both major roadways in the City. Adjacent to the project site are commercial and office buildings and residences. As discussed in Question A, the primary noise source in the vicinity of the project site is traffic on local roadways. If a cause of noise doubles, in this case the volume of traffic on local roadways, than the resulting increase in the ambient noise level is 3 dBA, Leq (Caltrans, 2013). As shown in Section 3.16, with the implementation of the Proposed Project, traffic on local roads would increase by approximately 1,530 vehicles per day. When compared to the existing traffic on local roads, which is greater than 21,000 vehicles per day, the increase in local road traffic would increase the ambient noise level by approximately 0.3 dBA, Leq. The existing ambient noise level at the project site was measured to be 66 dBA, Leq, with a 0.3 dBA, Leq increase in the ambient noise level in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. This would be below the City threshold of 70 dBA, Leq. Additionally, it is assumed that BART would not increase its travel interval on the tracks adjacent to the project site. Although the ambient noise level will increase, the noise levels will not increase significantly above or exacerbate the existing ambient noise level. Less than Significant.
QUESTION D As discussed above in Question A, the only potential for the Proposed Project to create an excessive temporary increase in noise levels is during construction. Unmitigated noise levels could reach a maximum of up to 81 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source. The analysis presented in Question A concluded that although construction noise is exempt from the City’s Noise Ordinance, the procedures provided in Section 2.2.6 would exempt construction activities from exceeding the City’s noise threshold. Less Than Significant.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-57 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
QUESTION E The Proposed Project is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast the Buchanan Field Airport; however, the Proposed Project is not within the airport influence area, per Development Code 18.100.020. The airport influence area is defined as area extending 14,000 feet from the ends of the specified runways. The two Buchanan Field Airport runways are positioned northeast to southwest and north-northwest to south-southeast, bypassing the project location which is located southeast of the runways. Therefore, the flight path does not pass over the project site. , which limits exposure of sensitive noise receptors to aircraft noise levels. In addition, Buchanan Airport will comply with Airport Ordinances 87-8 and 88-82 along with the Buchanan Field Noise Program in order to prevent excessive noise levels (Buchanan, 2016). Less Than Significant.
QUESTION F The project site is not located within two miles of land that is used as a private airport, therefore, would not expose people residing in or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No Impact.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-58 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
3.13.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING In 2010, the City population was 122,067 residents with an estimate of 128,667 residents in 2015. Contra Costa County population was 1,049,025 residents in 2010 and is and estimated 1,226,745 residents in 2015 (U.S. Census, 2010). There were an estimated 47,125 households within the City in 2010, with an approximate 2.75 persons per household (U.S. Census, 2010). According to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, between 2014 and 2022 the City needs an additional 2,236 homes for moderate to above moderate income households (City of Concord, 2014).
3.13.2 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTIONS A The project is a 230 unit multi-family residential development located in an infill area that currently has all utilities and services available. Based on the 2010 US Census Bureau, 2.73 people live in the average Concord household. Therefore, the population increase would be 628 persons. DMX zoning districts allow a density of between 33 and 100 units per next acre. The proposed density of the project is 110 units per net acre. This project is located within one-half mile of the perimeter of a BART station and is within a Transit Station Overlay District. The increase in density shall only be granted as a Minor Use Permit if the project includes at least three of the elements listed in the Transit Station Overlay District. Refer to Section 3.10.3 for analysis of Proposed Project density and Minor Use Permit. Less Than Significant.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-59 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
QUESTIONS B THROUGH C The 230 unit residential project will be constructed on a primarily vacant site therefore it will not displace any existing housing or people. No Impact.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-60 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities?
3.14.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is served by the Concord Police Department. The nearest police department is located 0.8 miles driving distance south of the project site. The Concord Police Department has a ratio of 1.29 officers per 1,000 residents, a lower ratio than the California standard of 1.4-1.7 officers per 1,000 residents. The department’s response time is 5 to 6 minutes for Priority 1 calls (emergency and potentially life threatening calls) (City of Concord, 2006).
The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) provides protection, suppression, emergency medical, and rescue services for the City of Concord. The district also maintains mutual-aid agreements with the East Diablo Fire Protection District, the East Bay Regional Park District, the California Department of Forestry, and private industrial companies located within its jurisdiction. The nearest Fire Department Station, located 0.2 miles driving distance to the project site, is the Contra Costa Fire Protection District Station Six on Willow Pass Road. It is an active fire station with one engine and one truck working at any given time. The city has 542 square feet of fire facility per 1,000 Residents and a five minute response time to emergency incidents within 1.5 miles of a fire station, which includes the project site (City of Concord, 2006). Additionally, the project site is located within a low fire hazard zone (City of Concord, 2006).
The project site is located in the Mt. Diablo Unified School District, the 25th largest school district in the State has an approximate 31,995 students attending (Niche, 2016). This District is composed of 30 elementary schools, 9 middle schools, 5 high schools, and 18 alternative schools and programs (Mt. Diablo Unified, 2016). Schools in the near vicinity of the project site,
Analytical Environmental Services 3-61 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
including Olympic Continuation High School, Crossroads High School, Meadow Homes Elementary, and Cambridge Elementary have a total enrollment of 2,399 students for the 2015/2016 school year. The maximum amount of students within each of these schools in the past years has reached 2,716. Table 3-5 lists the closest schools to the project site.
TABLE 3-5 NEARBY SCHOOLS Location Relative to the Project Site Within Mt. Diablo Unified School (miles) School District? The Beginnings and Beyond Montessori Christian School 0.09 West No Olympic Continuation High School 0.10 East Yes Crossroads High School 0.10 East No Queen of All Sts. School 0.32 North West No Mt. Diablo High School 0.38 Northwest Yes Meadow Homes Elementary 1.0 Southwest Yes
There are six parks within a one mile radius of the project site including: Todos Santos Plaza, John F. Baldwin Park, Willow Pass Community Park, Krueger Fields, Galindo House and Gardens, and Ellis Lake Park. The closest park, Todos Santos Plaza, is located 0.15 miles east of the project site. Todos Santos Plaza is a historic district and the oldest, most historical area in the City.
3.14.2 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTIONS A THROUGH E The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the use of public services that would result in the need for new or physically altered government facilities. With the development of a 230 unit residential building, construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not cause significant impacts to service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives to fire protection police protection, parks, or other public facilities in the area.
FIRE PROTECTION The increase in City residents would impact the demand for fire protection services. However, to offset the increased demand for fire protection services, the Proposed Project would comply with City standards to provide minimum fire safety and support, including: compliance with State and local fire codes, fire sprinklers, fire hydrants with paved access, and secondary access routes. The Proposed Project would comply with the provisions of the General Plan Policy GM- 7.2.1, which ensures developments pay their share of costs associated with the provision of public facilities (City of Concord, 2015a). Less Than Significant.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-62 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
POLICE PROTECTION The proposed Project would not require the construction of a new police station or physically alter an existing station. The Proposed Project would comply with the provisions of the General Plan Policy GM-7.2.1, which ensures developments pay their share of costs associated with the provision of public facilities (City of Concord, 2015a). Less Than Significant.
SCHOOLS Based on the conservative assumption that each of the 230 units would house 2.73 people, there would be an estimated population increase of 628 people. According to the Census Bureau, approximately 23 percent of Concord residents are under 18 years of age (US Census, 2010). Therefore, a conservative assumption would be that implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the addition of 144 children to the nearby schools. The school system can accommodate approximately 5,500 additional students, therefore the potential increase in students resulting from the Proposed Project would not be significant (Mt. Diablo Unified, 2010). Less Than Significant.
PARKS The Proposed Project includes courtyards, public open space, and recreational areas including a bocce ball court, bar area, drought tolerant lawn, and roof terraces. The City requires new development to dedicate five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents or to pay an equivalent fee to the value of parkland (City of Concord, 2015a). The Proposed Project will comply with the General Plan and development impact fees will be imposed as a condition of approval for the project. Less Than Significant.
OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES Development of the Proposed Project would lead to an increase in the City’s population, consequently resulting in a demand for public services such as public health services and library services. However, the population increase would not require construction of new or expanded public facilities. The Proposed Project would comply with the provisions of the General Plan Policy GM-7.2.1, which ensures developments pay their share of costs associated with the provision of public facilities (City of Concord, 2015a). Less Than Significant.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-63 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.15 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 facility 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?
3.15.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING As previously discussed, Todos Santos Plaza is the closest park to the project site. There are five more additional parks, totaling approximately 78 acres, within a one mile radius of the project site. The parks contain lawns and trees suitable for children’s play, walking, jogging, and has several picnic areas located throughout. In 2006, there were 5.2 acres of parks per every 1,000 residents (City of Concord, 2015a). The current citywide goal for public parks is to have six acres per every 1,000 residents.
3.15.2 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTION A AND B The 230 unit residential building would provide housing for an estimated 628 people. The Proposed Project includes public open space including an urban plaza featuring shade umbrellas, tables, chairs, and art. As part of the environmental review, it was determined that the on-site public facilities will not have a physical adverse effect on the environment.
Although the Proposed Project would increase the use of existing parks, it will not increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities such that a substantial accelerated physical deterioration of the 78 acres of parks would occur. Additionally, the city requires new development to dedicate five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents or to pay an equivalent fee to the value of parkland (City of Concord, 2015a). The Proposed Project will comply with the General Plan and development impact fees will be imposed as a condition of approval for the project. Less Than Significant.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-64 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.16 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
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 regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance of such facilities?
3.16.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Roadways are currently the primary mode of transportation within the City. Major roadways within the city limits are Interstate 680, State Routes 4 and 242, Willow Pass Road, Clayton Road, Monument Boulevard, Ygnacio Valley Road, Concord Avenue, and Treat Boulevard. Bicycle lanes, pedestrian walkways, and public transit facilities are also present in the city. Public transit service in Concord is provided by County Connection bus and two BART stations within the City, which connect via the BART tracks located directly east of the project site. The
Analytical Environmental Services 3-65 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
nearest BART station is the Concord Station located approximately 0.25 miles south of the project site. The Buchanan Field Airport is located on Sally Rise Drive approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site. The Buchanan Field Airport has an average of 225 operations per day and is392 aircrafts are based there (SkyVector, 2016).
All vehicular access points to the project site are unsignalized, with the primary driveway off East Street restricted to right-in/right-out traffic and the secondary driveway on Port Chicago to left-in/left-out traffic. A paved service area is located along Port Chicago Highway that provides access for emergency vehicles, trash pick-up, electrical service, and resident loading and unloading. Both entries are designed for two-way circulation via a 24-foot driveway.
Regional access to the project site is provided via Willow Pass Road and Concord Avenue (which provides connection to Willow Pass Road west of the project site). Both provide access from State Route (SR) 242 and Interstate 680 to the project site.
3.16.2 REGULATORY SETTING The City follows guidelines under the 2011 Contra Costa Congestion Management Program (CMP), which requires every jurisdiction to conduct a traffic impact analysis for any proposed development project, development plan, or General Plan Amendment that would generate more than 100 vehicle trips in the peak hour (Page v, CCTA, 2013).
3.16.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTIONS A, B, AND F To determine if the Proposed Project would require a traffic impact analysis from a traffic engineer, the following screening level analysis was performed: Using a trip generation rate published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) journal for P.M. peak hour trips generated by mid-rise apartment infill (.28 trips per unit), the addition of 230 new residences would result in the addition of approximately 64.4 weekday P.M. peak hour vehicle trips to the existing roadways (Parker, 2009). Because the Proposed Project would generate less than 100 vehicle trips in the peak hour, conducting a traffic impact study is not necessary.
Willow Pass Road, adjacent to the project site, experiences approximately 21,456 daily trips (City of Concord, 2012). According to the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, a four lane roadway with left-turning lanes has a capacity of 32,000 and 36,000 vehicles per day at LOS D and E, respectively (HCM, 2010). The General Plan provides a benchmark of LOS E for the Central Business District, which includes Willow Pass Road adjacent to the project site. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual the trip generation for apartment buildings (220) is 6.65 trips per day; therefore, the new development would generate 1,530 trips per day. With the implementation of the proposed project (assuming all project traffic were to use Willow Pass Road) the volume of traffic on Willow Pass Road would be 22,986 trips per day. Therefore, with the addition of project traffic, Willow Pass Road would operate at a LOS D or better and above the City’s benchmark, LOS E. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the CMP, including level-of-service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
Analytical Environmental Services 3-66 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
established by the County due to the low number of vehicle trips generated by the Proposed Project. Additionally, the Proposed Project is within an area designated in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for mixed use development and would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. In the City’s 2012 Supplement to the 2006 General Plan EIR prepared for the City’s new Development Code, it was determined that full build out of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable traffic impacts to various roadway segment operations within the City, including the portion of Willow Pass Road west of Highway 242 until Diamond Boulevard. Accordingly, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared and approved by the City Council. However, under full build out, the portions east of Highway 242 would operate under acceptable conditions (at or above the City’s benchmark LOS E). For example, Willow Pass Road east of Galindo would carry approximately 28,000 vehicle trips per day at an LOS of D under full build out of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. The estimated 28,000 vehicles includes those generated by the Proposed Project since the project is consistent with the land use designated in the General Plan and Downton Specific Plan. For the portion of Willow Pass Road between Highway 242 and Diamond Boulevard, traffic would operate above capacity with an estimated 64,194 trips per day. Conservatively, assuming all 530 trips generated by the Proposed Project would traverse this stretch of Willow Pass Road, the Proposed Project would account for 0.8 percent of the trips. Furthermore, the impact was already assessed as significant in the 2012 Supplement and the 2014 Addendum to the 2012 Supplement that assessed the Downtown Specific Plan, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations approved by the City Council. Accordingly, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a new significant impacts not previously assessed in the City’s 2012 Supplement or the 2014 Addendum to the Supplement. The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan and the impacts and conclusions within the corresponding EIR. Furthermore, at a project-level, implementation of the Proposed Project would not significantly impact the traffic operations in the vicinity. Less Than Significant.
QUESTIONS C The Proposed Project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns at Buchanan Field Airport. The Proposed Project is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast the Buchanan Field Airport, outside of the airport influence area (Development Code 18.100.020). The airport influence area is defined as area extending 14,000 feet from the ends of the specified runways. The two Buchanan Field Airport runways run northeast to southwest and north-northwest to south- southeast, bypassing the project location which is located southeast of the runways. Therefore airplanes will not fly directly over the project site. Due to the distance from the airfield, the proposed five-story building would not impact flight patterns at Buchanan Field Airport. No Impact. QUESTIONS D AND E The Proposed Project will comply with all design standards discussed in Development Code 18.150.170 to ensure that there are no increases in hazards due to design features (City of
Analytical Environmental Services 3-67 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Concord, 2015b). The Proposed Project is not expected to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency access. The Proposed Project would be developed on existing developed lands and would not result in the blockage of access routes or evacuation routes adopted within an emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan. No Impact.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-68 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts? 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 impacts? 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 serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
3.17.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CCCSD permits, inspects and treats wastewater discharged by the business and residences of Concord. Wastewater within CCCSD is primarily conveyed to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Treatment Plant (CCCSDTP) through pipes by the force of gravity. Located in Martinez, the plant has a treatment capacity of 54 million gallons per day (mgd) and 240 mgd of wet weather flow. The facility is staffed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Wastewater moves through the District’s 1,500 miles of sewer lines, finally arriving at the plant’s headworks to begin treatment. Most of the wastewater is treated to a secondary level, disinfected by ultraviolet light, and then discharged into Suisun Bay. Approximately 600 million gallons per year are treated to
Analytical Environmental Services 3-69 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
a tertiary level through additional filtration and disinfection before being distributed as recycled water for landscape irrigation, industrial processes, and plant operations (CCCSD, 2009).
Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) acts as the city’s water supplier, providing water supplies to the City municipal system from the Sacramento/ San Joaquin Delta. CCWD serves treated and raw water to central and eastern parts of the county.
The Concord Disposal Service handles the residential and commercial waste stream in the City of Concord, collecting both solid waste and recycled materials. Concord Disposal Service transports waste to the Contra Costa Waste Service Recycling Center and Transfer Station. Recycled material are then transported to the Mount Diablo Recycling Center and solid waste goes to the local landfill, Keller Canyon Landfill. In 2014, the capacity was approximately 63,400,000 cubic yards (or 85 percent) and is expected to last until year 2030 (PlaceWorks, 2014). Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) is the gas and electric provider for the project site. PG&E serves most of Contra Costa County.
3.17.2 REGULATORY SETTING The City is responsible for most of the wastewater collection system, while treatment service is provided by the CCCSD. CCCSD has sufficient existing infrastructure capacity to provide wastewater treatment service to additional planned development that could be served by the City’s system. CCCSD’s effluent discharge limit would be sufficient to accommodate wastewater expected to be generated from currently planned growth within the central service area. However, redevelopment projects within the City could eventually require an amendment to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to reflect higher effluent volumes. New wastewater collection lines will be needed to serve the Concord Reuse Project, and improvements to transmission mains and pumping stations in North Concord may also be needed. A growing percentage of the wastewater received at the CCCSD treatment plant is treated to a level high enough to enable its reuse for irrigation and other non-potable purposes within the service area (Leavitt, Russell, 2015).
In 2009, about 200 million gallons a year were treated at the plant and recycled via a network of transmission facilities serving golf courses, parks, and other landscaped areas. CCCSD is exploring other ways to expand the use of reclaimed Concord 2030 water in order to be better prepared for drought and avoid future diversions of water from the Delta (General Plan, 2015).
3.17.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTION A, B, AND E Wastewater generated with buildout of the General Plan can be accommodated without the need for additional treatment facilities (City of Concord, 2006). The General Plan EIR found potential impacts related to water, wastewater, and stormwater drainage facilities to be less than significant with the implementation of applicable General Plan policies. Additionally, proposed amendments to the General Plan resulted in a net decrease of three percent compared to the original General Plan residential development assumptions (City of Concord, 2012). Since the Citywide demand projections are approximately 3 percent lower than the General Plan’s
Analytical Environmental Services 3-70 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
proposed buildout, the impacts to water and wastewater of the Proposed Project would be less than anticipated in the General Plan EIR.
The City will comply with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code Sections 10610-10656) which requires water suppliers to prepare urban water management plans and update them every 5 years. The project would comply with CCWD’s UWMP and Future Water Supply Study, California’s energy efficiency standards, and local, state and federal regulations. CCWD’s Future Water Supply Study Update (2002) and 2010 UWMP indicate that the City is on target with meeting the future demands of its service areas, while accounting for future growth throughout the area (City of Concord, 2002). Development consistent with the Specific Plan, including the Proposed Project, is not anticipated to require any significant upgrades to water supply infrastructure.
Overall with implementation of the General Plan, wastewater treatment requirements would not change or increase substantially. The Proposed Project would not result in the need for a new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The existing wastewater treatment facility has adequate capacity to serve the Proposed Project’s projected demand and existing obligations. Less Than Significant. QUESTION C The Proposed Project includes the development of a stormwater drainage system, including a system of subdrains, with self-treating LID areas installed along the frontage. The project site would contain bioretention areas, including flow through planters and permeable pavers that would convey runoff and reduce stormwater pollutants prior to discharging to the existing City storm drains. On-site drainage would be consistent with the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards for the San Francisco Bay Region and the Central Valley Region revised Provision "C.3" in the NPDES permit governing stormwater discharges in Contra Costs County (CCC) and the corresponding CCC Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, 6th Edition. Therefore, construction of a new stormwater drainage system would not cause any significant environmental impacts. Less Than Significant. QUESTION D Water is provided to the Proposed Project by the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) who obtains its water supply from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (CCWD, 2016). With new development in the City, water demand is expected to increase by 6,900 acre-feet per year (AFY) to 25,690 AFY by 2030 (City of Concord, 2006). The City is on target for meeting these future water demands, while accounting for future growth such as the Proposed Project. Accordingly no new facilities or new or expanded entitlements would be needed to meet the water demands of the Proposed Project. For additional information on water supply, see section 3.9. No Impact. QUESTION F AND G The Proposed Project will comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The project site is within the service area of the Concord Disposal Service and all solid waste is taken to the Keller Canyon Landfill. The landfill is expected to
Analytical Environmental Services 3-71 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
have available capacity through the year 2030. Utilizing the most conservative daily solid waste generation rate published by CalRecycle (CalRecycle, 2015), each unit is anticipated to generate approximately 4 pounds of solid waste per household per day; resulting in a total daily solid waste generation rate of approximately 920 pounds per day for the Proposed Project. With a remaining permitted capacity over 63,000,000 cubic yards, the generation of 920 pounds of solid waste per day (which is roughly equivalent to 9.2 cubic yard of paper and cardboard) from the Proposed Project would not result in the exceedance of the landfill’s permitted capacity (Calrecycle, 2010). Less Than Significant.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-72 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
3.18.1 IMPACT DISCUSSION QUESTION A As discussed in the preceding sections, the Proposed Project has a potential to create short term impacts which could degrade the quality of the environment by adversely impacting, biological resources, cultural resources, and geology and soils. Please note that although impacts regarding air quality are less than significant, the BAAQMD recommends provisions to reduce emissions from PM10. These provisions have been included as mitigation measures. For the other resources, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The long term effect of the Proposed Project is the overall safety improvement of the site as well as meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocations. Less Than Significant With Mitigation. MITIGATION MEASURES AQ-1 The following BMPs will be implemented during construction.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-73 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. 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. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. 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. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Bio-1 A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction bird survey for nesting birds within 14 days prior to commencement of construction activities if anticipated to commence during the appropriate nesting season (between February 1 and August 31). The qualified biologist shall document and submit the results of the pre-construction survey in a letter to CDFW and the City within 30 days following the survey. The letter shall include: a description of the methodology including dates of field visits, the names of survey personnel, a list of references cited and persons contacted, and a map showing the location(s) of any bird nests observed on the project site. If no active nests are identified during the pre-construction survey then no further mitigation is required. Evidence, in the form of a letter report documenting the results of the survey, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department prior to commencement of construction activities.
Bio-2 If any active nests are identified during the pre-construction survey within the project site, a buffer zone will be established around the nests. A qualified biologist will monitor nests weekly during construction to evaluate potential nesting disturbance by construction activities. The biologist will delimit the buffer zone with construction tape or pin flags within 250 feet of the active nest and maintain the buffer zone until the end of
Analytical Environmental Services 3-74 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
the breeding season or until the young have fledged. Guidance from CDFW will be requested if establishing a 250-foot buffer zone is impractical. Guidance from CDFW will be requested if the nestlings within the active nest appear disturbed.
Bio-3 Twenty trees are anticipated for removal and should be removed outside of the nesting season (February 1 and August 31). If trees are anticipated to be removed during the nesting season, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If the survey shows that there is no evidence of active nests, then the tree shall be removed within ten days following the survey. If active nests are located within trees identified for removal, a 250-foot buffer shall be installed around the tree. Guidance from CDFW will be requested if the 250-foot buffer is infeasible.
CR-1 Stop potentially damaging work if archaeological resources are uncovered during construction, assess the significance of the find, and pursue appropriate management. If previously unrecorded cultural resources (e.g., unusual amounts of shell, animal bone, bottle glass, ceramics, structure/building remains, etc.) are encountered during surveys of previously unexamined area where ground disturbance is planned or during project- related ground-disturbing activities, all ground-disturbing activities shall be halted within a 100-foot radius of the find. A qualified professional archaeologist shall identify the materials, determine their possible significance, and formulate appropriate measures for their treatment, which shall be implemented by the project applicants and their contractors. Potential treatment methods for significant and potentially significant resources may include, but would not be limited to avoidance of the resource through changes in construction methods or project design or implementation of a program of testing and data recovery, in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements.
CR-2 Stop potentially damaging work if human remains are uncovered during construction, assess the significance of the find, and pursue appropriate management. California law recognizes the need to protect interred human remains, particularly Native American burials and items of cultural patrimony, from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of discovered human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and §7052 and California Public Resources Code §5097. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, all such activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall be halted immediately and the project applicants’ designated representative shall be notified. The project applicants shall immediately notify the county coroner and a qualified professional archaeologist. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact the NAHC by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (Health and Safety Code Section 7050[c]). The project applicant or its appointed representative and the professional archaeologist shall contact the Most Likely Descendent (MLD), as determined by the NAHC, regarding the remains. The MLD, in cooperation with the
Analytical Environmental Services 3-75 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
property owner and the lead agencies shall determine the ultimate disposition of the remains.
GEO-1 To mitigate impacts resulting from expansive soil, one or a combination of the following measures shall be required: a. Removal and replacement with non-expansive soils. b. Lime treatment of soils. c. Design of pavement sections to withstand potential swelling pressures. d. Contractors shall water the soils in order to minimize the potential for adverse impacts from soil expansion and contraction.
QUESTION B Potential adverse environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, in combination with the impacts of other past, present, and future projects, would not contribute to cumulatively significant effects on the environment with implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures. Conformance with General Plan Policies, Specific Plan Guidelines and Policies, and Conditions of Approval would ensure that potential impacts would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable in the context of impacts associated with other pending and planned development projects. Project-related impacts would be typical of redevelopment projects in the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan) area, and would be reduced to less- than-significant levels through conformance with General Plan Policies, Specific Plan Guidelines and Policies, and Conditions of Approval. As part of the 2006 General Plan EIR and 2012 Supplement to the General Plan EIR, cumulative impacts associated with buildout of the Specific Plan area were analyzed and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. In general, the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan EIR and subsequent documents, and other existing and allowable land uses in the vicinity of the project are not significantly different than what was studied in the cumulative analysis of the General Plan EIR, 2012 Supplement, and 2014 Addendum to the 2012 Supplement that assessed impacts of the Specific Plan itself.
For example, a Proposed Project south across Willow Pass Road (Argent) would result in additional residential infill. However, Argent Concord is similar in scope to the Proposed Project and is consistent with the land use policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan. Argent Concord would add an additional 181 residential units in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. Using the same trip generation rate as the Proposed Project (refer to Section 3.16.3), Argent Concord would add 1,204 vehicles to Willow Pass Road per day. The resulting cumulative traffic levels on Willow Pass Road would be 24,189 vehicles per day. According to the Highway Capacity Manual (refer to Section 3.16.3), with the addition of traffic from Argent Concord and the Proposed Project, Willow Pass Road would continue to operate at LOS D or better and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
The General Plan as a planning document consists of cumulative analyses of the approved land uses within the planning boundaries. Accordingly, nearby development would be required to be
Analytical Environmental Services 3-76 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
consistent with the local planning documents, including the Specific Plan or mitigation would be required to assess the impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR, 2012 Supplement, or the 2014 Addendum. Therefore, the Proposed Projects consistency with the General Plan and Specific Plan, and subsequent analysis above in Section 3.1 through 3.17 indicate the implementation would not result in significant cumulative impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR, 2012 Supplement, or 2014 Addendum. Less Than Significant With Mitigation. MITIGATION MEASURES AQ-1 The following BMPs will be implemented during construction. a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. 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. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. 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. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Bio-1 A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction bird survey for nesting birds within 14 days prior to commencement of construction activities if anticipated to commence during the appropriate nesting season (between February 1 and August 31). The qualified biologist shall document and submit the results of the pre-construction survey in a letter to CDFW and the City within 30 days following the survey. The letter shall include: a description of the methodology including dates of field visits, the names of survey personnel, a list of references cited and persons contacted, and a map showing the location(s) of any bird nests observed on the project site. If no active nests are
Analytical Environmental Services 3-77 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
identified during the pre-construction survey then no further mitigation is required. Evidence, in the form of a letter report documenting the results of the survey, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department prior to commencement of construction activities.
Bio-2 If any active nests are identified during the pre-construction survey within the project site, a buffer zone will be established around the nests. A qualified biologist will monitor nests weekly during construction to evaluate potential nesting disturbance by construction activities. The biologist will delimit the buffer zone with construction tape or pin flags within 250 feet of the active nest and maintain the buffer zone until the end of the breeding season or until the young have fledged. Guidance from CDFW will be requested if establishing a 250-foot buffer zone is impractical. Guidance from CDFW will be requested if the nestlings within the active nest appear disturbed.
Bio-3 Twenty trees are anticipated for removal and should be removed outside of the nesting season (February 1 and August 31). If trees are anticipated to be removed during the nesting season, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If the survey shows that there is no evidence of active nests, then the tree shall be removed within ten days following the survey. If active nests are located within trees identified for removal, a 250-foot buffer shall be installed around the tree. Guidance from CDFW will be requested if the 250-foot buffer is infeasible.
CR-1 Stop potentially damaging work if archaeological resources are uncovered during construction, assess the significance of the find, and pursue appropriate management. If previously unrecorded cultural resources (e.g., unusual amounts of shell, animal bone, bottle glass, ceramics, structure/building remains, etc.) are encountered during surveys of previously unexamined area where ground disturbance is planned or during project- related ground-disturbing activities, all ground-disturbing activities shall be halted within a 100-foot radius of the find. A qualified professional archaeologist shall identify the materials, determine their possible significance, and formulate appropriate measures for their treatment, which shall be implemented by the project applicants and their contractors. Potential treatment methods for significant and potentially significant resources may include, but would not be limited to avoidance of the resource through changes in construction methods or project design or implementation of a program of testing and data recovery, in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements.
CR-2 Stop potentially damaging work if human remains are uncovered during construction, assess the significance of the find, and pursue appropriate management. California law recognizes the need to protect interred human remains, particularly Native American burials and items of cultural patrimony, from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of discovered human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and §7052 and California Public Resources Code §5097. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, all such activities within a 100-foot radius
Analytical Environmental Services 3-78 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist
of the find shall be halted immediately and the project applicants’ designated representative shall be notified. The project applicants shall immediately notify the county coroner and a qualified professional archaeologist. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact the NAHC by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (Health and Safety Code Section 7050[c]). The project applicant or its appointed representative and the professional archaeologist shall contact the Most Likely Descendent (MLD), as determined by the NAHC, regarding the remains. The MLD, in cooperation with the property owner and the lead agencies shall determine the ultimate disposition of the remains.
GEO-1 To mitigate impacts resulting from expansive soil, one or a combination of the following measures shall be required: e. Removal and replacement with non-expansive soils. f. Lime treatment of soils. g. Design of pavement sections to withstand potential swelling pressures. h. Contractors shall water the soils in order to minimize the potential for adverse impacts from soil expansion and contraction.
QUESTION C After the implementation of design features, municipal code requirements, and standard conditions of approval, there would not be environmental effects cause by the Proposed Project that will cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Less Than Significant.
Analytical Environmental Services 3-79 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 4.0 Preparers
SECTION 4.0 – PREPARERS
Analytical Environmental Services Project Manager Trenton Wilson
Deputy Project Manager Laura Zajac
Technical Staff Erin Quinn, Air Quality Specialist
Charlane Gross, Archaeologist
Peter Bontadelli, Senior Biologist
Kassandra Dickerson, Biologist
Dana Hirschberg, Senior Graphics Specialist
Glenn Mayfield, Graphics Specialist
Analytical Environmental Services 4-1 City of Concord- Concord Village November 2016 Initial Study Section 5.0 Preparers
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES CITED
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/draft_baaqmd_ceqa_guidelines_may_2010_final.pdf?la=en. Accessed November 21, 2016.
BAAQMD, 2012. Updated CEQA Guidelines Available online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/baaqmd-ceqa- guidelines_final_may-2012.pdf?la=en. Accessed November 21, 2016.
BAAQMD, 2014. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Available online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment- status. Accessed December 9, 2016.
Basin Research Associates, 2013. Archaeological Resources Assessment Report, Saranap Village Project, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County. Report prepared for Hall Equities Group.
Beck, W.A., and Y.D. Haase. Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman and London.
Buchanan, 2016. Buchanan Field Airport. Available online at http://www.cccounty.us/3801/Buchanan-Field-CCR. Accessed November 2016.
California Department of Conservation (DOC), 2016. Contra Costa County Tsunami Inundation USGS 24K Quads. Available online at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/Contra Costa/Pages/ContraCosta.aspx. November 30, 2016.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2009. Contra Costa County FHSZ Map. Available online at: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_contracosta.php. Accessed December 8, 2016.
California Department of Natural Resources, 2015. Contra Costa County Map of Mines, Quarries, Gas Wells. Available online at: http://cgsdigitalarchive.conservation.ca.gov/cdm/ref/collection/p16780coll6/id/384. Accessed December 1, 2016.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. Available online at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/note_36/Docume nts/note_36.pdf. Accessed December 1, 2015.
Analytical Environmental Services 5-1 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 5.0 Preparers
CalRecycle, 2010. Conversion Factors. Available online at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Library/DSG/IRecycl.htm. Accessed December 5, 2016.
CalRecycle, 2016. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available online at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed December 5, 2016.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), 2009. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Available online at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2009/R2-2009- 0074.pdf. Accessed December 1, 2016.
Central Costa County Sanitary District (CCCSD), 2009. Treatment Plant. Available online at: http://www.centralsan.org/index.cfm?navId=154 Accessed November 14, 2016.
City of Concord, 2002. Future Water Supply Study 2002 Update. Available Online at: http://www.ccwater.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/543. Accessed November 21, 2016.
City of Concord, 2006. Environmental Impact Report for Concord 2030 General Plan. Accessed November 2016.
City of Concord, 2012. Concord Draft Supplemental EIR to the 2030 Concord General Plan EIR for the Concord Development Code Project. Available online at: http://www.cityofconcord.org/pdf/dept/planning/eir/deir_dc2012.pdf. Accessed November 21, 2016.
City of Concord, 2013. City of Concord Citywide Climate Action Plan. Available Online at: http://www.cityofconcord.org/pdf/dept/planning/climate.pdf. Accessed November 21, 2016.
City of Concord, 2014. City of Concord Housing Element Update – Final 2014-2022. Bae Urban Economics. Available online at: http://www.cityofconcord.org/pdf/projects/housingElement/11072014.pdf. Accessed December 6, 2016.
City of Concord, 2015a. Concord 2030 General Plan. Available online at: http://www.cityofconcord.org/page.asp?pid=6100 Accessed 11/23/2016.
City of Concord, 2015b. City of Concord Development Code. Title 18 Development Code. Effective Date: November 7, 2013. Available online at: http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/concord/. Accessed December 7, 2016.
City of Concord, 2016. Report to Planning Commission Concord Village (PL15438 – UP, MP, DR). Available online at: http://www.cityofconcord.org/citygov/agendas/bc/plc/2016/08172016.pdf. Accessed November 21, 2016.
Analytical Environmental Services 5-2 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 5.0 Preparers
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), 2013. 2013 Contra Costa Congestion Management Program. Available online at: file:///N:/Projects/2015%20AES%20Projects/215507%20- %20City%20of%20Concord%20Autumn%20Brook%20IS/Transportation/2013%20CMP. pdf. Accessed November 21, 2016.
Contra Costa County Water District (CCWD), 2016. Urban Water Management Plan for the Contra Costa Water District. Available online at: http://www.ccwater.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2216 Accessed December 6, 2016.
Department of Conservation (DOC), 2010. Fault Activity Map of California. Available online at: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/. Accessed December 1, 2016.
DOC, 2013. Williamson Act Mapping for years 2012/2013 in Contra Costa County. Available online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/contra_costa_12_13_WA.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2016.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2016. EnviroStor. Available online at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/mapfull.asp?global_id=&x=- 119&y=37&zl=18&ms=640,480&mt=m&findaddress=True&city=2400%20willow%20pass %20road,%20concord,%20california&zip=&county=&federal_superfund=true&state_resp onse=true&voluntary_cleanup=true&school_cleanup=true&ca_site=true&tiered_permit=t rue&evaluation=true&military_evaluation=true&school_investigation=true&operating=tru e&post_closure=true&non_operating=true . Accessed December 7, 2016.
EDR, 2016a. Concord Village Apartment Infill Project, EDR Historical Topo Map Report.
EDR, 2016b. Concord Village Apartment Infill Project, EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package.
ESA, 2009. Draft Bayview Residential Project Environmental Impact Report. State Clearing House No. 2008032074. Prepared for Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), 2015. City of Concord Farmland Mapping Program. Available online at: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html. Accessed November 21, 2016.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2016. Walnut Creek flood map 06013C0282F, effective on 06/16/2000. Accessed on December 2, 2016.
Geotracker, 2016. Sites and Facilities in Concord, CA. Available online at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=concord%2 C+ca. Accessed December 20, 2016.
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 2010. Level of service at specific roadway capacities. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Analytical Environmental Services 5-3 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 5.0 Preparers
Hoover, M.B., H.E. Rensch, E.G. Rensch, and W.N. Abeloe, 2002. Historic Spots in California. Revised by D.E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), 2016. Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Volume 2 Data. ITE daily trip generation (220) apartments.
Leavitt, Russell; 2015. Engineering Assistant III, Contra Costa County Central Sanitation Department, Wastewater Treatment Phone conversation on 8/6/2015 regarding capacity and average daily flows.
Mt. Diablo Unified School District, 2016. Our Schools. Available online at: http://www.mdusd.org/ourschools. Accessed November 21, 2016.
National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), 2016. Survey Order No.17010805854_181.
Niche, 2016. Niche.com K-12 School District Ranks and Information. Available online at: https://k12.niche.com/rankings/public-school-districts/largest-enrollment/s/california/. Accessed 11/23/2016.
PlaceWorks, 2015. Initials Study and Environmental checklist: Housing Element Update (201- 2022) Project. Available online at: http://www.cityofconcord.org/pdf/projects/housingElement/09102014.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2016.
RWQCB, 2012. NPDES No. CA0037648. Available online at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2012/R2-2012- 0016.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2016.
SkyVector, 2016. Buchanan Field Airport. Available online at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2012/R2-2012- 0016.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2016.
SVA. 2016. Applicant Submittal Documents. Available upon request.
U.S. Census, 2010. Population and Housing Available online at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0616000.html. Accessed November 20, 2016.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2015. Power Profiler. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/energy/power-profiler. Accessed November 11, 2016.
USGS, 2006. About Liquefaction. Available online at: http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/sfgeo/liquefaction/aboutliq.html. Accessed December 1, 2016.
Analytical Environmental Services 5-4 City of Concord- Concord Village January 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APPENDICES
APPENDIX A REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN July 15, 2016
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 Oakland, CA 94612
Attention: Mark Johnson, PG
Subject: Remedial Action Plan Concord Village Development Project 2400 Salvio Street, Concord, California
Ladies and Gentlemen:
On behalf of Marginal Properties-Concord, LLC, Gribi Associates is pleased to provide this Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the Concord Village development project at 2400 Salvio Street in Concord, California (Site) (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). This RAP includes a summary of current site environmental conductions and provides a mitigation plan to address potential environmental concerns relative to a planned new multi-tenant residential development on the Site.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION
The Site is located in downtown Concord, Contra Costa County, California. The Site comprises an approximately 2.3-acre city block between Salvio Street and Willow Pass Road on the north and south and between Port Chicago Highway and East Street on the east and west. The project site includes three adjoining parcels: APN 126-083-11, APN 126-083-12, and APN 126-083-013.
The project site is relatively flat and lies at an elevation of approximately 180 feet above mean sea level. The project site is located approximately one mile east-southeast from Walnut Creek, and, based on topography and location, we would expect groundwater flow direction to be to the northwest.
1090 ADAMS STREET, SUITE K, BENICIA, CA 94510 PH (707) 748-7743 FAX (707) 748-7763 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board July 15, 2016 Page 2
1.2 PAST ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES
Over the last ten years, several soil, groundwater, and soil vapor investigations have been conducted at the Site by Environmental Associates, Inc. (EAI), Treadwell & Rollo (T&R), and CPI Geologic (CPI). Soil, groundwater, and soil vapor results from these investigations are compiled and summarized on Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5, respectively.
In July 2005, EAI conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) that identified three potential environmental concerns for the Site: (1) A dry cleaning facility on the north side of the Site at 2482-2488 Salvio Street, in operation since the 1960s; (2) An auto repair shop on the west side of the Site at 1940 East Street, in operation since the 1940s; and (3) A gas station on the west side of the Site at the corner of East Street and Salvio Street, in business in 1926.
In 2005 and 2006, EAI conducted Phase II ESA activities that included the drilling and sampling of seven borings (SP-1 through SP-7) and the installation and sampling of four groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-4) on the Site. Soil samples from the borings and wells showed no halogenated volatile organic compounds (HVOCs) adjacent to the dry cleaners on the north side of the Site, up to 390 mg/kg of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel (TPH-D) and 1,400 mg/kg of TPH as Motor Oil (TPH-MO) adjacent to the auto repair shop on the west side of the Site, and 340 mg/kg of TPH as Gasoline (TPH-G) adjacent to the former gas station on the corner of East Street and Salvio Street. Groundwater samples from the four groundwater monitoring wells apparently showed low concentrations of hydrocarbons and HVOCs.
In 2007 and 2008, T&W conducted a Phase I ESA that identified a former gas station on the south side of the Site, on the corner of East Street and Willow Pass Road. Due to the presence of PCE in groundwater in previous EAI borings, the T&R Phase I ESA indicated the possibility of PCE-impacted groundwater migrating onto the Site from unidentified upgradient (east to southeast) sources.
Between 2007 and 2009, T&R drilled and sampled approximately 12 soil borings (TR-16 through TR-27) and installed and sampled five groundwater monitoring wells (MW-5 through MW-9). These borings and wells included several borings adjacent to the newly-identified former gas station on the south side of the Site, and also included several step-outs from previous EAI borings. In addition soil gas samples were collected from 16 of the borings (TR-1 through TR-12, TR-14, TR-15, TR-23, and TR-24). Soil and groundwater laboratory analytical results from these borings generally showed relatively low soil and groundwater hydrocarbon and HVOC impacts. Elevated PCE soil vapor results were encountered in soil gas samples at about San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board July 15, 2016 Page 3
16.5 feet from borings TR-1, TR-3, TR-7, TR-8, TR-10, and TR-12. Note that several soil samples from the T&R borings that were analyzed for metals showed apparent background concentrations of metals.
In December 2014, CPI drilled and sampled 22 soil borings (B1 through B22) at the Site. These borings generally included several upgradient and downgradient borings and several borings adjacent to the former dry cleaners, auto repair shop, and west gas station identified in the EAI Phase I ESA. Soil and groundwater results from these borings generally agreed with previous results, showing some isolated low-level soil and groundwater hydrocarbon impacts and some diffuse PCE groundwater impacts along the north side of the Site.
Soil gas sampling was conducted at approximately 5 feet and 15 feet in depth from CPI borings B-1 through B-9 and B-17, and soil gas samples were collected at 5 feet only from CPI borings B10, B11, and B12. PCE vapor concentrations were elevated (substantially above the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s residential Environmental Screening Level (ESL) of 210 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) in B1, B2, B3, B6, and B17.
2.0 SITECONCEPTUALMODEL
The following Conceptual Site Model (CSM) has been developed to assist in risk-based decision making. In developing the CSM, we have evaluated actual and potential contaminant sources, migratory pathways, and environmental receptors. Note that this CSM is based on our understanding of currently-available data; where data is not available or is not representative, a data gap is noted.
2.1 Contaminants of Concern
Contaminants of concern (COCs) identified in soil, groundwater, and soil vapor include both petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents. Specific COCs, maximum concentrations, and Environmental Screening Levels for residential land use are summarized as follows:
Soil (mg/kg) GW (ug/L) Soil Gas (ug/m3) COC Max Conc. ESL(A) Max Conc. ESL Max Conc. ESL TPH-G 340 740/770 15,000 220 ND 300,000 TPH-SS ND 160/1,000 ND 150 139,000 68,000 TPH-D 390 230/570 6,200 150 ND 68,000 TPH-MO 1,400 11,000/NL 1,000 NL NA NL B ND 0.23/0.44 45 1.0 120 48 T ND 970/2.9 15 40 484 160,000 E ND 5.1/1.4 170 30 89 560 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board July 15, 2016 Page 4
Soil (mg/kg) GW (ug/L) Soil Gas (ug/m3) COC Max Conc. ESL(A) Max Conc. ESL Max Conc. ESL X ND 560/2.3 250 20 639 52,000 MTBE ND 39/0.023 300 5.0 ND 5,400 PCE ND 0.60/0.42 240 5.0 25,000 240 TCE ND 1.20.46 27 5.0 47 240
TPH-G = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline ug/L = Micrograms per liter TPH-SS= Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Stoddard ug/m3 = Micrograms per cubic meter Solvent Max. Conc. = Maximum concentration TPH-D = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel ESL = Environmental Screening Level (San Francisco Bay TPH-MO = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Motor Oil Regional Water Quality Control Board, February 2016); Soil B = Benzene = Table S-1, Soil Direct Exposure (residential)/Leaching to T = Toluene Groundwater; Groundwater = Table GW-1, Groundwater E = Ethylbenzene Direct Exposure (residential); Soil Gas = Table SG-1, X = Xylenes Sub-slab/Soil Gas Vapor Intrusion (residential). MTBE = Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (A) = Direct Exposure ESL/Leaching to Groundwater ESL PCE = Tetrachloroethylene NL = Not listed. TCE = Trichloroethylene ND = Not detected mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram
2.2 Sources of Contamination
Previous Phase I ESAs identified a former dry cleaner on the north side of the property, a former auto repair facility on the west side of the property, and historic gas stations on the west and southwest corners of the property. Activities associated with the former auto repair facility and the two historic gas stations appear to have resulted in limited soil and groundwater hydrocarbon impacts on the southwest side of the property.
Based on the configuration of the PCE groundwater plume on the Site, it is not clear that the PCE groundwater impacts originated from the former dry cleaner identified on the north side of the Site. Rather, it is possible that the groundwater PCE impacts originated from an offsite easterly (upgradient) source. The soil gas PCE plume approximately “mirrors” the groundwater PCE plume. This, together with the lack of soil PCE detections, suggests that some or all of the soil vapor PCE impacts originated from underlying groundwater PCE impacts, which, in turn, originated from and upgradient offsite source, and not necessarily from an onsite source.
2.3 Migratory Pathways
Soils beneath the Site generally consist of low-permeability, clay-dominated soils with occasional thin sand and gravel layers. These low-permeability soils have resulted in relatively San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board July 15, 2016 Page 5 small and localized soil and groundwater hydrocarbon plumes on the Site. Previous investigations identified three small soil hydrocarbon plumes, with associated small groundwater hydrocarbon plumes, on the west-southwest side of the property. These hydrocarbon impacts appear to be old and degraded, as evidenced by the lack of significant volatile hydrocarbon constituents associated with these plumes.
The groundwater PCE plume, and associated soil gas PCE plume, is more wide-spread than the hydrocarbon plumes, extending from the east (upgradient) edge of the property to the west (downgradient) edge of the property and beyond. Groundwater is present below 20 feet in depth, and PCE plume migration appears to be associated with normal groundwater flow, and not associated with any preferential migratory pathways.
Soil gas hydrocarbon impacts are generally relatively low and are sporadic and diffuse. The soil gas PCE plume generally “mirrors” the groundwater PCE plume, with generally higher PCE soil gas concentrations at 15-16 feet and generally lower PCE soil gas concentrations at 5 feet in depth. The soil gas PCE plume at 5 feet in depth is laterally dispersed north and south (transgradient) relative to the underlying groundwater PCE plume.
2.4 Environmental Receptors
Results of our preliminary risk evaluation of all potential exposure pathways for the planned apartment development are summarized below.
Exposure Pathway Complete? Risk Level Discussion Air Exposure Pathway Surface soil volatilization to Possible Low No shallow soil VOC detections. ambient air Subsurface soil volatilization to Possible Low No significant deep soil VOC detections. ambient air Subsurface soil volatilization to Possible Low No shallow soil VOC detections. enclosed space Groundwater volatilization to Possible Low Possible PCE volatilization to Site building. ambient air Groundwater volatilization to Possible Moderate Possible PCE volatilization to Site building. enclosed space Soil Exposure Pathway Dermal contact/ingestion of Possible Low Construction worker only; limited surface soils identified shallow hydrocarbon impacts; soil TPH-D/MO impacts generally below direct exposure ESLs. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board July 15, 2016 Page 6
Exposure Pathway Complete? Risk Level Discussion Dermal contact/ingestion of Possible Low Construction worker only; soil TPH-D/MO subsurface soils impacts generally below direct exposure ESLs. Groundwater Exposure Pathway Soil leaching to groundwater, No None No onsite groundwater use. ingestion Dissolved/free phase No None No onsite groundwater use. groundwater ingestion Surface Water Exposure Pathway Soil leaching to surface water No None Nonearbysurfacewaterbodies. Groundwater plume discharge No None Nonearbysurfacewaterbodies. to surface water
As the table above illustrates, possible complete exposure pathways exist relative to the air exposure (volatilization to ambient and enclosed air from soil and groundwater) and soil exposure (direct exposure to soil) pathways. The potential risks associated with ambient air exposure, either from soil or groundwater exposure, is expected to be low. The potential risks associated with enclosed air exposure, primarily from groundwater volatilization, are expected to be moderate, given the elevated PCE soil gas concentrations beneath the Site. Potential direct exposure to hydrocarbon-impacted soils is possible during construction; however, the areas with identified soil hydrocarbon impacts are relatively small and primarily involve diesel- and motor oil-range hydrocarbons.
In summary, the primary potential environmental receptors relative to the planned residential development are: (1) Potential direct exposure to hydrocarbon-impacted soils during construction related activities; and (2) Potential residential indoor air PCE exposure for apartment building occupants.
3.0 Remedial Action Plan
The site has been sufficiently characterized, pathways of exposure assessed and risks evaluated. These are summarized as follows:
Soil: Contaminant concentrations in site soils are below screening levels, with the exception of TPHd which is slightly above the ESL for direct contact, but below the ESL for groundwater leaching. While such concentrations in soil do not warrant active remediation, soil management activities are appropriate and should be implemented during development. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board July 15, 2016 Page 7
Soil Vapor: Soil vapor contaminant concentrations are slightly above ESLs for Stoddard solvent and benzene, and are significantly above the ESLs for PCE. Such concentrations warrant remedial measures to reduce risk via vapor intrusion to indoor air. As the site is planned for development, engineering controls in the form vapor mitigation are appropriate and would be effective in preventing vapor intrusion.
Groundwater: Groundwater hydrocarbon and solvent impacts on the site are relatively low, and the low solvent impacts appear to have originated to some degree from offsite. Considering the lack of onsite pollutant sources impacting groundwater and impacts migrating onto the site from upgradient, active remediation is not warranted for groundwater.
Based on the findings of the investigations and health risk evaluation, a Soil and Risk Management Plan (SRMP), combined with land use covenant (LUC) is the most appropriate Remedial Action Plan for the site. The SRMP will address protection of human health during construction and following development. The SRMP and LUC are generally described below:
3.1 Soil Management
The SRMP will describe potential health risks and provide specific measures for notification, stockpiling, sampling, reuse and disposal. The SRMP will include soil re-use criteria for soil generated during site development. Soil exceeding appropriate ESLs will be disposed of offsite. In addition, the SRMP will be included as part of the LUC, thus triggering implementation of the proscribed soil management measures in the event that excavation-related construction activities are contemplated in the future.
3.2 Soil Vapor Mitigation Measures
The SRMP will outline procedures for development of an appropriate vapor mitigation system for the site. It is anticipated based on site conditions that passive venting with an option to move to active ventilation, combined with vapor barrier membrane would be an adequate vapor mitigation system for the site. This will be further evaluated and finalized in design. The SRMP will also require an appropriate quality assurance plan be developed to ensure the integrity of the construction. The SRMP will also set forth procedures for intrusion through and repair of the vapor barrier, should it be needed post-development San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board July 15, 2016 Page 8
3.3 Land Use Covenant
A LUC in the form of an environmental covenant and deed restriction will be recorded onto the deed of the property. This LUC will prohibit groundwater use on the site and require ongoing compliance with the SRMP.
4.0 Next Steps
Following approval of this RAP, a draft SRMP will be submitted to the Regional Board within 90 days for review and approval.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this Remedial Action Plan for your review. Please call if you have any questions or require additional information.
Very truly yours,
James E. Gribi Registered Geologist California No. 5843
JEG/ct FIGURES PROJECT SITE
DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: JEG DATE: 07/15/2016 FIGURE: 1 SITE VICINITY MAP DRAWN BY: RB SCALE: 2400 SALVIO STREET PROJECT NO: CONCORD, CALIFORNIA - SOIL BORING LOCATION (CPI, 2014)
- SOIL BORING LOCATION (T&R, 2007-2009)
- SOIL BORING LOCATION (EAI, 2005)
- GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION (T&R, 2009) TR-25 - GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION (EAI, 2006) FORMER DRY CLEANER (2482-2488 SALVIO ST.)
. TR-4 VIO ST B6 SAL OVERHEAD BART TRACKS TR-26 B1 SP-3 MW-5 MW-4
SP-2 TR-27 TR-3 SP-1 B2 APPROX. LOCATION OF HISTORIC TR-2 GAS STATION FORMER RESIDENCEB17 TR-8 B3 B12 B18 B22 B7 TR-15 B11 TR-1 SP-4 B13 TR-7 MW-1 MW-6 MW-3 CPT-5
B10 TR-5 B20 B9 B16 TR-12 B4 SP-6 CPT-4 SP-5 B19 B14 TR-10 B8 TR-6 MW-2 MW-8
PORT CHICAGO HWY TR-14 TR-9 B5 B15 TR-11 CPT-8 CPT-7 VACANT (LOCATION OF B21 SP-7 MW-7 FORMER AUTO DEALERSHIP) (abandoned) FORMER AUTO REPAIR SHOP (1940 EAST ST.)
.
EAST ST TR-16 TR-21
VACANT BANK TR-20 . TR-17
TR-24 ASS RD WILLOW P TR-23
TR-18 MW-9 TR-19 (abandoned) APPROX. LOCATION OF HISTORIC GAS STATION
0 80 160 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET N
DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: JEG DATE: 07/15/2016 FIGURE: 2 SITE PLAN DRAWN BY: RB SCALE: 2400 SALVIO STREET PROJECT NO: CONCORD, CALIFORNIA
- RI SOIL BORING LOCATION (GRIBI, 11/2010
- RI HYDROPUNCH BORING LOCATION (GRIBI, 11/2010
- RI CPT BORING LOCATION (GRIBI, 11/2010
- SOIL BORING LOCATION (GRIBI, 04/2010) - SOIL BORING LOCATION (CPI, 2014) DEPTH 10.0’ 20.0’ 28.0’ TPH-SS <4.0 <4.0 <4.0 DEPTH 2.5’ - SOIL BORING LOCATION (T&R, 2007-2009) TPH-G NA NA NA TPH-D NA NA NA TPH-SS NA TPH-MO NA NA NA TPH-G <1.0 - SOIL BORING LOCATION (EAI, 2005) VOCs NA ND ND TPH-D 1.6 TPH-MO 12 B <0.005 - GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION (T&R, 2009) T <0.005 E <0.005 TR-25 X <0.005 - GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION (EAI, 2006) HVOCs ND DEPTH 27’ DEPTH 2.0’ 10.0’ TPH-SS <4.0 TPH-G NA. TPH-SS <4.0 <4.0 TPH-D NA DEPTH 5.0’ DEPTH 2.5’ TPH-G NA NA TPH-MO NA DEPTH 10.0’ 15.0’ TPH-D NA NA VIOB <0.005ST VOCs ALL ND TPH-SS NA TPH-MO NA NA DEPTH 2.5’ T <0.005 TPH-SS <0.10 <0.10 TPH-G <1.0 SAL HVOCs ND ND E <0.005 TPH-G <0.10 <0.10 TPH-D <1.0 TPH-SS NA X <0.005 TR-4 TPH-D <1.0 <1.0 TPH-MO 7.3 TPH-G <1.0 HVOCs ND B6 3.0’ TPH-MO <5.0 <5.0 B <0.005 TPH-D <1.0 OVERHEAD BARTDEPTH TRACKS 7.0’ T <0.005 TPH-MO <5.0 TPH-SS <4.0 <4.0 E <0.005 TR-26 B <0.005 B1 X <0.005 T <0.005 SP-3 TPH-G NA NA HVOCs ND E <0.005 MW-5 TPH-D NA NA DEPTH 2.5’ SVOCs ND X <0.005 MW-4 TPH-MO NA NA HVOCs ND HVOCs ND ND TPH-SS NA SP-2 TPH-G <1.0 TR-27 TR-3 TPH-D 9.5 SP-1 B2 DEPTH 5.0’ TPH-MO 56 DEPTH 2.0’ 5.0’ DEPTH 2.0’ HVOCs ND TR-2 VOCs ALL ND TPH-SS <0.10 <0.10 TPH-SS <0.10 TPH-G <0.10 <0.10 TPH-G <0.10 TPH-D <1.0 <1.0 B17 TPH-D <1.0 TPH-MO <5.0 <5.0 TPH-MO <5.0 TR-8 B3 B12 B18 B22 B7 DEPTH 2.5’ TR-15 B11 TR-1 SP-4 TPH-SS NA TPH-G <1.0 DEPTH 11’ 19’ B13 TR-7 MW-1 DEPTH 2.5’ TPH-D 1.3 MW-6 MW-3 TPH-G=100 MG/KG TPH-MO 6.4 TPH-SS NA NA TPH-SS NA TPH-G <0.10 <0.10 TPH-G <1.0 TPH-D 2.5 <2.0 B10 TR-5 TPH-D <1.0 TPH-MO 5.5 <4.0 B9 TPH-MO <5.0 B <0.005 <0.005 DEPTH 2.5’ B16 TR-12 B4 B20 SP-6 B <0.005 T <0.005 <0.005 T <0.005 TPH-SS NA E <0.005 <0.005 E <0.005 TPH-G <1.0 SP-5 B19 X <0.005 <0.005 X <0.005 HVOCs ND ND TPH-D <1.0 B14 TR-10 TPH-MO <5.0 B8 HVOCs ND TR-6 DEPTH 2.0’ 5.0’ DEPTH 5.0’ 10.0’ 15.0’ MW-2 MW-8 TPH-SS <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 DEPTH 10.0’ TPH-SS <0.10 <0.10 TPH-G <0.10 <0.10 TPH-G <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 TPH-MO=100 MG/KG TPH-D <1.0 <1.0 PORT CHICAGO HWY <1.0 TPH-SS <0.10 TPH-D <1.0 <1.0 TPH-MO 290 310 TR-14 TPH-MO <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 TPH-G <0.10 TR-9 B5 VOCs NA NA All ND TPH-D <1.0 B15 TR-11 TPH-MO <5.0 DEPTH 2.5’ B21 DEPTH 3.0’ 11.0’ DEPTH 2.5’ 8.5’ DEPTH 2.5’ TPH-SS NA SP-7 MW-7 TPH-G <1.0 TPH-SS NA NA TPH-SS NA NA DEPTH 15.0’ 20.0’ 25.0’ 28.0’ TPH-SS NA (abandoned)TPH-D <1.0 TPH-G <0.10 <0.10 TPH-G <1.0 NA TPH-G <1.0 DEPTH 3.0’ 11.0’ TPH-MO <5.0 TPH-D 230 <2.0 TPH-D <1.0 NA TPH-SS NA NA NA NA TPH-D 8.1 B <0.005 TPH-MO 510 <4.0 TPH-MO <5.0 NA TPH-G <0.50 340 <0.50 1.2 TPH-MO 68 TPH-SS NA NA B <0.005 <0.005 B <0.005 NA DEPTH 2.5’ T <0.005 TPH-D 3.0 41 <2.0 <2.0 TPH-G <0.10 <0.10 E <0.005 T <0.005 <0.005 T <0.005 NA TPH-MO 7.6 6.2 <4.0 <4.0 TPH-D 390 2.2 E <0.005 <0.005 E <0.005 NA X <0.005 DEPTH 25.0’ . TPH-SS NA TPH-MO 1,400 4.3 X <0.005 <0.005 X <0.005 NA DEPTH 1.0’ 11.0’ TPH-G <1.0 B <0.005 <0.005 HVOCs ND ND HVOCs NA ND TPH-D <1.0 TPH-SS NA EAST ST T <0.005 <0.005 TR-16 TPH-G <1.0 SVOCs ND NA TPH-SS NA NA TPH-MO 6.8 E <0.005 <0.005 TR-21 B <0.005 TPH-D <1.0 TPH-G <0.10 <0.10 X <0.005 <0.005 TPH-MO NA TPH-D 9.1 <2.0 T <0.005 HVOCs ND ND TPH-MO 23 4.2 E <0.005 X <0.005 DEPTH 8.0’ 33.5’ B <0.005 <0.005 TR-20 . TR-17 T <0.005 <0.005 VOCs NA E <0.005 <0.005 TPH-SS NA NA X <0.005 <0.005 TR-24 DEPTH 2.5’ TPH-G <1.0 <1.0 ASS RD HVOCs ND ND TPH-D 6.4 2.5 TPH-SS NA TPH-MOWILLOW22 12 P DEPTH 2.0’ 10.0’ TR-23 TPH-G <1.0 VOCs ND ND DEPTH 25.5’ TPH-D <1.0 HVOCs ND ND TPH-SS <0.10 <0.10 TR-18 TPH-MO <5.0 TPH-SS NA MW-9 TPH-G <0.10 <0.10 B <0.005 TPH-G <1.0 TPH-D <1.0 <1.0 TR-19 (abandoned) T <0.005 TPH-D <1.0 TPH-MO <5.0 <5.0 E <0.005 TPH-MO NA X <0.005 VOCs ND VOCs NA SVOCs ND DEPTH 8.0’ 24.0’ DEPTH 8.0’ 24.0’ TPH-SS NA NA TPH-G <1.0 <1.0 TPH-SS NA NA TPH-D <1.0 <1.0 DEPTH 25.0’ TPH-G <1.0 73 TPH-MO <5.0 <5.0 TPH-D 1.4 25 VOCs ND ND TPH-SS NA TPH-MO <5.0 <5.0 TPH-G <1.0 N-BUTYL BENZENE ND 0.021 TPH-D <1.0 ISOPROPYL BENZENE ND 0.014 TPH-MO NA SEC-BUTYL BENZENE ND 0.022 0 80 160 VOCs ND N-PROPYL BENZENE ND 0.014 OTHER VOCs ND ND APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET N
DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: JEG DATE: 07/15/2016 FIGURE: 3 SOIL HYDROCARBON DRAWN BY: RB SCALE: RESULTS 2400 SALVIO STREET PROJECT NO: CONCORD, CALIFORNIA TPH-G <50 TPH-G 7 TPH-SS NA TPH-G <50 TPH-SS <200 TPH-G <50 TPH-D <50 TPH-SS NA TPH-D 130 TPH-SS NA TPH-MO <250 OVERHEAD BART TPH-D <50 TPH-MO 160 TPH-G 1,800 TPH-D <50 B <0.5 TPH-MO <250 B <0.5 TPH-SS <1000 TPH-MO <250 T <0.5 B <0.5 T 4.2 TPH-D 3,700 B <0.5 E <0.5 T <0.5 E <0.5 TRACKS TPH-MO <500 T <0.5 X <0.5 E <0.5 X <0.5 B 6.1 E <0.5 MTBE <0.5 X <0.5 MTBE <0.5 TPH-G T 1.6 X <0.5 PCE 2.4 <50 MTBE 300 PCE 12 TPH-SS E <0.5 MTBE <0.5 TCE <0.5 <200 PCE 76 TCE <0.5 TPH-D X <0.5 PCE 11 OTHER VOCs ND <50 TCE <0.5 OTHER VOCs ND TPH-MO MTBE <0.5 TCE <0.5 TR-25 <100 OTHER VOCs ND B PCE <0.5 OTHER VOCs ND <0.5 TCE 27 T <0.5 CIS-1,2-DCE 56 E <0.5 TRANS-1,2-DCE 23 X <0.5 N-BUTYL BENZENE 7.7 MTBE <0.5 SEC-BUTYL BENZENE 12 PCE 6.6 MTBE <1.0 TCE <0.5 TERT-BUTYL BENZENE 1.4 TPH-G <50 MTBE <1.0 PCE 8.8 OTHER VOCs ND ISOPROPYL BENZENE 19 TPH-SS NA PCE 9.8 TCE <1.0 4-ISOPROPYL TOLUENE 8.1 TPH-D 120 . TCE <1.0 OTHER VOCs ND N-PROPYL BENZENE 8.1 TPH-MO 1,000 OTHER VOCs ND 1,3,5-TRIMETHYL BENZENE1.3 B <0.5 NAPHTHALENE 12 T <0.5 VIO ST B6 TR-4 OTHER VOCs ND E <0.5 SAL B1 X <0.5 MTBE <1.0 MTBE 2.4 TR-26 PCE <1.0 PCE 41 SP-3 TCE <1.0 TCE 1.5 PCE = 100 UG/L MW-4 OTHER VOCs ND OTHER VOCs ND SP-1 MW-5 TR-3 SP-2 B2 TPH-G TR-27 <50 MTBE 6.4 TR-2 TPH-SS NA PCE 240 MTBE <1.0 TPH-D <50 TCE 16 TR-8 PCE 180 TPH-MO <250 OTHER VOCs ND TCE 1.9 B <0.5 B12 OTHER VOCs ND T <0.5 B17 E <0.5 B3 X <0.5 B18 MTBE <0.5 TR-15 B7 PCE 13 B11 B22 TR-1 TCE 0.8 SP-4 OTHER VOCs ND B13 MW-1 TR-7 MW-6 MW-3 CPT-5 MTBE <1.0 TR-5 B16 PCE 530 B4 EAST ST B10 MTBE <1.0 TCE 5.3 B20 B9 PCE 200 OTHER VOCs TR-12 ND PORT CHICAGO HWYTCE 2.4 SP-6 OTHER VOCs ND CPT-4 B19 . SP-5 TR-10 TR-6 B8 MTBE <1.0 B14 PCE = 100 UG/L MW-8 PCE 27 B5 TCE <1.0 OTHER VOCs ND MW-2 TPH-G <50 TR-11 TPH-SS NA TR-9 TPH-D <50 TPH-G <50 TPH-MO <250 TPH-SS NA . B <0.5 TR-14 B21 B15 TPH-D <50 CPT-8 T <0.5 TPH-G <50 TPH-MO <250 CPT-7 E <0.5 TPH-SS <200 B <0.5 X <0.5 TPH-G <50 TPH-D <50 SP-7 MW-7 T <0.5 MTBE <0.5 TPH-SS NA TPH-MO <100 E <0.5 TPH-G <50 (abandoned) PCE <0.5 TPH-D <50 B <0.5 X <0.5 TPH-SS NA TCE <0.5 TPH-MO NA T <0.5 MTBE <0.5 TPH-D <50 OTHER VOCs ND B <0.5 TPH-MO NA E <0.5 PCE 35 T <0.5 B <0.5 X <0.5 TCE 1.2 E <0.5 T <0.5 MTBE <0.5 OTHER VOCs ND X <0.5 E <0.5 PCE 6.2 MTBE <0.5 X <0.5 TCE <0.5 TR-16 PCE <0.5 MTBE <0.5 OTHER VOCs ND TR-21 TCE <0.5 PCE <0.5 OTHER VOCs ND TCE <0.5 TPH-G <50 CHLOROFORM 2.5 TPH-SS NA BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 1.1 TR-17 TR-24 TPH-D <50 METHYLENE CHLORIDE 1.2 TPH-MO <250 OTHER VOCs ND TR-20 B <0.5 T <0.5 TR-23 WILLOW PASS RD E <0.5 TPH-G 15,000 X <0.5 TPH-G <50 MW-9 (abandoned) TPH-SS NA MTBE <0.5 TPH-SS NA TPH-D 2,200 PCE <0.5 TPH-D <50 TR-18 TPH-MO <250 TCE <0.5 TPH-MO NA B 45 OTHER VOCs ND B <0.5 T 15 T <0.5 TR-19 TPH-G 7,500 E 170 E <0.5 TPH-SS NA X 250 X <0.5 TPH-D 6,200 MTBE <0.5 MTBE <0.5 TPH-MO <250 PCE <0.5 PCE <0.5 B 40 TCE <0.5 TCE <0.5 T 15 SEC-BUTYL BENZENE 6.1 OTHER VOCs ND E 28 ISOPROPYL BENZENE 41 TPH-G 350 X 65 4-ISOPROPYL TOLUENE 23 TPH-SS NA MTBE <0.5 N-PROPYL BENZENE 26 TPH-D 590 PCE <0.5 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 92 TPH-MO <250 NAPHTHALENE 140 - SOIL BORING LOCATION (CPI, 2014) TCE <0.5 B <0.5 N-BUTYL BENZENE 11 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 26 N T <0.5 SEC-BUTYL BENZENE 12 OTHER VOCs ND - SOIL BORING LOCATION (T&R, 2007-2009) E <0.5 TERT-BUTYL BENZENE 1.6 X <0.5 ISOPROPYL BENZENE 47 - SOIL BORING LOCATION (EAI, 2005) MTBE <0.5 4-ISOPROPYL TOLUENE 1.3 PCE <0.5 N-PROPYL BENZENE 45 0 80 160 TCE <0.5 - GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION (T&R, 2009) 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 6.8 OTHER VOCs ND NAPHTHALENE 25 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 0.76 - GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION (EAI, 2006) OTHER VOCs ND
DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: JEG DATE: 09/14/201507/15/2016 FIGURE: 4 GROUNDWATER HYDROCARBON DRAWN BY: RB SCALE: RESULTS 2400 SALVIO STREET PROJECT NO: CONCORD, CALIFORNIA
- RI SOIL BORING LOCATION (GRIBI, 11/2010
- RI HYDROPUNCH BORING LOCATION (GRIBI, 11/2010
- RI CPT BORING LOCATION (GRIBI, 11/2010
- SOIL BORING LOCATION (GRIBI, 04/2010) DEPTH 5.0’ 15.0’ DEPTH 5.0’ 15.0’ DEPTH 15.5’ Benzene <8 <8 Benzene <8 <8 Benzene <80 Toluene 313 266 Toluene <8 296 Toluene <200 TPH-ss <80 <80 TPH-ss <80 <80 DEPTH 5.0’ 15.0’ PCE <100 PCE 367 429 PCE 268 378 OVERHEAD BART OTHER VOCs ND TCE <8 <8 TCE <8 <8 Benzene <8 92 TPH-G ND OTHER VOCs ND ND OTHER VOCs ND ND Toluene <8 484 TPH-D ND TRACKS TPH-ss <80 12,900 PCE 1,080 431 TCE <8 <8 DEPTH 16.5’ DEPTH 15.5’ OTHER VOCs ND ND Benzene <80 <80 Toluene <200 TR-25 Benzene <200 PCE 6,000 Toluene DEPTH 5.0’ 15.0’ DEPTH 5.0’ <100 OTHER VOCs ND PCE OTHER VOCs ND Benzene <8 86 Benzene <8 TPH-G ND DEPTH 16.5’ TPH-G ND Toluene <8 484 Toluene 320 TPH-D ND TPH-D ND TPH-ss <80 <80 TPH-ss 3,370 Benzene 85 PCE 1,670 557 PCE 614 Toluene <200 TCE 14 <8 TCE <8 PCE 370 OTHER VOCs ND ND OTHER VOCs ND OTHER VOCs ND . TPH-G ND TPH-D ND DEPTH 5.0’ 15.0’ VIO ST SAL B6 TR-4 Benzene <8 <8 B1 Toluene 25 <8 DEPTH 5.0’ 15.0’ TPH-ss <80 <80 TR-26 PCE <8 1,800 Benzene <8 96 TCE <8 <8 SP-3 Toluene <8 463 OTHER VOCs ND ND SP-1 TPH-ss <80 <80 MW-5 MW-4 TR-3 SP-2 PCE 547 423 TCE <8 <8 DEPTH 16.5’ B2 OTHER VOCs ND ND TR-27 DEPTH 16.5’ Benzene <80 TR-2 Toluene <200 Benzene 110 PCE <200 TR-8 Toluene <200 DEPTH 5.0’ 15.0’ OTHER VOCs ND B12 PCE 5,100 TPH-G ND B17 OTHER VOCs ND Benzene <8 92 TPH-D ND TPH-G ND B3 DEPTH 16.5’ TPH-D ND Toluene <0 484 TR-15 B7 TPH-ss <80 12,900 B22 B11 Benzene <80 PCE 1,080 431 TR-1 Toluene <200 B18 TCE <8 <8 SP-4 PCE 3,900 MW-1 OTHER VOCs ND ND B13 TR-7 OTHER VOCs ND DEPTH 5.0’ B10 TPH-G ND DEPTH 16.5’ MW-6 MW-3 TPH-D ND Benzene <8 TR-5 Benzene <80 B4 Toluene 21 Toluene <200 EAST ST B16 5.0’ TPH-ss 2,320 DEPTH 5.0’ B20 B9 PCE 2,000 DEPTH 15.0’ PCE <8 OTHER VOCs ND TR-12 PORT CHICAGO HWY SP-6 DEPTH 16.5’ <8 TCE <8 Benzene <8 TPH-G ND Benzene 96 <8 OTHER VOCs ND Toluene 95 TPH-D ND Toluene 414 Benzene <80 TPH-ss <80 <80 TPH-ss. <80 SP-5 PCE 282 TR-10 B19 Toluene 210 PCE 108 727 TCE <8 B14 PCE 25,000 TCE <8 <8 OTHER VOCs ND B8 OTHER VOCs ND OTHER VOCs ND ND TR-6 TPH-G ND MW-2 TPH-D ND B5 DEPTH 16.5’ PC @ 5 ft = MW-8 TR-11 3 Benzene <80 DEPTH 16.5’ TR-9 210 UG/M Toluene <200 PCE <100 Benzene <80 TR-14 DEPTH 16.5’. B21 DEPTH 16.5’ OTHER VOCs ND Toluene 260 B15 TPH-G ND PCE <100 DEPTH 5.0’ 15.0’ Benzene <80 Benzene 120 TPH-D ND OTHER VOCs ND SP-7 Toluene 290 Toluene 230 TPH-G ND MW-7 (abandoned) Benzene <8 29 PCE <100 PCE <100 TPH-D ND Toluene <8 42 OTHER VOCs ND DEPTH 5.0’ 15.0’ OTHER VOCs ND TPH-ss 34,600 139,000 TPH-G ND TPH-G ND PCE <8 1,670 TPH-D ND DEPTH 16.5’ Benzene < <8 TPH-D ND Toluene 45 271 TCE 21 47 Benzene <80 TPH-ss <80 <80 t-1,2-DCE <8 99 Toluene 220 PCE <8 421 1,1,1-TCA <8 166 PCE <100 TCE <8 <8 OTHER VOCs ND ND OTHER VOCs ND OTHER VOCs ND ND TR-16 TPH-G ND TR-21 TPH-D ND
TR-17 TR-24
TR-20 TR-23 WILLOW PASS RD MW-9 (abandoned) DEPTH 16.5’ TR-18 Benzene <80 DEPTH 16.5’ Toluene 260 TR-19 PCE <100 Benzene <80 OTHER VOCs ND Toluene 260 TPH-G ND PCE <100 TPH-D ND OTHER VOCs ND TPH-G ND TPH-D ND
- SOIL BORING LOCATION (CPI, 2014) N - SOIL BORING LOCATION (T&R, 2007-2009)
- SOIL BORING LOCATION (EAI, 2005) 0 80 160 - GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION (T&R, 2009) APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET - GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION (EAI, 2006)
DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: JEG DATE: 07/15/2016 FIGURE: 5 SOIL VAPOR HYDROCARBON DRAWN BY: RB SCALE: RESULTS 2400 SALVIO STREET PROJECT NO: CONCORD, CALIFORNIA APPENDIX B CALEEMOD FILES
CalEEMod Inputs Concord Village Apartments Initial Study
Project-Specific Inputs for the Concord Village Apartments Initial Study
Project Specific Inputs Input Type of Input Inputs Source/Notes Concord Village Project Name Project Name Project Description Apartments Initial Study Project Location County Contra Costa Modeler, based on location Climate zone Climate Zone Number 4 Modeler, based on location Land Use Setting Urban or Rural Urban Modeler, based on location 1st year of operation after full Operational Year 2019 Project Description buildout. Utility Company Utility Company Name PG&E USEPA Power Profiler Residential, Commercial, Land Use Type and Subtype See Table 1. See Table 1. Recreation, etc. Size of Buildings or Number of Unit Amount See Table 1. See Table 1. units for each Land Use Type. Lot Acreage Acreage of each Land Use Type See Table 1. See Table 1.
Population based on Population See Table 1. See Table 1. persons/household Type of construction phase (Demo, Construction Phases Site Prep, etc.) and beginning and See Table 2. See Table 2. ending dates Type of equipment (Excavator, Off-Road Equipment Dozer, etc.) and number of units See Table 2. See Table 2. per construction phase Demolition Sq ft or tons of Demo 2,400 sq. ft. Google Maps Average number of one-way trips Construction Trip Gen Rate -- -- per day Operational Trip Reductions % reduction in trips. -- -- Operational Trip Gen Rate and trip length Trips and trip lengths -- -- Hearths – # of wood-burning No hearths are included in the fireplaces, #of gas fireplaces, and Not Applicable project design. Area Sources # of units with no fireplace. Landscape Equipment - % of -- -- equipment that is electric.
Energy Use Project Specific Emission Factors. -- --
Analytical Environmental Services 1 Concord Village Apartments Initial Study 215526 Site Specific CalEEMod Inputs Project Specific Inputs Input Type of Input Inputs Source/Notes Indoor and outdoor water use for Water and Wastewater each Land Use Subtype in gallons -- N/A no GHG analysis per year. Tons of solid waste generated per -- -- Solid waste year Land Fill Gas Capture Rate Operational off-road equipment Excavator, Dozer, etc. -- -- Vegetation land use type Land Use Change (cropland, etc.) and initial and final -- -- acreage Type and net number of new trees Sequestration -- -- added Source: USEPA, 2015; SVA, 2016
Analytical Environmental Services 2 Concord Village Initial Study 215526 Site Specific CalEEMod Inputs Project–Mitigation Inputs for the Concord Village Apartments Initial Study
CAPCOA Include in Mitigation Project Specific Inputs Mitigation Model? Type of Input / Unit Input Category Number (yes/no) Inputs Source/Notes Off-Road Engine Type, DPF Level, C-1 No -- -- Equipment and Oxidation Catalyst Soil Stabilizer N/A PM10 (% Reduction) -- -- for Unpaved No Roads N/A PM2.5 (% Reduction) -- -- N/A Frequency (per day) 2 times per day Default % Reduction Water Exposed Yes PM10 (% Reduction) 55% Default % Reduction. Area N/A N/A PM2.5 (% Reduction) 55% Default % Reduction. Replace Ground N/A PM10 (% Reduction) -- -- Cover of Area No Disturbed N/A PM2.5 (% Reduction) -- -- Unpaved Road N/A No Moisture Content (%) -- -- Mitigation N/A No Vehicle Speed (mph) -- -- Type of N/A Yes Project Setting Urban Center -- Residential Dwelling Units/Acre 100 SVA Engineering Plans Increased LUT-1 Yes Density Job/Job Acre -- -- Increased LUT-3 No Yes or No -- -- Diversity Improved Walkability LUT-9 No Intersections/Square Miles -- -- Design Improve Distance to Downtown/Job Destination LUT-4 No -- -- Ctr Accessibility Increased Average Distance to Transit Transit LUT-5 Yes .25 SVA Engineering Plans Station (miles) Accessibility Integrated # Dwelling Units Below Below Market LUT-6 No -- -- Market Rate Rate Housing Improve Yes or No; Project Site, Pedestrian SDT-1 No Project Site and Connecting -- -- Network off-site, and Rural
Analytical Environmental Services 3 Concord Village Initial Study 215526 Site Specific CalEEMod Inputs CAPCOA Include in Mitigation Project Specific Inputs Mitigation Model? Type of Input / Unit Input Category Number (yes/no) Inputs Source/Notes
Provide Traffic No % Streets with Improvement -- -- Calming SDT-2 % Intersections with Measures No -- -- Improvement Implement Neighborhood % of streets equipped with SDT-3 No -- -- Electric Vehicle NEV network. (NEV) Network Limit Parking PDT-1 No % Reduction in Spaces -- -- Supply Unbundled PDT-2 No Monthly Parking Costs ($) -- -- Parking Costs On-Street PDT-3 No % Increase in Price -- -- Market Pricing Provide a Bus Rapid Transit TST-1 No % Lines BRT -- -- System Expand Transit % Increase Transit TST-3 No -- -- Network Coverage
No Level of Implementation -- -- Increase Transit TST-4 Frequency No % Reduction in Headways -- --
Implement Trip No % employee eligible -- -- Reduction TRT-1, TRT-2 Program No Program Type -- -- TRT-4 No % employee eligible -- -- Transit Subsidy Daily Transit Subsidy No -- -- Amount ($) Implement Employee TRT-15 No % employee eligible -- -- Parking “Cash- Out” No % employee eligible -- -- Workplace TRT-14 Parking Charge No Daily Parking Charge ($) -- --
Encourage TRT-6 No % employee work 9/80 -- -- Telecommuting
Analytical Environmental Services 4 Concord Village Initial Study 215526 Site Specific CalEEMod Inputs CAPCOA Include in Mitigation Project Specific Inputs Mitigation Model? Type of Input / Unit Input Category Number (yes/no) Inputs Source/Notes and Alternative Work Schedules No % employee work 4/40 -- -- % employee telecommute No -- -- 1.5 days Market Commute Trip TRT-7 No % employee eligible -- -- Reduction Option Employee No % employee eligible -- -- TRT-11 Vanpool/Shuttle No % vanpool mode share -- -- Provide Ride Sharing TRT-3 No % employee eligible -- -- Program Implement School Bus TRT-13 No % family using -- -- Program Only Natural N/A No Yes or No -- -- Gas Hearth No hearth N/A Yes Yes or No No SVA Engineering Plans Use of Low VOC Cleaning N/A No Yes or No -- -- Supplies Use low VOC Paint N/A No Emission Factor (EF) (g/l) -- -- (Residential Interior) Use low VOC Paint N/A No EF (g/l) -- -- (Residential Exterior) Use low VOC Paint (Non- N/A No EF (g/l) -- -- residential Interior) Use low VOC Paint (Non- N/A No EF (g/l) -- -- residential Exterior) Electric Percent of equipment type A-1 No -- -- Lawnmower that will be electric. Electric Percent of equipment type A-1 No -- -- Leafblower that will be electric.
Analytical Environmental Services 5 Concord Village Initial Study 215526 Site Specific CalEEMod Inputs CAPCOA Include in Mitigation Project Specific Inputs Mitigation Model? Type of Input / Unit Input Category Number (yes/no) Inputs Source/Notes Electric Percent of equipment type A-1 No -- -- Chainsaw that will be electric. Percentage improvement Exceed Title 24 BE-1 No -- -- selected for the Project. Install High % Lighting Energy Efficiently LE-1 No -- -- Reduction Lighting On-site No kWh Generated -- -- AE-1, AE-2, Renewable % of Electricity Use AE-3 No -- -- Energy Generated Energy Efficient Appliance Type, Land Use BE-4 Yes Use Default Values Defaults Appliances Subtype, % Improvement Apply Water No % Reduction Indoor -- -- Conservation WUW-2 Strategy No % Reduction Outdoor -- -- Use Reclaimed No % Indoor Water Use -- -- WSW-1 Water No % Outdoor Water Use -- -- No % Indoor Water Use -- -- Use Grey Water WSW-2 No % Outdoor Water Use -- -- Install Low-Flow Bathroom WUW-1 Yes % Reduction in flow Use Default Values Defaults Faucet Install Low-flow WUW-1 Yes % Reduction in flow Defaults Kitchen Faucet Use Default Values Install Low-flow WUW-1 Yes % Reduction in flow Defaults Toilet Use Default Values Install Low-flow WUW-1 Yes % Reduction in flow Defaults Shower Use Default Values No Turf Reduction Area (sqft) -- -- Turf Reduction WUW-5 No % Reduction turf -- -- Use Water- Efficient WUW-4 No % Reduction -- -- Irrigation Systems Maximum Applied Water No -- -- Water Efficient Allowance (MAWA) (gal/yr) WUW-3 Landscape Estimated Total Water Use No -- -- (ETWU) (gal/yr)
Analytical Environmental Services 6 Concord Village Initial Study 215526 Site Specific CalEEMod Inputs CAPCOA Include in Mitigation Project Specific Inputs Mitigation Model? Type of Input / Unit Input Category Number (yes/no) Inputs Source/Notes Institute % Reduction in Waste Recycling and SW-1 No Disposal over State -- -- Composting requirements Service
Table 1 – Land Use Inputs
Land Use Land Use Subtype Unit Amount Size Metric Lot Acreage Square Feet Population Type Residential Apartments Mid Rise 230 Dwelling Unit 2.3 100,188 628
Note: Average household size 2.73 persons per household Source: SVA, 2016
Analytical Environmental Services 7 Concord Village Initial Study 215526 Site Specific CalEEMod Inputs Table 2 – Construction Equipment Usage
Construction Phase Activities Building Architectural Demolition Site Prep Grading Paving Equipment Construction Coating 3/1/2017 - 4/8/2017 - 4/12/2017 - 4/20/2017 - 5/12/2018 - 7/20/2017 - 4/7/2017 4/11/2017 4/19/2017 5/11/2018 5/31/2018 5/31/2018 Air Compressors 1 Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 Concreate/Industrial Saws 1 Cranes 1 1 Forklifts 1 Gensets 1 Graders 1 1 Pavers 1 Paving Equipment 1 Rollers 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 1 1 1 1 Welders 3
Analytical Environmental Services 8 Concord Village Initial Study 215526 Site Specific CalEEMod Inputs CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study Contra Costa County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Apartments Mid Rise 230.00 Dwelling Unit 2.30 100,188.00 628
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58
Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2019
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Land Use - Refer to CalEEMod tables Woodstoves - No hearths Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Water Mitigation - CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 40 0
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 226.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 277.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 28.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 14.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 2.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 34.50 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 39.10 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 3.00 4.50
tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet 230,000.00 100,188.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 230,000.00 100,188.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.05 2.30
tblLandUse Population 658.00 628.00
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2019
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 4.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 4.60 0.00
2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 3 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2017 0.8305 3.0942 2.5788 4.9600e- 0.1739 0.1761 0.3500 0.0511 0.1683 0.2194 0.0000 439.2185 439.2185 0.0630 0.0000 440.7921 003
2018 0.5512 1.3839 1.2857 2.6100e- 0.0854 0.0758 0.1612 0.0229 0.0727 0.0956 0.0000 229.4570 229.4570 0.0303 0.0000 230.2148 003
Maximum 0.8305 3.0942 2.5788 4.9600e- 0.1739 0.1761 0.3500 0.0511 0.1683 0.2194 0.0000 439.2185 439.2185 0.0630 0.0000 440.7921 003
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2017 0.8305 3.0942 2.5788 4.9600e- 0.1617 0.1761 0.3379 0.0454 0.1683 0.2137 0.0000 439.2182 439.2182 0.0630 0.0000 440.7918 003
2018 0.5512 1.3839 1.2857 2.6100e- 0.0854 0.0758 0.1612 0.0229 0.0727 0.0956 0.0000 229.4568 229.4568 0.0303 0.0000 230.2146 003
Maximum 0.8305 3.0942 2.5788 4.9600e- 0.1617 0.1761 0.3379 0.0454 0.1683 0.2137 0.0000 439.2182 439.2182 0.0630 0.0000 440.7918 003
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.68 0.00 2.37 7.69 0.00 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 3-1-2017 5-31-2017 0.9968 0.9968
2 6-1-2017 8-31-2017 1.1718 1.1718
3 9-1-2017 11-30-2017 1.3205 1.3205
4 12-1-2017 2-28-2018 1.2361 1.2361
5 3-1-2018 5-31-2018 1.1309 1.1309
Highest 1.3205 1.3205
2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.5144 0.0199 1.7162 9.0000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 0.0000 2.7896 2.7896 2.7400e- 0.0000 2.8581 005 003 003 003 003 003
Energy 0.0142 0.1212 0.0516 7.7000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 442.9303 442.9303 0.0164 5.4000e- 444.9500 004 003 003 003 003 003
Mobile 0.4774 2.1209 5.4435 0.0160 1.2899 0.0179 1.3078 0.3462 0.0168 0.3631 0.0000 1,463.015 1,463.015 0.0597 0.0000 1,464.508 2 2 3
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 21.4764 0.0000 21.4764 1.2692 0.0000 53.2070
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.7542 33.2081 37.9623 0.4898 0.0118 53.7358
Total 1.0059 2.2620 7.2113 0.0169 1.2899 0.0371 1.3270 0.3462 0.0360 0.3823 26.2306 1,941.943 1,968.173 1.8379 0.0172 2,019.259 1 8 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.5144 0.0199 1.7162 9.0000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 0.0000 2.7896 2.7896 2.7400e- 0.0000 2.8581 005 003 003 003 003 003
Energy 0.0142 0.1212 0.0516 7.7000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 442.9303 442.9303 0.0164 5.4000e- 444.9500 004 003 003 003 003 003
Mobile 0.4286 1.7458 4.2729 0.0115 0.9029 0.0131 0.9161 0.2424 0.0123 0.2547 0.0000 1,054.238 1,054.238 0.0478 0.0000 1,055.433 8 8 3
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 21.4764 0.0000 21.4764 1.2692 0.0000 53.2070
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.7542 33.2081 37.9623 0.4898 0.0118 53.7358
Total 0.9572 1.8869 6.0407 0.0124 0.9029 0.0323 0.9353 0.2424 0.0315 0.2739 26.2306 1,533.166 1,559.397 1.8259 0.0172 1,610.184 7 4 1
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Percent 4.84 16.58 16.23 26.50 30.00 12.88 29.52 30.00 12.49 28.35 0.00 21.05 20.77 0.65 0.00 20.26 Reduction
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2017 4/7/2017 5 28
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/8/2017 4/11/2017 5 2
3 Grading Grading 4/12/2017 4/19/2017 5 6
4 Building Construction Building Construction 4/20/2017 5/11/2018 5 277
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/20/2017 5/31/2018 5 226
6 Paving Paving 5/12/2018 5/31/2018 5 14
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 202,881; Residential Outdoor: 67,627; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class
Architectural Coating 1 33.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 8 166.00 25.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads
3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0387 0.3746 0.2178 3.4000e- 0.0231 0.0231 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 30.7535 30.7535 7.7800e- 0.0000 30.9480 004 003
Total 0.0387 0.3746 0.2178 3.4000e- 0.0231 0.0231 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 30.7535 30.7535 7.7800e- 0.0000 30.9480 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 9 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.4000e- 6.6000e- 6.6200e- 2.0000e- 1.4400e- 1.0000e- 1.4500e- 3.8000e- 1.0000e- 3.9000e- 0.0000 1.3873 1.3873 5.0000e- 0.0000 1.3885 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Total 8.4000e- 6.6000e- 6.6200e- 2.0000e- 1.4400e- 1.0000e- 1.4500e- 3.8000e- 1.0000e- 3.9000e- 0.0000 1.3873 1.3873 5.0000e- 0.0000 1.3885 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0387 0.3746 0.2178 3.4000e- 0.0231 0.0231 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 30.7535 30.7535 7.7800e- 0.0000 30.9479 004 003
Total 0.0387 0.3746 0.2178 3.4000e- 0.0231 0.0231 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 30.7535 30.7535 7.7800e- 0.0000 30.9479 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.4000e- 6.6000e- 6.6200e- 2.0000e- 1.4400e- 1.0000e- 1.4500e- 3.8000e- 1.0000e- 3.9000e- 0.0000 1.3873 1.3873 5.0000e- 0.0000 1.3885 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Total 8.4000e- 6.6000e- 6.6200e- 2.0000e- 1.4400e- 1.0000e- 1.4500e- 3.8000e- 1.0000e- 3.9000e- 0.0000 1.3873 1.3873 5.0000e- 0.0000 1.3885 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.3900e- 0.0000 2.3900e- 2.6000e- 0.0000 2.6000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 004 004
Off-Road 2.1300e- 0.0267 0.0144 2.0000e- 1.1100e- 1.1100e- 1.0200e- 1.0200e- 0.0000 2.2756 2.2756 7.0000e- 0.0000 2.2930 003 005 003 003 003 003 004
Total 2.1300e- 0.0267 0.0144 2.0000e- 2.3900e- 1.1100e- 3.5000e- 2.6000e- 1.0200e- 1.2800e- 0.0000 2.2756 2.2756 7.0000e- 0.0000 2.2930 003 005 003 003 003 004 003 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.0000e- 3.0000e- 2.9000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0610 0.0610 0.0000 0.0000 0.0610 005 005 004 005 005 005 005
Total 4.0000e- 3.0000e- 2.9000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0610 0.0610 0.0000 0.0000 0.0610 005 005 004 005 005 005 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.0700e- 0.0000 1.0700e- 1.2000e- 0.0000 1.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 004 004
Off-Road 2.1300e- 0.0267 0.0144 2.0000e- 1.1100e- 1.1100e- 1.0200e- 1.0200e- 0.0000 2.2756 2.2756 7.0000e- 0.0000 2.2930 003 005 003 003 003 003 004
Total 2.1300e- 0.0267 0.0144 2.0000e- 1.0700e- 1.1100e- 2.1800e- 1.2000e- 1.0200e- 1.1400e- 0.0000 2.2756 2.2756 7.0000e- 0.0000 2.2930 003 005 003 003 003 004 003 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.0000e- 3.0000e- 2.9000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0610 0.0610 0.0000 0.0000 0.0610 005 005 004 005 005 005 005
Total 4.0000e- 3.0000e- 2.9000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0610 0.0610 0.0000 0.0000 0.0610 005 005 004 005 005 005 005
3.4 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0197 0.0000 0.0197 0.0101 0.0000 0.0101 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 6.9600e- 0.0785 0.0323 6.0000e- 3.9000e- 3.9000e- 3.5800e- 3.5800e- 0.0000 5.7484 5.7484 1.7600e- 0.0000 5.7925 003 005 003 003 003 003 003
Total 6.9600e- 0.0785 0.0323 6.0000e- 0.0197 3.9000e- 0.0236 0.0101 3.5800e- 0.0137 0.0000 5.7484 5.7484 1.7600e- 0.0000 5.7925 003 005 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.4000e- 1.1000e- 1.0900e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 6.0000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 0.0000 0.2287 0.2287 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.2289 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005
Total 1.4000e- 1.1000e- 1.0900e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 6.0000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 0.0000 0.2287 0.2287 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.2289 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 8.8500e- 0.0000 8.8500e- 4.5500e- 0.0000 4.5500e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 003 003
Off-Road 6.9600e- 0.0785 0.0323 6.0000e- 3.9000e- 3.9000e- 3.5800e- 3.5800e- 0.0000 5.7484 5.7484 1.7600e- 0.0000 5.7924 003 005 003 003 003 003 003
Total 6.9600e- 0.0785 0.0323 6.0000e- 8.8500e- 3.9000e- 0.0128 4.5500e- 3.5800e- 8.1300e- 0.0000 5.7484 5.7484 1.7600e- 0.0000 5.7924 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.4000e- 1.1000e- 1.0900e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 6.0000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 0.0000 0.2287 0.2287 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.2289 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005
Total 1.4000e- 1.1000e- 1.0900e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 6.0000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 0.0000 0.2287 0.2287 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.2289 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005
3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.3041 2.0956 1.4842 2.2800e- 0.1337 0.1337 0.1280 0.1280 0.0000 193.8051 193.8051 0.0432 0.0000 194.8841 003
Total 0.3041 2.0956 1.4842 2.2800e- 0.1337 0.1337 0.1280 0.1280 0.0000 193.8051 193.8051 0.0432 0.0000 194.8841 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0145 0.3285 0.0934 6.3000e- 0.0150 3.1700e- 0.0181 4.3200e- 3.0400e- 7.3600e- 0.0000 60.1585 60.1585 3.5700e- 0.0000 60.2477 004 003 003 003 003 003
Worker 0.0696 0.0547 0.5492 1.2800e- 0.1198 8.6000e- 0.1207 0.0319 7.9000e- 0.0327 0.0000 115.1483 115.1483 3.8500e- 0.0000 115.2446 003 004 004 003
Total 0.0841 0.3831 0.6425 1.9100e- 0.1348 4.0300e- 0.1388 0.0362 3.8300e- 0.0400 0.0000 175.3068 175.3068 7.4200e- 0.0000 175.4923 003 003 003 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.3041 2.0956 1.4842 2.2800e- 0.1337 0.1337 0.1280 0.1280 0.0000 193.8048 193.8048 0.0432 0.0000 194.8839 003
Total 0.3041 2.0956 1.4842 2.2800e- 0.1337 0.1337 0.1280 0.1280 0.0000 193.8048 193.8048 0.0432 0.0000 194.8839 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0145 0.3285 0.0934 6.3000e- 0.0150 3.1700e- 0.0181 4.3200e- 3.0400e- 7.3600e- 0.0000 60.1585 60.1585 3.5700e- 0.0000 60.2477 004 003 003 003 003 003
Worker 0.0696 0.0547 0.5492 1.2800e- 0.1198 8.6000e- 0.1207 0.0319 7.9000e- 0.0327 0.0000 115.1483 115.1483 3.8500e- 0.0000 115.2446 003 004 004 003
Total 0.0841 0.3831 0.6425 1.9100e- 0.1348 4.0300e- 0.1388 0.0362 3.8300e- 0.0400 0.0000 175.3068 175.3068 7.4200e- 0.0000 175.4923 003 003 003 003
3.5 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1384 0.9836 0.7466 1.1900e- 0.0597 0.0597 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 100.3930 100.3930 0.0216 0.0000 100.9337 003
Total 0.1384 0.9836 0.7466 1.1900e- 0.0597 0.0597 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 100.3930 100.3930 0.0216 0.0000 100.9337 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 6.5600e- 0.1605 0.0430 3.3000e- 7.8100e- 1.3200e- 9.1300e- 2.2600e- 1.2600e- 3.5200e- 0.0000 31.3490 31.3490 1.7400e- 0.0000 31.3925 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 003
Worker 0.0323 0.0248 0.2506 6.5000e- 0.0625 4.4000e- 0.0630 0.0166 4.0000e- 0.0170 0.0000 58.4278 58.4278 1.7600e- 0.0000 58.4718 004 004 004 003
Total 0.0388 0.1853 0.2936 9.8000e- 0.0704 1.7600e- 0.0721 0.0189 1.6600e- 0.0206 0.0000 89.7768 89.7768 3.5000e- 0.0000 89.8642 004 003 003 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1384 0.9836 0.7466 1.1900e- 0.0597 0.0597 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 100.3929 100.3929 0.0216 0.0000 100.9336 003
Total 0.1384 0.9836 0.7466 1.1900e- 0.0597 0.0597 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 100.3929 100.3929 0.0216 0.0000 100.9336 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 6.5600e- 0.1605 0.0430 3.3000e- 7.8100e- 1.3200e- 9.1300e- 2.2600e- 1.2600e- 3.5200e- 0.0000 31.3490 31.3490 1.7400e- 0.0000 31.3925 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 003
Worker 0.0323 0.0248 0.2506 6.5000e- 0.0625 4.4000e- 0.0630 0.0166 4.0000e- 0.0170 0.0000 58.4278 58.4278 1.7600e- 0.0000 58.4718 004 004 004 003
Total 0.0388 0.1853 0.2936 9.8000e- 0.0704 1.7600e- 0.0721 0.0189 1.6600e- 0.0206 0.0000 89.7768 89.7768 3.5000e- 0.0000 89.8642 004 003 003 003
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.3651 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0194 0.1278 0.1093 1.7000e- 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 0.0000 14.9365 14.9365 1.5800e- 0.0000 14.9760 004 003
Total 0.3846 0.1278 0.1093 1.7000e- 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 0.0000 14.9365 14.9365 1.5800e- 0.0000 14.9760 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.9000e- 6.9900e- 0.0702 1.6000e- 0.0153 1.1000e- 0.0154 4.0700e- 1.0000e- 4.1700e- 0.0000 14.7156 14.7156 4.9000e- 0.0000 14.7279 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004
Total 8.9000e- 6.9900e- 0.0702 1.6000e- 0.0153 1.1000e- 0.0154 4.0700e- 1.0000e- 4.1700e- 0.0000 14.7156 14.7156 4.9000e- 0.0000 14.7279 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.3651 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0194 0.1278 0.1093 1.7000e- 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 0.0000 14.9365 14.9365 1.5800e- 0.0000 14.9759 004 003
Total 0.3846 0.1278 0.1093 1.7000e- 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 0.0101 0.0000 14.9365 14.9365 1.5800e- 0.0000 14.9759 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.9000e- 6.9900e- 0.0702 1.6000e- 0.0153 1.1000e- 0.0154 4.0700e- 1.0000e- 4.1700e- 0.0000 14.7156 14.7156 4.9000e- 0.0000 14.7279 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004
Total 8.9000e- 6.9900e- 0.0702 1.6000e- 0.0153 1.1000e- 0.0154 4.0700e- 1.0000e- 4.1700e- 0.0000 14.7156 14.7156 4.9000e- 0.0000 14.7279 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.3402 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0163 0.1093 0.1011 1.6000e- 8.2100e- 8.2100e- 8.2100e- 8.2100e- 0.0000 13.9153 13.9153 1.3200e- 0.0000 13.9483 004 003 003 003 003 003
Total 0.3564 0.1093 0.1011 1.6000e- 8.2100e- 8.2100e- 8.2100e- 8.2100e- 0.0000 13.9153 13.9153 1.3200e- 0.0000 13.9483 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.3600e- 5.6600e- 0.0572 1.5000e- 0.0143 1.0000e- 0.0144 3.7900e- 9.0000e- 3.8900e- 0.0000 13.3269 13.3269 4.0000e- 0.0000 13.3369 003 003 004 004 003 005 003 004
Total 7.3600e- 5.6600e- 0.0572 1.5000e- 0.0143 1.0000e- 0.0144 3.7900e- 9.0000e- 3.8900e- 0.0000 13.3269 13.3269 4.0000e- 0.0000 13.3369 003 003 004 004 003 005 003 004
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.3402 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0163 0.1093 0.1011 1.6000e- 8.2100e- 8.2100e- 8.2100e- 8.2100e- 0.0000 13.9152 13.9152 1.3200e- 0.0000 13.9483 004 003 003 003 003 003
Total 0.3564 0.1093 0.1011 1.6000e- 8.2100e- 8.2100e- 8.2100e- 8.2100e- 0.0000 13.9152 13.9152 1.3200e- 0.0000 13.9483 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.3600e- 5.6600e- 0.0572 1.5000e- 0.0143 1.0000e- 0.0144 3.7900e- 9.0000e- 3.8900e- 0.0000 13.3269 13.3269 4.0000e- 0.0000 13.3369 003 003 004 004 003 005 003 004
Total 7.3600e- 5.6600e- 0.0572 1.5000e- 0.0143 1.0000e- 0.0144 3.7900e- 9.0000e- 3.8900e- 0.0000 13.3269 13.3269 4.0000e- 0.0000 13.3369 003 003 004 004 003 005 003 004
3.7 Paving - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.8300e- 0.0998 0.0839 1.2000e- 5.9500e- 5.9500e- 5.4900e- 5.4900e- 0.0000 11.2670 11.2670 3.4400e- 0.0000 11.3530 003 004 003 003 003 003 003
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 9.8300e- 0.0998 0.0839 1.2000e- 5.9500e- 5.9500e- 5.4900e- 5.4900e- 0.0000 11.2670 11.2670 3.4400e- 0.0000 11.3530 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 23 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.7 Paving - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.3000e- 3.3000e- 3.3400e- 1.0000e- 8.3000e- 1.0000e- 8.4000e- 2.2000e- 1.0000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 0.7781 0.7781 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.7786 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005
Total 4.3000e- 3.3000e- 3.3400e- 1.0000e- 8.3000e- 1.0000e- 8.4000e- 2.2000e- 1.0000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 0.7781 0.7781 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.7786 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.8300e- 0.0998 0.0839 1.2000e- 5.9500e- 5.9500e- 5.4900e- 5.4900e- 0.0000 11.2670 11.2670 3.4400e- 0.0000 11.3530 003 004 003 003 003 003 003
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 9.8300e- 0.0998 0.0839 1.2000e- 5.9500e- 5.9500e- 5.4900e- 5.4900e- 0.0000 11.2670 11.2670 3.4400e- 0.0000 11.3530 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 24 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
3.7 Paving - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 4.3000e- 3.3000e- 3.3400e- 1.0000e- 8.3000e- 1.0000e- 8.4000e- 2.2000e- 1.0000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 0.7781 0.7781 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.7786 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005
Total 4.3000e- 3.3000e- 3.3400e- 1.0000e- 8.3000e- 1.0000e- 8.4000e- 2.2000e- 1.0000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 0.7781 0.7781 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.7786 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Density Increase Transit Accessibility CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 25 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.4286 1.7458 4.2729 0.0115 0.9029 0.0131 0.9161 0.2424 0.0123 0.2547 0.0000 1,054.238 1,054.238 0.0478 0.0000 1,055.433 8 8 3
Unmitigated 0.4774 2.1209 5.4435 0.0160 1.2899 0.0179 1.3078 0.3462 0.0168 0.3631 0.0000 1,463.015 1,463.015 0.0597 0.0000 1,464.508 2 2 3
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 1,529.50 1,469.70 1347.80 3,452,863 2,417,004 Total 1,529.50 1,469.70 1,347.80 3,452,863 2,417,004
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.571348 0.041302 0.187452 0.129481 0.019048 0.005152 0.010609 0.022861 0.001566 0.001884 0.005572 0.002772 0.000953
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 26 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 302.5246 302.5246 0.0137 2.8300e- 303.7100 Mitigated 003
Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 302.5246 302.5246 0.0137 2.8300e- 303.7100 Unmitigated 003
NaturalGas 0.0142 0.1212 0.0516 7.7000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 140.4057 140.4057 2.6900e- 2.5700e- 141.2401 Mitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
NaturalGas 0.0142 0.1212 0.0516 7.7000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 140.4057 140.4057 2.6900e- 2.5700e- 141.2401 Unmitigated 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated
NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid 2.6311e 0.0142 0.1212 0.0516 7.7000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 140.4057 140.4057 2.6900e- 2.5700e- 141.2401 Rise +006 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Total 0.0142 0.1212 0.0516 7.7000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 140.4057 140.4057 2.6900e- 2.5700e- 141.2401 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 27 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated
NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid 2.6311e 0.0142 0.1212 0.0516 7.7000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 140.4057 140.4057 2.6900e- 2.5700e- 141.2401 Rise +006 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Total 0.0142 0.1212 0.0516 7.7000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 9.8000e- 0.0000 140.4057 140.4057 2.6900e- 2.5700e- 141.2401 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated
Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid 1.03992e 302.5246 0.0137 2.8300e- 303.7100 Rise +006 003
Total 302.5246 0.0137 2.8300e- 303.7100 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 28 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated
Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid 1.03992e 302.5246 0.0137 2.8300e- 303.7100 Rise +006 003
Total 302.5246 0.0137 2.8300e- 303.7100 003
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
No Hearths Installed CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 29 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.5144 0.0199 1.7162 9.0000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 0.0000 2.7896 2.7896 2.7400e- 0.0000 2.8581 005 003 003 003 003 003
Unmitigated 0.5144 0.0199 1.7162 9.0000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 0.0000 2.7896 2.7896 2.7400e- 0.0000 2.8581 005 003 003 003 003 003
6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural 0.0705 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
Consumer 0.3913 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0525 0.0199 1.7162 9.0000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 0.0000 2.7896 2.7896 2.7400e- 0.0000 2.8581 005 003 003 003 003 003
Total 0.5144 0.0199 1.7162 9.0000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 0.0000 2.7896 2.7896 2.7400e- 0.0000 2.8581 005 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 30 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural 0.0705 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
Consumer 0.3913 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0525 0.0199 1.7162 9.0000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 0.0000 2.7896 2.7896 2.7400e- 0.0000 2.8581 005 003 003 003 003 003
Total 0.5144 0.0199 1.7162 9.0000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 9.4000e- 0.0000 2.7896 2.7896 2.7400e- 0.0000 2.8581 005 003 003 003 003 003
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 31 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 37.9623 0.4898 0.0118 53.7358
Unmitigated 37.9623 0.4898 0.0118 53.7358
7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated
Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid 14.9854 / 37.9623 0.4898 0.0118 53.7358 Rise 9.44733
Total 37.9623 0.4898 0.0118 53.7358 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 32 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated
Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid 14.9854 / 37.9623 0.4898 0.0118 53.7358 Rise 9.44733
Total 37.9623 0.4898 0.0118 53.7358
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 21.4764 1.2692 0.0000 53.2070
Unmitigated 21.4764 1.2692 0.0000 53.2070 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 33 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated
Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid 105.8 21.4764 1.2692 0.0000 53.2070 Rise
Total 21.4764 1.2692 0.0000 53.2070
Mitigated
Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid 105.8 21.4764 1.2692 0.0000 53.2070 Rise
Total 21.4764 1.2692 0.0000 53.2070
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 34 of 34 Date: 11/21/2016 10:53 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Annual
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study Contra Costa County, Summer
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Apartments Mid Rise 230.00 Dwelling Unit 2.30 100,188.00 628
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58
Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2019
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Land Use - Refer to CalEEMod tables Woodstoves - No hearths Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Water Mitigation - CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 40 0
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 226.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 277.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 28.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 14.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 2.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 34.50 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 39.10 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 3.00 4.50
tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet 230,000.00 100,188.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 230,000.00 100,188.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.05 2.30
tblLandUse Population 658.00 628.00
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2019
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 4.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 4.60 0.00
2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 3 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Year lb/day lb/day
2017 11.0617 29.4102 27.1380 0.0533 6.6345 1.6890 7.9336 3.3893 1.6238 4.5845 0.0000 5,187.375 5,187.375 0.7710 0.0000 5,203.732 9 9 2
2018 10.4701 26.6021 25.4439 0.0528 1.8039 1.4466 3.2505 0.4823 1.3922 1.8745 0.0000 5,118.023 5,118.023 0.6202 0.0000 5,133.529 7 7 2
Maximum 11.0617 29.4102 27.1380 0.0533 6.6345 1.6890 7.9336 3.3893 1.6238 4.5845 0.0000 5,187.375 5,187.375 0.7710 0.0000 5,203.732 9 9 2
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Year lb/day lb/day
2017 11.0617 29.4102 27.1380 0.0533 3.0307 1.6890 4.3298 1.5372 1.6238 2.7323 0.0000 5,187.375 5,187.375 0.7710 0.0000 5,203.732 8 8 2
2018 10.4701 26.6021 25.4439 0.0528 1.8039 1.4466 3.2505 0.4823 1.3922 1.8745 0.0000 5,118.023 5,118.023 0.6202 0.0000 5,133.529 7 7 2
Maximum 11.0617 29.4102 27.1380 0.0533 3.0307 1.6890 4.3298 1.5372 1.6238 2.7323 0.0000 5,187.375 5,187.375 0.7710 0.0000 5,203.732 8 8 2
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.71 0.00 32.22 47.84 0.00 28.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.1142 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.0000 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 0.0000 35.0055 003
Energy 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 003
Mobile 3.1723 11.5121 32.2588 0.0966 7.5059 0.1003 7.6062 2.0087 0.0944 2.1031 9,718.533 9,718.533 0.3756 9,727.923 2 2 0
Total 6.3642 12.3973 51.6108 0.1018 7.5059 0.2585 7.7644 2.0087 0.2526 2.2613 0.0000 10,600.75 10,600.75 0.4254 0.0156 10,616.02 93 93 72
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.1142 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.0000 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 0.0000 35.0055 003
Energy 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 003
Mobile 2.8885 9.5241 24.6189 0.0695 5.2541 0.0734 5.3275 1.4061 0.0691 1.4751 6,996.484 6,996.484 0.2962 7,003.888 7 7 8
Total 6.0805 10.4093 43.9709 0.0747 5.2541 0.2316 5.4857 1.4061 0.2273 1.6333 0.0000 7,878.710 7,878.710 0.3460 0.0156 7,891.992 8 8 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Percent 4.46 16.04 14.80 26.58 30.00 10.40 29.35 30.00 10.03 27.77 0.00 25.68 25.68 18.67 0.00 25.66 Reduction
The subreport 'subOverallVegetation' could not be found at the specified location subOverallVegetation. Please verify that the subreport has been published and that the name is correct.
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2017 4/7/2017 5 28
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/8/2017 4/11/2017 5 2
3 Grading Grading 4/12/2017 4/19/2017 5 6
4 Building Construction Building Construction 4/20/2017 5/11/2018 5 277
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/20/2017 5/31/2018 5 226
6 Paving Paving 5/12/2018 5/31/2018 5 14
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 202,881; Residential Outdoor: 67,627; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class
Architectural Coating 1 33.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 8 166.00 25.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads
3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.7625 26.7594 15.5573 0.0241 1.6477 1.6477 1.5404 1.5404 2,421.422 2,421.422 0.6125 2,436.734 9 9 7
Total 2.7625 26.7594 15.5573 0.0241 1.6477 1.6477 1.5404 1.5404 2,421.422 2,421.422 0.6125 2,436.734 9 9 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0646 0.0421 0.5221 1.2000e- 0.1068 7.4000e- 0.1075 0.0283 6.8000e- 0.0290 119.0387 119.0387 3.9300e- 119.1369 003 004 004 003
Total 0.0646 0.0421 0.5221 1.2000e- 0.1068 7.4000e- 0.1075 0.0283 6.8000e- 0.0290 119.0387 119.0387 3.9300e- 119.1369 003 004 004 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.7625 26.7594 15.5573 0.0241 1.6477 1.6477 1.5404 1.5404 0.0000 2,421.422 2,421.422 0.6125 2,436.734 9 9 7
Total 2.7625 26.7594 15.5573 0.0241 1.6477 1.6477 1.5404 1.5404 0.0000 2,421.422 2,421.422 0.6125 2,436.734 9 9 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 9 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.2 Demolition - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0646 0.0421 0.5221 1.2000e- 0.1068 7.4000e- 0.1075 0.0283 6.8000e- 0.0290 119.0387 119.0387 3.9300e- 119.1369 003 004 004 003
Total 0.0646 0.0421 0.5221 1.2000e- 0.1068 7.4000e- 0.1075 0.0283 6.8000e- 0.0290 119.0387 119.0387 3.9300e- 119.1369 003 004 004 003
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.3861 0.0000 2.3861 0.2577 0.0000 0.2577 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.1335 26.7238 14.4219 0.0245 1.1097 1.1097 1.0209 1.0209 2,508.408 2,508.408 0.7686 2,527.622 6 6 9
Total 2.1335 26.7238 14.4219 0.0245 2.3861 1.1097 3.4958 0.2577 1.0209 1.2785 2,508.408 2,508.408 0.7686 2,527.622 6 6 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0398 0.0259 0.3213 7.4000e- 0.0657 4.6000e- 0.0662 0.0174 4.2000e- 0.0179 73.2546 73.2546 2.4200e- 73.3150 004 004 004 003
Total 0.0398 0.0259 0.3213 7.4000e- 0.0657 4.6000e- 0.0662 0.0174 4.2000e- 0.0179 73.2546 73.2546 2.4200e- 73.3150 004 004 004 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.0738 0.0000 1.0738 0.1159 0.0000 0.1159 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.1335 26.7238 14.4219 0.0245 1.1097 1.1097 1.0209 1.0209 0.0000 2,508.408 2,508.408 0.7686 2,527.622 6 6 9
Total 2.1335 26.7238 14.4219 0.0245 1.0738 1.1097 2.1834 0.1159 1.0209 1.1368 0.0000 2,508.408 2,508.408 0.7686 2,527.622 6 6 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0398 0.0259 0.3213 7.4000e- 0.0657 4.6000e- 0.0662 0.0174 4.2000e- 0.0179 73.2546 73.2546 2.4200e- 73.3150 004 004 004 003
Total 0.0398 0.0259 0.3213 7.4000e- 0.0657 4.6000e- 0.0662 0.0174 4.2000e- 0.0179 73.2546 73.2546 2.4200e- 73.3150 004 004 004 003
3.4 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.3212 26.1643 10.7753 0.0206 1.2985 1.2985 1.1947 1.1947 2,112.182 2,112.182 0.6472 2,128.361 2 2 4
Total 2.3212 26.1643 10.7753 0.0206 6.5523 1.2985 7.8509 3.3675 1.1947 4.5621 2,112.182 2,112.182 0.6472 2,128.361 2 2 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0497 0.0324 0.4016 9.2000e- 0.0822 5.7000e- 0.0827 0.0218 5.3000e- 0.0223 91.5682 91.5682 3.0200e- 91.6438 004 004 004 003
Total 0.0497 0.0324 0.4016 9.2000e- 0.0822 5.7000e- 0.0827 0.0218 5.3000e- 0.0223 91.5682 91.5682 3.0200e- 91.6438 004 004 004 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.9486 0.0000 2.9486 1.5154 0.0000 1.5154 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.3212 26.1643 10.7753 0.0206 1.2985 1.2985 1.1947 1.1947 0.0000 2,112.182 2,112.182 0.6472 2,128.361 2 2 4
Total 2.3212 26.1643 10.7753 0.0206 2.9486 1.2985 4.2471 1.5154 1.1947 2.7100 0.0000 2,112.182 2,112.182 0.6472 2,128.361 2 2 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.4 Grading - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0497 0.0324 0.4016 9.2000e- 0.0822 5.7000e- 0.0827 0.0218 5.3000e- 0.0223 91.5682 91.5682 3.0200e- 91.6438 004 004 004 003
Total 0.0497 0.0324 0.4016 9.2000e- 0.0822 5.7000e- 0.0827 0.0218 5.3000e- 0.0223 91.5682 91.5682 3.0200e- 91.6438 004 004 004 003
3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 3.3418 23.0287 16.3102 0.0250 1.4697 1.4697 1.4068 1.4068 2,347.621 2,347.621 0.5228 2,360.692 1 1 2
Total 3.3418 23.0287 16.3102 0.0250 1.4697 1.4697 1.4068 1.4068 2,347.621 2,347.621 0.5228 2,360.692 1 1 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1568 3.5527 0.9680 7.0000e- 0.1692 0.0347 0.2039 0.0487 0.0332 0.0819 736.0990 736.0990 0.0415 737.1375 003
Worker 0.8254 0.5371 6.6665 0.0153 1.3637 9.4600e- 1.3731 0.3617 8.7300e- 0.3704 1,520.032 1,520.032 0.0502 1,521.287 003 003 6 6 1
Total 0.9822 4.0898 7.6345 0.0223 1.5329 0.0441 1.5770 0.4104 0.0419 0.4523 2,256.131 2,256.131 0.0917 2,258.424 6 6 6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 3.3418 23.0287 16.3102 0.0250 1.4697 1.4697 1.4068 1.4068 0.0000 2,347.621 2,347.621 0.5228 2,360.692 1 1 2
Total 3.3418 23.0287 16.3102 0.0250 1.4697 1.4697 1.4068 1.4068 0.0000 2,347.621 2,347.621 0.5228 2,360.692 1 1 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1568 3.5527 0.9680 7.0000e- 0.1692 0.0347 0.2039 0.0487 0.0332 0.0819 736.0990 736.0990 0.0415 737.1375 003
Worker 0.8254 0.5371 6.6665 0.0153 1.3637 9.4600e- 1.3731 0.3617 8.7300e- 0.3704 1,520.032 1,520.032 0.0502 1,521.287 003 003 6 6 1
Total 0.9822 4.0898 7.6345 0.0223 1.5329 0.0441 1.5770 0.4104 0.0419 0.4523 2,256.131 2,256.131 0.0917 2,258.424 6 6 6
3.5 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.9127 20.7077 15.7183 0.0250 1.2575 1.2575 1.2051 1.2051 2,329.775 2,329.775 0.5019 2,342.323 9 9 2
Total 2.9127 20.7077 15.7183 0.0250 1.2575 1.2575 1.2051 1.2051 2,329.775 2,329.775 0.5019 2,342.323 9 9 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1359 3.3288 0.8507 6.9800e- 0.1692 0.0276 0.1968 0.0487 0.0264 0.0751 735.1538 735.1538 0.0388 736.1244 003
Worker 0.7354 0.4670 5.8564 0.0149 1.3637 9.1700e- 1.3728 0.3617 8.4600e- 0.3702 1,477.855 1,477.855 0.0440 1,478.955 003 003 0 0 3
Total 0.8713 3.7958 6.7071 0.0218 1.5329 0.0368 1.5696 0.4104 0.0348 0.4453 2,213.008 2,213.008 0.0828 2,215.079 8 8 7
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.9127 20.7077 15.7183 0.0250 1.2575 1.2575 1.2051 1.2051 0.0000 2,329.775 2,329.775 0.5019 2,342.323 9 9 2
Total 2.9127 20.7077 15.7183 0.0250 1.2575 1.2575 1.2051 1.2051 0.0000 2,329.775 2,329.775 0.5019 2,342.323 9 9 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.5 Building Construction - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1359 3.3288 0.8507 6.9800e- 0.1692 0.0276 0.1968 0.0487 0.0264 0.0751 735.1538 735.1538 0.0388 736.1244 003
Worker 0.7354 0.4670 5.8564 0.0149 1.3637 9.1700e- 1.3728 0.3617 8.4600e- 0.3702 1,477.855 1,477.855 0.0440 1,478.955 003 003 0 0 3
Total 0.8713 3.7958 6.7071 0.0218 1.5329 0.0368 1.5696 0.4104 0.0348 0.4453 2,213.008 2,213.008 0.0828 2,215.079 8 8 7
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 6.2413 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.3323 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e- 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.1909 003
Total 6.5736 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e- 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.1909 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.1641 0.1068 1.3253 3.0400e- 0.2711 1.8800e- 0.2730 0.0719 1.7400e- 0.0736 302.1752 302.1752 9.9800e- 302.4246 003 003 003 003
Total 0.1641 0.1068 1.3253 3.0400e- 0.2711 1.8800e- 0.2730 0.0719 1.7400e- 0.0736 302.1752 302.1752 9.9800e- 302.4246 003 003 003 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 6.2413 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.3323 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e- 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.1909 003
Total 6.5736 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e- 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.1909 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.1641 0.1068 1.3253 3.0400e- 0.2711 1.8800e- 0.2730 0.0719 1.7400e- 0.0736 302.1752 302.1752 9.9800e- 302.4246 003 003 003 003
Total 0.1641 0.1068 1.3253 3.0400e- 0.2711 1.8800e- 0.2730 0.0719 1.7400e- 0.0736 302.1752 302.1752 9.9800e- 302.4246 003 003 003 003
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 6.2413 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2986 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e- 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.1171 003
Total 6.5399 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e- 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.1171 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.1462 0.0928 1.1642 2.9500e- 0.2711 1.8200e- 0.2729 0.0719 1.6800e- 0.0736 293.7905 293.7905 8.7500e- 294.0092 003 003 003 003
Total 0.1462 0.0928 1.1642 2.9500e- 0.2711 1.8200e- 0.2729 0.0719 1.6800e- 0.0736 293.7905 293.7905 8.7500e- 294.0092 003 003 003 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 6.2413 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2986 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e- 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.0000 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.1171 003
Total 6.5399 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e- 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.0000 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.1171 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.1462 0.0928 1.1642 2.9500e- 0.2711 1.8200e- 0.2729 0.0719 1.6800e- 0.0736 293.7905 293.7905 8.7500e- 294.0092 003 003 003 003
Total 0.1462 0.0928 1.1642 2.9500e- 0.2711 1.8200e- 0.2729 0.0719 1.6800e- 0.0736 293.7905 293.7905 8.7500e- 294.0092 003 003 003 003
3.7 Paving - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4046 14.2518 11.9787 0.0178 0.8505 0.8505 0.7836 0.7836 1,774.243 1,774.243 0.5419 1,787.789 0 0 6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.4046 14.2518 11.9787 0.0178 0.8505 0.8505 0.7836 0.7836 1,774.243 1,774.243 0.5419 1,787.789 0 0 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.7 Paving - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0665 0.0422 0.5292 1.3400e- 0.1232 8.3000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0335 133.5411 133.5411 3.9800e- 133.6405 003 004 004 003
Total 0.0665 0.0422 0.5292 1.3400e- 0.1232 8.3000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0335 133.5411 133.5411 3.9800e- 133.6405 003 004 004 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4046 14.2518 11.9787 0.0178 0.8505 0.8505 0.7836 0.7836 0.0000 1,774.243 1,774.243 0.5419 1,787.789 0 0 6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.4046 14.2518 11.9787 0.0178 0.8505 0.8505 0.7836 0.7836 0.0000 1,774.243 1,774.243 0.5419 1,787.789 0 0 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 23 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
3.7 Paving - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0665 0.0422 0.5292 1.3400e- 0.1232 8.3000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0335 133.5411 133.5411 3.9800e- 133.6405 003 004 004 003
Total 0.0665 0.0422 0.5292 1.3400e- 0.1232 8.3000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0335 133.5411 133.5411 3.9800e- 133.6405 003 004 004 003
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Density Increase Transit Accessibility CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 24 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 2.8885 9.5241 24.6189 0.0695 5.2541 0.0734 5.3275 1.4061 0.0691 1.4751 6,996.484 6,996.484 0.2962 7,003.888 7 7 8
Unmitigated 3.1723 11.5121 32.2588 0.0966 7.5059 0.1003 7.6062 2.0087 0.0944 2.1031 9,718.533 9,718.533 0.3756 9,727.923 2 2 0
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 1,529.50 1,469.70 1347.80 3,452,863 2,417,004 Total 1,529.50 1,469.70 1,347.80 3,452,863 2,417,004
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.571348 0.041302 0.187452 0.129481 0.019048 0.005152 0.010609 0.022861 0.001566 0.001884 0.005572 0.002772 0.000953
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 25 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 Mitigated 003
NaturalGas 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 Unmitigated 003
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated
NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid 7208.5 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 Rise 003
Total 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 26 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated
NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid 7.2085 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 Rise 003
Total 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 003
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
No Hearths Installed CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 27 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.1142 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.0000 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 0.0000 35.0055 003
Unmitigated 3.1142 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.0000 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 0.0000 35.0055 003
6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural 0.3865 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
Consumer 2.1440 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.5837 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 35.0055 003
Total 3.1142 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.0000 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 0.0000 35.0055 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 28 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural 0.3865 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
Consumer 2.1440 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.5837 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 35.0055 003
Total 3.1142 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.0000 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 0.0000 35.0055 003
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 29 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:52 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Summer
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study Contra Costa County, Winter
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Apartments Mid Rise 230.00 Dwelling Unit 2.30 100,188.00 628
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58
Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2019
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Land Use - Refer to CalEEMod tables Woodstoves - No hearths Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Water Mitigation - CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 40 0
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 226.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 277.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 28.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 14.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 2.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 34.50 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 39.10 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 3.00 4.50
tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet 230,000.00 100,188.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 230,000.00 100,188.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.05 2.30
tblLandUse Population 658.00 628.00
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2019
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 4.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 4.60 0.00
2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 3 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Year lb/day lb/day
2017 11.0894 29.6215 26.7622 0.0514 6.6345 1.6895 7.9336 3.3893 1.6242 4.5845 0.0000 4,999.153 4,999.153 0.7708 0.0000 5,015.510 1 1 0
2018 10.4906 26.7835 25.0647 0.0509 1.8039 1.4470 3.2509 0.4823 1.3926 1.8749 0.0000 4,933.596 4,933.596 0.6201 0.0000 4,949.099 3 3 7
Maximum 11.0894 29.6215 26.7622 0.0514 6.6345 1.6895 7.9336 3.3893 1.6242 4.5845 0.0000 4,999.153 4,999.153 0.7708 0.0000 5,015.510 1 1 0
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Year lb/day lb/day
2017 11.0894 29.6215 26.7622 0.0514 3.0307 1.6895 4.3298 1.5372 1.6242 2.7323 0.0000 4,999.153 4,999.153 0.7708 0.0000 5,015.510 1 1 0
2018 10.4906 26.7835 25.0647 0.0509 1.8039 1.4470 3.2509 0.4823 1.3926 1.8749 0.0000 4,933.596 4,933.596 0.6201 0.0000 4,949.099 3 3 7
Maximum 11.0894 29.6215 26.7622 0.0514 3.0307 1.6895 4.3298 1.5372 1.6242 2.7323 0.0000 4,999.153 4,999.153 0.7708 0.0000 5,015.510 1 1 0
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.71 0.00 32.22 47.84 0.00 28.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.1142 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.0000 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 0.0000 35.0055 003
Energy 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 003
Mobile 2.6444 12.2135 32.2607 0.0890 7.5059 0.1013 7.6072 2.0087 0.0953 2.1040 8,960.896 8,960.896 0.3810 8,970.420 1 1 0
Total 5.8364 13.0987 51.6127 0.0943 7.5059 0.2595 7.7654 2.0087 0.2535 2.2622 0.0000 9,843.122 9,843.122 0.4308 0.0156 9,858.524 2 2 1
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 3.1142 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.0000 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 0.0000 35.0055 003
Energy 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 003
Mobile 2.3680 10.0126 25.6622 0.0641 5.2541 0.0744 5.3285 1.4061 0.0700 1.4761 6,450.423 6,450.423 0.3073 6,458.104 1 1 3
Total 5.5599 10.8978 45.0142 0.0693 5.2541 0.2326 5.4867 1.4061 0.2282 1.6343 0.0000 7,332.649 7,332.649 0.3570 0.0156 7,346.208 2 2 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Percent 4.74 16.80 12.78 26.45 30.00 10.36 29.34 30.00 9.99 27.76 0.00 25.50 25.50 17.11 0.00 25.48 Reduction
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2017 4/7/2017 5 28
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/8/2017 4/11/2017 5 2
3 Grading Grading 4/12/2017 4/19/2017 5 6
4 Building Construction Building Construction 4/20/2017 5/11/2018 5 277
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/20/2017 5/31/2018 5 226
6 Paving Paving 5/12/2018 5/31/2018 5 14
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 202,881; Residential Outdoor: 67,627; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class
Architectural Coating 1 33.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 8 166.00 25.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads
3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.7625 26.7594 15.5573 0.0241 1.6477 1.6477 1.5404 1.5404 2,421.422 2,421.422 0.6125 2,436.734 9 9 7
Total 2.7625 26.7594 15.5573 0.0241 1.6477 1.6477 1.5404 1.5404 2,421.422 2,421.422 0.6125 2,436.734 9 9 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0660 0.0519 0.4889 1.0900e- 0.1068 7.4000e- 0.1075 0.0283 6.8000e- 0.0290 107.8899 107.8899 3.6800e- 107.9821 003 004 004 003
Total 0.0660 0.0519 0.4889 1.0900e- 0.1068 7.4000e- 0.1075 0.0283 6.8000e- 0.0290 107.8899 107.8899 3.6800e- 107.9821 003 004 004 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.7625 26.7594 15.5573 0.0241 1.6477 1.6477 1.5404 1.5404 0.0000 2,421.422 2,421.422 0.6125 2,436.734 9 9 7
Total 2.7625 26.7594 15.5573 0.0241 1.6477 1.6477 1.5404 1.5404 0.0000 2,421.422 2,421.422 0.6125 2,436.734 9 9 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 9 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.2 Demolition - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0660 0.0519 0.4889 1.0900e- 0.1068 7.4000e- 0.1075 0.0283 6.8000e- 0.0290 107.8899 107.8899 3.6800e- 107.9821 003 004 004 003
Total 0.0660 0.0519 0.4889 1.0900e- 0.1068 7.4000e- 0.1075 0.0283 6.8000e- 0.0290 107.8899 107.8899 3.6800e- 107.9821 003 004 004 003
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.3861 0.0000 2.3861 0.2577 0.0000 0.2577 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.1335 26.7238 14.4219 0.0245 1.1097 1.1097 1.0209 1.0209 2,508.408 2,508.408 0.7686 2,527.622 6 6 9
Total 2.1335 26.7238 14.4219 0.0245 2.3861 1.1097 3.4958 0.2577 1.0209 1.2785 2,508.408 2,508.408 0.7686 2,527.622 6 6 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0406 0.0319 0.3008 6.7000e- 0.0657 4.6000e- 0.0662 0.0174 4.2000e- 0.0179 66.3938 66.3938 2.2700e- 66.4505 004 004 004 003
Total 0.0406 0.0319 0.3008 6.7000e- 0.0657 4.6000e- 0.0662 0.0174 4.2000e- 0.0179 66.3938 66.3938 2.2700e- 66.4505 004 004 004 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.0738 0.0000 1.0738 0.1159 0.0000 0.1159 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.1335 26.7238 14.4219 0.0245 1.1097 1.1097 1.0209 1.0209 0.0000 2,508.408 2,508.408 0.7686 2,527.622 6 6 9
Total 2.1335 26.7238 14.4219 0.0245 1.0738 1.1097 2.1834 0.1159 1.0209 1.1368 0.0000 2,508.408 2,508.408 0.7686 2,527.622 6 6 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0406 0.0319 0.3008 6.7000e- 0.0657 4.6000e- 0.0662 0.0174 4.2000e- 0.0179 66.3938 66.3938 2.2700e- 66.4505 004 004 004 003
Total 0.0406 0.0319 0.3008 6.7000e- 0.0657 4.6000e- 0.0662 0.0174 4.2000e- 0.0179 66.3938 66.3938 2.2700e- 66.4505 004 004 004 003
3.4 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.3212 26.1643 10.7753 0.0206 1.2985 1.2985 1.1947 1.1947 2,112.182 2,112.182 0.6472 2,128.361 2 2 4
Total 2.3212 26.1643 10.7753 0.0206 6.5523 1.2985 7.8509 3.3675 1.1947 4.5621 2,112.182 2,112.182 0.6472 2,128.361 2 2 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0508 0.0399 0.3760 8.3000e- 0.0822 5.7000e- 0.0827 0.0218 5.3000e- 0.0223 82.9923 82.9923 2.8300e- 83.0631 004 004 004 003
Total 0.0508 0.0399 0.3760 8.3000e- 0.0822 5.7000e- 0.0827 0.0218 5.3000e- 0.0223 82.9923 82.9923 2.8300e- 83.0631 004 004 004 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.9486 0.0000 2.9486 1.5154 0.0000 1.5154 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.3212 26.1643 10.7753 0.0206 1.2985 1.2985 1.1947 1.1947 0.0000 2,112.182 2,112.182 0.6472 2,128.361 2 2 4
Total 2.3212 26.1643 10.7753 0.0206 2.9486 1.2985 4.2471 1.5154 1.1947 2.7100 0.0000 2,112.182 2,112.182 0.6472 2,128.361 2 2 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.4 Grading - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0508 0.0399 0.3760 8.3000e- 0.0822 5.7000e- 0.0827 0.0218 5.3000e- 0.0223 82.9923 82.9923 2.8300e- 83.0631 004 004 004 003
Total 0.0508 0.0399 0.3760 8.3000e- 0.0822 5.7000e- 0.0827 0.0218 5.3000e- 0.0223 82.9923 82.9923 2.8300e- 83.0631 004 004 004 003
3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 3.3418 23.0287 16.3102 0.0250 1.4697 1.4697 1.4068 1.4068 2,347.621 2,347.621 0.5228 2,360.692 1 1 2
Total 3.3418 23.0287 16.3102 0.0250 1.4697 1.4697 1.4068 1.4068 2,347.621 2,347.621 0.5228 2,360.692 1 1 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1641 3.6134 1.1007 6.8300e- 0.1692 0.0352 0.2044 0.0487 0.0336 0.0824 718.5380 718.5380 0.0453 719.6708 003
Worker 0.8424 0.6627 6.2423 0.0139 1.3637 9.4600e- 1.3731 0.3617 8.7300e- 0.3704 1,377.671 1,377.671 0.0471 1,378.847 003 003 6 6 8
Total 1.0065 4.2761 7.3430 0.0207 1.5329 0.0446 1.5775 0.4104 0.0424 0.4528 2,096.209 2,096.209 0.0924 2,098.518 6 6 6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 3.3418 23.0287 16.3102 0.0250 1.4697 1.4697 1.4068 1.4068 0.0000 2,347.621 2,347.621 0.5228 2,360.692 1 1 2
Total 3.3418 23.0287 16.3102 0.0250 1.4697 1.4697 1.4068 1.4068 0.0000 2,347.621 2,347.621 0.5228 2,360.692 1 1 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1641 3.6134 1.1007 6.8300e- 0.1692 0.0352 0.2044 0.0487 0.0336 0.0824 718.5380 718.5380 0.0453 719.6708 003
Worker 0.8424 0.6627 6.2423 0.0139 1.3637 9.4600e- 1.3731 0.3617 8.7300e- 0.3704 1,377.671 1,377.671 0.0471 1,378.847 003 003 6 6 8
Total 1.0065 4.2761 7.3430 0.0207 1.5329 0.0446 1.5775 0.4104 0.0424 0.4528 2,096.209 2,096.209 0.0924 2,098.518 6 6 6
3.5 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.9127 20.7077 15.7183 0.0250 1.2575 1.2575 1.2051 1.2051 2,329.775 2,329.775 0.5019 2,342.323 9 9 2
Total 2.9127 20.7077 15.7183 0.0250 1.2575 1.2575 1.2051 1.2051 2,329.775 2,329.775 0.5019 2,342.323 9 9 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1422 3.3792 0.9716 6.8100e- 0.1692 0.0280 0.1972 0.0487 0.0268 0.0755 716.9457 716.9457 0.0424 718.0046 003
Worker 0.7472 0.5764 5.4393 0.0135 1.3637 9.1700e- 1.3728 0.3617 8.4600e- 0.3702 1,339.199 1,339.199 0.0410 1,340.224 003 003 7 7 5
Total 0.8894 3.9555 6.4109 0.0203 1.5329 0.0372 1.5700 0.4104 0.0352 0.4456 2,056.145 2,056.145 0.0834 2,058.229 4 4 1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.9127 20.7077 15.7183 0.0250 1.2575 1.2575 1.2051 1.2051 0.0000 2,329.775 2,329.775 0.5019 2,342.323 9 9 2
Total 2.9127 20.7077 15.7183 0.0250 1.2575 1.2575 1.2051 1.2051 0.0000 2,329.775 2,329.775 0.5019 2,342.323 9 9 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.5 Building Construction - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1422 3.3792 0.9716 6.8100e- 0.1692 0.0280 0.1972 0.0487 0.0268 0.0755 716.9457 716.9457 0.0424 718.0046 003
Worker 0.7472 0.5764 5.4393 0.0135 1.3637 9.1700e- 1.3728 0.3617 8.4600e- 0.3702 1,339.199 1,339.199 0.0410 1,340.224 003 003 7 7 5
Total 0.8894 3.9555 6.4109 0.0203 1.5329 0.0372 1.5700 0.4104 0.0352 0.4456 2,056.145 2,056.145 0.0834 2,058.229 4 4 1
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 6.2413 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.3323 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e- 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.1909 003
Total 6.5736 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e- 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.1909 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.1675 0.1317 1.2409 2.7500e- 0.2711 1.8800e- 0.2730 0.0719 1.7400e- 0.0736 273.8745 273.8745 9.3500e- 274.1083 003 003 003 003
Total 0.1675 0.1317 1.2409 2.7500e- 0.2711 1.8800e- 0.2730 0.0719 1.7400e- 0.0736 273.8745 273.8745 9.3500e- 274.1083 003 003 003 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 6.2413 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.3323 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e- 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.1909 003
Total 6.5736 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e- 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.1909 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.1675 0.1317 1.2409 2.7500e- 0.2711 1.8800e- 0.2730 0.0719 1.7400e- 0.0736 273.8745 273.8745 9.3500e- 274.1083 003 003 003 003
Total 0.1675 0.1317 1.2409 2.7500e- 0.2711 1.8800e- 0.2730 0.0719 1.7400e- 0.0736 273.8745 273.8745 9.3500e- 274.1083 003 003 003 003
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 6.2413 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2986 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e- 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.1171 003
Total 6.5399 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e- 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.1171 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.1486 0.1146 1.0813 2.6800e- 0.2711 1.8200e- 0.2729 0.0719 1.6800e- 0.0736 266.2265 266.2265 8.1500e- 266.4302 003 003 003 003
Total 0.1486 0.1146 1.0813 2.6800e- 0.2711 1.8200e- 0.2729 0.0719 1.6800e- 0.0736 266.2265 266.2265 8.1500e- 266.4302 003 003 003 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 6.2413 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2986 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e- 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.0000 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.1171 003
Total 6.5399 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e- 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.0000 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.1171 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.1486 0.1146 1.0813 2.6800e- 0.2711 1.8200e- 0.2729 0.0719 1.6800e- 0.0736 266.2265 266.2265 8.1500e- 266.4302 003 003 003 003
Total 0.1486 0.1146 1.0813 2.6800e- 0.2711 1.8200e- 0.2729 0.0719 1.6800e- 0.0736 266.2265 266.2265 8.1500e- 266.4302 003 003 003 003
3.7 Paving - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4046 14.2518 11.9787 0.0178 0.8505 0.8505 0.7836 0.7836 1,774.243 1,774.243 0.5419 1,787.789 0 0 6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.4046 14.2518 11.9787 0.0178 0.8505 0.8505 0.7836 0.7836 1,774.243 1,774.243 0.5419 1,787.789 0 0 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.7 Paving - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0675 0.0521 0.4915 1.2200e- 0.1232 8.3000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0335 121.0120 121.0120 3.7000e- 121.1046 003 004 004 003
Total 0.0675 0.0521 0.4915 1.2200e- 0.1232 8.3000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0335 121.0120 121.0120 3.7000e- 121.1046 003 004 004 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4046 14.2518 11.9787 0.0178 0.8505 0.8505 0.7836 0.7836 0.0000 1,774.243 1,774.243 0.5419 1,787.789 0 0 6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.4046 14.2518 11.9787 0.0178 0.8505 0.8505 0.7836 0.7836 0.0000 1,774.243 1,774.243 0.5419 1,787.789 0 0 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 23 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
3.7 Paving - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0675 0.0521 0.4915 1.2200e- 0.1232 8.3000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0335 121.0120 121.0120 3.7000e- 121.1046 003 004 004 003
Total 0.0675 0.0521 0.4915 1.2200e- 0.1232 8.3000e- 0.1241 0.0327 7.6000e- 0.0335 121.0120 121.0120 3.7000e- 121.1046 003 004 004 003
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Density Increase Transit Accessibility CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 24 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 2.3680 10.0126 25.6622 0.0641 5.2541 0.0744 5.3285 1.4061 0.0700 1.4761 6,450.423 6,450.423 0.3073 6,458.104 1 1 3
Unmitigated 2.6444 12.2135 32.2607 0.0890 7.5059 0.1013 7.6072 2.0087 0.0953 2.1040 8,960.896 8,960.896 0.3810 8,970.420 1 1 0
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 1,529.50 1,469.70 1347.80 3,452,863 2,417,004 Total 1,529.50 1,469.70 1,347.80 3,452,863 2,417,004
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.571348 0.041302 0.187452 0.129481 0.019048 0.005152 0.010609 0.022861 0.001566 0.001884 0.005572 0.002772 0.000953
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 25 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 Mitigated 003
NaturalGas 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 Unmitigated 003
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated
NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid 7208.5 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 Rise 003
Total 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 26 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated
NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Mid 7.2085 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 Rise 003
Total 0.0777 0.6643 0.2827 4.2400e- 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 0.0537 848.0591 848.0591 0.0163 0.0156 853.0987 003
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
No Hearths Installed CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 27 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.1142 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.0000 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 0.0000 35.0055 003
Unmitigated 3.1142 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.0000 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 0.0000 35.0055 003
6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural 0.3865 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
Consumer 2.1440 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.5837 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 35.0055 003
Total 3.1142 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.0000 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 0.0000 35.0055 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 28 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural 0.3865 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating
Consumer 2.1440 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.5837 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 35.0055 003
Total 3.1142 0.2209 19.0693 1.0000e- 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.1045 0.0000 34.1670 34.1670 0.0335 0.0000 35.0055 003
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 29 of 29 Date: 11/21/2016 10:50 AM
Concord Village Apartments Initial Study - Contra Costa County, Winter
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
11.0 Vegetation Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database
Query Criteria: Taxonomic Group IS (Dune OR Scrub OR Herbaceous OR Marsh OR Riparian OR Woodland OR Forest OR Alpine OR Inland Waters OR Marine OR Estuarine OR Riverine OR Palustrine OR Fish OR Amphibians OR Reptiles OR Birds OR Mammals OR Mollusks OR Arachnids OR Crustaceans OR Insects OR Ferns OR Gymnosperms OR Monocots OR Dicots OR Lichens OR Bryophytes OR Fungi)
AND (Federal Listing Status IS (Endangered OR Threatened) OR State Listing Status IS (Endangered OR Threatened))
AND County IS (Contra Costa)
AND Quad IS (Walnut Creek (3712281))
Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Ambystoma californiense AAAAA01180 Threatened Threatened G2G3 S2S3 WL California tiger salamander Lasthenia conjugens PDAST5L040 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1 Contra Costa goldfields Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus ARADB21031 Threatened Threatened G4T2 S2 Alameda whipsnake Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii PDONA0C0B4 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 1B.1 Antioch Dunes evening-primrose Rana draytonii AAABH01022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC California red-legged frog Record Count: 5
Commercial Version -- Dated October, 30 2016 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 1 Report Printed on Friday, December 02, 2016 Information Expires 4/30/2017 APPENDIX C PROTECTED SPECIES LISTS
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office FEDERAL BUILDING, 2800 COTTAGE WAY, ROOM W-2605 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 PHONE: (916)414-6600 FAX: (916)414-6713
Consultation Code: 08ESMF00-2017-SLI-0425 December 02, 2016 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2017-E-00771 Project Name: Concord Village Apartment Infill Project
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Please follow the link below to see if your proposed project has the potential to affect other species or their habitats under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/species_lists.html
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
Attachment
2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Concord Village Apartment Infill Project
Official Species List
Provided by: Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office FEDERAL BUILDING 2800 COTTAGE WAY, ROOM W-2605 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 (916) 414-6600
Consultation Code: 08ESMF00-2017-SLI-0425 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2017-E-00771
Project Type: DEVELOPMENT
Project Name: Concord Village Apartment Infill Project Project Description: Apartments Infill
Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by' section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 12/02/2016 09:20 AM 1 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Concord Village Apartment Infill Project
Project Location Map:
Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-122.03016221523283 37.9796188406136, - 122.03120559453963 37.97910720319906, -122.03061014413832 37.97832494075214, - 122.02971696853636 37.97863784673145, -122.03016221523283 37.9796188406136)))
Project Counties: Contra Costa, CA
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 12/02/2016 09:20 AM 2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Concord Village Apartment Infill Project
Endangered Species Act Species List
There are a total of 13 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.
Amphibians Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)
California red-legged frog (Rana Threatened Final designated draytonii) Population: Wherever found
California tiger Salamander Threatened Final designated (Ambystoma californiense) Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
Birds
California Clapper rail (Rallus Endangered longirostris obsoletus) Population: Wherever found
California Least tern (Sterna Endangered antillarum browni) Population: Wherever found
Crustaceans
Vernal Pool fairy shrimp Threatened Final designated (Branchinecta lynchi) Population: Wherever found
Fishes
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 12/02/2016 09:20 AM 3 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Concord Village Apartment Infill Project
Delta smelt (Hypomesus Threatened Final designated transpacificus) Population: Wherever found steelhead (Oncorhynchus (=salmo) Threatened mykiss) Population: Northern California DPS
Flowering Plants
Antioch Dunes evening-primrose Endangered Final designated (Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii) Population: Wherever found
Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia Endangered Final designated conjugens) Population: Wherever found
Insects
Callippe Silverspot butterfly (Speyeria Endangered callippe callippe) Population: Wherever found
San Bruno Elfin butterfly (Callophrys Endangered mossii bayensis) Population: Wherever found
Reptiles
Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis Threatened Final designated lateralis euryxanthus) Population: Wherever found
Giant Garter snake (Thamnophis Threatened gigas) Population: Wherever found
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 12/02/2016 09:20 AM 4 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Concord Village Apartment Infill Project
Critical habitats that lie within your project area There are no critical habitats within your project area.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 12/02/2016 09:20 AM 5 APPENDIX D NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION LETTER
APPENDIX E NOISE MONITORING RESULTS
Concord Village Apartment In ill Project 4-Hour Noise Monitoring Event
Information Panel
Name Concord Village Apt. Noise Monitoring
Start Time 12/15/2016 10:18:26 AM
Stop Time 12/15/2016 2:18:56 PM
Device Name BGH060008
Model Type SoundPro DL
Device Firmware Rev R.12L
Comments
Summary Data Panel
Description Meter Value Description Meter Value
Leq 1 66 dB CNEL 1 66 dB
LDN 1 66 dB Lmax 1 95.4 dB
SEL 1 107.6 dB Lmin 1 54.6 dB
Exchange Rate 1 3 dB Weigh ng 1 A
Response 1 SLOW Criterion Time 1 8 hrs.
Logged Data Chart
Concord Village Apt. Noise Monitoring: Logged Data Chart
Page 1