Vallejo Winco Foods Project Draft Environmental Impact Report

VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2010082018

March 2011 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

CITY OF VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

State Clearinghouse #2010082018

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Vallejo, as Lead Agency, has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Vallejo WinCo Foods Project.

PROJECT LOCATION: The approximately 7.64-acre project site is located at 2850 Redwood Parkway within the City of Vallejo in Solano County. The project site is generally located on the north side of Redwood Parkway between Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) and Codloni Lane and is bounded by the Vallejo Plaza Shopping Center and commercial uses to the north, multi-family homes and a medical office building to the east, Redwood Parkway to the south, and a gas station and Admiral Callaghan Lane to the west.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site is currently developed with the Vallejo Elks Lodge #559, which consists of three one- to two-story buildings, totaling approximately 35,057 square feet and associated recreational facilities, surface parking, and landscaping. Redwood Parkway Partners, LLC (the project applicant) proposes to demolish all existing uses and redevelop the site with a discount grocery store (WinCo Foods), with a building area of approximately 71,393 square feet, and associated 400 surface parking spaces and landscaping. The WinCo Foods store would operate seven days a week and up to 24 hours per day, with the exception of Christmas Day. The proposed project would require the following discretionary approvals: Site Development Permit; Environmental Review, and a Major Conditional Use Permit.

HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES: The proposed project is not located on any hazardous waste sites lists enumerated under Section 65965.5 of the Government Code.

SIGNIFICANT ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: The Draft EIR provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level. With the implementation of the mitigation measures proposed, a majority of the significant impacts identified would be reduced to less than significant through the implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project would result in project-specific and cumulatively considerable significant unavoidable impacts related to transportation and global climate change.

DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: Copies of the Draft EIR are available for review Monday through Friday, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., at the City of Vallejo, 555 Santa Clara Street, Vallejo California except on specified holidays. The Draft EIR is also available online at: www.ci.vallejo.ca.us and at the Vallejo Public Library, at 505 Santa Clara Street, Vallejo, California.

PUBLIC REVIEW TIMELINE: The 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR begins March 4, 2011 and ends April 18, 2011 . The City must receive all written comments within this time period. Written comments may be submitted to the attention of Bill Tuikka, Associate Planner, City of Vallejo Development Services Department, Planning Division at the following mailing address:

City of Vallejo Email: [email protected] P.O. Box 3068 Fax: 707-552-0163 Vallejo, California 94590-5934

PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission is scheduled to receive public comments on the Draft EIR on March 21, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the City of Vallejo Council Chambers, located at 555 Santa Clara Street, Vallejo, California.

QUESTIONS: If you have any questions about this project, please contact Bill Tuikka, Associate Planner, City of Vallejo Development Services Department, Planning Division at 707-648-5391.

VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2010082018

Submitted to:

City of Vallejo Development Services Department Planning Division P.O. Box 3068 Vallejo, CA 94590-5934

Prepared by:

LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510.540.7331

March 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 A. PURPOSE OF THE EIR ...... 1 B. PROPOSED PROJECT...... 1 C. EIR SCOPE ...... 1 D. REPORT ORGANIZATION ...... 2

II. SUMMARY...... 3 A. PROJECT UNDER REVIEW...... 3 B. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 3 C. SUMMARY TABLES ...... 6

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 37 A. PROJECT SITE...... 37 B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES...... 41 C. PROPOSED PROJECT...... 42 D. REQUESTED PERMITS AND APPROVALS ...... 51 E. USE OF THIS EIR ...... 52

IV. SETTING , IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 53 A. LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY ...... 55 B. VISUAL RESOURCES ...... 67 C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION...... 79 D. AIR QUALITY ...... 131 E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE...... 153 F. NOISE ...... 173 G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...... 195 H. PUBLIC SERVICES ...... 211 I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 215 J. URBAN DECAY ...... 227

V. ALTERNATIVES ...... 237 A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED ...... 238 B. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE...... 241 C. OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVE ...... 244 D. NO GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ALTERNATIVE...... 249 E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ...... 252

VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS ...... 257 A. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ...... 257 B. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES ...... 258 C. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 259 D. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ...... 262 E. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 265

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\00-TOC.doc (3/3/2011) i

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS

VII. REPORT PREPARATION ...... 267 A. REPORT PREPARATION ...... 267 B. REFERENCES...... 267 C. CONTACTS...... 270

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters Appendix B: WinCo Foods Initial Study

(Included on the inside back cover on a compact disc) Appendix C: Traffic Impact Study Appendix D: Traffic Impact Study Addendum Appendix E: Air Quality Data Appendix F: Global Climate Change Data Appendix G: Noise Data Appendix H: Urban Decay Analysis

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\00-TOC.doc (3/3/2011) ii

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIGURES

Figure III-1: Project Regional Location and Vicinity Map...... 38 Figure III-2: Aerial Photograph of Project Site ...... 39 Figure III-3: Preliminary Site Plan ...... 43 Figure III-4a: Conceptual Building Elevations...... 45 Figure III-4b: Conceptual Building Elevations...... 46 Figure III-5: Preliminary Landscape Plan...... 49 Figure IV.A-1: Aerial View of the Project Site and Land Use Photo Location Map ...... 57 Figure IV.A-2a: Site Photos...... 59 Figure IV.A-2b: Site Photos...... 60 Figure IV.B-1: Viewpoint Photo Location Map...... 69 Figure IV.B-2a: Viewpoint Location Photos...... 71 Figure IV.B-2b: Viewpoint Location Photos...... 72 Figure IV.B-2c: Viewpoint Location Photos...... 73 Figure IV.B-2d: Viewpoint Location Photos...... 74 Figure IV.B-2e: Viewpoint Location Photos...... 75 Figure IV.C-1: Project Location and Study Intersections...... 80 Figure IV.C-2: Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Control ...... 85 Figure IV.C-3: Existing Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes...... 86 Figure IV.C-4: Approved and Pending Development Project Locations ...... 89 Figure IV.C-5: Near-Term (Year 2011) Lane Geometry and Traffic Control...... 90 Figure IV.C-6: Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...... 92 Figure IV.C-7: Near-Term (Year 2011) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 93 Figure IV.C-8: Long-Term (Cumulative Year 2030) Lane Geometry and Traffic Control ...... 95 Figure IV.C-9: Long-Term (Cumulative Year 2030) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...... 96 Figure IV.C-10: Total Project Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 103 Figure IV.C-11: Existing Plus Proposed Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...... 104 Figure IV.C-12: Near-Term (Year 2011) Plus Proposed Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 112 Figure IV.C-13: Long-Term (Cumulative Year 2030) Plus Proposed Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 119 Figure IV.F-1: Noise Monitoring Locations ...... 181 Figure V-1: Alternative Off-Site Locations Considered...... 239 Figure V-2: Off-Site Alternative Location ...... 245

TABLES

Table II-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Initial Study...... 7 Table II-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR ...... 13 Table III-1: Required Permits and Approvals ...... 52 Table IV.A-1: Relationship of Project to Relevant Vallejo General Plan Policies...... 65 Table IV.C-1: Intersection Level of Service Definitions ...... 82 Table IV.C-2: Existing Intersection Levels of Service Summary ...... 87 Table IV.C-3: Approved and Pending Developments...... 88

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\00-TOC.doc (3/3/2011) iii

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table IV.C-4: Existing, Near-Term (2011), and Long-Term (2030) Level of Service Conditions Comparison – Without Project ...... 97 Table IV.C-5: Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Thresholds for Project Impacts ...... 100 Table IV.C-6: Project Trip Generation...... 101 Table IV.C-7: Existing Level of Service Conditions – Without Project and Plus Project ...... 105 Table IV.C-8: Existing Plus Project Conditions Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 106 Table IV.C-9: Existing Plus Project With Mitigation ...... 110 Table IV.C-10: Near-Term (Year 2011) Level of Service Conditions – Without Project and Plus Project...... 113 Table IV.C-11: Near-Term Plus Project Conditions Impacts and Mitigation Measures...... 114 Table IV.C-12: Near-Term (Year 2011) With Mitigation...... 117 Table IV.C-13: Long-Term (Year 2030) Level of Service Conditions – Without Project and Plus Project...... 120 Table IV.C-14: Long-Term Plus Project Conditions Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 121 Table IV.C-15: Long-Term (Cumulative Year 2030) Level of Service With Mitigation ...... 126 Table IV.D-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards...... 132 Table IV.D-2: Health Effects and Sources of Air Pollutants...... 134 Table IV.D-3: Bay Area Attainment Status...... 137 Table IV.D-4: Ambient Air Quality at the Vallejo – Tuolumne Street Monitoring Station...... 140 Table IV.D-5: Delivery Truck Activity and Diesel Particulate Emissions...... 145 Table IV.D-6: SCREEN3 Modeling Results ...... 146 Table IV.D-7: Inhalation Health Risks from Diesel Delivery Truck Exhaust...... 147 Table IV.D-8: Project Operation Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day...... 148 Table IV.D-9: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day...... 150 Table IV.E-1: Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases...... 155 Table IV.E-2: GHG Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) – Without and With Mitigation...... 168 Table IV.F-1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms ...... 175 Table IV.F-2: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels...... 175 Table IV.F-3: Summary of EPA Noise Levels ...... 176 Table IV.F-4: Summary of Human Effects in Areas Exposed to 55 dBA Ldn ...... 177 Table IV.F-5: Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Noise Environments...... 178 Table IV.F-6: Noise Performance Standards ...... 179 Table IV.F-7: Short-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, dBA, August 18, 2010...... 179 Table IV.F-8: Meteorological Conditions During Ambient Noise Monitoring...... 179 Table IV.F-9: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ...... 180 Table IV.F-10: Modeled Traffic Noise Levels at 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Travel Lane, dBA...... 185 Table IV.F-11: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax ...... 187 Table IV.F-12: Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment...... 189 Table IV.I-1: Current Water Entitlements...... 215 Table IV.J-1: Select Market Area Grocery Stores...... 229 Table V-1: Other Off-Site Locations Considereda ...... 240 Table V.2: Comparison of Potentially Significant Impacts ...... 254

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\00-TOC.doc (3/3/2011) iv

I. INTRODUCTION

A. PURPOSE OF THE EIR In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this report describes the environmental consequences of the Vallejo WinCo Foods Project (proposed project) proposed for redevelopment of an approximately 7.64-acre site in the City of Vallejo. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is designed to inform City of Vallejo decision-makers, responsible agencies and the general public of the proposed project and the potential physical consequences of project approval. This EIR also examines alternatives to the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant physical impacts. The City of Vallejo is the Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed project. This EIR will be used by the City of Vallejo, responsible agencies, and the public in their review of the proposed project and associated approvals described in Chapter III.

B. PROPOSED PROJECT The project site is currently developed with the Vallejo Elks Lodge #559, which consists of three one- to two-story buildings, totaling approximately 35,057 square feet and associated recreational facilities, surface parking, and landscaping. The proposed project would demolish all existing uses on the site and redevelop the site with a new discount grocery store (WinCo Foods), with a building area of approximately 71,393 square feet, and associated 400 surface parking spaces and landscaping. The building would be situated at the northeast quadrant of the site with the building entrance facing south and loading, delivery, and trash pick-up areas located at the rear. The proposed WinCo Foods store is proposed to operate seven days a week and up to 24 hours per day, with the exception of Christmas Day. The proposed project would require the following discretionary approvals: Site Development Permit; Environmental Review, and a Major Conditional Use Permit. Refer to Chapter III, Project Description for a detailed description of the project and requested approvals.

C. EIR SCOPE The City of Vallejo circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) notifying responsible agencies and interested parties that an EIR would be prepared for the project and indicating the environmental topics anticipated to be addressed in the EIR. The NOP was published on August 5, 2010. The NOP was mailed to public agencies, organizations, and individuals likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the project. A formal scoping session for the Draft EIR was held as a public meeting before the City of Vallejo Planning Commission on August 23, 2010. Five letters were submitted in response to the NOP, in addition to the verbal comments made at the scoping session. Scoping comments generally included the following concerns: potential for closure of competing businesses and resulting urban decay; traffic, circulation and alternative transportation; storm drainage and water quality; noise; increased pollution and litter; safety; and the range of alternatives to be analyzed. A copy of the NOP and the comments received by the City of the NOP were considered during

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-Intro.doc (3/3/2011) 1

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 I. INTRODUCTION

preparation of the EIR. A copy of the NOP and each comment letter received is included in Appendix A of this EIR.

Based on the preliminary analysis provided in the Initial Study (included as Appendix B), consultation with City staff, and review of the comments received as part of the scoping process, the following environmental topics are addressed as separate sections of this EIR:

A. Land Use and Planning Policy B. Visual Resources C. Transportation and Circulation D. Air Quality E. Global Climate Change F. Noise G. Hydrology and Water Quality H. Public Services I. Utilities and Infrastructure J. Urban Decay

D. REPORT ORGANIZATION This EIR is organized into the following chapters: • Chapter I – Introduction: Discusses the overall EIR purpose, provides a summary of the proposed project and the environmental impact report scope, and summarizes the organization of the EIR. • Chapter II – Summary: Provides a summary of the proposed project and the impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project, and describes mitigation measures recommended to reduce or avoid significant impacts. Discussions of potential areas of controversy and alternatives to the proposed project are also provided. • Chapter III – Project Description: Provides a description of the project site, project objectives, required approval process, and details of the project itself. • Chapter IV – Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Describes the following for each environmental technical topic: existing conditions (setting); potential environmental impacts and their level of significance; and measures to mitigate identified impacts. Potential adverse impacts are identified by levels of significance, as follows: less-than-significant impact (LTS), significant impact (S), and significant and unavoidable impact (SU). The significance of each impact is categorized before and after implementation of any recommended mitigation measure(s). • Chapter V – Alternatives: Provides an evaluation of two alternatives to the proposed project in addition to the CEQA-required No Project alternative. • Chapter VI – CEQA Required Assessment Conclusions: Provides additional specifically-required analyses of the proposed project’s growth-inducing effects, significant irreversible changes, cumulative impacts, and effects found not to be significant. • Chapter VII – Report Preparation: Identifies preparers of the EIR, references used and persons and organizations contacted.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-Intro.doc (3/3/2011) 2

II. SUMMARY

This chapter provides an overview of the proposed project and the findings outlined in this EIR, including a discussion of alternatives and cumulative project impacts.

A. PROJECT UNDER REVIEW This EIR has been prepared in order to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Vallejo WinCo Foods Project (proposed project) proposed for redevelopment of an approximately 7.64-acre site in the City of Vallejo (City). The project site is currently developed with the Vallejo Elks Lodge #559, which consists of three one- to two-story buildings, totaling approximately 35,057 square feet and associated recreational facilities, surface parking, and landscaping. The proposed project would demolish all existing uses on the site and redevelop the site with a new discount grocery store (WinCo Foods), with a building area of approximately 71,393 square feet, and associated 400 surface parking spaces and landscaping. The building would be situated at the northeast quadrant of the site with the building entrance facing south, and loading, delivery, and trash pick-up areas located at the rear. The WinCo Foods store is proposed to operate seven days a week and up to 24 hours per day, with the exception of Christmas Day. The proposed project would require the following discretionary approvals: Site Development Permit; Environmental Review, and a Major Conditional Use Permit. Refer to Chapter III, Project Description for a detailed description of the project and requested approvals.

B. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES This summary provides an overview of the analysis contained in the Initial Study (included in Appendix B) and Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. CEQA requires a summary to include discussion of: (1) a summary of the Initial Study findings; (2) potential areas of controversy; (3) significant and significant unavoidable impacts; (4) cumulative impacts; and (5) alternatives to the proposed project. These topics are discussed below.

1. Findings of the Initial Study The Initial Study identified no impacts to the following environmental issues: • agricultural and forestry resources • school services • mineral resources • recreation • population and housing

The Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts to the following environmental issues; however these were mitigated to a less-than-significant level with mitigation measures recommended in the Initial Study (these construction-period measures are standard and would likely apply to any redevelopment activities that could occur on the site):

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 3

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

• biological resources • geology and soils • cultural resources • hazards and hazardous materials

Table II-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Initial Study, (located at the end of this Chapter) shows recommended mitigation measures as they relate to each environmental topic. For a complete description of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, please refer to the specific discussion in the Initial Study, included as Appendix B to this EIR. Chapter VI, CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions also summarizes the findings for each topic not discussed in the EIR.

2. Potential Areas of Controversy Five letters were submitted in response to the NOP, in addition to the verbal comments made at the scoping session. Scoping comments generally included the following concerns: potential for closure of competing businesses and resulting urban decay; traffic, circulation and alternative transportation; storm drainage and water quality; noise; increased pollution and litter; safety; and the range of alternatives to be analyzed. The NOP and scoping comments are included in Appendix A. A discussion of these topics along with recommended mitigation measures, as necessary, are provided in the appropriate topical sections of this EIR and in the Initial Study included in Appendix B. Mitigation measures to be incorporated into the proposed project are recommended as necessary.

3. Significant Impacts Under CEQA, a significant impact on the environment is defined as “…a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.”1 The proposed project would result in significant impacts to the following environmental issue topics; however, these impacts can be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this EIR: • Visual Resources • Transportation and Circulation • Air Quality • Global Climate Change • Noise • Hydrology and Water Quality

4. Significant Unavoidable Impacts Even with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in Sections IV.C, Transportation and Circulation and IV.E, Global Climate Change, the proposed project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts: • The Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard intersection (Intersection #1) would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the PM and Saturday peak hours under Existing Plus Project,

1 Public Resources Code 15382; Public Resources Code 21068.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 4

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Near-Term Plus Project, and Long-Term Plus Project conditions (Impacts TRANS-1, TRANS-9 and TRANS-17); • The Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB Ramps intersection (Intersection #4) would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours under Existing Plus Project and Near-Term Plus Project conditions and during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours during the Long-Term Plus Project conditions (Impacts TRANS-3, TRANS-12, and TRANS-20); • The Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp intersection (Intersec- tion #5) would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the Saturday peak hour under Existing Plus Project conditions and during the PM and Saturday peak hours under the Near- Term Plus Project and Long-Term Plus Project conditions. This intersection will also experience an unacceptable increase in the vehicle queue length at the eastbound left-turn movement during the PM peak hour under Existing Plus Project conditions (Impacts TRANS-4 , TRANS-6, TRANS-13, and TRANS-21); • The Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps intersection (Intersection #13) would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours under the Long-Term Plus Project conditions and will experience an unacceptable increase in the vehicle queue length at the northbound left-turn movement during the PM peak hour during Long-Term Plus Project conditions (Impacts TRANS-27 and TRANS-28); • Operation of the proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed allowable thresholds, resulting in a cumulative contribution to global climate change (Impact GCC-2); and • Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project would conflict with policies related to the reduction of greenhouse gases (Impact GCC-3).

5. Cumulative Impacts As discussed in more detail in Chapter VI, CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions, the proposed project, in conjunction with other foreseeable projects, would result in the following cumulative impacts: • The Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard intersection (Intersection #1) would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the PM and Saturday peak hours under Long-Term Plus Project conditions (Impact TRANS-17); • The Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB Ramps intersection (Intersection #4) would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours during the Long-Term Plus Project conditions (Impact TRANS-20); • The Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp intersection (Intersection #5) would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the PM and Saturday peak hours under the Long-Term Plus Project conditions (Impact TRANS-21); • The Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps intersection (Intersection #13) would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours under the Long-Term Plus Project conditions and will experience an unacceptable increase in the vehicle queue length at the northbound left-turn movement during the PM peak hour during Long-Term Plus Project conditions (Impacts TRANS-27 and TRANS-28);

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 5

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

• Operation of the proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed allowable thresholds, resulting in a cumulative contribution to global climate change (Impact GCC-2); and • Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project would conflict with policies related to the reduction of greenhouse gases (Impact GCC-3).

6. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Three alternatives to the proposed project are analyzed in Chapter IV of this EIR as summarized below: • The No Project alternative assumes the continuation of existing conditions within the project site. • The Off-Site alternative assumes the proposed project will be developed on a 10.88-acre vacant site, located approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the currently proposed project site at the intersection of Turner Parkway and North Ascot Parkway and east of I-80. The currently proposed project site would remain in its current condition with no additional development or change in use (as described in the No Project alternative). • The No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative assumes development of a 13,565-square-foot retail grocery store at the proposed project site (a 57,828 square foot reduction, or 81 percent of the proposed development square footage of 71,393 square feet).

Each alternative is compared to the proposed project, and discussed in terms of its various mitigating or adverse effects on the environment. Analysis of the alternatives focuses on those topics for which significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project. The Off-Site alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative.

C. SUMMARY TABLES As previously discussed, Table II-1 shows recommended mitigation measures as they relate to each environmental topic in the Initial Study. Information in Table II-2, Summary of Impacts and Mitiga- tion Measures in the EIR, (located at the end of this Chapter, following Table I-1) summarizes the impacts and mitigation measures discussed in Chapter IV of the EIR. Tables II-1 and II-2 are arranged in four columns: (1) impacts; (2) level of significance without mitigation; (3) mitigation measures; and (4) level of significance after mitigation. Levels of significance are categorized as follows: SU = Significant and Unavoidable; S = Significant; and LTS = Less Than Significant. For a complete description of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, please refer to the specific discussion in Chapter IV.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 6

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Initial Study Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impacts to nesting birds. S BIO-1: If feasible, vegetation removal activities shall occur during the non- LTS breeding season (September 1–January 31). If such activities are scheduled during the breeding season, a qualified biologist retained by the project applicant shall conduct a preconstruction nest survey of all trees or other suitable nesting habitat in and within 100 feet of the limits of work. The survey shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of work. If the survey indicates the potential presence of nesting birds, the biologist shall report to the City of Vallejo Planning Manager and shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work shall be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game, and will be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of up to 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent disturbance to birds nesting in the urban environment, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts to archaeological resources. S CULT-1a: If prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are LTS encountered during project subsurface construction, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery.

If the archaeological deposit cannot be avoided, it shall be evaluated for its California Register of Historical Resources eligibility to determine if it qualifies as a historical resource under CCR Title 14(3) Section 15064.5(a). If the deposit is not eligible, a determination shall be made as to whether it qualifies as a “unique archaeological resource” under CCR Section 15064.5(3)(c) and PRC Section 21083.2. If the evaluation determines that the deposit is neither a historical nor unique archaeological resource, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposit is eligible, adverse effects on the resource shall be mitigated. Mitigation may consist of

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 7

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-1 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Continued excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)); recording the resource; preparation of a report of findings; and accessioning recovered archaeological materials at an appropriate curation facility. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. Upon completion of the evaluation, the archaeologist shall prepare a report to document the methods and results of the assessment. The report shall be submitted to the City of Vallejo Community Development Department for review and the Northwest Information Center.

CULT-1b: The project applicant shall inform the construction contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project site prior to any groundbreaking activities for archaeological deposits. The City shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:

“If prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel should not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. Archaeological resources can include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite toolmaking debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat-affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, faunal bones, and cultural materials); and stone-milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Prehistoric archaeological sites often contain human remains.”

Impacts to paleontological resources. S CULT-2a: Should paleontological resources be encountered during project LTS subsurface construction, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If found to be significant, and

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 8

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-1 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Continued project activities cannot avoid the paleontological resources, adverse effects to paleontological resources shall be mitigated. Mitigation may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report, and submitting the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Vallejo Community Development Department for review and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

CULT-2b: Prior to any groundbreaking activities, the project applicant shall inform the construction contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project site for paleontological resources. The City shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:

“The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are encountered during project subsurface construction and a paleontologist is not on site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials.

Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals may include bones of mam- moth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison. Paleontological resources also include plant imprints, petrified wood, and animal tracks.”

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 9

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-1 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impacts to human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries. S CULT-3: Any human remains encountered during project ground-disturbing LTS activities shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project site for human remains. The City shall verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:

“If human remains are uncovered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted—if one is not already on site—to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.” VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impacts to related to seismic and soil constraints. S GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or building LTS permits, the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report shall be incorporated into the project design, in compliance with City of Vallejo guidelines, and as submitted to the Chief Building Official and City Engineer for review and approval. The Geotechnical Report describes the proposed project’s geotechnical conditions and addresses potential geohazards such as fault rupture, seismic shaking, liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, and expansive soils. The project plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and identified building techniques appropriate to minimize seismic damage to the proposed structures and minimize effects of the presence of expansive soils. All mitigation recommendations, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the Geotechnical Report shall be implemented as a condition of project approval.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 10

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-1 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impacts related to unknown existing soil contamination. S HAZ-1: Prior to project construction, the project applicant shall be LTS responsible for performing an environmental investigation to determine if residues from inorganic or organochlorine pesticides have contaminated exposed shallow soils and shallow soils beneath paved surfaces that would be disturbed during project construction. Representative shallow soil samples shall be collected in areas that will be disturbed during construction in accordance with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) guidance document, Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties. However, the soil sampling depth should be modified to 1 foot below ground surface or pavement due to likely grading and mixing of soils during redevelopment in the mid- to late-1960s; the DTSC guidance document does not account for agricultural soils disturbed by redevelopment. Analytical results shall be compared to California and federal hazardous waste criteria and screening levels developed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). The findings of the investigation shall be used to develop an Excavation/ Construction Risk Management Plan (E/C RMP) to determine if special soil management and disposal procedures or additional construction worker health and safety procedures must be implemented during project construction, as required in Mitigation Measure HAZ-2. Impacts related to known existing soil contamination. HAZ-2: Construction shall be conducted under an E/C RMP if the soil investigation determines that contaminants are present above applicable Water Board screening levels or could constitute a hazardous waste, once excavated. The E/C RMP shall incorporate soil analytical data collected during the environmental investigation summarized in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 to ensure that excavated soils are stored, managed, and disposed of in a manner protective of human health and the environment, and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The E/C RMP shall include the following information and shall be approved by the City of Vallejo prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit:

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 11

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-1 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Continued • Excavated Soils Management. The E/C RMP shall include measures for testing and managing soils suspected to contain hazardous concentrations of pesticide residues. The E/C RMP shall: (1) provide procedures for evaluating, handling, stockpiling, storing, testing, and disposing of excavated materials during project excavation activities; (2) describe required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to pesticide residues in accordance with State and federal worker safety regulations; and (3) designate personnel responsible for implementation of the E/C RMP. • Construction Worker Health and Safety. A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) shall be prepared by a certified industrial hygienist for the implementation by the construction contractor. The HASP shall include measures to protect construction workers and the general public by including monitoring, engineering controls, administrative controls, and security measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction area. If prescribed exposure levels are exceeded, personal protective equipment shall be required for workers in accordance with state and federal regulations. HAZ-3: A hazardous building materials survey shall be performed by a qualified environmental professional retained by the project applicant prior to issuance of a demolition permit. The hazardous building materials surveys shall include inspections of asbestos, lead-based paint, and sources of universal wastes. If asbestos containing materials are determined to be present, the materials shall be abated by a certified contractor in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations and notification requirements. If lead-based paint is present, protective measures and air monitoring shall be implemented by qualified workers during activities that generate potential airborne exposures to lead in accordance with the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations and notification requirements. Loose or peeling lead-based paint shall be removed by a qualified worker and disposed of in accordance with existing hazardous waste regulations. If lead, asbestos, or other hazardous building materials are present, then applicable federal and State construction worker health and safety regulations shall be implemented during construction activities. Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 12

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation A. LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY There are no significant Land Use and Planning Policy impacts. B. VISUAL RESOURCES VIS-1: The proposed project would create a new source of light and S VIS-1: The lighting plan prepared for the project shall be submitted to and LTS glare affecting day and nighttime views. reviewed by the City during the Site Development process and shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The City shall verify that the lighting plan includes provisions to ensure that outdoor lighting is designed so that potential glare or light spillover to surrounding properties are minimized through appropriate site design and shielding of light standards. The plan shall also demonstrate that the use of reflective exterior materials is minimized and that proposed reflective material would not create additional daytime or nighttime glare. Measures identified in the lighting plan shall be incorporated into construction plans and implemented by the construction contractor. C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION TRANS-1: Intersection #1 – Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard S TRANS-1: The project applicant shall fund re-timing of the Redwood SU operates at an unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour and at Street/Sonoma Boulevard signal to optimize the cycle splits. As shown in LOS C during the Saturday peak hour under Existing conditions. Table IV.C-9, this intersection improvement would result in this intersection This intersection will experience an increase in delay of 0.1 seconds operating at improved levels compared to Existing Without Project during the PM peak hour and an increase in V/C of 0.05 seconds conditions during the PM and Saturday peak hours. during the Saturday peak hour under Existing Plus Project conditions. The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with the signal timing optimization. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction and there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time the proposed project opens. Prior to obtaining building permits for the project, the project applicant shall make a written offer to Caltrans to fully fund the signal re-timing at the Redwood Street/ Sonoma Boulevard intersection to optimize cycle splits, and shall provide a copy of this written offer to the City.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 13

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANS-2: Intersection #3 – Redwood Street/Tuolumne Street S TRANS-2: The project applicant shall fund an adaptive signal retiming LTS operates at an unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour under program at the Redwood Street/Tuolumne Street intersection that would Existing conditions and will experience an increase in V/C of 0.03 operate in real time, adjusting signal timing to accommodate changing during the Existing Plus Project PM peak hour. traffic patterns. The adaptive signal timing program should be implemented at four signalized intersections on Redwood Street between Couch Street and Tuolumne Street as well as at three signalized intersections on Tuolumne Street from Del Mar Avenue to Hospital Drive. The timing program adjusts the split, offset, cycle lengths, and phase order of the signals using sensors to interpret characteristics of traffic approaching an intersection, and using mathematical and predictive algorithms, adapts the signal timings accordingly, optimizing their performance. To implement the adaptive signal timing program, cameras and Ethernet communication would need to be added to the traffic signals and a processor would be installed on the inside of each of the existing traffic cabinets. As shown in Table IV.C-9, this intersection improvement would result in this intersection experiencing a V/C within the acceptable thresholds during the PM peak hour. TRANS-3: Intersection #4 – Redwood Street/ Fairgrounds Drive/I- S TRANS-3: The project applicant shall fund the proportional fair-share to SU 80 WB Ramps operates at LOS D during the AM and PM peak improve operations at the Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB hours under Existing conditions and will experience an increase in Ramps intersection for adding an exclusive westbound right turn pocket for delay of 0.4 seconds and 1.9 seconds during the Existing Plus 150 feet adjacent to the bridge crossing I-80 and restriping the westbound Project AM and PM peak hours, respectively. through-shared-right turn lane to a through lane. In addition, the southbound right turn lane should be restriped as a through-shared-right lane. As shown in Table IV.C-9, this intersection improvement would result in this intersection operating at acceptable levels during the AM peak hour. Additionally, although still an unacceptable level of service, this intersection improvement would result in intersection delay of better than pre- project conditions during the PM peak hour. The project’s proportionate share of the mitigation costs shall be paid to the City of Vallejo and placed in an escrow account for the exclusive use to construct the identified mitigation. Based on Caltrans’ methodology for calculating equitable share in their Guidelines for the Preparation of

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 14

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANS-3 Continued Traffic Impact Studies, the project’s proportionate share is 14.8 percent. If the funds are not expended for the mitigation improvement they will be transferred to the project fund as part of the Redwood Parkway/Fairgrounds Drive Improvements. The Redwood Parkway/Fairground Drive Improvements project would absorb the impacts from the WinCo project and provide mitigations through the realignment of the I-80 on/off ramps with Redwood Parkway. The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with increased capacity. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction and no funding sources for the remaining improvement costs have been identified; therefore there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time the proposed project opens. TRANS-4: Intersection #5 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan S TRANS-4: The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated by SU Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp will operate at LOS C during the retiming the signal to optimize the cycle splits and adding a westbound Saturday peak hour under Existing Plus Project conditions and will right-turn lane. experience an increase in V/C of 0.07 due to the proposed project. The project applicant shall fund re-timing of the Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard signal to optimize the cycle splits. However, due to the right-of- way constraints on the northeast corner at this intersection, no feasible mitigation measure has been identified. Additional right-of-way would need to be purchased from private property owners on the north side of the westbound approach in order to obtain proper lane alignment through the intersection. Because right-of-way is needed and it is within the control of the private property owner, the significant impact at this intersection remains significant and unavoidable. TRANS-5: Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan S TRANS-5: The project applicant shall fund signal re-timing at the Redwood LTS Lane (east)/ Project Driveway B will operate at an unacceptable Parkway/ Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B intersection to LOS F during the Saturday peak hour under Existing Plus Project optimize the cycle splits. In addition, the northbound and southbound signal conditions and will experience an increase in V/C of 0.13 due to the phasing shall be converted from permitted left turns to protected left turns. proposed project. This improvement requires modifications to the signal to accommodate protected left-turn movement in the northbound and southbound directions. The 95th percentile queue during the Saturday peak hour for this movement is 234 feet; therefore, a 250-foot left-turn pocket for the eastbound left-turn lane is recommended.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 15

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANS-5 Continued As shown in Table IV.C-9, these intersection improvements would result in this intersection experiencing a V/C within the acceptable thresholds during the Saturday peak hour. TRANS-6: The total queue length of the eastbound left-turn S TRANS-6: Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRANS-3 and TRANS- SU movement at Intersection #5 – Redwood Parkway/ Admiral 5 would improve the operation at this intersection and reduce the eastbound Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp is 353 feet during the PM left-turn queue. The project applicant shall fund extension of the existing peak hour under Existing Plus Project conditions, 78 feet longer than eastbound left-turn pocket at the Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan the turn pocket length. The project is responsible for 71 feet of the Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp by 12 feet. total queue, which is equivalent to less than 3 vehicles. The extension of the existing eastbound left-turn pocket by 12 feet would require re-striping of the eastbound approach, which can likely be performed without roadway widening. It is important to note that the extension of this turn pocket by 12 feet may not be feasible without modifying the westbound left-turn pockets at the Redwood Street/Fair- grounds Drive/I-80 WB Ramps intersection. Implementation of this mitigation measure, if approved by Caltrans, may require the reduction of storage capacity for the westbound left-turn pocket at the abovementioned intersection. The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with the turn pocket extension. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction; therefore there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time the proposed project opens. Prior to obtaining building permits, the project applicant shall make a written offer to Caltrans to fully fund the extension the eastbound left-turn pocket at the Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp by 12 feet and shall provide a copy of this written offer to the City. TRANS-7: The total queue length of the eastbound left-turn S TRANS-7: The project applicant shall fund extension of the existing LTS movement at Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/ Admiral eastbound left-turn pocket at the Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B is 292 feet during the PM Lane (east)/Project Driveway B intersection by 75 feet and modification of peak hour under Existing Plus Project conditions, 167 feet longer the signal timing to provide additional green time for the eastbound left turn than the turn pocket length. The project is responsible for 235 feet of phase. The extension of this eastbound left-turn pocket would provide the total queue, which is equivalent to less than 10 vehicles. sufficient storage to accommodate 95th percentile queues.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 16

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANS-7 Continued The extension of the existing eastbound left-turn pocket by 75 feet would require reconstruction of the raised median along Redwood Parkway including the relocation of a signal pole, between Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp and Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B. TRANS-8: The total queue length of the northbound left-turn S TRANS-8: The project applicant shall fund extension of the existing LTS movement Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/ Admiral Callaghan northbound left-turn pocket at the Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B is 324 feet during the PM peak hour Lane (east)/Project Driveway B intersection by 47 feet. under Existing Plus Project conditions, 245 feet longer than the turn pocket length. The project is responsible for 47 feet of the total The extension of the existing northbound left-turn pocket by 47 feet would queue, which is equivalent to less than 2 vehicles. require re-striping of the northbound approach, which can likely be performed without roadway widening. TRANS-9: Intersection #1 – Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard S TRANS-9: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-1. As shown in Table SU operates at LOS D during the PM peak hour and LOS C during the IV.C-12 re-timing of the Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard signal to Saturday peak hour under Near-Term conditions and will experience optimize the cycle splits would result in this intersection operating at an increase in delay of 0.2 seconds during the PM peak hour and an improved levels compared to Near-Term Without Project conditions during increase in V/C of 0.05 seconds during the Saturday peak hour due the PM and Saturday peak hours. to the proposed project. The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with the signal timing optimization. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction; therefore, there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time the proposed project opens. Prior to obtaining building permits for the project, the project applicant shall make a written offer to Caltrans to fully fund the signal re-timing at the Redwood Street/ Sonoma Boulevard intersection to optimize cycle splits, and shall provide a copy of this written offer to the City. TRANS-10: Intersection #2 – Redwood Street/Broadway Street S TRANS-10: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-2. As shown in Table LTS operates at LOS D during the PM peak hour under the Near-Term IV.C-12 adaptive signal retiming at the Redwood Street/ Broadway Street conditions and will experience an increase in V/C of 0.03 seconds intersection would result in this intersection operating at improved levels due to the proposed project. compared to Near-Term Without Project conditions during the PM peak hour. TRANS-11: Intersection #3 – Redwood Street/ Tuolumne Street S TRANS-11: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-2. As shown in Table LTS operates at LOS D during the PM peak hour under Near-Term IV.C-12, this improvement would result in the Redwood Street/ Tuolumne conditions and would experience an increase in V/C of 0.03 due to Street intersection experiencing a V/C within the acceptable thresholds the proposed project. during the PM peak hour.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 17

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANS-12: Intersection #4 – Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I- S TRANS-12: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-3. As shown in Table SU 80 WB Ramps operates at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hour IV.C-12, this improvement would result in the Redwood Street/ Fairgrounds under the Near-Term conditions and will experience an increase in Drive/I-80 WB Ramps intersection operating at acceptable levels during the delay of 0.3 seconds and 2.0 seconds during the AM and PM peak AM peak hour. Additionally, although still an unacceptable level of service, hours respectively due to the proposed project. this intersection improvement would result in intersection delay of better than Near-Term Without Project conditions during the PM peak hour.

The project’s proportionate share of the mitigation costs shall be paid to the City of Vallejo and placed in an escrow account for the exclusive use to construct the identified mitigation. If the funds are not expended for the mitigation improvement, they will be transferred to the project fund as part of the Redwood Parkway/ Fairgrounds Drive Improvements. The Redwood Parkway/Fairground Drive Improvements project would absorb the impacts from the WinCo project and provide mitigations through the realignment of the I-80 on/off ramps with Redwood Parkway. The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with increased capacity. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction and no funding sources for the remaining improvement costs have been identified; therefore there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time the proposed project opens. TRANS-13: Intersection #5 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral S TRANS-13: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-11. As shown in Table SU Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off Ramp will operate at LOS C IV.C-12, the intersection improvement at Redwood Street/Fairgrounds during the PM and Saturday peak hours under the Near-Term Drive/I-80 WB Ramps would result in the Redwood Parkway/ Admiral conditions and will operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour and Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off Ramp intersection operating at experience an increase in delay of 0.07 seconds during the Saturday acceptable levels during the PM peak hour. peak hour due to the proposed project. The significant impact during the Saturday peak hour can be mitigated by retiming the signal to optimize the cycle splits and adding a westbound right-turn lane. However, due to the right-of-way constraints on the northeast corner at this intersection, no feasible mitigation measure has been identified. Additional right-of-way would need to be purchased from private property owners on the north side of the westbound approach in order to obtain proper lane alignment through the intersection. Because right-of-way is needed and it is within the control of the private property owner, the significant impact at this intersection remains significant and unavoidable.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 18

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANS-14: Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral S TRANS-14: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-5. As shown in Table LTS Callaghan Lane (east)/ Project Driveway B will operate at an IV.C-12, this improvement would result in the Redwood Parkway/ Admiral unacceptable LOS E during the Saturday peak hour under Near- Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B intersection experiencing a V/C Term Plus Project conditions and will experience an increase in V/C within the acceptable thresholds during the Saturday peak hour. of 0.09 due to the proposed project. TRANS-15: The total queue length of the eastbound left-turn S TRANS-15: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-7. LTS movement at Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/ Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B is 291 feet during the PM peak hour in the Near-Term Plus Project conditions, 166 feet longer than the turn pocket length. The project is responsible for 233 feet of the total queue, which is equivalent to less than 10 vehicles. TRANS-16: The total queue length of the northbound left-turn S TRANS-16: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-8. LTS movement at Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/ Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B is 324 feet during the PM peak hour in the Near-Term Plus Project conditions, 244 feet longer than the turn pocket length. The project is responsible for 47 feet of the total queue, which is equivalent to less than 2 vehicles. TRANS-17: Intersection #1 – Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard S TRANS-17: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-1. As shown in Table SU operates at LOS D during the PM and Saturday peak hours under IV.C-15 this improvement would result in the Redwood Street/ Sonoma Long-Term conditions and will experience an increase in delay of Boulevard intersection operating at improved levels compared to Long- 0.4 and 1.9 seconds during the PM and Saturday peak hours, Term Without Project conditions during the PM and Saturday peak hours. respectively under Long-Term Plus Project conditions. The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with the signal timing optimization. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction; therefore, there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time the proposed project opens. Prior to obtaining building permits for the project, the project applicant shall make a written offer to Caltrans to fully fund the signal re-timing at the Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard intersection to optimize cycle splits, and shall provide a copy of this written offer to the City.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 19

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANS-18: Intersection #2 – Redwood Street/Broadway Street S TRANS-18: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-2. As shown in Table LTS operates at LOS F and LOS D during the PM and Saturday peak IV.C-15, this improvement would result in this intersection experiencing a hours respectively under Long-Term conditions and will experience V/C within the acceptable thresholds during the PM and Saturday peak an increase in V/C of 0.3 seconds and an increase in delay of 2.4 hours. seconds during the PM and Saturday peak hours respectively during

Long-Term Plus Project conditions. TRANS-19: Intersection #3 – Redwood Street/Tuolumne Street S TRANS-19: The project applicant shall fund re-timing of the Redwood LTS operates at LOS D during the Saturday peak hour under Long-Term Street/Tuolumne Street signal to optimize the cycle splits. As shown in conditions and will experience an increase in the V/C ratio of 0.03 Table IV.C-15, this intersection improvement would reduce the delay at this seconds during the Saturday peak hour during Long-Term Plus intersection to an acceptable level during the Saturday peak hour. Project conditions. TRANS-20: Intersection #4 – Redwood Street/ Fairgrounds Drive/I- S TRANS-20: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-3 and retime the SU 80 WB Ramps operates at LOS E during the AM and Saturday peak traffic signal to optimize the cycle splits. As shown in Table IV.C-15, this hours and LOS F during the PM peak hour under the Long-Term improvement would result in the Redwood Street/ Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 conditions and will experience an increase in delay of 5 seconds, 11 WB Ramps intersection operating at acceptable levels during the AM and seconds, and 9.3 seconds during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak Saturday peak hours. Additionally, although still an unacceptable level of hours respectively during Long-Term Plus Project conditions. service, this intersection improvement would result in intersection delay of better than Long-Term Without Project conditions during the PM peak hour. The project’s proportionate share of the mitigation costs shall be paid to the City of Vallejo and placed in an escrow account for the exclusive use to construct the identified mitigation. If the funds are not expended for the mitigation improvement, they will be transferred to the project fund as part of the Redwood Parkway/ Fairgrounds Drive Improvements. The Redwood Parkway/Fairground Drive Improvements project would absorb the impacts from the WinCo project and provide mitigations through the realignment of the I-80 on/off ramps with Redwood Parkway. The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with increased capacity. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction and no funding sources for the remaining improvement costs have been identified; therefore there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time the proposed project opens.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 20

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANS-21: Intersection #5 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral S TRANS-21: The significant impact at the Redwood Parkway/Admiral SU Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp operates at LOS D during Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp s intersection can be mitigated the PM and Saturday peak hours under Long-Term conditions and with increased capacity. However, due to the right-of-way constraints on the will experience an increase in delay of 19.1 and 2.9 seconds during southeast corner at this intersection, no feasible mitigation measure has been the PM and Saturday peak hours respectively during Long-Term identified. Additional right-of-way would need to be purchased from private Plus Project conditions. property owners on the east side of the northbound approach in order to obtain proper lane alignment through the intersection. Because right-of-way is needed and it is within the control of the private property owner, the significant impact at this intersection remains significant and unavoidable.

It is important to note that improvements for the Redwood Parkway/Fair- grounds Drive Improvements project have been identified by STA to support future traffic demands. Conceptual layouts for the project illustrated the redesign of the I-80/Redwood Street Interchange to a more traditional diamond interchange. This conceptual design also included the realignment of the Fairgrounds Drive further west to be separated from the interchange intersections. Although this project would improve operations at the interchange and STA and City staff believe that the project could be constructed before 2030, the project’s geometric layout is still undefined and the project was not assumed to be constructed by 2030 in the Long-Term analysis. When this project is completed, whether before or after 2030, it will improve operations at this intersection. TRANS-22: Intersection #6 –Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan S TRANS-22: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS 5. As shown in Table LTS Lane (east)/ Project Driveway B operates at LOS E during the IV.C-15, implementation of this mitigation measure would mitigate the Saturday peak hour under the Long-Term conditions and will impact in the Saturday peak hour. experience an increase in delay of 68.1 seconds during Long-Term Plus Project conditions. TRANS-23: The total queue length of the eastbound left-turn S TRANS-23: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-7. LTS movement at Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/ Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B is 238 feet during the PM peak hour and 244 feet during the Saturday peak hour in the Long- Term Plus Project conditions, 113 and 119 feet longer than the turn pocket length, respectively. The project is responsible for 188 feet of the total queue, which is equivalent to less than 8 vehicles.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 21

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANS-24: The total queue length of the northbound left-turn S TRANS-24: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-8. LTS movement at Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/ Project Driveway B is 549 feet during the PM peak hour in the Long-Term Plus Project conditions, 469 feet longer than the turn pocket length. The project is responsible for 47 feet of the total queue, which is equivalent to less than 2 vehicles. TRANS-25: Intersection #10 – Redwood Parkway/Ascot Parkway S TRANS-25: The project applicant shall fund the proportional fair share of LTS operates at LOS D during the PM peak hour under the Long-Term adding a second northbound left turn lane to the Redwood Parkway/Ascot conditions and will experience an increase in V/C of 0.03 during the Parkway intersection. As shown in Table IV.C-15, this improvement would PM peak hour during the Long-Term Plus Project conditions. result in this intersection experiencing a V/C within the acceptable thresholds during the PM peak hour. Based on expected traffic generated by the proposed project and Caltrans’ methodology for calculating equitable share, the project applicant shall contribute 8.5 percent of the mitigation costs to the City for this improvement. The project’s proportionate share of the mitigation cost shall be paid to the City of Vallejo’s Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) Program fund to construct the identified mitigation. If this intersection is currently not included in the TIMF Program, the City shall add this intersection to their TIMF Program during the next evaluation period. TRANS-26: The total queue length of the northbound left-turn S TRANS-26: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-25. LTS movement at Intersection #10 – Redwood Parkway/ Ascot Parkway is 444 feet during the PM peak hour in the Long-Term Plus Project conditions, 269 feet longer than the turn pocket length. The project is responsible for 34 feet of the total queue, which is equivalent to less than 2 vehicles.

TRANS-27: Intersection #13 – Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB S TRANS-27: The project applicant shall fund the proportional fair share to SU Ramps, which is unsignalized, operates at LOS D and LOS E during construct a half-signal at the Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps the AM and PM peak hours respectively under the Long-Term intersection. The high southbound through traffic is not anticipated to conditions and will experience an increase in delay of 0.8 seconds provide sufficient gaps to adequately serve the northbound left-turn traffic and 4.5 seconds respectively during the Long-Term Plus Project onto I-80 EB. The half-signal would control the southbound through and conditions. northbound left-turn movements, while allowing the northbound through and eastbound right-turn traffic to remain uncontrolled. Although this configuration is somewhat rare, there are examples of similar signalization in the Bay Area including on Caltrans facilities. The northbound left turn

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 22

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANS-27 Continued queue would occasionally preclude vehicles from turning right out of the project driveway and traveling into the northbound left turn lane at the Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps intersection. The project traffic is less than 1 percent of this movement. The queue is expected to be shorter during most periods and the vehicles exiting the project driveway would not have any difficulty getting over to the northbound left turn lane. This intersection satisfies the peak hour signal warrant during the AM peak hour. As shown in Table IV.C-15, this intersection improvement would result in this intersection operating at LOS A and LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours. Based on expected traffic generated by the proposed project and Caltrans’ methodology for calculating equitable share, the project applicant should contribute 5.7 percent of the mitigation costs at this location. The project’s proportionate share of the mitigation costs shall be paid to the City of Vallejo to be used for construction of the identified mitigation. If the funds are not expended for the mitigation improvement they will be transferred to the project fund as part of the Redwood Parkway/Fairgrounds Drive Improvements. The Redwood Parkway/Fairground Drive Improve- ments project would absorb the impacts from the WinCo project and provide mitigations through the realignment of the I-80 on/off ramps with Redwood Parkway. The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with the installation of a half-signal. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction; therefore there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time it is needed in 2030. TRANS-28: The total queue length of the northbound left-turn S TRANS-28: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-25. SU movement at Intersection #13 – Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps is 632 feet during the PM peak hour in the Long-Term Plus The project’s proportionate share of the mitigation costs for the Admiral Project conditions, 532 feet longer than the turn pocket length. The Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps intersection shall be paid to the City of project is responsible for 57 feet of the total queue, which is Vallejo and placed in an escrow account for the exclusive use to construct equivalent to less than 3 vehicles. the identified mitigation. If the funds are not expended for the mitigation improvement they will be transferred to the project fund as part of the Redwood Parkway/Fairgrounds Drive Improvements. The Redwood Parkway/Fairground Drive Improvements project would absorb the impacts from the WinCo project and provide mitigations through the realignment of the I-80 on/off ramps with Redwood Parkway.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 23

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANS-28 Continued The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with the turn pocket extension. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction; therefore there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time it is needed in 2030. TRANS-29: The right in/out only limitation at the Admiral S TRANS-29: To reinforce compliance of the right in/out movements at LTS Callaghan Lane (west)/Project Driveway A intersection may not be Project Driveway A, a “pork chop” channelizing island shall be incorpo- enforceable, resulting in circulation impacts at this intersection and a rated into the project design prior to final site plan approval. The applicant safety hazard along Admiral Callaghan Lane (west). shall be responsible for the cost and construction of the island, which shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. D. AIR QUALITY AIR-1: Demolition and construction period activities would generate S AIR-1a: Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following LTS dust and exhaust, and organic emissions from vehicles. actions shall be required of construction contracts and specifications for the project: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • 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. • 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.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 24

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation AIR-1 Continued • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Vallejo regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. AIR-1b: Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following actions shall be required of construction contracts and specifications for the project. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE GCC-1: Construction activities would cumulatively contribute to S GCC-1: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1. LTS global climate change. GCC-2: Operation of the proposed project would result in GHG S GCC-2: To reduce the project’s impact on Global Climate Change the SU emissions that would have a significant physical adverse impact and following measures shall be incorporated into the design and construction would cumulatively contribute to global climate change. of the project:

Energy Efficiency Measures: • Design buildings to facilitate use of solar energy for electricity, water heating, and/or space heating/cooling. • Provide a landscape and development plan for the project that takes advantage of shade, prevailing winds, and landscaping.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 25

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation GCC-2 Continued • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems. • Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements. • Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems. • Install energy-efficient, solar or light emitting diodes (LEDs) for outdoor lighting, as appropriate.

Water Conservation and Efficiency Measures: • Create water-efficient landscapes within the development, including climate-appropriate and drought-tolerant species. • Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices. • Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances, including low-flow faucets, dual-flush toilets and waterless urinals. • Restrict watering methods (e.g. prohibit systems that apply water to non- vegetated surfaces) and control runoff.

Solid Waste: Provide storage areas for recyclables and require recycling and other on-site solid waste reduction measures in compliance with City of Vallejo Public Works Department’s recycling programs and requirements.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 26

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation GCC-2 Continued • Provide bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and/or paths, incorporated into the proposed street systems and connected to a community-wide network. • Provide bicycle parking at a rate of at least 1:20 vehicle spaces. GCC-3: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project S GCC-3: Implement Mitigation Measure GCC-2. SU would conflict with policies related to the reduction of greenhouse gases. F. NOISE NOISE-1: Noise levels from construction activities may range up to S NOISE-1a: The project applicant shall construct a sound wall along the LTS 91 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive land uses to the project site northern project property line prior to commencing any demolition or resulting in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels construction activities. This sound wall shall be constructed of solid block, in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. or equivalent, materials at a minimum height of 8 feet above the finished pad elevation of both the proposed and adjacent properties. NOISE-1b: All construction equipment must have appropriate sound muffling devices, which shall be properly maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation. NOISE-1c: Where feasible, the project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. NOISE-1d: The construction contractor shall locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site. NOISE-1e: Except as otherwise permitted, construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. NOISE-2: Construction activities could expose persons in the S NOISE-2a: The contractor shall ensure implementation of multi-part LTS project vicinity to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. NOISE-2b: Pile driving shall not be used in construction of the proposed structure unless a detailed vibration impact analysis is performed that determines potential impacts and outlines mitigation measures to reduce such impacts to a less-than-significant level. NOISE-2c: The contractor shall ensure that no two or more pieces of heavy construction equipment operate simultaneously within 25 feet of any single point along the northern project property line.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 27

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation NOISE-3: Operational noise would result in a permanent increase of S NOISE-3a: The project applicant shall ensure implementation of Mitigation LTS more than 5 dBA in ambient noise levels over existing levels Measure NOISE-1a. without the project for noise sensitive uses in the project vicinity. NOISE-3b: A sound wall shall be constructed along the eastern project property line at a height and length that blocks the line of sight to the outdoor active use areas of residential land uses east of the project site. This sound wall shall be constructed on solid block or equivalent sound reflecting or sound absorbing material. G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HYDRO-1: Construction period activities could generate S HYDRO-1: Consistent with the requirements of the statewide Construction LTS stormwater runoff that could cause or contribute to a violation of General Permit, and as required by the Vallejo Municipal Code, the project water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, provide applicant shall prepare and implement a SWPPP designed to reduce poten- substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise tial adverse impacts to surface water quality through the project construc- substantially degrade the water quality of Vallejo area streams, Lake tion period. The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following objec- Chabot, wetlands, or San Pablo Bay. tives: (1) all pollutants and their sources, including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site erosion and all other activities associated with construction activity are controlled; (2) where not otherwise required to be under a Water Board permit, all non-storm water discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; (3) site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from construction activity to the BAT/BCT standard; (4) calculations and design details as well as BMP controls for site run-on are complete and correct, and (5) stabilization BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed. The SWPPP shall prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required in Attachment D of the Con- struction General Permit for Risk Level 2 dischargers, or Attachment E for Risk Level 3 dischargers (as applicable, based on final determination of the project’s Risk Level status [to be determined as part of the Notice of Intent for coverage under the Construction General Permit]). These include: BMPs for erosion and sediment control, site management/housekeeping/waste management, management of non-stormwater discharges, runon and runoff

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 28

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation HYDRO-1 Continued controls, and BMP inspection/maintenance/repair activities. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook-Construction or the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual. The SWPPP shall include a construction site monitoring program that identifies requirements for dry weather visual observations of pollutants at all discharge locations, and as appropriate (depending on the Risk Level), sampling of the site effluent and receiving waters (receiving water monitoring is only required for some Risk Level 3 dischargers). A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner shall be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site and performing all required monitoring and inspection/maintenance/repair activities. The project applicant shall also prepare a Rain Event Action Plan as part of the SWPPP. The following are the types of BMPs that shall be implemented for the project, subject to review and approval by the Water Board. Erosion Control BMPs • Scheduling. To reduce the potential for erosion and sediment discharge, construction shall be scheduled to minimize ground disturbance during the rainy season. The project applicant shall: o Sequence construction activities to minimize the amount of time that soils remain disturbed. o Stabilize all disturbed soils as soon as possible following the completion of ground disturbing work. o Install erosion and sediment control BMPs prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities. • Preservation of Existing Vegetation. Where feasible, existing vegetation shall be preserved to provide erosion control. • Stabilize Soils. Hydroseeding, geotextile fabrics and mats, mulch, or soil binders shall be used, as appropriate, to reduce erosion on exposed soil surfaces.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 29

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation HYDRO-1 Continued • Stabilize Streambanks. When working along stream banks or within channels, BMPs shall be implemented to minimize channel erosion and sedimentation. Proper erosion and sediment controls, such as silt fences, mulch, geotextiles, and hydroseeding, shall be used. To the extent possible, existing vegetation that stabilizes the stream banks shall be preserved. • Earth Dikes, Drainage Swales and Slope Drains. Earth dikes, drainage swales, or slope drains shall be constructed to divert runoff away from exposed soils and stabilized areas, and redirect the runoff to a desired location, such as a sediment basin. • Outlet Protection and Velocity Dissipation Devices. Rock, concrete rubble, or grouted riprap shall be installed at culvert and pipe outlets to drainage conveyances, to prevent scour of the soil caused by concentrated high-velocity flows. Sediment Control BMPs • Silt Fence/Fiber Roll. Silt fences or fiber rolls shall be installed around the perimeter of the areas affected by construction, at the toe of slopes, around storm drain inlets, and at outfall areas, to prevent offsite sedimentation. • Street Sweeping and Vacuuming. Areas with visible sediment tracking shall be swept or vacuumed daily, to prevent the discharge of sediment into the stormwater drainage system or creeks. • Storm Drain Inlet Protection. Storm drains shall be protected using a filter fabric fence, gravel bag barrier, or other methods, to allow sediments to be filtered or settle out before runoff enters drain inlets. • Check Dams. Barriers shall be constructed of rock, gravel bags, sand bags, or fiber rolls across a constructed swale or drainage ditch, to reduce the effective slope of the channel. This reduces the velocity of runoff, which allows sediment to settle and reduces erosion. • Sediment Traps. Sediment traps shall be constructed where sediment- laden runoff may enter the stormwater drainage systems or creeks. Sediment traps are appropriate for drainage areas less than five acres.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 30

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation HYDRO-1 Continued • Sediment Basins. If used onsite, sediment basins shall be designed according to the method provided in the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater BMP Handbook—Construction. Sediment basins are appropriate for drainage areas of five acres or greater. Wind Erosion Control BMPs • Dust Control. Potable water shall be applied using water trucks to alleviate nuisance caused by dust. Water application rates shall be minimized to prevent erosion and runoff. • Stockpile Management. Silt fences shall be used around the perimeter of stockpiles, and stockpiles shall be covered to prevent wind dispersal of sediment. Tracking Controls • Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit. Construction site entrances and exits shall be graded and stabilized to reduce the tracking of mud and dirt onto public roads by construction vehicles. • Stabilized Construction Roadway. Access roads, parking areas, and other on-site vehicle transportation routes shall be stabilized immediately after grading is completed, and frequently maintained to prevent erosion and to control dust. • Tire Wash. A tire washing facility shall be installed at stabilized construction access points to allow for tire washing when vehicles exit the site to prevent tracking of dirt and mud onto public roads. Non-Stormwater Controls • Dewatering. The SWPPP shall include a dewatering plan for non- contaminated groundwater specifying methods of water collection, transport, treatment, and discharge. The discharger shall consult with the Water Board regarding any required permit (other than the Construction General Permit) or Basin Plan conditions prior to initial dewatering activities to land, storm drains, or receiving waters. Water produced by dewatering shall be impounded in holding tanks, sediment basins, or other holding facilities to settle the solids and provide other treatment as necessary prior to discharge to receiving waters.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 31

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation HYDRO-1 Continued • Discharges of water produced by dewatering shall be controlled to prevent erosion. • Illicit Connection/Discharge Detection and Reporting. Contractors shall regularly inspect the site for evidence of illicit connections, illegal dumping, or discharges. Such illicit activities shall immediately be reported to the VSFCD. • Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning. Construction equipment shall be washed regularly in a designated stabilized area onsite, or offsite. Steam cleaning will not be performed onsite. Phosphate-free, biodegradable soaps shall be used for on-site activities. Wash water from onsite activities shall be contained and infiltrated, to avoid discharges to drain inlets and creeks. Vehicle and Equipment Fueling and Maintenance. Vehicles and equipment shall be inspected daily for leaks. Perform vehicle maintenance and fueling off-site whenever possible. If maintenance and fueling must take place onsite, designated areas shall be located at least 50 feet away from storm drain inlets, drainage courses, and receiving waters. Fueling areas shall be protected with berms and dikes to prevent runon, runoff, and to contain spills. Fueling shall be performed on level grade. Nozzles shall be equipped with automatic shutoffs to control drips. Stored fuel shall be enclosed or covered. Drip pans shall be used for all vehicle and equipment maintenance activities. Spill kits shall be available in maintenance and fueling areas, and spills shall be removed with absorbent materials and not washed down with water. If spills or leaks occur, contaminated soil and cleanup materials shall be properly disposed. • Paving and Grinding Operations. Proper practices shall be implemented to prevent run-on and runoff, and to properly dispose of waste. Paving and grinding activities shall be avoided during the rainy season, when feasible. • Copper Roof Installation. All runoff resulting from the installation, treating, or cleaning of the copper roof shall be discharged to the sanitary sewer system in accordance with VSFCD requirements.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 32

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation HYDRO-1 Continued Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control BMPs • Material Delivery and Storage and Use. Materials such as detergents, concrete compounds, petroleum products and hazardous materials shall be stored in a designated area away from vehicular traffic, drain inlets, and creeks. The materials shall be stored on pallets with secondary containment. Spill clean-up materials, material safety data sheets, a material inventory, and emergency contact numbers shall be maintained in the storage area. • Spill Prevention and Control. Proper procedures shall be implemented to contain and clean-up spills and prevent material discharges into the storm drain system. • Waste Management. Solid waste shall be collected in designated areas, and stored in watertight containers located in a covered area or with secondary containment. Waste shall be removed from the site regularly. Hazardous wastes shall be stored and disposed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. • Sanitary/Septic Waste Management. Portable toilets shall be located at least 50 feet away from drain inlets and waterbodies, and away from paved areas. • Stockpile Management. Stockpiles shall be surrounded by sediment controls, covered, and located at least 50 feet from concentrated flows of stormwater, inlets, and creeks. • Concrete Waste Management. Concrete washout shall be performed offsite, or in a designated area at least 50 feet away from storm drain inlets or creeks. A temporary pit or bermed area shall be constructed where the waste can be discharged and allowed to set for proper disposal. • Training. Construction site personnel shall receive training on implementing all BMPs included in the SWPPP. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner shall perform all BMP inspection/maintenance/repair and site monitoring activities.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 33

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation HYDRO-2: Operational period activities could generate stormwater S HYDRO-2: In accordance with the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), the LTS runoff that could cause or contribute to a violation of water quality project applicant shall implement the following requirements to control standards or waste discharge requirements, provide substantial pollutants in post-construction stormwater runoff and non-stormwater additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially discharges, which shall be submitted for review with the building permit degrade the water quality of Vallejo area streams, Lake Chabot, application to the VSFCD and the City of Vallejo Public Works Depart- wetlands, or San Pablo Bay. ment. If the VSFCD and City do not have in-house review capacity, a qualified consultant approved by the VSFCD and the City shall be retained to review the project applicant’s submittal. • Locations of all stormwater treatment BMPs, sized in accordance with the MRP Provision C.3. shall be shown on a site plan; • Roof runoff shall be directed to vegetated areas, as shown on a site plan; • The following discharges shall be conveyed to the sanitary sewer as shown on a site plan: o Dumpster drainage areas for covered trash, food waste and compactor enclosures; o Areas used for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment shall be connected to a grease inceptor and shall discharge to the sanitary sewer; o Drains located in loading docks shall be equipped with a spill control valve or equivalent device, which shall be kept closed during periods of operation; o The project applicant shall get approval from the VSFCD on specific sanitary sewer connection and discharge requirements. • The project applicant shall develop BMPs for managing wastewater generated from the cleaning and/or treating of the copper roof over the grocery store customer entrance. The wastewater shall not be discharged into the stormwater drainage system. Alternatively, an alternative material to copper will be used for this architectural detail. • The project applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan that details the O&M responsibility mechanism and maintenance requirements for all stormwater treatment systems, for the life of the project.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 34

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

Table II-2 Continued Level of Level of Significance Significance Without With Environmental Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation H. PUBLIC SERVICES There are no significant Public Services impacts. I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE There are no significant Utilities and Infrastructure impacts. J. URBAN DECAY There are no significant Urban Decay impacts. Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 35

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 II. SUMMARY

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (3/3/2011) 36

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This chapter describes the proposed Vallejo WinCo Foods Project (proposed project), that is evaluated in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A description of the proposed project’s regional and planning context, objectives, and background is included, in addition to a discussion of required project approvals and entitlements.

A. PROJECT SITE The following section describes the project site’s location, surrounding land uses, and site characteristics.

1. Location The approximately 7.64-acre project site is located at 2850 Redwood Parkway within the City of Vallejo in Solano County. The site is less than 6 miles south of the City of American Canyon, 8 miles northwest of the City of Benicia, and 14 miles southwest of the City of Fairfield. The project site is generally located on the north side of Redwood Parkway between Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) and Codloni Lane. The site is bounded by the Vallejo Plaza Shopping Center and commercial uses to the north, multi-family homes and a medical office building to the east, Redwood Parkway to the south, and a gas station and Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) to the west. Figure III-1 depicts the site’s regional and local context.

Interstate 80 (I-80) passes through the City and provides the regional vehicular access to Vallejo. The Redwood Street/Redwood Parkway interchange, located immediately to the west of the project site, provides regional vehicular access to the project site. The project site is also accessible by the Vallejo Transit bus system, which operates routes on Redwood Parkway, with a stop located at the intersection with Admiral Callaghan Lane (west), within walking distance to the project site. A Class II bike lane is present along Redwood Parkway, fronting the project site.

2. Surrounding Land Use The project site is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential uses, as shown in Figure III-2. The Vallejo Plaza Shopping Center, which includes a supermarket and other ancillary retail shops and services, is located immediately northwest of the site. A day care center and office uses border the site to the northeast. Auto dealership, service and repair businesses are also located further north of the site on Rotary Way. The site is bordered to the east by a medical office building and multi-family residential neighborhoods situated above the site at a higher topographical elevation. Single-family residences are located farther to the east. Across Redwood Parkway to the south, land uses consist of multi-family residences and a medical office building east of Admiral Callaghan Lane (east) and commercial and gas services to the west. A gas station borders the site to the west, at the intersection of Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) and Redwood Parkway. Across Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) to the west, uses include commercial, retail, auto and service uses. Further west across I-80, land uses

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjDesc.doc (3/3/2011) 37 REGIONAL LOCATION 113 Sacramento

505 99

Vacaville 5 PROJECT Napa LOCATION Fairfield

29 12 37 101 VallejoVallejo Suisun City 780 Benicia

San 4 Rafael 242 Pittsburg 580 80 Concord Clayton Antioch 1 Berkeley 24 Walnut Creek Brentwood Danville Oakland San Francisco 580 680 205 880 580 Tracy Livermore

280 Hayward 580 Admiral Callaghan Lane Callaghan Admiral

PROJECT SITE

FIGURE III-1

project site 0 400 800 feet Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS, 2008. Project Regional Location and Vicinity Map I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_III1.ai (1/24/11) FIGURE III-2 Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

Aerial Photograph of Project Site

e e

n n

a a

L L

i i

n n

o o l l d d y a a C C a w k r a P

d o o w d e R

Rotary Way

) )

t t

s s

a a

E E

( (

e e

n n

a a

L L

n n

) )

t t a a

s s

e e

h h

W W

( (

g g

e e a a

l l

n n

l l

a a

L L

a a

n n

C C

a a

h h

l l

g g

a a

a a l l

l l

a a r r

C C i i

l l

a a

r r

i i

m m

d d A A m m

d d

A A Project Site

Redwood Street Street Street Redwood Redwood Redwood

e e

v v

i i

r r

D D

s s

d d

n n

u u

o o

r r

g g

r r

i 350 a a

F F feet 0 175 GOOGLE EARTH, SEPT. 2009; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. ASSOCIATES, 2009; LSA SEPT. SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, (2/3/11) I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_III2.ai

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjDesc.doc (3/3/2011) 40

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

are primarily residential, with a gas station, office uses, and a restaurant along Fairgrounds Boulevard near the I-80 southbound off-ramp.

3. Site Characteristics The project site is irregularly shaped and consists of three parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN] 0069-340-450, 0069-340-460, and 0069-291-020). The generally level site slopes gently to the southeast, with an elevation of approximately 108 feet above mean sea level. The Vallejo General Plan designation for the site is Retail and the majority of the site is within the Pedestrian Shopping and Service (CP) Zoning District. The parcel that comprises the southeast corner of the site is within the High Density Residential (HDR) Zoning District.

The site is developed with the Vallejo Elks Lodge #559, which consists of three one- to two-story buildings, totaling approximately 35,057 square feet, and recreational facilities. The lodge is located at the northeastern corner of the site, and the main building generally faces Redwood Parkway. Rec- reational facilities on the site are primarily located at the rear of the main building and include a tennis court, pool, play structure, barbeque and picnic area, gazebo, mini-golf course, and open lawn areas. With the exception of the pool area, most of these facilities are no longer in use and are not maintained. Outdoor storage and maintenance facilities are also located at the rear and along the eastern portion of the site.

An asphalt-covered parking lot covers the remainder of the site and provides approximately 267 parking spaces. The eastern section of the parking lot is available to lodge members for Recreational Vehicle (RV) use for stays of up to two weeks at a time. RV hook ups are provided. Landscaped areas are scattered throughout the site and parking area, and at the perimeter of the site. Existing landscaping generally consists of various species of shrubs and trees. Much of the existing on-site vegetation is overgrown.

Vehicular access to the site is currently provided by a signalized driveway at the Redwood Parkway/ Admiral Callaghan Lane (east) intersection. A second driveway is located on Admiral Callaghan Lane (west); however this access point is currently fenced-off and not in use.

The Elks Lodge is currently looking to relocate within the City of Vallejo and downsize their facility due to a decrease in membership from its peak of more than 3,100 members in 1986 to the current membership of 742 (as of January 2011).

B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives of the proposed project are as follows: • Develop an underutilized site with a retail grocery store use that ensures community access to a variety of grocery shopping opportunities, accomplishes the goals and strategies of the Vallejo General Plan, and complies with the requirements of the Vallejo Zoning Ordinance. • Strengthen and expand the community’s tax base by providing sales tax revenue and/or increasing property tax revenues at the project site; • Allow for a development that provides economic benefits to the City in terms of employment opportunities for local residents;

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjDesc.doc (3/3/2011) 41

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

• Provide sufficient off-street parking to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods and ensure that adequate on-site parking is provided for customers and employees; • Design a site plan to minimize overall access and circulation conflicts. Provide for truck circulation around the building’s perimeter with sufficient maneuvering space for loading; and • Locate a retail project in close proximity to a regional transportation corridor with good local access from major streets and freeways.

C. PROPOSED PROJECT This section provides a description of the proposed project based on the application package submitted to the City in April 2010, and describes the project’s technical, environmental, and socioeconomic characteristics.

Redwood Parkway Partners, LLC (the project applicant) proposes to redevelop the site with a discount grocery store.1 The proposed project is a commercial development that comprises approximately 71,393 gross square feet of retail space and up to 400 parking spaces, as described more fully below. The three existing parcels that comprise the project site would be combined through a lot line adjustment to accommodate the proposed development. The project site plan is illustrated in Figure III-3.

1. Commercial Development The proposed project includes the construction of a new WinCo Foods grocery store with a building size of approximately 71,393 square feet. The building would be situated at the northeast quadrant of the site with the building entrance facing south and loading, delivery, and trash pick-up areas located at the rear. The store would offer retail sales of groceries, fresh meat and produce, fresh bakery items, bulk and deli foods, and beer and wine at discounted prices. The average breakdown between food and general merchandise sales would be approximately 80 percent and 20 percent, respectively. The retail sales floor would comprise approximately 80 percent of the total square footage, while stock room, office, employee, and other non-merchandise areas would occupy the remaining 20 percent.

2. Store Operation The proposed WinCo Foods store is proposed to operate seven days a week and up to 24 hours per day, with the exception of Christmas Day. The proposed store is projected to generate approximately 170 jobs, up to 102 (60 percent) of which would be full-time and 68 part-time. According to the project applicant, the company is approximately 80 percent employee-owned and the majority of employees would be hired locally.

3. Building Design Building design features, including proposed architecture, lighting, signage, and green building features are described in detail below.

1 Redwood Parkway Partners, LLC, 2010. 2850 Redwood Parkway, Vallejo California, Application Submittal Package. March 29. Amended plans dated November 24, 2010.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjDesc.doc (3/3/2011) 42 FIGURE III-3

060120 feet Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: CARDNO WRG, 12/9/10. Preliminary Site Plan I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_III3.ai (12/10/10)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

a. Architecture. The single-story building would range from about 27 to 31 feet in height, as shown in the conceptual building elevations depicted in Figures III-4a and III-4b. The building exterior would consist of finished insulation systems in shades of brown, grey, and taupe, and splitface concrete block with banding painted in terra cotta and beige at the front elevation. Remaining elevations would consist of splitface concrete block in terra cotta. A standing seam copper metal roof would be located above the customer entrance, and would range from 33 feet to 40 feet at the peak. Decorative cornices would also be located at roof line of the front elevation. b. Lighting. Proposed site lighting would use 28-foot poles with a minimum of 1.3 foot candles maintained at the front of the store and throughout the parking area and a minimum of 0.8 foot candles maintained at the rear. LED2 fixtures would provide for even distribution of light across the site, eliminating dark areas. c. Signage. Proposed signage would include two illuminated channel letter signs located on the front elevation as well as a monument sign located at Redwood Parkway and Admiral Callaghan Lane (west). Building and monument signage would utilize LEDs. d. Building and Energy Efficiency Features. The building design would utilize Type VB (unprotected wood-frame) construction and utilize green building features. Green building features include: the location of over 40 skylights on the roof to allow infiltration of natural light; a roof constructed of white PVC membrane; an active energy management system used for refrigeration and HVAC;3 interior finishes that would use minimal building materials (e.g., concrete floors); energy efficient ballasts with fluorescent lights; and LED fixtures for exterior lighting and signage.

Energy efficiency measures that exceed Title 24 requirements include: recovery of waste heat from the product refrigeration system by utilizing this heat to serve the store space and domestic water heating needs; use of high-efficiency refrigeration rack to serve cooling needs; use of variable speed fans to reduce the power required to move air in the building; and use of variable volume air systems in the office areas to meet actual space loads. Additional energy efficiency and emission reduction measures that would be implemented as part of store operation are described in more detail in Section IV.E, Global Climate Change.

4. Access, Circulation and Parking Access to the project site would be provided by three driveways. The existing signalized driveway at Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east) would continue to provide primary access to the project site from both the west and eastbound directions of Redwood Parkway. A new driveway would also be located at Redwood Parkway, at the southeast corner of the site. Ingress and egress to and from the site would be limited to the westbound direction at this location (i.e., right-in, right-out access only). Entry from the eastbound direction would be blocked by the existing median. The existing driveway located on Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) would also be opened to provide access from this roadway and access would be limited to the northbound direction (i.e., right-in, right-out access only). Pedestrian access to the site would be provided by existing public sidewalks on Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) and Redwood Parkway. A sidewalk would be provided along the northwestern

2 “Light-emitting diode,” or a semi-conductor light source that consume less energy. 3 HVAC stands for “Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning.”

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjDesc.doc (3/3/2011) 44 North Elevation

South Elevation View from Redwood Parkway

FIGURE III-4a

not to scale

Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: JOHNSON LYMAN ARCHITECTS, LLC, 2/25/11. Conceptual Building Elevations I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_III4a.ai (3/2/11) East Elevation

West Elevation

FIGURE III-4b

not to scale

Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: JOHNSON LYMAN ARCHITECTS, LLC, 2/25/11. Conceptual Building Elevations I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_III4b.ai (3/2/11)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

property boundary to facilitate pedestrian access between the project site and the shopping area to the north.

A Class II bike lane, which is an on-street lane designated for bicyclists, currently exists along Redwood Parkway fronting the project site and extends to Ascot Parkway to the east. Class II bike lanes are also provided along Ascot Parkway and Columbus Parkway in the project’s vicinity, providing connectivity to many local retail and recreational destinations in East Vallejo.

The proposed project includes the construction of a surface parking lot primarily situated in front of the commercial building, with some parking located east and west of the building. A total of 400 parking spaces would be provided, 8 of which would be ADA-compliant stalls. This exceeds the City’s requirements of 1 stall per 350 square feet of commercial space (a requirement of 204 spaces and 4 ADA spaces). Designated shopping cart corrals would be located throughout the parking area. A permanent shopping cart locking system would be utilized to satisfy the City of Vallejo’s Abandoned Shopping Cart Prevention Ordinance (Chapter 7.65).

5. Deliveries To serve the proposed WinCo Foods store, delivery trucks would enter the site from the eastbound direction of Redwood Parkway, at the signalized driveway. Trucks would continue west of the building to access the loading dock at the rear. Delivery trucks would maneuver at the northeast corner of the site to back into one of the two below-grade, three-bay loading docks. Truck egress would continue east of the building and out of the driveway at the southeast corner of the site.

Following procedures standardized by WinCo Foods, truck deliveries would take place between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. It is expected that the store would have approximately 150 to 160 truck deliveries per week consisting of all truck types. Specifically, it is expected that these would consist of approximately 45 semi-tractor and trailers and about 105 other small delivery trucks. Because of the 24-hour operation, seven days per week, these trucks would arrive at various times throughout the restricted delivery hours of the early to late morning. About 8 semi tractor and trailers and 17 other small delivery trucks would access the site on heavy days, with 5 semi tractor trailers and 8 other delivery trucks on light days. Generally, all deliveries would arrive in the early morning in order to avoid peak traffic. Dwell time would typically be less than 90 minutes, but could reach up to 120 minutes. The smaller delivery trucks may occasionally arrive on demand, but would generally be limited to the restricted morning delivery hours. All trucks would be required to deliver to the rear of the store as it is company policy to prohibit truck traffic at the front of the store. While this is an estimation of truck delivery times, frequency, and volume, deliveries may be subject to schedule factors such as holidays, weather, traffic patterns, and distance and may vary somewhat from store to store.

Two truck loading docks would be located below grade (recessed wells) at the rear of the store. The loading bay doors would be equipped with sealed gaskets to mitigate the impact of noise from off- loading trailers since all loading/unloading activities occur within the enclosed building area. WinCo delivery trucks, utilizing the recessed wells, would drop off loaded trailers and immediately depart with an empty trailer to minimize truck idling time.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjDesc.doc (3/3/2011) 47

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

6. Landscaping The proposed project would remove most of the existing on-site vegetation, including approximately 92 mature trees. Approximately 6 trees located at the site’s southern perimeter would be retained and integrated into the on-site landscaping, if feasible. Approximately 0.82 acres, or 10.8 percent of the site, would be landscaped. New landscaping would include conifer, shade, and accent trees, shrubs, and other plantings at the perimeter of the site, as well as at the ends of each row of parking stalls, as illustrated in the preliminary landscape plan shown in Figure III-5. All new landscaping would be designed to meet or exceed City of Vallejo specifications (Section 16.70 of the City’s Municipal Code), including the installation of new trees. Specifically, boundary landscaping abutting street frontages would be planted at a depth of about 6 to 6 ½ feet (2 feet required), with interior boundary landscaping also provided. Approximately 17 street trees would be provided along street frontages, which exceeds the minimum planting requirement of 15 trees (one street tree for each 50 feet of frontage required). A retaining wall, varying in height from 3 to 9 feet, would also be constructed at the northeastern corner of the property boundary.

7. Utilities Public utilities are available to serve the proposed project, including water, sanitary sewer, storm water drainage, power and communications as described below. a. Water Service. Water service in Vallejo is provided by the City of Vallejo Water Department. An existing 24-inch water line runs diagonally across the center of the site. Additional water infrastructure adjacent to the site include 8-inch water mains at Redwood Parkway and Admiral Callaghan Lane (west). Potable water and fire service lines would connect to the existing 24-inch water line. b. Sanitary Sewer. The Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District provides wastewater treatment, collection, and disposal of wastewater to the City of Vallejo. An 18-inch sanitary sewer line is located at the eastern property line and an 8-inch line is located at the northern property boundary. The proposed project would connect to these existing facilities, with a 3,000 gallon grease interceptor located at the loading area. c. Stormwater. The site currently discharges stormwater into the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District system. Two existing parallel 72-inch storm drains are located at the northeastern corner of the site. A portion of these storm lines would be realigned outside of the proposed building footprint and would continue to utilize the existing outfall points. Onsite stormwater flows would generally be collected at the center of the site and redirected to the new 72-inch lines or to an existing 30-inch line located at the eastern perimeter. Overland release of stormwater in the event of storm drainage failure would maintain existing patterns which direct flows across the property line to the north. Stormwater flows from the loading dock and trash areas would require pre-treatment prior to discharge to the public storm drainage system. d. Power and Communications. Power and communications services are currently available at the project site. Pacific, Gas and Electric (PG&E) would supply electrical power and gas to the site, and AT&T currently supplies telephone service.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjDesc.doc (3/3/2011) 48 FIGURE III-5

04080 feet Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: CARDNO WRG, 11/24/10. Preliminary Landscape Plan I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_III5_11x17.ai (12/10/10)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjDesc.doc (3/3/2011) 50

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

e. Solid Waste. Solid waste services would be provided by Recology. Per Recology’s pick-up schedule, trash pick-up would occur between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., five to six times per week. Garbage trucks would follow the same route of ingress and egress as delivery trucks.

8. Demolition, Grading and Construction All existing on-site structures would be demolished as part of the proposed project. Construction debris, such as building structures, metal, glass, wood, and utilities would be collected and off-hauled, yielding approximately 2,000 cubic yards of debris. The existing asphalt and miscellaneous concrete would be used as a base for on-site improvements, primarily the new parking lot. On-site use of crushed asphalt is a standard construction practice to reduce the amount of demolition material that would otherwise be sent to a landfill.

Approximately 6,397 cubic yards of soil would be removed to allow for new building foundations, the sub-grade loading area, and other infrastructure. Approximately 2,644 cubic yards of fill would be needed, for a total of 3,550 cubic yards of net cut to be exported from the site. All ADA parking and loading areas would not have slopes greater than 2 percent in any direction.

The proposed building would be constructed in one phase. On-site improvements include the building, parking, landscaping and driveways designed to support the retail project. The demolition and construction period is anticipated to occur over an 8 month period, with project operation expected in mid-2012.

D. REQUESTED PERMITS AND APPROVALS The proposed project includes and would require a series of discretionary and ministerial actions as discussed below.

1. Site Development Permit The proposed project includes an application for a Site Development Permit by the City of Vallejo Planning Division, which includes review of the site plan, landscaping and architectural designs.

2. Environmental Review The proposed project is subject to CEQA review and certification by the Vallejo City Council, which is the purpose of this document.

3. Major Conditional Use Permit A major conditional use permit must be granted to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption and for 24-hour operations.

4. Lot Line Adjustment A lot line adjustment permit would be processed in association with this project to combine the three existing parcels into one. This is a ministerial permit that would be processed prior to building permit approval.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjDesc.doc (3/3/2011) 51

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

E. USE OF THIS EIR Table III-1: Required Permits and Approvals Lead Agency Permit/Approval A number of permits and approvals, includ- City of Vallejo • Environmental Review ing the discretionary actions listed above, • Site Development Permit would be required before the development • Major Conditional Use Permit of this project can proceed. As lead agency • Sign Permit Approvals for the proposed project, the City of Vallejo • Potential Lot Line Adjustment • Building/Grading Permits would be responsible for the majority of Responsible Agencies approvals required for development. Other Vallejo Sanitation and • Approval for sewer treatment capacity agencies also may have some authority relat- Flood Control District • Approval of storm drain system ed to the project and its approvals. A list of California Regional • National Pollutant Discharge the required permits and approvals that may Water Quality Control Elimination System (NPDES) permit be required by the City and other agencies is Board (RWQCB) for stormwater discharge provided in Table III-1. Many of these agen- Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2011. cies would use this EIR when deliberating over required permits and approvals.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjDesc.doc (3/3/2011) 52

IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

This chapter contains an analysis of each issue that has been identified through preliminary environmental analysis for the Vallejo WinCo Foods Project, and, as such, comprises the major portion of the Draft EIR. Sections A through J of this chapter describe the environmental setting of the project as it relates to each specific environmental issue evaluated in the EIR and the impacts resulting from implementation of the project. Proposed mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts are recommended where appropriate.

DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

Under CEQA, a significant effect is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.1 The CEQA Guidelines direct that this determination be based on scientific and factual data. Each impact evaluation in this chapter is prefaced by criteria of significance, which are the thresholds for determining whether an impact is significant. These criteria of significance are based on those in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and were developed in coordination with the City of Vallejo staff.

ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE DRAFT EIR

The following environmental issues are addressed in this chapter:

Preliminary analysis contained in the Initial Study (included in Appendix B) determined that development of the proposed project would result in either no impact, less-than-significant impacts, or less-than-significant impacts with implementation of standard mitigation measures to the following issue topics: agricultural and forestry resources; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and

1 Public Resources Code Section 21068.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-ImpactsMMs.doc (3/3/2011) 53

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

soils; hazards and hazardous materials; mineral resources; population and housing; public schools; and parks and recreation.

FORMAT OF ISSUE SECTIONS

Each environmental topic considered in this chapter is comprised of two primary sections: (1) setting, and (2) impacts and mitigation measures. An overview of the general organization and the information provided in the two sections is provided below: • Setting. The setting section for each environmental topic generally provides a description of the existing physical conditions on for the project site and its surroundings at the beginning of the environmental review process (e.g., existing land uses, existing soil conditions, existing traffic conditions). An overview of regulatory considerations that are applicable to each specific environmental topic is also provided. • Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The impacts and mitigation measures section for each environmental topic presents a discussion of the impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, establishing the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of the section presents the impacts from the proposed project and mitigation measures, if required. The impacts of the proposed project are organized into separate categories based on their significance according to the criteria listed in each topical section: less-than-significant impacts, which do not require mitigation measures, and significant impacts, which do require mitigation measures.

Significant impacts are numbered and shown in bold type, and the corresponding mitigation measures are numbered and indented. Impacts and mitigation measures are numbered consecutively within each topic and begin with an acronymic reference to the impact section (e.g., LU, for Land Use). The following acronyms are used for individual topics:

LU: Land Use and Planning Policy VIS: Visual Resources TRANS: Transportation and Circulation AIR: Air Quality GCC: Global Climate Change NOISE: Noise HYD: Hydrology and Water Quality PUB: Public Services UTIL: Utilities and Infrastructure DECAY: Urban Decay

As discussed above, all impacts are evaluated according to the significance criteria: less-than- significant impacts (LTS), which do not require mitigation measures; significant impacts (S), which do require mitigation measures; and significant and unavoidable (SU) which cannot be mitigated. These notations are provided following each impact and each mitigation measure to identify their significance before and after mitigation.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-ImpactsMMs.doc (3/3/2011) 54

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY

A. LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY This section describes existing land uses on the project site as well as the surrounding area, defines the existing regulatory context, identifies potential land use impacts, and recommends mitigation measures, where appropriate. In addition, this section contains a discussion of the consistency of the proposed project with relevant land use policies; however, according to CEQA policy conflicts do not, in and of themselves, constitute a significant environmental impact. Policy conflicts are considered to be environmental impacts only when they would result in direct physical impacts. Any such associated physical impacts are discussed in this EIR under specific topical sections.

1. Setting The following section describes existing land uses and regulatory context of the project site and its vicinity. a. Existing Land Use. Land uses at and adjacent to the project site are identified in the aerial photograph provided in Figure IV.A-1. Figure IV.A-2 shows photographs of the site and surrounding area. Photo locations are numbered 1 through 4 and their locations are shown on Figure IV.A-1.

(1) Project Site. As described in Chapter III, Project Description, the approximately 7.64- acre project site is irregularly shaped and consists of three parcels. The generally level site slopes gently to the southeast, with an elevation of approximately 108 feet above mean sea level.

The site is developed with the Vallejo Elks Lodge #559, which consists of three one- to two-story buildings, totaling approximately 35,057 square feet, and recreational facilities. The lodge is located at the northeastern corner of the site, and the main building generally faces Redwood Parkway. Rec- reational facilities on the site are primarily located at the rear of the main building and include a tennis court, pool, play structure, barbeque and picnic area, gazebo, mini-golf course, and open lawn areas. With the exception of the pool area, most of these facilities are no longer in use and are not maintained. Outdoor storage and maintenance areas and facilities are also located at the rear and along the eastern portion of the site.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (3/3/2011) 55

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY

(2) Surrounding Area. The project site is located in northeast Vallejo, on the north side of Redwood Parkway between Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) and Codloni Lane. The site is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential uses, as shown in Figure IV.A-1 and described below.

Land Uses to the North. The Vallejo Plaza Shopping Center, which includes a supermarket and other ancillary retail shops and services, is located immediately northwest of the site. A day care center and office uses border the site to the northeast. Auto dealership, service and repair businesses are also located further north of the site on Rotary Way. The Solano County Fairgrounds, Six Flags Discovery Kingdom, and Lake Chabot are all located less than 2 miles northwest of the site.

Land Uses to the East. The site is bordered to the east by a medical office building and multi- family residential neighborhoods situated above the site at a higher topographical elevation. Land uses farther to the east primarily consist of single-family residential neighborhoods while the Vallejo Municipal and Blue Rock Springs Golf Courses are located at the eastern City limits, approximately 1½ miles east of the site.

Land Uses to the South. Across Redwood Parkway to the south, land uses consist of multi- family residences and a medical office building east of Admiral Callaghan Lane (east) and commercial and gas services to the west. Hanns Memorial Preserve, a 13.5-acre open space area, is located less than ¼ mile south of the project site. Land uses farther south of the site primarily consist of single-family residential neighborhoods.

Land Uses to the West. A gas station borders the site to the west, at the intersection of Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) and Redwood Parkway. Across Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) to the west, uses include commercial, retail, auto and service uses. Further west across I-80, land uses are primarily residential, with a gas station, office uses, and a restaurant along Fairgrounds Boulevard near the I-80 southbound off-ramp. The Flemingtowne/Redwood Square Shopping Center is located approximately ½ mile west of the site and includes a supermarket and other ancillary retail shops and services. b. Regulatory Context. The planning and regulatory documents that guide land use and development on the project site include the Vallejo General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Brief descriptions of each of these documents are provided below.

(1) Vallejo General Plan. The City of Vallejo General Plan (General Plan), adopted in 1983, is a description and guide of how the City intends to develop. The General Plan designates the general distribution of different types of land uses within the City, and serves as a point of reference for public officials when making land use and development decisions. Some elements of the General Plan have been amended since 1983.

The General Plan includes the following elements: Land Use; Circulation and Transportation; Housing; Educational Facilities; Public Facilities and Other Services; Safety; Noise; Air Quality; Natural Resources. The General Plan establishes goals and policies that apply to the Vallejo planning area. The goals located in the General Plan serve as overarching themes the City wishes to implement, and policies serve as measures that help to achieve these goals. The goals and policies applicable to land use and planning, and the project’s consistency with these goals and policies, are outlined in Table IV.A-1. Goals and policies related to other topics are evaluated in other sections within Chapter IV of this EIR.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (3/3/2011) 56 FIGURE IV.A-1 Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR Land Use Photo Location Map RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY Aerial View of the Project Site and

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

MULTI- FAMILY MULTI- e MULTI- FAMILY MULTI-

n n

a a

L L

i i

n n

o o l l d d y a a C C a w k r a P

d o o

4 w d e R

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

OFFICE / OFFICE / Rotary Way DAY CARE DAY DAY CARE DAY

) )

t t

s s

SAFEWAY a SAFEWAY

E E

( (

AUTO SERVICE / REPAIR SERVICE AUTO AUTO SERVICE / REPAIR SERVICE AUTO

e e

n n

a a

GAS GAS L L

n n

)

) 3

t t a a

s s

e e

h h

W W

g g

( (

COMMERCIAL / COMMERCIAL a COMMERCIAL / COMMERCIAL

e e

l l

n n

SHELL l SHELL a a

a a L L

STATION STATION

COMMERCIAL

AUTO AUTO n n

C C

a a

h h

l l

g g

a a

l l FEDEX FEDEX

a a l l

a a

C C r r

l l

i i

a a

r r i i

m m

d d A A

m m

d d

A A Project Site Photo Locations AUTO AUTO 4 STORE STORE

FURNITURE FURNITURE

Redwood Street Street Street Redwood Redwood Redwood

e e

v v

i i

r r

D D

s s

d d

n n

u u

o o

r r

g g

r r

i 350 a a

F F feet GOOGLE EARTH, SEPT. 2009; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. ASSOCIATES, 2009; LSA SEPT. SOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH, (2/3/11) I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVA1.ai 0 175

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (3/3/2011) 58 Photo 1: Vallejo Elks Lodge

Photo 2: Recreational facilities at rear of Vallejo Elks Lodge

FIGURE IV.A-2a

Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., SEPTEMBER 2010. Site Photos I:\CYV1001 WinCo\ﬁ gures\EIR\Figures_IVA2a-IVA2b.indd (9/24/10) Photo 3: Vallejo Plaza Shopping Center, north of the site

Photo 4: Multi-family residential neighborhoods, east of the site

FIGURE IV.A-2b

Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., SEPTEMBER 2010. Site Photos I:\CYV1001 WinCo\ﬁ gures\EIR\Figures_IVA2a-IVA2b.indd (9/24/10)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY

The General Plan Land Use Map applies a land use designation to all publicly and privately owned parcels within the City’s planning area and the map designates the project site as Retail. The Retail designation falls under the broader General Commercial designation which includes several types of commercial and office development, including retail (shopping centers, personal services), heavy (home improvement centers, wholesale stores), recreation, and limited professional (finance, real estate). The intent of this designation is to provide areas of the City where goods and services are available to local residents as well as visitors from the region and beyond.

(2) City of Vallejo Zoning Ordinance. The broad purposes of the Zoning Ordinance are to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to implement the policies of the City of Vallejo General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance is intended to provide a guide for the physical development of Vallejo and to encourage the appropriate use of land and harmonious relationship among land uses. Additionally, the zoning ordinance provides adequate open spaces for light and air and to conserve the City’s natural beauty.

The project site is zoned Pedestrian Shopping and Service (CP), which is consistent with the retail General Plan designation for the site. A small segment of the southeast corner of the site is designated High Density Residential (HDR), which would not generally apply to the existing or future uses of the site. After a lot-line adjustment, the entire parcel would be zoned CP. The purpose of the CP zoning district is to establish regulations for a pedestrian shopping and service district, in which a wide range of retail goods and services are permitted. The intent of this district is to implement the policy of the land use element of the General Plan which calls for the development of pedestrian- oriented commercial shopping areas that allow comparison shopping within relatively compact areas. The primary emphasis of the district is on pedestrian access with auto oriented uses allowed only in a subordinate role. Food and beverage retail sales are considered a permitted use within this district, subject to the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.57 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a Major Conditional Use Permit for establishments offering alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption, as prescribed in Chapter 16.82 of the Zoning Ordinance. The maximum building height within the CP district is 75 feet.

2. Land Use Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to land use that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine if an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the land use impacts from the proposed project and the recommended mitigation measures, where appropriate. Impacts are delineated into separate categories based on their significance according to the criteria listed below: less-than-significant impacts, which do not require mitigation, and significant impacts, which do require mitigation.

As previously discussed, inconsistencies between a project and applicable land use policies do not constitute significant environmental impacts in and of themselves. However, a policy inconsistency is considered to be a significant adverse environmental impact when it is related to a policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and it is anticipated that the inconsistency would result in a significant adverse physical impact. The proposed project’s consistency with regional policies related to physical environmental topics (e.g., air quality, transportation, and noise) is fully analyzed and discussed in those topical sections of this EIR.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (3/3/2011) 61

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY

a. Criteria of Significance. Implementation of the proposed project would have a significant effect on land use if it would: • Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community; • Introduce new land uses that would conflict with established uses; or • Fundamentally conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over a project, including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance, adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. b. Less-Than-Significant Land Use Impacts. Following is a summary of the less-than-significant land use impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project.

(1) Divide an Established Community. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also impair travel to areas outside of the community.

The proposed project would redevelop the project site with a retail grocery store and associated surface parking, landscaping, and associated improvements. Access to the site would be provided by major roadways in the vicinity, including Redwood Parkway and Admiral Callaghan Lane (west). The site is located in a developed area and is located immediately south of an existing commercial shopping area. Development of the project site would not create a physical barrier to travel around the project site and would therefore not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community.

(2) Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. The proposed project would redevelop the site with a discount grocery store. The approximately 71,393 square foot building would be situated in the northeast quadrant of the site, generally in the same location as the existing Elks Lodge. The site is surrounded by development on all sides and two major roadways – Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) and Redwood Parkway – border the site to the west and south, respectively. The proposed grocery store would be compatible with the existing commercial and retail uses located at the Vallejo Plaza Shopping Center which borders the site to the northeast, as well as other retail, commercial, and service uses within the vicinity.

Loading docks would be located at the rear of the proposed building, with daily deliveries to take place generally between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. Trash pick-up would occur between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. five to six days a week. Sensitive land uses, including the medical office building and multi-family residential neighborhoods situated above the site to the east and the Kindercare day care center and professional office buildings that border the site to the northeast could be exposed to excessive long-term noise during delivery and trash pick-up periods as the loading and trash areas would be located within the immediate vicinity of these uses. Noise levels at adjacent sensitive land uses could exceed acceptable thresholds during project operation. As described in more detail in Section IV.E, Noise, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. While noise impacts could result from the

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (3/3/2011) 62

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY

project, these could be mitigated by standard design features. Furthermore, the project site is located in an urban area and there is no inherent land use conflict presented by the location of a commercial use, on land zoned for commercial use, adjacent to a residential use. Therefore, the proposed project would generally be compatible with existing land uses within the vicinity of the site and would have a less-than-significant impact in terms of land use compatibility.

(3) Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans. The following addresses the proposed project’s compatibility with the applicable land use regulations of the City of Vallejo’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

Vallejo General Plan. Potential conflicts with specific General Plan goals and policies are discussed below and evaluated in detail in Table IV.A-1, at the end of this section. The proposed project would generally be consistent with General Plan land use-related objectives and policies that apply to development of the site.

The proposed project site is designated on the General Plan Land Use Map as Retail, under the broader designation of General Commercial. The General Plan provides that General Commercial uses include “retail (shopping centers, personal services)” and states that “the intent of this designation is to provide areas of the City where goods and services are available to local residents as well as visitors from the region and beyond.” The General Plan lists the CP zoning district (which is the zoning designation for the project site) as a clearly compatible zoning classification for areas of the City designated for General Commercial development. The proposed project would develop the site with a 71,393 square foot discount retail grocery store and associated surface parking, landscaping, and infrastructure. Because the project would serve both the region, the larger community of Vallejo, as well as residents of nearby residential neighborhoods by providing a 24-hour discount grocery store, it would be consistent with the General Plan designation of General Commercial. As such, development of the proposed project would be consistent with the type and intensity of development envisioned for the site.

Vallejo Zoning Ordinance. The majority of the project site is located within the CP zoning district. As previously described, the intent of this district is to implement the policy of the land use element of the General Plan which calls for the development of pedestrian-oriented commercial shopping areas that allow comparison shopping within relatively compact areas. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning for the site, given the nature of the retail operation itself, siting and orientation of the building at the rear of the site, and provision of 400 surface parking spaces along the Redwood Parkway frontage. While it is anticipated that customers of the proposed retail operation would primarily drive to the site, the proximity of the project to the Vallejo Shopping Center, which is also within the CP zoning district, would allow for pedestrian-oriented comparison shopping, and both public and private sidewalks would provide for pedestrian access between the two shopping areas. Specifically, as shown in Figure III-3, a sidewalk would be provided along the northwestern property boundary to facilitate pedestrian access from and to Admiral Callaghan Lane (west). ADA- compliant facilities would also be located throughout the site providing access between the bus stop on Redwood Parkway and the store entrance. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the intent of the CP zoning district.

As previously described, a small segment of the southeast corner of the site is within the HDR zoning district. Redevelopment of the site would not be inconsistent with this zoning designation because a

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (3/3/2011) 63

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY

lot line adjustment would be required. The lot line adjustment would apply the CP designation for the other two parcels to the HDR parcel and a rezone would not be required. c. Significant Land Use Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would result in no significant land use impacts.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (3/3/2011) 64

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY

Table IV.A-1: Relationship of Project to Relevant Vallejo General Plan Policies Goal/Policy/ Objective Number Policy Summary Project’s Relationship to Policy Urban Design Goal 2: To have within each neighborhood an image, sense of purpose and means of orientation. 3 Respect the character of older development nearby in the design of new buildings, Consistent: Based on conceptual elevations provided by the applicant, including bulk and texture. the proposed building design would be compatible with the character of existing commercial, retail, and service uses that surround the site. Commercial Development Goal 4: To have well-designed large commercial shopping areas serving the needs of the City. 2 Provide coordination of land uses and internal circulation between commercial Consistent: Given the site’s proximity to the Vallejo Plaza Shopping properties in different ownership. Center, the development of a retail grocery store on the site would result in an expansion of the existing commercial area. While no dedicated vehicular access between the two shopping areas would be provided, the existing shopping center is oriented towards Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) and is not situated in such a way as to make direct access between the two parking lots feasible. In addition, given the nature of the two retail areas and location of the parking areas, it is likely that customers would choose to re-park their vehicles when visiting the proposed WinCo and retailers at the adjacent shopping center in a single trip, even if direct access were provided. Pedestrian access between the two shopping areas would be provided via existing public sidewalks and sidewalks within the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed development generally would not conflict with the intent of this policy. Compatibility with Adjoining Land Uses Goal: To have a street and highway system that services all land uses with a minimum adverse impact. 3 All truck traffic and regional bus service should be restricted to peripheral major Consistent: As part of the project’s development application package streets and north-south, east-west arterial and collector streets having the least number (available for review at the City), the project applicant prepared a of residences and schools. Only small trucks servicing the neighborhood centers delivery truck route plan for the project.1 Delivery trucks would access should be allowed on other streets. Where possible, unloading facilities should be the site from I-80 and continue in the eastbound direction on Redwood provided off alleys rather than streets. Parkway (an east-west arterial roadway), to enter the site at the signalized driveway at Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east). Trucks would continue west of the building to access the loading dock at the rear of the site. Truck egress would continue east of the building and out of the driveway at the southeast corner of the site, where they would then continue on westbound Redwood Parkway to access I-80. Therefore, truck traffic to and from the site would access a direct route from I-80 via Redwood Parkway, which is an arterial roadway. Unloading and loading facilities would be located at the rear of

1 Redwood Parkway Partners, LLC, 2010. 2850 Redwood Parkway, Vallejo California, Application Submittal Package. March 29. Amended plans dated November 24, 2010.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (3/3/2011) 65

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. LAND USE AND PLANNING POLICY

Table IV.A-1 Continued Goal/Policy/ Objective Number Policy Summary Project’s Relationship to Policy the site, and would not be visible from the street. Other Services Goal: To provide an efficient and financially sound system of urban services to protect the health, safety and general welfare of Vallejo area residents. 1 Encourage infilling; that is, development within the urban area already served by Consistent. The proposed project would redevelop an underutilized infill sewer, drainage, and water lines, and streets. site in the City of Vallejo. The site is already served by existing utility infrastructure. Air Quality Goal 1: To improve Vallejo’s air quality. 4 Promote the use of trees and plants in landscaping to reduce air pollutant levels. Consistent. Although the proposed project would result in the removal of approximately 92 trees, the preliminary planting plan prepared for the project indicates that approximately 10.8 percent of the site would be landscaped and 6 existing trees would be retained and integrated into the on-site landscaping, if feasible. New landscaping would include conifer, shade, and accent trees, shrubs and other plantings. All new landscaping would be designed to meet or exceed City of Vallejo specifications. 5 Encourage local businesses to hire local residents in order to minimize commute trips Consistent. As stated in the project’s development application package, and vehicle miles traveled in the region. WinCo intends to fill the approximately 170 new jobs generated by the project with local hires.2 Source: Vallejo, City of, 1999. Vallejo General Plan. July. Amended through December 6, 2006; LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.

2 Ibid.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (3/3/2011) 66

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. VISUAL RESOURCES

B. VISUAL RESOURCES This section evaluates the effects of the proposed project on visual resources and public views on and around the project site. The analysis considers the visual quality of the project site, and views to and from the project site. Public views are defined as views from public locations, such as roadways, scenic vista areas, parks, schools, or other public buildings.

This section is based on field surveys of the project site that were conducted in April and July of 2010, review of aerial photographs of the project site and vicinity, and a review of the data provided by the project applicant including the site plan and other documents related to the project site.

1. Setting The following section describes the visual character of the project site and its surroundings, as well as views in the vicinity of the site. Figure IV.B-1 illustrates the locations from which photos were taken. Figures IV.B-2 presents photographs of views from, within, and of the project site (Photos 1 through 10). For a detailed description of the physical characteristics of the project site refer to Section IV.A, Land Use and Planning Policy. a. Existing Visual Character of the Project Site. The project site is generally flat and consists of an approximately 7.64-acre area developed with three one- and two story buildings and associated recreational facilities, surface parking, and landscaping. The lodge is located at the northeastern corner of the site, and the main building generally faces Redwood Parkway. Photo 1 looks east across the project site, towards the lodge. Recreational facilities on the site are primarily located at the rear of the main building and, with the exception of the pool area, are no longer maintained, as seen in Photo 2. The surface parking lot covers the remainder of the site and landscaped areas are scattered throughout the site and parking area, and at the perimeter of the site. Existing landscaping generally consists of various species of shrubs and trees. Much of the existing on-site vegetation is overgrown. A chain link fence blocks access to the site from Admiral Callaghan Lane (west). b. Visual Character and Views of the Project Site Surroundings. Following is a brief discussion of the visual character of the areas surrounding the project site and a description of existing views available from the project site.

(1) North of the Project Site. The project site is bordered to the northwest by the Vallejo Plaza Shopping Center and to the northeast by a day care center and office building. These areas are all characterized by single-story buildings, surface parking lots, and mature landscaping. The surface parking lot at the shopping center fronts Admiral Callaghan Lane (west), while the majority of the commercial area is set back from the street, with the exception of two ancillary retail pads that are adjacent to the roadway. Surface parking lots at the day care center and office buildings also front on Rotary Way, with the buildings set back towards the interior of the parcel. Landscaped areas are located at the perimeter of both areas and throughout the parking lots.

As shown in Photo 3, views to the north from within the project site are generally blocked by existing mature trees and landscaping that border the northern perimeter of the site. An existing chain link fence with wooden slats also generally obstructs open views of these areas where the existing vegetation is sparse. However, the rear of commercial buildings located within the shopping center can be seen from the western area of the site’s surface parking lot, as shown in Photo 4.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (3/3/2011) 67

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. VISUAL RESOURCES

(2) East of the Project Site. The project site is bordered to the east by a one-story medical office building at the intersection of Redwood Parkway and Cadloni Lane and two-story multi-family homes that are situated above the site at a higher topographical elevation. Residential development on the gently sloping hillside above the site consists of multi-family residential complexes with covered and open parking areas as well as single-family residential neighborhoods east of Cadloni Lane. As shown in Photo 5, some multi-family residences can be seen from the rear of the site, where the recreational facilities are located. A few residences face towards the project site while others are oriented to the interior of the development. Existing vegetation at the site’s perimeter and within the residential development generally obstructs open views of these residences from the site.

(3) South of the Project Site. The project site is bordered to the south by Redwood Park- way. A single-story commercial, service, and retail complex is located across Redwood Parkway, at the southwest corner of its intersection with Admiral Callaghan Lane (east) (see Photo 6). A surface parking lot for the commercial area fronts Redwood Parkway and a gas station is also located at the intersection. Two- and three-story single-family residences are located on the hillside above the commercial complex, west of Admiral Callaghan Lane (east), while three-story multi-family residences are located east of Admiral Callaghan Lane (east) along Redwood Parkway. Views of the commercial complex and residential areas from the project site are generally direct and open, although in some areas views of the residences to the southeast are obstructed by existing vegetation at the perimeter of the project site (see Photo 7).

(4) West of the Project Site. The project site is bordered to the west by Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) and an existing gas station located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) and Redwood Parkway. The gas station is separated from the site by an approximately 4-foot tall concrete wall. Single-story commercial, retail, and service buildings across Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) can be seen looking west from the site. Two-story single-family residences and a three- to four-story hotel that is located along Fairgrounds Drive can also be seen from the site on the hillsides west of I-80. Photo 8 depicts the existing view looking west from the project site. c. Views of the Project Site. Public views of the project site are generally limited to the adjacent roadways within the immediate vicinity, including Admiral Callaghan Lane and Redwood Parkway. The project site can also be seen from the residential areas located east and south of the site, although in many instances, views from these areas are obstructed by existing vegetation. Photos 11 and 12 depict existing views of the site from the residential areas east and south of the site, respectively. The project site is not visible from I-80 or from the Hanns Memorial Preserve. d. Vallejo General Plan Policies. General Plan goals and policies that are applicable to visual resources within and in the vicinity of the site are outlined below. • Urban Design Goal 2: To have within each neighborhood an image, sense of purpose and means of orientation. o Policy 3: Respect the character of older development nearby in the design of new buildings, including bulk and texture. • Urban Design Goal 3: To have attractive, exciting shopping areas. o Policy 2: Provide for vigorous enforcement of the Sign Ordinance. o Policy 4: Large parking lots should be buffered from the street and other less intense uses with landscaped berms and/or grade changes.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (3/3/2011) 68 FIGURE IV.B-1 Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

Viewpoint Photo Location Map

e e

n n

a a

L L

i i

n n

o o l l d d y a a C C a w k r a P

d o o

9 w d e R

3 2

Rotary Way

4 10

) )

t t

s s

a a

E E

(

8 (

e e

n n

a a

L L

) )

n n t t

s s

a a

e e

h h W W

( (

g g

e e

n n

a a

l l a a

l l

L L

a a

n n

a a

C C h h

g g

a a

l l

l l l l

a a

C C

l l

a a

r r r r i i

m m

d d i i A A

m m

d d Project Site Viewpoint Photo Locations

A A

Redwood Street Street Street Redwood Redwood Redwood

e e

v v

i i

r r

D D

s s

d d

n n

u u

o o

r r

g g

r r

i 350 a a

F F feet 0 175 GOOGLE EARTH, SEPT. 2009; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. ASSOCIATES, 2009; LSA SEPT. SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, (2/3/11) WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVB1.ai I:\CYV1001

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. VISUAL RESOURCES

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (3/3/2011) 70 Photo 1: View across project site looking east towards the Elks Lodge

Photo 2: View across the project site looking south towards recreational facilities

FIGURE IV.B-2a

Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., SEPTEMBER 2010. Viewpoint Location Photos I:\CYV1001 WinCo\ﬁ gures\EIR\Figures_IVB2a-IVB2e.indd (9/28/10) Photo 3: View looking northeast of the site towards day care center

Photo 4: View looking northwest across the site towards Vallejo Plaza Shopping Center

FIGURE IV.B-2b

Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., SEPTEMBER 2010. Viewpoint Location Photos I:\CYV1001 WinCo\ﬁ gures\EIR\Figures_IVB2a-IVB2e.indd (9/28/10) Photo 5: View looking east of the project site towards hillside residential areas

Photo 6: View looking southwest of the project site across Redwood Parkway towards commercial complex and residential areas FIGURE IV.B-2c

Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., SEPTEMBER 2010. Viewpoint Location Photos I:\CYV1001 WinCo\ﬁ gures\EIR\Figures_IVB2a-IVB2e.indd (9/28/10) Photo 7: View looking southeast of the project site towards residential areas across Redwood Parkway

Photo 8: View looking west of the project site towards commercial areas and hillside development across I-80

FIGURE IV.B-2d

Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., SEPTEMBER 2010. Viewpoint Location Photos I:\CYV1001 WinCo\ﬁ gures\EIR\Figures_IVB2a-IVB2e.indd (9/28/10) Photo 9: View of the project site from residential areas to the east

Photo 10: View of the project site from residential areas to the south along Admiral Callaghan Lane (East)

FIGURE IV.B-2e

Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., SEPTEMBER 2010. Viewpoint Location Photos I:\CYV1001 WinCo\ﬁ gures\EIR\Figures_IVB2a-IVB2e.indd (9/28/10)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. VISUAL RESOURCES

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section analyzes impacts related to visual resources that could result from development of the proposed project. The subsection begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds for determining whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts associated with the proposed project. Mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate. a. Criteria of Significance. Development of the proposed project would have a significant effect on visual resources if it would: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or • Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. b. Less-Than-Significant Visual Resources Impacts. The following discussion describes the less-than-significant visual resources impacts that would result from development of the proposed project.

(1) Scenic Vistas. The Vallejo General Plan does not specifically identify scenic vistas or resources in the City or its vicinity. However, public views of and from surrounding hillsides can be considered scenic vistas and, as previously discussed open views of the site are available from the hillside areas to the east, south, and west of the site. Similarly, these areas can be easily seen from the site due to their higher elevation. As previously described, the project site is characterized by three existing one- to three-story buildings (ranging up to approximately 28 feet in height) and associated recreational facilities concentrated at the northeast corner of the site. Surface parking and landscaped areas occupy the remainder of the site. Redevelopment of the site would result in a similar pattern of development in that the 71,393 square foot “big box” retail grocery store would be located at the northeast corner of the site with surface parking, access driveways, and landscaped areas concentrated at the front of the site, along Redwood Parkway. The retail store would range from about 27 to 31 feet in height, with the roof ranging between 33 feet to 40 feet at its peak. Because the proposed building would be situated within approximately the same location and would be of a similar size, height, and bulk as the existing buildings on the site, existing distant views of and across the site from surrounding hillsides would not be substantially altered. Similarly, views from the site of the surrounding hillsides would be much the same as current conditions. Although mature trees and shrubs would be removed as part of the development, new landscaping would be located at the site’s perimeter and throughout the parking area. Proposed landscaping would not obstruct views within the area even when it reaches maturity. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic views and vistas that exist within the project site and vicinity.

(2) Degrade Existing Visual Character. Although the site is currently in use by the Vallejo Elks, the property does not appear to be regularly maintained. Existing landscaping on the site, including within the parking areas that are easily visible from surrounding roadways, is not maintained and is overgrown. Weeds are located throughout the paved parking area. Currently, the eastern section of the parking lot is available to lodge members for RV use for stays of up to two weeks at a time. RV users often have chairs, barbecues and other items associated with overnight camping located next to their vehicles. Some buildings show signs of disrepair and there are scrap materials,

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (3/3/2011) 76

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. VISUAL RESOURCES

pallets, buckets, and old furniture in the parking lot and around the buildings. Much of the play lot and lawn areas on the western portion of the site have not been maintained or watered.

As described above, the proposed building would be situated within approximately the same location and would be of a similar size, height, and bulk as the existing buildings on the site. The building entrance would be oriented south towards Redwood Parkway, while the existing Elks Lodge is oriented more to the southwest. The proposed building exterior would consists of finished insulation systems in shades of brown, grey, taupe, and splitface concrete block with banding painted in terra cotta and beige at the front elevation. Remaining elevations would consist of splitface concrete block in terra cotta. A standing seam copper metal roof would be located above the customer entrance and decorative cornices would be located at the roof line of the front elevation. Two illuminated channel letter signs would be located at the front elevation as well as a monument sign located at Redwood Parkway and Admiral Callaghan Lane (west). Loading/unloading and trash collection areas would be located at the rear of the site and would not be visible from the surrounding roadways. Views of these areas from surrounding office, day care, and residential uses to the north and east would generally be obstructed by existing vegetation on those properties or by new landscaping proposed for the site. With respect to the proposed building on the site, the new retail grocery store would represent an improvement over the existing conditions and would result in a continuation of the existing visual character of commercial, retail, and service uses located immediately to the northwest.

The proposed project would also remove approximately 92 trees from the site perimeter and existing parking and outdoor recreation areas. Approximately 6 trees located at the site’s southern perimeter would be retained and integrated into the on-site landscaping, if feasible. As shown in Figure III-5, new landscaping would include conifer, shade, and accent trees, shrubs, and other plantings at the perimeter of the site, as well as the ends of each row of parking stalls. All new landscaping would be designed to meet or exceed City of Vallejo specifications (Section 16.70 of the City’s Municipal Code). Specifically, boundary landscaping abutting street frontages would be planted at a depth of about 6 to 6 ½ feet (2 feet required), with interior boundary landscaping also provided. Approxi- mately 17 street trees would be provided along street frontages, which exceeds the minimum planting requirement of 15 trees (one street tree for each 50 feet of frontage required). A retaining wall, varying in height from 3 to 9 feet, would also be constructed at the northeastern corner of the property boundary and would replace the existing chain link fence which has wooden slats. A similar fence that exists at the western boundary of the site at Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) would also be removed to allow right-in and right-out access from this location. Although existing mature vegetation would be removed from the site, the redeveloped site would be re-landscaped to compliment the new development and tree removal would not substantially adversely affect the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings. c. Significant Visual Resources Impacts. The following describes the significant impacts to visual resources that would result from development of the proposed project.

Impact VIS-1: The proposed project would create a new source of light and glare affecting day and nighttime views. (S)

The existing surface parking area and building area is lit during the evening and nighttime hours for security purposes. Proposed lighting on the site would include indoor lighting and outdoor lighting for safety purposes, and is anticipated to be similar to that used in an area that is generally surrounded

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (3/3/2011) 77

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES B. VISUAL RESOURCES

by commercial and retail uses. The preliminary lighting plan for the site1 indicates that site lighting would use 28-foot poles with a minimum of 1.3 foot candles maintained at the front of the store and throughout the parking lot and a minimum of 0.8 foot candles maintained at the rear. The retail grocery store would be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; therefore, new sources of light and glare could adversely affect sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site, particularly the residential homes located immediately to the east. As such, the proposed project could create a new source of light and glare affecting these and other surrounding uses. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that light and glare created by the proposed project would be minimized, comparable to that of surrounding development, and would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure VIS-1: The lighting plan prepared for the project shall be submitted to and reviewed by the City during the Site Development process and shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The City shall verify that the lighting plan includes provisions to ensure that outdoor lighting is designed so that potential glare or light spillover to surrounding properties are minimized through appropriate site design and shielding of light standards. The plan shall also demonstrate that the use of reflective exterior materials is minimized and that proposed reflective material would not create additional daytime or nighttime glare. Measures identified in the lighting plan shall be incorporated into construction plans and implemented by the construction contractor. (LTS)

1 Redwood Parkway Partners, LLC, 2010. 2850 Redwood Parkway, Vallejo California, Application Submittal Package. March 29. Amended plans dated November 24, 2010.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (3/3/2011) 78

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This section is based on the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates1 and the supplemental Saturday Analysis Traffic Study prepared by LSA Associates2 for the proposed Vallejo WinCo Foods project. These studies are included as Appendices C and D to this EIR, respectively.

This section first describes the existing transportation and circulation conditions in the vicinity of the project site. This section also addresses the potential impacts of the proposed project in terms of intersection level of service as well as trip generation, traffic distribution, traffic assignment, and potential intersection and roadway improvements to mitigate expected future deficiencies. The project’s potential effects on transit services, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in the project area are also evaluated. Measures that would mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level are recommended, where appropriate.

1. Setting The setting for the transportation and circulation issues and the scope of the analysis documented in this section are described below. The remainder of this section presents the analysis methodologies and a discussion of the existing setting and future background conditions. a. Scope of Study. Figure IV.C-1 shows the location of the proposed project and adjacent street network. The proposed project would generate new vehicular trips that would in turn increase traffic volumes on the nearby street network. To assess changes in traffic conditions associated with the project, the following 17 intersections were selected for evaluation in consultation with City staff:

1. Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard (SR-29)* 2. Redwood Street/Broadway Street 3. Redwood Street/Tuolumne Street 4. Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB Ramps* 5. Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (West)/I-80 EB Diagonal Off-Ramp* 6. Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (East)/Project Driveway B 7. Redwood Parkway/Project Driveway C (future intersection with project) 8. Redwood Parkway/Foothill Drive 9. Redwood Parkway/Oakwood Avenue 10. Redwood Parkway/Ascot Parkway 11. Admiral Callaghan Lane/Columbus Parkway 12. Admiral Callaghan Lane/Turner Parkway 13. Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Loop Ramps* 14. Admiral Callaghan Lane/Project Driveway A 15. Ascot Parkway/Columbus Parkway 16. Ascot Parkway/Turner Parkway 17. Admiral Callaghan Lane-Humboldt Street/Tennessee Street * Indicates Caltrans intersection

1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2011. Traffic Impact Study – Final Report, WinCo Project, Vallejo, California. February 10. 2 LSA Associates, Inc., 2011. Saturday Analysis Traffic Study, WinCo Project, City of Vallejo, Solano County, California. January 19.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 79 FIGURE IV.C-1

Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. Project Location and Study Intersections I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVC1.ai (12/21/10)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

The following scenarios were evaluated for this study: • Existing Conditions. Existing conditions were established using weekday peak hour turning movement counts collected on January 14, 2010 and September 18, 2010. Saturday peak hour counts were collected on September 11, 2010. For all of these times local schools were in regular session and both weekday and Saturday conditions are assumed to be typical. This scenario is also based on existing roadway geometry and traffic control. • Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing Plus Project conditions include existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the proposed project. • Near-Term (Year 2011) Without Project Conditions. Year 2011 analysis is based on existing traffic volumes and traffic added by approved/pending developments that are not yet completed and a street network anticipated to occur at the time the project is constructed in mid 2012. • Near-Term (Year 2011) Plus Project Conditions. Near-Term Plus Project traffic forecasts were developed by adding project-related traffic to the Near-Term Without Project volumes. • Long-Term (Cumulative Year 2030) Without Project Conditions. Long-Term Without Project Conditions analysis is based on the 2030 future year traffic forecasts from the Solano Transporta- tion Authority (STA) Travel Demand Forecast model. Roadway improvements anticipated to be completed by the year 2030 are included in this analysis. The project would retain existing land uses for this scenario. Near-Term approved/pending projects are not included in this scenario as they are already accounted for in the STA model. • Long-Term (Cumulative Year 2030) Plus Project Conditions. Long-Term Plus Project traffic forecasts were developed by adding project-related traffic to the Long-Term Without Project volumes. b. Methodology. This section presents the methods used to evaluate the traffic conditions for each scenario described above. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, analysis methodologies, and applicable level of service standards.

(1) Data Requirements. Intersection lane configurations, intersection turning movement counts, and freeway ramp intersection counts were collected.

(2) Analysis Methodologies and Level of Service Standards. Analysis of significant environmental impacts at intersections is based on the concept of Level of Service (LOS). The LOS of an intersection is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions. LOS ranges from A (best), which represents minimal delay, to F (worst), which represents heavy delay and a facility that is operating at or near its functional capacity. Levels of Service for this study were determined using methods defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 (HCM) as contained in Synchro (Version 7) traffic analysis software. The existing signal timing was obtained from the City of Vallejo and used in the analysis.

The HCM includes procedures for analyzing two-way stop controlled (TWSC), all-way stop controlled (AWSC), and signalized intersections. The TWSC procedure defines LOS as a function of average control delay for each minor street approach movement. Conversely, the AWSC and signalized intersection procedures define LOS as a function of average control delay for the intersection as a whole. For TWSC intersections, level of service is report for the worst approach as well as for the

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 81

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

intersection as a whole. Table IV.C-1 relates the operational characteristics associated with each LOS category for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Table IV.C-1: Intersection Level of Service Definitions Signalized Unsignalized (Avg. control (Avg. control Level of delay per vehicle delay per vehicle Service Description sec/veh.) sec/veh.) Free flow with no delays. Users are virtually unaffected by others A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 in the traffic stream B Stable traffic. Traffic flows smoothly with few delays. > 10 – 20 > 10 – 15 Stable flow but the operation of individual users becomes affected C > 20 – 35 > 15 – 25 by other vehicles. Modest delays. Approaching unstable flow. Operation of individual users D becomes significantly affected by other vehicles. Delays may be > 35 – 55 > 25 – 35 more than one cycle during peak hours. Unstable flow with operating conditions at or near the capacity E > 55 – 80 > 35 – 50 level. Long delays and vehicle queuing. Forced or breakdown flow that causes reduced capacity. Stop and F > 80 > 50 go traffic conditions. Excessive long delays and vehicle queuing. Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000, National Research Council, 2000.

c. Existing Transportation Setting. The following section generally describes the transportation system in the project study area, including key facilities of the roadway, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle networks.

(1) Regional Roadways. The project study area is served by two regional roadways, which are described below. • Interstate 80 (I-80) is an east-west freeway that provides regional access throughout Northern California and beyond. I-80 becomes US-101 in San Francisco to the west. In the vicinity of the proposed project, I-80 provides three lanes in each direction and accommodates approximately 134,000 vehicles per day (vpd). The nearest access to/from the proposed project site is provided at the Redwood Street interchange. • State Route 29 (SR-29) Sonoma Boulevard is a north-south highway providing regional access to areas in Northern California. SR-29 connects American Canyon and cities further to the north and Vallejo to the south. Through Vallejo, it is referred to as Sonoma Boulevard, which is a four-lane divided arterial roadway in the vicinity of the study intersections, with posted speed limits ranging from 30-40 miles per hour (mph). Sonoma Boulevard provides access to many commercial areas in western Vallejo.

(2) Local Roadways. A description of local roadways that serve the project study area is provided below. • Ascot Parkway is a north-south arterial roadway connecting Columbus Parkway/Auto Mall to the north and Newcastle Drive to the south. In the vicinity of the proposed project, it is a four-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Ascot Parkway serves numerous residential communities in northeast Vallejo.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 82

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

• Admiral Callaghan Lane is a north-south collector roadway that parallels I-80 to the east. Admiral Callaghan Lane connects Columbus Parkway/Auto Mall to the north and Tennessee Street to the south, where it then becomes Humboldt Street. In the vicinity of the proposed project, between Rotary Way and Redwood Parkway, it provides two lanes in each direction with a center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL). Admiral Callaghan Lane is not a continuous roadway at its intersection with Redwood Parkway. • Broadway Street is a north-south arterial roadway connecting Mini Drive to the north and Florida Street to the south. Between Sereno Drive and Redwood Street, it is a four lane undivided roadway with a center TWLTL and has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Between Redwood Street and Valle Vista Avenue, it is a four lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. • Columbus Parkway is a north-south arterial roadway connecting the I-80/SR-37 Interchange to the north and I-780 in Benicia to the south. Between the I-80/SR-37 Interchange and Springs Road, it is a four-lane divided roadway with posted speed limits ranging from 35-45 mph. South of Springs Road, it becomes a two-lane undivided rural roadway that lacks pedestrian sidewalks. • Fairgrounds Drive is a north-south arterial roadway connecting American Canyon Road to the north and Redwood Street to the south. Between Sereno Drive and Redwood Street, it is a two lane undivided roadway with a center TWLTL and has posted speed limits ranging from 25-35 mph. There is a steep downgrade at the Fairgrounds Drive approach to Redwood Street. • Foothill Drive is a north-south residential roadway connecting Turner Parkway to the north and Redwood Parkway to the south. It is a two lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. • Redwood Street/Redwood Parkway begins as Redwood Street and is an east-west arterial roadway connecting Sacramento Street to the west and the I-80 Interchange to the east and Columbus Parkway/Auto Mall to the east. East of I-80, Redwood Street becomes Redwood Parkway and serves numerous residential neighborhoods in eastern Vallejo. Redwood Street is a four lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Redwood Parkway is a four lane divided roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. • Tennessee Street is an east-west arterial roadway connecting Mare Island to the west and the I-80 Interchange to the east and Columbus Parkway to the east. East of I-80, the roadway serves commercial uses and numerous residential neighborhoods in eastern Vallejo. Tennessee Street is a four-lane divided roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 mph in the vicinity of the study intersection at Admiral Callaghan Lane. • Tuolumne Street is a north-south arterial roadway connecting Broadway Street to the north and Georgia Street to the south. Between Panorama Drive and Redwood Street, it is a four lane undivided roadway with a center TWLTL and has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Between Redwood Street and Loma Vista Avenue, it is two lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. • Turner Parkway is an east-west collector roadway connecting Admiral Callaghan Lane to the west and Ascot Parkway to the east. It is a four-lane divided roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph.

(3) Existing Transit Services. Vallejo Transit provides bus service in Vallejo and neighboring cities. Routes 5 and 7 provide service to the project site, connecting West Vallejo destinations such as the Vallejo Ferry Terminal with East Vallejo destinations such as Jesse Bethel High School.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 83

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

The closest bus stop to the project site is located along the south side of Redwood Parkway, adjacent to its intersection with Admiral Callaghan Lane (east). This location is within convenient walking distance of the project site. The closest bus stop to the project site on the north side of the street is at the northwest corner of Redwood Parkway and Cadloni Lane, one block east of the project site.

Route 5 operates from 5:30 a.m. to 8:40 p.m. during weekdays, with 30 minute headways during the peak periods. On Saturdays, Route 5 operates from 6:30 a.m. to 6:15 p.m., with one hour headways. On Sundays, it operates from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. with one hour headways.

Route 7 operates from 5:20 a.m. to 8:10 p.m. during weekdays, with 30 minute headways during the peak periods. On Saturdays, Route 7 operates from 7:30 a.m. to 8:10 p.m. with one hour headways. No Sunday service is provided for this route.

Vallejo Transit also provides curb-to-curb paratransit service from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week.

(4) Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. Sidewalks are present along Redwood Parkway and Admiral Callaghan Lane in the project vicinity on both sides of the street. Sidewalks provide walking facilities between the project site, nearby transit stops, retail stores and restaurants in the neighboring Vallejo Plaza Shopping Center, and nearby residential neighborhoods. However, sidewalks are not present on either side of the street along Admiral Callaghan Lane between just north of Rotary Way and Turner Parkway. Lack of sidewalk facilities along this section of Admiral Callaghan Lane limits pedestrian connectivity to commercial areas to the north.

A Class II bike lane, which is an on-street lane designated for bicyclists, is present along Redwood Parkway fronting the project site and extends to Ascot Parkway to the east. Class II bike lanes are also provided along Ascot Parkway and Columbus Parkway in the project’s vicinity, providing connectivity to many local retail and recreational destinations in East Vallejo.

(5) Existing Lane Configurations. The existing lane configurations, traffic control devices, signal phasing, and turn pocket lengths at the study intersections were obtained during field visits conducted in January and September 2010. The existing lane geometry and traffic control at the study intersections are illustrated in Figure IV.C-2.

(6) Existing Traffic Volumes. All project study intersections were analyzed under weekday AM, weekday PM, and Saturday midday peak hour traffic conditions. Peak weekday conditions occur from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Peak weekend conditions generally occur on Saturday from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Intersection operations were evaluated for the 1 hour during each of these periods for which the highest traffic volumes were measured. Weekday traffic counts were collected on January 14, 2010 and September 18, 2010. Saturday peak hour counts were collected on September 11, 2010. The peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections are shown on Figure IV.C-3. Intersection turning movement counts are contained in Appendices C and D.

(7) Existing Conditions Intersection Analysis. Intersection service levels were calculated using the existing turning movement counts and lane configurations. Results of the existing conditions analysis are presented in Table IV.C-2, along with the jurisdictional standard for acceptable levels of service. Additional details of the analysis are provided in Appendices C and D. Results of the analysis

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 84 1 Sonoma Blvd (N-S)/Redwood St (E -W) 2 Broadway St (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W)

3 Tuolumne St (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W) 4 Fairgrounds Dr-I-80 WB Rps (N-S)/Redwood St

5 Ad. Callaghan-I-80 EB Rp (N-S)/Redwood Pkw 6 Ad. Callaghan Ln-Dwy B (N-S)/Redwood Pky (E

Future Intersection

7 Dwy C (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 8 Foothill Dr (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 9 Oakwood Ave (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 01 Ascot Pkwy(N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 11 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Columbus Pkwy (E-W)

Future Intersection

21 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Turner Pkwy (E-W) 31 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/I-80 EB Loop Ramps (E-W 41 Dwy A (N-S)/Ad. Callaghan Ln (E-W) 51 Ascot Pkwy (N-S)/Columbus Pkwy (E-W) 61 Ascot Pkwy (N-S)/Turner Pkwy (E-W)

17 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Tennessee St (E-W) FIGURE IV.C-2

Legend Signal Stop Sign Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Control I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVC2.ai (12/21/10) 49 / 131 / 139 192 / 77 / 78

135 / 233 226 377 / 572 650 121 / 208 222 148 / 287 / 251 7 / 21 26 209 / 328 277 81 / 209 120 346 / 530 / 531 100 / 190 / 226 41 / 98 / 84 195 / 443 / 477 19 / 72 / 57 131 / 310 / 301 194 / 585 / 517 17 / 54 / 80 19 / 79 / 71 38 / 78 67 37 / 98 71 37 / 97 110 39 / 106 102 283 / 332 300 322 / 584 678 1 Sonoma Blvd (N-S)/Redwood St (E -W) 2 Broadway St (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W) 39 2 / 436 /

/ 532 / 363 / 259 / 193

38 / 98 65 194 / 221 155 516 / 619 / 599 130 / 134 / 123 28 / 111 / 84 259 / 773 / 612 30 / 57 / 44 45 / 67 55 123 / 92 111 284 / 206 207 3 Tuolumne St (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W) 4 Fairgrounds Dr-I-80 WB Rps (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W) 502 502 / 991 / 36 / 991 154 / 235 / 296 0 / 0 / 7 850 / 1049 991 0 / 2 / 0 5 0 / 2 539 / 464 / 419 3 / 2 15 542 / 466 / 499 0 / 0 / 0 95 / 94 / 53 257 / 579 / 503 19 / 35 / 48 317 / 618 / 389 388 / 890 / 488 0 / 0 / 0 89 / 185 / 136 0 / 2 0 / 2 9 39 / 112 75 146 / 375 304 100 / 283 126 138 / 241 211 5 Ad. Callaghan-I-80 EB Rp (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W 6 Ad. Callaghan Ln-Dwy B (N-S)/Redwood Pky (E-W)

0 / 0 / 0 51 / 36 / 60 0 / 0 / 0 35 / 33 / 35 0 / 0 / 3 2 / 0 44 / 28 34 0 / 74 / 63 41 0 / 0 / 0 / 78 / 162 137 204 / 224 219 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 559 523 / 302 / 423 415 / 282 / 266 148 / 71 46 271 / 192 / 131 1 / 4 711 / 485 / 433 Future Intersection0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 226 / 261 / 134 213 / 58 / 47 21 / 92 / 158 0 / 0 / 0 29 / 122 / 79 0 / 0 / 0 59 / 127 / 111 8 / 8 / 25 0 / 0 / 565 370 / 575 / 341 284 / 327 / 187 244 / 225 / 151 580 / 565 / 376 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 125 / 142 / 135 180 / 165 / 103 327 / 817 / 995 0 / 0 / 0 / 5 / 3 0 3 / 2 0 0 / 0 / 2 0 / 8 / 32 48 24 / 139 174 149 / 162 170 199 / 190 165 292 / 189 119 163 / 220 223 181 / 770 742 7 Dwy C (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 8 Foothill Dr (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 9 Oakwood Ave (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 10 Ascot Pkwy(N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 11 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Columbus Pkwy (E-W)

11 / 19 / 20 2 / 36 / 29 0 / 0 / 0 2 / 0 / 0 13 / 4 / 14 0 / 152 / 390 416 16 / 74 63 55 / 53 81 250 / 782 818 0 / 0 / 0 / 1192 0 / 0 / 2 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 599 / 454 / 455 10 / 27 32 282 / 139 83 12 / 19 7 3 / 9 / 11 86 / 334 / 338 0 / 0 / 0 Future Intersection0 / 0 / 0 10 / 15 / 20 12 / 5 / 4 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 2 / 0 / 16 11 / 27 / 25 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 326 / 570 / 403 1 / 13 / 17 0 / 0 / 0 653 / 456 / 374 0 / 0 / 0 286 / 200 / 102 24 / 334 / 315 0 / 0 / 2 / 0 2 / 4 0 / 0 / 1103 15 / 18 25 155 / 99 69 62 / 255 273 58 / 139 142 219 / 121 123 182 / 435 506 183 / 348 209 305 / 719 751 107 / 259 295 12 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Turner Pkwy (E-W) 13 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/I-80 EB Loop Ramps (E-W) 14 Dwy A (N-S)/Ad. Callaghan Ln (E-W) 15 Ascot Pkwy (N-S)/Columbus Pkwy (E-W) 16 Ascot Pkwy (N-S)/Turner Pkwy (E-W)

243 / 189 / 195

387 / 448 311 39 / 84 74 42 / 92 76 451 / 329 / 343 14 / 28 / 17 162 / 204 / 250 339 / 441 / 401 193 / 335 / 191 94 / 130 91 54 / 139 70 73 / 136 154

17 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Tennessee St (E-W) FIGURE IV.C-3

XX/YY/ZZ AM/PM/Saturday - Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. Existing Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVC3.ai (12/21/10)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-2: Existing Intersection Levels of Service Summary Intersection Intersection AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak

Intersection Jurisdiction Control Criteria LOS Delay V/C1 LOS Delay V/C1 LOS Delay V/C1 1 Redwood St/Sonoma Blvd Caltrans Signal C B 17.4 -- D 39.0 -- C 28.9 0.55 2 Redwood St/Broadway St City Signal D* C 27.4 0.40 C 34.0 0.66 C 26.9 0.54 3 Redwood St/Tuolumne St City Signal D* C 30.6 0.62 D 44.0 0.79 C 27.3 0.64 Redwood St/Fairgrounds Dr/ 4 Caltrans Signal C D 35.2 -- D 41.8 -- C 29.2 0.69 I-80 WB Ramps Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln 5 Caltrans Signal C C 25.8 -- C 31.9 -- C 28.1 0.60 (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln 6 City Signal D* B 19.4 0.38 C 27.4 0.70 B 17.7 0.49 (east)/Project Driveway B Redwood Pkwy/Project Driveway C 7 City TWSC D* Not an intersection without project Future Intersection SB Approach Redwood Pkwy/Foothill Dr A 3.7 0.15 A 3.3 0.16 A 2.2 -- 8 City TWSC D* SB Approach D 27.5 -- D 28.4 ------9 Redwood Pkwy/Oakwood Ave City Signal D* B 17.5 0.57 B 15.9 0.48 B 11.2 0.43 10 Redwood Pkwy/Ascot Pkwy City Signal D* E 66.5 0.85 C 21.2 0.43 B 17.1 0.64 11 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Columbus Pkwy City Signal D* B 12.9 0.31 B 16.3 0.62 C 21.4 0.73 12 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Turner Pkwy City Signal D* A 9.2 0.13 B 14.2 0.43 B 14.7 0.46 Admiral Callaghan Ln/I-80 EB Ramps C 17.3 -- B 10.8 -- B 5.8 -- 13 NBL Movement Caltrans TWSC C A 8.6 -- B 14.9 ------WBL Movement B 11.0 -- B 14.1 ------Admiral Callaghan Ln/Project Driveway A 14 City TWSC D* Not an intersection without project Future Intersection WB Approach 15 Ascot Pkwy/Columbus Pkwy City Signal D* B 13.2 0.29 B 15.2 0.28 B 11.4 0.23 16 Ascot Pkwy/Turner Pkwy City Signal D* B 16.7 0.31 B 17.7 0.36 D 36.1 0.37 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Humboldt St/ 17 City Signal D* C 27.8 0.66 C 25.8 0.54 D 42.4 0.59 Tennessee St Notes: Locations operating at unacceptable levels are shown in bold. 1 V/C ratio is only provided at City intersections where needed for significance criteria * Impacts are considered to be significant when the change in volume to capacity ratio (V/C) between the With and Without Project conditions are exceeded for the given LOS: LOS Δ V/C C > 0.04 D > 0.02 E, F > 0.01 Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates and LSA Associates, Inc. 2011.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 87

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

indicate three existing study area intersections currently operate at unacceptable levels of service based on established significance criteria. (Results shown as bold and shaded in Table IV.C-2 do not meet operational standards.) Intersections not meeting standards include the following: • Intersection #1 – Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard (PM Peak) • Intersection #4 – Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB Ramps (AM and PM Peaks) • Intersection #10 – Redwood Parkway/Ascot Parkway (AM Peak) No existing deficiencies were identified at intersections included in the Saturday evaluation. d. Near-Term (Year 2011) Without Project Conditions. The Near-Term (Year 2011) Without Project conditions represent traffic conditions in 2011 without construction of the proposed project. The analysis is based on existing traffic volumes and traffic added by approved/pending developments that are not yet completed and on a street network anticipated to occur in the year 2011. Intersection geometry and traffic control includes mitigation associated with already approved projects.

(1) Approved/Pending Developments Within Project Site Vicinity. There are two development projects in the vicinity of the project site which are in various stages of planning, approval, or development. These projects will ultimately be developed at about the same time or prior to the proposed project. These projects are included in this study and are listed in Table IV.C-3 and their approximate locations are shown in Figure IV.C-4. Information on nearby approved and pending projects was provided by the City of Vallejo and included in Appendix C.

Table IV.C-3: Approved and Pending Developments

Size of Developments Assumed #1 Project Name Location Land Use to be Constructed by 20112 Status Residential Constructed Northgate 1103 Sonata 1 Condominiums/ 140 Multi-Family DU4 (140 of 144 units Parcels 4 & 5 Drive, Vallejo, CA Townhouse unoccupied) SE corner of Shopping Center 7.50 ksf3 Approved 2 Lowe's Columbus Pkwy Home Improvement 120.94 ksf3 Approved5 and Ascot Pkwy Superstore 1 Numbers keyed to general project locations shown in Table IV.C-4 - Approved and Pending Development Locations 2 Excludes developments that are currently occupied; trips are already accounted for in traffic counts. 3 ksf = thousand square feet 4 DU = dwelling units 5 At the time the traffic counts were conducted for this traffic study the Lowe's was approved but not constructed. As of November 12, 2010, the Lowe's store is open to the public. Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2011.

(2) Near-Term Lane Configurations and Traffic Control. According to the City of Vallejo, there are no planned roadway improvements within the study area that are anticipated to be in place prior to or at the same time as completion of the proposed project in January 2012. Figure IV.C- 5 illustrates the roadway geometry and traffic control planned to be in place regardless of the proposed project. All of the study intersections remain the same as compared to existing conditions, except as specifically noted in the Figure IV.C-5. It should be noted that Project Driveway A at Intersection #14 would operate as a right in/right out.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 88 FIGURE IV.C-4 APPROVED AND PENDING DEVELOPMENTS

BELVEDERE LUXURY CONDOS

LOWE'S Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. Approved and Pending Development Project Locations I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVC4.ai (12/21/10) 1 Sonoma Blvd (N-S)/Redwood St (E -W) 2 Broadway St (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W)

3 Tuolumne St (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W) 4 Fairgrounds Dr-I-80 WB Rps (N-S)/Redwood St

5 Ad. Callaghan-I-80 EB Rp (N-S)/Redwood Pkw 6 Ad. Callaghan Ln-Dwy B (N-S)/Redwood Pky (E

7 Dwy C (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 8 Foothill Dr (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 9 Oakwood Ave (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 01 Ascot Pkwy(N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 11 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Columbus Pkwy (E-W)

21 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Turner Pkwy (E-W) 31 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/I-80 EB Loop Ramps (E-W 14 Dwy A (N-S)/Ad. Callaghan Ln (E-W) 51 Ascot Pkwy (N-S)/Columbus Pkwy (E-W) 61 Ascot Pkwy (N-S)/Turner Pkwy (E-W)

17 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Tennessee St (E-W) FIGURE IV.C-5 Notes: Legend Shaded Intersections reflect unchanged conditions from Existing Conditions Signal Bold Intersections are with addition of the project Stop Sign Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. Near-Term (Year 2011) Lane Geometry and Traffic Control I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVC5.ai (12/21/10)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

(3) Near-Term Traffic Volumes. An estimate of approved and pending projects was calculated based on information provided by the City of Vallejo. Traffic volumes for these projects were obtained directly from the traffic study approved by the City. Figure IV.C-6 shows approved and pending development traffic volumes at the study intersections.

Existing traffic volumes were combined with vehicle trips expected to be generated by the approved and pending projects to identify Near-Term traffic volumes (i.e., existing plus approved/pending project traffic). For the Near-Term Saturday peak hour traffic volumes, the growth from the Existing weekday peak hour traffic volumes to the Near-Term weekday peak hour traffic volumes shown in the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates was applied to the Existing Saturday peak hour volumes at the study area intersections. Figure IV.C-7 illustrates the near-term peak hour traffic volumes which are anticipated to exist by 2011, regardless of whether or not the proposed project is constructed.

(4) Near-Term Without Project Level of Service Conditions. Results of the Near-Term analysis are presented in Table IV.C-4. Additional detail is provided in Appendices C and D. As shown in Table IV.C-4, the following study intersections do not function within acceptable standards in the Near-Term Without Project condition: • Intersection #1 – Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard (PM Peak) • Intersection #4 – Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB Ramps (AM and PM Peaks) • Intersection #10 – Redwood Parkway/Ascot Parkway (AM Peak)

No deficiencies were identified in the near-term without project condition at intersections included in the Saturday evaluation. e. Long-Term (Cumulative Year 2030) Without Project Conditions. The Long-Term (Cumulative Year 2030) Without Project conditions are based on traffic forecast data and roadway improvements anticipated to be in place by the year 2030. The 2030 horizon year corresponds to available traffic forecast data available from the City of Vallejo and the Solano Transportation Authority (STA).

(1) Long-Term Planned Transportation Improvements. Within the study area, there is only one planned roadway improvement anticipated by the City of Vallejo to occur prior to the year 2030. This project proposes to construct a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane along both directions of I-80 between the Carquinez Bridge and SR-37 through Vallejo. Since January 2010, the Redwood Parkway/Fairgrounds Drive Improvements have begun moving forward with project approvals and environmental review. The scope of the Redwood Parkway/Fairgrounds Drive Improvements includes realigning the I-80 on/off ramps with Redwood Parkway, and realigning Fairgrounds Drive with the SR-37 on/off ramps. The project could be completed prior to 2030. Per direction from the City of Vallejo and STA staff, the Redwood Parkway/Fairgrounds Drive Improvements project was not assumed to be completed by 2030 because the project’s geometric layout is still undefined and, therefore, was not assumed in the Long-Term analysis. The traffic analysis for the Redwood Parkway/ Fairgrounds Drive Improvements project will incorporate impacts of the proposed WinCo Foods project into that project’s mitigations (refer to Appendix C for further clarification).

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 91 3 / 2

1 / 2 / 2 / 2 2 / 3 4 / 4 2 / 2 1 / 2 4 / 4 1 2 / 2 /

1 Sonoma Blvd (N-S)/Redwood St (E -W) 2 Broadway St (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W)

2 / 2 / 2 1 / 2 8 / 8 10 / 11 1 / 2 5 / 2 8 / 9 11 / 12 2 / 2 / 2

3 Tuolumne St (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W) 4 Fairgrounds Dr-I-80 WB Rps (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W) 1 / 3 /

13 / 12 13 / 12 11 / 12 12 / 14 1 / 2 1 / 2

5 Ad. Callaghan-I-80 EB Rp (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W 6 Ad. Callaghan Ln-Dwy B (N-S)/Redwood Pky (E-W) 18 / 19 13 / 12 1 / 2 67 / 52 Future Intersection13 / 12 13 / 12 5 / 7 1 / 1 12 / 14 12 / 14 12 / 14 19 / 20 45 / 70 1 2 / 7 / 6

7 Dwy C (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 8 Foothill Dr (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 9 Oakwood Ave (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 10 Ascot Pkwy(N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 11 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Columbus Pkwy (E-W) 3 / 1 3 / 1 4 / 2 25 / 27 3 / 1 Future Intersection 20 / 25 27 / 23 1 / 4 18 / 48 1 / 2 1 / 2 1 / 2 49 / 28 28 /

12 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Turner Pkwy (E-W) 13 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/I-80 EB Loop Ramps (E-W) 14 Dwy A (N-S)/Ad. Callaghan Ln (E-W) 15 Ascot Pkwy (N-S)/Columbus Pkwy (E-W) 16 Ascot Pkwy (N-S)/Turner Pkwy (E-W)

17 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Tennessee St (E-W) FIGURE IV.C-6

XX/YY AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR Approved and Pending Project SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVC6.ai (12/21/10) 51 / 133 / 140 195 / 79 / 79 378 / 572 652 123 / 210 223 7 / 21 26 209 / 328 279 135 / 233 227 148 / 287 / 252 83 / 212 121 350 / 534 / 535 102 / 192 / 227 42 / 100 / 85 195 / 443 / 479 19 / 72 / 57 131 / 310 / 302 198 / 589 / 521 17 / 54 / 80 19 / 79 / 72 37 / 98 71 38 / 78 68 39 / 99 111 41 / 108 102 283 / 332 302 322 / 585 680 1 Sonoma Blvd (N-S)/Redwood St (E -W) 2 Broadway St (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W) 5 92 / / 92 6 36 / 7 / 36 364 / 261 / 195 3 2 38 / 98 66 194 / 221 156 524 / 627 / 604 131 / 136 / 124 28 / 111 / 85 267 / 782 / 617 30 / 57 / 44 45 / 67 55 125 / 94 112 284 / 206 209 3 Tuolumne St (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W) 4 Fairgrounds Dr-I-80 WB Rps (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W) 7 02 /

1 / / 1 154 / 235 / 299 0 / 0 / 7 36 853 / 1050 1000 0 / 2 / 0 5 0 / 2 552 / 476 / 423 3 / 2 15 555 / 478 / 507 0 / 0 / 0 95 / 94 / 54 257 / 579 / 508 19 / 35 / 49 328 / 630 / 393 400 / 904 / 495 0 / 0 / 0 89 / 185 / 138 0 / 2 9 0 / 2 39 / 112 76 138 / 241 214 147 / 377 307 101 / 285 127 5 Ad. Callaghan-I-80 EB Rp (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W 6 Ad. Callaghan Ln-Dwy B (N-S)/Redwood Pky (E-W)

0 / 0 / 0 51 / 36 / 61 0 / 0 / 0 35 / 33 / 36 0 / 0 / 3 44 / 28 35 0 / 74 / 63 42 0 / 0 / 0 / 96 / 181 140 205 / 226 224 2 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 650 / 572 / 568 536 / 314 / 433 428 / 294 / 273 148 / 71 47 271 / 192 / 134 1 / 4 778 / 537 / 455 Future Intersection0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 231 / 268 / 138 213 / 58 / 48 22 / 93 / 166 0 / 0 / 0 29 / 122 / 81 0 / 0 / 0 78 / 147 / 114 8 / 8 / 26 441 / 1016 / 574 382 / 589 / 349 296 / 341 / 192 244 / 225 / 154 625 / 635 / 395 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 125 / 142 / 139 180 / 165 / 105 327 / 817 / 1045 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 5 / 3 0 0 / 2 3 / 2 0 0 / 8 / 32 49 24 / 140 183 149 / 162 175 206 / 196 170 292 / 189 122 165 / 222 228 181 / 770 779 7 Dwy C (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 8 Foothill Dr (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 9 Oakwood Ave (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 10 Ascot Pkwy(N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 11 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Columbus Pkwy (E-W)

11 / 19 / 20 2 / 36 / 29 0 / 0 / 0 2 / 0 / 0 13 / 4 / 15 14 / 29 34 307 / 166 89 12 / 19 8 0 / 152 / 390 417 16 / 74 63 253 / 783 819 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 55 / 53 81 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 916 / 1249 1194 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 2 0 / 0 / 619 / 479 / 493 3 / 9 / 12 89 / 335 / 339 0 / 0 / 0 Future Intersection0 / 0 / 0 10 / 15 / 22 12 / 5 / 4 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 2 / 0 / 17 12 / 31 / 27 1 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 353 / 593 / 437 1 / 13 / 18 0 / 0 / 0 653 / 456 / 375 0 / 0 / 0 304 / 248 / 111 24 / 334 / 339 2 / 4 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 0 15 / 18 27 183 / 127 74 63 / 257 274 58 / 139 142 558 / 1191 11 268 / 149 133 107 / 259 317 182 / 435 508 183 / 348 209 306 / 721 752 12 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Turner Pkwy (E-W) 13 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/I-80 EB Loop Ramps (E-W) 14 Dwy A (N-S)/Ad. Callaghan Ln (E-W) 15 Ascot Pkwy (N-S)/Columbus Pkwy (E-W) 16 Ascot Pkwy (N-S)/Turner Pkwy (E-W)

243 / 335 / 200

387 / 448 319 39 / 84 76 42 / 92 78 451 / 441 / 351 14 / 204 / 17 162 / 28 / 256 339 / 329 / 411 193 / 189 / 196 94 / 130 93 54 / 139 72 73 / 136 158

17 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Tennessee St (E-W) FIGURE IV.C-7

XX/YY/ZZ AM/PM/Saturday - Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. Near-Term (Year 2011) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVC7.ai (12/21/10)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

(2) Long-Term Lane Configurations and Traffic Control. Figure IV.C-8 illustrates the roadway geometry and traffic control planned to be in place by 2030 regardless of the proposed project. All of the study intersections remain the same as compared to Existing conditions.

(3) Long-Term Traffic Volumes. Long-Term AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are based on future year traffic forecasts obtained from the STA Travel Demand Forecast model. The roadway network in the model obtained from STA was modified to add a missing section of Ascot Parkway. The 2030 projection represents a long-term cumulative forecast of traffic levels expected to occur at buildout of the Vallejo General Plan and surrounding vicinity. As a result, approved and pending development projects identified for the Near-Term analysis are not addressed in the forecast, since they are already accounted for in the 2030 model projection.

For the Long-Term Saturday peak hour traffic volumes, the growth from the Existing weekday peak hour traffic volumes to the Long-Term weekday peak hour traffic volumes shown in the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates was applied to the Existing Saturday peak hour volumes at the study area intersections. Figure IV.C-9 shows the Long-Term peak hour intersection traffic volumes without the project.

(4) Long-Term Without Project Level of Service Conditions. Results of the cumulative LOS analysis are presented in Table IV.C-4; additional detail is provided in Appendices C and D. As shown in Table IV.C-4, the following intersections do not function within acceptable standards, regardless of the proposed project. • Intersection #1 – Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard (PM and Saturday Peaks) • Intersection #2 – Redwood Street/ Broadway Street (PM Peak) • Intersection #3 – Redwood Street/Tuolumne Street (PM Peak) • Intersection #4 – Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB Ramps (AM, PM and Saturday Peaks) • Intersection #5 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp (PM and Saturday Peaks) • Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B (PM Peak) • Intersection #10 – Redwood Parkway/Ascot Parkway (AM Peak) • Intersection #11 – Admiral Callaghan/Columbus Parkway (Saturday Peak) • Intersection #13 – Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps (AM and PM Peaks) • Intersection #17 – Admiral Callaghan Lane/Tennessee Street (Saturday Peak)

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 94 1 Sonoma Blvd (N-S)/Redwood St (E -W) 2 Broadway St (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W)

3 Tuolumne St (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W) 4 Fairgrounds Dr-I-80 WB Rps (N-S)/Redwood St

5 Ad. Callaghan-I-80 EB Rp (N-S)/Redwood Pkw 6 Ad. Callaghan Ln-Dwy B (N-S)/Redwood Pky (E

7 Dwy C (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 8 Foothill Dr (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 9 Oakwood Ave (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 01 Ascot Pkwy(N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 11 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Columbus Pkwy (E-W)

17 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Tennessee St (E-W) FIGURE IV.C-8 Notes: Legend Shaded Intersections reflect unchanged conditions from Near-Term Conditions Signal Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR Stop Sign Long-Term (Cumulative Year 2030)

SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. Lane Geometry and Traffic Control I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVC8.ai (12/21/10) 78 / 133 / 171 204 / 105 / 126

135 / 233 277 381 / 700 798 121 / 210 273 166 / 287 / 308 17 / 21 42 920 / 579 447 127 / 265 194 429 / 534 / 856 157 / 211 / 277 92 / 286 / 135 246 / 447 / 586 32 / 72 / 92 136 / 362 / 370 253 / 655 / 834 21 / 154 / 98 69 / 123 / 114 69 / 115 87 54 / 89 108 86 / 108 125 39 / 332 177 859 / 585 832 345 / 743 484 1 Sonoma Blvd (N-S)/Redwood St (E -W) 2 Broadway St (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W) 5 6 3 / / 636

/ 364 / 261 / 240 0 / 0 / 0 71 143 / 109 81 239 / 408 193 0 / 3 525 / 664 / 746 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 131 / 239 / 153 0 / 0 / 0 99 / 171 / 105 0 / 0 / 0 308 / 806 / 762 0 / 0 / 0 32 / 172 / 55 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 66 / 137 68 449 / 357 258 125 / 108 138 3 Tuolumne St (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W) 4 Fairgrounds Dr-I-80 WB Rps (N-S)/Redwood St (E-W) 76 2 / / 094 154 / 506 / 386 0 / 0 / 10 / 4 2 / 0 7 0 / 3 3 / 2 21 6 974 / 1222 1293 0 / 725 / 507 / 547 647 / 656 / 691 0 / 0 / 0 102 / 141 / 73 421 / 720 / 656 19 / 35 / 66 541 / 826 / 508 481 / 1196 / 676 0 / 0 / 0 235 / 374 / 188 0 / 3 0 / 2 12 39 / 112 104 229 / 355 292 182 / 377 397 130 / 287 164 5 Ad. Callaghan-I-80 EB Rp (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W 6 Ad. Callaghan Ln-Dwy B (N-S)/Redwood Pky (E-W)

0 / 0 / 0 51 / 36 / 83 0 / 0 / 0 53 / 33 / 49 0 / 0 / 5 190 / 71 64 1 / 4 2 0 / 0 / 0 / 749 / 797 / 774 44 / 28 47 0 / 74 / 63 57 831 / 537 / 586 0 / 0 / 0 / 521 / 502 / 410 209 / 182 191 210 / 226 305 335 / 259 / 182 2 / 0 0 / 1414 / 906 / 663 Future Intersection0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 326 / 275 / 206 213 / 67 / 65 21 / 93 / 242 0 / 0 / 0 29 / 122 / 109 0 / 0 / 0 207 / 286 / 154 8 / 8 / 38 6 520 / 1308 / 783 382 / 879 / 472 418 / 660 / 288 332 / 310 / 210 989 / 1350 / 576 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 152 / 178 / 208 197 / 454 / 143 409 / 833 / 1524 5 / 3 0 0 / 2 3 / 2 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 8 / 32 67 24 / 146 266 303 / 336 166 208 / 276 310 244 / 799 113 170 / 344 262 318 / 390 254 7 Dwy C (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 8 Foothill Dr (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 9 Oakwood Ave (N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 10 Ascot Pkwy(N-S)/Redwood Pkwy (E-W) 11 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Columbus Pkwy (E-W) 6

11 / 19 / 25 2 / 36 / 38 0 / 0 / 0 2 / 0 / 0 13 / 4 / 20 113 / 95 106 0 / 14 / 72 47 331 / 248 121 12 / 22 10 0 / 0 / 4 0 / 153 / 547 515 16 / 73 78 264 / 1207 1068 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 1038 / 1660 155 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 1057 / 656 / 815 3 / 9 / 16 89 / 487 / 418 0 / 0 / 0 Future Intersection0 / 0 / 0 11 / 22 / 36 12 / 5 / 6 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 2 / 0 / 29 12 / 63 / 37 3 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 644 / 1126 / 722 1 / 13 / 25 0 / 0 / 0 721 / 456 / 488 0 / 0 / 0 357 / 380 / 183 93 / 334 / 460 3 / 2 6 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 0 75 / 53 45 58 / 140 185 317 / 331 101 757 / 1597 14 474 / 944 980 249 / 470 626 101 / 281 338 228 / 533 273 118 / 259 431 368 / 333 220 12 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Turner Pkwy (E-W) 13 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/I-80 EB Loop Ramps (E-W) 14 Dwy A (N-S)/Ad. Callaghan Ln (E-W) 15 Ascot Pkwy (N-S)/Columbus Pkwy (E-W) 16 Ascot Pkwy (N-S)/Turner Pkwy (E-W)

266 / 335 / 275

390 / 490 438 66 / 138 104 45 / 104 107 463 / 441 / 483 34 / 204 / 24 165 / 34 / 352 344 / 330 / 565 255 / 227 / 269 98 / 263 217 103 / 205 99 118 / 184 128 17 Ad. Callaghan Ln (N-S)/Tennessee St (E-W) FIGURE IV.C-9

XX/YY/ZZ AM/PM/Saturday - Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR Long-Term (Cumulative Year 2030)

SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVC9.ai (12/21/10)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-4: Existing, Near-Term (2011), and Long-Term (2030) Level of Service Conditions Comparison – Without Project Existing Near-Term (2011) Long-Term (Year 2030) AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak Intersection Criteria LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc Redwood St/ 1 C B 17.4 -- D 39.0 -- C 28.9 0.55 B 17.4 -- D 39.0 -- C 29.3 0.55 C 20.6 -- D 38.9 -- D* 45.1 0.73 Sonoma Blvda Redwood St/ 2 D* C 27.4 0.40 C 34.0 0.66 C 26.9 0.54 C 27.4 0.41 C 34.2 0.67 C 27.0 0.54 D 35.9 0.69 F 125.5 1.10 D 42.3 0.89 Broadway St Redwood St/ 3 D* C 30.6 0.62 D 44.0 0.79 C 27.3 0.64 C 32.2 0.63 D 44.2 0.80 C 27.4 0.64 D 46.3 0.87 E 75.2 1.04 D 36.0 0.78 Tuolumne St Redwood St/ 4 Fairgrounds Dr/I- C D 35.2 -- D 41.8 -- C 29.2 0.69 D 35.3 -- D 41.8 -- C 29.0 0.70 E 66.1 -- F 179.2 -- D* 50.2 0.90 80 WB Rampsa Redwood Pkwy/ Admiral Callaghan 5 C C 25.8 -- C 31.9 -- C 28.1 0.60 C 25.2 -- C 31.9 -- C 28.3 0.64 C 26.7 -- D 46.4 -- D* 38.7 0.79 Ln (west)/ I-80 EB Off-Rampa Redwood Pkwy/ Admiral Callaghan 6 D* B 19.4 0.38 C 27.4 0.70 B 17.7 0.49 B 19.2 0.39 C 27.4 0.71 B 17.9 0.50 C 23.0 0.56 E 63.8 1.04 C 22.7 0.67 Ln (east)/Project Driveway B Redwood Pkwy/ Project Driveway Future Future Future 7 D* Not an intersection without project Not an intersection without project Not an intersection without project Cb Intersection Intersection Intersection SB Approach Redwood Pkwy/ A 3.7 0.15 A 3.3 0.16 A 2.2 -- A 3.9 0.16 A 3.4 0.17 A 2.3 -- A 8.5 0.22 A 6.7 0.27 A 4.9 -- 8 Foothill Drb D* SB Approach D 27.5 -- D 28.4 ------D 29.2 -- D 29.7 ------F 86.1 -- F 105.8 ------Redwood Pkwy/ 9 D* B 17.5 0.57 B 15.9 0.48 B 11.2 0.43 B 17.8 0.58 B 16.0 0.49 B 11.3 0.44 D 35.4 0.76 C 23.9 0.72 B 15.2 0.58 Oakwood Ave Redwood Pkwy/ 10 D* E 66.5 0.85 C 21.2 0.43 B 17.1 0.64 E 66.9 0.85 C 21.7 0.42 B 17.3 0.64 F 108.6 1.06 D 36.5 0.65 C 21.9 0.51 Ascot Pkwy Admiral Callaghan 11 Ln/Columbus D* B 12.9 0.31 B 16.3 0.62 C 21.4 0.73 B 12.8 0.32 B 17.1 0.62 C 21.8 0.76 B 15.2 0.51 C 33.5 0.85 E* 60.5 1.05 Pkwy Admiral Callaghan 12 D* A 9.2 0.13 B 14.2 0.43 B 14.7 0.46 A 9.3 0.14 B 14.2 0.43 B 14.8 0.46 A 8.5 0.17 B 16.7 0.50 B 17.6 0.58 Ln/Turner Pkwy Admiral Callaghan Ln/I-80 EB C 17.3 -- B 10.8 -- B 5.8 -- C 17.5 -- B 10.8 -- B 5.8 -- D 31.7 -- E 50.0 -- C 23.6 -- 13 Rampsa,b C NBL Movement A 8.6 -- B 14.9 ------A 8.6 -- B 14.9 ------A 9.1 -- F 147.6 ------WBL Movement B 11.0 -- B 14.1 ------B 11.0 -- B 14.1 ------B 12.0 -- C 16.7 ------

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 97

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-4 Continued Existing Near-Term (2011) Long-Term (Year 2030) AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak Intersection Criteria LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc Admiral Callaghan Ln/Project Future Future Future 14 D* Not an intersection without project Not an intersection without project Not an intersection without project Driveway Ab Intersection Intersection Intersection WB Approach Ascot 15 Pkwy/Columbus D* B 13.2 0.29 B 15.2 0.28 B 11.4 0.23 B 14.7 0.31 B 16.1 0.30 B 11.8 0.25 B 15.2 0.50 D 37.4 0.59 B 12.5 0.43 Pkwy Ascot Pkwy/Turner 16 D* B 16.7 0.31 B 17.7 0.36 D 36.1 0.37 B 16.3 0.32 B 17.6 0.37 D 37.0 0.40 B 18.2 0.37 B 16.9 0.47 D 41.3 0.49 Pkwy Admiral Callaghan 17 Ln/Humboldt St/ D* C 27.8 0.66 C 25.8 0.54 D 42.4 0.59 C 27.8 0.66 C 25.8 0.54 D 44.8 0.60 C 30.1 0.70 C 31.9 0.66 F* >100 0.91 Tennessee St Notes: Locations operating at unacceptable levels are shown in bold. a Indicates intersection is under Caltrans jurisdiction. All other intersections are under the jurisdiction of the City of Vallejo. b Indicates Two-Way-Stop-Controlled (TWSC) intersection. All other intersections are signalized. c V/C ratio is only provided at City intersections where needed for significance criteria * Impacts are considered to be significant when the change in volume to capacity ratio (V/C) between the with and without project conditions are exceeded for the given LOS: LOS Δ V/C C > 0.04 D > 0.02 E, F > 0.01 Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates and LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 98

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

f. Vehicle Queuing for all Scenarios. As congestion increases it is common for traffic at signals and stop signs to form lines of stopped (or queued) vehicles. Queue lengths were determined for each lane and measure the distance that vehicles will backup in each direction approaching an intersection. The 95th percentile queue is calculated by using 95th percentile traffic to account for fluctuations in traffic and represents a condition where 95 percent of the time during the peak period, traffic volumes and related queuing will be at, or less, than determined by the analysis. Average queuing is generally less. Ninety-fifth percentile queuing was checked under the various development conditions and in consideration of the planned intersection and signal timing improvements. A typical vehicle length of 25 feet is used in the queuing analysis. A summary of the queuing results is included in Appendices C and D. The results indicate dedicated turn lanes where queuing may exceed their storage limits. g. Relevant General Plan Policies. The following General Plan policies are relevant to transportation and circulation at and in the vicinity of the project site. • Mobility Goal: To have mobility got all segments of the community with a transportation system that minimizes pollution and conserves energy and that reduces travel costs, accidents and congestion. o Policy 6: Prior to approval of a particular land use, it should be analyzed to determine its impact on the existing circulation system. • Compatibility with Adjoining Land Uses Goal: To have a street and highway system that services all land uses with a minimum adverse impact. o Policy 6: All truck traffic and regional bus service should be restricted to peripheral major streets and north-south, east-west arterial and collector streets having the least number or residences and schools. Only small trucks servicing the neighborhood centers should be allowed on other streets. Where possible, unloading facilities should be provided off alleys rather than streets. • Transit Goal: To have a transit system that results in a significant increase in transit usage especially among commuters and better service for transit dependant residents. o Policy 1: Local and regional transit systems should be given a priority equal to that of the private automobile when developing the future street system and when reviewing specific development proposals. o Policy 2: Policies for the location of new bus stops should be adopted by the City; developers should be required to put in bus stops as a part of large scale developments.

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section identifies project impacts and appropriate mitigation measures where feasible. Signifi- cant impacts are identified according to the significance criteria set forth for this study. The significance criteria are presented below followed by a presentation and discussion of the project’s less- than-significant and significant traffic and circulation impacts. a. Criteria of Significance. Per the City of Vallejo Traffic Impact/Analysis Study Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant effect on transportation and circulation if it would: • Cause the operating level of a freeway segment or ramp junction to deteriorate from LOS C (or better) to LOS D, E or F; • Cause intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS D or better for intersections) to an unacceptable level;

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 99

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

• Cause a worsening of the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of an intersection as noted in Table IV.C- 5, below:

Table IV.C-5: Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Thresholds for Project Impacts LOS Without Project Increase in V/C With Project C > 0.04 D > 0.02 E or F > 0.01 Source: City of Vallejo Traffic Impact Analysis/Study Guidelines, 2008.

• Exacerbate unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) by increasing an intersection’s average delay by 5 seconds or more; • Result in inadequate emergency access; • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curve or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); • Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. • Causes the LOS to fall below LOS C on a State maintained facility3. • Cause a worsening of the LOS on a State facility from the existing measure of effectiveness (MOE) if the facility is operating at less than acceptable LOS without the proposed project. • Result in a queue in a left turn pocket to extend beyond the turn pocket by 25 feet or more (i.e., the length of one vehicle) into adjacent traffic lanes that that operate (i.e., move) separately from the left turn lane. Where the vehicle queue already exceeds that turn pocket length under pre- project conditions, a project impact would occur if project traffic lengthens the queue by 25 feet or more. b. Project Trip Estimates. Traffic projections for the proposed project were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation and pass-by-reduction, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In the first step, the amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadway system by the proposed project is estimated. In the second step, the general directions of approach and departure trips are estimated. In the third step, the trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements.

(1) Trip Generation. Trip generation for development projects is typically calculated based on rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s publication, Trip Generation 8th Edition. Trip Generation is a standard reference used by jurisdictions throughout the country for the estimation of trip generation potential of proposed developments.

A trip is defined in Trip Generation as a single or one-directional vehicle movement with either the origin or destination at the project site. In other words, a trip can be either “to” or “from” the site. In addition, a single customer visit to a site is counted as two trips (i.e., one to and one from the site).

3 Guide For The Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, State of California Department of Transportation, December 2002.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 100

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

For purposes of determining the worst-case impacts of traffic on the surrounding street network, the trips generated by a proposed development are typically estimated between the hours of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. While the project itself may generate more traffic occurring some other time of the day such as around noon, the peak of “adjacent street traffic” represents the time period when the uses generally contribute to the greatest amount of congestion, with the PM peak commonly being the greatest congestion period. Sometimes large retail areas may also experience congestion on Saturdays around noon. At other times of the day, retail land uses rarely cause impacts that require additional mitigation. For this reason, this evaluation focused on the weekday AM and PM peaks, as well as the Saturday noon peak.

The existing Elks Lodge is most appropriately classified as Lodge/Fraternal Organization (Land Use 591). This use is characterized by ITE as typically having a clubhouse with dining and drinking facilities, recreational and entertainment areas, and meeting rooms.

The proposed WinCo store, which would provide 24-hour food sales, is most appropriately classified as Discount Supermarket (ITE Land Use 854). This use is defined by ITE as being “…free-standing retail stores selling a complete assortment of food (often in bulk); food preparation and wrapping materials; and household cleaning and servicing items at discounted prices. Some facilities may be open 24 hours a day.”

To accurately portray the change in trips associated with the replacement of the existing Elks Lodge building with a supermarket, the trips associated with the existing Elks Lodge building were subtracted from the street network and the proposed supermarket trips were estimated and added onto the network. The trips estimated for the existing Elks Lodge building were calculated based on an existing 745-member Lodge/Fraternal Organization. Membership numbers are sporadic with these types of organizations, and are dependent on many factors such as economic conditions. Although the building has included numerous expansions and experienced a peak membership of 3,100 in 1986, trip generation estimates associated with the existing Elks Lodge building was performed for the existing 745 members (as of September 2010).

Trip generation was calculated based on the previous discussions and is presented in Table IV.C-6. Additional trip generation calculations are provided in Appendices C and D.

Table IV.C-6: Project Trip Generation Trips Daily Saturday AM Peakb PM Peakc Saturday Peakd Land Use Total Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Lodge/Fraternal Organization (218) (134) (4) (3) (7) (11) (11) (22) (7) (7) (15) (745 members) Discount Supermarket 6,914 8,183 114 82 196 318 317 635 288 288 575 (71,393 square feet) Discount Supermarket Pass-by 0 (172) 0 0 0 (73) (73) (146) (86) (86) (172) (23 percent)a Net New Vehicle Trips 6,696 8,049 110 79 189 234 233 467 280 280 560 Table notes on next page. a Pass-by trips are trips currently on the roadway that will likely stop at the discount grocery store as they “pass-by.” b Discount Supermarket Trip Generation Rate = 2.74 trips per Thousand Square Feet (TSF). c Discount Supermarket Trip Generation Rate = 8.90 trips per TSF. d Discount Supermarket Trip Generation Rate = 10.46 trips per TSF. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 101

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

(2) Trip Pass-By Reduction. The proposed project would generate a specific number of vehicle trips; nevertheless, many of the trips will already be on the road and will likely stop as they pass by the site. Some vehicles will stop as they pass by the store as a matter of convenience on their path to another destination. These are not new vehicle trips but are considered to be pass-by trips. Pass-by trips were calculated based on data published in ITE’s Trip Generation Handbook, 8th Edition, which includes weekday PM peak information. For a Discount Supermarket (Land Use 854), an average pass-by reduction of 23 percent was calculated for the weekday PM peak. Furthermore, the average pass-by reduction for a Supermarket (Land Use 850) is 36 percent during the PM peak. This analysis conservatively assumes a 23 percent pass-by reduction for the proposed project land use. Given its ideal location along two major roadways and between the freeway access points and numerous residential neighborhoods, this pass-by reduction is appropriate for application during the PM and Saturday peaks. Because AM pass-by data was not available, no AM pass-by reduction was calculated. Thus, AM results contained in this evaluation are likely better than reported.

(3) Trip Distribution. Because of the nature of the development, most WinCo customers are expected to travel from locations in Vallejo and surrounding areas such as Benicia and American Canyon. Project distribution was developed based on the customer market area in relation to other grocery stores (as identified by CBRE; See Appendix H), existing traffic count information, and the general orientation of population sources to the site. Appendices C and D present the traffic distribution assumed for the weekday Traffic Impact Study and the Saturday Analysis Traffic Study, respectively.

(4) Trip Assignment. Based on the assumed trip distribution, new vehicle trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the street network, accounting for pass-by trips. Figure IV.C-10 shows the combined net new total traffic volumes generated by the proposed project.

(5) Site Access. Access to the site is provided at the project’s three driveways. Only the main driveway at the Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (East) (Project Driveway B) intersection is signalized. The remaining two driveways are proposed to be unsignalized and restrict access to right-in/right-out movements. All three driveways are proposed to provide single lane ingress and egress. Project Driveway B has an additional egress lane – a left turn pocket from the site. The numerous site access points distribute site traffic effectively and assist in reducing vehicle delay within the site. c. Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing Plus Project intersection level of service conditions, queuing, and impacts and mitigation measures are discussed below.

(1) Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service. Existing traffic volumes, combined with vehicle trips expected to be generated by the proposed project, were evaluated at the study intersections and are presented in Figure IV.C-11. Results of the analysis are presented in Table IV.C-7. As shown, some intersections operating below acceptable thresholds are nominally affected by project traffic. However, per the City’s significance criteria presented in Table IV.C-5 and Caltrans’ significance threshold to maintain the MOE of delay, only the following intersections are expected to increase in volume/capacity or delay above the allowable thresholds:

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 102 0 / -1 / 8 4 / 12 / 14

0 / 0 / 0 / -1 8 2 / 5 / 6 0 / 0 / 6 / 12 14 5 / 16 / 27 4 / 12 / 14 4 / 12 / 14 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 2 / 5 / 6 8 / 16 / 27 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 5 / 12 14 6 / 12 14

1 Redwood St/Sonoma Blvd (SR-29) 2 Broadway St/Redwood St 41 / 21 / 41 41 / 21 / 4 / 21 / 41 0 / 0 / 41

/ 6 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 14 06 / 44 / 51 / 44 / 06 0 / 0 / 0 / 101 41 / 21 / 4 / 21 / 41 0 / 0 / 71 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 21 / 44 / 60 0 / 0 / 101 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 5 / 12 14

3 Redwood St/Tuolumne St 4 Fairgrounds Dr - I-80 WB Rmps/Redwood St 41 / / 41

0 5 / 15 / -1 7 / 18 / 60 2 / 2

2 / 5 6 26 / 106 133 9 33 / 107 102 0 / 0 / 36 / 105 / 132 8 / 12 / 29 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 11 / 23 / 22 53 / 140 / 178 39 / 82 / 114 0 / -28 / -33 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 2 / 5 6 0 / 0 / 2 / 3 0 5 / 10 17

5 Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln /I-80 EB Off-R 6 Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln /Dwy B

29 / 74 / 58 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 8 / 26 46 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 7 / 4 / 42 5 / 10 11 0 / 0 / 30 / 64 / 78 0 / 0 / 0 / 17 / 37 / 58 3 / 7 20 0 / 5 / 11 / 17 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 2 / 4 / 6 0 / 0 / 0 3 / 10 / 11 0 / 0 / 0 2 / 7 / 20 0 / 0 / 0 26 / 78 / 100 21 / 63 / 78 13 / 37 / 58 4 / 11 / 17 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 6 / 16 / 19 7 / 19 / 22 2 / 4 / 3 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 4 3 0 / 1 / 4 6 0 / 0 / 9 / 19 22 8 / 17 19

7 Redwood Pkwy/Dwy C 8 Redwood Pkwy/Foothill Dr 9 Redwood Pkwy/Oakwood Ave 10 Redwood Pkwy/Ascot Pkwy 11 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Columbus Pkwy

0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 6 / 50 / 73 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 9 / 20 14 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 8 0 / 0 / 7 / 15 8 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 9 / 20 14 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 2 / 4 / 6 0 / 0 / 0 2 / 5 / 6 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 1 / 4 / 6 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 8 0 / 2 / 5 6 0 / 0 / 0 / 5 / 15 8 4 / 13 21 7 / 20 14 12 / 57 59 5 / -16 -38

12 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Turner Pkwy 13 Admiral Callaghan Ln/I-80 EB Loop Ramps 14 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Dwy A 15 Ascot Pkwy/Columbus Pkwy 16 Ascot Pkwy/Turner Pkwy

1 / 3 / 3

0 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 / 3 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 3 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 1 / 2 0 0 /

17 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Tennessee St

FIGURE IV.C-10

XX/YY/ZZ AM/PM/Saturday - Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2011. Total Project Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVC10.ai (2/22/11) 49 / 130 / 147 196 / 89 / 92

135 / 233 226 377 / 572 650 121 / 207 230 150 / 292 / 257 7 / 21 26 209 / 328 277 87 / 221 134 351 / 546 / 558 104 / 202 / 240 45 / 110 / 98 195 / 443 / 477 19 / 72 / 57 133 / 315 / 307 202 / 601 / 544 17 / 54 / 80 19 / 79 / 71 37 / 98 71 38 / 78 67 45 / 118 116 42 / 109 124 322 / 584 678 283 / 332 300 1 Redwood St/Sonoma Blvd (SR-29) 2 Broadway St/Redwood St 703 / 64 6 / 14 / 367 / 271 / 207 0 / 0 / 0 2 0 / 38 / 98 65 194 / 221 155 531 / 663 / 659 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 134 / 146 / 137 0 / 0 / 0 28 / 111 / 84 0 / 0 / 0 280 / 817 / 672 0 / 0 / 0 30 / 57 / 44 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 45 / 67 55 284 / 206 207 128 / 104 125 3 Redwood St/Tuolumne St 4 Fairgrounds Dr - I-80 WB Rmps/Redwood St 9 1 2 / 912 / 912 / 2

159 / 250 / 295 7 / 18 / 67

27 4 / 5 11 36 / 109 117 26 / 106 135 850 / 1049 991 0 / 575 / 569 / 551 550 / 478 / 528 0 / 0 / 0 95 / 94 / 53 268 / 602 / 525 72 / 175 / 226 356 / 700 / 503 388 / 862 / 455 0 / 0 / 0 89 / 185 / 136 0 / 2 2 / 7 15 39 / 112 75 148 / 378 304 105 / 293 143 138 / 241 211 5 Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln /I-80 EB Off-R 6 Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln /Dwy B

29 / 74 / 58 51 / 36 / 60 0 / 0 / 0 35 / 33 / 35 0 / 0 / 3 148 / 71 46 1 / 4 0 / 8 / 26 46 0 / 2 / 0 644 / 564 / 601 49 / 38 45 0 / 74 / 63 41 553 / 366 / 501 0 / 0 / 0 / 432 / 319 / 324 81 / 169 157 204 / 224 219 276 / 203 / 148 0 / 711 / 485 / 433 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 226 / 261 / 134 213 / 58 / 47 23 / 96 / 164 0 / 0 / 0 32 / 132 / 90 0 / 0 / 0 61 / 134 / 131 8 / 8 / 25 455 / 1080 / 665 391 / 638 / 419 297 / 364 / 245 248 / 236 / 168 580 / 565 / 376 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 131 / 158 / 154 187 / 184 / 125 329 / 821 / 998 0 / 0 / 5 / 3 0 3 / 2 0 0 / 0 / 2 0 / 0 / 8 / 32 48 25 / 143 180 301 / 208 141 163 / 220 223 182 / 774 745 157 / 179 189 199 / 190 165 7 Redwood Pkwy/Dwy C 8 Redwood Pkwy/Foothill Dr 9 Redwood Pkwy/Oakwood Ave 10 Redwood Pkwy/Ascot Pkwy 11 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Columbus Pkwy

11 / 19 / 20 2 / 36 / 29 6 / 50 / 73 2 / 0 / 0 13 / 4 / 14 10 / 27 32 282 / 139 91 12 / 19 7 0 / 159 / 405 424 16 / 74 63 55 / 53 81 259 / 802 832 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 922 / 1268 1206 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 601 / 458 / 461 3 / 9 / 11 88 / 339 / 344 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 10 / 15 / 20 12 / 5 / 4 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 2 / 0 / 16 11 / 27 / 25 6 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 327 / 574 / 409 1 / 13 / 17 0 / 0 / 0 653 / 456 / 374 0 / 0 / 0 286 / 200 / 102 24 / 334 / 315 2 / 0 0 / 2 / 4 0 / 15 / 18 25 12 / 57 59 155 / 99 77 64 / 260 279 58 / 139 142 219 / 121 123 107 / 259 295 562 / 1173 10 187 / 450 514 187 / 361 230 312 / 739 765 12 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Turner Pkwy 13 Admiral Callaghan Ln/I-80 EB Loop Ramps 14 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Dwy A 15 Ascot Pkwy/Columbus Pkwy 16 Ascot Pkwy/Turner Pkwy

244 / 192 / 198

387 / 448 314 40 / 86 74 43 / 95 79 451 / 329 / 343 14 / 28 / 17 162 / 204 / 253 339 / 441 / 401 193 / 335 / 191 54 / 139 70 94 / 130 91 74 / 138 154

17 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Tennessee St FIGURE IV.C-11

XX/YY/ZZ AM/PM/Saturday - Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2011. Existing Plus Proposed Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVC11.ai (2/22/11)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-7: Existing Level of Service Conditions – Without Project and Plus Project Existing Existing + Project AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak Intersection Criteria LOS Delay V/C1 LOS Delay V/C1 LOS Delay V/C1 LOS Delay V/C1 Δ V/C LOS Delay V/C1 Δ V/C LOS Delay V/C1 Δ V/C 1 Redwood St/Sonoma Blvda C B 17.4 -- D 39.0 -- C 28.9 0.55 B 17.5 -- -- D 39.1 -- -- C 30.7 0.60 0.05 2 Redwood St/Broadway St D* C 27.4 0.40 C 34.0 0.66 C 26.9 0.54 C 26.9 0.44 0.04 C 34.9 0.69 0.03 C 28.0 0.57 0.03 3 Redwood St/Tuolumne St D* C 30.6 0.62 D 44.0 0.79 C 27.3 0.64 C 35.6 0.63 0.01 D 50.9 0.82 0.03 C 28.4 0.67 0.03 4 Redwood St/Fairgrounds Dr/I-80 WB Rampsa C D 35.2 -- D 41.8 -- C 29.2 0.69 D 35.6 -- -- D 43.7 -- -- C 30.0 0.72 0.03 Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln (west)/ 5 C C 25.8 -- C 31.9 -- C 28.1 0.60 C 26.1 -- -- C 36.0 -- -- C 28.8 0.67 0.07 I-80 EB Off-Rampa Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln (east)/ 6 D* B 19.4 0.38 C 27.4 0.70 B 17.7 0.49 C 20.2 0.36 -0.02 C 33.2 0.72 0.02 F* 82.9 0.62 0.13 Project Driveway B Redwood Pkwy/Project Driveway Cb Future A 0.1 0.16 -- A 0.2 0.25 -- A 0.4 -- -- 7 D* Not an intersection without project SB Approach Intersection B 10.8 -- -- B 10.8 ------Redwood Pkwy/Foothill Drb A 3.7 0.15 A 3.3 0.16 A 2.2 - A 4.1 0.16 0.01 A 4.0 0.17 0.01 A 2.5 -- -- 8 D* SB Approach D 27.5 -- D 28.4 ------D 31.1 -- -- E 36.8 ------9 Redwood Pkwy/Oakwood Ave D* B 17.5 0.57 B 15.9 0.48 B 11.2 0.43 B 17.9 0.58 0.01 B 16.8 0.50 0.02 B 11.6 0.48 0.05 10 Redwood Pkwy/Ascot Pkwy D* E 66.5 0.85 C 21.2 0.43 B 17.1 0.64 E 69.1 0.86 0.01 C 21.8 0.45 0.02 B 19.1 0.50 -0.14 11 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Columbus Pkwy D* B 12.9 0.31 B 16.3 0.62 C 21.4 0.73 B 13.0 0.31 0.00 B 16.4 0.62 0.00 C 21.1 0.73 0.00 12 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Turner Pkwy D* A 9.2 0.13 B 14.2 0.43 B 14.7 0.46 A 9.1 0.14 0.01 B 14.2 0.44 0.01 B 14.8 0.47 0.01 Admiral Callaghan Ln/I-80 EB Rampsa,b C 17.3 -- B 10.8 -- B 5.8 -- C 17.7 -- -- B 11.4 -- -- B 6.0 -- -- 13 NBL Movement C A 8.6 -- B 14.9 ------A 2.9 -- -- C 15.7 ------WBL Movement B 11.0 -- B 14.1 ------B 11.1 -- -- B 14.5 ------Admiral Callaghan Ln/Project Driveway Ab Future A 0.00.22 -- A 0.3 0.38 -- A 0.4 -- -- 14 D* Not an intersection without project WB Approach Intersection B 10.0 -- -- B 13.9 ------15 Ascot Pkwy/Columbus Pkwy D* B 13.2 0.29 B 15.2 0.28 B 11.4 0.23 B 13.1 0.29 0.00 B 15.2 0.28 0.00 B 11.3 0.23 0.00 16 Ascot Pkwy/Turner Pkwy D* B 16.7 0.31 B 17.7 0.36 D 36.1 0.37 B 16.7 0.31 0.00 B 17.7 0.36 0.00 D 35.7 0.38 0.01 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Humboldt St/ 17 D* C 27.8 0.66 C 25.8 0.54 D 42.4 0.59 C 27.9 0.68 0.02 C 25.8 0.54 0.00 D 43.3 0.59 0.00 Tennessee St Notes: Locations operating at unacceptable levels are shown in bold. Significant impacts are shaded. a Indicates intersection is under Caltrans jurisdiction. All other intersections are under the jurisdiction of the City of Vallejo. b Indicates Two-Way-Stop-Controlled (TWSC) intersection. All other intersections are signalized. c V/C ratio is only provided at City intersections where needed for significance criteria * Impacts are considered to be significant when the change in volume to capacity ratio (V/C) between the with and without project conditions are exceeded for the given LOS: LOS Δ V/C C > 0.04 D > 0.02 E, F > 0.01 Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates and LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) SCREENCHECK #2 105

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

• Intersection #1 – Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard (PM and Saturday Peak) • Intersection #3 – Redwood Street/Tuolumne Street (PM Peak) • Intersection #4 – Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB Ramps (AM and PM Peak) • Intersection #5 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Off Ramp (Saturday Peak) • Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B (Saturday Peak)

(2) Existing Plus Project Conditions Queuing Analysis. In most cases inadequate turn bays are not associated with the proposed project but are a result of pre-existing deficiencies. At locations which are at or near capacity and affected by project traffic, the increase in vehicle queuing is less than one vehicle (which is considered less than significant), except at the following intersections where the left turn pocket will extend beyond the turn pocket by 25 feet or more due to the proposed project: • Intersection #5 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off Ramp (eastbound) • Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B (eastbound and northbound)

(3) Existing Plus Project Intersection Impacts and Mitigations Measures. Table IV.C-8 includes a description of the intersections that would operate at unacceptable LOS under Existing Plus Project Conditions. When significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures needed to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels are also described. The resulting intersection LOS after the mitigation measures for the listed intersections is presented in Table IV.C-9.

Table IV.C-8: Existing Plus Project Conditions Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Existing Plus Project Level of Existing Plus Projects Conditions After Conditions Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impact TRANS-1: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: The project applicant Significant Intersection #1 – Redwood shall fund re-timing of the Redwood Street/Sonoma Unavoidable Street/Sonoma Boulevard Boulevard signal to optimize the cycle splits. As shown operates at an unacceptable in Table IV.C-9, this intersection improvement would LOS D during the PM peak result in this intersection operating at improved levels hour and at LOS C during compared to Existing Without Project conditions during the Saturday peak hour the PM and Saturday peak hours. under Existing conditions. This intersection will The significant impact at this intersection can be experience an increase in mitigated with the signal timing optimization. However, delay of 0.1 seconds during the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction and there the PM peak hour and an is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved increase in V/C of 0.05 by Caltrans by the time the proposed project opens. Prior seconds during the Saturday to obtaining building permits for the project, the project peak hour under Existing applicant shall make a written offer to Caltrans to fully Plus Project conditions. fund the signal re-timing at the Redwood Street/ Sonoma Boulevard intersection to optimize cycle splits, and shall provide a copy of this written offer to the City.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 106

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV-C-8 Continued Significance Existing Plus Project Level of Existing Plus Projects Conditions After Conditions Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impact TRANS-2: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-2: The project applicant Less Than Intersection #3 – Redwood shall fund an adaptive signal retiming program at the Significant Street/Tuolumne Street Redwood Street/Tuolumne Street intersection that would operates at an unacceptable operate in real time, adjusting signal timing to accommo- LOS D during the PM peak date changing traffic patterns. The adaptive signal timing hour under Existing program should be implemented at four signalized conditions and will intersections on Redwood Street between Couch Street experience an increase in and Tuolumne Street as well as at three signalized inter- V/C of 0.03 during the sections on Tuolumne Street from Del Mar Avenue to Existing Plus Project PM Hospital Drive. The timing program adjusts the split, peak hour. offset, cycle lengths, and phase order of the signals using sensors to interpret characteristics of traffic approaching an intersection, and using mathematical and predictive algorithms, adapts the signal timings accordingly, optimizing their performance. To implement the adaptive signal timing program, cameras and Ethernet communication would need to be added to the traffic signals and a processor would be installed on the inside of each of the existing traffic cabinets. As shown in Table IV.C-9, this intersection improvement would result in this intersection experiencing a V/C within the acceptable thresholds during the PM peak hour. Impact TRANS-3: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-3: The project applicant Significant Intersection #4 – Redwood shall fund the proportional fair-share to improve opera- Unavoidable Street/ Fairgrounds tions at the Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB Drive/I-80 WB Ramps Ramps intersection for adding an exclusive westbound operates at LOS D during right turn pocket for 150 feet adjacent to the bridge the AM and PM peak hours crossing I-80 and restriping the westbound through- under Existing conditions shared-right turn lane to a through lane. In addition, the and will experience an southbound right turn lane should be restriped as a increase in delay of 0.4 through-shared-right lane. As shown in Table IV.C-9, seconds and 1.9 seconds this intersection improvement would result in this inter- during the Existing Plus section operating at acceptable levels during the AM Project AM and PM peak peak hour. hours, respectively. Additionally, although still an unacceptable level of service, this intersection improvement would result in intersection delay of better than pre-project conditions during the PM peak hour. The project’s proportionate share of the mitigation costs shall be paid to the City of Vallejo and placed in an escrow account for the exclusive use to construct the identified mitigation. Based on Caltrans’ methodology for calculating equitable share in their Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, the project’s proportionate share is 14.8 percent. If the funds are not expended for the mitigation improvement they will be transferred to the project fund as part of the Redwood Parkway/Fairgrounds Drive Improvements. The Redwood Parkway/Fairground Drive Improvements project would absorb the impacts from the WinCo project and provide mitigations through the realignment of the I-80 on/off ramps with Redwood Parkway

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 107

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV-C-8 Continued Significance Existing Plus Project Level of Existing Plus Projects Conditions After Conditions Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impact TRANS-3 Continued The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with increased capacity. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction and no funding sources for the remaining improvement costs have been identified; therefore there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time the proposed project opens. Impact TRANS-4: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-4: The significant impact at Significant Intersection #5 – Redwood this intersection can be mitigated by retiming the signal Unavoidable Parkway/Admiral to optimize the cycle splits and adding a westbound Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 right-turn lane. EB Off-Ramp will operate at LOS C during the The project applicant shall fund re-timing of the Saturday peak hour under Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard signal to optimize Existing Plus Project the cycle splits. However, due to the right-of-way conditions and will constraints on the northeast corner at this intersection, no experience an increase in feasible mitigation measure has been identified. V/C of 0.07 due to the Additional right-of-way would need to be purchased proposed project. from private property owners on the north side of the westbound approach in order to obtain proper lane alignment through the intersection. Because right-of-way is needed and it is within the control of the private property owner, the significant impact at this intersection remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS-5: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-5: The project applicant Less Than Intersection #6 – Redwood shall fund signal re-timing at the Redwood Parkway/ Significant Parkway/Admiral Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B Callaghan Lane (east)/ intersection to optimize the cycle splits. In addition, the Project Driveway B will northbound and southbound signal phasing shall be operate at an unacceptable converted from permitted left turns to protected left LOS F during the Saturday turns. This improvement requires modifications to the peak hour under Existing signal to accommodate protected left-turn movement in Plus Project conditions and the northbound and southbound directions. The 95th will experience an increase percentile queue during the Saturday peak hour for this in V/C of 0.13 due to the movement is 234 feet; therefore, a 250-foot left-turn proposed project. pocket for the eastbound left-turn lane is recommended. As shown in Table IV.C-9, these intersection improvements would result in this intersection experiencing a V/C within the acceptable thresholds during the Saturday peak hour.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 108

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV-C-8 Continued Significance Existing Plus Project Level of Existing Plus Projects Conditions After Conditions Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impact TRANS-6: The total Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-6: Implementation of Significant queue length of the Mitigation Measures TRANS-3 and TRANS-5 would Unavoidable eastbound left-turn improve the operation at this intersection and reduce the movement at Intersection eastbound left-turn queue. The project applicant shall #5 – Redwood Parkway/ fund extension of the existing eastbound left-turn pocket Admiral Callaghan Lane at the Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp by 12 feet. is 353 feet during the PM peak hour under Existing The extension of the existing eastbound left-turn pocket Plus Project conditions, 78 by 12 feet would require re-striping of the eastbound feet longer than the turn approach, which can likely be performed without pocket length. The project is roadway widening. It is important to note that the responsible for 71 feet of the extension of this turn pocket by 12 feet may not be total queue, which is feasible without modifying the westbound left-turn equivalent to less than 3 pockets at the Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 vehicles. WB Ramps intersection. Implementation of this mitigation measure, if approved by Caltrans, may require the reduction of storage capacity for the westbound left- turn pocket at the abovementioned intersection. The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with the turn pocket extension. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction; therefore there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time the proposed project opens. Prior to obtaining building permits, the project applicant shall make a written offer to Caltrans to fully fund the extension the eastbound left-turn pocket at the Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp by 12 feet and shall provide a copy of this written offer to the City. Impact TRANS-7: The total Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-7: The project applicant Less Than queue length of the shall fund extension of the existing eastbound left-turn Significant eastbound left-turn pocket at the Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan movement at Intersection Lane (east)/Project Driveway B intersection by 75 feet #6 – Redwood Parkway/ and modification of the signal timing to provide Admiral Callaghan Lane additional green time for the eastbound left turn phase. (east)/Project Driveway B The extension of this eastbound left-turn pocket would is 292 feet during the PM provide sufficient storage to accommodate 95th peak hour under Existing percentile queues. Plus Project conditions, 167 feet longer than the turn The extension of the existing eastbound left-turn pocket pocket length. The project is by 75 feet would require reconstruction of the raised responsible for 235 feet of median along Redwood Parkway including the the total queue, which is relocation of a signal pole, between Admiral Callaghan equivalent to less than 10 Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp and Admiral Callaghan vehicles. Lane (east)/Project Driveway B.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 109

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-9: Existing Plus Project With Mitigation Existing + Project (Mitigated) AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak a Intersection Criteria LOS Delay V/Cb Δ V/C LOS Delay V/Cb Δ V/C LOS Delay V/Cb Δ V/C Redwood St/ 1 C ------D 38.8 -- -- C 28.6 0.59 0.04 Sonoma Blvd Redwood St/ 3 D* C 30.6 0.62 0.0 D 44.0 0.79 0.00 ------Tuolumne St Redwood St/ 4 Fairgrounds Dr/ C C 34.2 -- -- D 41.7 ------I-80 WB Ramps Redwood Pkwy/ 5 Admiral Callaghan Ln C ------C 28.0 0.58 -0.02 (west)/I-80 EB O Redwood Pkwy/ Admiral Callaghan Ln 6 D* ------C 28.5 0.58 0.09 (east)/Project Driveway B Notes: a All intersections are signalized. b V/C ratio is only provided at City intersections where needed for significance criteria. * Impacts are considered to be significant when the change in volume to capacity ratio (V/C) between the With and Without Project conditions are exceeded for the given LOS: LOS Δ V/C C > 0.04 D > 0.02 E, F > 0.01 Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates and LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.

d. Near-Term (Year 2011) Plus Project Conditions. Near-Term Plus Project intersection level of service conditions, queuing, and impacts and mitigation measures are discussed below.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 110

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

(1) Near-Term (Year 2011) Project Traffic Volumes. Near-Term Plus Proposed Project traffic volumes were evaluated at the study intersections and are shown in Figure IV.C-12. Results of the analysis are presented in Table IV.C-10. As shown, some intersections operating below acceptable levels per City or Caltrans thresholds are nominally affected by project traffic. However, per the City’s significance criteria presented in Table IV.C-6 and Caltrans’ significance threshold to maintain the measure of effectiveness (MOE) of delay, only the following intersections are expected to increase in volume/capacity or delay above the allowable thresholds: • Intersection #1 – Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard (PM and Saturday Peaks) • Intersection #2 – Redwood Street/Broadway Street (PM Peak) • Intersection #3 – Redwood Street/Tuolumne Street (PM Peak) • Intersection #4 – Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB Ramps (AM and PM Peaks) • Intersection #5 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off Ramp (PM and Saturday Peaks) • Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B (Saturday Peak)

(2) Near-Term Plus Project Conditions Queuing Analysis. In most cases inadequate turn bays are not associated with the proposed project but are a result of pre-existing deficiencies. At locations which are at or near capacity and affected by project traffic, the increase in vehicle queuing is less than one vehicle (which is considered less than significant), except at the following intersection where the left turn pocket will extend beyond the turn pocket by 25 feet or more due to the proposed project: • Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B (eastbound and northbound)

(3) Near-Term Plus Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Table IV.C-11 includes a description of the intersections that would operate at unacceptable LOS under Near-Term Plus Project Conditions. When significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures needed to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels are also described. The resulting intersection LOS after the mitigation measures for the listed intersections is presented in Table IV.C-12.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 111 51 / 132 / 147 199 / 91 / 92 135 / 233 227 378 / 572 652 123 / 209 230 209 / 328 279 89 / 224 135 150 / 292 / 258 7 / 21 26 355 / 550 / 563 106 / 204 / 241 46 / 111 / 98 195 / 443 / 479 19 / 72 / 57 133 / 315 / 308 205 / 605 / 549 17 / 54 / 80 19 / 79 / 72 37 / 98 71 38 / 78 68 47 / 120 116 44 / 110 125 322 / 585 680 283 / 332 302 1 Redwood St/Sonoma Blvd (SR-29) 2 Broadway St/Redwood St 903 / 846 / 2 / 846 / 903

368 / 273 / 208 0 / 0 / 0 4 2 38 / 98 66 194 / 221 156 0 / 0 / 539 / 671 / 664 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 135 / 147 / 138 0 / 0 / 0 28 / 111 / 85 0 / 0 / 0 288 / 826 / 677 0 / 0 / 0 30 / 57 / 44 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 45 / 67 55 284 / 206 209 130 / 105 126 3 Redwood St/Tuolumne St 4 Fairgrounds Dr - I-80 WB Rmps/Redwood St 122 / 912 / 27 / 912 / 122

159 / 250 / 297 7 / 18 / 67 853 / 1050 1000 0 / 4 / 5 11 36 / 109 117 588 / 581 / 555 26 / 106 135 563 / 491 / 536 0 / 0 / 0 95 / 94 / 54 268 / 602 / 530 72 / 175 / 226 367 / 711 / 506 400 / 876 / 463 0 / 0 / 0 89 / 185 / 138 0 / 2 2 / 7 15 39 / 112 76 148 / 381 307 106 / 296 144 138 / 241 214 5 Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln /I-80 EB Off-R 6 Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln /Dwy B

29 / 74 / 58 51 / 36 / 61 0 / 0 / 0 35 / 33 / 36 0 / 0 / 3 49 / 38 46 0 / 74 / 63 42 0 / 0 / 0 / 100 / 188 160 205 / 226 224 2 / 0 0 / 0 / 8 / 26 46 0 / 657 / 577 / 610 566 / 378 / 510 446 / 332 / 332 148 / 71 47 276 / 203 / 151 1 / 4 778 / 537 / 455 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 231 / 268 / 138 213 / 58 / 48 24 / 96 / 172 0 / 0 / 0 32 / 132 / 92 0 / 0 / 0 81 / 155 / 133 8 / 8 / 26 467 / 1094 / 674 403 / 653 / 426 308 / 378 / 251 248 / 236 / 171 625 / 635 / 395 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 131 / 158 / 158 187 / 184 / 128 329 / 821 / 1048 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 5 / 3 0 0 / 2 3 / 2 0 8 / 32 49 25 / 144 188 157 / 179 194 206 / 196 170 301 / 208 144 165 / 222 228 182 / 774 782 7 Redwood Pkwy/Dwy C 8 Redwood Pkwy/Foothill Dr 9 Redwood Pkwy/Oakwood Ave 10 Redwood Pkwy/Ascot Pkwy 11 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Columbus Pkwy

11 / 19 / 20 2 / 36 / 29 6 / 50 / 73 2 / 0 / 0 13 / 4 / 15 0 / 159 / 405 426 16 / 74 63 55 / 53 81 262 / 803 833 0 / 0 / 925 / 1269 1208 0 / 0 / 2 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 620 / 483 / 499 14 / 29 34 307 / 166 98 12 / 19 8 3 / 9 / 12 91 / 340 / 345 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 10 / 15 / 22 12 / 5 / 4 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 2 / 0 / 17 12 / 31 / 27 7 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 354 / 597 / 442 1 / 13 / 18 0 / 0 / 0 653 / 456 / 375 0 / 0 / 0 304 / 248 / 111 24 / 334 / 339 0 / 0 / 2 / 0 2 / 4 15 / 18 27 12 / 57 59 64 / 262 280 58 / 139 142 183 / 127 83 268 / 149 133 187 / 450 516 187 / 361 230 312 / 742 766 107 / 259 317 563 / 1175 10 12 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Turner Pkwy 13 Admiral Callaghan Ln/I-80 EB Loop Ramps 14 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Dwy A 15 Ascot Pkwy/Columbus Pkwy 16 Ascot Pkwy/Turner Pkwy

244 / 192 / 203

387 / 448 321 40 / 86 76 43 / 95 81 451 / 329 / 351 14 / 28 / 17 162 / 204 / 259 339 / 441 / 411 193 / 335 / 196 94 / 130 93 54 / 139 72 74 / 138 158

17 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Tennessee St

FIGURE IV.C-12

XX/YY/ZZ AM/PM/Saturday - Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR Near-Term (Year 2011) Plus Proposed SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2011. Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVC12.ai (2/22/11)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-10: Near-Term (Year 2011) Level of Service Conditions – Without Project and Plus Project Near-Term Near-Term + Project AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak Intersection Criteria LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc Δ V/C LOS Delay V/Cc Δ V/C LOS Delay V/Cc Δ V/C 1 Redwood St/Sonoma Blvda C B 17.4 -- D 39.0 -- C 29.3 0.55 B 17.5 -- -- D 39.2 -- -- C 30.8 0.60 0.05 2 Redwood St/Broadway St D* C 27.4 0.41 C 34.2 0.67 C 27.0 0.54 C 26.8 0.44 0.03 D 35.1 0.70 0.03 C 28.1 0.58 0.04 3 Redwood St/Tuolumne St D* C 32.2 0.63 D 44.2 0.80 C 27.4 0.64 D 35.7 0.64 0.01 D 51.4 0.83 0.03 C 28.7 0.67 0.03 4 Redwood St/Fairgrounds Dr/I-80 WB Rampsa C D 35.3 D 41.8 -- C 29.0 0.70 D 35.6 -- -- D 43.8 -- -- C 30.3 0.74 0.04 Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln (west)/ 5 C C 25.2 -- C 31.9 -- C 28.3 0.64 C 26.0 -- -- D 36.2 -- -- C 29.0 0.68 0.07 I-80 EB Off-Rampa Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln (east)/ 6 D* B 19.2 0.39 C 27.4 0.71 B 17.9 0.50 C 20.0 0.37 -0.02 C 33.1 0.67 -0.04 F* 82.3 0.59 0.09 Project Driveway B Redwood Pkwy/Project Driveway Cb Future A 0.1 0.17 -- A 0.2 0.26 -- A 0.40 -- -- 7 D* Not an intersection without project SB Approach Intersection B 10.8 -- -- B 10.9 ------Redwood Pkwy/Foothill Drb A 3.9 0.16 A 3.4 0.17 A 2.3 -- A 4.3 0.16 0.00 A 4.1 0.18 0.01 ------8 D* SB Approach D 29.2 -- D 29.7 ------D 32.8 -- -- E 38.9 -- -- A 2.7 -- -- 9 Redwood Pkwy/Oakwood Ave D* B 17.8 0.58 B 16.0 0.49 B 11.3 0.44 B 18.1 0.59 0.01 B 16.9 0.51 0.02 B 11.8 0.49 0.05 10 Redwood Pkwy/Ascot Pkwy D* E 66.9 0.85 C 21.7 0.42 B 17.3 0.64 E 69.4 0.86 0.01 C 22.3 0.44 0.02 B 19.3 0.50 -0.14 11 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Columbus Pkwy D* B 12.8 0.32 B 17.1 0.62 C 21.8 0.76 B 12.9 0.32 0.00 B 17.1 0.62 0.00 C 22.0 0.76 0.00 12 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Turner Pkwy D* A 9.3 0.14 B 14.2 0.43 B 14.8 0.46 A 9.3 0.14 0.00 B 14.2 0.44 0.01 B 14.8 0.47 0.01 Admiral Callaghan Ln/I-80 EB Rampsa,b C 17.5 -- B 10.8 -- B 5.8 -- B 17.9 -- -- B 11.4 -- -- B 6.0 -- -- 13 NBL Movement C A 8.6 -- B 14.9 ------A 2.9 -- -- C 15.7 ------WBL Movement B 11.0 -- B 14.1 ------B 11.1 -- -- B 14.5 ------Admiral Callaghan Ln/Project Driveway Ab Future A 0 0.22 -- A 0.3 0.38 -- A 0.40 -- -- 14 D* Not an intersection without project WB Approach Intersection B 10.1 -- -- B 13.9 ------15 Ascot Pkwy/Columbus Pkwy D* B 14.7 0.31 B 16.1 0.30 B 11.8 0.25 B 14.7 0.31 0.00 B 16.1 0.30 0.00 B 11.7 0.25 0.00 16 Ascot Pkwy/Turner Pkwy D* B 16.3 0.32 B 17.6 0.37 D 37.0 0.40 B 16.3 0.32 0.00 B 17.6 0.37 0.00 D 36.6 0.40 0.00 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Humboldt St/ 17 D* C 27.8 0.66 C 25.8 0.54 D 44.8 0.60 C 27.9 0.68 0.02 C 25.8 0.54 0.00 D 45.7 0.60 0.00 Tennessee St Notes: Locations operating at unacceptable levels are shown in bold. Significant impacts are shaded. a Indicates intersection is under Caltrans jurisdiction. All other intersections are under the jurisdiction of the City of Vallejo. b Indicates Two-Way-Stop-Controlled (TWSC) intersection. All other intersections are signalized. c V/C ratio is only provided at City intersections where needed for significance criteria * Impacts are considered to be significant when the change in volume to capacity ratio (V/C) between the with and without project conditions are exceeded for the given LOS: LOS Δ V/C C > 0.04 D > 0.02 E, F > 0.01 Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates and LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) SCREENCHECK #2 113

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-11: Near-Term Plus Project Conditions Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Near-Term Plus Project Level of Near-Term Plus Projects Conditions After Conditions Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impact TRANS-9: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-9: Implement Mitigation Significant Intersection #1 – Redwood Measure TRANS-1. As shown in Table IV.C-12 re- Unavoidable Street/Sonoma Boulevard timing of the Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard signal operates at LOS D during to optimize the cycle splits would result in this the PM peak hour and LOS intersection operating at improved levels compared to C during the Saturday peak Near-Term Without Project conditions during the PM hour under Near-Term and Saturday peak hours. conditions and will The significant impact at this intersection can be experience an increase in mitigated with the signal timing optimization. However, delay of 0.2 seconds during the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction; therefore, the PM peak hour and an there is no guarantee that the improvement would be increase in V/C of 0.05 approved by Caltrans by the time the proposed project seconds during the Saturday opens. Prior to obtaining building permits for the project, peak hour due to the the project applicant shall make a written offer to proposed project. Caltrans to fully fund the signal re-timing at the Redwood Street/ Sonoma Boulevard intersection to optimize cycle splits, and shall provide a copy of this written offer to the City. Impact TRANS-10: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-10: Implement Mitigation Less Than Intersection #2 – Redwood Measure TRANS-2. As shown in Table IV.C-12 Significant Street/Broadway Street adaptive signal retiming at the Redwood Street/ operates at LOS D during Broadway Street intersection would result in this the PM peak hour under the intersection operating at improved levels compared to Near-Term conditions and Near-Term Without Project conditions during the PM will experience an increase peak hour. in V/C of 0.03 seconds due to the proposed project.

Impact TRANS-11: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-11: Implement Mitigation Less Than Intersection #3 – Redwood Measure TRANS-2. As shown in Table IV.C-12, this Significant Street/ Tuolumne Street improvement would result in the Redwood Street/ operates at LOS D during Tuolumne Street intersection experiencing a V/C within the PM peak hour under the acceptable thresholds during the PM peak hour. Near-Term conditions and would experience an increase in V/C of 0.03 due to the proposed project.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) SCREENCHECK #2 114

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-11 Continued Significance Near-Term Plus Project Level of Near-Term Plus Projects Conditions After Conditions Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impact TRANS-12: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-12: Implement Mitigation Significant Intersection #4 – Redwood Measure TRANS-3. As shown in Table IV.C-12, this Unavoidable Street/Fairgrounds improvement would result in the Redwood Street/ Drive/I-80 WB Ramps Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB Ramps intersection operates at LOS D during operating at acceptable levels during the AM peak hour. the AM and PM peak hour Additionally, although still an unacceptable level of under the Near-Term service, this intersection improvement would result in conditions and will intersection delay of better than Near-Term Without experience an increase in Project conditions during the PM peak hour. delay of 0.3 seconds and 2.0 seconds during the AM and The project’s proportionate share of the mitigation costs PM peak hours respectively shall be paid to the City of Vallejo and placed in an due to the proposed project. escrow account for the exclusive use to construct the identified mitigation. If the funds are not expended for the mitigation improvement, they will be transferred to the project fund as part of the Redwood Parkway/ Fairgrounds Drive Improvements. The Redwood Parkway/Fairground Drive Improvements project would absorb the impacts from the WinCo project and provide mitigations through the realignment of the I-80 on/off ramps with Redwood Parkway. The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with increased capacity. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction and no funding sources for the remaining improvement costs have been identified; therefore there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time the proposed project opens. Impact TRANS-13: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-13: Implement Mitigation Significant Intersection #5 – Redwood Measure TRANS-11. As shown in Table IV.C-12, the Unavoidable Parkway/Admiral intersection improvement at Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 Drive/I-80 WB Ramps would result in the Redwood EB Off Ramp will operate Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off at LOS C during the PM and Ramp intersection operating at acceptable levels during Saturday peak hours under the PM peak hour. the Near-Term conditions and will operate at LOS D The significant impact during the Saturday peak hour can during the PM peak hour be mitigated by retiming the signal to optimize the cycle and experience an increase splits and adding a westbound right-turn lane. However, in delay of 0.07 seconds due to the right-of-way constraints on the northeast during the Saturday peak corner at this intersection, no feasible mitigation measure hour due to the proposed has been identified. Additional right-of-way would need project. to be purchased from private property owners on the north side of the westbound approach in order to obtain proper lane alignment through the intersection. Because right-of-way is needed and it is within the control of the private property owner, the significant impact at this intersection remains significant and unavoidable.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 115

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 116

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-12: Near-Term (Year 2011) With Mitigation Near-Term + Project (Mitigated) AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak a Intersection Criteria LOS Delay V/Cb Δ V/C LOS Delay V/Cb Δ V/C LOS Delay V/Cb Δ V/C Redwood St/ 1 C ------D 38.9 -- -- C 28.7 0.59 0.05 Sonoma Blvd Redwood St/ 2 D* C 27.4 0.41 0.00 C 34.2 0.67 0.00 ------Broadway St Redwood St/ 3 D* C 32.2 0.63 0.00 D 44.2 0.80 0.00 ------Tuolumne St Redwood St/ 4 Fairgrounds Dr/ C C 34.0 -- -- D 40.7 ------I-80 WB Ramps Redwood Pkwy/ Admiral 5 C ------C 33.6 -- -- C 27.7 0.58 -0.03 Callaghan Ln (west)/I-80 EB O Redwood Pkwy/ Admiral 6 Callaghan Ln D* ------C 28.8 0.59 0.09 (east)/Project Driveway B Notes: a All intersections are signalized. b V/C ratio is only provided at City intersections where needed for significance criteria. * Impacts are considered to be significant when the change in volume to capacity ratio (V/C) between the With and Without Project conditions are exceeded for the given LOS: LOS Δ V/C C > 0.04 D > 0.02 E, F > 0.01 Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates and LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.

b. Long-Term (Cumulative Year 2030) Conditions. Long-Term Plus Project intersection level of service conditions, queuing, and impacts and mitigation measures are discussed below.

(1) Long-Term Plus Project Traffic Volumes. Long-Term Plus Project traffic volumes were evaluated at the study intersections and are shown in Figure IV.C-13. Results of the analysis are presented in Table IV.C-13. As shown some intersections operating below acceptable levels per City or Caltrans thresholds are nominally affected by project traffic. However, per the City’s significance criteria presented in Table IV.C-6 and Caltrans’ significance threshold to maintain the measure of effectiveness (MOE) of delay, only the following intersections are expected to increase in volume/capacity or delay above the allowable thresholds: • Intersection #1 – Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard (PM and Saturday Peaks) • Intersection #2 – Redwood Street/Broadway Street (PM and Saturday Peaks) • Intersection #3 – Redwood Street/Tuolumne Street (Saturday Peak) • Intersection #4 – Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB Ramps (AM, PM and Saturday Peaks) • Intersection #5 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp (PM and Saturday Peaks)

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 117

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

• Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B (Saturday Peak) • Intersection #10 – Redwood Parkway/Ascot Parkway (PM Peak) • Intersection #13 – Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps (AM and PM Peaks)

(2) Long-Term Plus Project Conditions Queuing Analysis. In most cases inadequate turn bays are not associated with the proposed project but are a result of pre-existing deficiencies. At locations which are at or near capacity and affected by project traffic, the increase in vehicle queuing is less than one vehicle (which is considered less than significant), except at the following intersections where the left turn pocket will extend beyond the turn pocket by 25 feet or more due to the proposed project: • Intersection #5 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off Ramp (eastbound) • Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B (eastbound and northbound) • Intersection #10 – Redwood Parkway/Ascot Parkway (northbound) • Intersection #13 – Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps (northbound)

(3) Long-Term Plus Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Table IV.C-14 includes a description of the intersections that would operate at unacceptable LOS under Long-Term Plus Project Conditions. When significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures needed to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels are also described. The resulting intersection LOS after the mitigation measures for the listed intersections is presented in Table IV.C-15.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 118 78 / 132 / 178 208 / 117 / 140 135 / 233 277 381 / 700 798 121 / 209 280 920 / 579 447 133 / 277 207 168 / 292 / 314 17 / 21 42 434 / 550 / 884 161 / 223 / 291 96 / 298 / 149 246 / 447 / 586 32 / 72 / 92 138 / 367 / 375 261 / 671 / 861 21 / 154 / 98 69 / 123 / 114 69 / 115 87 54 / 89 108 92 / 120 139 44 / 344 191 859 / 585 832 345 / 743 484 1 Redwood St/Sonoma Blvd (SR-29) 2 Broadway St/Redwood St 973 973 / 846 / 32 / 846 368 / 273 / 254 0 / 0 / 0 3 239 / 408 193 0 / 0 / 143 / 109 81 540 / 708 / 806 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 135 / 251 / 167 0 / 0 / 0 99 / 171 / 105 0 / 0 / 0 329 / 850 / 822 0 / 0 / 0 32 / 172 / 55 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 66 / 137 68 449 / 357 258 130 / 120 152 3 Redwood St/Tuolumne St 4 Fairgrounds Dr - I-80 WB Rmps/Redwood St 18 2 2 / / 0 1

5 159 / 521 / 385 7 / 18 / 69 / 3 0 / 7 974 / 1222 1293 4 / 5 13 26 / 106 136 761 / 612 / 679 36 / 109 122 655 / 668 / 720 0 / 0 / 0 102 / 141 / 73 432 / 743 / 679 72 / 175 / 244 580 / 908 / 621 481 / 1168 / 643 0 / 0 / 0 235 / 374 / 188 0 / 3 2 / 5 18 39 / 112 104 184 / 380 397 135 / 297 182 229 / 355 292 5 Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln /I-80 EB Off-R 6 Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln /Dwy B

29 / 74 / 58 51 / 36 / 83 0 / 0 / 0 53 / 33 / 49 0 / 0 / 5 8 / 26 46 0 / 190 / 71 64 1 / 4 2 49 / 38 58 0 / 74 / 63 57 0 / 0 / 0 / 212 / 189 210 210 / 226 305 2 / 0 0 / 0 / 756 / 801 / 817 861 / 601 / 663 538 / 539 / 468 340 / 270 / 199 1414 / 906 / 663 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 326 / 275 / 206 213 / 67 / 65 23 / 97 / 248 0 / 0 / 0 32 / 132 / 121 0 / 0 / 0 209 / 293 / 174 8 / 8 / 38 9 546 / 1386 / 883 403 / 942 / 550 431 / 697 / 346 336 / 321 / 227 989 / 1350 / 576 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 158 / 194 / 227 204 / 473 / 166 411 / 837 / 1527 5 / 3 0 3 / 2 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 0 / 0 / 8 / 32 67 25 / 150 272 312 / 355 188 208 / 276 310 245 / 803 113 178 / 361 281 318 / 390 254 7 Redwood Pkwy/Dwy C 8 Redwood Pkwy/Foothill Dr 9 Redwood Pkwy/Oakwood Ave 10 Redwood Pkwy/Ascot Pkwy 11 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Columbus Pkwy 0

11 / 19 / 25 2 / 36 / 38 6 / 50 / 73 2 / 0 / 0 13 / 4 / 20 0 / 1047 / 1680 157 0 / 0 / 160 / 562 523 16 / 73 78 113 / 95 106 273 / 1227 1082 0 / 0 / 14 / 72 47 331 / 248 130 12 / 22 10 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 4 1059 / 660 / 821 3 / 9 / 16 91 / 492 / 424 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 11 / 22 / 36 12 / 5 / 6 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 2 / 0 / 29 12 / 63 / 37 0 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 0 / 0 / 0 645 / 1130 / 728 1 / 13 / 25 0 / 0 / 0 721 / 456 / 488 0 / 0 / 0 357 / 380 / 183 93 / 334 / 460 0 / 2 / 0 3 / 2 6 0 / 12 / 57 59 75 / 53 45 58 / 140 185 254 / 485 635 103 / 286 344 232 / 546 294 481 / 964 994 762 / 1581 14 368 / 333 220 118 / 259 431 317 / 331 109 12 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Turner Pkwy 13 Admiral Callaghan Ln/I-80 EB Loop Ramps 14 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Dwy A 15 Ascot Pkwy/Columbus Pkwy 16 Ascot Pkwy/Turner Pkwy

267 / 338 / 277

390 / 490 441 67 / 140 104 46 / 107 110 463 / 441 / 483 34 / 204 / 24 165 / 34 / 355 344 / 330 / 565 255 / 227 / 269 99 / 265 217 103 / 205 99 118 / 184 128 17 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Tennessee St FIGURE IV.C-13

XX/YY/ZZ AM/PM/Saturday - Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR Long-Term (Cumulative Year 2030) Plus Proposed SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2011. Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVC13.ai (2/22/11)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-13: Long-Term (Year 2030) Level of Service Conditions – Without Project and Plus Project Long-Term Long-Term + Project AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak Intersection Criteria LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc LOS Delay V/Cc Δ V/C LOS Delay V/Cc Δ V/C LOS Delay V/Cc Δ V/C 1 Redwood St/Sonoma Blvda C C 20.6 -- D 38.9 -- D* 45.1 0.73 C 20.8 -- -- D 39.3 -- -- D* 47.0 0.72 -0.01 2 Redwood St/Broadway St D* D 35.9 0.69 F 125.5 1.10 D 42.3 0.89 D 36.0 0.70 0.01 F 130.4 1.13 0.03 D 44.7 0.92 0.03 3 Redwood St/Tuolumne St D* D 46.3 0.87 E 75.2 1.04 D 36.0 0.78 D 53.1 0.88 0.01 F 97.5 1.03 -0.01 D 38.8 0.81 0.03 4 Redwood St/Fairgrounds Dr/I-80 WB Rampsa C E 66.1 -- F 179.2 -- D* 50.2 0.90 E 71.1 -- -- F 190.2 -- -- E* 59.5 0.94 0.04 Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln (west)/ 5 C C 26.7 -- D 46.4 -- D* 38.7 0.79 C 28.6 -- -- E 65.5 -- -- D* 41.6 0.87 0.08 I-80 EB Off-Rampa Redwood Pkwy/Admiral Callaghan Ln (east)/ 6 D* C 23.0 0.56 E 63.8 1.04 C 22.7 0.67 C 23.0 0.54 -0.02 E 56.4 1.03 -0.01 F* 90.8 0.81 0.14 Project Driveway B Redwood Pkwy/Project Driveway Cb Future A 0.1 0.2 -- A 0.1 0.34 -- A 0.3 -- -- 7 D* Not an intersection without project SB Approach Intersection B 11.3 -- -- B 12.1 ------Redwood Pkwy/Foothill Drb A 8.5 0.22 A 6.7 0.27 A 4.9 -- B 10.5 0.21 -0.01 B 10.7 0.26 -0.01 A 8.2 -- -- 8 D* SB Approach F 86.1 -- F 105.8 ------F 106.7 -- -- F 175.8 ------9 Redwood Pkwy/Oakwood Ave D* D 35.4 0.76 C 23.9 0.72 B 15.2 0.58 D 36.7 0.77 0.01 C 25.0 0.75 0.03 B 16.6 0.63 0.05 10 Redwood Pkwy/Ascot Pkwy D* F 108.6 1.06 D 36.5 0.65 C 21.9 0.51 F 112.0 1.07 0.01 D 39.3 0.68 0.03 C 23.0 0.54 0.03 11 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Columbus Pkwy D* B 15.2 0.51 C 33.5 0.85 E* 60.5 1.05 B 15.2 0.51 0.00 C 34.2 0.86 0.01 E* 61.4 1.05 0.00 12 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Turner Pkwy D* A 8.5 0.17 B 16.7 0.50 B 17.6 0.58 A 8.4 0.18 0.01 B 16.7 0.52 0.02 B 17.9 0.59 0.01 Admiral Callaghan Ln/I-80 EB Rampsa,b D 31.7 -- E 50.0 -- C 23.6 -- D 32.5 -- -- F 54.5 -- -- C 24.4 -- -- 13 NBL Movement C A 9.1 -- F 147.6 ------A 9.2 -- -- F 169.8 ------WBL Movement B 12.0 -- C 16.7 ------B 12.0 -- -- C 17.3 ------Admiral Callaghan Ln/Project Driveway Ab Future A 0.00.27 -- A 0.3 ------14 D* Not an intersection without project WB Approach Intersection B 10.9 -- -- C 18.9 -- -- A 0.3 -- -- 15 Ascot Pkwy/Columbus Pkwy D* B 15.2 0.50 D 37.4 0.59 B 12.5 0.43 B 15.2 0.50 0.00 D 37.3 0.59 0.00 B 12.5 0.44 0.01 16 Ascot Pkwy/Turner Pkwy D* B 18.2 0.37 B 16.9 0.47 D 41.3 0.49 B 18.2 0.37 0.00 B 16.9 0.47 0.00 D 41.0 0.50 0.01 Admiral Callaghan Ln/Humboldt St/ 17 D* C 30.1 0.70 C 31.9 0.66 F* >100 0.91 C 30.1 0.70 0.00 C 31.9 0.66 0.00 F* >100 0.92 0.01 Tennessee St Notes: Locations operating at unacceptable levels are shown in bold. Significant impacts are shaded. a Indicates intersection is under Caltrans jurisdiction. All other intersections are under the jurisdiction of the City of Vallejo. b Indicates Two-Way-Stop-Controlled (TWSC) intersection. All other intersections are signalized. c V/C ratio is only provided at City intersections where needed for significance criteria * Impacts are considered to be significant when the change in volume to capacity ratio (V/C) between the with and without project conditions are exceeded for the given LOS: LOS Δ V/C C > 0.04 D > 0.02 E, F > 0.01 Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates and LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 120

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-14: Long-Term Plus Project Conditions Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Long-Term Plus Project Level of Long-Term Plus Projects Conditions After Conditions Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impact TRANS-17: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-17: Implement Mitigation Significant Intersection #1 – Redwood Measure TRANS-1. As shown in Table IV.C-15 this Unavoidable Street/Sonoma Boulevard improvement would result in the Redwood Street/ operates at LOS D during Sonoma Boulevard intersection operating at improved the PM and Saturday peak levels compared to Long-Term Without Project hours under Long-Term conditions during the PM and Saturday peak hours. conditions and will experience an increase in The significant impact at this intersection can be miti- delay of 0.4 and 1.9 seconds gated with the signal timing optimization. However, the during the PM and Saturday intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction; therefore, peak hours, respectively there is no guarantee that the improvement would be under Long-Term Plus approved by Caltrans by the time the proposed project Project conditions. opens. Prior to obtaining building permits for the project, the project applicant shall make a written offer to Caltrans to fully fund the signal re-timing at the Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard intersection to optimize cycle splits, and shall provide a copy of this written offer to the City. Impact TRANS-18: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-18: Implement Mitigation Less Than Intersection #2 – Redwood Measure TRANS-2. As shown in Table IV.C-15, this Significant Street/Broadway Street improvement would result in this intersection operates at LOS F and LOS D experiencing a V/C within the acceptable thresholds during the PM and Saturday during the PM and Saturday peak hours. peak hours respectively under

Long-Term conditions and will experience an increase in V/C of 0.3 seconds and an increase in delay of 2.4 seconds during the PM and Saturday peak hours respectively during Long- Term Plus Project conditions. Impact TRANS-19: Significant Mitigation Measures TRANS-19: The project applicant Less Than Intersection #3 – Redwood shall fund re-timing of the Redwood Street/Tuolumne Significant Street/Tuolumne Street Street signal to optimize the cycle splits. As shown in operates at LOS D during the Table IV.C-15, this intersection improvement would Saturday peak hour under reduce the delay at this intersection to an acceptable level Long-Term conditions and during the Saturday peak hour. will experience an increase in the V/C ratio of 0.03 seconds during the Saturday peak hour during Long-Term Plus Project conditions.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 121

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-14 Continued Significance Long-Term Plus Project Level of Long-Term Plus Projects Conditions After Conditions Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impact TRANS-20: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-20: Implement Mitigation Significant Intersection #4 – Redwood Measure TRANS-3 and retime the traffic signal to Unavoidable Street/ Fairgrounds optimize the cycle splits. As shown in Table IV.C-15, Drive/I-80 WB Ramps this improvement would result in the Redwood Street/ operates at LOS E during the Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB Ramps intersection operat- AM and Saturday peak ing at acceptable levels during the AM and Saturday hours and LOS F during the peak hours. Additionally, although still an unacceptable PM peak hour under the level of service, this intersection improvement would Long-Term conditions and result in intersection delay of better than Long-Term will experience an increase Without Project conditions during the PM peak hour. in delay of 5 seconds, 11 seconds, and 9.3 seconds The project’s proportionate share of the mitigation costs during the AM, PM, and shall be paid to the City of Vallejo and placed in an Saturday peak hours escrow account for the exclusive use to construct the respectively during Long- identified mitigation. If the funds are not expended for Term Plus Project the mitigation improvement, they will be transferred to conditions. the project fund as part of the Redwood Parkway/ Fairgrounds Drive Improvements. The Redwood Parkway/Fairground Drive Improvements project would absorb the impacts from the WinCo project and provide mitigations through the realignment of the I-80 on/off ramps with Redwood Parkway. The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with increased capacity. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction and no funding sources for the remaining improvement costs have been identified; therefore there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time the proposed project opens. Impact TRANS-21: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-21: The significant impact Significant Intersection #5 – Redwood at the Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane Unavoidable Parkway/Admiral (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp s intersection can be mitigated Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 with increased capacity. However, due to the right-of- EB Off-Ramp operates at way constraints on the southeast corner at this LOS D during the PM and intersection, no feasible mitigation measure has been Saturday peak hours under identified. Additional right-of-way would need to be Long-Term conditions and purchased from private property owners on the east side will experience an increase of the northbound approach in order to obtain proper lane in delay of 19.1 and 2.9 alignment through the intersection. Because right-of-way seconds during the PM and is needed and it is within the control of the private Saturday peak hours property owner, the significant impact at this intersection respectively during Long- remains significant and unavoidable. Term Plus Project conditions. It is important to note that improvements for the Redwood Parkway/Fairgrounds Drive Improvements project have been identified by STA to support future traffic demands. Conceptual layouts for the project illustrated the redesign of the I-80/Redwood Street Interchange to a more traditional diamond interchange. This conceptual design also included the realignment of the Fairgrounds Drive further west to be separated from the interchange intersections. Although this project would improve operations at the interchange and STA and City staff believe that the project could be

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 122

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-14 Continued Significance Long-Term Plus Project Level of Long-Term Plus Projects Conditions After Conditions Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impact TRANS-21 Continued constructed before 2030, the project’s geometric layout is still undefined and the project was not assumed to be constructed by 2030 in the Long-Term analysis. When this project is completed, whether before or after 2030, it will improve operations at this intersection. Impact TRANS-22: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-22: Implement Mitigation Less Than Intersection #6 –Redwood Measure TRANS 5. As shown in Table IV.C-15, Significant Parkway/Admiral implementation of this mitigation measure would Callaghan Lane (east)/ mitigate the impact in the Saturday peak hour. Project Driveway B operates at LOS E during the Saturday peak hour under the Long-Term conditions and will experience an increase in delay of 68.1 seconds during Long-Term Plus Project conditions. Impact TRANS-23: The Significant Less Than Mitigation Measure TRANS-23: Implement Mitigation Significant total queue length of the Measure TRANS-7. eastbound left-turn movement at Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/ Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B is 238 feet during the PM peak hour and 244 feet during the Saturday peak hour in the Long-Term Plus Project conditions, 113 and 119 feet longer than the turn pocket length, respectively. The project is responsible for 188 feet of the total queue, which is equivalent to less than 8 vehicles. Impact TRANS-24: The total Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-24: Implement Mitigation Less Than queue length of the north- Measure TRANS-8. Significant bound left-turn movement at Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/ Project Driveway B is 549 feet during the PM peak hour in the Long-Term Plus Project conditions, 469 feet longer than the turn pocket length. The project is responsible for 47 feet of the total queue, which is equivalent to less than 2 vehicles.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 123

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

The project’s proportionate share of the mitigation cost shall be paid to the City of Vallejo’s Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) Program fund to construct the identified mitigation. If this intersection is currently not included in the TIMF Program, the City shall add this intersection to their TIMF Program during the next evaluation period. Impact TRANS-26: The Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-26: Implement Mitigation Less Than total queue length of the Measure TRANS-25. Significant northbound left-turn movement at Intersection #10 – Redwood Parkway/ Ascot Parkway is 444 feet during the PM peak hour in the Long-Term Plus Project conditions, 269 feet longer than the turn pocket length. The project is responsible for 34 feet of the total queue, which is equivalent to less than 2 vehicles. Impact TRANS-27: Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-27: The project applicant Significant Intersection #13 – Admiral shall fund the proportional fair share to construct a half- Unavoidable Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB signal at the Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps Ramps, which is unsignal- intersection. The high southbound through traffic is not ized, operates at LOS D and anticipated to provide sufficient gaps to adequately serve LOS E during the AM and the northbound left-turn traffic onto I-80 EB. The half- PM peak hours respectively signal would control the southbound through and under the Long-Term northbound left-turn movements, while allowing the conditions and will experi- northbound through and eastbound right-turn traffic to ence an increase in delay of remain uncontrolled. Although this configuration is 0.8 seconds and 4.5 seconds somewhat rare, there are examples of similar signaliza- respectively during the tion in the Bay Area including on Caltrans facilities. The Long-Term Plus Project northbound left turn queue would occasionally preclude conditions. vehicles from turning right out of the project driveway

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 124

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-14 Continued Significance Long-Term Plus Project Level of Long-Term Plus Projects Conditions After Conditions Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures Mitigation Impact TRANS-27 Continued and traveling into the northbound left turn lane at the Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps intersection. The project traffic is less than 1 percent of this movement. The queue is expected to be shorter during most periods and the vehicles exiting the project driveway would not have any difficulty getting over to the northbound left turn lane. This intersection satisfies the peak hour signal warrant during the AM peak hour. As shown in Table IV.C-15, this intersection improvement would result in this intersection operating at LOS A and LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours. Based on expected traffic generated by the proposed project and Caltrans’ methodology for calculating equitable share, the project applicant should contribute 5.7 percent of the mitigation costs at this location. The project’s proportionate share of the mitigation costs shall be paid to the City of Vallejo to be used for construction of the identified mitigation. If the funds are not expended for the mitigation improvement they will be transferred to the project fund as part of the Redwood Parkway/Fairgrounds Drive Improvements. The Redwood Parkway/Fairground Drive Improvements project would absorb the impacts from the WinCo project and provide mitigations through the realignment of the I-80 on/off ramps with Redwood Parkway. The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with the installation of a half-signal. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction; therefore there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time it is needed in 2030. Impact TRANS-28: The Significant Mitigation Measure TRANS-28: Implement Mitigation Significant total queue length of the Measure TRANS-25. Unavoidable northbound left-turn movement at Intersection The project’s proportionate share of the mitigation costs for the Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps #13 – Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps is 632 intersection shall be paid to the City of Vallejo and feet during the PM peak placed in an escrow account for the exclusive use to hour in the Long-Term Plus construct the identified mitigation. If the funds are not Project conditions, 532 feet expended for the mitigation improvement they will be longer than the turn pocket transferred to the project fund as part of the Redwood length. The project is Parkway/Fairgrounds Drive Improvements. The responsible for 57 feet of the Redwood Parkway/Fairground Drive Improvements total queue, which is project would absorb the impacts from the WinCo equivalent to less than 3 project and provide mitigations through the realignment vehicles. of the I-80 on/off ramps with Redwood Parkway. The significant impact at this intersection can be mitigated with the turn pocket extension. However, the intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction; therefore there is no guarantee that the improvement would be approved by Caltrans by the time it is needed in 2030. Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates and LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 125

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Table IV.C-15: Long-Term (Cumulative Year 2030) Level of Service With Mitigation Long-Term + Project (Mitigated) AM Peak PM Peak Saturday Peak Intersection Criteria LOS Delay V/Cb Δ V/C LOS Delay V/Cb Δ V/C LOS Delay V/Cb Δ V/C Redwood St/ 1 C ------D 38.6 -- -- C 34.7 0.69 -0.04 Sonoma Blvd Redwood St/ 2 D* D 35.9 0.69 0.00 F 125.5 1.10 0.00 D 45.6 0.86 -0.03 Broadway St Redwood St/ 3 D* ------D 38.7 0.78 0.00 Tuolumne St Redwood St/ 4 Fairgrounds Dr/ C D 49.1 -- -- F 170.7 -- -- D* 46.0 0.88 -0.02 I-80 WB Ramps Redwood Pkwy/ Admiral Callaghan 5 C ------E 45.2 -- -- D* 36.4 0.74 -0.05 Ln (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp Redwood Pkwy/ Admiral Callaghan 6 D* ------D 28.5 0.67 0.00 Ln (east)/Project Driveway B Redwood Pkwy/ 10 D* F 86.0 1.00 -0.06 C 30.4 0.58 -0.07 ------Ascot Pkwy Admiral Callaghan A 2.9 0.53 -- B 12.0 0.88 ------Ln/I-80 EB Rampsa 13 C NBL Movement B 10.2 -- -- C 28.7 ------WBL Movement B 10.2 -- -- B 13.5 ------Notes: a Indicates Two-Way-Stop-Controlled (TWSC) intersection. All other intersections are signalized. b V/C ratio is only provided at City intersections where needed for significance criteria. * Impacts are considered to be significant when the change in volume to capacity ratio (V/C) between the With and Without Project conditions are exceeded for the given LOS: LOS Δ V/C C > 0.04 D > 0.02 E, F > 0.01 Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates and LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.

e. Potential Site Access and Circulation Impacts. Left-turns into the site would only be permitted at the Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan (East)/Project Driveway B intersection. The existing eastbound left-turn pocket at this intersection is 125 feet. Ninety-fifth percentile queues were conservatively used to approximate queuing at the eastbound left-turn lane. The 95th percentile queue is calculated by using 95th percentile traffic to account for fluctuations in traffic and represents a condition where 95 percent of the time during the peak period, traffic volumes and related queuing will be less (or at) this level. Queue analysis using Synchro traffic analysis software suggests that 95th percentile queues are anticipated to extend up to 196 feet at this left-turn pocket during the PM peak hour. As such, it is recommended that this turn pocket be extended to provide a total of at least 250 feet of storage to accommodate the demand for this movement (as recommended when Mitigation Measures TRANS-7 and TRANS-23 are combined for the Near-Term and Long-Term conditions as shown in Tables IV.C-11 and IV.-14, respectively). Alternatively, the project applicant may consider a secondary left-turn access at the Redwood Parkway/Project Driveway C intersection in lieu of extending the left-turn pocket at the signalized driveway to accommodate inbound vehicles traveling eastbound along Redwood Parkway.

Proposed on-site throat depths at the site driveways are as follows:

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 126

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

• Admiral Callaghan Lane/Project Driveway A – 60 feet • Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B – 200 feet • Redwood Parkway/Project Driveway C – 30 feet

Impact TRANS-29: The right in/out only limitation at the Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/ Project Driveway A intersection may not be enforceable, resulting in circulation impacts at this intersection and a safety hazard along Admiral Callaghan Lane (west). (S)

Although the project driveway is intended for right in/out only access, there is nothing to prevent motorists from exiting the site and making a left turn onto Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) or from motorists accessing the site from southbound Admiral Callaghan Lane (west). Due to traffic speeds along this roadway and queuing conditions at the Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) intersection, the ability of motorists to make prohibited left in/out movements represents a safety hazard. However, implementation of the following mitigation measure would eliminate this condition, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation Measure TRANS-29: To reinforce compliance of the right in/out movements at Project Driveway A, a “pork chop” channelizing island shall be incorporated into the project design prior to final site plan approval. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost and construction of the island, which shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (LTS)

In some cases, blocked parking aisles can generate on-site congestion and inhibit efficient parking lot circulation. An analysis of on-site queuing with the proposed project indicates that on-site queues are not anticipated to extend beyond the depth at any of the project driveways.

The project site was observed to provide ample circulation aisles and a layout that is generally consistent with driver expectations. The aisles are oriented toward the proposed project which allows shoppers to push shopping carts from the store to their vehicles without having to pass between parked vehicles. Also, as shown in Figure III-3 (see Chapter III, Project Description), the proposed on-site pedestrian walkways would provide connectivity to Redwood Parkway. The main drive aisle in front of the entrance to the proposed store provides one wide marked crossing areas for patrons. This crossing is located far from the site driveways, thus reducing the likelihood of queues caused by vehicles yielding to pedestrians to back up onto any off-site roadway facility.

The new retail store will be served by approximately five to eight large semitrailer delivery trucks per day and approximately eight to seventeen smaller delivery trucks per day. Deliveries will typically take place between 4:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. All heavy vehicles serving the store will use the loading docks at the rear of the building. Trucks will enter via the main driveway at the Redwood Parkway/ Admiral Callaghan Lane (east) intersection and travel northbound along the west side of the building to access the loading docks. To exit the site, the trucks will travel southbound along the east side of the building and in the easternmost drive aisle before exiting via the right-in/right-out driveway along Redwood Parkway (Project Driveway C). Since delivery trucks must traverse the parking aisles, there is potential for conflicts with vehicles. However, the restricted delivery time window mentioned above is outside the typical peak times for store traffic.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 127

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Sight distances, emergency access, truck access, and on-site circulation planned for the project appear to be generally adequate, and would be subject to refinements as part of the design review process. e. Parking. The proposed project is planned to include a total of 400 parking spaces, including 8 parking spaces designated for accessible parking. The number of planned on-site parking spaces satisfies the City’s minimum requirement for retail uses of one parking space per 350 square feet for a total of 204 spaces required under the City’s Zoning Code4. The proposed project includes 194 spaces in excess of the minimum required by the Zoning Code. This excess in parking would be able to accommodate peak conditions (i.e. during holidays).

Planned parking spaces will be ninety degree parking stalls. Parking stalls shown on the site plan are typically 9.5 feet wide and 18 feet deep, with 26 foot wide two-way drive aisles and 62 foot module widths (i.e., the parking module width is the sum of the parking stall length, the two-way drive aisle width, and the parking stall length on the other side of the drive aisle). The Vallejo Municipal Code requires 90-degree parking stalls to be 9 feet wide, 18 feet deep, with a 25-foot two-way drive aisle. These dimensions result in a 61-foot module width. The parking stalls and two-way drive aisle satisfy the minimum requirements from the Vallejo Municipal Code. ITE’s Traffic Engineering Handbook, 5th Edition recommends a parking module width of at least 61 feet for two-way circulation. ITE further recommends that stalls be 9 feet wide and 17.5 feet deep to accommodate high turnover retail uses. Therefore, parking proposed on the site plan meets or exceeds City of Vallejo and industry recommended standards. f. Railroad Conflicts. Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks run in the north-south direction through western Vallejo. Within the project study area, the UPRR tracks cross Redwood Street immediately east of its intersection with Broadway Street. Train activity at this location was observed by employees of adjacent businesses to be minimal, especially during the weekday peak hours. The stop bar for westbound traffic approaching the Redwood Street/Broadway Street intersection is located in advance of the tracks, prohibiting vehicles from queuing between the tracks and stop bar. The stop bar is supplemented with “STOP HERE ON RED” signs. As such, potential for conflicts with trains at this location is minimal. g. Potential Effects on Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility. The proposed project was evaluated to determine if it would likely conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) or generate pedestrian, bicycle, or transit travel demand that would not be accommodated by transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities and plans.

Patrons to the retail store will have the option of driving, taking transit, walking or bicycling. For those that choose to take transit, they can access the site via Routes 5 and 7 of the Vallejo Transit system.

According to the 2006-2008 U.S. Census data, 4.9 percent of Vallejo residents use transit to travel to work. This typically represents the highest level of transit ridership during the day, with other periods being lower such as when shoppers commonly travel to the store. If it is conservatively assumed that 4.9 percent of the customers associated with the retail store will use transit during the peak hours of the day, it represents approximately 9 additional passengers in the weekday AM peak period and approximately 23 additional passengers in the weekday PM peak period. Data was not readily

4 City of Vallejo Municipal Code – Section 16.62.100

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 128

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

available for peak hour ridership levels on the Vallejo Transit system but during the weekday periods, the routes operate every 30 to 75 minutes. Furthermore, dispersion of the project-generated riders to the bus routes would result in a minimal effect on transit capacity. Thus the project impact on transit service is determined to be less than significant.

Although most pedestrians and cyclists will originate their trips from the neighborhoods in close proximity to the store, 2006-2008 Census data suggests that even fewer customers or workers are anticipated to walk or bicycle to the retail store than will ride transit.

Cyclists will be able to use the Class II bicycle facilities on Redwood Parkway as well as several other streets in the vicinity of the project site which serve the overall street network in Vallejo.

The proposed new pedestrian walkway (as shown in Figure III-3) from the project site to Redwood Parkway will improve connectivity to the surrounding sidewalk facilities. The walkway is located along the main entrance (i.e. Driveway B) to encourage pedestrians to use the traffic signal while crossing the street. This location helps minimize the potential for mid-block crossing of Redwood Parkway. Because of the expected increase in pedestrian traffic, the traffic signal should be upgraded with countdown pedestrian signals and the crosswalk restriped with high visibility pavement mark- ings. A second pedestrian walkway leads from the building to the west where it connects with Admiral Callaghan Way (west).

Once off the WinCo site, pedestrians will be able to use the continuous sidewalk facilities on streets adjacent to the project site. This will allow patrons and employees to conveniently walk from nearby destinations or access transit services. Pedestrian crosswalks are present on approaches at signalized intersections near the project site.

In addition, the project will construct necessary on-site sidewalks, walkways, bicycle parking, and other amenities in compliance with adopted policies, plans and programs; thus, the proposed project’s impact on transit, pedestrian or bicycle facilities is determined to be less than significant.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 129

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES C. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-Transportation.doc (3/3/2011) 130 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

D. AIR QUALITY This section has been prepared using methodologies, assumptions and significance thresholds recommended in the recently adopted air quality impact assessment guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).1 In keeping with these guidelines, this section describes existing air quality, impacts of the project on local carbon monoxide (CO) levels, impacts of vehicular emissions that have regional effects and exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs). Mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant air quality impacts associated with the proposed project are identified, where appropriate. Air quality modeling results are included in Appendix E.

1. Setting The following discussion provides an overview of existing air quality conditions in the region and the Vallejo area. Ambient air quality standards and the regulatory framework relating to air quality are summarized. Climate, air quality conditions, and typical air pollutant types and sources are also described. a. Air Quality Standards, Regulatory Framework and Attainment Status. Air quality standards, the regulatory framework, and State and federal attainment status are discussed below.

(1) Air Quality Standards. Both the State and federal governments have established health- based Ambient Air Quality Standards for six air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter (PM). Because these are the most prevalent air pollutants and have extensive documented health effects, they are commonly referred to as “criteria air pollutants.” In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.

California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria air pollutants are listed in Table IV.D-1. Health effects and sources of these pollutants are described in Table IV.D-2.

(2) Regulatory Framework. The BAAQMD is primarily responsible for regulating air pollution emissions from stationary sources (e.g., factories) and indirect sources (e.g., traffic associated with new development), as well as for monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations. The BAAQMD’s jurisdiction encompasses seven counties—Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Fran- cisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Napa—and portions of Solano and Sonoma counties. The Califor- nia Air Resources Board (ARB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate direct emissions from motor vehicles.

1 BAAQMD, 2010. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. June.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 131 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

Table IV.D-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Averaging California Standards a Federal Standards b Pollutant Time Concentration c Method d Primary c,e,i Secondary c,f Method g 0.09 ppm No federal 1-Hour Same as (180 μg/m3) Ultraviolet standard Ultraviolet Ozone (O ) Primary 3 0.07 ppm Photometry 0.075 ppm Photometry 8-Hour Standard (137 μg/m3) (147 μg/m3) Respirable 24-Hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Inertial Same as Particulate Annual Gravimetric or Beta Separation and Primary Matter Arithmetic 20 μg/m3 Attenuation – Gravimetric Standard (PM10) Mean Analysis Fine 24-Hour No Separate State Standard 35 μg/m3 Inertial Same as Particulate Annual Separation and Gravimetric or Beta Primary Matter Arithmetic 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 Gravimetric Attenuation Standard (PM2.5) Mean Analysis 9.0 ppm 9 ppm 8-Hour (10 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive (10 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive Carbon 20 ppm Infrared 35 ppm Infrared Monoxide 1-Hour None (23 mg/m3) Photometry (40 mg/m3) Photometry (CO) 8-Hour 6 ppm (NDIR) (NDIR) – (Lake Tahoe) (7 mg/m3) Annual 0.053 ppm Same as 0.03 ppm Nitrogen Arithmetic (100 μg/m3) Primary Gas Phase (57 μg/m3) Gas Phase Dioxide Mean (see footnote h) Standard Chemilumin- Chemiluminescence (NO ) 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm escence 2 1-Hour None (339 μg/m3) (see footnote h) Rolling 3- Month – 0.15 μg/m3 High-Volume Average Same as Sampler and Lead j 30-day Atomic Absorption Primary 1.5 μg/m3 – Atomic average Standard Absorption Calendar – 1.5 μg/m3 Quarter 0.04 ppm – 24-Hour (105 μg/m3) 0.5 ppm Spectrophoto- Sulfur 3-Hour – Ultraviolet – (1300 μg/m3) metry Dioxide Fluorescence (see footnote i) (Pararosaniline (SO ) 2 75 ppb (196 Method) 0.25 ppm 1-Hour μg/m3) – (655 μg/m3) (see footnote i) Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer - visibility of 10 miles or more Visibility- (0.07–30 miles or more for Lake Tahoe) Reducing 8-Hour due to particles when relative humidity No Particles is less than 70 percent. Method: Beta

Attenuation and Transmittance through Federal Filter Tape.

Ion Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3 Standards Chromatography

Hydrogen 0.03 ppm Ultraviolet 1-Hour Sulfide (42 μg/m3) Fluorescence Vinyl 0.01 ppm Gas 24-Hour Chloride j (26 μg/m3) Chromatography Notes on next page.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 132 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter—PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact EPA for further clarification and current federal policies. c Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. d Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. e National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. f National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. g Reference method as described by the EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the EPA. h To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). Note that the EPA standards are in untis of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To direcly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively. i On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. EPA also proposed a new automated Federal Reference Method (FRM) using ultraviolet technology, but will retain the older parasaniline methods until the new FRM have adequately permeated State monitoring networks. The EPA also revoked both the existing 24-hour SO2 standard of 0.14 ppm and the annual primary SO2 standard of 0.30 ppm, effective August 23, 2010. The secondary SO2 standard was not revised at that time; however, the secondary standard is undergoing a separate review by EPA. Note that the new standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the new primary national standard to the Caliofnira standard the untis can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. j The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. Source: California ARB, 2010.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 133 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

Table IV.D-2: Health Effects and Sources of Air Pollutants Pollutants Sources Primary Effects Carbon Monoxide • Incomplete combustion of fuels and • Reduced tolerance for exercise. (CO) other carbon-containing substances, • Impairment of mental function. such as motor exhaust. • Impairment of fetal development. • Natural events, such as decomposition of organic matter. • Death at high levels of exposure. • Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina). Nitrogen Dioxide • Motor vehicle exhaust. • Aggravation of respiratory illness. (NO2) • High temperature stationary combus- • Reduced visibility. tion. • Reduced plant growth. • Atmospheric reactions. • Formation of acid rain. Ozone • Atmospheric reaction of organic gases • Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular (O3) with nitrogen oxides in sunlight. diseases. • Irritation of eyes. • Impairment of cardiopulmonary function. • Plant leaf injury. Lead • Contaminated soil. • Impairment of blood functions and nerve con- (Pb) struction. • Behavioral and hearing problems in children. Suspended Particulate • Stationary combustion of solid fuels. • Reduced lung function. Matter • Construction activities. • Aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollut- (PM2.5 and PM10) • Industrial processes. ants. • Atmospheric chemical reactions. • Aggravation of respiratory and cardiorespiratory diseases. • Increased cough and chest discomfort. • Soiling. • Reduced visibility. Sulfur Dioxide • Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil • Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, (SO2) fuels. emphysema). • Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores. • Reduced lung function. • Industrial processes. • Irritation of eyes. • Reduced visibility. • Plant injury. • Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc.

Source: California ARB, 2008.

Federal Air Quality Regulations. At the federal level, EPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. EPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), which was enacted in 1963. The FCAA was amended in 1970, 1977, and 1990.

The FCAA required EPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS and required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Federal Clean

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 134 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

Air Act Amendments of 1990 (FCAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. EPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformity with the mandates of the FCAAA and determine if implementation will achieve air quality goals. If the EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) may be prepared for the nonattainment area, which would impose additional control measures. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within the mandated timeframe may result in sanctions being applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin.

State Air Quality Regulations. In 1992 and 1993, the ARB requested delegation of authority for the implementation and enforcement of specified New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the South Coast and Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts. EPA’s review of the State of California’s laws, rules and regulations showed them to be adequate for the implementation and enforcement of federal standards, and the EPA granted the delegations as requested.

The ARB is the agency responsible for the coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was adopted in 1988. The CCAA requires that all air districts in the State endeavor to achieve and maintain the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) by the earliest practical date. The act specifies that districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and air-wide emission sources, and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.

ARB is primarily responsible for developing and implementing air pollution control plans to achieve and maintain the NAAQS. The ARB is primarily responsible for statewide pollution sources and produces a major part of the SIP. Local air districts provide additional strategies for sources under their jurisdiction. The ARB combines this data and submits the completed SIP to EPA.

Other ARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control and air quality management districts), establishing CAAQS (which in many cases are more stringent than the NAAQS), determining and updating area designations and maps, and setting emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, and off-road vehicles.

Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. The ARB has also developed an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook2 which is intended to serve as a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision-making process. The ARB handbook recommends that planning agencies strongly consider proximity to these sources when finding new locations for “sensitive” land uses such as homes, medical facilities, day care centers, schools and playgrounds.

2 California Air Resources Board, 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 135 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

Air pollution sources of concern include freeways, rail yards, ports, refineries, distribution centers, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners and large gasoline service stations. Key recommendations in the Handbook include taking steps to avoid siting new, sensitive land uses (including residences, day care centers, playgrounds or medical facilities): • Within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day; • Within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard; • Immediately downwind of ports (in the most heavily impacted zones) and petroleum refineries; • Within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation (for operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet); or • Within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater).

The Handbook specifically states that these recommendations are advisory and acknowledges land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The BAAQMD seeks to attain and maintain air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues. The clean air strategy of the BAAQMD includes the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, and issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution. The BAAQMD also inspects stationary sources of air pollution and responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by the FCAA, FCAAA, and the CCAA.

Air quality plans addressing the CCAA are developed every three years. The plans are meant to demonstrate progress toward meeting the 1-hour ozone CAAQS.

The BAAQMD adopted revised CEQA Guidelines on June 2, 2010 that include thresholds of significance for air quality emissions. The BAAQMD is responsible for developing a Clean Air Plan which guides the region’s air quality planning efforts. The BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan is the latest Clean Air Plan which contains district-wide control measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions (i.e., ROG and NOx) and particulate matter.

The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan will: • Update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone; • Provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter (PM), air toxics, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan; • Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and • Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010-2012 timeframe.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 136 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

(3) Attainment Status Designations. The ARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment or unclassified for any State standard. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate pollutant standards. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. An “unclassified” designation signifies that data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.

The EPA designates areas for ozone, CO, and NO2 as either “does not meet the primary standards,” or “cannot be classified” or “is better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified” or “is better than national standards.” In 1991, new nonattainment designations were assigned to areas for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.”

Table IV.D-3 provides a summary of the attainment status for the San Francisco Bay Area with respect to national and State ambient air quality standards.

Table IV.D-3: Bay Area Attainment Status California Standards a National Standards b Averaging Attainment Attainment Pollutant Time Concentration Status Concentration c,j Status 0.070 ppm 8 Hour Nonattainment h 0.075 ppm Nonattainment d Ozone (137µg/m3) (O3) 0.09 ppm 1 Hour Nonattainment Not Applicable Not Applicable e (180 µg/m3) 9.0 ppm 9 ppm 8 Hour Attainment Attainment f Carbon Monoxide (10 mg/m3) (10 mg/m3) (CO) 20 ppm 35 ppm 1 Hour Attainment Attainment (23 mg/m3) (40 mg/m3) 0.18 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide 1 Hour Attainment 0.100 ppm Unclassified (339 µg/m3) (NO ) 2 Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Arithmetic Not Applicable Attainment (57 µg/m3) (100 µg/m3) Mean 0.04 ppm 24 Hour Attainment Not applicable Attainment (105 µg/m3) 0.25 ppm Sulfur Dioxide 1 Hour Attainment Not applicable Not applicable (655 µg/m3) (SO ) 2 Annual 75 ppb Arithmetic Not Applicable Not Applicable Attainment (196 µg/m3) Mean Annual Particulate Matter Arithmetic 20 µg/m3 Nonattainment g Not Applicable Not Applicable (PM10) Mean 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 Nonattainment 150 µg/m3 Unclassified Annual Particulate Matter Arithmetic 12 µg/m3 Nonattainment g 15 µg/m3 Attainment - Fine (PM2.5) Mean 24 Hour Not Applicable Not Applicable 35 µg/m3 i Nonattainment Notes on next page.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 137 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. In particular, measurements are excluded that ARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe CO standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the state standard. b National standards shown are the “primary standards” designed to protect public health. National standards other than for ozone, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour ozone standard is attained if, during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3- year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.075 ppm (75 ppb) or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained 3 when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m . The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard. c National air quality standards are set by US EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. d In June 2004, the Bay Area was designated as a marginal nonattainment area of the national 8-hour ozone standard. US EPA lowered the national 8-hour ozone standard from 0.80 to 0.75 PPM (i.e., 75 ppb) effective May 27, 2008. e The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked by U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005. f In April 1998, the Bay Area was redesignated to attainment for the national 8-hour carbon monoxide standard. g In June 2002, ARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10. h The 8-hour CA ozone standard was approved by the Air Resources Board on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006. i 3 3 U.S EPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 µg/m to 35 µg/m in 2006. The EPA designated the Bay Area as 3 nonattainment for the 35 µg/m PM2.5 standard on October 8, 2009. The effective date of the designation is December 14, 2009, and the BAAQMD has three years to develop a plan called a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates how the Bay Area will achieve the revised standard by 2014. The SIP for the new standard must be submitted to the EPA by December 14, 2012. j To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100ppm (effective January 22, 2010). Lead (Pb) is not listed in the above table because it has been in attainment since the 1980s. ppm = parts per million mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Attainment Status, 2010.

b. Existing Climate and Air Quality. The following provides a discussion of the regional air quality, local climate and air quality in the Vallejo area.

(1) Regional Air Quality. The City of Vallejo is located in the northern part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, a large shallow air basin ringed by hills that taper into a number of sheltered valleys around the perimeter. Two primary atmospheric outlets exist. One is through the strait known as the Golden Gate, a direct outlet to the Pacific Ocean. The second extends to the northeast, along the west delta region of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.

The City of Vallejo is within the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD, which regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area have improved signifi-

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 138 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

cantly since the BAAQMD was created in 1955. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days during which the region exceeds air quality standards have fallen dramatically. Neither State nor national ambient air quality standards of these chemicals have been violated in recent decades: nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfates, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Those exceedances of air quality standards that do occur primarily happen during meteorological conditions conducive to high pollution levels, such as cold, windless winter nights or hot, sunny summer afternoons.

Ozone levels, measured by peak concentrations and the number of days over the State 1-hour standard, have declined substantially as a result of aggressive programs by the BAAQMD and other regional, State and federal agencies. The reduction of peak concentrations represents progress in improving public health; however, the Bay Area still exceeds the State 1-hour ozone standards.

Levels of PM10 in the Bay Area have exceeded State standards at least three times per year the last three years. As such, the Bay Area is considered a nonattainment area for PM10 relative to the State standards, but is considered an unclassified area according to the federal standard. The Bay Area has been designated as an attainment area for federal standards, but is a nonattainment area for PM2.5 under State standards.

No exceedances of the State or federal CO standards have been recorded at any of the region’s monitoring stations since 1991. The Bay Area is currently considered a maintenance area for State and federal CO standards.

(2) Local Climate and Air Quality. Air quality is a function of both local climate and local sources of air pollution. Air quality is the balance of the natural dispersal capacity of the atmosphere and emissions of air pollutants from human uses of the environment. Two meteorological factors affect air quality in Vallejo: wind and temperature. Winds affect the direction of transport of any air pollution emissions and wind also controls the volume of air into which pollution is mixed in a given period of time. While winds govern horizontal mixing processes, temperature inversions determine the vertical mixing depth of air pollutants.

The City of Vallejo is located on the north side of the Carquinez Strait, a sea level gap in the coastal mountains that divides the Pacific Ocean from the San Joaquin Valley. Prevailing winds are from the west in the Carquinez Strait. During the summer and fall months, high pressure offshore coupled with low pressure in the Central Valley causes marine air to flow eastward through the Carquinez Strait. The strongest up valley winds occur during the afternoon. Sometimes atmospheric conditions cause air to flow from the east. East winds usually contain more pollutants than the cleaner marine air from the west which can cause elevated pollutant levels during the summer and fall months. Summer mean maximum temperatures in the Carquinez Strait region reach about 90 degrees. Mean minimum temperatures in the winter are in the high-30’s.

Many industrial facilities – e.g., chemical plants and refineries – with significant air pollutant emissions are located within the Carquinez Strait Region. The pollution potential of this area is often moderated by high wind speeds. However, upsets at industrial facilities can lead to short-term pollution episodes, and emissions of unpleasant odors may occur at any time. Receptors downwind of these industrial facilities could suffer more long-term exposure to air contaminants than individuals elsewhere. Areas of the subregion that are traversed by major roadways may also be subject to higher

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 139 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

local concentrations of carbon monoxide and particulate matter, as well as certain toxic air contaminants such as benzene.

The amount of a given air pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and/or dilute that pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine.

(3) Monitoring Data. The BAAQMD operates the regional air quality monitoring network that regularly measures the concentrations of the five major criteria air pollutants. Pollutant monitoring results for the years 2007 to 2009 at the Vallejo – Tuolumne Street ambient air quality monitoring station (the closest station to the project site) indicate that air quality in the project area has generally been good. Table IV.D-4 summarizes the last three years of published data from this monitoring station. As indicated, the State standard for the 1-hour ozone concentration was exceeded one day in 2008 and two days in 2009. The Federal standard for the 8-hour ozone concentration was exceeded three days in 2008 and one day in 2009. On four days in 2007, the 24-hour concentration for PM2.5 exceeded the federal standard. The federal standard for the PM2.5 24-hour concentration was exceeded on seven days in 2008, and on five days in 2009.

Table IV.D-4: Ambient Air Quality at the Vallejo – Tuolumne Street Monitoring Station Pollutant Standard 2007 2008 2009 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum 1 hour concentration (ppm) 3.30 2.7 ND State: > 20 ppm 0 0 - Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 35 ppm 0 0 - Maximum 8 hour concentration (ppm) 2.70 2.31 2.23 State: > 9 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 9 ppm 0 0 0 Ozone (O3) Maximum 1 hour concentration (ppm) 0.078 0.109 0.104 Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.09 ppm 0 1 2 Maximum 8 hour concentration (ppm) 0.066 0.075 0.073 State: > 0.07 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 0.08 ppm 0 3 1 Coarse Particulates (PM10) Maximum 24 hour concentration (µg/m3) 49.1 42.1 ND State: > 50 µg/m3 0 0 - Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 150 µg/m3 0 0 - Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 18.2 16.0 ND State: > 20 µg/m3 No No - Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 50 µg/m3 No No - Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Maximum 24 hour concentration (µg/m3) 40.8 50.0 38.9 Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 35 µg/m3 4 7 5 Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 9.78 9.9 9.7 State: > 12 µg/m3 No No No Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 15 µg/m3 No No No

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 140 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

Table IV.D-4 Continued Pollutant Standard 2007 2008 2009 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maximum 1 hour concentration (ppm) 0.058 0.067 0.049 Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.011 0.010 0.010 Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.053 ppm No No No Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Maximum 1 hour concentration (ppm) 0.020 0.008 ND Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.25 ppm 0 0 - Maximum 3 hour concentration (ppm) 0.010 0.006 ND Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 0.5 ppm 0 0 - Maximum 24 hour concentration (ppm) 0.004 0.003 0.003 State: > 0.04 ppm 0 0 - Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 0.14 ppm 0 0 - Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.001 0.001 ND Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.030 ppm 0 0 - ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ND = No data. There was insufficient (or no) data to determine the value. Source: California ARB and U.S. EPA, 2010

c. Air Quality Issues. Six key air quality issues—CO hotspots, vehicle emissions, fugitive dust, odors, construction equipment exhaust and toxic air contaminants—are described below.

(1) Local Carbon Monoxide Hotspots. Local air quality is most affected by CO emissions from motor vehicles. CO is typically the pollutant of greatest concern because it is created in abun- dance by motor vehicles and does not readily disperse into the air. Because CO does not readily disperse, areas of vehicle congestion can create “pockets” of high CO concentration called “hot spots.” These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 ppm and/or the 8- hour standard of 9.0 ppm.

While CO transport is limited, it does disperse with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested roadways or intersections may reach unhealthful levels affecting local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. In areas with high ambient background CO concentrations, modeling is recommended to determine a project’s effect on local CO levels.

(2) Vehicle Emissions. Long-term air emission impacts are associated with changes in land use and the subsequent automobile travel within the City. Mobile source emissions are generated from vehicles. Any increase in vehicle miles traveled leads to higher mobile source emissions. As is true throughout much of the United States, motor vehicle use is projected to increase substantially in the region. The ARB continues to push for stricter tailpipe emission standards, while the BAAQMD, local jurisdictions, and other parties responsible for protecting public health and welfare continue to seek ways of minimizing the air quality impacts of growth and development in order to avoid further exceedances of the standards.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 141 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

(3) Fugitive Dust and Odors. The impacts of odors and dust are considered a nuisance. Objectionable odors may be associated with a variety of pollutants. Common sources of odors include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities, refineries and chemical plants. Similarly, nuisance dust may be generated by a variety of sources including quarries, agriculture, grading and construction. Odors rarely have direct health impacts, but they can be very unpleasant and can lead to anger and concern over possible health effects among the public. Each year the BAAQMD receives thousands of citizen complaints about objectionable odors. Dust emissions can contribute to increase ambient concentrations of PM10, and can also contribute to reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces.

(4) Construction Equipment Exhaust. Construction activities cause combustion emissions from utility engines, heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from construction sites and motor vehicles transporting construction crews. Construction-related activities are typically short-term or temporary in duration; however, project generated emissions for projects with extended construction durations could represent a significant impact with respect to air quality and/or global climate change. Construction-related activities would result in the generation of criteria air pollutants including CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 precursors such as reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx, and greenhouse gases (GHGs) from exhaust, fugitive, and off-gas emissions. Sources of exhaust emissions could include on-road haul trucks, delivery trucks, worker commute motor vehicles, and off-road heavy-duty equipment. Sources of fugitive emissions (e.g., PM dust) could include construction related activities such as soil disturbance, grading, and material hauling. Sources of off-gas emissions could include asphalt paving and the application of architectural coatings. Exhaust emissions from construction activities vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment results in localized exhaust emissions. (See Section IV.E Global Climate Change, for additional discussion of project GHG emissions.)

(5) Toxic Air Contaminants. TACs are pollutants that result in an increase in mortality, serious illness, or pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Health effects of TACs may include cancer, birth defects, and immune system and neurological damage. TACs can be separated into carcinogens and noncarcinogens based on the nature of the physiological degradation associated with exposure to the pollutant. It is important to note that TACs are not considered criteria air pollutants and thus are not specifically addressed through the setting of ambient air quality standards. Instead, the EPA and the ARB regulate TACs through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum or best available control technology to limit emissions. These in conjunction with additional rules set forth by the BAAQMD establish the regulatory framework for TACs. d. Vallejo General Plan Policies. The following policies from the City of Vallejo’s General Plan specifically address air quality and are applicable to the proposed project. • Air Quality Goal 1: To improve Vallejo’s air quality. o Policy 5: Encourage local businesses to hire local residents in order to minimize commute trips and vehicle miles traveled in the region. • Air Quality Goal 2: To reduce the air quality impacts associated with future development in Vallejo. o Policy 3: Promote mixed land use development. The provision of commercial services near to employment centers can reduce auto trip generation by promoting pedestrian travel.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 142 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

• Air Quality Goal 3: To make a contribution towards improving regional air quality. o Policy 1: Cooperate with regional air quality planning agencies such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and Association of Bay Area Governments in the development and implementation of regional air quality strategies.

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section analyzes air quality impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds for determining whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents air quality impacts associated with the proposed project, and recommends mitigation measures as appropriate. a. Criteria of Significance. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant impact on air quality if it would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; • Violate the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation by:

o Generating average daily criteria air pollutant emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 exhaust emissions in excess of 54 pounds per day or PM10 exhaust emissions of 82 pounds per day during project construction; or

o For project operations, generating average daily criteria air pollutant emissions of ROG, NOx, or PM2.5 in excess of 54 pounds per day, or maximum annual emissions of 10 tons per year. For emissions of PM10, generating average daily emissions of 82 pounds per day or 15 tons per year; or

o Contributing to CO concentrations exceeding the State ambient air quality standards of 9 ppm averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm for 1 hour for project operations. • Expose sensitive receptors (including residential areas) or the general public to toxic air contaminants in excess of the following thresholds:

o An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or non-cancer (i.e., chronic or acute) risk greater than 1.0 hazard index from a single source; or 3 o An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 μg/m annual average PM2.5 from a single source. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).

It should be noted that the emission thresholds were established based on the attainment status of the air basin in regard to air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants. Because the concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety according to the EPA, these emission thresholds are regarded as conservative and would tend to overstate an individual project’s contribution to health risks.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 143 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

b. Less-Than-Significant Air Quality Impacts. The project would result in the following less- than-significant air quality impacts.

(1) Odor Emissions. Heavy-duty construction equipment on the project site would emit odors. However, construction activity would be short-term and would cease to occur after construction is completed. Once constructed the proposed project is not expected to generate odors. There are no other known odor sources in the project’s vicinity that would impact sensitive receptors. Project- related odor impacts would be considered a less-than-significant impact.

(2) Toxic Air Contaminants. Potential toxic emissions from a project like this are those associated with diesel exhaust from project-related truck deliveries to the project site. In order to predict the impacts on human health by diesel-powered trucks that deliver goods to WinCo stores, a health risk assessment (HRA) has been performed. The following discussion provides the technical background information used to determine the health risk to existing residents adjacent to the project site. Additional HRA data is included in Appendix E.

The BAAQMD has established a maximum individual cancer risk significance threshold of 10 in 1 million (1.0 x 10-5) and a noncarcinogenic hazard index of 1.0. According to California Air Resources Board (ARB),3 when conducting an HRA, the surrogate for whole diesel exhaust is diesel particulate matter (DPM), and is used as the basis for the potential risk calculations. Additionally, it is assumed that the emissions of DPM can be represented by the emissions of PM10 from diesel trucks. When conducting an HRA, the potential cancer risk from inhalation exposure to DPM will outweigh the potential noncancer health impacts. Therefore, inhalation cancer risk is required for every HRA. When comparing whole diesel exhaust to speciated diesel exhaust (e.g., polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, metals), potential cancer risk from inhalation exposure to whole diesel exhaust will outweigh the multipathway cancer risk from the speciated components. For this reason, there will be few situations where an analysis of multipathway risk is necessary.4

To estimate the potential cancer risk associated with project-related diesel engine exhaust, an air dispersion model is used to translate an emission rate from a source location to a concentration at a receptor location of interest. Air dispersion modeling varies from the simpler, more conservative screening-level analysis to the more complex and refined detailed analysis. This assessment was conducted using the EPA dispersion model SCREEN3. This model provides conservative estimates of concentrations considering site and source geometry, source strength, distance to receptor, and building wake effects on plume distribution. The SCREEN3 model was developed to provide an easy- to-use method of obtaining pollutant concentration estimates where upper-bound estimates are required or where meteorological data is unavailable. It is a useful tool in proving that an impact is not significant (i.e., if a screening-level analysis demonstrates an impact not significant, its conservative nature provides confidence in this conclusion). When a screening-level analysis indicates a significant impact, this conclusion normally points to the need for a more sophisticated (and less conservative) method of analysis using a model such as AERMOD.

3 California Air Resources Board, 2005. http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/harp/docs/userguide/appendixK.pdf. 4 OEHHA, 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Appendix D, Risk Assessment Procedures to Evaluate Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Vehicles, Section B. August.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 144 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

Emission Estimates. This HRA was conducted as recommended in the OEHHA Guidelines 5 and by the ARB. It consists of several steps including: determine the PM10 emission factor, emission rate, and concentration at locations of interest; translate the PM10 concentrations into health risk values and compare the health risk values to thresholds and determine significance.

Emission factors for truck emissions were estimated using the ARB’s EMFAC2007 model. This model includes assumptions of technological and regulatory changes that will reduce emission rates over time. The HRA only allows for a single emission rate for the entire health risk evaluation period. Therefore, a worst-case set of emission factors from the year 2020 was used to represent the long- term 70-year and 30-year evaluation periods. To assess the health risks for the children attending the Kinder Care Learning Center a 9-year period was evaluated and emissions factors for the year 2011 used.

The PM10 emission rate was determined by using applicant usage data, shown in Table IV.D-5, combined with the EMFAC2007 emissions factors. Following procedures standardized by WinCo Foods, truck deliveries would take place between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. It is expected that the store would have approximately 150 to 160 truck deliveries per week consisting of all truck types. Specifically, it is expected that these would consist of approximately 45 semi-tractor and trailers and about 105 other small delivery trucks. For this HRA it is assumed that 75 of those small delivery trucks are 3-axle trucks and 30 are 2-axle trucks. This is conservative as the 3-axle trucks have higher emissions rates that the 2-axle trucks.

It is assumed that each truck idles for 15 minutes per trip to account for various stops, warming up the engine, and miscellaneous tasks. Table IV.D-5 shows the derivation of the overall DPM emission rate. This HRA assumes that this emission rate is constant for the evaluation periods of 9, 30 and 70 years.

Table IV.D-5: Delivery Truck Activity and Diesel Particulate Emissions

Hours per Days per Weeks per 2011 PM10 Annualized 2020 PM10 Annualized Trips Minutes Day Week that Year that Emission 2011 PM10 Emission 2020 PM10 per Idling per Deliveries Deliveries Deliveries Factor1 Emission Factor2 Emission Truck Type Week Delivery Occur Occur Occur (g/hr) Rate (g/s) (g/hr) Rate (g/s) 2-Axle Diesel Trucks 30 15 24 7 52 0.787 9.08E-06 0.78 9.00E-06 (LHD1) 3-Axle Diesel Trucks 75 15 24 7 52 0.99 3.14E-05 0.856 2.72E-05 (LHD2) 4+-axle Diesel Trucks 45 15 24 7 52 1.666 3.37E-05 0.577 1.17E-05 (HHD) Total 7.42E-05 4.78E-05 1 Idling diesel exhaust emission factors from EMFAC2007 for fleet year 2011. This was used because a single emission rate is needed to represent changing emissions rates over the 9-year Child period of the HRA. 2 Idling diesel exhaust emission factors from EMFAC2007 for fleet year 2020. This was used because a single emission rate is needed to represent changing emissions rates over the 70-year and 30-year Adult periods of the HRA. g/hr = grams per hour g/s = grams per second PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size Source: LSA Associates, Inc., September 2010.

5 California Air Resources Board, 2005. HARP Model Documentation, Appendix K, Risk Assessment Procedures to Evaluate Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines. February.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 145 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

For the purposes of this analysis, all diesel truck exhaust was modeled as if it came from a single spot on-site at the loading docks. This technique was used because it generates health-risk values that are more conservative than the reality of spreading the equipment emissions over the area.

Table IV.D-6 shows the SCREEN3 PM10 concentrations at a range of locations using the PM10 emission rates from Table IV.D-5. The nearest sensitive receptors are at the Kinder Care Learning Center and residences both approximately 80 feet (25 m) to the north and east of the loading area. The SCREEN3 model input and output is included in the appendix. The PM10 concentrations are then translated to the health risk values using OEHHA methodology.

Table IV.D-6: SCREEN3 Modeling Results

PM10 Concentrations using 2011 PM10 Concentrations using 2020 Emissions Factors Emissions Factors Distance (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (m) 1-Hour Annual 1-Hour Annual 25 0.121 0.012 0.078 0.008 30 0.118 0.012 0.076 0.008 35 0.117 0.012 0.075 0.008 40 0.113 0.011 0.073 0.007 45 0.108 0.011 0.069 0.007 m = meters PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: LSA Associates, Inc., September 2010.

Acute Emission Impacts. No activity related to the planned operations will emit any TACs that have short-term acute health effects. The only TAC expected to be emitted in any significant quantity is diesel exhaust particulate. Exposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks. However, according to the rulemaking on Identifying Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines as a Toxic Air Contaminant (ARB 1998), the available data from studies of humans exposed to diesel exhaust are not sufficient for deriving an acute noncancer health risk guidance value. While the lungs are a major target organ for diesel exhaust, studies of the gross respiratory effects of diesel exhaust in exposed workers have not provided sufficient exposure information to establish a short-term noncancer health risk guidance value for respiratory effects. Therefore, the potential for short-term acute exposure from project-related toxic emissions will be less than significant.

Carcinogenic and Chronic Impacts. The results for carcinogenic and chronic impacts are shown in Table IV.D-7. Results of the analysis indicate that the maximum exposed individual (MEI) inhalation cancer risk associated with attending the Kinder Care Learning Center for 9 years would be 0.74 in a million. The cancer risk associated with living at the closest residence would be 2.48 in 1 million for someone staying for 70 years and 1.06 in 1 million at that residence for someone staying a

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 146 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

more realistic 30 years. All of these are less than the threshold of 10 in 1 million. The maximum chronic hazard index for both would be 0.0024, which is below the threshold of 1.0.

Table IV.D-7: Inhalation Health Risks from Diesel Delivery Truck Exhaust Adult 70-Year Adult 30-Year Child 9-Year Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Inhalation Inhalation Inhalation Chronic Distance Health Risk Health Risk Health Risk Inhalation (m) (# in a million) (# in a million) (# in a million) Health Index 25 2.48 1.06 0.74 0.0024 30 2.44 1.05 0.73 0.0024 35 2.4 1.03 0.71 0.0023 40 2.32 1 0.69 0.0023 45 2.22 0.95 0.66 0.0022 Threshold 10 in a million 10 in a million 10 in a million 1.0 Source: LSA Associates, Inc. September 2010.

(3) Operational Emissions – Localized CO Impacts. The BAAQMD has established a screening methodology that provides a conservative indication of whether the implementation of a proposed project would result in significant CO emissions. According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met: • The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. • The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

The proposed project would not conflict with programs or plans of the Solano Transportation Authority for designated roads or highways. Additionally, traffic volumes on roadways in the project vicinity are less than 5,000 vehicles per hour and the project is expected to generate a maximum of 396 new peak hour trips. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. The project site is not located in an area where mixing of air is limited. Therefore, the project would not result in localized CO concentrations that would exceed State or federal standards.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 147 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

(4) Operational Emissions – Table IV.D-8: Project Operation Regional Emissions Regional Emissions. Long-term air emission in Pounds Per Day impacts would be those associated with Reactive Organic Nitrogen development of the WinCo store and associ- Gases Oxides PM10 PM2.5 ated operational and area source emissions. Regional Emissions 34.7 47.1 42.94 8.54 Mobile source emissions result from vehicle BAAQMD Significance 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 trips associated with the proposed project, Threshold while area sources associated with mainte- Exceed? No No No No nance actives would also occur. The Urban Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2010. Emission Model (URBEMIS 2007 v. 9.2.4) computer program, which is the most current air quality model available in California for estimating emissions associated with land use development projects, was used to calculate long-term emissions associated with the proposed project. URBEMIS output sheets are included in Appendix E. Project-related long-term stationary emissions from natural gas and electricity use, are also included in the calculation.

The daily emissions associated with operation of the project are identified in Table IV.D-8 for reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) (two precursors of ozone) and particle matter exhaust (PM10 and PM2.5). The BAAQMD has thresholds of significance for ozone precursors and PM2.5 emissions of 54 pounds per day and a threshold for emissions of PM10 of 82 pounds per day. Project emissions shown in Table IV.D-8 do not exceed these thresholds of significance for ROG, NOx, PM10 or PM2.5, and therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on regional air quality. Results of the analysis indicate the proposed project would therefore not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

(5) Clean Air Plan (CAP) Consistency. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan discussed above is the relevant regional clean air plan. The BAAQMD uses the CAP to evaluate a project’s potential cumulative air quality impacts. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that “for any project that does not individually have significant operational air quality impacts, the determination of significant cumulative impacts should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and the general plan with the regional air quality plan.”

As noted in Section IV.A. Land Use, the City of Vallejo has determined that development of a commercial store in the project site is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Map applies a land use designation to all publicly- and privately-owned parcels within the City’s planning area and the map designates the project site as Retail. The Retail designation falls under the broader General Commercial designation which includes several types of commercial and office development, including retail (shopping centers, personal services), heavy (home improvement centers, wholesale stores), recreation, and limited professional (finance, real estate). Additionally, the project would not increase population or substantially increase vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with ABAG projections for the City of Vallejo and would also be consistent with the CAP. As shown in Table IV.D-8 above, the proposed project would not individually exceed the operational thresholds and therefore, the project would not have a significant cumulative impact.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 148 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

c. Significant Air Quality Impacts. The proposed project would result in the following significant impact related to air quality.

Impact AIR-1: Demolition and construction period activities would generate dust and exhaust, and organic emissions from vehicles. (S)

(1) Regional Emissions – Short-term Construction Emissions. During construction, short- term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by excavation, grading, hauling, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOx, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), directly-emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.

Site preparation and project construction would involve demolition of the existing structures on the project site, clearing, cut-and-fill activities, grading, and building activities. Construction-related effects on air quality from this project would be greatest during the site preparation phase because most engine emissions are associated with the excavation, handling, and transport of soils on the site. Approximately 6,397 cubic yards of soil would be removed to allow for new building foundations, the sub-grade loading area, and other infrastructure. Approximately 2,644 cubic yards of fill would be needed, for a total of 3,550 cubic yards of net cut to be exported from the site.

If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate PM10, PM2.5, and small amounts of CO, SO2, NOx, and VOCs. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction sites and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of equipment operating. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction sites.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing the fugitive dust emissions (PM10). With the implementation of the standard construction measures such as frequent watering (e.g., minimum twice per day), fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.

In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, VOCs and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles are delayed. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction sites.

The proposed demolition and construction schedule for all improvements is approximately an 8 month period. Construction emissions were estimated for the project using the URBEMIS model as recommended by the BAAQMD. Construction-related emissions are presented in Table IV.D-9.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 149 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

Table IV.D-9: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day Fugitive Fugitive Exhaust Dust Total Exhaust Dust Total Project Construction ROG CO NOx PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM10 PM10 PM10 Maximum Daily 34.85 23.10 38.28 2.12 3.44 4.72 2.31 16.43 18.74 Emissions BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 NA 54.0 54.0 BMP NA 82.0 BMP NA Exceed Threshold? No NA No No NA NA No NA NA Notes: NA = Not Applicable, the BAAQMD does not have threshold. BMP = Best Management Practices Source: LSA Associates, Inc. 2010.

The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind of construction activity. Construction dust would be generated at levels that would create an annoyance to nearby properties. The BAAQMD requires the implementation of Best Management Practices to reduce construction impacts to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would impose the BAAQMD’s Best Management Practices and reduce diesel PM exhaust emissions as well as construction PM10 impacts. According to the BAAQMD, if control measures of the type set forth below are implemented, then air pollution from emissions from construction activities would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1a: Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following actions shall be required of construction contracts and specifications for the project: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • 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. • 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. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Vallejo regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 150 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. The BAAQMD, recommends that the following measures be implemented at construction sites greater than 4 acres in area. Therefore, these measures shall be incorporated into the project to further reduce air quality impacts during construction. Mitigation Measure AIR-1b: Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following actions shall be required of construction contracts and specifications for the project. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. (LTS) d. Pollutants and Public Health. Despite great progress in air quality improvement, approximately 146 million people nationwide lived in counties with pollution levels above the national standards in 2002. Out of the 230 nonattainment areas identified during the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment designation process, 124 areas remain under nonattainment status or designation today. In these nonattainment areas, however, the severity of air pollution episodes has decreased. Air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin in the past 20 years has improved steadily and dramatically, even with the substantial increase in population and vehicles and other sources.

As shown in Table IV.D-2, long-term exposure to elevated levels of criteria pollutants could result in potential health effects. However, as stated in the thresholds of significance, emission thresholds established by the air district are used to manage total regional emissions within an air basin, based on the air basin attainment status for criteria pollutants. These emission thresholds were established for individual projects that would contribute to regional emissions and pollutant concentrations that may affect or delay the projected attainment target year for certain criteria pollutants.

Because of the conservative nature of the thresholds and the basin-wide context of individual project emissions, there is no direct correlation of a single project to localized health effects. One individual project does not necessarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity.

Based on the above discussion, the potential for an individual project to significantly deteriorate regional air quality or contribute to significant health risk is small, especially when the emission thresholds are not exceeded by the project. Because of the overall improvement trend in air quality in the air basin, it is unlikely the regional air quality or health risk would worsen from the current condition due to emissions from an individual project.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 151 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES D. AIR QUALITY

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-AirQuality.doc (3/3/2011) 152

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE This section includes a discussion of global climate change, its causes and the contribution of human activities, as well as a summary of existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The section describes the criteria for determining the significance of climate change impacts, and estimates the likely GHG emissions that would result from construction activities, vehicular traffic, energy consumption and other emission sources. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project- related impacts to a less-than-significant level.

1. Setting The following discussion provides an overview of the geographical and climate setting of the City of Vallejo, as well as global climate change, its causes, potential effects and emission sources and inventories. a. Description of Global Climate Change. Global climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other significant changes in climate (such as precipitation or wind) that last for an extended period of time. The term “global climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but “global climate change” is preferred to “global warming” because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures.

Climate change refers to any change in measures of weather (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity; natural processes within the climate system, such as changes in ocean circulation; or human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, or agriculture. The primary observed effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric1 temperature of 0.36°F per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between 1990 and 2005. Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which would induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of California could include higher sea levels, drier or wetter weather, changes in ocean salinity, changes in wind patterns or more energetic aspects of extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold and increased intensity of tropical cyclones. Specific effects in California might include a decline in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, erosion of California’s coastline, and seawater intrusion in the Delta.

Global surface temperatures have risen by 1.33°F ± 0.32°F over the last 100 years (1906 to 2005). The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years.2 The latest projections, based on state-of-the art climate models, indicate that temperatures in California are expected to rise 3 to 10.5°F by the end of the century.3 The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

1 The troposphere is the zone of the atmosphere characterized by water vapor, weather, winds, and decreasing temperature with increasing altitude. 2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. 3 California Climate Change Center, 2006. Our Changing Climate. Assessing the Risks to California. July.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 153

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs are the primary causes of the human- induced component of warming. The observed warming effect associated with the presence of GHGs in the atmosphere (from either natural or human sources) is often referred to as the greenhouse effect.4

(1) Greenhouse Gases. GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are:5

• Carbon dioxide (CO2)

• Methane (CH4)

• Nitrous oxide (N2O) • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) • Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)

• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)

Over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming. While GHGs produced by human activities include naturally-occurring GHGs such as CO2, methane, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are completely new to the atmosphere. Certain other gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere as compared to these GHGs that remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is generally excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation. For the purposes of this EIR, the term “GHGs” will refer collectively to the six gases identified in the bulleted list provided above.

These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The global warming potential is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2eq). Table IV.E-1 shows the GWPs for each type of GHG. For example, sulfur hexafluoride is 22,800 times more potent at contributing to global warming than carbon dioxide.

4 The temperature on Earth is regulated by a system commonly known as the “greenhouse effect.” Just as the glass in a greenhouse lets heat from sunlight in and reduce the amount of heat that escapes, greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a relatively even temperature. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a frozen globe; thus, although an excess of greenhouse gas results in global warming, the naturally occurring greenhouse effect is necessary to keep our planet at a comfortable temperature. 5 The greenhouse gases listed are consistent with the definition in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Government Code 38505), as discussed later in this section.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 154

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Table IV.E-1: Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases Global Warming Potential Atmospheric (100-year Gas Lifetime (Years) Time Horizon) Carbon Dioxide 50-200 1 Methane 12 25 Nitrous Oxide 114 298 HFC-23 270 14,800 HFC-134a 14 1,430 HFC-152a 1.4 124 PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390 PFC: Hexafluoromethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800 Source: IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

The following discussion summarizes the characteristics of the six primary GHGs.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2). In the atmosphere, carbon generally exists in its oxidized form, as CO2. Natural sources of CO2 include the respiration (breathing) of humans, animals and plants, volcanic outgassing, decomposition of organic matter and evaporation from the oceans. Human- caused sources of CO2 include the combustion of fossil fuels and wood, waste incineration, mineral production, and deforestation. The Earth maintains a natural carbon balance and when concentrations of CO2 are upset, the system gradually returns to its natural state through natural processes. Natural changes to the carbon cycle work slowly, especially compared to the rapid rate at which humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Natural removal processes, such as photosynthesis by land- and ocean-dwelling plant species, cannot keep pace with this extra input of man-made CO2, and conse- quently, the gas is building up in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen about 30 percent since the late 1800s.6

In 2002, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion accounted for approximately 98 percent of man- made CO2 emissions and approximately 84 percent of California's overall GHG emissions (CO2eq). The transportation sector accounted for California’s largest portion of CO2 emissions, with gasoline consumption making up the greatest portion of these emissions. Electricity generation was California’s second largest category of GHG emissions.

Methane (CH4). Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Anthropogenic sources include rice cultivation, livestock, landfills and waste treatment, biomass burning, and fossil fuel combustion (burning of coal, oil, natural gas, etc.). Decomposition occurring in landfills accounts for the majority of human-generated CH4 emissions in California, followed by enteric fermentation (emissions from the digestive processes of livestock).7 Agricultural processes such as manure

6 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March. 7 California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data - 1990 to 2004. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed November 2008.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 155

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

management and rice cultivation are also significant sources of manmade CH4 in California. Methane accounted for approximately 6 percent of gross climate change emissions (CO2eq) in California in 2002.8 It is estimated that over 60 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related 9 activities. As with CO2, the major removal process of atmospheric methane – a chemical breakdown in the atmosphere – cannot keep pace with source emissions, and methane concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is produced naturally by a wide variety of biological sources, particularly microbial action in soils and water. Tropical soils and oceans account for the majority of natural source emissions. Nitrous oxide is a product of the reaction that occurs between nitrogen and oxygen during fuel combustion. Both mobile and stationary combustion emit N2O, and the quantity emitted varies according to the type of fuel, technology, and pollution control device used, as well as maintenance and operating practices. Agricultural soil management and fossil fuel combustion are the primary sources of human-generated N2O emissions in California. Nitrous oxide emissions accounted for nearly 7 percent of man-made GHG emissions (CO2eq) in California in 2002.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). HFCs are primarily used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances regulated under the Montreal 10 Protocol. PFCs and SF6 are emitted from various industrial processes, including aluminum smelting, semiconductor manufacturing, electric power transmission and distribution, and magnesium casting. There is no aluminum or magnesium production in California; however, the rapid growth in the semiconductor industry, which is active in California, leads to greater use of PFCs. HFCs, PFCs, and 11 SF6 accounted for about 3.5 percent of man-made GHG emissions (CO2eq) in California in 2002.

(2) Emissions Sources and Inventories. An emissions inventory that identifies and quanti- fies the primary human-generated sources and sinks of GHGs is a well-recognized and useful tool for addressing climate change. This section summarizes the latest information on global, United States, California, and local GHG emission inventories. However, because GHGs persist for a long time in the atmosphere (see Table IV.E-1), accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere and climate cannot be tied to a specific point of emission.

Global Emissions. Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2004 were 27 billion metric tons of 12 CO2eq per year. Global estimates are based on country inventories developed as part of programs of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

8 Ibid. 9 IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. 10 The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that was approved on January 1, 1989, and was designated to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of several groups of halogenated hydrocarbons believed to be responsible for ozone depletion. 11 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March. 12 Combined total of Annex I and Non-Annex I Country CO2eq emissions. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2007. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data. Information available at http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ ghg_data_unfccc/time_series_annex_i/items/3814.php and http://maindb.unfccc.int/library/view_pdf.pl?url=http:// unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/sbi/eng/18a02.pdf.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 156

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

U.S. Emissions. In 2004, the United States emitted about 7.3 billion metric tons of CO2eq or about 25 tons per year per person. Of the four major sectors nationwide – residential, commercial, industrial and transportation – transportation accounts for the highest amount of GHG emissions (approximately 35 to 40 percent); these emissions are entirely generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. Between 1990 and 2006, total U.S. GHG emissions rose approximately 14.7 percent.13

State of California Emissions. According to California Air Resources Board (ARB) emission 14 inventory estimates, California emitted approximately 480 million metric tons of CO2eq emissions in 2004.15 This large number is due primarily to the sheer size of California compared to other States. By contrast, California has the fourth lowest per-capita carbon dioxide emission rate from fossil fuel combustion in the country, due to the success of its energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and commitments that have lowered the State’s GHG emissions rate of growth by more than half of what it would have been otherwise.16

The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) Climate Action Team stated in its March 2006 report that the composition of gross climate change pollutant emissions in California in 2002 (expressed in terms of CO2eq) was as follows:

• CO2 accounted for 83.3 percent;

• CH4 accounted for 6.4 percent;

• N2O accounted for 6.8 percent; and 17 • HFCs, PFC, and SF6 accounted for 3.5 percent.

The ARB estimates that transportation is the source of approximately 38 percent of the State’s GHG emissions in 2004, followed by electricity generation (both in-State and out-of-State) at 23 percent, and industrial sources at 20 percent. The remaining sources of GHG emissions are residential and commercial activities at 9 percent, agriculture at 6 percent, high global warming potential gases at 3 percent, and recycling and waste at 1 percent.18

The ARB is responsible for developing the California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory. This inventory estimates the amount of GHGs emitted to and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within the State of California and supports the AB 32 Climate Change Program. The ARB’s current GHG emission inventory covers the years 1990-2004 and is based on fuel use, equipment

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2008. The U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: Fast Facts. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/2008_GHG_Fast_Facts.pdf. 14 A metric ton is equivalent to approximately 1.1 tons. 15 California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data - 1990 to 2004. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed November 2008. 16 California Energy Commission (CEC), 2007. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 - Final Staff Report, publication # CEC-600-2006-013-SF, Sacramento, CA, December 22, 2006; and January 23, 2007 update to that report. 17 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March. 18 California Air Resources Board (ARB), 2008. Website: www.climatechange.ca.gov/inventory/index.html. Accessed September 2009.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 157

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

activity, industrial processes, and other relevant data (e.g., housing, landfill activity, agricultural lands). The emission inventory estimates are based on the actual amount of all fuels combusted in the State, which accounts for over 85 percent of the GHG emissions within California.

ARB staff projects statewide unregulated GHG emissions for the year 2020, which represent the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions, will be 596 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2eq. GHG emissions from the transportation and electricity sectors as a whole are expected to increase, but remain at approximately 38 percent and 23 percent of total CO2eq emissions, respectively. The industrial sector consists of large stationary sources of GHG emissions and the percentage of the total 2020 emissions is projected to be 17 percent of total CO2eq emissions. The remaining sources of GHG emissions in 2020 are high global warming potential gases at 8 percent, residential and commercial activities at 8 percent, agriculture at 5 percent, and recycling and waste at 1 percent.19

Solano County Emissions. During the 2008 General Plan Update process Solano County committed to the development and adoption of a Climate Action Plan (CAP) by June 30, 2010 and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. In 2005, Solano County’s municipal GHG emissions totaled 17,161 metric tons of CO2e. Buildings and facilities are a significant portion of the total, contributing to approximately 40 percent of the municipal GHG emissions.20

City of Vallejo Emissions. The City of Vallejo is in the process of preparing a Climate Action Plan which will include documentation of GHG emissions in the City. The draft document is scheduled for release in 2011. b. Regulatory Framework. The regulatory framework and other governmental activities addressing GHG emissions and global climate change are discussed in this section.

Over a decade ago, most countries joined an international treaty, the UNFCCC, to begin to consider what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with the physical and socioeconomic effects of climate change. More recently, a number of nations have ratified an amendment to the treaty: the Kyoto Protocol. The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to achieve overall emissions reduction targets for six GHGs regulated under the Protocol (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFC, and SF6) by 2012. As of November 2009, over 180 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Industrialized and developing nations have different requirements for GHG reductions. Each nation must reduce GHG emissions by a certain percentage below 1990 levels (e.g., 8 percent reduction for the European Union, 6 percent reduction for Japan). The average reduction target for nations participating in the Kyoto Protocol is approximately 5 percent below 1990 levels. The United States has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

(1) Federal Regulations. The United States has historically had a voluntary approach to reducing GHG emissions. However, on April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). While there currently are no adopted federal regulations for the control

19 California Air Resources Board (ARB), 2008. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm. Accessed September 2009. 20 Solano County, 2010. Solano County Climate Action Plan Presentation. March.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 158

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

or reduction of GHG emissions, the EPA commenced several actions in 2009 that are required to implement a regulatory approach to global climate change.

On September 30, 2009, the EPA announced a proposal that focuses on large facilities emitting over 25,000 tons of GHG emissions per year. These facilities would be required to obtain permits that would demonstrate they are using the best practices and technologies to minimize GHG emissions.

On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed a final action under the CAA, finding that six greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare, and that the combined emissions from motor vehicles cause and contribute to global climate change. This EPA action does not impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, the findings are a prerequisite to finalizing the GHG emission standards for light-duty vehicles mentioned below.

In February 2010, the White House Council of Environmental Quality released a document title “Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” The draft guidance recognizes that many Federal actions will result, directly or indirectly, in the GHG emissions. It proposes a reference point of 25,000 metric tons of GHG emissions per year as an indica- tor (rather than an absolute threshold) that a project warrants NEPA analysis for climate change impacts, and also promotes analysis of project alternatives that may have lower annual emissions. The draft guidance encourages agencies to quantify cumulative emissions over the life of the project in project analysis; to discuss measures to reduce emissions, including the consideration of reasonable alternatives; and to discuss from a qualitative perspective the link between the project’s emissions and climate change. The guidance recognizes scientific limits on the ability to predict climate change effects, and therefore cautions the use of speculative analyses or attempting to link a particular project to specific climatological changes.

On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a final joint rule to establish a national program consisting of new standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy. EPA is finalizing the first-ever national greenhouse gas emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, and NHTSA is finalizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The EPA GHG standards require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg).

(2) State Regulations. The ARB is the lead agency for implementing climate change regulations in the State. Since its formation, the ARB has worked with the public, the business sector, and local governments to find solutions to California’s air pollution problems.

Assembly Bill 1493 (2002). In a response to the transportation sector’s significant contribution to California’s CO2 emissions, Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493, Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 requires the ARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks (and other vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State) manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. To set its own GHG emissions limits on motor vehicles, California must receive a waiver from the EPA. On June 30, 2009, the EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 159

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Notice of the decision was published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2009.

Executive Order S-3-05 (2005). In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established Califor- nia’s GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S-3-05. The Executive Order established the following goals for the State of California: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The executive order also directed the secretary of the California EPA to coordinate a multiagency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The secretary will submit biannual reports to the governor and legislature describing progress made toward reaching the emission targets; impacts of climate change on California’s resources; and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat impacts of climate change.

Assembly Bill 32 (2006), California Global Warming Solutions Act. California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the “Global Warming Solutions Act,” passed by the California State legislature on August 31, 2006. This effort aims at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The ARB has established the level of GHG emissions in 1990 at 427 MMT of CO2eq. The emissions target of 427 MMT requires the reduction of 169 MMT from the State’s projected business-as-usual 2020 emissions of 596 MMT. AB 32 requires the ARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline and to reduce GHGs that contribute to global climate change. The Scoping Plan was approved by the ARB on December 11, 2008, and includes measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures.21 The Scoping Plan includes a range of GHG reduction actions that may include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market- based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system. The Scoping Plan, even after Board approval, remains a recommendation. The measures in the Scoping Plan will not be binding until after they are adopted through the normal rulemaking process. The ARB rulemaking process includes preparation and release of each of the draft measures, public input through workshops and a public comment period, followed by an ARB Board hearing and rule adoption.

In addition to reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, AB 32 directed the ARB and the newly created Climate Action Team (CAT) 22 to identify a list of “discrete early action GHG reduction measures” that can be adopted and made enforceable by January 1, 2010. On January 18, 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-1-07, further solidifying California’s dedication to reducing GHGs by setting a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The Executive Order sets a target to reduce the carbon intensity of California transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 and directs the ARB to consider the Low Carbon Fuel Standard as a discrete early action measure.

In June 2007, the ARB approved a list of 37 early action measures, including three discrete early action measures (Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Restrictions on High Global Warming Potential

21 California Air Resources Board, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: a framework for change. December. 22 CAT is a consortium of representatives from State agencies who have been charged with coordinating and implementing GHG emission reduction programs that fall outside of ARB’s jurisdiction.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 160

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Refrigerants, and Landfill Methane Capture). 23 Discrete early action measures are measures that are required to be adopted as regulations and made effective no later than January 1, 2010, the date established by Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 38560.5. The ARB adopted additional early action measures in October 2007 that tripled the number of discrete early action measures. These measures relate to truck efficiency, port electrification, reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry, reduction of propellants in consumer products, proper tire inflation, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) reductions from the non-electricity sector. On January 1, 2011, ARB adopted the Refrigerant Management Program, which regulates refrigerants typically used by supermarkets and grocery stores. The combination of early action measures is estimated to reduce State-wide GHG emissions by nearly 16 MMT.24

To assist public agencies in analyzing the effects of GHGs under CEQA, Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, 2007) requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA guidelines on how to minimize and mitigate a project’s GHG emissions. On December 30, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency adopted CEQA Guidelines Amendments related to climate change. These amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.

Senate Bill 375 (2008). SB 375, signed into law on October 1, 2008, is intended to enhance the ARB’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the ARB to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets to be achieved within the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. The ARB will work with California's 18 metropolitan planning organizations to align their regional transportation, housing, and land use plans and prepare a “Sustainable Communities Strategy” to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled in their respective regions and demonstrate the region’s ability to attain its greenhouse gas reduction targets.

(3) Office of Planning and Resources. On December 30, 2009, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted CEQA Guidelines Amendments related to Climate Change. These amendments became effective on March 18, 2010, and state: (a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency should make a good- faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards.

23 California Air Resources Board, 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October. 24 California Air Resources Board, 2007. “ARB approves tripling of early action measures required under AB 32”. News Release 07-46. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr102507.htm. Accessed October 25, 2009.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 161

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

(b) A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment: (1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; (3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) provides that the “determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data,” and further, states that an “ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting.”

Individual projects incrementally contribute toward the potential for global climate change on a cumulative basis in concert with all other past, present, and probable future projects. While individual projects are unlikely to measurably affect global climate change, each of these projects incrementally contribute toward the potential for global climate change on a cumulative basis, in concert with all other past, present, and probable future projects.

Revisions to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines suggest that the project be evaluated for the following impacts: • Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? • Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

(4) Bay Area Air Quality Management District. As the regional air quality management district, the BAAQMD has taken a lead role in adopting a Climate Protection Program and by adopting CEQA Guidelines related to GHG emissions.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District Climate Protection Program. The BAAQMD established a climate protection program to reduce pollutants that contribute to global climate change and affect air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The climate protection program includes measures that promote energy efficiency, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and develop alternative sources of energy, all of which assist in reducing emissions of GHG and in reducing air pollutants that affect the health of residents. BAAQMD also seeks to support current climate protection programs in the region and to stimulate additional efforts through public education and outreach, technical assistance to local governments and other interested parties, and promotion of collaborative efforts among stakeholders.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 162

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The BAAQMD adopted revised CEQA Guidelines on June 2, 2010. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, BAAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction, and make a determination on the significance of these construction generated GHG emission impacts in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate best management practices, such as recycling at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials, to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as applicable.

For land use development projects (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities), the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions are: (1) compliance with a qualified climate action plan or qualified general plan; (2) annual GHG emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year; or (3) annual GHG emissions less than 4.6 metric tons per service population (residents plus employees). Achievement of any one of these standards defines a less-than- significant project impact.

(5) Vallejo General Plan. The City of Vallejo General Plan contains the following policies related to land use development, energy conservation, and GHG emissions: • Policy C.1: Support energy efficient modes of transportation through land use planning, including mixed- use development, improved pedestrian and bicycle access, and more compact site planning. • Policy C.2: Encourage wind and solar energy development. • Policy C.3: Encourage participation in the PG&E programs for reducing energy consumption. • Policy C.4: Pursue development of cogeneration, hydroelectric, and wind generation facilities. • Policy C.5: Housing units should be sited to take advantage of passive solar heating techniques; where this is not possible, overhangs should be required on east, south, and west elevations. Energy and water conservation features should be encouraged.

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section evaluates significant impacts to global climate change that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, establishing the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents global climate change impacts that could result from the proposed project. Mitigation measures are identified as appropriate. a. Criteria of Significance. This EIR analyzes whether the project’s GHG emissions would be cumulatively significant. Accordingly, the project would result in significant adverse impacts on global climate change if it would: • Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, defined as:

o Resulting in operational-related greenhouse gas emissions that exceed 1,100 metric tons of CO2eq a year, or

o Result in operational-related greenhouse gas emissions that exceed 4.6 metric tons of CO2eq per service population (residents + employees).

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 163

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. b. Less-Than-Significant Global Climate Change Impacts. No less-than-significant impacts associated with the proposed project have been identified in this analysis. c. Potentially Significant Global Climate Change Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the following significant global climate change impacts.

The evaluation and analysis of potential impacts of the project for each of the criteria of significance listed above and environmental effects presented in this section focuses on potential climate change impacts associated with the project’s increase in GHG emissions. Mitigation measures are proposed as appropriate.

Impact GCC-1: Construction activities would cumulatively contribute to global climate change. (S)

Construction activities, such as site preparation, site grading, utility engines, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction of the project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Further- more, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

The only GHG with well-studied emissions characteristics and published emissions factors for construction equipment is CO2. The exact timing of construction is unknown at this time. However, in order to provide a conservative analysis of project conditions for this EIR, construction is anticipated to begin in mid to late 2011. The proposed building would be constructed in one phase. On-site improvements include the building, parking, landscaping and driveways designed to support the retail project. The demolition and construction period is anticipated to occur over an 8 month period, with project operation expected in mid-2012. Using the URBEMIS 2007 model, as recommended by BAAQMD, it is estimated that project construction would emit approximately 172 metric tons of CO2.

The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. Therefore, the threshold is based on a qualitative evaluation of whether the project implements applicable BAAQMD Best Management Practices. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which requires implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, would ensure compliance with BAAQMD Best Management Practices and would reduce construction-related GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce GHG emissions by reducing the amount of construction vehicle idling and by requiring the use of properly maintained equipment. The proposed project also plans to incorporate construction waste management practices and the use of sustainable materials, including the installation of over 40 skylights on the roof to allow infiltration of natural light, use of minimal building materials (e.g., concrete floors), and use of environmentally “preferable” products.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 164

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Mitigation Measure GCC-1: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1. (LTS)

Impact GCC-2: Operation of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions that would have a significant physical adverse impact and would cumulatively contribute to global climate change. (S)

Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area and mobile sources, and indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption. Mobile-source emissions of GHGs would include project-generated vehicle trips associated with store employee, customer, and delivery truck trips to the project site. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance of proposed land uses, and other sources. Increases in emissions would also occur at off-site utility providers as a result of demand for electricity by the proposed project.

Operational emissions estimates for the proposed project are discussed below and were calculated using a method that is consistent with the methodology recommended in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines adopted in June 2010, as described below:

Methodology. The methodology and/or qualitative description of the sources of GHG emissions related to transportation, electricity, water use, solid waste disposal and carbon sequestration are described below.

Transportation. Transportation associated with the project would result in GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in daily automobile and truck trips. Transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in California and represents approximately 38 percent of annual CO2 emissions generated in the State. For land use development projects, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips are the most direct indicators of GHG emissions associated with the project. Kimley Horn and Associates prepared a transportation analysis to identify the traffic impacts of the proposed project which is included as Appendix C and summarized in Section IV.B of this EIR. The proposed project is forecast to generate 165 net new AM peak-hour trips, 396 net new PM peak-hour trips and approximately 6,014 net new daily trips.

It should be noted that WinCo’s truck fleet is based in Modesto and is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). All WinCo delivery trucks are based at this distribution center and are required to comply with SJVAPCD regulations for mobile source emissions. For example, the WinCo Modesto truck fleet must be updated every 10 years to comply with SJVAPCD air quality regulations, resulting in a cleaner truck fleet. Other truck operation and maintenance measures implemented by WinCo that result in a reduction in mobile source emissions include:25

• Transportation refrigeration units are ARB compliant and equipped for electricity standby operation; • Spread axle trailers are used to maximize loading flexibility and better utilize full gross weight capacity; • California-specific drivetrains are utilized to optimize fuel economy;

25 Akel, Jeff, 2010. Redwood Parkway Partners, LLC. Written communication with LSA Associates, Inc. December 14.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 165

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

• On Board Data Collection (Cadec computer) devices are used to support management of driver behavior (e.g., reducing idling time and improving driving methods for better fuel economy; • Low-rolling resistance tires; • Cabtop wind fairings (but not “aero” package); • Close-coupled tractor-trailer combinations; • Drivers layover in hotel rooms, rather than sleeper cabs (reduced idling); • Specific vehicle specs to reduce tire weights and thus increase payload (e.g., aluminum wheels, shorter wheelbases; reduced fuel tank size); and • Utilize extended gross weight operations wherever permitted to increase effective payload miles per gallon.

However, in order to provide a conservative analysis of operational emissions, mobile source emissions calculations were not modified to include the above measures.

Electricity and Natural Gas. Buildings represent 39 percent of United States primary energy use and 70 percent of electricity consumption.26 Electricity use can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combusting fossil fuel. The project is anticipated to increase the use of electricity and natural gas. Energy consumption associated with the proposed project was estimated using standard rates for a service building provided by the Energy Information Administration.27 The total estimated electricity usage is 3,191.82 megawatts per hour per year, while natural gas usage is estimated at 1,855 million British Thermal Units.

It should be noted that the power units at WinCo’s Modesto distribution center are retired before they are 7 years old, per agreement with the SJVAPCD. In addition, WinCo Foods has done extensive study of many different energy saving measures and, based on amount of energy saved and practical- ity of integrating into store design, typically implements the following energy efficiency measures for each new store:28 • Antisweat Heaters and High Efficiency Doors for refrigerated cases. By cycling heaters on and off as needed each store can save approximately 160,000 kilowatt hours (kwh) annually; • EC Motors in Refrigerated Cases and Walk-ins. These motors are electrically controlled and use up to 65 percent less power than conventional shaded pole motors (annual savings of 270,000 kwh); • Floating Suction Temperature in which sophisticated rack programming is used with individual case temperature sensors to allow refrigeration system to evaporate at a higher temperature and pressure when load conditions allow. This increases the efficiency of the refrigeration cycle, reducing energy consumption (annual savings of 25,000 kwh);

26 United States Department of Energy, 2003. Buildings Energy Data Book. 27 Energy Information Administration, 2009. 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey. Website: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/detailed_tables_2003.html. Accessed September 2009. 28 Clark, Victor, 2010. WinCo Foods, Energy Manager. Written communication with LSA Associates, Inc. December 10.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 166

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

• Advanced Lighting Controls have been added to the stores to reduce the lighting levels during hours of low occupancy. With the addition of sky lights, required lighting levels can be met with less artificial light (annual savings of 230,000 kwh); • LED (Light Emitting Diode) Lighting in Refrigerated cases. This measure uses LED lighting technology to reduce the energy consumption of refrigerated cases and walk-in boxes (annual savings of 125,000 kwh); • LED Site Lighting is used in lieu of HID MH (high intensity discharge metal halide) which allows less watts per luminaire for site lighting (annual savings of 160,000 kwh); • Air Heat Reclaim is used to capture heat displaced by refrigeration racks to supplement space heating and is fed into the air handlers through a group of coils that recover the heat use (annual savings of 30,000 therms); • High Efficiency Boilers are used to convert more of the gas load to Heat output (annual savings of 5000 therms); and • Building Management Controllers are used to control all systems and to provide up to the minute data to keep stores running at maximum efficiency.

With the measures in place as listed above, WinCo realizes approximately 1,000,000 kwh savings per year for each store. However, in order to provide a conservative analysis of operational emissions, the energy saving measures described above were not included in the operational analysis.

Water Use. Energy use and related GHG emissions are based on water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment. Each element of the water use cycle has unique energy intensities (kilowatt hours [kWh]/million gallons). Recognizing that the actual energy intensity in each component of the water use cycle will vary by utility, the California Energy Commission (CEC) assumes that approximately 3,950 kWh per million gallons are consumed for water that is supplied, treated, consumed, treated again, and disposed of in northern California. Water use has been estimated to range up to 6.9 acre-feet per year.

Solid Waste Disposal. Solid waste generated by the project could contribute to GHG emissions in a variety of ways. Average waste generation rates from a variety of sources are available from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).29 Land filling and other methods of disposal use energy for transporting and managing the waste, and these activities produce additional GHGs to varying degrees. Land filling, the most common waste management practice, results in the release of CH4 from the anaerobic decomposition of organic materials. CH4 is 25 times more potent a GHG than CO2. However, landfill CH4 can also be a source of energy. In addition, many materials in landfills do not decompose fully, and the carbon that remains is sequestered in the landfill and not released into the atmosphere. The proposed project is expected to generate 410 tons of waste per year based on the California Integrated Waste Management Board’s estimated waste generation rate for supermarkets (also refer to Section IV.I, Utilities and Infrastructure).30

29 California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2010. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates for Commercial Establishments. Waste Generation Source: Supermarket. Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGen Rates/Commercial.htm. Accessed April 2010. 30 Ibid.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 167

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Project Emissions. When calculating project GHG emissions to compare to the thresholds of significance, BAAQMD recommends that the lead agency consider project design features, attributes, and local development requirements as part of the project as proposed and not as mitigation measures. Following guidance from the BAAQMD, GHG emissions were estimated using URBEMIS 2007 and the BAAQMD GHG Model (BGM).

Table IV.E-2 shows the calculated GHG emissions for the proposed project. Motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of GHG emissions at approximately 72 percent of the total. Combined energy use is the next largest category at nearly 23 percent of CO2eq emissions. Solid waste is approximately 5 percent of the total emissions. Other area sources, including landscape equipment, are the remaining source of GHG emissions and would comprise less than 0.1 percent of the total emissions for the proposed project. Additional calculation details are provided in Appendix E.

Model results indicate the project would generate 5,909.1 metric tons per year CO2e, which exceeds the BAAQMD significance criteria of 1,100 metric tons per year. Since the project would generate GHG emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD draft threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year and 4.6 metric tons per service population per year, it would generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. In addition to the energy reduction measures associated with the project identified above (refer also to Chapter III, Project Description), the following measures are identified to reduce GHG emissions.

Table IV.E-2: GHG Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) – Without and With Mitigation Operational Emissions (Without Mitigation) Operational Emissions (With Mitigation) Total Emissions Percent Percent Emission Percent Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq of Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq of Total Reduction Reduction Transportation ------4,014.00 67.93 ------4,012.93 76.42 1.07 >0.01 Area Sources 0.23 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 >0.01 0.00 0.00 Electricity 1,165.10 0.01 0.00 1,167.00 19.75 678.53 0.01 0.00 679.61 12.94 487.39 41.83 Natural Gas 98.26 0.01 0.00 98.51 1.67 68.79 >0.01 -- 68.80 1.31 29.46 30.00 Waste & 3.86 0.00 0.00 3.87 0.07 3.70 0.00 0.00 3.70 0.07 0.17 4.50 Wastewater Solid Waste 1.93 12.49 -- 264.24 4.47 1.93 5.86 0.00 124.89 2.38 139.35 52.70 Refrigerants ------361.18 6.11 ------361.18 6.90 0.00 0.00 Total Annual 1,269.38 12.51 0.01 5,909.10 100.00 753.18 5.88 0.00 5,251.34 100.00 657.44 12.00 Emissions Note: Column totals may vary slightly due to independent rounding of input data. CO2e reduced from solid waste result of landfill energy production. Natural gas and electricity reductions calculated from application materials supplied by applicant. -- Estimates not available for this pollutant and/or category. Source: LSA Associates, Inc., September and December 2010.

Mitigation Measure GCC-2: To reduce the project’s impact on Global Climate Change the following measures shall be incorporated into the design and construction of the project, where feasible and in consultation with the City of Vallejo:

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 168

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

• Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems. • Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements. • Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems. • Install energy-efficient, solar or light emitting diodes (LEDs) for outdoor lighting, as appropriate. • Install Antisweat Heaters and High Efficiency Doors for refrigerated cases. • Install EC Motors in Refrigerated Cases and Walk-ins. • Install Floating Suction Temperature sensors to allow refrigeration system to evaporate at a higher temperature and pressure when load conditions allow. • Install Advanced Lighting Controls to reduce the lighting levels during hours of low occupancy. • Install LED (Light Emitting Diode) Lighting in Refrigerated cases. • Install LED Site Lighting is used in lieu of HID MH (high intensity discharge metal halide) which allows less watts per luminaire for site lighting. • Install Air Heat Reclaim to capture heat displaced by refrigeration racks to supplement space heating. • Install High Efficiency Boilers to convert more of the gas load to Heat output. • Install Building Management Controllers are used to control all systems to provide up to the minute data to keep stores running at maximum efficiency.

Water Conservation and Efficiency Measures: • Create water-efficient landscapes within the development, including climate-appropriate and drought-tolerant species. • Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices. • Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances, including low-flow faucets, dual-flush toilets and waterless urinals. • Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff.

Solid Waste: • Provide storage areas for recyclables and require recycling and other on-site solid waste reduction measures in compliance with City of Vallejo Public Works Department’s recycling programs and requirements.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 169

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Transportation and Motor Vehicle Measures: • Develop a transportation demand management (TDM) program that includes trip reduction components such as free transit passes, a dedicated employee transportation coordinator, and carpool matching program. • Provide transit facilities (e.g., bus bulbs/turnouts, benches, shelters). • Provide bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and/or paths, incorporated into the proposed street systems and connected to a community-wide network. • Provide bicycle parking at a rate of at least 1:20 vehicle spaces. (SU)

As shown in Table IV.E-2, with full implementation of these measures, GHG emissions would be reduced by 657.44 metric tons per year CO2e (12 percent), for total GHG emissions of up to 5,251.34 metric tons per year CO2e. As shown, even with implementation of the following mitigation measure, GHG emissions would not be reduced by the 81 percent that would be necessary to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable and the proposed project would result in a significant cumulative impact.

Impact GCC-3: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project would conflict with policies related to the reduction of greenhouse gases. (S)

The California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team (CAT) and the ARB have developed several reports to achieve the Governor’s GHG targets that rely on voluntary actions of California businesses, local government and community groups, and State incentive and regulatory programs. These include the CAT’s 2006 “Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legisla- ture,”31 ARB’s 2007 “Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California,”32 and ARB’s “Climate Change Scoping Plan: a Framework for Change.”33 The reports identify strategies to reduce California’s emissions to the levels proposed in Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. The adopted Scoping Plan includes proposed GHG reductions from direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as cap-and-trade systems.

In addition to reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, AB 32 directed ARB to identify a list of “discrete early action GHG reduction measures” that can be adopted and made enforceable by January 1, 2010. In June 2007, ARB approved a list of 37 early action measures, including three discrete early action measures (Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Restrictions on High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants,34 and Landfill Methane Capture35). Discrete early action measures are measures that are required to be adopted as regulations and made effective no later than January 1, 2010, the date established by Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 38560.5. The ARB adopted

31 California Air Resources Board, 2006. Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. 32 California Air Resources Board, 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October. 33 California Air Resources Board, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: a framework for change. December. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 170

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

additional early action measures in October 2007 that tripled the number of discrete early action measures.36

ARB’s focus in identifying the 44 early action items was to recommend measures that ARB staff concluded were “expected to yield significant GHG emission reductions, are likely to be cost-effective and technologically feasible.” The combination of early action measures is estimated to reduce State-wide GHG emissions by nearly 16 MMT. Accordingly, the 44 early action items focus on industrial production processes, agriculture, and transportation sectors. Early action items associated with industrial production and agriculture do not apply to the proposed project. The transportation sector early action items such as truck efficiency, low carbon fuel standard, proper tire inflation, truck stop electrification and strengthening light duty vehicle standards are either not specifically applicable to the proposed project or would result in a reduction of GHG emissions associated with the project but are under the control of other regulatory agencies including the State. State measures include emission reductions assumed as part of the Scoping Plan, including light-duty vehicle GHG standards (“Pavley standards”), low carbon fuel standard, and energy efficiency measures.

The project would incorporate energy efficiency features including utilization of Type VB (unprotected wood-frame) construction and various green building features. Green building features include: the location of over 40 skylights on the roof to allow infiltration of natural light; a roof constructed of white PVC membrane; an active energy management system used for refrigeration and HVAC;37 interior finishes that would use minimal building materials (e.g., concrete floors); energy efficient ballasts with fluorescent lights; and LED fixtures for exterior lighting and signage. Energy efficiency measures that exceed Title 24 requirements include: recovery of waste heat from the product refrigeration system by utilizing this heat to serve the store space and domestic water heating needs; use of high-efficiency refrigeration rack to serve cooling needs; use of variable speed fans to reduce the power required to move air in the building; and use of variable volume air systems in the office areas to meet actual space loads.

The proposed project would not conflict with the AB 32 Scoping Plan, or the early action measures. The project would also be required to comply with the ARB’s recently adopted Refrigerant Manage- ment Program. However, as shown in Table IV.E-2 above, the proposed project would exceed the greenhouse gas emission threshold established by the BAAQMD for the purpose of reducing climate change impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GCC-2 would be required but would not reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore the project would conflict with State policies related to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure GCC-3: Implement Mitigation Measure GCC-2. (SU)

In addition to the project design features and mitigation measures on the project site, the City has also considered the feasibility of off-site mitigation, namely the purchase of carbon offsets. There are several issues relating to the feasibility and enforceability of offsets at this time. First, the threshold used in this analysis is the extent to which the project would help or hinder the attainment of State and local greenhouse gas reduction goals, and the offset programs which are available generally do not

36 Ibid. 37 HVAC stands for “Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning.”

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 171

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES E. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

offset emissions in California or specifically in the City. There are also a number of uncertainties associated with purchasing offsets, including the permanence of the offsets, price fluctuations, ownership, verification of emissions reductions, and additionality.38 Therefore, the purchase of carbon offsets was not considered to be a viable mitigation.

38 Additionality refers to whether emissions reductions are additional steps beyond business as usual. All of these limitations on offsets as potential mitigation are discussed in a certified EIR prepared for a corporate park project in Southern California. Michael Brandman & Asssociates, Environmental Impact Report P07-157, Highland Fairview Corporate Park, City of Moreno Valley, California. Some of these issues are also addressed in the August 2008 Report by the U.S. General Accounting Office, Carbon Offsets: The U.S. Voluntary Market is Growing but Quality Assurance Poses Challenges for Market Participants.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-GCC.doc (3/3/2011) 172 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

F. NOISE This section describes existing noise conditions in the vicinity of the site, criteria for determining the significance of noise impacts, and estimates the likely noise that would result from construction activities, vehicular traffic, operation of the project, and other noise sources. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project-related noise impacts to a less-than- significant level.

1. Setting This setting section begins with an introduction to several key concepts and terms that are used in evaluating noise. It then explains the various agencies that regulate the noise environment in the City of Vallejo and summarizes key standards that are applied to proposed development. This setting section concludes with a description of current noise sources that affect the project site and the noise conditions that are experienced in the project site vicinity. a. Characteristics of Sound. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep.

To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations or cycles per second of a wave that results in the range of tone from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment, and it is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity refers to how hard the sound wave strikes an object, which in turn produces the sound’s effect. This characteristic of sound can be precisely measured with instruments. The analysis of a project defines the noise environment of the project area in terms of sound intensity and its effects on adjacent sensitive land uses.

(1) Measurement of Sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation (frequency) of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests in the wave, the speed that it travels, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. The sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness (or amplitude) of an ambient sound, and the decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative intensity of a sound. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect.

Because sound can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing, a logarithmic loudness scale1 is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable level. Thus, a 10 dBA increase in the level of a continuous noise represents a perceived doubling of loudness, while a 20 dBA increase is 100 times more intense, and a 30 dBA increase is 1,000 times more intense. As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level. Noise levels diminish or attenuate as distance from the source increases based on an inverse square rule, depending on how the noise

1 Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. The logarithmic decibel scale allows an extremely wide range of acoustic energy to be characterized in a manageable notation.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 173 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

source is physically configured. Noise level from a single-point source, such as a single piece of construction equipment at ground level, attenuates at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance (between the single-point source of noise and the noise-sensitive receptor of concern). Heavily traveled roads with few gaps in traffic behave as continuous line sources and attenuate roughly at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance.

Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all pitches (sound frequencies) within the entire spectrum, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity in a process called “A-weighting,” expressed as “dBA.” The dBA or A-weighted decibel refers to a scale of noise measurement that approximates the range of sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies. Table IV.F-1 contains a list of typical acoustical terms and definitions. Table IV.F-2 shows some representative noise sources and their corresponding noise levels in dBA.

There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day-night average level (Ldn) based on A-weighted decibels (dBA). CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are within one dBA of each other and are normally exchange- able. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours. Typical A-weighted sound levels from various sources are described in Table IV.F-2.

Other noise rating scales of importance, when assessing the annoyance factor, include the maximum noise level (Lmax), which is the highest exponential time averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax for short-term noise impacts. Lmax reflects peak operating conditions, and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise.

Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first is audible impacts that refer to increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3.0 dBA or greater, since, as described earlier, this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level between 1.0 and 3.0 dBA. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in labora- tory environments. The last category is changes in noise level of less than 1.0 dBA that are inaudible to the human ear. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 174 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

Table IV.F-1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms Term Definitions Decibel, dB A unit of level that denotes the ratio between two quantities proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio. Frequency, Hz Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in one second (i.e., number of cycles per second). A-Weighted Sound Level, The sound level obtained by use of A-weighting. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the dBA very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise. L01, L10, L50, L90 The fast A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level for 1 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time period. Equivalent Continuous The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same Noise Level, Leq A-weighted sound energy as the time varying sound. Community Noise The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the Equivalent Level, CNEL addition of five decibels to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted sound levels measured on a sound level meter, during a designated time interval, using fast time averaging. Ambient Noise Level The all encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time, usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far; no particular sound is dominant. Intrusive The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Source: Harris, C.M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control.

Table IV.F-2: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels A-Weighted Sound Noise Source Level in Decibels Noise Environments Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening Civil Defense Siren 130 Threshold of pain Hard Rock Band 120 Threshold of feeling Accelerating Motorcycle at a Few Feet Away 110 Very loud Pile Driver; Noisy Urban Street/Heavy City Traffic 100 Very loud Ambulance Siren; Food Blender 95 Very loud Garbage Disposal 90 Very loud Freight Cars; Living Room Music 85 Loud Pneumatic Drill; Vacuum Cleaner 80 Loud Busy Restaurant 75 Moderately loud Near Freeway Auto Traffic 70 Moderately loud Average Office 60 Moderate Suburban Street 55 Moderate Light Traffic; Soft Radio Music in Apartment 50 Quiet Large Transformer 45 Quiet Average Residence Without Stereo Playing 40 Faint Soft Whisper 30 Faint Rustling Leaves 20 Very faint Human Breathing 10 Very faint Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc., 2008.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 175 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

(2) Physiological Effects of Noise. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 1985 Noise Guidebook, permanent physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 to 90 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, and thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the ear, and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. For avoiding adverse effects on human physical and mental health in the workplace or in communities, the U.S. Department of Labor, Occu- pation Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) requires the protection of workers from hearing loss when the noise exposure equals or exceeds an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA.2

Unwanted community effects of noise occur at levels much lower than those that cause hearing loss and other health effects. Annoyance to noise occurs when it interferes with sleeping, conversation, noise-sensitive work, including learning or listening to radio, television, or music. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) noise studies, during daytime hours, few people are seriously annoyed by activities with noise levels below 55 dBA, or moderately annoyed with noise levels below 50 dBA.3 b. Noise Regulatory Framework. The following section summarizes the regulatory framework related to noise, including federal, State and City of Vallejo plans, policies and standards.

(1) U.S. Environmental Protection Table IV.F-3: Summary of EPA Noise Levels Agency (EPA). In 1972 Congress enacted the Effect Level Area Noise Control Act. This act authorized the EPA to Hearing loss Leq(24) < 70 dB All areas. Outdoor Ldn < 55 dB Outdoors in residential publish descriptive data on the effects of noise and activity inter- areas and farms and establish levels of sound “requisite to protect the ference and other outdoor areas public welfare with an adequate margin of safety.” annoyance where people spend widely varying These levels are separated into health (hearing loss amounts of time and levels) and welfare (annoyance levels), as shown in other places in which Table IV.F-3. The EPA cautions that these identi- quiet is a basis for use. Leq(24) < 55 dB Outdoor areas where fied levels are not standards because they do not people spend limited take into account the cost or feasibility of the amounts of time, such levels. as school yards, playgrounds, etc.

Indoor activity Leq < 45 dB Indoor residential For protection against hearing loss, 96 percent of interference areas. and annoyance the population would be protected if sound levels Leq(24) < 45 dB Other indoor areas with human activities are less than or equal to an Leq(24) of 70 dBA. The such as schools, etc. “(24)” signifies an Leq duration of 24 hours. The Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. “Informa- EPA activity and interference guidelines are tion on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to designed to ensure reliable speech communication Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.” March. at about 5 feet in the outdoor environment. For

2 Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2010. Regulations, Standards 29 CFR, Occupational Noise Exposure 1910.95. 3 World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise, Geneva, 1999. Website: www.who.int/docstore/ peh/noise/guidelines2.html.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 176 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

outdoor and indoor environments, interference with activity and annoyance should not occur if levels are below 55 dBA and 45 dBA, respectively.

The noise effects associated with an outdoor Ldn of Table IV.F-4: Summary of Human Effects in 55 dBA are summarized in Table IV.F-4. At 55 Areas Exposed to 55 dBA Ldn Type of Effects Magnitude of Effect dBA Ldn, 95 percent sentence clarity (intelligibility) may be expected at 11 feet, and no Speech – Indoors 100 percent sentence intelligibility (average) with a 5 dB margin of safety. community reaction. However, 1 percent of the Speech – Outdoors 100 percent sentence intelligibility population may complain about noise at this level (average) at 0.35 meters. and 17 percent may indicate annoyance. 99 percent sentence intelligibility (average) at 1.0 meters. 95 percent sentence intelligibility (2) State of California. The State of (average) at 3.5 meters. California has established regulations that help Average Commu- None evident; 7 dB below level of prevent adverse impacts to occupants of buildings nity Reaction significant complaints and threats of legal action and at least 16 dB below located near noise sources. Referred to as the “vigorous action.” “State Noise Insulation Standard,” it requires Complaints 1 percent dependent on attitude and buildings to meet performance standards through other non-level related factors. Annoyance 17 percent dependent on attitude and design and/or building materials that would offset other non-level related factors. any noise source in the vicinity of the receptor. Attitude Towards Noise essentially the least important of State regulations include requirements for the Area various factors. construction of new hotels, motels, apartment Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. “Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite houses, and dwellings other than detached single- to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate family dwellings that are intended to limit the Margin of Safety.” March. extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. These requirements are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (known as the Building Standards Administrative Code), Part 2 (known as the California Building Code), Appendix Chapters 12 and 12A. For limiting noise transmitted between adjacent dwelling units, the noise insulation standards specify the extent to which walls, doors, and floor ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound. For limiting noise from exterior noise sources, the noise insulation standards set an interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed. In addition, the standards require preparation of an acoustical analysis demonstrating the manner in which dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard, where such units are proposed in an area with exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has established land use compatibility guidelines for determining acceptable noise levels for specified land uses. The City of Vallejo has adopted the OPR’s land use compatibility guidelines, as discussed below and shown in Table IV.F-5.

(3) City of Vallejo. The City of Vallejo addresses noise policies in the Noise Element of the General Plan4 and in the zoning chapter of the Municipal Code. 5 The City’s land use compatibility standards for community noise environments are shown in Table IV.F-5. The noise policies of the General Plan limit construction, maintenance, and unloading and loading activities from operating in such a manner as to cause noise disturbance across residential real property boundaries except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. In addition, the City’s noise policy limits project-related

4 Vallejo, City of, 1983. City of Vallejo General Plan. Amended through December 6, 2006. 5 Vallejo, City of, 2008. The Vallejo, California Municipal Code. December 2.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 177 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

Table IV.F-5: Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Noise Environments

Source: Vallejo, City of, 1983. City of Vallejo General Plan. Amended through December 6, 2006.

noise increases to no more than 10 dB in non-residential areas and 5 dB in residential areas where with-project noise level is less than the maximum “normally acceptable level” in Table IV.F-5.

The Noise Performance Standards Ordinance, of the City of Vallejo’s Municipal Code identifies maximum sound pressure levels by zoning district shown in Table IV.F-6. The City’s ordinance allows noise from temporary construction or demolition work, or sounds from transportation equipment used for the movement of goods or people to and from given premises to exceed the

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 178 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

maximum sound pressure Table IV.F-6: Noise Performance Standards levels listed in Table IV.F-6 Maximum Sound upon compliance with State Zoning District Pressure Levels, dB Resource Conservation, Rural Residential, and conditions. Section 7.84.020 55 of the City’s Municipal Code Medical Districts Low, Medium, and High Density Residential Districts 60 prohibits the loading, Professional Offices, Neighborhood, Pedestrian, and 70 unloading, opening, closing, Waterfront Shopping and Services Districts Freeway Shopping and Service, Linear Commercial or other handling of boxes, 75 crates, containers, building and Intensive Use Districts materials, or other similar Source: Vallejo, City of, 2008. The Vallejo, California Municipal Code. December 2. objects between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential real property boundary. c. Existing Noise Environment. The project is located in a suburban area and is, therefore, influ- enced by several surrounding noise sources including traffic and stationary noise sources as discussed below.

(1) Existing Ambient Noise Levels. An LSA noise technician conducted short-term ambient noise monitoring on the project site on August 18, 2010 between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. at two separate locations on the project site. The purpose of this noise monitoring was to document the existing noise environment and capture the noise levels associated with current operations and activities in the project vicinity. Table IV.F-7 lists the noise levels measured during the short- term 15-minute noise measurements. Maximum and minimum noise levels were recorded as well as the equivalent continuous noise level measure Leq. The meteorological conditions at the time of each noise measurement are shown in Table IV.F-8. The noise monitoring locations are shown in Figure IV.F-1.

Table IV.F-7: Short-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, dBA, August 18, 2010 Location Start a b c Number Location Description Time Leq Lmax Lmin Primary Noise Sources Northeast corner of project site near 9:35 Traffic noise on 1 52.5 59.1 50.0 residential/office/day care uses a.m. Redwood Parkway Southeast corner of project site 10:15 Traffic noise on 2 57.5 65.2 51.6 adjacent to residential uses a.m. Redwood Parkway a Leq represents the average of the sound energy occurring over the 15-minute time period. b Lmax is the highest instantaneous sound level measured during the 15-minute time period. c Lmin is the lowest instantaneous sound level measured during the 15-minute time period. Source: LSA Associates, Inc., September 2010.

Table IV.F-8: Meteorological Conditions During Ambient Noise Monitoring Location Maximum Average Percent Relative Number Wind Speed (mph) Wind Speed (mph) Temperature (F) Humidity 1 2.2 0.7 62 83 2 6.2 2.4 61 81 Source: LSA Associates, Inc., September 2010.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 179 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

Traffic on Redwood Parkway is the primary noise source affecting the existing noise levels in the project vicinity. Other noise sources in the project vicinity include operational noise from adjacent retail and commercial land uses, including noise from truck loading and unloading operations and parking lot activities such as cars doors slamming and people conversing.

(2) Existing Traffic Noise Levels. Existing traffic noise levels were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Traffic data used in the model was obtained from the traffic impact analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.6 for this project which is included in Appendix C of this EIR. Table IV.F-9 lists the calculated traffic noise levels along roadway segments in the project vicinity under existing conditions.

Existing traffic noise levels along roadway segments in the project site vicinity range from 64.0 dBA to 64.8 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. Interstate 80 (I-80) is located less than ¼ mile west of the project site and is not a major contributor to ambient noise levels at the project site.

Table IV.F-9: Existing Traffic Noise Levels

Centerline Centerline Centerline Ldn (dBA) Average to 70 dBA to 65 dBA to 60 dBA 50 Feet From Daily Ldn Ldn Ldn Outermost Roadway Segment Trips (feet) (feet) (feet) Lane Redwood Parkway - Admiral Callaghan Lane 18,000 < 50 72 148 64.8 (west) to Project Driveway B Redwood Parkway - Project Driveway B 15,000 < 50 65 132 64.0 to Project Driveway C Redwood Parkway - Project Driveway C 15,000 < 50 65 132 64.0 to Foothill Drive a Traffic noise within 50 feet of roadway centerline requires site specific analysis. Source: LSA Associates, Inc., September 2010.

(3) Existing Aircraft Noise Levels. The closest airport to the project site is Napa County Airport, located approximately 6.5 miles north of the project site. Travis Air Force Base is located approximately 16 miles to the northeast of the project site. Buchanan Field Airport is located approximately 12.5 miles southeast of the project site. Due to the distance of the project from these airports, the project site lies well beyond the 55 dBA CNEL noise contours of each of these airports. Thus, aircraft activities are not a significant noise source in the project vicinity.

(4) Existing Railroad Noise Levels. The closest railroad line is located approximately 1.25 miles to the west of the project site. At this distance, the project site lies well beyond the 55 dBA Ldn noise contour of the railroad. Thus, railroad activities are not a significant noise source in the project vicinity.

6 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2011. Traffic Impact Study – Final Report, WinCo Project, Vallejo, California. February 10.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 180 FIGURE IV.F-1 Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR

Noise Monitoring Locations

e e

n n

a a

L L

i i

n n

o o l l d d y a a C C a w k r a P

d o o w d e R

1 2

Rotary Way

) )

t t

s s

a a

E E

( (

e e

n n

a a

L L

n n

) )

a a t t

s s

h h

e e

g g W W

( (

a a

e e

l l

n n

a a

L L

C C n n

a a

h h l l

g g

a a

a a l l

l l

a a

r r

C C

i i l l

a a

r r i i

m m

d d A A

m m

Project Site Noise Monitoring Locations

d d

A A

Redwood Street Street Street Redwood Redwood Redwood

e e

v v

i i

r r

D D

s s

d d

n n

u u

o o

r r

g g

r r

i 350 a a

F F feet 0 175 GOOGLE EARTH, SEPT. 2009; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. ASSOCIATES, 2009; LSA SEPT. SOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH, (2/3/11) I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_IVF1.ai LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 182 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

(5) Existing Noise Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Vicinity. Land uses surrounding the project site consist of both residential development, day care, commercial uses, and office land uses. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi-family residential land uses on Cadloni Lane whose rear property lines abut the project’s eastern border. A day care facility and office land use abut the project site’s northern property line. Redwood Parkway borders the project site to the south, and multi-family residential homes are located on the south side of the roadway across from the project site. The construction and operation of the proposed WinCo Foods project could generate noise that would affect these surrounding land uses.

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section analyzes the potential noise impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed WinCo Foods development project. This section begins with a listing of criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds for determining whether a project impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project. Mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate. a. Criteria of Significance. A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community in which it is located. For the purposes of this project, a noise impact is considered significant if the project would: • Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of Vallejo General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; • Result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels by more than 5 dBA over existing levels without the project for noise sensitive uses in the project vicinity; • Cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; or • Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. b. Less-Than-Significant Noise Impacts. The following noise sources would produce less-than- significant effects on sensitive receptors in the project area.

(1) Aircraft Noise Impacts. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor within the 55 dBA CNEL noise contour of any airport. Napa County Airport is the closest airport to the project site and is located approximately 6.5 miles northwest of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose persons residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft noise sources.

(2) Railroad Noise Impacts. The closest railroad line is located on the west side of I-80, approximately 1.25 miles west of the project site. At this distance, the project site lies well beyond the 55 dBA Ldn noise contour of the railroad. Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose persons residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from railroad noise sources.

(3) Traffic Noise Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would result in increased traffic noise levels in the project vicinity.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 183 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

The FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate traffic- related noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site. The resultant noise levels were weighed and summed over a 24-hour period in order to determine the Ldn values. The existing, near-term (2011), and long-term (year 2030) traffic volumes for roadway segments in the project vicinity were used in the traffic noise impact analysis. Table IV.F-10 shows the existing, near-term (2011), and long-term (2030) traffic noise levels without and with the project.

A significant impact would occur if the project would permanently increase ambient exterior noise levels by 5 dBA or greater over existing levels without the project for noise sensitive uses in the project vicinity. The segment of Redwood Parkway from Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) to the proposed project Driveway B, would experience the highest increase in traffic noise levels of up to 1.9 dBA under long-term (2030) plus project conditions compared to existing traffic noise levels. Therefore, based on the significance criteria for this project, a significant impact would not occur since project-related traffic noise levels would not result in a permanent increase in traffic noise levels in the project vicinity by 5 dBA or greater compared to existing levels without the project.

It should be noted that only the traffic noise levels along the roadway segments nearest the project site were analyzed since all other roadway segments analyzed in the traffic report would contain 10 percent or less of the total project trips and therefore would not result in an increase of traffic noise levels by any perceptible amount along those roadway segments.

A significant cumulative impact would occur if the project would result in any increase in ambient noise levels above normally acceptable levels with the addition of additional, foreseeable projects that would be constructed by 2030. As shown in Table IV.F-5, the City considers environments with ambient noise levels of up to 60 dBA Ldn to be normally acceptable for new residential development, while environments with ambient noise levels of up to 70 dBA Ldn are considered normally acceptable for commercial development. No modeled roadway segment within the project vicinity would experience project-related traffic noise levels in excess of 70 dBA Ldn. However, traffic noise levels along portions of Redwood Parkway that are adjacent to residential land uses, would range up to 65.8 dBA Ldn under long-term (2030) plus project cumulative conditions. These resulting traffic noise levels represent an increase of 0.3 dBA under long-term (2030) plus project cumulative conditions compared to long-term (2030) conditions without the project. However, based on the City’s land use compatibility standards for community noise environments, environments with noise levels of up to 70 dBA Ldn are considered conditionally acceptable for residential land uses if noise insulation features, such as fresh air supply systems or air conditioning allowing windows to remain closed for prolonged periods of time, are included. LSA technicians observed during site visits, that all residential land uses in the project vicinity along Redwood Parkway already have mechanical ventilation systems that would permit windows to remain closed for prolonged periods. Therefore, these cumulative traffic noise levels would not result in an exceedance of the City’s land use compatibility standards and all project-related and cumulative traffic noise impacts on off-site sensitive land uses would be less-than-significant.

The significance criteria also states that a significant impact would occur if the project would generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, or applicable standards of other agencies. The portions of Redwood Parkway adjacent to the project site would experience traffic noise levels under the long-term (2030) plus project conditions of up to 65.7

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 184 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

Table IV.F-10: Modeled Traffic Noise Levels at 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Travel Lane, dBA Difference Near- Difference Difference Long- Long- Difference Difference Between term Between Between Significant term term Between Between Significant Existing Existing Near- (2011) Existing Near-term Project (2030) (2030) Long-term Long-term Project Plus and Near- term Plus and Near- and Near- Contribution No Plus and Long- and Long- Contribution Existing Project term Plus (2011) Project term Plus term to Cumulative Project Project term term to Cumulative Roadway Segment (Ldn) (Ldn) Project (Ldn) (Ldn) Project Plus Project Impact? (Ldn) (Ldn) Plus Project Plus Project Impact? Redwood Parkway - Admiral Callaghan Lane 64.8 65.2 0.4 64.9 65.1 0.3 0.2 No 66.4 66.7 1.9 0.3 No (west) to Project Driveway B Redwood Parkway - Project Driveway B 64.0 64.5 0.5 64.3 64.5 0.5 0.2 No 65.5 65.7 1.7 0.2 No to Project Driveway C Redwood Parkway - Project Driveway C 64.0 64.6 0.6 64.3 64.7 0.7 0.4 No 65.5 65.8 1.8 0.3 No to Skyline Drive Source: LSA Associates, September 2010.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 185 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

dBA Ldn. These noise levels are below the City’s “normally acceptable” standard of 70 dBA Ldn for new commercial development. Therefore, project-related traffic noise impacts on all proposed on-site uses would also be considered less-than-significant. c. Significant Noise Impacts. Noise impacts related to the following sources would result in potentially significant impacts.

(1) Construction Noise Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project could result in noise levels from demolition and construction activities that would expose sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels.

Impact NOISE-1: Noise levels from construction activities may range up to 91 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive land uses to the project site resulting in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. (S)

Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during site preparation and project construction. The first type would result from the increase in traffic flow on local streets, associated with the transport of workers, equipment, and materials to and from the project site. The transport of workers and construction equipment and materials to the project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Because workers and construction equipment would use existing routes, noise from passing trucks (85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet) would be similar to existing vehicle-generated noise. For this reason, short-term intermittent noise from trucks would be minor when averaged over a longer time period. In addition, according to the City’s noise ordinance, noise from temporary transportation of goods or people to and from a given premises is exempt from the City’s noise standards. It should also be noted that noise emission levels from vehicles themselves (such as muffler requirements) are regulated by federal and State governments and are exempt from local government regulations. Therefore, short-term construction-related noise associated with worker and equipment transport to the proposed project site would result in a less-than-significant impact on receptors along the access routes leading to the proposed project site.

The second type of short-term noise impact is related to the noise generated by heavy construction equipment operating on the project site. Noise generated during demolition, excavation, grading, site preparation, and building erection on the project site would result in potential noise impacts on off- site uses. Existing receptors in the vicinity, such as the multi-family residential land uses on Cadloni Lane (along the project site’s eastern property boundary) and the day care and office land uses north of the project site on Rotary Way, would be subject to short-term noise generated by construction equipment and activities on the project site when construction occurs near the project boundary.

Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, conse- quently, its own noise characteristics. These phases would change the character of the noise generated on the project site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table IV.F-11 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Typical noise levels range up to 91 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels,

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 186 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

because the noisiest construction equipment is Table IV.F-11: Typical Construction Equipment earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equip- Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax ment includes excavating machinery such as Range of Suggested Maximum Sound Maximum Sound backhoes, bulldozers, draglines, and front Levels Levels for Analysis loaders. Earthmoving and compacting Type of Equipment (dBA at 50 feet) (dBA at 50 feet) equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and Pile Drivers 81 to 96 93 graders. Typical operating cycles for these Rock Drills 83 to 99 96 types of construction equipment may involve Jackhammers 75 to 85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85 one or two minutes of full-power operation Pumps 74 to 84 80 followed by three or four minutes at lower Scrapers 83 to 91 87 power settings. Haul Trucks 83 to 94 88 Cranes 79 to 86 82 Portable Generators 71 to 87 80 Demolition of existing structures and con- Rollers 75 to 82 80 struction of the proposed project is expected to Dozers 77 to 90 85 require the use of earthmovers such as bull- Tractors 77 to 82 80 dozers and scrapers, loaders and graders, water Front-End Loaders 77 to 90 86 trucks, and pickup trucks. As shown in Table Hydraulic Backhoe 81 to 90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86 IV.F-11, the typical maximum noise level Graders 79 to 89 86 generated by backhoes on the proposed project Air Compressors 76 to 89 86 site is assumed to be 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet Trucks 81 to 87 86 from the operating equipment. The maximum Source: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987. Noise Control for Buildings noise level generated by bulldozers is approxi- and Manufacturing Plants. mately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by water and other trucks is approximately 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from these vehicles. Each doubling of the sound sources with equal strength would increase the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance apart from the other equipment, the worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 91 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from an active construction area.

The closest noise sensitive land uses to the project construction areas are the day care and office land uses on Rotary Way whose rear property line borders the project site, and the multi-family residential land uses on Cadloni Lane whose rear property line borders the project site. These properties are located approximately 50 feet from the nearest façade of the proposed project building. At this distance, maximum noise levels from construction activities at the building site could range up to 91 dBA Lmax at the property line of the office and day care land uses. When site preparation and pavement construction activities occur adjacent to the project border, these off-site sensitive land uses could be exposed to equipment noise levels in excess of 100 dBA Lmax during full-power operation cycles. However, in addition to implementing best management practices and restricting the hours of noise producing construction activities, the construction of a sound wall along the northern project property line bordering the office and day care land uses would reduce the impact from temporary construction noise sources to a less-than-significant level. A sound wall of solid block, or equivalent material, constructed at the height of 8 feet above the proposed finished pad elevation would reduce both temporary construction activity noise levels as well as the project operational noise levels at these sensitive land uses by at least 8 dBA. Sound walls over 6 feet in height require approval of the Planning Manager.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 187 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

Implementation of the following multi-part mitigation measure would reduce potential construction period noise impacts.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a: The project applicant shall construct a sound wall along the northern project property line prior to commencing any demolition or construction activities. With approval of the Planning Manager, this sound wall shall be constructed of solid block, or equivalent, materials at a minimum height of 8 feet above the finished pad elevation of both the proposed and adjacent properties.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b: All construction equipment must have appropriate sound muffling devices, which shall be properly maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c: Where feasible, the project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-1d: The construction contractor shall locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-1e: Except as otherwise permitted, construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. (LTS)

(2) Groundborne Vibration Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project could result in groundborne vibration or noise levels that could be perceptible at adjacent land uses when heavy earthmoving equipment operates near the project boundaries.

Impact NOISE-2: Construction activities could expose persons in the project vicinity to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. (S)

Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. As the vibration propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the building, the vibration of floors and walls may cause perceptible vibration from the rattling of windows or a rumbling noise. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. When assessing annoyance from groundborne noise, vibration is typically expressed as root mean square (rms) velocity in units of decibels of 1 micro-inch per second. To distinguish vibration levels from noise levels, the unit is written as “VdB.” Human perception to vibration starts at levels as low as 67 VdB and sometimes lower. Annoyance due to vibration in residential settings starts at approximately 70 VdB. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. Although the motion of the ground may be perceived, without the effects associated with the shaking of the building, the motion does not provoke the same adverse human reaction.

In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. Common sources of groundborne vibration include trains and construction activities such as blasting, pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 188 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

No permanent noise sources that would expose Table IV.F-12: Typical Vibration Source persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise Levels for Construction Equipment levels are proposed as part of the project. Therefore, Approximate implementation of the proposed project would not Equipment VdB at 25 feet Pile Driver (impact) Upper range 112 permanently expose persons within or around the Typical 104 project site to excessive groundborne vibration. Pile Driver (sonic) Upper range 105 However, construction activities associated with Typical 93 implementation of the proposed project could tempo- Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 94 rarily expose persons in the vicinity of the project site Hydromill (slurry wall) In soil 66 to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne In rock 75 noise levels. Typical vibration source levels for Vibratory roller 94 Hoe ram 87 construction equipment are shown in Table IV.F-12. Large bulldozer 87 Typical groundborne vibration levels measured at a Caisson drilling 87 distance of 25 feet from heavy construction equip- Loaded trucks 86 ment in full operation, such as vibratory rollers, range Jackhammer 79 up to approximately 94 VdB. Based on the prelimi- Small bulldozer 58 nary plans available at the time of this analysis, the Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit use of pile driving is not proposed for construction. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May.

The City’s vibration performance standards7 restrict any land use from producing vibration levels that are discernible without instruments at any point on the property line on which the use is located. Groundborne vibration levels from the operation of heavy construction equipment that will be used in demolition or construction of the proposed project would not be expected to cause damage to residential buildings of normal northern California construction. However, the simultaneous operation of multiple pieces of these types of heavy construction equipment near the northern project property line by the day care and office land uses, could result in perceptible groundborne vibration levels at these adjacent land uses. Therefore, the following three-part mitigation measure would be required to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level for all sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-2a: The contractor shall ensure implementation of multi-part Mitigation Measure NOISE-1.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-2b: Pile driving shall not be used in construction of the proposed structure unless a detailed vibration impact analysis is performed that determines potential impacts and outlines mitigation measures to reduce such impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-2c: The contractor shall ensure that no two or more pieces of heavy construction equipment operate simultaneously within 25 feet of any single point along the northern project property line. (LTS)

(3) Operational Noise Impacts. Operations on the project site that would generate high noise levels are the loading/unloading activities at the proposed loading docks, trucks maneuvering on the driveway leading to the loading docks, mechanical system operations including commercial trash compactors, and typical parking lot activities such as doors slamming and people conversing.

7 Vallejo, City of, 2008. The Vallejo, California Municipal Code. Section 16.72.080. December 2.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 189 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

Impact NOISE-3: Operational noise would result in a permanent increase of more than 5 dBA in ambient noise levels over existing levels without the project for noise sensitive uses in the project vicinity. (S)

Loading/Unloading Operations. The City has established operational noise performance standards according to type of land use as shown in Table IV.F-6. However, certain noise sources, including transportation equipment used exclusively in the movement of goods and people to and from a given premises, are exempt from these performance standards. Section 7.84.020 of the City’s Municipal Code prohibits the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, or other similar objects between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential real property boundary.

Of the on-site operational noise sources that would result from implementation of the proposed project, noise generated by delivery truck activity would generate the highest maximum noise levels. Delivery truck loading and unloading activities can result in maximum noise levels from 75 dBA to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. There are generally two types of loading that will occur on the site: small deliveries like parcels and packages, and large deliveries of pallets of grocery items. The former are typically made via passenger car, van, or single-unit truck.

According to the project applicant, truck deliveries would take place between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. It is expected that the store would have approximately 150 to 160 truck deliveries per week consisting of all truck types. Specifically, it is expected that these would consist of approximately 45 semi-tractor and trailers and about 105 other small delivery trucks. Because of the 24-hour operation, seven days per week, these trucks would arrive at various times throughout the restricted delivery hours of the early to late morning. About 8 semi-tractor and trailers and 17 other small delivery trucks would access the site on heavy days, with 5 semi-tractor trailers and 8 other delivery trucks on light days. Generally, all deliveries would arrive in the early morning in order to avoid peak traffic on adjacent streets. Dwell time would typically be less than 90 minutes, but could reach up to 120 minutes. The smaller delivery trucks may occasionally arrive on demand, but would generally be limited to the restricted morning delivery hours. All trucks would be required to deliver to the rear of the store as it is company policy to prohibit truck traffic at the front of the store. While this is an estimation of truck delivery times, frequency, and volume, deliveries may be subject to schedule factors such as holidays, weather, traffic patterns, and distance and may vary somewhat from store to store.

For the proposed project, two truck loading docks would be located below grade (recessed wells) at the rear of the store. The closest existing noise sensitive receptors to the proposed loading docks are the day care and office land uses bordering the northern project property line and the multi-family residential properties bordering the eastern project property line. The proposed loading dock facilities would be located approximately 50 feet from the existing office and day care property lines and approximately 140 feet from the nearest residential property line. At these distances, unobstructed maximum noise levels from large delivery truck activities would range up to 85 dBA Lmax and up to 76 dBA Lmax respectively. These noise level would be less than 20 dBA higher than the highest measured maximum noise level (65.2 dBA Lmax) that was recorded in the project vicinity during the ambient noise monitoring effort (see Table IV.F-7).

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 190 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

However, the project proposes to include loading bay doors that would be equipped with sealed gaskets to mitigate the impact of noise from off-loading trailers of large delivery vehicles since all loading/unloading activities occur within the enclosed building area. In addition, WinCo delivery trucks, utilizing the recessed wells, would drop off loaded trailers and immediately depart with an empty trailer to minimize truck idling time. These proposed sealed gasket loading bay doors would be expected to reduce off-loading activity noise levels by at least 15 dBA, effectively reducing loading and unloading noise levels to below the maximum noise levels currently experienced in the project vicinity and, thus, reducing impacts on nearby residential land uses to a less-than-significant level.

However, noise from smaller delivery vehicles that will not be using the sealed gasket loading bays would still result in a noise disturbance across the residential property line along the eastern boundary of the project site when these deliveries occur between the hours of 9:00 pm. and 7:00 a.m. Maximum noise levels from smaller delivery vehicles would be expected to range up to 75 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. While smaller delivery vehicles will be required to deliver to the rear (north side) of the building, unloading activities could occur at any point in this area, including near the northern or eastern project property lines. The construction of the 8-foot high sound wall along the northern project property line, as required in Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a, would help reduce these impacts to a degree. However, an additional sound wall should be constructed along the eastern project property line at such a height that would block the line of sight from the outdoor active use areas of adjacent residential properties to the loading/unloading areas that smaller delivery trucks would be using.

It should be noted that some of the residential land uses are located at an elevation that is above that of the project site. In addition, there may be barriers to construction of a sound wall in this location due to utility easements. Therefore, the feasibility and exact height of this sound wall shall be determined based on the final engineering drawings detailing the final proposed pad elevation. The sound wall shall extend from the northeast corner of the project site southward to a point that ensures the line of sight to the proposed loading/unloading areas is blocked from all outdoor active use areas of adjacent residential land uses. A sound wall that completely blocks the line of sight to adjacent outdoor active use areas would be expected to reduce the noise levels from loading/unloading activities of smaller delivery vehicles by 10 dBA. Construction of a wall would effectively reduce these operational noise levels at the receiving residential properties to levels below the maximum noise levels currently experienced in the project vicinity; therefore reducing potential noise disturbances across residential real property boundaries to a less-than-significant level.

Implementation of the following two-part mitigation measure would be required to reduce noise impacts on residential land uses from proposed delivery activities to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-3a: The project applicant shall ensure implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1a.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-3b: A sound wall shall be constructed along the eastern project property line at a height and length that blocks the line of sight to the outdoor active use areas of residential land uses east of the project site. This sound wall shall be constructed on solid block or equivalent sound reflecting or sound absorbing material. The feasibility and exact height of this sound wall shall be determined based on the final engineering drawings detailing the final proposed pad elevation. If it is determined that a sound wall is infeasible at this

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 191 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

location, the applicant shall work with the City to identify and implement alternative measures which block the line of site and effectively reduce operational noise impacts. (LTS)

Truck Movements on Service Driveway. To serve the proposed WinCo Foods store, delivery trucks would enter the site from the eastbound direction of Redwood Parkway, at the signalized driveway. Trucks would continue west of the building to access the loading dock at the rear. Delivery trucks would maneuver at the northeast corner of the site to back into one of the two below-grade, three-bay loading docks. Truck egress would continue east of the building and out of the driveway at the southeast corner of the site. The nearest edge of this egress driveway path is approximately 50 feet from the nearest residences to the east.

Slow-moving trucks, at 5 to10 mph would generate up to 75 dBA Lmax at 50 feet when traveling and braking. With the noise attenuation provided by the sound barrier (required under Mitigation Measure NOISE-3) along the residential property line, truck passing noise would be reduced to below 65 dBA Lmax in the backyard of the nearest residences. This would be below the maximum noise levels currently experienced in the project vicinity.

In addition, these single daytime or nighttime by-passing events, would not cause the Ldn to exceed the City’s normally acceptable land use compatibility standard of 60 dBA Ldn for adjacent residential land uses. Also, as outlined previously, according to the City’s Municipal Code, sounds associated with the transportation of goods or people to and from a given premises are exempt from the City’s noise performance standards. Therefore, noise impacts on adjacent sensitive land uses from the ingress and egress of delivery vehicles to the project site would be considered less-than-significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1, NOISE-2 and NOISE-3.

Parking Lot Activities. Representative parking activities, such as vehicles cruising at slow speeds, door slamming, cars starting, would generate approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Conversation between two persons at a distance of 3 to 5 feet apart would generate a noise level of 60 dBA Leq at 5 feet. At 50 feet, this noise would be reduced to approximately 40 dBA Leq. However, single daytime or nighttime events, even with relatively high noise-generating activities such as periodic car doors slamming, cars starting, or people talking would not cause the Ldn to exceed the City’s normally acceptable land use compatibility standard of 60 dBA Ldn for adjacent residential land uses nor result in a substantial permanent increase of more than 5 dBA compared to levels existing without the project.

Rooftop Noise-Generating Equipment. The proposed project would have rooftop heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) mechanical equipment. Although no final design is available at this time for the type and location of the rooftop mechanical units, based on noise measurements conducted at a Waremart Foods Inc. (now WinCo Foods) in Salem, Oregon,8 rooftop HVAC units generate noise levels of approximately 62 dBA Leq at 50 feet. The minimum distance between the residences to the east and feasible rooftop equipment location is 150 feet, which would provide approximately 10 dBA in noise attenuation by distance divergence when compared to the noise level measured at 50 feet. Depending on the actual location of the rooftop units, the edge of the building roof may provide a certain degree of noise reduction for the nearest residences to the east. Therefore, noise levels at the nearest residences to the east, attributable to the rooftop mechanical

8 Albert G. Duble, 1994. Noise Study for Waremart Foods Inc. (now WinCo Foods), in Salem, Oregon.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 192 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

equipment, would be below 52 dBA Leq. This range of noise levels is lower than the measured ambient noise levels (52.5 and 57.5 dBA Leq) in the project vicinity (see Table IV.F-7). Therefore, no significant noise impacts are anticipated from the operation of rooftop mechanical equipment.

Compactor Noise. Based on noise measurements conducted at a WinCo Foods store in Vancouver, Washington,9 noise associated with garbage compactors was measured to be 51.9 dBA Leq at 100 feet. Three garbage compactors would be located on the north side of the project building. The compactors would be connected to an opening in the building wall so that all trash is loaded from inside the building directly into the compactor. The compactors themselves are not enclosed with a fence. The closest off-site sensitive land use to where the compactors would be located would be the office and day care land use located north of the project site. The compactors would be approximately 80 feet from the office building and 160 feet from the day care outdoor use areas. At these distances, noise levels from the operation of these compactors would range up to 53.9 dBA and 47.9 dBA Leq at the office and day care land uses respectively. However, the noise attenuation provided by the eight- foot-high sound barrier required in Mitigation Measure 2d, would reduce the noise associated with the garbage compactor by at least 8 dBA to below 45.9 dBA Leq at the office, and to below 39.9 dBA Leq at the day care outdoor use areas. These noise levels are much lower than those currently experienced in the project vicinity and well below the City’s normally acceptable noise level standard of 70 dBA Ldn for office and commercial land uses. Therefore, no significant noise impacts on off-site sensitive land uses from the operation of garbage compactors would occur and no mitigation measures are required.

9 TW Environmental, Inc., 2005. WinCo (Vancouver, Washington) Compactor Noise Measurement Data,

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 193 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES F. NOISE

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Noise.doc (3/3/2011) 194

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section describes the existing hydrology setting for the project, including a description of the watershed, runoff, drainage, flooding, and water quality, based on available information provided as part of the project application, published reports, and a site visit conducted on July 8, 2010. The setting also includes the project regulatory framework for hydrology and water quality. Significant adverse impacts that could result from the proposed project are described, and mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level are provided, where appropriate.

1. Setting The following discussion provides an overview of hydrology and water quality of the project site, and describes the regulatory framework. a. Watershed Description. The project is within the 4,700-acre (approximately 7.3 square miles) Lake Chabot watershed.1 Lake Chabot is a recreational lake that is managed by the Greater Vallejo Recreation District (the lake is stocked for fishing, but swimming is not allowed).2 The lake functions as a detention basin.3 The southern shoreline of Lake Chabot is within Dan Foley Park, and the northern shore is within Six Flags Marine World. Blue Rock Springs Creek discharges into Rindler Creek, which flows into the southeast side of Lake Chabot. A dam is located on the northwest side of the lake, where Chabot Creek discharges from the lake over the dam spillway when the water surface elevation rises above the spillway invert.4 Chabot Creek discharges into the mouth of the Napa River just north of Mare Island Strait, and Mare Island Strait discharges into the San Pablo Bay at its confluence with the Carquinez Strait.

According to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan),5 beneficial uses of Lake Chabot and its tributaries include the following: municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply; water contact recreation; non-contact water recreation; warm freshwater habitat; cold freshwater habitat; wildlife habitat; and fish spawning.

Beneficial uses of the San Pablo Bay include the following: municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply; industrial service supply; water contact recreation; non-contact water recreation; commercial and sport fishing; shellfish harvesting; estuarine habitat; fish migration; preservation of rare and endangered species; fish spawning; wildlife habitat; and navigation. b. Stormwater Runoff and Drainage. The project site has an existing stormwater drainage system that is designed to convey flows from the 100-year storm6 in two parallel 72-inch storm drain

1 West Yost and Associates, 2002. Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District, Storm Drain Master Plan. July. 2 McCoy, Philip, 2010. Recreation Superintendent, Greater Vallejo Recreation District. Personal communication with Baseline Environmental Consulting. August 31. 3 West Yost and Associates, op. cit. 4 Ibid. 5 San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Board, 2007. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). January 18. 6 West Yost and Associates, op. cit.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 195

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

pipes (a 30-inch storm drain pipe discharges into the one of the 72-inch pipes). Storm drain inlets within the project site discharge into Blue Rock Springs Creek, which runs in a culvert beneath the project site. The runoff discharges into a short reach of open channel before crossing I-80. Flow is then conveyed across I-80 through twin 60-inch and twin 72-inch pipes. West of I-80, the flow is conveyed in an open channel through the Newell Mobile Home Park and discharges into Rindler Creek just north of Coach Lane. Rindler Creek discharges into Lake Chabot.7

In the event that a storm occurs that is larger than the capacity of the stormwater drainage system (i.e., in excess of the 100-year storm), or if flooding occurs during a smaller storm due to debris blockage in the downstream drainage system, flood water would be released overland from the project site across the adjacent property to the north and onto Rotary Way. In such cases, due to the difference in site elevations, surface overflows from the Elks Lodge building would drain away from Redwood Parkway and across the lower elevation site to the north. c. Flooding, Dam Inundation, and Coastal Hazards. Based on the Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Vallejo California, the project site is not located within a Special Flood Hazard Area subject to a one percent annual chance of flooding (often referred to as a 100-year flood). However, areas adjacent to Blue Rock Springs Creek northwest (downstream) of the project are within a Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone AE).

Historically flooding has occurred in the project vicinity. Flooding has occurred upstream of the project in Hanns Park (located adjacent to Redwood Parkway, southeast of the project). Once or twice in the last ten years, flooding has occurred due to debris clogging of drain inlets and the culvert headwall where Blue Rock Springs Creek enters the twin 72-inch culverts at the corner of Sykline Drive and Redwood Parkway.8,9 The debris clogging caused flooding along Redwood Parkway, including Redwood Parkway adjacent to the southern portion of the project site. The Vallejo Sanita- tion and Flood Control District (VSFCD) is evaluating debris control measures to alleviate the flooding problems.10

Downstream of the project, flooding occurs within the Newell Mobile Home Park located south of Coach Lane.11 This area is located within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone AE), as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City. Flood water often overtops the east bank of Blue Rock Springs Creek in the northern portions of the mobile home park. Blue Rock Springs Creek also overtops its banks by its confluence with Rindler Creek, and overflows discharge across Coach Lane and into Rindler Creek.12,13 Flooding occurs in this area because the existing stormwater drainage system is severely under capacity to convey 100-year storm flows (which is the VSFCD requirement

7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Monahan, Mike, 2010. Associate Engineer, Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District. Personal communication with Baseline Environmental Consulting. August 27. 10 West Yost and Associates, op. cit. 11 Ibid. 12 Monahan, Mike, op. cit. 13 Ibid.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 196

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

for the drainage area), and because the high tailwater elevation14 in Rindler Creek creates a backwater effect through the mobile home park, which decreases the capacity of Blue Rock Springs Creek and increases the flood depths through the mobile home park.15 Flooding in this area occurs every three to five years (2005, 2002, 1996, and 1984), and flooding last occurred in the winter of 2009-2010.16 The VSFCD has not received any reports of property damage due to flooding in the last 10 years.17 The VSFCD is currently evaluating alternatives, including channel improvements, to alleviate flooding in this area.18

The project site is not located within a dam failure inundation hazard area, as determined by the California Office of Emergency Services and mapped by the Association of Bay Area Governments.19 In addition, the project’s distance from San Pablo Bay (approximately 5 miles) and site elevation (approximately 100 feet above mean sea level)20 would preclude the risk of exposure to coastal hazards such as sea level rise, extreme high tides, or tsunamis. A tsunami inundation map for the project area prepared as part of a statewide multi-agency effort shows that the project area would not be inundated by a tsunami.21 d. Groundwater Basin and Groundwater Quality. The project site is located within the Napa- Sonoma Volcanic Highlands groundwater source area. The Basin Plan does not currently provide the beneficial uses of the groundwater, and indicates that the beneficial uses will be provided at a later date; in the interim, groundwater beneficial uses are determined on a site-by-site basis. Local groundwater is not used for water supply by the City of Vallejo.22 Groundwater quality in the project area has not been characterized. Groundwater has been encountered at the project site at depths ranging from approximately 13 to 20 feet below ground surface; groundwater levels are expected to vary by season and by location within the site.23 e. Surface Water Quality. The quality of surface water in the vicinity of the project is affected by past and current land uses in the watershed, as well as local geology. Surface water quality is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board).

14 The tailwater elevation is the flow depth in the downstream channel measured from the invert at the culvert outlet. 15 West Yost and Associates, op. cit. 16 Monahan, Mike, op. cit. 17 Ibid. 18 West Yost and Associates, op. cit. 19 Association of Bay Area Governments, 1995. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for the City of Vallejo. Website: www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl. Accessed August 23, 2010. 20 Professional Service Industries, Inc., 2009. Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for the Proposed Retail Store, 2850 Redwood Parkway, Vallejo, California. December 22. 21 California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California, 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Benicia Quadrangle. July 15. 22 Vallejo, City of, 2006. Utilities Department/Water Division, City of Vallejo 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. February. 23 Professional Service Industries, Inc., op. cit.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 197

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Lake Chabot and its tributaries are not listed on the 2006 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. However, Lake Chabot is monitored by the State’s Toxic Substances Monitoring Program.24 The Toxic Substances Monitoring Program was organized to provide a uniform statewide approach to the detection and evaluation of the occurrence of toxic substances in fresh, estuarine, and marine waters of the State through the analysis of fish and other aquatic life. The program primarily targets water bodies with known or suspected impaired water quality. The California Department of Fish and Game implements the sampling program on behalf of the State Board.

The San Pablo Bay is listed on the 2006 303(d) list due to impairment from legacy pesticides (chlordane, DDT, dieldrin), dioxin and furan compounds, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, selenium, and nickel. f. Regulatory Framework. Applicable federal, state, and local regulations are described below.

(1) Municipal Stormwater Management Requirements. Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, municipal stormwater discharges in the City of Vallejo are regulated under the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, Order No. R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted October 14, 2009 (“MRP”). The most important requirements that pertain to the project are Provision C.3. (New Development and Redevelopment) and Provision C.13. (Copper Controls).

MRP Provision C.3. addresses post-construction stormwater management requirements for new development and redevelopment projects. Currently, the City of Vallejo requires project applicants to install hydrodynamic devices, or other best management practices to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff such as floating liquids and solids, trash and debris, and coarse sediment, and to show the locations of such controls on plans submitted with the building permit application. However effective December 1, 2010, the City must begin implementing the requirements stipulated in the MRP (with various phased subsequent compliance deadlines). This requirement affects certain types of projects including commercial redevelopment projects that add and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area. Provision C.3. requires the City to require incorporation of site design, source control and stormwater treatment measures in development projects, to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharge, and to prevent increases in runoff flows. The MRP requires that Low Impact Development (“LID”)25 methods shall be the primary mechanism for implementing such controls. Because the project would replace more than 50 percent of the impervious surface of a previously existing development that was not subject to Provision C.3., all replaced impervious surfaces must be included in the stormwater treatment system design.

By December 1, 2010, the City must require incorporation of stormwater treatment systems designed per the following hydraulic sizing criteria:

24 State Water Resources Control Board, Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, State Mussel Watch Program/Toxic Substance Monitoring Program, 2009. Website: www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/ mussel_watch.shtml. Accessed August 25, 2010. 25 The goal of LID is to reduce runoff and mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology by minimizing disturbed areas and impervious cover and then infiltrating, storing, detaining, evapotranspiring (i.e., evaporating water from soil and plants), and/or biotreating stormwater runoff close to its source.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 198

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

• Volume Hydraulic Design Basis – Treatment systems whose primary mode of action depends on volume capacity shall be designed to treat stormwater runoff equal to: (a) The maximized stormwater capture volume for the area, on the basis of historical rainfall records, determined using the formula and volume capture coefficients set forth in Urban Runoff Quality Management, Water Environment Federation Manual of Practice No. 23/American Society of Civil Engineers Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998), pages 175–178 (e.g., approximately the 85th percentile 24-hour storm runoff event); or (b) The volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80 percent or more capture, determined in accordance with the methodology set forth in Section 5 of the California Storm- water Quality Association’s Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook, New Development and Redevelopment (2003), using local rainfall data; • Flow Hydraulic Design Basis – Treatment systems whose primary mode of action depends on flow capacity shall be sized to treat: (a) 10 percent of the 50-year peak flow rate; (b) The flow of runoff produced by a rain event equal to at least two times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity for the applicable area, based on historical records of hourly rainfall depths; or (c) The flow of runoff resulting from a rain event equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour intensity; or • Combination Flow and Volume Design Basis – Treatment systems that use a combination of flow and volume capacity shall be sized to treat at least 80 percent of the total runoff over the life of the project, using local rainfall data.

Effective December 1, 2011, projects must treat 100 percent of runoff (based on the selected calculation described above) with LID treatment measures that include harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment (biotreatment may only be used if the other options are infeasible; by May 1, 2011, the MRP permittees, working collaboratively or individually, shall submit a report to the Water Board on the criteria and procedures that will be used to determine when certain LID measures are infeasible). Biotreatment areas shall be designed to have a long-term infiltration rate of 5 to 10 inches per hour. Prior to the December 1, 2011 deadline (by December 1, 2010), the MRP permittees, working collaboratively or individually, shall submit for Water Board approval, a proposed set of model biotreatment soil media specifications and soil infiltration testing methods.

By December 1, 2011 the City must require development projects to incorporate the following source control and site design measures: • Minimize stormwater pollutants of concern through measures that may include plumbing dumpster drips from covered trash, food waste and compactor enclosures to the sanitary sewer; • Properly design covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage areas and loading docks; • Properly design trash storage areas; • Minimize stormwater runoff by implementing one or more site design measures, which include directing roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse, or directing roof runoff to vegetated areas. MRP Provision C.13. addresses copper controls for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. Provision C.13.a requires permittees to ensure that local ordinance authority is established to prohibit the discharge of wastewater to storm drains generated from the installation, cleaning, treating, and washing of the surface of copper architectural features. The permittees shall develop best management practices (BMPs) for managing copper waste during construction and post-construction, require

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 199

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

the use of appropriate BMPs when issuing building permits that include copper architectural components, educate installers and operators on appropriate BMPs, and enforce against noncompliance.

Section 16.71.055 of the Vallejo Municipal Code (Title 16, Zoning; 16.71, Water Efficient Landscap- ing Requirements; 16.71.055 Stormwater Management) encourages implementation of stormwater BMP practices into the landscape and grading design plans to minimize runoff and to increase on-site retention and infiltration.

(2) Construction General Permit and Local Requirements for Construction. Pursuant to CWA Section 402 and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, on September 2, 2009, the State Board adopted an NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Con- struction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 (Construction General Permit). To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, the discharger must provide via electronic submittal, a Notice of Intent, a Storm Water Pollution Preven- tion Plan (SWPPP), and other documents required by Attachment B of the Construction General Permit. Activities subject to the Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as grubbing or excavation. The permit also covers linear underground and overhead projects such as pipeline installations. Local construction activities covered under the General Construction Permit are overseen by the Water Board.

The Construction General Permit exercises a risk-based permitting approach, and mandates certain requirements based on the risk level of the project (Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3). The risk level of the project is based on the risk of sediment discharge and the receiving water risk. The sediment discharge risk depends on the project location and timing (i.e., wet season versus dry season activities). The receiving water risk depends on whether the project would discharge to a sediment-sensitive receiving water, defined by the beneficial uses of the receiving water in the Basin Plan (e.g., cold freshwater habitat), a listing on the 303(d) list due to sediment impairment, or having a Total Maxi- mum Daily Load in place to address excessive sedimentation. The project would not be a Level 1 project (lowest risk) because per the Basin Plan, cold freshwater habitat is a beneficial use of Lake Chabot and its tributaries. The determination of whether the project would be Level 2 or 3 would be made by the preparer of the SWPPP. This risk level determination would be reviewed and approved by the City.

The performance standard in the Construction General Permit is that dischargers shall minimize or prevent pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges through the use of controls, structures, and management practices that achieve Best Available Technology (BAT) for treatment of toxic and non-conventional pollutants and Best Conventional Technology (BCT) for treatment of conventional pollutants.26 The permit also imposes numeric action levels (Level 2 and Level 3 projects) and numeric effluent limits (Level 3 projects) for pH and turbidity, as well as minimum BMPs that must be implemented at all sites.

26 As defined by U.S. EPA, Best Available Technology (BAT) is a technology-based standard established by the CWA as the most appropriate means available on a national basis for controlling the direct discharge of toxic and non- conventional pollutants to navigable waters. The BAT effluent limitations guidelines, in general, represent the best existing performance of treatment technologies that are economically achievable. Best Conventional Technology (BCT) is a technology-based standard that applies to treatment of conventional pollutants, such as total suspended solids.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 200

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

A SWPPP must be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer that meets the certification requirements in the Construction General Permit. The purpose of the SWPPP is to (1) to help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that could affect the quality of stormwater discharges; and (2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as non-stormwater discharges resulting from construction activity. BMPs must be overseen by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner that meets the requirements in the permit. For Level 2 and Level 3 projects, the discharger must also prepare a Rain Event Action Plan as part of the SWPPP that must be designed to protect all exposed portions of the construction site within 48 hours prior to any likely precipitation event.

The SWPPP must also include a construction site monitoring program. The monitoring program includes, depending on the project risk level, visual observations of site discharges, water quality monitoring of site discharges (pH, turbidity, and non-visible pollutants, if applicable), and receiving water monitoring (pH, turbidity, suspended sediment concentration, and bioassessment).

In addition, the City of Vallejo requires submittal of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan with the building permit application, and a SWPPP if the site is one acre or larger. Section 15.06.250 of the Vallejo Municipal Code (Title 15, Subdivisions; 15.06, General Regulations; 15.06.250, Grading and Erosion Control) requires the subdivider to make or provide all onsite grading and other improvements necessary to properly control erosion and prevent sedimentation; such grading and other improvements shall conform to the final plan filed with the final map and approved by the Public Works Director.

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section analyzes hydrology and water quality impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project during construction and for the operational phase. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the threshold for determining whether an impact is significant. The latter part of the section presents hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the proposed project, and recommends mitigation measures as appropriate. a. Criteria of Significance.27 The proposed project would result in significant flooding, hydrologic, water quality, or storm drainage impacts if it would have any of the following effects: • Violate any local, State or federal water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a significant net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level or alteration of the flow of groundwater; • Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; • Substantially degrade water quality of Vallejo area streams, Lake Chabot, wetlands, or San Pablo Bay through pollutant discharges, physical or chemical changes of water bodies, or increased erosion and sedimentation;

27 Floodplain development impacts and flood hazards related to dam inundation, tsunamis, seiches, and mudflows are evaluated in the project Initial Study (LSA Associates, Inc., August 2010), and were determined to have no impact or a less-than-significant impact.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 201

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

• Create or contribute runoff water of a quantity or volume that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or would result in flooding on-site or off-site; • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite; or • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite. b. Less-Than-Significant Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts. Less-than-significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality are described below.

(1) Substantially Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere with Recharge. The project would not use the groundwater for water supply. Although groundwater is not expected to affect project construction,28 dewatering during the construction period could be required; however dewatering would only result in a temporary effect on the local uppermost water-bearing zones related to near-surface excavations. In the project operational phase, water supply would be provided by the City of Vallejo, which uses surface water as its sole source of water supply.29

The existing condition has more vegetated areas than what is proposed for the project; therefore there would be a small increase in impervious area associated with the project. The project would landscape approximately 0.82 acres of the approximately 7.64-acre site. The decrease in vegetated areas associated with the project is not substantial and would not significantly interfere with groundwater recharge.

(2) Exceed the Capacity of Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems. The existing twin 72-inch storm drain lines would be relocated for the project so that the lines would be adjacent to and not underneath the new building. The existing 72-inch storm drain lines are sized to convey flows up to the 100-year event, per the VSFCD’s design criteria for the drainage area.30 There would be no change in the conveyance capacity of the relocated 72-inch storm drain lines. The minor increase in project impervious area compared to the existing condition (due to a decrease in vegetated area with project implementation) would not result in a significant increase in peak discharge rates for the 100-year storm.31 In addition, in accordance with the MRP, the project would be required to install stormwater treatment systems that would minimize increases in peak flow rates from smaller, more frequently occurring storms; please refer to Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 for a discussion of the required stormwater treatment BMPs for the post-construction phase. Therefore, implementation of the project would not exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage system and the impacts would be less than significant.

28 Professional Service Industries, Inc., op. cit. 29 Vallejo, City of, Utilities Department/Water Division, op. cit. 30 West Yost and Associates, op. cit. 31 The Storm Drain Master Plan (West Yost and Associates, op. cit.) used a hydrologic and hydraulic model to predict flooding in the stormwater drainage system. The model assumed that the drainage area that includes the project is 100 percent commercial land use with 90 percent impervious area; implementation of the project would not significantly change this assumption.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 202

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

(3) Drainage Patterns and Substantial Erosion. The project would not significantly alter site drainage patterns. Approximately 6,397 cubic yards of soil would be removed from the site to allow for new building foundations, the sub-grade loading area, and other infrastructure. Approxi- mately 2,644 cubic yards of fill would be needed for construction, for a total of 3,550 cubic yards to be exported from the site. Runoff from the site would discharge into the stormwater drainage system, and the locations of drain inlets would be modified to accommodate the grading and drainage for the new site design. The change in project drainage patterns would not result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite. Please refer to Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 and HYDRO-2 for a discussion of the BMPs the project would employ to prevent substantial erosion and siltation for the construction (which includes erosion control requirements for earth-moving activities) and post- construction phases (which includes requirements to treat stormwater runoff before it discharges into the stormwater drainage system). In addition, the project would comply with the City’s requirement to submit a Grading and Erosion Control Plan, which would minimize erosion and siltation during construction. Therefore, impacts associated with drainage pattern alteration that would cause substantial erosion would be less than significant.

(4) Drainage Patterns and Flooding. As discussed above, the project would not significantly alter drainage patterns. The project must allow for overland release of surface runoff in excess of the 100-year storm event, and/or in the case that flooding occurs during a smaller storm resulting from debris clogging in the downstream stormwater drainage system. In the existing condition, overland release of such flows is conveyed through the adjacent property to the north and onto Rotary Way. There would be no change in the drainage pattern for overland release of flood water with implementation of the project; therefore, the project impacts on flooding offsite would be less than significant. In order to prevent onsite flooding of the newly constructed grocery store, the project applicant would comply with the VSFCD requirement to construct the new building so the finish floor elevation is one foot above the curb elevation on Rotary Way. Therefore, flooding onsite as a result of changes in drainage patterns would be less than significant. c. Significant Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts. Development of the project could result in significant impacts related to water quality, as described below.

(1) Violate Water Quality Standards or Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality. Project construction activities would include grading, cutting and filling; removing vegetation; removing existing onsite structures; and constructing the new building (with a standing seam copper roof over the customer entrance) and other onsite improvements (parking areas, landscaping and driveways).

Impact HYDRO-1: Construction period activities could generate stormwater runoff that could cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade the water quality of Vallejo area streams, Lake Chabot, wetlands, or San Pablo Bay. (S)

In areas of active construction, soil erosion may result in discharges of sediment-laden stormwater runoff into Blue Rock Springs Creek, if not properly controlled. Additional sediment input to the creek from construction of the project could contribute to degradation of downstream water quality and impairment of beneficial uses. Sediment can also be a carrier for other pollutants, such as heavy metals, nutrients, pathogens, oil and grease, fuels and other petroleum products. In addition to

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 203

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

sediment, other pollutants associated with the various phases of construction, such as trash, paint, solvents, sanitary waste from portable restrooms, and concrete curing compounds, can discharge into and impair receiving waters if released during construction.

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1, which requires preparation and implementation of a site-specific SWPPP in accordance with the Construction General Permit and the Vallejo Municipal Code, in addition to submittal of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan to the City, would reduce the adverse impacts to water quality associated with discharges of construction site runoff to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1: Consistent with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit, and as required by the Vallejo Municipal Code, the project applicant shall prepare and implement a SWPPP designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to surface water quality through the project construction period. The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following objectives: (1) all pollutants and their sources, including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site erosion and all other activities associated with construction activity are controlled; (2) where not otherwise required to be under a Water Board permit, all non-storm water discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; (3) site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from construction activity to the BAT/BCT standard; (4) calculations and design details as well as BMP controls for site run-on are complete and correct, and (5) stabilization BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed.

The SWPPP shall prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required in Attachment D of the Construction General Permit for Risk Level 2 dischargers, or Attachment E for Risk Level 3 dischargers (as applicable, based on final determination of the project’s Risk Level status [to be determined as part of the Notice of Intent for coverage under the Construction General Permit]). These include: BMPs for erosion and sediment control, site management/housekeeping/waste management, management of non- stormwater discharges, runon and runoff controls, and BMP inspection/maintenance/repair activities. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook-Construction32 or the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual.33

The SWPPP shall include a construction site monitoring program that identifies requirements for dry weather visual observations of pollutants at all discharge locations, and as appropriate (depending on the Risk Level), sampling of the site effluent and receiving waters (receiving water monitoring is only required for some Risk Level 3 dischargers). A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner shall be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site and performing all

32 California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003. Stormwater Best Management Handbook-Construction, with updates through 2006. 33 Caltrans, 2003. Storm Water Quality Handbook Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual, March.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 204

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

required monitoring and inspection/maintenance/repair activities. The project applicant shall also prepare a Rain Event Action Plan as part of the SWPPP.

The following are the types of BMPs that shall be implemented for the project, subject to review and approval by the Water Board.

Erosion Control BMPs • Scheduling. To reduce the potential for erosion and sediment discharge, construction shall be scheduled to minimize ground disturbance during the rainy season. The project applicant shall:

o Sequence construction activities to minimize the amount of time that soils remain disturbed.

o Stabilize all disturbed soils as soon as possible following the completion of ground disturbing work.

o Install erosion and sediment control BMPs prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities. • Preservation of Existing Vegetation. Where feasible, existing vegetation shall be preserved to provide erosion control. • Stabilize Soils. Hydroseeding, geotextile fabrics and mats, mulch, or soil binders shall be used, as appropriate, to reduce erosion on exposed soil surfaces. • Stabilize Streambanks. When working along stream banks or within channels, BMPs shall be implemented to minimize channel erosion and sedimentation. Proper erosion and sediment controls, such as silt fences, mulch, geotextiles, and hydroseeding, shall be used. To the extent possible, existing vegetation that stabilizes the stream banks shall be preserved. • Earth Dikes, Drainage Swales and Slope Drains. Earth dikes, drainage swales, or slope drains shall be constructed to divert runoff away from exposed soils and stabilized areas, and redirect the runoff to a desired location, such as a sediment basin. • Outlet Protection and Velocity Dissipation Devices. Rock, concrete rubble, or grouted riprap shall be installed at culvert and pipe outlets to drainage conveyances, to prevent scour of the soil caused by concentrated high-velocity flows.

Sediment Control BMPs • Silt Fence/Fiber Roll. Silt fences or fiber rolls shall be installed around the perimeter of the areas affected by construction, at the toe of slopes, around storm drain inlets, and at outfall areas, to prevent offsite sedimentation. • Street Sweeping and Vacuuming. Areas with visible sediment tracking shall be swept or vacuumed daily, to prevent the discharge of sediment into the stormwater drainage system or creeks. • Storm Drain Inlet Protection. Storm drains shall be protected using a filter fabric fence, gravel bag barrier, or other methods, to allow sediments to be filtered or settle out before runoff enters drain inlets.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 205

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

• Check Dams. Barriers shall be constructed of rock, gravel bags, sand bags, or fiber rolls across a constructed swale or drainage ditch, to reduce the effective slope of the channel. This reduces the velocity of runoff, which allows sediment to settle and reduces erosion. • Sediment Traps. Sediment traps shall be constructed where sediment-laden runoff may enter the stormwater drainage systems or creeks. Sediment traps are appropriate for drainage areas less than five acres. • Sediment Basins. If used onsite, sediment basins shall be designed according to the method provided in the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater BMP Handbook— Construction.34 Sediment basins are appropriate for drainage areas of five acres or greater.

Wind Erosion Control BMPs • Dust Control. Potable water shall be applied using water trucks to alleviate nuisance caused by dust. Water application rates shall be minimized to prevent erosion and runoff. • Stockpile Management. Silt fences shall be used around the perimeter of stockpiles, and stockpiles shall be covered to prevent wind dispersal of sediment.

Tracking Controls • Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit. Construction site entrances and exits shall be graded and stabilized to reduce the tracking of mud and dirt onto public roads by construction vehicles. • Stabilized Construction Roadway. Access roads, parking areas, and other on-site vehicle transportation routes shall be stabilized immediately after grading is completed, and frequently maintained to prevent erosion and to control dust. • Tire Wash. A tire washing facility shall be installed at stabilized construction access points to allow for tire washing when vehicles exit the site to prevent tracking of dirt and mud onto public roads.

Non-Stormwater Controls • Dewatering. The SWPPP shall include a dewatering plan for non-contaminated groundwater specifying methods of water collection, transport, treatment, and discharge. The discharger shall consult with the Water Board regarding any required permit (other than the Construction General Permit) or Basin Plan conditions prior to initial dewatering activities to land, storm drains, or receiving waters. Water produced by dewatering shall be impounded in holding tanks, sediment basins, or other holding facilities to settle the solids and provide other treatment as necessary prior to discharge to receiving waters. Discharges of water produced by dewatering shall be controlled to prevent erosion. • Illicit Connection/Discharge Detection and Reporting. Contractors shall regularly inspect the site for evidence of illicit connections, illegal dumping, or discharges. Such illicit activities shall immediately be reported to the VSFCD.

34 California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003, op. cit.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 206

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

• Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning. Construction equipment shall be washed regularly in a designated stabilized area onsite, or offsite. Steam cleaning will not be performed onsite. Phosphate-free, biodegradable soaps shall be used for on-site activities. Wash water from onsite activities shall be contained and infiltrated, to avoid discharges to drain inlets and creeks. • Vehicle and Equipment Fueling and Maintenance. Vehicles and equipment shall be inspected daily for leaks. Perform vehicle maintenance and fueling off-site whenever possible. If maintenance and fueling must take place onsite, designated areas shall be located at least 50 feet away from storm drain inlets, drainage courses, and receiving waters. Fueling areas shall be protected with berms and dikes to prevent runon, runoff, and to contain spills. Fueling shall be performed on level grade. Nozzles shall be equipped with automatic shutoffs to control drips. Stored fuel shall be enclosed or covered. Drip pans shall be used for all vehicle and equipment maintenance activities. Spill kits shall be available in maintenance and fueling areas, and spills shall be removed with absorbent materials and not washed down with water. If spills or leaks occur, contaminated soil and cleanup materials shall be properly disposed. • Paving and Grinding Operations. Proper practices shall be implemented to prevent run-on and runoff, and to properly dispose of waste. Paving and grinding activities shall be avoided during the rainy season, when feasible. • Copper Roof Installation. All runoff resulting from the installation, treating, or cleaning of the copper roof shall be discharged to the sanitary sewer system in accordance with VSFCD requirements.

Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control BMPs • Material Delivery and Storage and Use. Materials such as detergents, concrete compounds, petroleum products and hazardous materials shall be stored in a designated area away from vehicular traffic, drain inlets, and creeks. The materials shall be stored on pallets with secondary containment. Spill clean-up materials, material safety data sheets, a material inventory, and emergency contact numbers shall be maintained in the storage area. • Spill Prevention and Control. Proper procedures shall be implemented to contain and clean- up spills and prevent material discharges into the storm drain system. • Waste Management. Solid waste shall be collected in designated areas, and stored in watertight containers located in a covered area or with secondary containment. Waste shall be removed from the site regularly. Hazardous wastes shall be stored and disposed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. • Sanitary/Septic Waste Management. Portable toilets shall be located at least 50 feet away from drain inlets and waterbodies, and away from paved areas. • Stockpile Management. Stockpiles shall be surrounded by sediment controls, covered, and located at least 50 feet from concentrated flows of stormwater, inlets, and creeks. • Concrete Waste Management. Concrete washout shall be performed offsite, or in a designated area at least 50 feet away from storm drain inlets or creeks. A temporary pit or bermed area shall be constructed where the waste can be discharged and allowed to set for proper disposal.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 207

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

• Training. Construction site personnel shall receive training on implementing all BMPs included in the SWPPP. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner shall perform all BMP inspection/maintenance/repair and site monitoring activities. (LTS)

Impact HYDRO-2: Operational period activities could generate stormwater runoff that could cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade the water quality of Vallejo area streams, Lake Chabot, wetlands, or San Pablo Bay. (S)

The project would construct impervious surfaces such as roofs, driveways, and parking lots, upon which pollutants such as metals, sediment, and oil and grease could accumulate and come into contact with rain and stormwater runoff, which would discharge into Blue Rock Springs Creek. Pollutants could also be generated from the loading, delivery and trash pick-up areas. In addition, as the copper oxidizes, a significant pollutant loading of copper from the copper roofing material proposed by the project may be released in stormwater runoff.35 If not properly controlled, the discharge of polluted stormwater runoff could adversely affect water quality and the beneficial uses of receiving waters.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2, which requires the project applicant to implement specific post-construction controls in accordance with the MRP, and to submit the controls for review to the VSFCD and the City of Vallejo Public Works Department with the building permit application, would reduce the adverse impacts associated with post-construction stormwater runoff to a less-than- significant level.

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2: In accordance with the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), the project applicant shall implement the following requirements to control pollutants in post- construction stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharges, which shall be submitted for review with the building permit application to the VSFCD and the City of Vallejo Public Works Department. If the VSFCD and City do not have in-house review capacity, a qualified consultant approved by the VSFCD and the City shall be retained to review the project applicant’s submittal. • Locations of all stormwater treatment BMPs, sized in accordance with the MRP Provision C.3. shall be shown on a site plan; • Roof runoff shall be directed to vegetated areas, as shown on a site plan; • The following discharges shall be conveyed to the sanitary sewer as shown on a site plan:

o Dumpster drainage areas for covered trash, food waste and compactor enclosures;

o Areas used for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment shall be connected to a grease inceptor and shall discharge to the sanitary sewer;

o Drains located in loading docks shall be equipped with a spill control valve or equivalent device, which shall be kept closed during periods of operation;

o The project applicant shall get approval from the VSFCD on specific sanitary sewer connection and discharge requirements.

35 Larry Walker Associates and TDC Environmental, LLC, 2006. Copper Management Strategy Development Resources, Final. Prepared for the Clean Estuary Partnership. September.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 208

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

• The project applicant shall develop BMPs for managing wastewater generated from the cleaning and/or treating of the copper roof over the grocery store customer entrance. The wastewater shall not be discharged into the stormwater drainage system. Alternatively, an alternative material to copper will be used for this architectural detail. • The project applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan that details the O&M responsibility mechanism and maintenance requirements for all stormwater treatment systems, for the life of the project. (LTS)

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 209

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Hydrology.doc (3/3/2011) 210

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES H. PUBLIC SERVICES

H. PUBLIC SERVICES This section describes and evaluates the potential public services impacts for the proposed project, including police services and fire and emergency services. Park, recreation, school and library services are not evaluated as the proposed project would not introduce a residential population to the area, which would utilize these services (refer to the Initial Study in Appendix B for a discussion of these topics). Potential impacts to public services that could result from the proposed project are identified, and mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate.

1. Setting This section discusses the existing conditions, including service locations, capacities, and expansion possibilities related to police and fire/emergency services. The information presented here was gathered from a variety of sources, including direct communication with the agencies and organizations that administer or provide each service. a. Police Services. The project site is under jurisdiction of the City of Vallejo Police Department (VPD). VPD provides police protection services throughout the City and VPD headquarters are located at 111 Amador Street, approximately 2.7 miles southwest of the project site. Currently, there are 90 sworn officers, 31 civilian staffers, 12 part-time cadets and about 20 citizen volunteers at the VPD. Current staffing levels are in line with budgeted staffing levels; however, in recent years, the VPD reduced the number of sworn personnel by 68 officers.1

The VPD service area is divided into eight beats, which are then subdivided into districts. The project site is designated as Beat 1, which covers the northeast portion of the City. Overall, there is one beat police officer assigned to Beat 1 and during occasional overlap periods, there are two officers assigned. Pro-active patrolling can vary significantly depending on the number of calls for service occurring within beat 1.2 The City has not established a response time goal for police protection services. Incoming calls are prioritized and responded to according to level of urgency. Priority 1 calls are defined as involving immediate danger of injury or loss of life, and Priority 2 calls are those which require an urgent response to prevent the situation from escalating to a Priority 1. The VPD reported a City-wide average response time of 5.8 minutes for Priority 1 calls, 22.8 minutes for Priority 2 calls, and 27.8 minutes for Priority 3 calls during the period between January 2010 and mid-September 2010.3 The VPD’s estimated response time to the project site would vary greatly depending on the priority of the call and other pending calls for service within beat 1t. However, the location of the project site provides the VPD easy access from I-80. The project site is adjacent to two other patrol beats and would most likely result in a reasonable response time for higher priority calls from patrolling officers. The three most common incident types reported in Vallejo include theft, burglary, and traffic-related matters.4

1 Jackson, David, 2010. Captain, Vallejo Police Department Bureau of Field Operations. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 22. 2Ibid. 3 Jackson, David, 2010. Captain, Vallejo Police Department Bureau of Field Operations. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 23. 4Ibid.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-PublicServices.doc (3/3/2011) 211

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES H. PUBLIC SERVICES

General Plan goals and policies that address police services and are applicable to the proposed project are listed below: • Other Services Goal: To provide an efficient and financially sound system of urban services to protect the health, safety and general welfare of Vallejo area residents. o Policy.11c: Landscape areas should provide adequate visual access to all entrances. o Policy 11e: Defensible design techniques should be encouraged in all new developments. b. Fire and Emergency Services. The Vallejo Fire Department (VFD) provides fire services to the project area. VFD responds to structural and wildland fires, rescue and medical emergencies, hazardous materials spills, and vehicle accidents in this area. VFD serves the City of Vallejo and the East Vallejo Fire Protection District, a service area totaling 51 square miles. From January 2010 to June 2010, VFD responded to 5,988 incidents.5

VFD operates eight fire stations located throughout the City, which house eight engine companies and one truck company. Fire suppression personnel are deployed on three shifts where each shift is supervised by an Assistant Fire Chief. All of the eight engine companies have a paramedic firefighter assigned on duty to provide advance life support (ALS) capabilities. VFD personnel include one Chief, four assistant chiefs, 21 fire captains, 16 fire engineers, 25 firefighters, two fire prevention inspectors, and 2 administrative personnel.6 VFD Station 27 is located at 1585 Ascot Court, approximately 2 miles from the project site and would be the first station to respond to calls originating at the project site. Station #23, located approximately 1½ miles from the project site at 900 Redwood Street, would provide the secondary response. Both stations house an engine and brush unit and have a minimum of three staffers per station. The current response time to the project site from Station #27 is 4½ to 5 minutes.7

The City of Vallejo also participates in an automatic aid program with the City of Benicia. This automatic aid program assigns the closest responding first-due units, when available, in several designated areas in Vallejo and Benicia, providing improved emergency medical services and fire protection services to each jurisdiction. The project site is not designated as an area that is served by the program since it only serves the Glen Cove area, the southeast area of the City.8

The City of Vallejo also participates in countywide and Statewide Mutual Aid Programs with many other fire agencies in Solano County, Napa County and Contra Costa County.9 Through this program, should any of the participating jurisdictions need additional assistance in a major emergency, and a significant portion of their own resources are committed to emergency operations, strike teams, composed of designated units from one or more of the program cities, would provide assistance to

5 Vallejo, City of, 2010. Fire Department. Website: Website: www.ci.vallejo.ca.us/GovSite/default.asp ?serviceID1=692&Frame=L1. Accessed August 31. 6 Tweedy, William, 2010. Fire Department Information Officer, Vallejo Fire Department. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 16. 7 Robertson, Douglas, 2010. Fire Chief, Vallejo Fire Department. Written communication with LSA Associates, Inc. August 30. 8 Tweedy, William. op. cit 9 Ibid.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-PublicServices.doc (3/3/2011) 212

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES H. PUBLIC SERVICES

address the emergency. The City of Vallejo maintains mutual aid agreements with the cities of American Canyon, Benicia and Crocket.10

VFD has a standard level of service for fire protection, rescue, and emergency medical services. For any structure fire, the initial response includes three engines and one truck, with a minimum staffing of 12 firefighting personnel. 11 Accounting for the VFD’s emergency medical services cooperative with Solano County and medical ambulance, the VFD response time goal is 7 minutes, 90 percent of the time. Currently, the VFD maintains a travel time standard of 5½ minutes for Fire Department first-due emergency response.12 With the purchase of new equipment and training in firefighter survival, low angle rescue and confined space rescue, the VFD has increased its rescue services.

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts to public services that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds used to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts associated with the proposed project and identifies mitigation measures, if appropriate. Less-than-significant impacts to public services are discussed first, followed by significant impacts. a. Criteria of Significance. The project would have a significant impact on the environment related to public services if it would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police service, fire and emergency services, or schools. b. Less-Than-Significant Public Services Impacts. Less-than-significant impacts for each of the public services examined would result from implementation of the proposed project.

(1) Police Services. The proposed project would create an increase in demand for police services within Beat 1 as a result of retail use, which includes the sale of alcohol on the site, seven days a week and up to 24 hours per day, with the exception of Christmas Day. However, the project site is located in an area where existing commercial and retail uses are located and the increase in the number of retail establishments in the project area would not significantly differ from other areas in the City. As a result, the VPD does not believe additional personnel, equipment or physical improvements to their facilities would be required to serve the project even with current reductions in staffing.13

To address public safety concerns as part of the project the applicant will provide video camera monitoring and an on-site security guard (loss prevention personnel) and will post “no loitering” signs and the VPD’s contact information at the front of the store. Loss prevention personnel will monitor

10 Robertson, Douglas. op.cit. 11 Tweedy, William, op. cit. 12 Ibid. 13 Jackson, David, 2010. Captain, Vallejo Police Department Bureau of Field Operations. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 22.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-PublicServices.doc (3/3/2011) 213

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES H. PUBLIC SERVICES

approximately 91 interior DVR14 cameras and five exterior DVR cameras of which three would be pan/tilt and two would be fixed to cover 360 degrees of the building. If necessary, the loss prevention personnel will physically patrol the exterior area when exterior DVR monitoring indicates a necessity. Lighting at the front and back of the store and in the parking lot would also be provided to enhance public safety. Liquor items would be located adjacent to the service center and beer and wine would be located towards the front of the store so that personnel can easily see them.15

As discussed in Chapter III, Project Description, the eastern section of the parking lot is currently available to lodge members for RV use for stays of up to two weeks at a time. The proposed project would discontinue use of the site for overnight RV camping, and it is not WinCo’s policy to permit RV use of its parking lots. This restriction would decrease nuisance-related calls to the VPD from neighboring residents associated with RV use of the site.

Given the above, the VPD has the ability to provide adequate police services to the site and the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts to police service facilities.

(2) Fire and Emergency Services. The proposed project would result in an increased demand for fire protection and emergency medical services on the project site similar to the existing shopping center adjacent to the site. As part of the development review process, the proposed project would be required to conform to enhanced fire suppression and fire detection measures as required by the Fire Department and the California Fire Code. These measures may include: installation of automatic fire sprinklers and automatic fire alarm systems, verification of adequate fire flow from additional fire hydrants, appropriately sized turn-outs and turnarounds, ladder access, minimum widths for emergency vehicles access requirements, and emergency response/evacuation plans. Additionally, WinCo employees would undergo a hazardous materials training program. The Fire Code requires that site-specific design plans be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief prior to the issuance of any building permits.

The VFD has reviewed the proposed project and determined that increased demands on fire protection services resulting from development of the proposed project would not exceed the ability of existing staff and equipment to provide service at adequate levels.16 The proposed project also would not require new facilities to be constructed to serve the proposed project. As such, development of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to fire and emergency medical services within the City. c. Significant Public Services Impacts. The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to public services; therefore, no mitigation would be required.

14 DVR stands for Digital Video Recorder 15 Redwood Parkway Partners, LLC, 2010. City of Vallejo Off-site Sale of Alcohol Supplemental Questionnaire for WinCo Foods. March. 16 Tweedy, William. op. cit

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-PublicServices.doc (3/3/2011) 214

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE This section describes existing utility systems serving the project site and evaluates the effects of the proposed project on utilities. Potential impacts to utilities that could result from implementation of the proposed project are identified, and mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate. The analysis examines water supply, wastewater, solid waste, energy and telecommunications. Storm- water and storm drain-related impacts are discussed in Section IV.G., Hydrology and Water Quality.

1. Setting This section describes existing conditions, as they relate to the proposed project, of the water supply, treatment, and distribution system; the wastewater treatment and collection system; solid waste collection and disposal; telecommunications services; and natural gas and electric utilities in the City of Vallejo. The utilities analyzed here were selected on the basis of discussions with City staff. a. Water Supply System. The following discussion provides background information on the City’s sources of water, water treatment facilities, and water distribution system. It also summarizes the City’s General Plan policies related to water supply.

(1) Water Sources. Water is supplied to City residents by the City of Vallejo Water Depart- ment. The City obtains almost all of its water from three major sources: the Solano Water Project, the State Water Project, and Vallejo Delta Permit Water.1 Water from the Solano Water Project is delivered from Lake Berryessa and transported to Cordelia by the Putah South Canal. State Water Project water is conveyed from Lake Oroville to the North Bay Aqueduct pumping facility at Barker Slough. Vallejo Permit Water is delivered from Barker Slough to Cordelia. The City of Vallejo also has three sources of water for the Lakes System (Lake Curry, Lake Frey, and Lake Madigan). Lakes Frey and Madigan are located in northern Solano County and divert water to the Green Valley Water Treat- ment Plant (WTP). Lake Curry, located in Napa County, serves as a standby source for the City and as of 2004, is not available as a water source due to a lack of conveyance systems.2 The City is actively seeking an agreement under the Warren Act with the Bureau of Reclamation to transport Lake Curry water through the Putah South Canal Project facilities to allow transportation to the Fleming Hill Treatment Plant for use in Vallejo. Since the systems are isolated, the Lakes System service Table IV.I-1: Current Water Entitlements Acre- area and the Green Valley WTP cannot be used to Source feet/year supplement the City’s water supply in an emergency State Water Project 5,040a 3 water situation. Solano Water Project 14,256 Vallejo Delta Permit Water 22,600 Currently, as presented in Table IV.I-1, the City holds Total 41,896 a contract rights to a permanent water supply from the A10 percent reduction in the existing entitlement (5,600 acre feet/year) is identified to account for potential State Water Project, the Solano Water Project and the reductions in real water supplies distributed by the State Vallejo Delta Permit in the amount of approximately Water Project. 4 Source: City of Vallejo 2005 Urban Water Management 42,600 acre-feet per year. Plan, 2006 and Nugteren, Erik, 2010.

1 Vallejo, City of, 2006. City of Vallejo 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. February. 2 Nugteren, Erik, 2010. Water Superintendent, City of Vallejo Water Division. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 13. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-InfraUtilities.doc (3/3/2011) 215

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Approximately 90 percent of all surface water sources supply the City, and barring a return of drought conditions and severe cutbacks in entitlements, the City should be able to meet increasing demands for water through 2010.5 The 2015 total projected water demand for the Vallejo Water System, Vallejo Lakes System, and wholesale customers (Travis Air Force Base, City of Benicia, and City of American Canyon) is 33,220 acre-feet per year and is projected to increase by 7.2 percent to 35,610 acre-feet per year in 2025.6 Additional sources of future water could include 3,750 acre-feet per year from Lake Curry.7,8 This additional 3,750 acre-feet is not included in the 42,600 acre-feet of permanent water supply previously discussed.

The City’s Urban Water Management Plan includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The Con- tingency Plan addresses the short-term or emergency water management practices required during a drought or other shortage conditions. It includes a five staged response program. Each stage consists of specific prohibitions, regulations, fines, penalties and a rate structure to encourage the appropriate level of conservation. Each stage and set of prohibitions are tied to a water use reduction goal (Stage 1= zero percent reduction, Stage II=10 percent, Stage III=20 percent, Stage IV=35 percent, Stage V=up to and above 50 percent) to be reached by prohibiting certain behaviors (e.g., washing paved areas, landscape irrigation, etc). Though all five stages have both voluntary and mandatory components, none can be considered a rationing program because they do not strictly limit (i.e., “ration”) water use. However, stages IV and V are the most restrictive as they would prohibit landscape irrigation. The City has always been in Stage I and has never implemented Stages II to V.9

The City does not anticipate any unusual short-term water shortages. Short-term surface water supplies are accounted for in supply planning and at key locations, the City’s pumps have emergency diesel- powered generators in case of power outages.10 The City is also able to rely on voluntary reductions in water consumption during times of temporary water treatment plant shutdowns, reduced raw water availability, or potentially insufficient storage.11

(2) Water Treatment Facilities. Most of the City’s water is treated at the Fleming Hill WTP. The Fleming Hill WTP underwent a comprehensive upgrade that was completed in April 1996. The project upgrade increased the plant’s capacity to 42 million gallons of water a day (mgd), incorporated water treatment technology that utilizes fewer chemicals, and brought the plant up to the standards mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act. The processing flow at the plant is well within the Fleming Hill WTP’s capacity. On average, the current maximum amount of water that the plant processes is 33 mgd. During the summer months, the flow rate is about 25 mgd while in the winter

5 Vallejo, City of, 2006. City of Vallejo 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. February. 6 Ibid. 7 Vallejo, City of, 2006. op. cit. 8 1,500 ac-ft/yr of entitlement and safe yield from Lake Curry was used for in-stream flow. The full Lake Curry supply of 3,750 ac-ft/yr entitlement and safe yield become available beginning in 2010, when Lake Curry is returned to service by 2009. 9 Nugteren, Erik, 2010. Water Superintendent, City of Vallejo Water Division. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 22. 10 Ibid. 11 Vallejo, City of, 1999. In cooperation with City of Fairfield, Solano County Water Agency, Suisun/Solano Water Authority, City of Vacaville City of Vallejo. Water Management Plan. January.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-InfraUtilities.doc (3/3/2011) 216

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

months, the rate decreases to about 15 mgd.12 In 2009, water production from the Fleming Hill water system (included all water delivered to residential, commercial, public authority connections, and unaccounted-for water) was 17,500 acre-feet per year. Approximately 10 percent of the total is unaccounted for only within the City.13 The Lakes System water is treated at the Green Valley WTP.

(3) Water Distribution Systems. The existing water distribution system service for the City originates at the Fleming Hill WTP. Distribution facilities consist of pumping, pressure regulation, storage and transmission lines. The area served by the Fleming Hill WTP varies in elevation between 0 and 636 feet, City elevation datum.14 To accommodate this range in elevation, the system is divided into 20 pressure zones. Pump stations are needed within the distribution system to convey water from lower to higher zones. Pressure reducing stations are used in the transfer of water from higher to lower zones. As water demand is not constant over a 24-hour period, water storage reservoirs are used to equalize the distribution systems.

The 292 elevation zone provides service to the project area. There are four 200 horsepower natural gas booster pumps serving the 292 elevation zone as part of the water delivery system to ensure that water storage is available when needed. The pump stations are located at the Fleming Hill WTP with propane backup if natural gas is lost.15

Water is delivered to the project site through the pumping system and travels through a 24-inch South Trans Vallejo pipeline, which connects to a 24-inch water line west of I-80 and then runs diagonally across the center of the project site.16 Additional water infrastructure adjacent to the site includes 8- inch water mains at Redwood Parkway and Admiral Callaghan Lane (west).

(4) Vallejo General Plan Policies Related to Water Source. One General Plan goal and three key policies that address the City’s water supply are applicable to the proposed project. • Other Services Goal: To provide an efficient and financially sound system of urban services to protect the health, safety and general welfare of Vallejo area residents. o Policy 2: New development should bear the cost to extend or upgrade public services and/or provide or upgrade public facilities to serve the new development proportionately to the demand generated by the new development. It is recognized that in some instances the City may also participate in the cost to extend public services and/or public facilities to areas in which such services/facilities do not currently exist when the City makes a specific finding that such an extension will benefit the community. o Policy 7a: Landscaping of public facilities should feature drought tolerant species.

12 Nugteren, Erik, 2010. Water Superintendent, City of Vallejo Water Division. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 8. 13 Ibid 14 The City uses an elevation datum 6 feet lower than the U.S. Geological Survey’s mean sea level datum. 15 Nugteren, Erik, 2010. Water Superintendent, City of Vallejo Water Division. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 13. 16 Nugteren, Erik, 2010. Water Superintendent, City of Vallejo Water Division. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 8.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-InfraUtilities.doc (3/3/2011) 217

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

• Water Resources Goal: To protect the city’s water resources against pollution and wasteful use so that it will be available for the city’s future needs. o Policy 3: The City should actively encourage conservation of water through reduced per capita consumption. b. Wastewater (Sanitary Sewer) System. The Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District (VSFCD) provides wastewater treatment, collection, and disposal of wastewater to the City of Vallejo and outlying areas. The current population served by the VSFCD is 125,731, which includes both Vallejo residents (121,055) and residents who live in the unincorporated areas within VSFCD’s service area (4,676).17

(1) Collection System. The wastewater collection system in Vallejo consists of a 370-mile network of pipes that carry wastewater from homes and businesses to the Ryder Street Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The pipes of the collection system range in diameter from 4 to 6 inches for lateral pipes to 12 to 54 inches for interceptor pipes.18 Wastewater in the pipes is conveyed by collection system pump stations that range in age and capacity.

In the project area, there is an 8-inch sanitary sewer line in Redwood Parkway, an 8-inch sanitary sewage line in an easement along the northern boundary of the property, and an 18-inch sanitary sewer line located at the eastern property line. The VSFCD is not aware of any problems with these sewer lines and based on service records, they are in fair to good condition.19 Wastewater from the project area flows in a combination of gravity and forced systems to the Ryder Street WWTP. There are no sanitary sewage pump stations serving the immediate project area; however, the nearest pump station is the Sears Point pump station, which is located on Sacramento Street between Redwood Street and SR 37, approximately 4½ miles from the project site.20

During high rainfall events, stormwater enters the VSFCD wastewater collection network through cracks and fissures in the pipes, resulting in capacity overload of the system. This condition, in turn, has historically led to the release of untreated wastewater through manhole surcharges and overflows at pump stations. A sanitary sewage overflow (SSO) has not occurred on the project site. Two SSOs occurred near the project area in the winters of 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. In the winter of 2001- 2002, the SSO occurred upstream of the project site, 1,300 feet east of the southeast corner of the project site near Hann’s Park. In the winter of 2002-2003, there was an SSO 1,200 feet west of the western boundary of the project area. The 2002-2003 SSO occurred on the other side of the I-80 freeway and was in a different drainage basin than the project site.21 Many of these system overflows are not authorized by VSFCD’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES). The NPDES Permit is issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and limits the amount and type of effluent that can be released by sanitary sewer facilities. Under a

17 Monahan, Mike, 2010. Associate Engineer, Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 14. 18 Monahan, Mike, 2010. Associate Engineer, Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 8. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Monahan, Mike, 2010. Associate Engineer, Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 14.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-InfraUtilities.doc (3/3/2011) 218

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

November 2000 court-approved settlement agreement stemming from unauthorized discharges, VSFCD was required to implement a plan that would eliminate rain-related sanitary sewer system overflows by 2005.22 The VSFCD implemented the Sanitary Sewer Overload Elimination Program, which upgraded strategic portions of the sanitary system by the end of 2005 and included a three-year demonstration after its completion.23

(2) Wastewater Treatment Facilities. All wastewater collected in the area served by VSFCD, is routed to the Ryder Street Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) where it is processed. The Ryder Street WWTP, which was constructed in 1957, discharges treated wastewater through two export pipe- lines, the Mare Island Strait outfall and the Carquinez Strait outfall. Only secondary-treated wastewater can be discharged into Mare Island Strait; both primary and secondary-treated wastewater can be discharged in the Carquinez Strait. The Ryder Street WWTP has a permitted capacity of 15.5 million gallons per day (mgd). Average daily dry weather flows are less than 10 mgd. The short-term wet weather capacity of the Ryder Street WWTP is 60 mgd. During the rainy season the Ryder Street WWTP has a capacity of 35 mgd for full secondary treatment and an additional 25 mgd for primary treatment. During periods of high precipitation in the winter months from late November to early March, surplus flow is diverted to the Ryder Street Storage Basin when the Ryder Street WWTP’s 60 mgd capacity has been exceeded.24 There has only been one minor occurrence in early March 2009 where excess flow was required to be diverted towards the basin.25 Surplus sewage in Vallejo is due to infiltration of ground water into the sanitary sewer collection system.26 The Ryder Street WWTP does not experience capacity overloads during the dry season.27 In late 2005, the Ryder Street WWTP underwent a system upgrade that increased its wet-season primary and secondary-treatment capacities to 35 mgd each. VSFCD acquired land from the City adjacent to the Ryder Street Plant, and in 2007, completed the construction of the Ryder Street Storage Basin. The VSFCD also has another wet weather storage facility, the Sears Point Storage Basin, which is an underground tank in the northwest part of the District.28

Water recycling is not currently performed by VSFCD facilities but is under evaluation. The VSFCD has already recommended a recycled water program for the City that would require the construction of a treatment facility at the Ryder Street WWTP. However due to a lack of cost-effectiveness found in the 2003 Reclaimed Water Study, there are no current plans to construct a transmission line and pumping station, which are needed to return treated wastewater to the water utility service area for distribution.29

22 Environmental Science Associates, 2000. Sanitation Sewer Overflow Elimination Program Draft Environmental Impact Report. August 18. 23 Monahan, Mike, 2010. Associate Engineer. Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District, 2010. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 14. 24 Ibid. 25 Monahan, Mike, 2010. Associate Engineer. Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District, 2010. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 28. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Monahan, Mike, 2010 Associate Engineer. Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District, 2010. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 28. 29 Vallejo, City of, 2006. City of Vallejo 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. February.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-InfraUtilities.doc (3/3/2011) 219

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(3) Vallejo General Plan Policies Related to Wastewater. One key General Plan goal and one policy that address wastewater are applicable to the proposed project. • Other Services Goal: To provide an efficient and financially sound system of urban services to protect the health, safety and general welfare of Vallejo area residents. o Policy 2: New development should bear the cost to extend or upgrade public services and/or provide or upgrade public facilities to serve the new development proportionately to the demand generated by the new development. It is recognized that in some instances the City may also participate in the cost to extend public services and/or public facilities to areas in which such services/facilities do not currently exist when the City makes a specific finding that such an extension will benefit the community. c. Solid Waste. Recology Vallejo, formally known as Vallejo Garbage Service, Inc. currently provides non-hazardous solid waste removal for the City. Recology Vallejo is located at 2021 Broadway Street and provides residential garbage, recycling and yard waste collection service for Vallejo residents. It also offers recycling service for multi-family units, debris box service, garbage and recycling collection for commercial businesses. Recology Vallejo collects an estimated 125 tons of both residential and commercial solid waste daily.30 Limited quantities of recyclable household hazardous waste such as vehicle and household batteries, automobile fluids, latex paint, florescent bulbs, sharps can be dropped off at Recology Vallejo’s collection station at designated drop-off hours. E-waste is also accepted at the Recology Vallejo Recycling Facility at designated times. Solid waste collected by Recology is transported to the Devlin Road Transfer Station, a regional facility operated by the Napa-Vallejo Waste Management Authority. The waste is then trucked to the Keller Canyon Landfill in Contra Costa County.31 Keller Canyon, which is now closed to the public, has a permitted capacity of 75,018,280 cubic yards, and has a remaining capacity of 63,408,410 cubic yards, and an anticipated closing date of December 31, 2030. Currently, the landfill receives 3,500 tons of garbage a day. 32

Vallejo Recycling provides comprehensive recycling services for residents and businesses. For businesses, Vallejo Recycling offers to perform a waste audit, which will enable participating businesses to recycle more and spend less on garbage pick-up. The recycling service accepts office paper, bottles and cans, commercial cardboard, and newspapers.33 Materials to be recycled are taken to Recology Vallejo’s collection station on 2021 Broadway Street, where it is sorted and the sent to various facilities.34

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) required municipalities to divert 50 percent of their solid waste from landfills by the end of calendar year 2000 through the implementation of various strategies, including source reduction, composting, recycling, and yard waste pro-

30 Phillips, Tom, 2010. Operations Manager, Recology Vallejo. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 21. 31 Phillips, Tom, 2010. Operations Manager, Recology Vallejo. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 8. 32 California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2010. Website: www.ciwmb.ca.gov. Accessed September 15. 33 Solano, County of, 2010. Recycle Guide. Website: www.recycle-guide.com/index.cfm. Accessed September 14. 34 Phillips, Tom, 2010. Operations Manager, Recology Vallejo. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 22.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-InfraUtilities.doc (3/3/2011) 220

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

grams. In 2006, the year for which the most current reporting data is available, Vallejo’s reporting- year diversion rate was estimated at 54 percent.35 d. Electricity and Natural Gas. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas service to customers in the City. PG&E charges connection and user fees for all new development, in addition to sliding rates for electrical and natural gas service based on use. These services are currently available near the project site.

Regulatory requirements for efficient use of electricity and gas are contained in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, entitled “Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresi- dential Buildings.” These regulations specify the State’s minimum energy efficiency standards and apply to new construction of both residential and nonresidential buildings. The standards regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating and lighting. Compliance with these standards is verified and enforced through the local building permit process.

One key General Plan policy that addresses electricity and gas is applicable to the proposed project. • Energy Resources Goal: To reduce the City’s dependence on non-renewable energy resources through conservation and development of renewable energy sources. o Policy 3: Encourage participation in PG&E programs for reducing energy consumption. e. Telecommunications and Cable. AT&T provides telephone services within Vallejo. AT&T also provides or hosts a variety of other telecommunication services, including Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), Internet Service Provider (ISP), web hosting, virtual private networking, U-verse, Multi- protocol Label Switching (MPLS), and wireless/cellular paging services.

The California Public Utilities Commission requires that AT&T anticipate and serve new growth. To meet this requirement, AT&T continually upgrades its facilities and infrastructure, adding new facilities and technology to remain in conformance with California Public Utilities Commission tariffs and regulations and to serve customer demand in the City.

Additions to the City’s infrastructure and proposals for development would result in a need for extending service to new development. The extension of service could require expansion or changes to AT&T’s infrastructure, which could involve suitable siting for equipment placement. Suitable sites must meet requirements for the physical transmission of telecommunication services and conform to the City’s guidelines. AT&T also works with the City to ensure that construction of new facilities does not interfere with any new or newly-paved streets.

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts to utility systems that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds used to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts associated with the proposed project and identifies mitigation measures, if appropriate. Less- than-significant impacts are discussed first, followed by significant impacts.

35 California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2010. Website: www.ciwmb.ca.gov/profiles. Accessed September 15.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-InfraUtilities.doc (3/3/2011) 221

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

a. Significance Criteria. The proposed project would have a significant impact on the City’s infrastructure and utility systems if it would: • Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, such that new or expanded entitlements are needed; • Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve project demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; • Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; • Exceed the permitted capacity of the landfill serving the project’s solid waste disposal needs; • Violate applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste; or • Result in determination by the energy and natural gas or telecommunications provider which serves or may serve the project site that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the providers’ existing commitments and require or result in the construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing facilities, construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. b. Less-Than-Significant Utilities and Infrastructure Impacts. The following discussion describes less-than-significant impacts to infrastructure and utilities systems that would result from development of the proposed project.

(1) Water Supply System. The following discussion provides potential impacts to the City’s water supply, water treatment facilities, and water distribution system.

Water Supply. The water demand rate that the City uses for commercial developments is 0.625 gallons per minute (gpm)/10,000 square feet on an average day and 1.6 times more than the average day for the maximum day demand. Water demand associated with the proposed project is estimated to be 6,422 gallons per day for average-day conditions. Maximum day demands are projected to be 10,276 gallons per day.36 The water distribution system must also be able to supply fire flows during maximum day demand periods. The proposed project’s maximum increase in demand for water would be less than 0.03 percent of the City’s current allocation of 42,600 acre-feet of water per year. The Water Department has indicated that there is sufficient water available to serve the proposed project at buildout and for fire services.37

In 2005, demand for water was approximately 30,000 acre feet per year.38 Depending upon levels of precipitation, the City’s water allocation may be reduced, but reduced water levels would trigger mandatory water use restrictions per the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to be implemented by the

36 Using the City’s demand rate for commercial developments, water demands for the proposed project was calculated by using the total gross square feet of the project site, 71,393 square feet. Water use at the existing Elks Lodge is not currently known and was not subtracted from the projected increase in water demand in order to provide the most conservative analysis. 37 Nugteren, Erik, 2010. Water Superintendent, City of Vallejo Water Division. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 8. 38 Vallejo, City of, 2006. City of Vallejo 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. February.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-InfraUtilities.doc (3/3/2011) 222

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

City. Depending upon the nature of the shortage, the City would institute the various stages of the conservation plan to reduce non-essential water use activities and enable household and commercial demand to be met. Additionally, there are other future sources of water that the City could pursue (i.e., State Water Project and Lake Curry) should there be a shortage in existing supplies. The City has not imposed mandatory water restrictions over the last 20 years.39

The proposed project includes a preliminary landscape plan that has selected conifer, shade, and accent trees in addition to shrubs, flowers and mulch. The range of water usage for the landscape plan would be very low to medium. The proposed project would be irrigated with an automatic underground irrigation system that would provide full head to head coverage. All new landscaping would be designed per City of Vallejo specifications. It is the responsibility of the project applicant to submit a Landscape and Irrigation Plan to the City of Vallejo per the List of Standard Conditions and in compliance with Vallejo Municipal Code Chapter 16.70 for review and approval by the City Planning Division and City Engineer. All development projects are required to follow the City’s requirements for low-water using and drought-resistant plant materials.

Although development of the proposed project would lead to increased water demand, it can be accommodated by the City’s existing water supply, and the City has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan to ensure that the water supplies will be sufficient to serve the project and other planned growth in normal, dry and multiple-dry years. Therefore, the proposed project’s demand for additional water would be less-than-significant and no new or expanded water entitlements would be needed.

Water Treatment. As discussed above, the proposed project would create demand for an additional 10,276 gallons of water per day (0.010276 mgd). The Fleming Hill WTP has the capacity to treat 42 mgd. On average the plant processes about 20 mgd, with flow peaking during the summer months at about 30 mgd. The proposed project would utilize about 0.05 percent of the plant’s capacity and approximately 0.03 percent of the excess capacity during the summer months. The increase in the need for treated water would be easily accommodated by the City’s existing water treatment plant; therefore, increased demand on the capacity of the Fleming Hill WTP would be less than significant.

Water Distribution System. The proposed project would require connection into the existing 24-inch water distribution line adjacent to the site; however, no significant improvements to this existing infrastructure are necessary to serve the proposed project. The City has no concerns regarding the pipeline infrastructure to serve the project area. Additionally, water is available in sufficient quantities for fire services.40 Thus, the proposed project would not adversely affect the water distribution system.

(2) Wastewater Systems. As previously described, an 18-inch sanitary sewer line is located at the eastern property line and an 8-inch line is located at the northern property boundary. The proposed project would connect to the 8-inch line, with a 3,000 gallon grease interceptor located at the loading area to prevent blockage of the storm drain system.

39 Nugteren, Erik, 2010. Water Superintendent, City of Vallejo Water Division. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 13. 40 Ibid.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-InfraUtilities.doc (3/3/2011) 223

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Estimated sanitary sewage flow from the project site would not exceed the existing wastewater collection system’s capacity. The VSFCD uses a wastewater generation rate of 20 gallons per employee per day for the average daily discharge from commercial areas. The sanitary sewage flow for a grocery store such as the proposed project is categorized under this generation rate. According to the project applicant, the proposed project is projected to generate 170 jobs. Thus, a total of 3,400 gallons per day, 0.034 percent of the City’s average daily dry weather capacity of 10 mgd, would be generated by its employees.

There are no requirements to increase the capacity of the sanitary sewage facilities in, or downstream of, the project area. Any wastewater system projects in or downstream of the project area will be for purposes of improving, repairing, rehabilitating or maintaining the existing facilities without increasing the capacity of the existing wastewater collection system. The VSFCD has no concerns about the ability of the main collection or treatment system to serve the proposed project.41

(3) Solid Waste. The existing buildings and other structures on the site would be demolished, and approximately 2,000 cubic yards of construction debris, such as building structures, metal, glass, wood, utilities, and other debris would be collected and off-hauled. The existing asphalt and miscellaneous concrete would be used as a base for on-site improvements, primarily the new parking lot. On-site use of crushed asphalt is a standard construction practice to reduce the amount of demolition material that would otherwise be sent to a landfill. During project operation, solid waste pick-up would occur between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., five to six times a week and recycling and garbage areas would be located at the rear of the building. Garbage receptacles would be located at the front of the store and throughout the parking area and checked/emptied every time shopping carts are collected. Trash would be deposited into the dumpsters at the rear of the building. The project would be required to comply with the City Public Works Department’s s recycling requirements which require the provision of recycling bins for customer use.

According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, the Keller Canyon Landfill currently receives 3,500 tons of garbage a day. As mentioned above, current daily solid waste collection for the City of Vallejo is 125 tons and encompasses 3.6 percent of the daily capacity of the Keller Canyon landfill. Using the CIWMB’s estimated solid waste generation rate for supermarkets, the 71,393 square foot retail grocery store would generate approximately 2,246 pounds of waste per day or 0.9 percent of the City’s daily waste collection.42 The anticipated life of the landfill would not be reduced by development of the proposed project. Thus, the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the receiving landfill and would not violate any applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste.43

In addition, Vallejo Recology would provide recycling services for the proposed project, thereby reducing the solid waste generated from the proposed project. Parking lots at the project site would be swept every other day while day porters would be hired as necessary to collect litter. The WinCo store would also sell reusable grocery bags to reduce the use of plastic bags.

41 Monahan, op. cit. 42 California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2010. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates for Commercial Establishments. Waste Generation Source: Supermarket. Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGen Rates/Commercial.htm. Accessed October 1. 43 CalRecycle, 2010. Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/. Accessed September 27.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-InfraUtilities.doc (3/3/2011) 224

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(4) Electricity, Natural Gas and Telecommunications. Development of the proposed project would increase demand for electricity, gas and telecommunication services in order to serve the store’s operations. Despite annual Statewide increases in energy consumption, the energy demand estimated for the proposed project (3,191.82 megawatts per hour per year for electricity and 1,855 million British Thermal Units for natural gas) would not contribute to a substantial increase in energy consumption within PG&E’s northern and central California service area. The City of Vallejo is already served by gas and electricity infrastructure, and the net increase in energy demand from reasonably foreseeable projects, relative to the regional service area, would be minimal and would not require expanded or new energy facilities as a direct result of project development. In addition, new construction associated with the project would be serviced by existing electricity, gas and telecommunications lines. Therefore, the extension of utilities infrastructure to serve the new development would result in a less-than-significant impact to these services.

PG&E, which would provide energy to the proposed project and elsewhere in the region, produces much of its energy from renewable sources and has plans in place to increase reliance on renewable energy sources. Of the energy provided to PG&E customers in 2009, almost 15 percent came from renewable resources. In 2009, 20.5 percent of energy provided to PG&E customers came from nuclear generation; 13 percent came from large hydroelectric facilities; and 14.4 percent came from renewable resources such as wind, geothermal, biomass, and small hydroelectric sources. In addition, PG&E has plans to increase the use of renewable power. For instance, PG&E purchases power from customers that install small-scale renewable generators (e.g, wind turbines or photovoltaic cells) up to 1.5 megawatts in size.44

Because many agencies in California have adopted policies seeking increased use of renewable resources (and have established minimum standards for the provision of energy generated by renewable resources), it is expected that PG&E will continue to meet future demand for energy via a gradually increasing reliance on renewable resources, including small-scale sources such as photovoltaic panels and wind turbines, in addition to larger-scale facilities, such as wind farms. Therefore, although the proposed project and other future projects within the City of Vallejo and the region would be expected to increase the demand for energy-producing facilities, this increase in demand would likely be met through the development of renewable resources that would have a more benign environmental effect than the development of new conventional gas- or coal-fired power plants.

In addition, per City requirements, the City would review project development plans prior to project approval to ensure that California Code of Regulations Title 24 energy conservation and efficiency standards are met and incorporated into project design. Also refer to Section IV.E, Global Climate Change for a discussion of green building measures proposed as part of project design. c. Significant Utilities and Infrastructure Impacts. The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to utilities and infrastructure; therefore, no mitigation would be required.

44 Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2010. Clean Energy Solutions. Website: www.pge.com/mybusiness/ environment/pge/cleanenergy/index.shtml. Accessed September 22.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-InfraUtilities.doc (3/3/2011) 225

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES I. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-InfraUtilities.doc (3/3/2011) 226

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES J. URBAN DECAY

J. URBAN DECAY This section assesses the potential for the proposed project to result in physical deterioration of other properties, referred to as “urban decay,” due to its business operation.

Consideration of this topic in environmental documents prepared under CEQA has increased in recent years in direct response to the California Court of Appeals decision in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (December 2004). In that decision, the Court determined that the CEQA Guidelines Section15064 requires urban decay research and analysis:

“when the economic or social effects of a project cause a physical change, this change is to be regarded as a significant effect in the same manner as any other physical change resulting from the project.”

In the Bakersfield case, two shopping centers were proposed. Emphasizing existing case law beginning with Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) in which the Court stated “the lead agency must consider whether the proposed shopping center will take business away from the downtown shopping area and thereby cause business closures and eventual physical deterioration of downtown Bishop,” the Bakersfield Court held that:

“when there is evidence suggesting that the economic and social effects caused by the proposed shopping center ultimately could result in urban decay or deterioration, then the lead agency is obligated to assess this indirect impact.”

The proposed project would redevelop the site with a discount retail grocery store (WinCo Foods). This EIR therefore evaluates the potential for the proposed grocery store to result in urban decay. In order to compile the appropriate background data with which to evaluate these potential impacts, as well as to provide other information with which to consider the proposed project’s merits, the City of Vallejo engaged CBRE Consulting, Inc., to study the proposed project. The report prepared by CBRE Consulting is entitled WinCo Grocery Store Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis, Vallejo, California, and is provided in Appendix H in this EIR.1 The methods used, data presented, and conclusions set forth in that report are drawn upon in this section on urban decay impacts. Refer to the CBRE report for a more detailed description of the information summarized in this section.

1. Setting This subsection describes existing conditions on the project site and the existing condition of the retail sector uses that could be affected. a. Existing Conditions on Project Site. As described in Chapter III, Project Description, the existing project site is generally in a blighted condition. Although the three buildings on the site are generally in good condition, the neglected conditions on the site are a result of a lack of on-site maintenance. On-site landscaping is overgrown and open lawn areas at the rear have turned brown. Tall weeds have overtaken landscaped areas at the front of the lodge and are scattered throughout the paved surface parking lot and along the perimeter of the site. With the exception of the pool area, the

1 CBRE Consulting, Inc., 2010. Winco Grocery Store, Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis, Vallejo, California. September.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-UrbanDecay.doc (3/3/2011) 227

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES J. URBAN DECAY

outdoor recreational facilities at the rear of the site are no longer maintained and are in poor condition. Scrap materials, pallets, buckets, and furniture are stored along the southeast side of the building. RV’s are often parked in the eastern area of the parking lot, and items associated with overnight camping (i.e., chairs, tables, cooking equipment) are next to the RVs. b. Existing Condition of Retail Sector and Competitive Market Area. Generally, a weak retail sector will be more susceptible to urban decay. Conversely, a competing, new retail project is less likely to precipitate urban decay if the existing market conditions are relatively strong. In addition, the type, location, and parcel configuration of affected properties, as well as the range of potential reuse options, will also play a role in the susceptibility of existing retail districts and uses to urban decay.

As described in Appendix H, CBRE Consulting defined a competitive market area for the WinCo Foods project for the purpose of analyzing the prospective economic impacts. A market area is the geographic area from which the majority of a retail shopping center’s demand is anticipated to originate. CBRE Consulting identified other competitive grocery store retailers and major merchandisers with a significant food component. Most consumers will travel to the grocery shopping destination closest to their homes; therefore, the market area was defined to be sensitive to this pattern. However, the market area also recognizes that WinCo Foods is a very competitive discount food retailer, and will likely attract shoppers from beyond a traditional grocery store market area definition of 3 to 5 miles. The actual size of the market area depends on many factors, including geography, transportation corridors, competitive retail supply, employment locations, and the location and demo- graphics of residents. CBRE Consulting defined the market area as comprising census tracts encompassing the cities of American Canyon, Vallejo, and Benicia, portions of the City of Fairfield, and nearby unincorporated areas. There is also a small Bonfaire Market located across the street from the project site on Redwood Parkway. This small store, estimated at less than 5,000 square feet, is convenience oriented, including a large wine and spirits selection, and hence is not deemed to be competitive with the planned WinCo.

(1) Competitive Food Stores in Market Area. CBRE Consulting identified 17 grocery stores and other major merchandisers with a significant food component within the market area. These 17 stores represent a range of market orientations including conventional, discount, warehouse, ethnic, and upscale. In addition to serving a variety of market niches, the stores are also situated at various distances from the project site. Many of the stores are located in either neighborhood- or community-serving shopping centers. A summary of each store’s market orientation, location, and distance from the project site is provided in Table IV.J-1.

(2) Competitive Food Stores Close to the Market Area. Grocery stores typically draw customers from a 3- to 5-mile radius, depending upon the store’s orientation, with more unique or heavily discounted stores having the larger radius. Thus, CBRE Consulting also included in the analysis food stores for which their 3- to 5-mile market area radius would overlap with the WinCo Foods market area; i.e., they are located outside but near the border of the WinCo market area. These stores were focused along the I-80 corridor to the north of Vallejo. There are seven grocery stores or mass merchandisers selling groceries whose 3- to 5-mile trade areas overlap with the WinCo Foods market area. These include a Safeway Store, two Food Maxx stores, a Grocery Outlet, a Trader Joes’s, a Raley’s, and a Target. There is also a WinCo Foods store in Vacaville, located approximately 22 miles northeast of the project site.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-UrbanDecay.doc (3/3/2011) 228

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES J. URBAN DECAY

Table IV.J-1: Select Market Area Grocery Stores Market Miles from Orientationa Food Store Shopping Center or Street City Project Site Conventional Safeway Redwood Plaza Vallejo 0.1 Lucky Redwood Tuolumne Center Vallejo 0.9 Safeway Lincoln Road Vallejo 2.1 Raley’s Park Place Vallejo 2.5 Raley’s Southampton Shopping Center Vallejo 7.1 Safeway Solano Square Benicia 8.5 Discount Grocery Outlet Admiral Callaghan Lane Vallejo 1.0 Target Target Center Vallejo 1.3 Smart & Final Sonoma Boulevard Vallejo 2.7 Food-4-Less Meadows Plaza Vallejo 3.8 American Walmart Napa Junction 6.4 Canyon Warehouse Costco Gateway Plaza Vallejo 1.3 Costco Business Center Drive Cordelia 9.0 Ethnic Seafood City Vallejo Plaza Vallejo 2.2 Upscale Safeway Glen Cove Center Vallejo 4.1 American Safeway American Canyon Marketplace 5.2 Canyon Safeway Green Valley Crossing Cordelia 8.9 a The market orientation is the market “niche” to which the store is oriented as described in Appendix H. Source: CBRE Consulting, 2010.

(3) Retail Sales in Market Area. CBRE Consulting analyzed retail sales “leakage” and “attraction” in Vallejo and the rest of the WinCo market area. These terms refer to the extent to which the market area captures retail spending by residents from within as well as from outside the market area. Retail categories in which the market area does not fully capture spending by locals are called “leakage” categories, while retail categories in which the market area captures more sales than are generated by residents are called “attraction” categories. Generally, attraction categories signal particular strengths of a retail market, while leakage categories signal particular weaknesses.

Given the recent recession, which started in December 2007, and the associated decrease in retail sales, the market area’s retail sales base was adjusted to a 2010 baseline estimate. Adjustment factors were applied to the estimated 2008 retail sales base to develop an estimate of the market area’s baseline 2010 retail sales base. The analysis determined that the overall market area leaked more spending than was estimated to be spent by market area households. In 2008, households in the market area generated an estimated retail demand of $2 billion, representing an average per household retail expenditure of $30,100. This compares to the actual sales experienced in the market area in 2008 of roughly $1.8 billion in total, or $27,059 per household. The disparity between the level of resident household retail demand and the actual retail sales in the market area represents leakage of approximately 10 percent of sales, or roughly $200 million in 2008. The level of leakage in the leakage categories was relatively high, ranging from 17.6 percent in the home furnishings and appliances category to 56.5 percent in apparel. In contrast, attraction was quite high in general merchandise at 31.5 percent of sales and service stations at 47.3 percent of sales.

In the food stores category, which is the category most relevant to the WinCo Foods, sales were characterized by a slight level of attraction, totaling 4.8percent of sales. This result indicates that there is no excess demand for grocery sales that is currently not being met by retailers in the market area.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-UrbanDecay.doc (3/3/2011) 229

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES J. URBAN DECAY

(4) Retail Vacancies. Commercial brokerage firms do not routinely track composite statistics for the retail commercial space in the market area; however, Costar, a commercial real estate information service firm, compiles quarterly market performance indicators for many of the commercial shopping centers located in the market area. This resource does not inventory all retail space, but it generates information useful for comparative purposes. According to this resource, 2nd quarter 2010 retail inventory and vacancy was as follow by market area location: • City of Vallejo, 5.7 million square feet, 11.3 percent vacant; • City of Fairfield, 4.7 million square feet, 8.5 percent vacant; • City of Benicia, 0.9 million square feet, 5.3 percent vacant; and • City of American Canyon, 0.4 million square feet, 5.2 percent vacant.

Notably, only a portion of the City of Fairfield retail inventory is located in the market area, thus the City of Vallejo retail market, with the highest vacancy rate, strongly dominates the market area’s retail base.

The 2nd quarter 2010 retail vacancy statistics generated by Costar are a departure from historic vacancy rates. During fourth quarter 2007, at the start of the current recession, the retail vacancy rate in all four cities was in the 2 percent to 3 percent range, with none exceeding 4 percent. Since then, concurrent with the recession, vacancy rates increased, peaking at 11.9 percent in Vallejo in the 3rd quarter of 2009 and 10.9 percent in Fairfield in the 4th quarter of 2009. The cited vacancy rates in Benicia and American Canyon comprise the highest rate since the beginning of the recession. Over the cited time frame the retail base barely increased, thus the increasing vacancy rate is attributable to previously occupied space becoming and remaining vacant.

(5) Strength of Market Area Retail Sector. Despite the increasing retail vacancy rate, the market area is not dormant, with some new retail leases executed. In addition, CBRE Consulting conducted field work in spring and summer of 2010 to review existing real estate conditions, and despite high vacancy and some longer term vacant properties, did not see signs of existing urban decay in the market area.

Since January 2009, Costar indicates that 24 leases were signed for market area retail properties totaling approximately 100,000 square feet of space. Many of these leases were for small retail spaces totaling less than 5,000 square feet, but several larger leases have been executed. For example, in July 2009 Bed Bath & Beyond signed a lease for 42,000 square feet of space on Plaza Drive in Vallejo, with a November 2009 opening date. This space was formerly occupied by Linens ‘N Things, which went bankrupt and closed all its store locations. This space was vacant for approximately a year before it was backfilled by Bed Bath & Beyond. In addition, Dollar Tree leased almost 10,000 square feet of space on Admiral Callaghan Lane in Vallejo in February 2009, with an August 2009 move in date. CBRE Consulting is unsure of the former tenant, but it may have been a Hallmark store. In addition, in August 2009 Goodwill leased 9,000 square feet also on Plaza Drive, with a December 2009 opening.

However, in addition to this new lease activity, , there are several longer term vacant retail properties in Vallejo. These longer term vacancies include the following: a 17,450-square-foot vacant Cost Plus store in Gateway Plaza, which is a large, well-maintained and otherwise well-occupied shopping

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-UrbanDecay.doc (3/3/2011) 230

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES J. URBAN DECAY

center; a vacant 52,000-square-foot Mervyn’s store on Sonoma Boulevard, located in a small retail center, which shows signs of decline including some boarded up doors, some trash, and painted over graffiti; and a vacant 100,000-square-foot Walmart also on Sonoma Boulevard, which also has boarded up doors and painted over graffiti, although in this instance the boards are painted over to match the building’s exterior paint and hence the building appears to be undergoing routine maintenance.

In general, commercial retail brokers active in the market area indicate that the retail market is relatively flat, or stagnant, but that interest in retail space has picked up, with convenience retail typically faring better than specialty retail. Among the four commercial brokers interviewed by CBRE Consulting, none have the expectation that the vacancy rate will increase and none identified any major pending retail vacancies. However, with limited growth in the area, at least one commercial retail broker opined that the retail market recovery will be long and slow. c. Future Retail Projects. In order to evaluate conditions in future years when the proposed project would be operational, CBRE Consulting also gathered information on potential future major retail projects in the market area based on information from city officials.

In the market study area there are six proposed projects: a Walgreens in American Canyon; expansion of Napa Junction in American Canyon; the Napa Pipe project in Napa County; Solano 360 in Vallejo; redevelopment of the Solano 80 Center in Vallejo; and Sonoma/Yolano Plaza in Vallejo. Together these projects total 932,589 square feet of retail space. Outside, but near the market area there are six additional planned retail projects. These include two Walmart Supercenters, one in Suisun City and another in Fairfield, and four retail projects in Fairfield, including Green Valley Ranch, a Fresh-N- Easy, Laurel Creek Plaza, and a Lowe’s Shopping Center. These 12 projects total 172 million square feet of planned retail space. Specifically in Vallejo, future projects include a Mi Pueblo Food Store with 45,450 square feet opening at the redeveloped Solano 80 Center and the Sonoma/Yolano Plaza on Sonoma Boulevard consisting of a mixed-use project (19,670 square feet of retail, 26,300 flex- retail, 16,500 office). d. Regulatory Setting. City ordinances, such as the City of Vallejo Code of Ordinances Chapter 7.54 on Property Maintenance and Chapter 7.56 on Weed and Rubbish Abatement require property owners to maintain their properties so as not to create a nuisance by creating a health and safety problem. Enforcement of these ordinances can help prevent physical deterioration due to any long- term closures of retail spaces.

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures This subsection begins with a description of the criteria used to determine whether significant urban decay or deterioration would result from implementation of the proposed project, followed by a discussion of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, if necessary. a. Criteria of Significance. Implementation of the proposed project would have a significant urban decay impact if it would: • Directly or indirectly result in physical deterioration to properties or structures that is so prevalent, substantial, and lasting for a significant period of time that it impairs the proper utilization of the properties and structures and the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-UrbanDecay.doc (3/3/2011) 231

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES J. URBAN DECAY

community. Physical deterioration includes abandoned buildings, boarded doors and windows, parked trucks and long-term unauthorized use of properties and parking lots, extensive or offensive graffiti painted on buildings, dumping of refuse or overturned dumpsters on properties, dead trees and shrubbery and uncontrolled weed growth or homeless encampments. b. Less-Than-Significant Urban Decay Impacts. The CBRE Consulting analysis of project and cumulative urban decay analysis concluded the following.

(1) Project-Related Urban Decay Impacts. Based on the existing conditions in the market area in which the proposed project would be located, the introduction of the project by itself is not likely to precipitate urban decay of the type described herein. This conclusion is supported by CBRE Consulting’s consideration of current market conditions, findings regarding diverted sales, and re- tenanting potential, as follows:

Current Market Conditions. The field research, market research, and interviews that CBRE Consulting conducted indicated that many of the retail centers in the market area and the surrounding environs are experiencing increasing vacancy over prior levels during more stable economic times. Despite this rising vacancy, existing market conditions are not indicative of urban decay. Moreover, new retailers have continued to locate in the area despite the economic downturn, primarily by taking over vacant store spaces. Retail landlords appear to be generally maintaining their properties to keep them competitive and/or prepare for longer term redevelopment of their sites. A prominent example of this market trend is the continued maintenance of the vacant Walmart store in Vallejo next to Food-4-Less, which has been vacant for approximately three years.

Diverted Sales. CBRE Consulting estimated that stabilized sales at the proposed WinCo Foods store would total $55.4 million in 2010 dollars. Given the project site’s proximity to major roadways, including I-80, it is assumed that 20 percent of the store’s sales would be attributed to consumers residing outside of the store’s market area. Therefore, the estimated amount of food and general merchandise sales originating from market area residents is $44.3 million.

Absorption of the WinCo food sales into the growing consumer base would be accounted for, in small part, by household growth. Of the $44.3 million in WinCo grocery sales projected to be generated from within the market area, $552,652 is projected to result from household growth. The intermediary potential food store sales impact, absent new household demand that would be generated for retailers other than WinCo, totals $43.8 million. The remaining available new household demand for food stores totals $2.9 million. Applying that demand to intermediary potential grocery sales diversions results in impacts of $40.8 million.

It is assumed that a portion of sales at the Vallejo WinCo store would comprise sales diverted from the Vacaville WinCo. However, regardless of the level of sales impact that would be experienced at the Vacaville WinCo, the estimated impact is sufficiently large enough that the likely result is that some other existing food store(s) would experience high levels of sales diversion. Given the volume of sales impacts it is assumed that approximately one to two existing food stores could close following stabilization of the WinCo Foods store. The candidate stores include Food-4-Less, Smart & Final, or one of the two Safeway stores closest to the WinCo site. However, market dynamics and store management practices will be the final determinant regarding which store(s) experience sales losses sufficient to warrant store closure. Given the relatively low level of market area overlap between the

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-UrbanDecay.doc (3/3/2011) 232

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES J. URBAN DECAY

stores outside the market area and the proposed WinCo store, the identified outside market area stores would not experience any sales impacts severe enough to prompt store closure.

Re-Tenanting Potential. The market area has a demonstrated history of attracting new tenants when larger retail properties have become vacant, particularly the newer, more attractive spaces. Well-located and well-positioned properties, especially ones with highway accessibility and visibility, are anticipated to retain this re-tenanting potential without risk of urban decay. However, given current economic conditions and the projected decline in market area retail sales since 2008, the re- tenanting of larger vacant spaces could take some time, especially if several large spaces are available at once, or if an older space needs to be demised or redeveloped to attract a new tenant. However, during this period, landlords have an incentive to maintain their properties, to retain and enhance their marketability. It should be noted that when tenants vacate prior to lease expiration, they continue to be responsible for rent and their share of building operating expenses. While not all tenants would have the wherewithal to continue these payments, national retailers are more likely to have this capability. This is an important consideration because landlords will continue to receive income on these vacated spaces, which means they would have available financial resources to continue to maintain their properties.

Regulatory Controls. City ordinances, such as the City of Vallejo Code of Ordinances Chapter 7.54 on Property Maintenance and Chapter 7.56 on Weed and Rubbish Abatement require property owners to maintain their properties so as not to create a nuisance by creating a health and safety problem. Enforcement of these ordinances can help prevent physical deterioration due to any long- term closures of retail spaces.

The City of Vallejo has roughly 2,800 code enforcement cases annually. On average, 30 to 75 complaints are received daily, with graffiti comprising about 10 to 20 percent of these calls. An estimated 80 percent of complaints/calls are on residential property. The City of Vallejo has a dedicated group of volunteers who travel in teams three days a week for 2 to 3 hours at a time that takes pictures of apparent code violations and report issues back to the City.

If properties require nuisance abatement there are controls in place to provide this abatement. If Code Enforcement issues a complaint for a nuisance like graffiti, the property owner has 10 days to abate the graffiti. There is an active volunteer-run graffiti abatement program called “Anti-Graffiti Paintout” with 20 volunteers who paint out graffiti in Vallejo once a month. Property owners can choose to have this group abate their graffiti or can make other arrangements. If property owners do not address code violations, the City has the right to issue an abatement warrant, which gives the City the right to charge property owners for abatement costs. The City of Vallejo will typically issue between 3 and 5 code violation citations before obtaining an abatement warrant. For qualifying property owners, the City provides property maintenance grants limited to $750 to help facilitate property improvement. These procedures all indicate that measures are in place in Vallejo to minimize conditions leading to urban decay. However, as noted, multiple code violations are sometimes issued before abatement occurs.

Redevelopment Potential. One other possible outcome of retail store closures and prolonged vacancies is that existing property owners, or buyers, might decide to redevelop these spaces with other uses, thereby preventing physical deterioration and the threat of urban decay. While the poor economic conditions may in turn limit the rate of growth of these alternate uses, nonetheless the

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-UrbanDecay.doc (3/3/2011) 233

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES J. URBAN DECAY

potential will exist, with properties positioned for alternate use when market demands pick up concurrent with the return of economic growth.

Conclusion. While the project could result in some diverted sales and some closures of market area stores may occur, these events are not expected to lead to physical deterioration so prevalent and substantial that it impairs the proper utilization of affected real estate or the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. Based upon these findings, CBRE Consulting concluded that the development of the project would not contribute to urban decay in the market area, and urban decay impacts related to the project would be less than significant.

(2) Cumulative Urban Decay Impacts. The cumulative projects included competitive retail developments in the market area that have a reasonable expectation of being fully operational by or near 2013 (i.e., the same time frame proposed by the WinCo Foods project). However, not all of the identified cumulative retail projects are anticipated to be developed within a timeframe relevant to the Vallejo WinCo store development. In addition, not all of the projects are relevant to the proposed project analyses because their likely market areas do not overlap with the WinCo market area. Accordingly, only eight projects would have some or all of their market area overlap with the WinCo project.2

The eight cumulative projects that may be developed within a similar timeframe as the proposed project are anticipated to divert up to $306.6 million from existing market area retailers once stabilized sales are achieved. The following describes potential cumulative impacts associated with food and non-food sales categories.

Food Sales Impacts. Food store sales impacts would total $51.4 million, which comprises a $10.6 million increment over the food sales impact of the WinCo project alone. This incremental level of impact is largely attributable to the Mi Pueblo Food Store, under construction in Vallejo. This store caters to the large Hispanic population base in and around Vallejo, and will provide a unique area shopping opportunity through its focus on providing an ambiance reminiscent of the fresh-food markets of Mexico and Latin America.

This unique orientation of Mi Pueblo accounts for the relatively large share of store demand anticipated to originate from outside the traditional three-mile ring neighborhood grocery store market area. Because the next nearest Mi Pueblo Food Stores are located in Pittsburg and San Rafael, the sub- regional Hispanic population is anticipated to travel a greater than average distance to shop for groceries at Vallejo’s new Mi Pueblo Food Store. This is likely to include residents of Vallejo, Fairfield, and American Canyon, all with about a 23 percent Hispanic population, and even Benicia with an 11 percent Hispanic population base.

It is difficult to say how the increment in food store sales impacts attributable to the cumulative projects will impact existing food stores. Since no existing area food stores have a Latino orientation comparable to Mi Pueblo, it is likely that food sales diversions will be relatively evenly distributed among existing stores. This means a potentially added burden on the stores already identified as most

2 Future projects excluded from the cumulative analysis include: Napa Pipe in Napa County (40,00 square feet of retail); Walmart in Suisun City (214,919 square feet of retail); Fresh-N-Easy in Fairfield (14,380 square feet of retail whose building permit expired in November 2010); and Laurel Creek Plaza (110,186 square feet of retail).

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-UrbanDecay.doc (3/3/2011) 234

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES J. URBAN DECAY

likely to experience the great impacts associated with the WinCo store, which include Food-4-Less, Smart & Final, or one of the two Safeway stores closest to the WinCo site. These Safeway stores are also relatively close to the future Mi Pueblo Food Store location. Thus, as with the conclusion for the WinCo food sales impacts, it is possible that pursuant to the cumulative projects, one to two existing food stores could close following stabilization of the WinCo store and the Solano 80 Center’s Mi Pueblo Food Store.

Non-Food Sales Impacts. Additional cumulative project impacts totaling $255.2 million are estimated to occur in the other retail, general merchandise, apparel, home furnishings, and appliances categories. The market area may have difficulty absorbing all of the cumulative projects and, if these projects are to succeed at the level of sales estimated, many market area retailers would experience sales declines.

The non-food sales impacts are roughly comparable to support for 730,000 square feet of retail space. This figure, however, is not an estimate of the amount of retail space anticipated to be displaced by the cumulative projects, as many existing retailers can absorb some level of sales decline before store closure becomes the only reasonable course of action. It is unlikely that the full magnitude of the negative cumulative impacts will be experienced by just one or several stores. Therefore, the impacts will likely be spread among a wide number of stores. If this occurs, then some store sales declines will not be severe enough to trigger store closure, thereby minimizing the above-cited square footage equivalency figure.

The cumulative impact figures are conservative and are presented as analytical benchmarks, with many factors that could result in changes to the level of impacts. These include generation of additional new retail demand after 2013 due to demographic growth, lower sales achievement than projected, delayed cumulative project development, and prospective market corrections or enhance- ments following the introduction of the cumulative projects, including competitive retailer reposition- ing. The extent to which potential store closures become problematic depends upon the strength of the market, regulatory controls, and actions pursued by property owners.

Conclusion. As previously discussed, if any vacancies occur as a result of store closures, controls are in place in Vallejo to help prevent physical deterioration that can lead to urban decay. This includes an active volunteer-run graffiti abatement program and City issuance of abatement warrants if repeated code violation citations are issued. Ultimately, the City has the right to charge property owners for abatement costs if code violations are not adequately addressed by property owners. These procedures all indicate that measures are in place in Vallejo to minimize conditions leading to urban decay should there be store closures.

In conclusion, while the project and identified cumulative development could result in some diverted sales and some closures of market area stores may occur, these events are not expected to lead to physical deterioration so prevalent and substantial that it impairs the proper utilization of affected real estate or the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. Based upon these findings, CBRE Consulting concluded that the development of the project would not contribute to urban decay in the market area, and urban decay impacts related to the project and cumulative market development would be less than significant.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-UrbanDecay.doc (3/3/2011) 235

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES J. URBAN DECAY

(3) Significant Urban Decay Impacts. As described above, construction and operation of the project would not result in significant urban decay impacts either in and of itself or in combination with identified cumulative development.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-UrbanDecay.doc (3/3/2011) 236 V. ALTERNATIVES

The CEQA Guidelines require the analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project that would feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.1 CEQA states that an EIR should not consider alternatives “whose effect cannot be ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.”

The proposed project has been described and analyzed in the previous chapters, with an emphasis on significant impacts resulting from the project and mitigation measures recommended to avoid these impacts. The following discussion is intended to inform the public and decision-makers of the relative impacts of three feasible alternatives to the proposed project and how those impacts relate to the impacts and mitigations identified for the proposed project. A discussion of the environmentally superior alternative is also provided.

The proposed project is described in detail in Chapter III, Project Description, and the potential environmental effects of implementing the proposed project are analyzed in Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The project is a discount grocery store that comprises approximately 71,393 gross square feet of retail space and up to 400 parking spaces.

The three alternatives proposed to the proposed project that are discussed in this chapter include the following: • The No Project alternative assumes the continuation of existing conditions within the project site. • The Off-Site alternative assumes the proposed project would be developed on a 10.88-acre vacant site, located approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the currently proposed project site at the intersection of Turner Parkway and North Ascot Parkway and east of I-80. The currently proposed project site would remain in its current condition with no additional development or change in use (as described in the No Project alternative). • The No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative assumes development of a 13,565-square-foot retail grocery store at the proposed project site (a 57,828 square foot reduction, or 81 percent of the proposed development square footage of 71,393 square feet).

Project objectives are identified in Chapter III, Project Description. To assist in evaluating project alternatives, the objectives are repeated below. • Develop an underutilized site with a retail grocery store use that ensures community access to a variety of grocery shopping opportunities, accomplishes the goals and strategies of the Vallejo General Plan, and complies with the requirements of the Vallejo Zoning Ordinance;

1 CEQA Guidelines, 2010, Section 15126.6

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (3/3/2011) 237

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

• Strengthen and expand the community’s tax base by providing sales tax revenue and/or increasing property tax revenues at the project site; • Allow for a development that provides economic benefits to the City in terms of employment opportunities for local residents; • Provide sufficient off-street parking to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods and ensure that adequate on-site parking is provided for customers and employees; • Design a site plan to minimize overall access and circulation conflicts. Provide for truck circulation around the building’s perimeter with sufficient maneuvering space for loading; and • Locate a retail project in close proximity to a regional transportation corridor with good local access from major streets and freeways.

A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED A suggestion for an alternate project site location was raised during the Notice of Preparation comment period, and as a result, several appropriately zoned off-site locations were identified and reviewed by the City and report authors. In addition, a reduced density alternative was considered to eliminate significant unavoidable traffic impacts, but this potential alternative was also ultimately rejected for further evaluation. A description of each of these potential alternatives and reasons for not further evaluating them are included below.

1. Off Site Alternative Locations Potential off-site alternative locations are all located within the City of Vallejo, as shown in Figure V- 1, and include: 1) 141 Plaza Drive; 2) 5180 Sonoma Boulevard; 3) One Rancho Square; 4) 401 Marin Street; 5) 3684 Sonoma Boulevard; 6) Sonoma Boulevard/Redwood Street; 7) Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/Turner Parkway; 8) 1683-1699 North Ascot Parkway; and 9) Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/Columbus Parkway. Table V-1 lists each of the alternative locations and identifies the existing acreage and existing conditions/use at each of the sites. The discussion below identifies the reasons for which eight of the alternative locations were ultimately rejected for further analysis. In order to allow for a direct comparison of the proposed project site at an alternative location in terms of project impacts, Site 8 (1683-1699 North Ascot Parkway, also known as the Northgate Property), was selected for further evaluation and is discussed in detail in subsection C, Off-Site Alternative. a. Sites 1-6. Sites 1 through 5 are subject to existing deed restrictions that prohibit the properties to be occupied or used for the purposes of a grocery store. In addition, the size of each of these sites is significantly smaller than the size of the proposed project site (7.64-acres). Therefore, a comparably- sized grocery store could not be developed even without the deed restrictions. Site 6 is the site of a former Kmart and is currently vacant. Although the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed project and is not currently subject to a deed restriction, the City is aware that a deed restriction will be placed upon the property prior to sale as this is a typical practice of the retailer that owns the property. The development of the proposed project at any of the six locations also would not reduce the significant and unavoidable global climate change impact as this impact is a result of the size of the development, rather than its specific location within the City of Vallejo. Because Sites 1 through 6 would not accommodate development of the proposed project each of the first six alternative locations were rejected for consideration and these sites are not further analyzed in this chapter.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 238 3

1 8

Other Locations: 6 Sonoma Boulevard/Redwood Street FIGURE V-1 1 141 Plaza Drive 7 Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/ 2 5180 Sonoma Boulevard Turner Parkway 3 One Rancho Square 8 1683-1699 N. Ascot Parkway 0 1400 2800 4 401 Marin Street 9 Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/ Columbus Parkway feet 5 3684 Sonoma Boulevard Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. Alternative Off-Site Locations Considered I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_V1.ai (3/1/11)

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

Table V-1: Other Off-Site Locations Considereda Site Site Address Acreage Existing Conditions Current land use: Party America store within Gateway Plaza. 1 141 Plaza Drive 4.12 Neighboring uses: Marshalls store, dry cleaners, nail salon, GNC store, Sear Portrait Studio. Current land use: Vacant. 2 5180 Sonoma Boulevard -- Neighboring uses: Central Self Storage and Food 4 Less grocery store (24 hours). Current land use: Crossroad Community Church. 3 One Rancho Square 2.71 Neighboring uses: Vargas Mexican Market and Golden City Buffet restaurant. Current land use: Maranatha Sabbath Keepers religious center. 4 401 Marin Street 1.29 Neighboring use: Conoco gas station Part of a larger parking lot for a strip mall that includes CVS Pharmacy 5 3684 Sonoma Blvd 2.94 and B& N Furniture Warehouse. Current land use: Former Kmart, now vacant Sonoma Boulevard/ 6 12.45 Neighboring uses: Food and beverage and big box retail with ancillary Redwood Street uses Current land use: Vacant. 7 Cook Property 51.26 Neighboring uses: Auto dealership, Target, residential. 1683-1699 N. Ascot Current land use: Vacant. 8 10.88 Parkway Neighboring uses: Commercial/retail and predominantly residential. Current land use: Vacant. 9 Ted Lee Property 26.2 Neighboring uses: Open Space and commercial/auto uses. a Sites are mapped on Figure V-1. Source: Solano County Assessor Recorder, Google Maps, Newman Development, City of Vallejo and LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.

b. Site 7. Site 7 consists of 51.26 acres of undeveloped land located southeast of the Admiral Callaghan Lane and Turner Parkway intersection. A relatively level area at the northwest corner of the site could accommodate the proposed WinCo Foods store. It appears from review of aerial mapping that the southeastern corner and eastern boundary of the site include drainage swales that may support seasonal wetland vegetation. In addition, it is possible that the site includes habitat that may support burrowing owls, a California Species of Concern and foraging habitat for raptors (including white-tailed kite, a California Fully Protected Species). It is likely that development of the site could result in new impacts to biological and/or hydrological resources not identified at the current project site. Further site investigation and the permission of the land owner would be required to confirm this initial review. In addition, while some of the significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project could possibly be avoided with development of the project in this location, new transportation impacts would likely result. Likely issues would include increased volume and speed- ing due to cut-through traffic on Foothill Drive between Redwood Parkway and Turner Parkway. In addition, widening of Admiral Callaghan Lane between the Avery Green auto dealership and Turner Parkway would likely be a condition of development at this site. In addition, the City and the applicant have confirmed their understanding that a portion of this site may not be readily available for sale for development of the proposed project. Because development of the proposed project at this site could result in new biological and hydrological resource impacts as well as new transportation impacts not identified for the proposed project, Site 7 was rejected for further analysis. c. Site 9. Site 9 consists of 26.2 acre of undeveloped land located on the north side of Columbus Parkway at its intersection with Admiral Callaghan Lane (west). The southern portion of the site is

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 240

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

generally level; however the elevation of the site extends steeply to the site’s northern boundary, and a swale is also present, presenting potential challenges to development outside of the level southern portion of the site. In addition, Rindler Creek is located at the southern boundary of the property and California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records indicate past occurrences of California red- legged frogs (a federally-listed species) within the creek. Because of the presence of sensitive biological habitat and the potential for hydrological and/or geological/soils impacts at this site that were not identified at the proposed project site, Site 9 was rejected for further analysis.

2. Reduced Traffic Impacts Alternative A reduced development size was identified to eliminate the traffic-related impacts of the proposed project. This potential alternative was ultimately rejected because the size of the proposed grocery store would have to be reduced to approximately 2,735 square feet in order to reduce each of the level of service and queuing impacts to a less-than-significant level (see Appendix C for model output sheets that show the results of the mitigated traffic impacts scenario). The No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative was instead selected for further analysis as the size of the store would be larger than the Reduced Traffic Impacts alternative, at 13,565 square feet. The No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative is discussed in detail later in this chapter.

B. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The following provides a description of the No Project alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated impacts of the No Project alternative to the impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the No Project alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant impacts. Table V-2, located at the end of this chapter, summarizes the impacts of the proposed project and compares those impacts to those that would be associated with the No Project alternative.

1. Principal Characteristics The No Project alternative assumes that the project site would not be subject to redevelopment, and would generally remain in its existing condition. The existing Vallejo Elks Lodge would continue operation for the foreseeable future and no site improvements would occur, resulting in continued underutilization of the project site and deferred maintenance.

The No Project alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the proposed project. Specifically, it would not: • Develop an underutilized site with a retail grocery store use that ensures community access to a variety of grocery shopping opportunities, accomplishes the goals and strategies of the Vallejo General Plan, and complies with the requirements of the Vallejo Zoning Ordinance; • Strengthen and expand the community’s tax base by providing sales tax revenue and/or increasing property tax revenues at the project site; • Allow for a development that provides economic benefits to the City in terms of employment opportunities for local residents; • Provide sufficient off-street parking to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods and ensure that adequate on-site parking is provided for customers and employees;

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 241

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

• Design a site plan to minimize overall access and circulation conflicts. Provide for truck circulation around the building’s perimeter with sufficient maneuvering space for loading; and • Locate a retail project in close proximity to a regional transportation corridor with good local access from major streets and freeways.

2. Analysis of the No Project Alternative The potential impacts associated with the No Project Alternative are described below. a. Land Use and Planning Policy. The No Project alternative would result in the continuation of existing land uses on the site and the existing buildings and underutilized recreational facilities that are currently present on the site would likely continue to deteriorate, unless membership at the Elks Lodge increases or new tenants were found to occupy the building or redevelop the entire site. This alternative would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. No new land uses would be introduced and existing land uses do not conflict with surrounding uses. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project alternative would not result in any significant land use impacts. b. Visual Resources. Under this alternative, the site would remain as it is today. No adverse impacts associated with increased light and glare would occur under the No Project alternative. However, deferred maintenance and underutilization of the site would likely continue and the visual quality of the site would further degrade under the No Project alternative. Although the mature landscaping would remain on the site under this alternative, most of this vegetation is overgrown. Existing uses on the site would not enhance the visual character of the area and it is expected that the condition of the existing buildings, recreational facilities, and landscaping would deteriorate and begin to represent an adverse visual impact over time. However, no impacts to visual resources would result under this alternative and mitigation measures to reduce impacts associated with increased light and glare would not be required. c. Transportation and Circulation. Implementation of the No Project alternative would not cause any increase in traffic and modifications to site driveways would not occur. The traffic conditions for this alternative are as described in the existing setting section of Section IV.C, Transporta- tion and Circulation. None of the impacts of the proposed project that are related to transportation or circulation would result from implementation of this alternative. The significant unavoidable impacts identified for the proposed project would not occur under this alternative and the mitigation measures identified in this EIR would not be needed to reduce potential impacts. d. Air Quality. Implementation of the No Project alternative would not result in demolition or construction activity within the project site. As a result, this alternative would not substantially increase pollutant or odor concentrations and would not generate dust, exhaust, and organic emissions related to construction. Similarly, this alternative would not result in an increase in operational vehicle trips in the City of Vallejo and therefore would not result in the increase of mobile-source pollutants attributed to the proposed project. Since none of the demolition and construction-related air quality impacts identified for the proposed project would occur under the No Project alternative, mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts would not be required.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 242

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

e. Global Climate Change. The No Project alternative would not increase vehicle emissions, construction emissions, or operational emissions on the project site and would therefore not contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase in greenhouse gas emissions or conflict with policies related to the reduction of greenhouse gases. However, the existing structures on site are likely to be less energy efficient than the new building that would be constructed as part of the proposed project. Use of the existing facilities on the project site would continue to generate greenhouse gas emissions that would contribute to global climate change although these emissions would be much less than those generated by the proposed project. Since none of the global climate change impacts identified for the proposed project would occur under the No Project alternative, mitigation measures to reduce global climate change impacts would not be required. f. Noise. Demolition and construction activities would not take place as part of the No Project alternative. Therefore, the No Project alternative would not expose surrounding land uses to short- term noise during construction and no mitigation would be required. Noise at the existing project site would not increase above that already occurring on the site. Moreover, no increased levels of traffic noise, loading/unloading operations, truck movements, or parking lot activities would occur adjacent to the existing commercial, office, daycare, and residential uses that surround the site. Since none of the construction and operation-related noise impacts identified for the proposed project would occur under the No Project alternative, mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts would not be required. g. Hydrology and Water Quality. The No Project alternative would not result in a change to existing impervious surfaces or drainage patterns on the project site. The No Project alternative would not include construction which, without mitigation, could increase erosion and runoff and impact water quality. However, redevelopment of the project site (such as that proposed for the project) would be subject to requirements to control and treat stormwater runoff and improve the quality of water draining from the site. These measures would not be put into effect under the No Project alternative. Since none of the potential hydrology and water quality impacts identified for the proposed project would occur under the No Project alternative, mitigation measures to reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality would not be required. h. Public Services. As part of the No Project alternative, the existing use of the site would continue. As such, the alternative would not increase demand for public services, such as fire and police services. Similar to the proposed project, no increase in demand for park or recreational facilities and school services would result under this alternative. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this alternative would have no impacts related to public services. i. Infrastructure and Utilities. As part of the No Project alternative, the existing use of the site would continue and an increase in water, wastewater, solid waste collection and disposal, electricity, or telecommunication services would not be required at the project site. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this alternative would have no impacts related to infrastructure and utilities. j. Urban Decay. Under the No Project alternative, no new uses would be developed at the project site and store closures identified within the project’s market area would not result. However, the project site would remain in a deteriorated condition due to deferred maintenance, which may lead to urban decay. As discussed in Section IV.J, Urban Decay, controls are in place in Vallejo to help prevent physical deterioration and, similar to properties that may be affected by development of the proposed project, these procedures may be applied to the project site if it continues to deteriorate

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 243

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

under the No Project alternative. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would not result in urban decay impacts.

C. OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVE The following provides a description of the Off-Site alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated impacts of the Off-Site alternative to the impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the Off-Site alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant impacts. Table V-2, located at the end of this chapter, summarizes the impacts of the proposed project and compares those impacts to those that would be associated with the Off-Site Project alternative.

1. Principal Characteristics The Off-Site alternative assumes that the project site would be developed at another location in the City of Vallejo. Under this alternative, the project would be developed on a vacant site, located approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the proposed project site at the intersection of Turner Parkway and North Ascot Parkway (1683-1699 N. Ascot Parkway). The site is identified as Site 8 on Figure V-1 and an aerial view is shown in Figure V-2. The site is located less than 1 mile east of I-80.

The alternative site, (also known as the Northgate site) is zoned for Mixed Use Planned Development (MUPD) and is surrounded by neighboring residential development and Gateway Plaza, a pedestrian shopping and service center, which includes various chain restaurants and “big-box” retail businesses like Costco and Target. The Northgate site is designated as a Neighborhood Shopping and Services area within the Northgate Mixed-Use Development designation in the City’s Northgate Specific Plan2 and is intended to create and establish an area to meet the day-to-day needs of local residents. Permit- ted uses would include food and beverage retail sales, general retail sales, and services such as administrative, medical, group care, personal, repair, and postal.

The Northgate site is 10.88 acres in size and is approximately 3.24 acres larger than the proposed project site (7.64 acres). A project was approved for this site to construct a 60,000 square foot grocery store on a 4.86 acre segment of the parcel with 282 parking spaces3 and four ancillary retail buildings on the remaining 6.02 acres, totaling 37,600 square feet with 150 parking spaces. The Northgate site is likely to support the proposed WinCo store and the required number of parking spaces (314 spaces), as well as efficient site circulation. It is also possible that ancillary retail uses could be developed in addition to the WinCo store because of the larger parcel size. As a result, the Off-Site alternative would not likely require significant design adjustments to accommodate the size of the proposed grocery store. The development of the proposed grocery store on the Northgate site would be permitted as a food and beverage retail sales use with on-site sales of alcoholic beverages and would also require a major use permit. As a result, the Northgate site would achieve most of the project objectives, as follows:

2 City of Vallejo, 2003. Northgate Specific Plan. July 29. 3 The City of Vallejo’s parking requirement is 4.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Under these requirements, the 60,000 square foot development requires 264 parking spaces. Eighteen (18) parking spaces have been added from the requirement under the proposal.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 244 FIGURE V-2 Vallejo WinCo Foods Project EIR Off-Site Alternative Location

r D r te a w d a

Cambridge Cir Cir C Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge

ir e y

a kwa L Par

e r i

h s Ascot

North Ascot Parkway Ascot North North e Parkway Ascot North

r r

D D

t t

e e

n n r r

a a

G G

Hallmark Pl Pl

Tiara Dr Dr Tiara Tiara Tiara Dr Tiara a ll e b a s I n ee y u a Q

P P

r r

e e

n n

r r

u u

Dr Dr Dr

T T

i Off-Site Alternative Site Boundary

Hendricks Hendricks

Hendricks C

e e

n n

a a

L L

n a

h h

g g

l a Dr

z l la a P r i

500 d

A feet 0 250 GOOGLE EARTH, SEPTEMBER 2009; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. ASSOCIATES, SEPTEMBER 2009; LSA SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, (2/8/11) I:\CYV1001 WinCo\figures\EIR\Fig_V2.ai

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

This page intentionally left blank.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 246

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

• Develop an underutilized site with a retail grocery store use that ensures community access to a variety of grocery shopping opportunities, accomplishes the goals and strategies of the Vallejo General Plan, and complies with the requirements of the Vallejo Zoning Ordinance; • Strengthen and expand the community’s tax base by providing sales tax revenue and/or increasing property tax revenues at the project site; • Allow for a development that provides economic benefits to the City in terms of employment opportunities for local residents; • Provide sufficient off-street parking to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods and ensure that adequate on-site parking is provided for customers and employees; • Design a site plan to minimize overall access and circulation conflicts. Provide for truck circulation around the building’s perimeter with sufficient maneuvering space for loading; and

Although the Off-Site alternative would achieve most of the project objectives, it is not located within close proximity to a regional transportation corridor (I-80 is located approximately 1 mile to the west, while the project site is located less than ¼-mile from I-80) and Turner Parkway is not considered a major street. Therefore, the Off-Site alternative would not achieve this project objective to the same extent that the proposed project would.

2. Analysis of the Off-Site Alternative The potential impacts associated with the Off-Site alternative are described below. a. Land Use and Planning Policy. Development of the Off-Site alternative would not create a physical barrier to travel around the Northgate site since access to the site would be provided by major roadways in the vicinity; therefore, similar to the proposed project, the Off-Site alternative would not divide an existing community. Under this alternative, development of a grocery store at this location would be compatible with the existing commercial and retail uses located immediately west of the site, although residential uses that surround the site on the north, east, and south may not be compatible with a 24-hour use. The Off-Site alternative would result in the development of a new grocery store on a vacant parcel zoned as MUPD which refers to the Northgate Specific Plan, the Planned Development Master Plan for the site and surrounding area. The Northgate Specific Plan identifies the site as a Neighborhood Shopping and Services area. The intent of this designation is to create and establish an area to meet the day-to-day needs of local residents, with principal uses of food and beverage sales and other general retail uses. The site is not intended to be a regional destination and, although the location of a WinCo Foods store at this site would allow for some ancillary retail space that may be occupied by local-serving retailers, development of the proposed project would somewhat limit the intended use of the site as identified by the Northgate Specific Plan. Although this alternative would not result in physical land use impacts, development of a regional retail grocery store that operates 24 hours per day in a predominantly residential area is not generally considered to be a desired use in this location. However, similar to the proposed project, it is unlikely that any significant land use impacts would result with development of the proposed project at the Northgate site. b. Visual Resources. Under the Off-Site alternative, development of the site is not expected to create significant impacts associated with visual resources. The Northgate site is currently vacant and surrounding uses are predominantly residential with a large pedestrian shopping and service center

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 247

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

immediately west of the site. Development of the Off-Site alternative would not obstruct a scenic vista, damage scenic resources, or degrade the existing visual character of the site. Similar to the proposed project, the alternative would likely require mitigation measures to address additional light or glare to the area. Development would also be required to be compatible with the design characteristics identified in the Northgate Specific Plan. c. Transportation and Circulation. Given that the project site is currently developed with several buildings and associated infrastructure and the Northgate site is currently vacant, there would be fewer demolition-related truck trips associates with development of the Off-Site alternative, reducing construction-related traffic when compared to the proposed project. However, implementation of the Off-Site alternative would increase operational traffic congestion in the vicinity of the Northgate site, rather than at the proposed project site. The retail grocery development may be of equivalent size or larger at the Northgate site and as a result, it is likely that the reduced levels of service and increased vehicle queuing identified at the study intersections evaluated in Section IV.C, Transportation and Circulation would be similar at the Northgate site as those identified for the project site. Mitigations would be required to reduce transportation impacts at the Northgate site to a less-than-significant level, and some impacts may remain significant and unavoidable especially if affected intersections are under the jurisdiction of another agency. In addition, this area is not intended to serve regional retailers and is predominantly residential. Increased traffic congestion in this area may be less tolerable to area residents that a typical commercial area. d. Air Quality. The Off-Site alternative would result in construction activity and an increase in vehicular trips during the operation period. Construction impacts would likely be less than those identified for the proposed project since the vacant Northgate site does not require any demolition. However, a larger building or other ancillary retail uses could be built to accommodate the size of the parcel. Under the Off-Site alternative, truck emissions and the increase in vehicular trips during the project’s operational period could be more than or the same as the proposed project and, for this reason, regional air quality impacts and required mitigation measures would be similar to those identified for the proposed project. e. Global Climate Change. Development of the Off-Site alternative would result in construction activity and an increase in vehicular trips during its operational period as described above. Similar to the proposed project, construction activities would cumulatively contribute to global climate change (although emissions associated with demolition would not occur) and the long-term operation of the project would result in greenhouse emissions that would have a significant adverse impact and would cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Off- Site alternative would also conflict with policies related to the reduction of greenhouse gases. As discussed in the Air Quality subsection above, under the Off-Site alternative, truck emissions and the increase in vehicular trips during the project’s operational period could be more than or the same as the proposed project and, for this reason, global climate change impacts would be similar to those identified for the proposed project and global climate change impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. f. Noise. Increased noise levels caused by construction and operation of the proposed Off-Site alternative would be largely similar to the proposed project. The Northgate site and surrounding uses would be exposed to construction and traffic noise levels similar to those described for the proposed project during the construction period. However, demolition activities at this site would not be

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 248

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

required, allowing for a shorter construction period, with fewer noise impacts. After project construction, existing noise levels would increase on the site and may result in additional traffic noise impacts. There are sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project area under this alternative. Because residential uses exist adjacent to the Northgate site, mitigation measures to reduce on-site project related traffic noise would likely be required and may be similar to those recommended for the proposed project or even more stringent. For example, large truck deliveries may be limited to the hours after 7 a.m. to avoid impacts to area residents, which could conflict with the operational characteristics of the WinCo Foods store. g. Hydrology and Water Quality. Like the proposed project, the Off-Site alternative would not result in a reduction of groundwater supplies or placement of structures in flood or tsunami zones. Under this alternative, there would be no increase in impervious areas associated with the project since the alternative site is already paved. Hydrological impacts associated with major construction activities, stormwater run-off, and water quality would be similar to those identified for the proposed project and similar mitigations would be required. h. Public Services. Similar to the proposed project, the Off-Site alternative would not require alteration of existing or construction of new public facilities. No new impacts related to public services would result from implementation of this alternative. i. Infrastructure and Utilities. Similar to the proposed project, the Off-Site alternative would require the project to be serviced by new water, wastewater, solid waste, electricity, gas, and telecommunications infrastructure. However, it is anticipated that no new impacts would be identified under the Off-Site alternative as it is located in a developed area already served by existing infrastructure. j. Urban Decay. It is not anticipated that the market area identified and evaluated in Section IV.J, Urban Decay, would change substantially with development of a retail grocery store at the Northgate site. Therefore, potential store closures identified for the proposed project would likely be similar. Similar to the proposed project, no urban decay impacts would result with development of the Off- Site location given the City’s policies and procedures that prevent and address the occurrence urban decay in Vallejo.

D. NO GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ALTERNATIVE The following provides a description of the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative and its anticipated environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on comparing the anticipated impacts of the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative to the impacts associated with the proposed project. The discussion includes a determination of whether or not the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant impacts. Table V-2, located at the end of this chapter, summarizes the impacts of the proposed project and compares those impacts to those that would be associated with the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative.

1. Principal Characteristics In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted an update to their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Included in these guidelines are greenhouse gases (GHG) screening

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 249

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

guidelines. These guidelines were developed using emissions assumptions in the URBEMIS air quality model and using off-model GHG estimates for indirect emissions from electrical generation, solid waste, and water conveyance.4

To define this alternative, the BAAQMD screening criteria were consulted to determine the type of development that could be built on the project site but would not exceed the greenhouse gas threshold of significance. For the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative, it is assumed the project site would be redeveloped with a 13,565-square-foot retail grocery store with associated surface parking5 and landscaping. This alternative represents an 81 percent, or 57,828 square foot, reduction in retail development over that proposed by the project and would result in a less than significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions.

Although the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative would achieve all of the project objectives, the following objectives would not be realized to the same extent as development of the proposed project, because the size of the retail grocery store would be substantially reduced: • Develop an underutilized site with a retail grocery store use that ensures community access to a variety of grocery shopping opportunities, accomplishes the goals and strategies of the Vallejo General Plan, and complies with the requirements of the Vallejo Zoning Ordinance; • Strengthen and expand the community’s tax base by providing sales tax revenue and/or increasing property tax revenues at the project site; • Allow for a development that provides economic benefits to the City in terms of employment opportunities for local residents.

2. Analysis of the No Greenhouse Gas Impact Alternative The potential impacts associated with the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative are described below. a. Land Use and Planning Policy. Implementation of the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative would result in the redevelopment of the project site as a retail grocery store. Implementation of this alternative would result in a significant reduction in development at the project site as compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community, nor result in any significant land use impacts. Although the size of the proposed project would be reduced significantly under this alternative, the project would be consistent with the Retail General Plan designation for the site as well as the CP zoning designation. However, only a limited amount of retail uses could be developed at the site as compared to the project and the site would remain underutilized. b. Visual Resources. Like the proposed project, the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative would not result in impacts to existing scenic views or degrade the existing visual character of the project site. Development of this alternative would include a 13,565 square foot retail grocery store with associated surface parking and landscaping. The smaller store may be sited in such a way that the potential increase in lighting and glare would be less than that associated with the proposed project.

4 The BAAQMD screening criteria in Table 3-1 of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2010) show the size of various types of development that would not exceed the 1,100 metric tons of CO2eq a year threshold of significance. 5 The City of Vallejo’s parking requirement is 4.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Under these requirements, the 13,565 square feet development requires 60 parking spaces.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 250

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

However, similar to the proposed project, this alternative would require mitigation measures to address additional light or glare in the area. c. Transportation and Circulation. Under the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative, the project site would be redeveloped, but with substantially less retail development than that proposed by the project or under the existing conditions. Development of this alternative would reduce vehicle and truck trips to and from the site and would likely reduce most of the significant unavoidable impacts at the identified intersections; however, as previously discussed, an approximately 2,735 square foot development would be required to reduce all of the impacts identified in Section IV.C, Transportation and Circulation to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, although substantially less than the proposed project, this alternative would result in level of service and queuing impacts at some of the study intersections, some of which may not be reduced to less than significant levels due to right of way and jurisdictional constraints. d. Air Quality. Construction associated with this alternative would be substantially reduced when compared to the proposed project; however, mitigation measures identified for the proposed project to address construction-related emissions would still be required. Additionally, this alternative would result in a decrease in vehicle trips over the proposed project. This alternative would result in reduced construction and operational air quality impacts when compared to the proposed project. e. Global Climate Change. Development of the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative would result in construction activity within the project site; however, construction associated with this alternative would be substantially less than activity associated with the proposed project, and would result in a less-than-significant impact with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. This alternative would result in a decrease in trips over the proposed project. This alternative was designed to result in less-than-significant construction and operational impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and would eliminate the significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts identified for the proposed project. f. Noise. Construction activity would take place as part of this alternative, and would expose surrounding land uses to a temporary increase in construction-related noise levels; however, given the reduced amount of development under this alternative, the length and level of exposure would be reduced. Given the location of existing commercial, office, daycare, and residential uses adjacent to the project site, mitigation measures to reduce on-site project related traffic noise may still be required although the identified impacts would likely be less than the proposed project. Alternatively, the smaller building may be sited in such a way that impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are reduced or even avoided, resulting in fewer noise-related impacts and requiring less mitigation than that identified for the proposed project. g. Hydrology and Water Quality. Unless the amount of impervious surface on the project site are substantially reduced from existing or proposed project conditions, the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative would likely result in hydrology and water quality impacts that are almost identical to those that would result from the proposed project and as a result, no new impacts would occur under this alternative. h. Public Services. The No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative would result in less development on the project site although it is possible that the store could operate 24 hours a day, similar to the

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 251

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

proposed project. Because of the smaller store size however, it is reasonable to assume that demand for police and fire services would likely be less under this alternative than that identified for the proposed project. i. Infrastructure and Utilities. Implementation of this alternative would result in a reduction of development on the project site, when compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the demand for water, wastewater, solid waste, electricity, and telecommunications services would be less than the proposed project. j. Urban Decay. Under the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative, development of the project site would be substantially reduced. A smaller grocery store would not likely result in the potential store closures identified in the urban decay analysis; however, a smaller grocery store would compete with different retailers than those identified in the urban decay study and it is possible that different store closures could result within smaller market area. Similar to the proposed project, no urban decay impacts would result with development of the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative given the City’s policies and procedures that prevent and address the occurrence urban decay in Vallejo.

E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative in an EIR. Based on above analysis, the No Project alternative would have the least number of impacts and, therefore, would be the environmentally superior alternative. Under CEQA, if the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). While this alternative would be environmentally superior in the technical sense that contribution to these afore-mentioned impacts would not occur, the No Project alternative would also fail to achieve all of the project’s objectives. As described above and illustrated in Table V-2, the Off-Site and No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternatives would result in similar or reduced impacts compared to the proposed project. However, the No Greenhouse Gas alternative would result in significant reduction of retail development on the project site, which would be counter to the intent of the site’s designated zoning and General Plan designation for pedestrian-oriented commercial shopping uses. The intent of this designation is to provide areas of the City where goods and services are available to local residents as well as visitors from the region and beyond. A reduction of retail development would hinder the opportunity to provide goods and services on a larger scale. Although the No Greenhouse Gas Impact alternative would achieve all of the project objectives, the following objectives would not be realized to the same extent as development of the proposed project, because the size of the retail grocery store would be substantially reduced: • Develop an underutilized site with a retail grocery store use that ensures community access to a variety of grocery shopping opportunities, accomplishes the goals and strategies of the Vallejo General Plan, and complies with the requirements of the Vallejo Zoning Ordinance; • Strengthen and expand the community’s tax base by providing sales tax revenue and/or increasing property tax revenues at the project site; • Allow for a development that provides economic benefits to the City in terms of employment opportunities for local residents;

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 252

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

The Off-Site alternative would achieve most of the project objectives and produce no new impacts in nearly all of the environmental topical areas and as a result, is considered the environmentally superior alternative. However, the Off-Site alternative would not reduce the significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions impacts associated with the proposed project and may not reduce all of the significant unavoidable transportation impacts, especially if impacts to intersections outside of the City’s jurisdiction are identified. In addition, the Northgate site is not intended to be a regional destination and, although the location of a WinCo Foods store at this site would allow for some ancillary retail space that may be occupied by local-serving retailers, development of the proposed project would somewhat limit the intended use of the site as identified by the Northgate Specific Plan. Although this alternative would not result in physical land use impacts, development of a regional retail grocery store that operates 24 hours per day in a predominantly residential area is not generally considered to be a compatible use in this location.

P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 253

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES

Table V.2: Comparison of Potentially Significant Impacts No Greenhouse Proposed No Project Off-Site Gas Impact Project Alternative Alternative Environmental Impacts Alternative Without/With Without/With Without/With Without/With Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation A. Land Use and Planning Policy LTS None >LTS >LTS B. Visual Resources VIS-1: The proposed project would create a new source of light and glare affecting day and S/LTS None ~S/LTS ~~S/LTS~~

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (3/3/2011) 254~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES~~

Table V-2 Continued No Greenhouse Proposed No Project Off-Site Gas Impact Project Alternative Alternative Environmental Impacts Alternative Without/With Without/With Without/With Without/With Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation H. Public Services LTS None ~LTS S = Incrementally greater than proposed project Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2011

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 255~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 V. ALTERNATIVES~~

~~This page intentionally left blank.~~

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Screen\5-Alternatives.doc «11/03/10» 256 VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS~~

As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this chapter discusses the following types of impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project: growth- inducing impacts; significant irreversible changes; cumulative impacts; effects found not to be significant; and significant unavoidable environmental impacts.

A. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS This section summarizes the project’s potential growth-inducing impacts on the surrounding community. A project is typically considered growth-inducing if it would foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing; if it would remove obstacles to population growth or tax community services to the extent that the construction of new facilities would be necessary; or if it would encourage or facilitate other activities that cause significant environmental effects.1 Examples of projects likely to have significant growth-inducing impacts include extensions or expansions of infrastructure systems beyond what is needed to serve project-specific demand, and development of new residential subdivisions or industrial parks in areas that are currently only sparsely developed or are undeveloped.

Development of the proposed project would not directly result in any population growth within the City as it does not propose new housing. Although the proposed project would generate job growth within the City by creating approximately 170 new jobs (up to 102 of which would be full-time and 68 part-time), this growth is planned for in the City’s General Plan, which designates the site as Retail. The level of intensity and type of development that would occur with the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan’s vision for the area. The proposed project would neither directly nor indirectly lead to substantial or unforeseen economic or population growth, but would contribute to anticipated growth.

The project would redevelop the site with a retail grocery store and associated improvements. The site is currently developed with the Vallejo Elks Lodge, is located in an urban area, and is surrounded by existing development. The site is also served by existing utility infrastructure which would require only minor modifications to serve the proposed development. Due to the location of the project site and presence of existing uses on and in the vicinity of the site, construction of the proposed project would not induce unplanned growth in the area. The proposed project would not result in the extension of utilities or roads into exurban areas, and would not directly or indirectly lead to the development of greenfield sites. Instead, it would facilitate the anticipated development of underutilized land in an existing urban setting.

~~1 CEQA Guidelines, 2010. §15126.2(d).~~

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\6-CEQA.doc (3/3/2011) 257~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS~~

B. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could result from implementation of a proposed project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and secondary growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. CEQA dictates that irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.2 The CEQA Guidelines describe three categories of significant irreversible changes that should be considered, as further detailed below.

1. Changes in Land Use Which Commit Future Generations The 7.64-acre project site is located in an urban area in northeast Vallejo and is currently developed with an existing Elks lodge. The site is bordered by existing development on all sides. The proposed project would redevelop the site with a retail grocery store and associated parking, infrastructure and landscaping. Because the proposed project would redevelop an existing urban infill site, it would not commit future generations to a significant change in land use.

2. Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents No significant environmental damage, such as accidental spills or explosion of a hazardous material, is anticipated with implementation of the proposed retail grocery project. Compliance with federal, State and local regulations, and Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, -2, and -3 (identified in the Initial Study included as Appendix B), would reduce to a less-than-significant level the possibility that hazardous substances within the project site would cause significant environmental damage. As such, no irreversible changes – such as those that might result from construction of a large-scale mining project, a hydroelectric dam project, or other industrial project – would result from development of the proposed project.

3. Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. The State Department of Conservation designates the site as “Urban and Built-Up Land,” and the site is located in an urbanized area of Vallejo. Therefore, no existing agricultural lands would be converted to non-agricultural uses. In addition, the project site does not contain known mineral resources and does not serve as a mining reserve; thus, development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of access to mining reserves. Con- struction of the proposed project would require the use of energy, including energy produced from non-renewable resources. Energy consumption would also occur during the operational period of the proposed project. The proposed project would implement green building features beyond those required by the City and the State (see Chapter III, Project Description) and would be required to incorporate additional energy efficient building design standards as required by Mitigation Measures GCC-1 and GCC-2 (see Section IV.E, Global Climate Change). Also refer to Section IV.E, Global Climate Change and Section IV.I, Infrastructure and Utilities for a more detailed discussion of the project’s potential to increase energy consumption. The proposed project would not require the construction of major new lines to deliver energy as electric service is already provided in the area.

~~2 CEQA Guidelines, 2010. §15126.2(c).~~

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\6-CEQA.doc (3/3/2011) 258~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS~~

C. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CEQA defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which can compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively significant. These impacts can result from the proposed project alone or together with other projects.

1. Methodology For the evaluation of cumulative impacts, CEQA allows the use of either a list of past, present, or reasonably anticipated relevant projects, including projects outside the control of the lead agency, a summary of the projections in an adopted planning document or a thoughtful combination of the two. For this EIR, the cumulative traffic analysis and, therefore, cumulative air quality, noise, and global climate change analyses, used year 2030 for the cumulative condition based on traffic modeling that includes assumptions for future land uses and development consistent with build-out of the City’s General Plan. The cumulative urban decay analysis is based on conditions in a market area defined in the economic impact analysis prepared for the project. For all other topic areas, the cumulative impacts analysis used information provided by the City of Vallejo on currently planned, approved, or proposed projects in the project site vicinity, as listed in Table IV.C-3 in Section IV.C, Transportation and Circulation under the Near-Term (Year 2011) Conditions scenario, that have the potential to contribute to environmental impacts in the vicinity. Each of the environmental topic areas and their significance criteria analyzed in Chapter IV are considered below for cumulative impacts.

2. Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Project The following analysis examines the cumulative effects of the proposed project for each of the topics that are analyzed in Chapter IV of the EIR. a. Land Use and Planning Policy. The proposed project would redevelop the existing underutilized site with a retail grocery store. The type and intensity of development proposed by the project is consistent with the General Plan’s vision for the site as it would develop the site with retail uses and represents a continuation of existing commercial and retail uses to the north. Development of the proposed project in concert with other development in the City of Vallejo would allow for the efficient use of land, would not contribute to the division of an established community, and would not contribute to land use incompatibilities. Development of the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to land use. b. Visual Resources. With respect to the proposed building on the site, the new retail grocery store would represent an improvement over the existing conditions and would result in a continuation of the existing visual character of commercial, retail, and service uses located immediately to the northwest. Although existing mature vegetation would be removed from the site, the redeveloped site would be re-landscaped to compliment the new development and tree removal would not substantially adversely affect the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings. Design Review would ensure that the proposed project, in combination with existing and foreseeable developments within the vicinity, would be compatible with the City’s objectives and policies related to project design and would not detract from the visual character of the site and surroundings. The proposed project would include lighting that could produce new sources of light and glare; however, implementation of recommended mitigation measures would ensure that lighting plans are developed to reduce the

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\6-CEQA.doc (3/3/2011) 259~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS~~

cumulative impact of light spillage and glare from the proposed project. Scenic views and vistas within and in the vicinity of the site would not be affected. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts related to visual resources. c. Transportation and Circulation. Section IV.C, Transportation and Circulation, includes a detailed analysis of the cumulative conditions related to transportation. The proposed project would result in level of service impacts to the following intersections during the long-term (cumulative year 2030) condition: • Intersection #1 – Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard (PM and Saturday Peaks) • Intersection #2 – Redwood Street/Broadway Street (PM and Saturday Peaks) • Intersection #3 – Redwood Street/Tuolumne Street (Saturday Peak) • Intersection #4 – Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB Ramps (AM, PM and Saturday Peaks) • Intersection #5 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp (PM and Saturday Peaks) • Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B (Saturday Peak) • Intersection #10 – Redwood Parkway/Ascot Parkway (PM Peak) • Intersection #13 – Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps (AM and PM Peaks)

In addition, at locations which are at or near capacity and affected by project traffic, the increase in vehicle queuing during the cumulative condition would exceed the length of one vehicle (by 25 feet or more) due to the proposed project: • Intersection #5 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off Ramp (eastbound) • Intersection #6 – Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (east)/Project Driveway B (eastbound and northbound) • Intersection #10 – Redwood Parkway/Ascot Parkway (northbound) • Intersection #13 – Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps (northbound)

As shown in Table IV.C-14, level of service impacts to Intersections #1, #4, #5, and #13 and queuing impacts to Intersection #13 would remain significant and unavoidable given that the recommended mitigation measures may be infeasible because the intersection is either under the jurisdiction of Caltrans or is subject to other right of way constraints. Mitigations are recommended that reduce the remaining impacts to less than significant levels. Please refer to Section IV.C for further discussion of cumulative transportation impacts. d. Air Quality. Depending on construction schedules and actual implementation of baseline projects in the area, generation of fugitive dust and pollutant emissions during construction may result in substantial short-term increases in air pollutants. This condition would contribute to short-term cumulative air quality impacts. However, each individual project would be subject to the BAAQMD rules and regulations regarding feasible control measures for construction emission of particulate

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\6-CEQA.doc (3/3/2011) 260~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS~~

matter or dust (PM10 and PM 2.5), and other mitigation requirements during their respective construction processes, as described in Section IV.D, Air Quality. Therefore, implementation of the project would not make a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from short term construction activities.

Currently, the Bay Area air basin is in non-attainment for Ozone (O3) (state 1-hour standard and State and Federal 8-hour standard) and for PM2.5 and PM10 (state standards). Generally, if a project results in an increase in reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), or particulate matter exhaust (PM10 and PM2.5) beyond the BAAQMD’s screening thresholds, it would be considered to contribute to a significant cumulative effect. ROG and NOx, are ozone precursors. Table IV.E-8 in Section IV.E, Air Quality indicates that proposed project emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM2.5 andPM10. According to the BAAQMD all projects that have less than significant operational emissions also have less than significant cumulative emissions. Additionally, the project would be consistent with the region's Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on cumulative regional air quality. e. Global Climate Change. Refer to Section IV.E, Global Climate Change for a detailed discussion of cumulative global climate change impacts. As described in that section, climate change is a global environmental problem in which: (a) any given development project contributes only a small portion of any net increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) and (b) global growth is continuing to contribute large amounts of GHGs across the planet. Therefore, that section addresses climate change primarily as a cumulative impact. As shown in Table IV.E-2, the proposed project would exceed the greenhouse gas emission threshold established by the BAAQMD for the purpose of reducing climate change impacts. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure GCC-2, GHG emissions would not be reduced by the 81 percent that would be necessary to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore the project would conflict with policies related to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. f. Noise. Depending on the phasing, scheduling and location of other proposed development in the project area, the proposed project could lead to cumulative increases in construction noise, including noise associated with on-site construction activities as well as trucking and vehicular traffic along local roadways. However, no known development projects are likely to occur concurrently with the proposed project within the immediate vicinity of the project site and construction noise impacts would be of short duration. For these reasons, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to construction noise.

As discussed in Section IV.F, Noise and shown in Table IV.F-10, on-site traffic noise levels would range between 66.4 and 66.5 dBA Ldn under future conditions without the project. Traffic noise levels would increase to between 65.7 and 66.7 dBA Ldn under future conditions with the project. The segment of Redwood Parkway from Admiral Callaghan Lane (west) to the proposed project Driveway B, would experience the highest increase in traffic noise levels of up to 1.9 dBA over cumulative conditions without the project. This increase would not be perceptible in an outdoor environment and is well below the threshold of significance (an increase of 5 dBA). Therefore, the project would not represent a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with traffic-related noise. g. Hydrology and Water Quality. Development of the project site would decrease the amount of impervious surface area on the site relative to existing conditions due to the increase in vegetated

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\6-CEQA.doc (3/3/2011) 261~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS~~

areas and would not substantially alter drainage patterns on the site. However, both construction and operation period activities could generate stormwater runoff that could cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade the water quality of Vallejo area streams, Lake Chabot, wetlands, or San Pablo Bay. Section IV.G, Hydrology and Water Quality, discusses these impacts and identifies appropriate mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. In addition, no known development projects are likely to occur concurrently with the proposed project within the immediate vicinity of the project site and construction period stormwater impacts would be temporary. With full implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, no cumulative hydrology or water quality impacts would result. h. Public Services. Development of the proposed project, in conjunction with planned future development would cumulatively increase the demand on public facilities and services in the project area. As described in Section IV.H, Public Services, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to police or fire services. These services are subject to an annual budgeting process during which service priorities are established and service levels monitored, allowing for adjustments where needed. No cumulative impacts to these services are anticipated that would result in adverse physical impacts associated with the maintenance of service standards. i. Utilities and Infrastructure. Development of the proposed project, in addition to other future development in the area would cumulatively increase the demand on the utility providers and infrastructure in the project area (water, sewer, solid waste, electricity and telecommunications). There are adequate provisions for water supply, wastewater treatment capacity and storm drainage facilities to serve projected growth in the City. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative infrastructure impacts would be less-than-significant. Please refer to Section IV.I for further discussion of the project’s potential to increase energy consumption. j. Urban Decay. As discussed in greater detail in Section IV.J, Urban Decay (which summarizes the information provided in Appendix H), while the project and identified cumulative development could result in some diverted sales and some closures of market area stores may occur, these events are not expected to lead to physical deterioration so prevalent and substantial that it impairs the proper utilization of affected real estate or the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. Based upon these findings, CBRE Consulting concluded that the development of the project would not contribute to urban decay in the market area.

D. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Based on the analysis provided in the Initial Study, included in Appendix B, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to the following topics, which are not further evaluated in the EIR. Some topics considered in the Initial Study would require implementation of standard mitigation measures to be implemented during the construction period to reduce impacts to a less- than-significant level. These measures would likely apply to any redevelopment activities that could occur on the site and are summarized below, as appropriate. Table II-1 in Chapter II of this EIR also contains a summary of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study.

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\6-CEQA.doc (3/3/2011) 262~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS~~

1. Agricultural and Forestry Resources The project site is located in an urban area and is designated Retail on the Vallejo General Plan Land Use Map. The site is currently zoned Pedestrian Shopping and Service District (CP). The site is not used for agricultural production nor does it support forestry resources. Therefore, impacts to agricultural resources would not be significant.

2. Biological Resources No special-status plant or animal species are expected to occur on or in the vicinity of the site due to its highly disturbed condition and subsequent lack of suitable habitats. The project would not interfere with local wildlife movement or corridors. No riparian vegetation, other sensitive natural communities, federally protected wetlands, or other aquatic features are present on the site. The site is not subject to a local, regional, or State habitat conservation or natural community plan. Although all but approximately 6 of the 92 existing trees would be removed from the site, the City’s Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 10.12) does not contain any provisions for the protection or preservation of ornamental trees on private property. However, if conducted during the nesting season (February 1- August 31), removal or ornamental trees and shrubs could disturb nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires that preconstruction nest surveys be conducted for vegetation removal activities occurring during the breeding season and identifies subsequent protection measures to be implemented in the event that nests are discovered. Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that potential construction-period impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to a less-than- significant level.

3. Cultural Resources The project site does not contain any known historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources. However, it is possible that previously unknown resources could be encountered during construction- period ground disturbance. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-1a and -1b, CULT-2a and -2b, and CULT-3, would ensure that potential impacts associated with the disturbance of subsurface archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains would be reduced to less- than-significant levels.

4. Geology and Soils The project site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone and would not be subject to fault rupture. However, the site would be subject to very strong ground shaking during a seismic event. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires implementation of the recommendations, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the project, would reduce the potential hazards associated with strong seismic ground shaking, unstable soils, and expansive soils at the project site to a less-than-significant level. The project would not be subject to adverse effects associated with landslides, liquefaction, subsi- dence, collapse, or lateral spreading.

5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The disturbance of soils containing agricultural pesticides or hazardous building materials during project construction could pose a significant threat to human health and/or the environment. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3, which require compliance with

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\6-CEQA.doc (3/3/2011) 263~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS~~

the recommendations set forth in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the site for further testing of site soils and building materials prior to soil disturbance or demolition would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Construction equipment would use hazardous materials, such as petroleum hydrocarbon-based fuels and lubricants; however, compliance with existing local, State, and federal regulations during construction activities would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Although the Kinder Care Learning Center is located adjacent to the project site, operation of the project would not include the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and would therefore not emit hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing school. The site is not located within the vicinity of any public use airports or private airstrips. The project would not disrupt traffic along I-80 and would have no impact on emergency response or evacuation plans. The site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and is not located in or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)

6. Mineral Resources The Lake Herman Quarry, a portion of which is located within the eastern side of the City’s sphere, is the only known mineral resource deposit within the City. There are no known mineral resources within or in the vicinity of the project site, which is surrounded by development on all sides. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally- important mineral resource recovery site.

7. Population and Housing The project site is currently developed with the Vallejo Elks Lodge and the proposed project does not include housing; therefore, the proposed project would not displace any housing or people necessitat- ing the construction or replacement housing elsewhere, or substantially induce population growth within the City of Vallejo. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in such substantial job growth within the City that it would indirectly induce population growth resulting from the need for new housing.

8. School Services The proposed project does not include housing, and therefore would not introduce residential population, including students to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an adverse effect on school facilities.

9. Recreation The proposed project does not include housing, and therefore would not directly increase the use of local parks in the way that residential uses would. Potential increases in the use of Hanns Memorial Preserve by WinCo employees, which is located less than ¼ mile from the site, would be minimal. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities, nor would it require the construction or expansion of park or recreational facilities.

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\6-CEQA.doc (3/3/2011) 264~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS~~

E. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Even with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in Sections IV.C, Transportation and Circulation and IV.E, Global Climate Change, the proposed project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts: • The Redwood Street/Sonoma Boulevard intersection (Intersection #1) would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the PM and Saturday peak hours under Long-Term Plus Project conditions (Impact TRANS-17); • The Redwood Street/Fairgrounds Drive/I-80 WB Ramps intersection (Intersection #4) would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours during the Long-Term Plus Project conditions (Impact TRANS-20); • The Redwood Parkway/Admiral Callaghan Lane (west)/I-80 EB Off-Ramp intersection (Intersection #5) would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the PM and Saturday peak hours under the Long-Term Plus Project conditions (Impact TRANS-21); • The Admiral Callaghan Lane/I-80 EB Ramps intersection (Intersection #13) would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours under the Long-Term Plus Project conditions and will experience an unacceptable increase in the vehicle queue length at the northbound left-turn movement during the PM peak hour during Long-Term Plus Project conditions (Impacts TRANS-27 and TRANS-28); • Operation of the proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions that would exceed allowable thresholds, resulting in a cumulative contribution to global climate change (Impact GCC-2); and • Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project would conflict with policies related to the reduction of greenhouse gases (Impact GCC-3).

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\6-CEQA.doc (3/3/2011) 265~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 VI. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS~~

~~This page intentionally left blank.~~

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\6-CEQA.doc (3/3/2011) 266 VII. REPORT PREPARATION~~

A. REPORT PREPARATION LSA Associates, Inc., Prime Consultant: Project Management and Report Production; Land Use and Planning Policy; Visual Resources; Transportation and Circulation; Air Quality; Global Climate Change; Noise; Public Services; Utilities and Infrastructure; Urban Decay; Alternatives; and CEQA Required Assessment Conclusions 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Judith H. Malamut, AICP, Principal-in-Charge/Project Manager Theresa Bravo, Senior Planner/Assistant Project Manager Meghan Macias, Principal Transportation Specialist Amy Fischer, Associate, Senior Air/Noise Specialist Phil Ault, Noise/Air Specialist Caroline Park, Assistant Planner Patty Linder, Graphics Manager Charis Cronan, Word Processing

Baseline Environmental Consulting: Hydrology and Water Quality 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608 Yane Nordhav, RG, Principal Bruce Abelli-Amen, CHG, Certified Hydrologist Donna Bodine, Environmental Specialist

B. REFERENCES Albert G. Duble, 1994. Noise Study for Waremart Foods Inc. (now WinCo Foods), in Salem, Oregon. Association of Bay Area Governments, 1995. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for the City of Vallejo. Website: www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl. Accessed August 23, 2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. June. Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants. California Air Resources Board, 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. California Air Resources Board, 2005. HARP Model Documentation, Appendix K, Risk Assessment Procedures to Evaluate Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines. February. California Air Resources Board, 2005. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/harp/docs/userguide/ appendixK.pdf. California Air Resources Board, 2006. Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\7-RptPrep.doc (3/3/2011) 267~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 VII. REPORT PREPARATION~~

California Air Resources Board, 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October. California Air Resources Board, 2007. “ARB approves tripling of early action measures required under AB 32”. News Release 07-46. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr102507.htm. Accessed October 25, 2009. California Air Resources Board, 2008. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm. Accessed September 2009. California Air Resources Board, 2008. Website: www.climatechange.ca.gov/inventory/index.html. Accessed September 2009. California Air Resources Board, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: a framework for change. December. California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data - 1990 to 2004. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed November 2008. California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data - 1990 to 2004. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed November 2008. California Climate Change Center, 2006. Our Changing Climate. Assessing the Risks to California. July. California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California, 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Benicia Quadrangle. July 15. California Energy Commission (CEC), 2007. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 - Final Staff Report, publication # CEC-600-2006-013-SF, Sacramento, CA, December 22, 2006; and January 23, 2007 update to that report. California Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March. California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2010. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates for Commercial Establishments. Waste Generation Source: Supermarket. Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGen Rates/Commercial.htm. Accessed October 1. California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2010. Website: www.ciwmb.ca.gov. Accessed September 15. California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003. Stormwater Best Management Handbook- Construction, with updates through 2006. Caltrans, 2003. Storm Water Quality Handbook Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual, March. CBRE Consulting, Inc., 2010. Winco Grocery Store, Economic Impact/Urban Decay Analysis, Vallejo, California. September. Energy Information Administration, 2009. 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey. Website: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/detailed_tables_ 2003.html.

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\7-RptPrep.doc (3/3/2011) 268~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 VII. REPORT PREPARATION~~

Environmental Science Associates, 2000. Sanitation Sewer Overflow Elimination Program Draft Environmental Impact Report. August 18. Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2010. Traffic Impact Study – Final Report, WinCo Project, Vallejo, California. February 10. Larry Walker Associates and TDC Environmental, LLC, 2006. Copper Management Strategy Development Resources, Final. Prepared for the Clean Estuary Partnership. September. LSA Associates, Inc., 2010. Saturday Analysis Traffic Study, WinCo Project, City of Vallejo, Solano County, California. January 19. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2010. Regulations, Standards 29 CFR, Occupational Noise Exposure 1910.95. OEHHA, 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Appendix D, Risk Assessment Procedures to Evaluate Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Vehicles, Section B. August. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2010. Clean Energy Solutions. Website: www.pge.com/mybusiness/ environment/pge/cleanenergy/index.shtml. Accessed September 22. Professional Service Industries, Inc., 2009. Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for the Proposed Retail Store, 2850 Redwood Parkway, Vallejo, California. December 22. Redwood Parkway Partners, LLC, 2010. 2850 Redwood Parkway, Vallejo California, Application Submittal Package. March 29. Amended plans dated November 24, 2010. Redwood Parkway Partners, LLC, 2010. City of Vallejo Off-site Sale of Alcohol Supplemental Questionnaire for WinCo Foods. March. San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Board, 2007. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). January 18. Solano, County of, 2010. Solano County Climate Action Plan Presentation. March. Solano, County of, 2010. Recycle Guide. Website: www.recycle-guide.com/index.cfm. Accessed September 14. Solano, County of, 2011. Assessor Recorder, Google Maps, Newman Development, City of Vallejo. State Water Resources Control Board, Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, State Mussel Watch Program/Toxic Substance Monitoring Program, 2009. Website: www.swrcb.ca.gov/ water_issues/programs/swamp/ mussel_watch.shtml. Accessed August 25, 2010. TW Environmental, Inc., 2005. WinCo (Vancouver, Washington) Compactor Noise Measurement Data. Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual 2000, National Research Council.

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\7-RptPrep.doc (3/3/2011) 269~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 VII. REPORT PREPARATION~~

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2008. The U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: Fast Facts. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/ 2008_GHG_ Fast_Facts.pdf. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2007. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data. Website: http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/time_series_annex_i /items/3814.php and http://maindb.unfccc.int/library/view_pdf.pl?url=http:// unfccc.int/ resource/docs/2005/sbi/eng/18a02.pdf. United States Department of Energy, 2003. Buildings Energy Data Book. Vallejo, City of, 1983. City of Vallejo General Plan. Amended through December 6, 2006. Vallejo, City of, 1999. In cooperation with City of Fairfield, Solano County Water Agency, Suisun/Solano Water Authority, City of Vacaville City of Vallejo. Water Management Plan. January. Vallejo, City of, 1999. Vallejo General Plan. July. Amended through December 6, 2006. Vallejo, City of, 2003. Northgate Specific Plan. July 29. Vallejo, City of, 2006. Utilities Department/Water Division, City of Vallejo 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. February. Vallejo, City of, 2008. Traffic Impact Analysis/Study Guidelines. Vallejo, City of, 2008. The Vallejo California Municipal Code. December 2. Vallejo, City of, 2010. Fire Department. Website: Website: www.ci.vallejo.ca.us/GovSite/default.asp ?serviceID1=692&Frame=L1. Accessed August 31. West Yost and Associates, 2002. Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District, Storm Drain Master Plan. July. World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise, Geneva, 1999. Website: www.who.int/docstore/ peh/noise/guidelines2.html.

C. CONTACTS Akel, Jeff, 2010. Redwood Parkway Partners, LLC. Written communication with LSA Associates, Inc. December 14. Clark, Victor, 2010. WinCo Foods, Energy Manager. Written communication with LSA Associates, Inc. December 10. Jackson, David, 2010. Captain, Vallejo Police Department Bureau of Field Operations. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 22 and September 23. McCoy, Philip, 2010. Recreation Superintendent, Greater Vallejo Recreation District. Personal communication with Baseline Environmental Consulting. August 31. Monahan, Mike, 2010 Associate Engineer, Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District, 2010. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 8, September 14, and September 28.

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\7-RptPrep.doc (3/3/2011) 270~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 VII. REPORT PREPARATION~~

Monahan, Mike, 2010. Associate Engineer, Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District. Personal communication with Baseline Environmental Consulting. August 27. Nugteren, Erik, 2010. Water Superintendent, City of Vallejo Water Division. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 8 and September 13. Phillips, Tom, 2010. Operations Manager, Recology Vallejo. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 8, September 21, and September 22. Robertson, Douglas, 2010. Fire Chief, Vallejo Fire Department. Written communication with LSA Associates, Inc. August 30. Tweedy, William, 2010. Fire Department Information Officer, Vallejo Fire Department. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 16.

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\7-RptPrep.doc (3/3/2011) 271~~

~~LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. VALLEJO WINCO FOODS PROJECT EIR MARCH 2011 VII. REPORT PREPARATION~~

~~This page intentionally left blank.~~

~~P:\CYV1001 WinCo\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\7-RptPrep.doc (3/3/2011) 272~~