Hazards, Safety and Noise

CHAPTER 4

HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Issues and topics related to health, safety, and noise within the Planning Area Topics: are addressed in this chapter. Some of these hazards may be naturally 4.1 Hazardous Materials and induced, such as wildfire hazards. Other health and safety hazards may be the Waste result of natural hazards, which are exacerbated by human activity, such as 4.2 Emergency Response and development in areas prone to flooding. Additional hazards are entirely Evacuation Routes human-made, including airport crash hazards and exposure to hazardous materials. For seismic and geologic hazards in the Planning Area, see Section 4.3 Air Traffic

5.4 (Geology, Soils, and Seismicity). 4.4 Fire Hazard

4.5 Flooding

4.6 Noise

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

4.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating irreversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and safety or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of. Hazardous materials are mainly present because of industries involving chemical byproducts from manufacturing, petrochemicals, and hazardous building materials.

Hazardous waste is the subset of hazardous materials that has been abandoned, discarded, or recycled and is not properly contained, including contaminated soil or groundwater with concentrations of chemicals, infectious agents, or toxic elements sufficiently high to increase human mortality or to destroy the ecological environment. If a hazardous material is spilled and cannot be effectively picked up and used as a product, it is considered to be hazardous waste. If a hazardous material site is unused, and it is obvious there is no realistic intent to use the material, it is also considered to be a hazardous waste. Examples of hazardous materials include flammable and combustible materials, corrosives, explosives, oxidizers, poisons, materials that react violently with water, radioactive materials, and chemicals.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FEDERAL Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly associated with the term “Superfund,” established:

• Regulations concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites • Liability of parties responsible for any releases of hazardous waste at these sites • Funding for cleanup when responsible parties cannot be identified

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) established the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) “cradle to grave” control (generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal) over hazardous materials and wastes. In California, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has RCRA authorization.

Clean Air Act In according with the Clean Air Act, the U.S. EPA has established National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Exceeding the emissions standard for a given air pollutant may cause an increase in illnesses and/or fatalities.

Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA), which amended the WPCA of 1972, sets forth the Section 404 program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into Waters of the U.S. and the Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate the discharge of pollutants into Waters of the U.S. The Section 401 Water Quality Certification program establishes a framework of water quality protection for activities requiring a variety of Federal permits and approvals (including CWA Section 404, CWA Section 402, FERC Hydropower and Section 10 Rivers and Harbors).

4-2 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

STATE California Health & Safety Code Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code establishes Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) authority and sets forth hazardous waste and underground storage tank regulations. In addition, the division creates a State superfund framework that mirrors the Federal program.

Division 11 of the Health and Safety Code establishes regulations related to a variety of explosive substances and devices, including high explosives and fireworks. Section 12000 et seq. establishes regulations related to explosives and explosive devices, including permitting, handling, storage, and transport (in quantities greater than 1,000 pounds).

Division 12.5 of the Health and Safety Code establishes requirements for buildings used by the public, including essential services buildings, earthquake hazard mitigation technologies, school buildings, and postsecondary buildings.

Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code establishes California Air Resources Board (CARB) authority. The division designates CARB as the air pollution control agency per Federal regulations and charges the Board with meeting Clean Air Act requirements.

California Vehicle Code Section 31600 (Transportation of Explosives) of the California Vehicle Code establishes requirements related to the transportation of explosives in quantities greater than 1,000 pounds, including licensing and route identification.

Food and Agriculture Code Division 6 of the California Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) establishes pesticide application regulations. The division establishes training standards for pilots conducting aerial applications as well as permitting and certification requirements.

Water Code Division 7 of the California Water Code, commonly referred to as the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, created the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). In addition, water quality responsibilities are established for the SWRCB and RWQCBs.

California Code of Regulations Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) pertains to the application of pesticides and related chemicals. Parties applying regulated substances must continuously evaluate application equipment, the weather, the treated lands and all surrounding properties. Title 3 prohibits any application that would:

• Contaminate persons not involved in the application • Damage non-target crops or animals or any other public or private property • Contaminate public or private property or create health hazards on said property

Title 8 of the CCR establishes California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) requirements related to public and worker protection. Topics addressed in Title 8 include materials exposure limits, equipment requirements, protective clothing, hazardous materials, and accident prevention. Construction safety and exposure standards for lead and asbestos are set forth in Title 8.

Title 14 of the CCR establishes minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal.

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-3

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Title 17 of the CCR establishes regulations relating to the use and disturbance of materials containing naturally occurring asbestos.

Title 22 of the CCR sets forth definitions of hazardous waste and special waste. The section also identifies hazardous waste criteria and establishes regulations pertaining to the storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste.

Title 26 of the CCR is a medley of State regulations pertaining to hazardous materials and waste that are presented in other regulatory sections. Title 26 mandates specific management criteria related to hazardous materials identification, packaging, and disposal. In addition, Title 26 establishes requirements for hazardous materials transport, containment, treatment, and disposal. Finally, staff training standards are set forth in Title 26.

Title 27 of the CCR sets forth a variety of regulations relating to the construction, operation and maintenance of the State’s landfills. The title establishes a landfill classification system and categories of waste. Each class of landfill is constructed to contain specific types of waste (household, inert, special, and hazardous).

LOCAL City of Pittsburg General Plan The current City of Pittsburg General Plan identifies the following policy framework related to hazardous materials and waste:

Health and Safety Element GOAL 10-G-9: Minimize the risk to life and property from the generation, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and waste by complying with all applicable State regulations.

Goal 10-G-10: Encourage redevelopment of areas with potential hazardous materials issues. Pursue a leadership role in the remediation of brownfield sites throughout Pittsburg.

POLICY 10-P-31: Cooperate with other public agencies in the formation of a hazardous materials team, consisting of specially-trained personnel from all East County public safety agencies, to address the reduction, safe transport, and cleanup of hazardous materials.

Contra Costa Water District is supportive of the formation of a hazardous materials team, particularly as it relates to the Contra Costa Canal system and Suisun Bay/Sacramento River Delta water quality.

POLICY 10-P-32: Designate and map brownfield sites to educate future landowners about contamination from previous uses. Work directly with landowners in the clean-up of brownfield sites, particularly in areas with redevelopment potential.

POLICY 10-P-33: Prevent the spread of hazardous leaks and spills from industrial facilities to residential neighborhoods and community focal points, such as Downtown.

POLICY 10-P-34: Identify appropriate regional and local routes for transport of hazardous materials and wastes. Ensure that fire, police, and other emergency personnel are easily accessible for response to spill incidences on such routes.

Goal 10-G-11: Ensure emergency response equipment and personnel training are adequate to follow the procedures contained within the Emergency Response Plan for a major earthquake, wildland fire, or hazardous substance event.

4-4 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Goal 11-G-8: Require development in areas of high fire hazard to be designed and constructed to minimize potential losses and maximize the ability of fire personnel to suppress fire incidents.

POLICY 11-P-25: Review and amend ordinances that regulate development in potentially hazardous locations to require adequate protection, such as fire-resistant roofing, building materials, and landscaping.

Using fire-resistant construction materials and landscaping will both slow the pace at which fire spreads and improve the likelihood that the structure will survive a fire incident.

POLICY 11-P-29: Ensure adequate road widths in new development for fire response trucks, per the subdivision regulations.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section describes the existing environmental setting as it existing or historic hazardous sites located within the Plan Area. The primary sources of information for the following discussion includes the Envirostor Data Management System (administered by the DTSC), the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List (administered by the DTSC), Geotracker (administered by the State Water Resources Control Board), and the Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) (administered by CalRecycle). Figure 4.1-1 shows the active hazardous sites located within the Planning Area (as identified by the available hazardous site databases).

ENVIROSTOR DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The DTSC maintains the Envirostor Data Management System, which provides information on hazardous waste facilities (both permitted and corrective action) as well as any available site cleanup information. This site cleanup information includes: Federal Superfund Sites (NPL), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites, Corrective Action Sites, Tiered Permit Sites, and Evaluation / Investigation Sites. The hazardous waste facilities include: Permitted–Operating, Post- Closure Permitted, and Historical Non-Operating. Figure 4.1-1 provides a map of the hazardous sites within the Planning Area that the available databases (including the Envirostor database) classify as having an active cleanup status.

There are 55 listings with a Pittsburg address listed in the Envirostor database. Listings are categorized by project type: eight are listed as corrective action, 13 as evaluation, one as military evaluation, eight as non-operating, one as operating, one as post closure, one as school cleanup, eight as school investigation, four as state response, three as tiered permit, and seven as voluntary cleanup. Listings are also categorized by project status. Table 4.1-1 provides the listings located within the Planning Area. A discussion of each of the sites with an active cleanup status follows the table (note: the status provided by the database does not always correlate with the cleanup status of the site – asterisks are provided in Table 4.1-1 for sites that have active cleanup status).

TABLE 4.1-1: PITTSBURG SITE CLEANUP AND HAZARDOUS FACILITIES LIST (ENVIROSTOR) NAME STATUS PROJECT TYPE ADDRESS 1 Leslie Drive Active* Voluntary Cleanup 1 Leslie Drive, Pittsburg ABB Daimler No Further Action Evaluation 1461 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg Acme Steel Co. Refer: Other Agency Tiered Permit 855 North Parkside Drive, Pittsburg Alves Ranch 11-acre School Site No Action Required School Investigation West Leland Road & Alves Ranch Road, Pittsburg Antioch Building Materials Inactive - Needs Evaluation Evaluation 1375 California Avenue, Pittsburg Aquilex Hydrochem LLC Protective Filer* Non-Operating 901 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-5

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

NAME STATUS PROJECT TYPE ADDRESS Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Active* Voluntary Cleanup Adjoining USS POSCO Steel Facility, Pittsburg Company Camp Stoneman Ir-Mmrp (J09CA0773) No Further Action State Response Railroad Avenue, Pittsburg Continental Can Company-Plant 80 Refer: RWQCB Evaluation 1300 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg Criterion Catalysts & Technologies LP No Action Required Corrective Action 2840 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc. Inactive - Needs Evaluation Corrective Action 1300 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc. Protective Filer* Non-Operating 1300 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg Delta Auto Wreckers Active* State Response 6 Industry Road, Pittsburg DTSC Chemical & Pigment Site Cleanup Undergoing Closure* Non-Operating 600 Nichols Road, Bay Point General Chemical Refer: RCRA Evaluation 501 Nichols Road, Bay Point Certified/Operation & Greif Brothers Corporation Voluntary Cleanup 701 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg Maintenance* Greif Fibre Drum Inc. Refer: SMBRP Corrective Action 701 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg Greif Fibre Drum Inc. Protective Filer* Non-Operating 701 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg Certified O&M - Land Use GWF Power Systems Voluntary Cleanup 895 East 3rd Street, Pittsburg Restrictions Only* Harbor Street Site No Further Action School Investigation Harbor Street & Atlantic Avenue, Pittsburg Hydrochem Industrial Services Inc. Inactive - Needs Evaluation Corrective Action Loveridge Road, Pittsburg Certified/Operation & Johns Manville Voluntary Cleanup 420 East 3rd Street, Pittsburg Maintenance* K And S Body Shop No Further Action Evaluation 600 East 3rd Street, Pittsburg Loveridge Road & Pittsburg-Antioch Highway, Kemwater North America Protective Filer* Non-Operating Pittsburg Loveridge Road & Pittsburg-Antioch Highway, Kemwater North America Inactive - Needs Evaluation Corrective Action Pittsburg Kemwater Pittsburg Plant Refer: RWQCB Evaluation 1401 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg Koch Carbon Inc. Refer: RWQCB Evaluation 700-707 East 3rd Street, Pittsburg Koch Carbon, LLC Refer: Other Agency Tiered Permit 707 East 3rd Street, Pittsburg Los Medanos Tank Farm Inactive - Action Required Voluntary Cleanup 2360 Buchanan Road, Pittsburg Marina School Expansion No Further Action School Investigation East 8th Street and East 10th Street, Pittsburg Pacific Ord Steel Foundry Inactive - Needs Evaluation Military Evaluation Unknown, Pittsburg PG&E Pittsburg Power Plant No Action Required Evaluation 595 West 10th Street, Pittsburg PG&E Shell Pond/Carbon Black Area and Active* Corrective Action 696 West 10th Street, Pittsburg Power Plant Pittsburg Generating Station Closed* Non-Operating 696 West 10th Street, Pittsburg Pittsburg High School - Main/North No Further Action School Investigation 250 School Street, Pittsburg Campus Pittsburg High School Expansion - East No Action Required School Investigation 250 School Street, Pittsburg Campus Pittsburg Marina Expansion Phase III No Further Action Evaluation Montezuma Street & Cody, Pittsburg Pittsburg Riverside Site No Further Action School Investigation 1151 Stoneman Avenue, Pittsburg Range Road Middle School Site No Further Action School Investigation Range Road and Leland Road, Pittsburg Shell Catalysts & Technologies Protective Filer* Non-Operating 2840 Willow Pass Road, Bay Point Shell Chemical Company Refer: RCRA Evaluation 2840 Willow Pass Road, Bay Point

4-6 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

NAME STATUS PROJECT TYPE ADDRESS Stoneman Elementary School Certified School Cleanup 2929 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg Tennessee Chemical Company Closed* Non-Operating 553 Clark Avenue, Pittsburg The Dow Chemical Company Operating Permit* Operating 901 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg The Dow Chemical Company Refer: Other Agency Tiered Permit Foot of Loveridge Road, Pittsburg The Dow Chemical Company Refer: RWQCB Corrective Action 901 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg Certified O&M - Land Use Trans Bay Cable Converter Station Voluntary Cleanup 570 to 620 & 650 West 10th Street, Pittsburg Restrictions Only* Triangle PWC Certified State Response 1666 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg Union Carbide, Pittsburg Certified State Response 2000 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg Union Collier Refer: RWQCB Evaluation Nichols Rd. & Port Chicago Highway, Pittsburg US Steel Pittsburg Works Refer: RCRA Evaluation 900 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg USS - POSCO Industries Post Closure Permit Post Closure 900 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg USS - POSCO Industries Active* Corrective Action 900 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg East of Nichols Road on Port Chicago Highway, Western States Chemical Company No Action Required Evaluation Pittsburg Willow Pass Site Inactive - Needs Evaluation School Investigation Willow Pass Road & Nantucket Drive, Pittsburg *NOTE: SITES ARE CONSIDERED ACTIVE IF THEY HAVE A STATUS OF EITHER ACTIVE, CERTIFIED/OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, CERTIFIED O&M – LAND USE RESTRICTIONS ONLY, PROTECTIVE FILER, OR HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL LAND USE, PER THE DTSC CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. SEE THE ENVIROSTOR WEBSITE FOR FURTHER DETAIL: HTTPS://WWW.ENVIROSTOR.DTSC.CA.GOV/PUBLIC/ SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, ENVIROSTOR DATABASE, 2019. Active Sites The eighteen sites that are classified as having an active cleanup status in the Envirostor database are:

• 1 Leslie Drive (Status: Active); • Aquilex Hydrochem LLC (Status: Protective Filer) • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (Status: Active); • Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc. (Status: Protective Filer); • Delta Auto Wreckers (Status: Active); • DTSC Chemical & Pigment Site Cleanup (Status: Undergoing Closure); • Greif Brothers Corporation (Status: Certified/Operation & Maintenance); • Greif Fibre Drum Inc (Status: Protective Filer); • GWF Power Systems (Status: Certified O&M – Land Use Restrictions Only); • Johns Manville (Status: Certified/Operation & Maintenance); • Kemwater North America (Status: Protective Filer); • PG&E Shell Pond/Carbon Black Area and Power Plant (Status: Active); • Pittsburg Generating Station (Status: Closed); • Shell Catalysts & Technologies (Status: Protective Filer); • Tennessee Chemical Company (Status: Closed); • The Dow Chemical Company (Status: Operating Permit); • Trans Bay Cable Converter Station (Status: Certified O&M – Land Use Restrictions Only); and • USS-POSCO Industries (Status: Active).

These sites are described in further detail below.

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-7

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

1 Leslie Drive. This site is a voluntary cleanup site, located near the Historic Southern Pacific Railroad, at the current location of Signode Western Operations (a packaging company). According to information provided by the DTSC, the site is developed with two buildings. Current operations at the site include the warehousing and distribution of steel strapping and other packaging materials. Raw materials, including, but not limited to steel strapping, are received at the site via truck. Final products are also shipped from the site via truck.

The site consisted of undeveloped land until approximately 1968. Signode, the current owner, purchased the site in the late 1960s. The site was first developed by Signode in 1968. The northern portion of the main building was constructed and was utilized by Signode for steel strapping manufacturing and by Paslode for the manufacture of nails to be used in nail guns. The remainder of the structure was constructed in 1974. Paslode ceased operations in 1978 and vacated the Site.

From 1981 until 1986, one 515-gallon gasoline Underground Storage Tank (UST) was in use at the site; it was removed by Signode in 1986. The tank removal and soil analytical results from the tank excavation were transmitted to the Contra Costa County Health Services Department; however, a formal tank closure letter was not issued to Signode. Signode continued steel strapping manufacturing operations at the site until 2008. The majority of manufacturing equipment has been removed from the site, with the exception of the steel rolling mill, which is located in the southwestern corner of the main warehouse building.

Investigation including soil vapor, soil, and groundwater sampling was conducted at the site between August 2015 and January 2017. Volatile organic compounds were detected in soil, soil gas and groundwater samples and total petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in soil and groundwater samples. The DTSC reviewed the Phase I and II Assessment Reports and determined that additional investigation is needed. A Site Characterization Workplan is being prepared and it is expected to be submitted to DTSC for review (information last updated on January 28, 2018).

Aquilex Hydrochem LLC. This site located at 901 Loveridge Road. This site is still pending evaluation, as of June 22, 2009. The site is classified as a “protective filer”; additional information about this site is not provided by the Envirostor database at this time.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company. The site is bounded to the north by a Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) right-of-way. Immediately north of the BNSF and UPRR right-of-ways is the USS-POSCO Industries (UPI) facility. This site is bordered to the south by a residential development, and to the east and west by adjacent portions of the BNSF right-of-way.

The site is currently owned and operated by BNSF Railway Company and United States Steel and according to the DTSC it is delineated primarily by a plume of groundwater contamination more than half a mile long that originated from a portion of a railroad right-of-way owned by BNSF Railway Company. This site encompasses a rectangular area of approximately 150-feet by 550-feet, and contains 11 rail lines trending in an east-west direction. The rail lines are currently used to stage rail cars that are awaiting classification and transport. No prior ownership information was available; however, the site has reportedly been used as a rail car staging area since at least the early 1940's.

DTSC is currently reviewing a Remedial Action Plan detailing a proposed remedy to treat groundwater contaminated with carbon tetrachloride with a permeable reactive barrier wall (information last updated in May 2018).

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc. This site is located at 1300 Loveridge Road. This site is still pending evaluation, as of June 29, 2009. The site is classified as a “protective filer”. This 11.05-acre site is the location of the former Continental Can Company (CCC) USA plant and the current location of the Contra Costa Waste Services (CC&S) Mount Diablo Recycling Center.

4-8 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

The site was previously used by Continental Can company to make steel cans and metal shearing from 1954 to 1990. Chemicals used included solvents, thinner, lubricants and hydraulic oil. The business was sold to Crown Cork and Seal company where metal shearing operation continued until 1992. In 1994, the site was transformed by Contra Costa Waste Services into a solid waste material recovery facility for separating recycling materials from municipal refuse. The building and facilities remained the same as when CCC and CC&S operated the plant.

An RCRA Facility Assessment was undertaken and identified a number of releases which are still being addressed under the oversight of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. There are above ground and underground storage tanks, drum handling areas, and at least one unpermitted land disposal unit. Contaminants of concern include VOC's, TPH, Solvents and highly concentrated lead.

Delta Auto Wreckers. The site was used to store disabled vehicles around 1981. A site screening completed by the DTSC in May 1999 indicated that disabled vehicles were stored haphazardly at the site. Drums storing hazardous waste and chemicals such as waste oil and used tires were also stored along with dark oily stains. In 1996, a fire involving tires was documented. In August 2002, a search warrant was served on the site by the Pittsburg City Police Department with the support of the DTSC's Task Force. Samples were collected from the site soil, drums and surface water. The results of sampling showed that the site soil is contaminated with waste oil and lead. DTSC is currently undergoing review of further site characterization workplans (information last updated in August 2018).

DTSC Chemical & Pigment Site Cleanup. The site is located at 600 Nichols Road. The facility at this site is currently closed. The facility’s former operation included treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes and substances. On November 5, 1997, DTSC issued an administrative enforcement action against the Chemical & Pigment Co. for violations of the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL). The enforcement action was resolved by a Stipulation and Order, effective March 16, 1998, which required the company to pay fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in penalties. In addition, DTSC determined that in order for the facility to continue its operations, a hazardous waste facility permit would be required. Although the facility submitted a standardized permit application in 1998, the facility filed for bankruptcy and subsequently ceased operations before a permit decision could be made by DTSC. Subsequently, the facility was abandoned and is being cleaned up under CERCLA.

Greif Brothers Corporation. This site consists of 36 acres of land currently occupied primarily by two contiguous industrial warehouses and paved parking, peripheral storage areas, and landscaping associated with them. The property was originally developed in 1953 by Continental Group, Inc. (CGI), a container manufacturer who built and operated a container manufacturing plant in it. In 1985, CGI transferred the operation to Sonoco Products Company (Sonoco) another container manufacturer. In 1998, Sonoco transferred the operation to Greif Brothers Corporation, an industrial packaging provider. In 2001, Davis and Associates acquired the property and currently leases it primarily for warehousing purposes. Activities associated with releases at the site include degreasing associated with manufacturing. Releases have contaminated soil and groundwater. Primary environmental contaminants include volatile organic compounds and, specifically, halogenated industrial solvents. The current remedy currently consists of groundwater monitoring and comparison of results to approved Remedial Action Objectives.

Greif Fibre Drum Inc. This site is located on 701 Willow Pass Road. The facility at this site is considered a hazardous waste facility. This site is under corrective action. The site is classified as a “protective filer”; no additional information about this site

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-9

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

is provided by the Envirostor database at this time. This site is associated with the Greif Brothers Corporation site, discussed above. Fibre drums, or jerrycans, are manufactured at this site.

GWF Power Systems. This site is located at 895 East 3rd Street. This is a voluntary cleanup site. Past uses at the site that caused contamination include a landfill. Potential contaminants of concern include metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHS), motor oil, and tetrachloroethylene (PCE).

In 1989, GWF Power Systems Company, Inc. (GWF) purchased 2.5 acres of a 15-acre parcel of land from the Han-Li International Group, in Pittsburg, California. GWF purchased this land for the construction of a 20-megawatt co-generation power plant. The power plant generates electrical energy from burning petroleum coke, a by-product of crude oil refining and by burning coal and oil. The electricity is sold to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).

Site remedial investigations, prior to the construction of the co-generation power plant, were completed. The investigations determined that soil concentrations of chemicals of concern were higher than the site screening levels U.S. EPA Preliminary Remedial Goals (PRGs). Based on the proposed future land use, the contaminated soil was excavated, consolidated, and capped under the building floors, asphalt pavements, and landscaped areas.

Johns Manville. This site is located at 420 East 3rd Street. This site is a voluntary cleanup site. Potential contaminants of concern include asbestos containing materials (ACM), motor oil, diesel and gasoline fuel, and trichloroethylene (TCE).

Johns Manville personnel oversaw routine O&M inspections until Profit Recovery Partners LLC (PRPLLC) purchased the property in October 2004. Beginning in December 2004, contractors for PRPLLC have performed operation, maintenance and monitoring consistent with the protocols established in the “Final Operations and Maintenance Plan, Asbestos Soil Cap, Johns Manville Pittsburg Plant – North Parcel Site, Pittsburg, California”, prepared by Harding, dated July 31, 2001. A revised VCA was established by the DTSC in 2005, to update the remedial actions allowing for the timely development of the Site for mixed-use redevelopment (Docket No. HSA-A 04/05-127). The “Final Operations and Maintenance Plan, North Parcel” was submitted by Environmental Resources Management (ERM), in 2006 to outline the revised operations and maintenance requirements of the engineered cap. The adherence to the revised O&M Plan is stipulated in the “Operations and Maintenance Agreement for the Site located at East Third and Harbor Streets, Pittsburg, California”, dated September 25, 2009 (“North Parcel O&M Plan”).

ERM, on behalf of PRPLLC, determined that the construction of an engineered containment berm would be the best remedial alternative for the Former Plant Site, as documented in the Final Remedial Action Plan, dated June 23, 2006. The construction details of the berms are described in “Remedial Design and Implementation Plan, Harbor Park Development, Pittsburg, California”, dated June 22, 2006, also by ERM, as well as in the “Addendum to the Remedial Design and Implementation Plan, Harbor Park Development (Former Johns Manville Facility), 420 East 3rd Street, Pittsburg, California,” dated August 1, 2007, by LFR (now part of Arcadis). The containment berms are comprised of two distinct segments referred to as the “northern and southern” berms. Ongoing maintenance and monitoring were continuously performed in accordance with the “Operation and Maintenance Plan for the Engineered Containment Berm on the Plant Site of the Former Johns Manville Facility, 420 East Third Street, Pittsburg, California” (Plant Site O&M Plan), dated October 1, 2008, by LFR. DTSC is currently reviewing a RAP Amendment detailing the removal of said berms to facilitate construction of a new elementary through high school charter school on the site

4-10 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Kemwater North America. This site is located on Loveridge Road and the Pittsburg-Antioch Highway. The facility requires evaluation as of June 26, 2009. This site is under correct action. The lead agency for this site is the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The site is classified as a “protective filer”; additional information about this site is not provided by the Envirostor database at this time.

PG&E Shell Pond/Carbon Black Area and Power Plant. The entire facility including the West Pittsburg Power Plant, and the Shell Pond and Carbon Black Area property belonged to PG&E until 1999. The PG&E property subject to corrective action originally encompassed all contiguous land belonging to PG&E when it applied for the Hazardous Waste Facility permit, and currently includes 838 acres including the parcel where the Shell Pond and the Carbon Black Area are located (APN 98260001), and three adjacent parcels located immediately east, west and south of it. (APN 98260003, APN 96100020, and APN 98250013).

The Shell Pond property includes a 72-acre evaporation pond and a historic 26-acre carbon slag storage area (landfill). This area was originally a smaller version of the Shell Pond. Shell Chemical Company, a subsidiary of Shell Oil, owned and operated an ammonia plant on-site from 1930 to 1967. In 1973, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) purchased the 72-acre evaporation pond and the 26-acre carbon pile area from Shell Oil for possible use in a planned expansion of the Pittsburg Power Plant. Soil, water, and sediment investigations have detected metals and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at the site. The project is under the oversight of the DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Program and the San Francisco Regional Water Control Board.

In 1986, the U.S. EPA Region IX prepared a RCRA Facility Assessment of the entire power plant and adjacent properties belonging to PG&E including the Shell Pond and Carbon Black Area property. A total of eighteen Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) were identified, including six for which potential releases were described.

In 1987, the DTSC issued PG&E West Pittsburg a Hazardous Waste Facility Permit for treatment and storage. This permit expired in September 1992. PG&E West Pittsburg submitted a renewal application for continued operation of the existing permit in March 1992. On January 20, 1995, the DTSC issued a Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) Permit to PG&E. On March 11, 1999, after PG&E sold the power plant property to Southern Energy LLC, the TSD permit was transferred to Southern Energy LLC. On April 17, 2003 the permit was modified to reflect the change in the name of the owner and operator to Mirant Delta LLC (Mirant).

Corrective Action: In 1986, the U.S. EPA completed a RCRA Facility Assessment of the Facility and identified seven solid waste management units (SWMUs) requiring corrective action. The SWMUs included five located in the power plant property (4.4, 4.6, 4.8, 4.12, 4.13) and two located in the Shell Pond Carbon Black Area property (4.15, and 4.18) Mirant conducted a RCRA Facility Investigation of SWMUs 4.4, 4.6, 4.8, 4.13, and 4.15 and concluded that there was no need for further action. The DTSC approved the report agreeing that no further action was required for those five units.

On December 21, 1996, the DTSC approved a Corrective Measures Study Workplan prepared by PG&E for the two SWMUs in the Shell Pond and Carbon Black Area property. As part of this work plan, PG&E undertook interim measures in 1997 removing product and contaminated media from the property and disposing of it at authorized disposal facilities. PG&E also graded portions of the Carbon Black Area. PG&E also undertook a Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment which concluded that Contaminants of Concern remaining at the site did not pose unacceptable risks to public health and the environment if access to the property remained restricted.

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-11

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

In 2000, PG&E proposed and the DTSC approved a remedy for both units. The remedy prescribed maintenance of a freshwater cap over the contaminated sediments remaining in the Shell Pond, periodic pond levee inspection and maintenance, installation of a freshwater recirculation system to stabilize the salinity in the Shell Pond, and a deed restriction on the title of the property prohibiting residential development.

With the exception of the deed restriction, PG&E implemented the 2000 remedy until 2008 when higher water quality standards made it impractical for PG&E to maintain the water recirculation system associated with the remedy. In 2009, PG&E submitted to DTSC a new remedy consisting primarily of the removal of all sediments remaining in the pond. DTSC approved the new remedy in June 2011. For the Shell Pond site, a Phase 1 phytoremediation pilot study has been completed a completion report was submitted to the DTSC for review. For the Pittsburg Power Plant site, PG&E submitted a supplemental report to the DTSC for review (information last updated on August 27, 2018).

Pittsburg Generating Station. This site is located at 696 West 10th Street. The entire facility including the Pittsburg Power Plant, and the Shell Pond and Carbon Black Area property belonged to PG&E until 1999. In 1987, DTSC issued PG&E a Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to conduct treatment and storage at the facility. This permit expired in September 1992. PG&E Pittsburg submitted a renewal application for continued operation of the existing permit in March 1992. On January 20, 1995 a permit was issued to PG&E.

In 1999, PG&E sold portions of the Facility to Southern Energy LLC and retained ownership of the Shell Pond and Carbon Black Area property. On March 11, 1999 the permit was transferred to Southern Energy LLC and on April 17, 2003 the permit was modified to reflect the change in the name of the owner and operator to Mirant Delta LLC (Mirant). This permit had an expiration date of January 19, 2005. On January 31, 2005 Mirant submitted a RCRA Closure Certification Report to DTSC.

The Report addressed the closure of four RCRA regulated units. The four regulated units were (1) Boiler Chemical Cleaning Solution Pond, (2) Boiler Chemical Cleaning Rinse Pond, (3) Air Preheater Wash Pond, and (4) Demineralization Neutralization Pond. On April 28, 2005, DTSC acknowledged the closure certification and determined that the four hazardous waste management units at Mirant closed. DTSC, however, in the same letter required Mirant to conduct a groundwater monitoring event for the four regulated units in January 2006 and submit the groundwater sampling results to DTSC by March 1, 2006. The requirement is to account for the potential of liner-induced concentrations which may exceed either Maximum Contaminants Levels (MCLs). On September 19, 2005, DTSC authorized release of Mirant from maintaining financial assurance.

Starting in the Fourth Quarter of 2005, Mirant submitted quarterly groundwater monitoring reports. in the Second Quarter 2006 Report Mirant DTSC concluded that the statistical exceedance of potassium at the power plant site was due to natural processes and not the result of a release at the facility. DTSC approved this conclusion. In a letter dated March 30, 2007 DTSC confirmed he technical completeness of all reports and determined that Mirant had fulfilled conditions agreed upon with DTSC, and declared as completed the closure of the Power Plant portion of the Facility.

Shell Catalysts & Technologies. This site is located at 2840 Willow Pass Road. The site comprises 29 acres zoned industrial, surrounded by other industrial facilities. The facility manufactured catalysts for chemical refining and manufacturing. Manufacturing operations took place in six different locations within the facility, and a RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) identified ten SWMUs and two areas of concern (AOCs). No chemical releases were identified or suspected at six of the SWMUs. Two of the SWMUs with documented releases were immediately cleaned up; the cleanup was documented.

4-12 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

The final two SWMUs had documented contamination that had been removed and verified with confirmation sampling. At machine shop underground storage tank SWMU, contamination with hydrocarbons and metals was detected at the time the tank was removed, but the contamination was removed as part of the UST closure. Confirmation sampling detected no residual contamination or source for groundwater contamination. At the area known as Point G, acid sludges from ammonia processing had been spread on the ground surface, resulting in metals and acid contamination. The contamination at Point G was removed and the area has subsequently been paved. Subsequent groundwater monitoring has not detected any contamination.

The two AOCs were surface impoundments that might have received wastes, but were not included in this EI review because they are now the property of the adjacent PG&E (Pittsburg) facility and are subject to the RCRA Facilities Investigation (RFI) and associated corrective action at the PG&E facility.

Tennessee Chemical Company. This site is located on 553 Clark Avenue. The site is characterized as a hazardous waste facility. Additional information about this site is not provided by the Envirostor database at this time.

The Dow Chemical Company. This site is located at 901 Loveridge Road on 513 acres of land. The facility is characterized as a hazardous waste facility. The boiler and industrial facility (BIF) and Monofill permit renewal applications for the facility are currently under review. When the applications have been determined to be technically complete, DTSC will prepare draft permit decision documents for public review and comment.

BIF Permit: Dow purchased the property in 1938. The site is located within the city limits of Pittsburg. The Facility manufactures chlorinated chemicals for agriculture, pest control services, biocides, paper manufacturing, and carpet mills. Certain liquid and gaseous hazardous chlorinated wastes are generated during manufacturing. Hazardous waste chlorinated liquids are stored in three tanks that feed into one of the two Halogen Acid Furnaces that have been authorized by DTSC. The furnaces operate at high temperatures and have a 99.99% destruction-and-removal efficiency. This means that percentage of the feed stream is converted to either hydrochloric acid, water or carbon dioxide. The hydrochloric acid is either re-used onsite or sold as a commercial product. These furnaces have been in operation since the early 1980s.

Block 560 Drum Storage Permit: The Dow Chemical Co. Pittsburg facility currently operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Operations include research and development and the manufacture of products for agricultural operations, pest control services, paper manufacturers, carpet mills, and biocides. During the manufacture of chemical products at the facility, hazardous wastes are also produced as byproducts and are categorized as the following: chlorinated pyridines; waste styrene oil; solvent and paint contaminated filters; chlorinated organics; organic liquid lab wastes; caustic scrubber effluent; distillation liquids; symtet liquid organics; chlorinated liquid solvents; and spent solvents. These hazardous wastes are then placed in drums and stored in accumulation areas. The wastes are normally shipped offsite within 90 days. However, if additional storage time is required the waste drums are moved to the Block 560 Drum Storage Area. The wastes are transported offsite to be processed or disposed of at authorized facilities.

Monofill Post-Closure Permit: In addition to active chemical manufacturing facilities, the Monofill site stopped receiving process wastewater prior to 1987. The Monofill contains approximately 8.99 acres of solidified waste and soil. A formal acceptance of the impoundment closure from U.S. EPA and local agencies was achieved in 1988 (RWQCB, 1989).

Trans Bay Cable Converter Station. This facility is located at 570 to 620 & 650 West 10th Street. A number of operations were conducted on this approximately five-acre site, including auto repair, vehicle towing and wrecking services, auto

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-13

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

junk/scrap yard, and industrial painting. Trans Bay Cable, LLC characterized and cleaned up the site to standards appropriate for commercial/industrial use under DTSC's oversight as part of DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Program. A total of 1,195 cubic yards (1,673 tons) of California hazardous waste soils and 1,633 cubic yards (2,286 tons) of Class II non-hazardous soils were removed from the site as part of implementation of the cleanup plan. The known chemicals of concern were removed or reduced to concentrations that do not exceed the site-specific cleanup goals that were developed for commercial/industrial property use. The site has been redeveloped into a converter station to be operated by the Pittsburg Power Company. Land use restrictions apply to this site, along with inspection requirements and requirements to conduct five-year reviews. The site is comprised of three parcels belonging to three different parties.

USS-POSCO Industries. The USS-POSCO Industries Facility in Pittsburg (UPI) belongs to United States Steel, Inc. (USS) and is currently operated by USS and Pohang Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (POSCO), a Korea based corporation. The facility occupies 433 acres. The location has been the site of metal processing and steel manufacturing facilities since 1909. Operations currently consist of receiving coils of hot-rolled steel from off-site sources, and producing cold-rolled steel, galvanized steel, and tin or chromium plated steel. All regulated hazardous waste treatment and storage units at the facility have been closed since 1999. The USS-POSCO Facility holds a Hazardous Waste Facility Post-Closure Permit which it requires to operate the Unit 1 Landfill, a corrective action management unit (CAMU) containing contaminated materials removed during environmental remediation at the facility. The facility is divided into three areas designated by UPI as “Site L-A” (149 acres), “Site L-B” (98.7 acres), and “Main Site” (206 acres). There are also a number of easements cutting across the property. Site L-A used to be the location of manufacturing facilities and a number of land-based waste management units and it has been remediated to industrial use standards, requiring annual land use covenant inspections. Site L-B is the location of a number of landfills, buffer zones and new research centers and facilities. The main site is the location of most of the manufacturing facilities and material storage and handling areas. The DTSC currently oversees on-going RCRA Corrective Action at the Facility including investigation and remediation of a chlorinated solvent groundwater plume, an arsenic groundwater plume, and a number of Corrective Action SWMUs and AOCs within the main site. DTSC also oversees BNSF’s investigation and future remediation of a carbon tetrachloride groundwater contamination plume that originated from railroad operations, and that stretches from south to north across Site L-B, all the way to the Sacramento/San Joaquin Estuary which is the northern boundary of the facility.

Corrective measures have been implemented in the Central Group SWMUs and SWMU 4. Remedies include monitored natural attenuation (MNA) (Central Group), soil vapor and groundwater extraction (SWMU 4), zero-valent iron (ZVI) injections (SWMU 4) and ongoing monitoring. An in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) pilot study was completed at Northern Boundary SWMUs for arsenic remediation but monitoring showed rebound. Currently, an air sparge pilot study workplan is being drafted for the arsenic contamination. The annual land use restriction report will be combined for Site L-A, SWMU 4 and Central Group SWMUs into one report (information last updated on August 13, 2018).

CORTESE LIST The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. There is one Cortese List site within the Planning Area: Delta Auto Wreckers (U.S. EPA ID#: 07750026). This site is characterized as an active site, and is located at

4-14 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

6 Industry Road. Information about this site is provided in previous EnviroStor discussion. This site is also shown in Figure 4.1-1 as a “State Response” site (within the Envirostor database).

GEOTRACKER GeoTracker is the State Water Resources Control Board’s online database that provides access to statewide environmental data and tracks regulatory data for the following types of sites:

• Leaking underground fuel tank (LUFT) cleanup sites; • Cleanup Program Sites (CPS; also known as Site Cleanups and formerly known as Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups [SLIC] sites); • Military sites (consisting of military underground storage tank [UST] sites, military privatized sites, and military cleanup sites [formerly known as DoD non-UST]); • Land disposal sites (landfills); and • Permitted UST facilities.

In May of 2019, a search was performed using GeoTracker to identify any known or suspected (reported but not yet confirmed) sources of environmental hazards within the City of Pittsburg. Figure 4.1-1 provides a map of the hazardous sites within the Planning Area that the available databases (including the GeoTracker database) classify as having an active cleanup status.

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) There are 56 locations with a Pittsburg address that are listed in the GeoTracker database for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST). Fifty-one of the locations have undergone LUST cleanup and the State has closed the case. There are five locations in Pittsburg with an open case. Table 4.1-2 lists the location of open and closed cases for LUSTs in Pittsburg.

TABLE 4.1-2: PITTSBURG LUST CLEANUP SITES NAME ACTIVITY LOCATION OPEN CASES California Theater Open - Eligible for Case Closure 351 Railroad Avenue Redding Petroleum Open - Remediation 1001 Railroad Avenue Beacon Open - Site Assessment 3702 Railroad Avenue Superior Car Wash Open - Site Assessment 3590 Railroad Avenue USA Gasoline Station No. 127 Open - Verification Monitoring 2971 Railroad Avenue CLOSED CASES (CLEANUP COMPLETED) Baker Tank Company Completed - Case Closed 2121 Piedmont Way Banister Electric Completed - Case Closed 498 10th Street Bell Gas and Diesel Completed - Case Closed 998 Railroad Avenue Cal Asia Development Completed - Case Closed 391 3rd Street E Cataline Built Homes Inc Completed - Case Closed 1050 Los Medanos Street Champion Nissan Completed - Case Closed 2695 Leland Road E Chemical & Pigment Company Completed - Case Closed 600 Nichols Road Chevron Completed - Case Closed 2360 Buchanan Road Chevron Completed - Case Closed 11 Frontage Road Chevron Completed - Case Closed 501 California Avenue City of Pittsburg Completed - Case Closed 985 Railroad Avenue Continental Fibre Drum Inc. Completed - Case Closed 701 Willow Pass Road

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-15

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

NAME ACTIVITY LOCATION D & L Auto Repair Completed - Case Closed 2363 Willow Pass Road Dossey Old Dutch Pride Dairy Completed - Case Closed 3215 Willow Pass Road Eugene Alves Construction Company Completed - Case Closed 571 Alves Ranch Road Faultless Cleaners Completed - Case Closed 427 10th Street E Food & Liquor Completed - Case Closed 4102 Railroad Avenue Food & Liquor Completed - Case Closed 1805 Willow Pass Road Gas N Go Completed - Case Closed 3801 Railroad Avenue General Chemical Corp Former Completed - Case Closed 501 Nichols Road Glenn Martell & Son Completed - Case Closed 1818 Loveridge Road Hertz Realty Completed - Case Closed 3515 Willow Pass Road Jose's Service Station Completed - Case Closed 394 10th Street W Los Medanos College Completed - Case Closed 2700 Leland Road E Los Medanos Plumbing Completed - Case Closed 2035 Leland Road E Merit USA Completed - Case Closed 620 Clark Avenue Narco/Brickyard Development Completed - Case Closed 1555 Parkside Drive N Pacific Heating & Sheet Metal Completed - Case Closed 980 Garcia Street Pepsi Cola Company Completed - Case Closed 338 Central Road Performance Mechanical Completed - Case Closed 630 10th Street W Piedmont Lumber & Mill Company Completed - Case Closed 2120 Piedmont Way Pittsburg Ford Inc Completed - Case Closed 2575 Railroad Avenue Pittsburg Golf Course Completed - Case Closed 2222 Golf Club Drive Pittsburg Marina Completed - Case Closed 51 Marina Boulevard Pittsburg Plumbing Completed - Case Closed 441 10th Street E Pittsburg Redevelopment #1 Completed - Case Closed 1095 Railroad Avenue Pittsburg St Redevelopment #3 Completed - Case Closed 1300 Railroad Avenue Santa Fe Pittsburg Depot Completed - Case Closed 1 Santa Fe Avenue W Seeno Construction Company Completed - Case Closed 1600 Buchanan Road Shell Completed - Case Closed 2980 Willow Pass Road Shell Completed - Case Closed 3737 Railroad Avenue Shell Completed - Case Closed 261 Bailey Road Shell Completed - Case Closed 1315 Buchanan Road Shore Acres Pump Station Completed - Case Closed Unknown (Driftwood End Of) Trench Plate 2 Completed - Case Closed 522 10th Street W Triangle Wire and Cable Inc Completed - Case Closed 1666 Willow Pass Road Union Beverage Inc Completed - Case Closed 640 10th Street W Union Carbide Corp Completed - Case Closed 2000 Loveridge Road Unocal Completed - Case Closed 2150 Railroad Avenue US Steel POSCO Industries Completed - Case Closed 900 Loveridge Road W & J Markstein Facility Completed - Case Closed 2101 Martin Way SOURCE: CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD GEOTRACKER DATABASE, 2019. Cleanup Program Sites There are 24 locations with a Pittsburg address that are listed in the GeoTracker database as Cleanup Program Sites. Table 4.1- 3 lists the location of the 24 Cleanup Program Sites in Pittsburg.

4-16 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

TABLE 4.1-3: PITTSBURG CLEANUP PROGRAM SITES NAME ACTIVITY LOCATION OPEN CASES Pittsburg/Antioch Highway and Loveridge Chevron Historic Pipeline - Kirker Creek Open – Assessment & Interim Remedial Action Road Chevron Pipeline - Carpino East Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action Carpino East and Columbia Street Great American Cleaners Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action 1317-1399 Buchanan Road Diablo Services Open - Eligible for Closure 595 East Third Street GWF Power Systems Inc. Open - Inactive 707-799 3rd Street E Manville Sales Corp Open - Inactive 420 East 3rd Street Mexico Auto Wreckers Open - Inactive 610 10th Street W Salt River Construction Open - Inactive E 3rd Street Dow Chemical Co. Pittsburg Facility Open - Remediation 901 Loveridge Road Highlands Ranch Phase II Open - Remediation 2360 Buchanan Road Chevron Historic Pipeline-Parkside at Dory Open - Site Assessment Parkside Drive at Dory Road Chevron Historical Pipelines – Parkside at Dory Open - Site Assessment Parkside Drive at Dory Road Pittsburg Fort Knox Self Storage Pittsburg Open - Site Assessment 3809 Shopping Heights Lane KNA California Open - Site Assessment 1401 Loveridge Road Molino Enterprises, Inc. Open - Site Assessment 1215 Willow Pass Road Former Crown Cork and Seal Company, Inc Open - Verification Monitoring 1300 Loveridge Road Mirant Delta Pittsburg Power Plant Open - Verification Monitoring 696 West 10th Street (Formerly Southern Energy; Formerly PG&E) CLOSED CASES (CLEANUP COMPLETED) 695 East Third Street Completed - Case Closed 695 East Third Street Fontaine Cleaners Completed - Case Closed 168 Atlantic Avenue Koch Carbon Bay Area Bulk Terminal Completed - Case Closed 707 E. 3rd. Street Murphey Property Completed - Case Closed 1055 North Parkside Drive City of Pittsburg Completed - Case Closed Harbor Street US Steel POSCO - Pittsburg Completed - Case Closed 900 Loveridge Road Acme Steel Property Completed - Case Closed - Land Use Restrictions 855 North Parkside Drive SOURCE: CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD GEOTRACKER DATABASE, 2019. Military Cleanup Sites There is one location (Camp Stoneman) with a Pittsburg address that is listed in the GeoTracker database as a military cleanup site (Location Case #71000026). This site is located at Railroad Avenue, north of West Leland Road. This site is located in a severely disadvantaged community. The cleanup status of this site is open – inactive as of September 23, 2009. Several fuel tanks, as well as potential for hazardous, toxic, and radiological wastes, were identified at this site. The most recent site document is from April 12, 2010, and states that no additional work is recommended for the site, based upon the assessments, inspections, and evaluations conducted over the course of 2007 through 2010. site is shown in Figure 4.1-1 as a “Military Cleanup Site”.

SOLID WASTE INFORMATION SYSTEM (SWIS) Facility/Site Listing The Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) is a database of solid waste facilities that is maintained by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The SWIS data identifies active, planned and closed sites. The

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-17

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

City of Pittsburg has three solid waste facilities listed in the database, all of which are active. The site details are listed in Table 4.1-4, below.

TABLE 4.1-4: CIWMB FACILITIES/SITES REGULATORY OPERATIONAL NUMBER NAME ACTIVITY STATUS STATUS USS-POSCO Industries Waste Management 07-AC-0042 Solid Waste Landfill Exempt Active Unit II 07-AC-0043 Recycling Center & Transfer Station Large Volume Transfer/Processing Facility Permitted Active Chipping and Grinding Activity 07-AC-0044 CCW Wood Chipping/Grinding Notification Active Facility/Operation SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY, 2019. The USS-POSCO Industrials Waste Management Unit II (07-AC-0042) is located at 900 Loveridge Road. The facility is inspected quarterly by the Local Enforcement Agency (City of Pittsburg Environmental Services Department). The most recent inspection (as of May 30, 2019) shows no areas of concern (inspection date of March 26, 2019). Maximum permitted throughput at this facility is eight tons per day, and the facility has a maximum permitted capacity of 86,000 cubic yards. The ceased operating date is anticipated to be January 2118.

The Recycling Center & Transfer Station (07-AC-0043) is a transfer/processing facility located at 1300 Loveridge Road. The facility is inspected monthly by the Local Enforcement Agency (City of Pittsburg Environmental Services Department). The most recent inspection (as of May 30, 2019) shows no areas of concern (inspection date of May 3, 2019). Maximum permitted throughput at this facility is 1,500 tons per day.

The CCW Wood Chipping/Grinding facility (07-AC-0044) is also located at 1300 Loveridge Road. The facility processes compost material. The facility is inspected annually by the Local Enforcement Agency (City of Pittsburg Environmental Services Department). The most recent inspection (as of May 30, 2019) shows no areas of concern (inspection date of March 26, 2019). Maximum permitted throughput at this facility is 200 tons per day, and the facility has a maximum permitted capacity of 25,000 cubic yards.

REFERENCES California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019. SWIS Facility/Site Search. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/directory/

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2019. Envirostor Database. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/

California Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. Cortese List. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/

California Water Resources Control Board. 2019. Geotracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/

City of Pittsburg. Last updated May 4, 2015. General Plan Pittsburg 2020: A Vision for the 21st Century. Available: http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/index.aspx?page=228

City of Pittsburg. 2017. Hazard Mitigation Plan. February 2017. Available: http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=964

4-18 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

4.2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND EVACUATION ROUTES This section addresses the emergency response plans, procedures and evacuations routes in the Planning Area. Specific hazards are addressed elsewhere in the document, as follows:

• Public Safety (see Section 3.6); • Hazardous Materials and Waste (see Section 4.1); • Air Traffic (see Section 4.2); • Fire Hazard (see Section 4.3): • Flooding (see Section 4.4); • Geology, Soils, and Seismicity (see Section 5.4); and • Climate Change-related impacts (see Section 6.2).

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) established the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) “cradle to grave” control (generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal) over hazardous materials and wastes. In California, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has RCRA authorization.

Emergency Management Assistance Compact The Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) is a congressionally authorized interstate mutual aid compact that provides a mechanism through which states can assist other states during emergencies. All states have joined EMAC by adopting model language into their state’s statutes. EMAC addresses reimbursement, liability, compensation, and licensure issues.

National Emergencies Act The National Emergencies Act (NEA) allows the president to declare a national emergency, which triggers emergency authorities contained in other federal statutes. The NEA does not contain any specific emergency authority on its own but relies on the emergency authorities in other statutes, such as the Public Health Service Act.

Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act The Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA) addresses the organization of public health emergency preparedness and response activities and authorizes programs concerning medical surge capacity, the capacity of states and localities to prepare for and respond to public health emergencies, and the development of countermeasures to biological

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-19

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

threats (the Biodefense Advanced Research and Development Authority [BARDA]). Many of the offices and programs within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that state public health preparedness programs interact with on a daily basis were developed or refined through PAHPA, including the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, grant programs such as Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) grants, the Hospital Preparedness Program, and the Healthcare Facility Partnership Program. The act also focuses on the needs of at-risk populations in emergency planning and response. PAHPA was reauthorized in March 2013 in the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA).

Public Health Service Act Section 319 Authorizes the HHS secretary to determine that a public health emergency exists, which triggers emergency powers that permit the federal government to assist state and local governments, suspend or modify certain legal requirements, and expend available funds to address public health emergencies. A Section 319 public health emergency declaration is separate and distinct from a presidential declaration under the National Emergencies Act or the Stafford Act. The secretary does not need a presidential declaration to issue a public health emergency declaration under Section 319; however, a presidential declaration is required in addition to a Section 319 declaration if the secretary wants to exercise waiver authority under Social Security Act Section 1135. Other sections of the Public Health Service Act, including Sections 301 and 311, permit the secretary to render assistance to states and localities without declaring a public health emergency.

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) Authorizes the delivery of federal emergency technical, financial, logistical, and other assistance to states and localities. A governor must first determine that an event overwhelms the state’s capacity to respond and request a presidential declaration under the Stafford Act before the president can declare all or a portion of a state a “major disaster” or “emergency” area. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) coordinates administration of disaster relief resources and assistance to states. The President can declare an emergency without first receiving a gubernatorial request if the emergency involves an area of federal primary responsibility such as a federal building. A Stafford Act declaration can be used to trigger other public health emergency response authorities such as Social Security Act Section 1135 waiver authorities.

Social Security Act Section 1135 Authorizes the HHS secretary to temporarily waive or modify certain Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements affecting healthcare facilities and providers during national emergencies. Section 1135 waivers require both a presidential declaration under the National Emergencies Act or Stafford Act and a public health emergency determination by the HHS secretary under Public Health Service Act Section 319. Once the 1135 waiver authority has been issued, individual providers’ requirements are not automatically modified; the waivers are implemented on a case-by-case basis through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS regional offices, and state health facility survey agencies.

STATE California Emergency Services Act The California Emergency Services Act (ESA) creates the state Office of Emergency Services, within the office of the Governor, and confers powers upon the Governor and the chief executives and governing bodies of the state during emergencies. Another goal of this act is for all emergency services functions of this state be coordinated as far as possible with the comparable functions of its political subdivisions, of the federal government including its various departments and agencies,

4-20 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

of other states, and of private agencies of every type, to the end that the most effective use may be made of all manpower, resources, and facilities for dealing with any emergency that may occur.

The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement is an agreement made and entered into by and between the State of California, its various departments and agencies, and the various political subdivisions of the state, to facilitate implementation of the purposes of the California Emergency Services Act.

California Disaster Assistance Act The California Disaster Assistance Act (CDAA) authorizes the Director of the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) to administer a disaster assistance program that provides financial assistance from the state for costs incurred by local governments as a result of a disaster event.

California Health & Safety Code Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code establishes Department of Toxic Substances Control authority and sets forth hazardous waste and underground storage tank regulations. In addition, the division creates a State superfund framework that mirrors the Federal program.

Water Code Division 7 of the California Water Code, commonly referred to as the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, created the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. In addition, water quality responsibilities are established for the SWRCB and RWQCBs.

California Code of Regulations Title 3 of the CCR pertains to the application of pesticides and related chemicals. Parties applying regulated substances must continuously evaluate application equipment, the weather, the treated lands and all surrounding properties. Title 3 prohibits any application that would:

Title 8 of the CCR establishes California Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements related to public and worker protection. Topics addressed in Title 8 include materials exposure limits, equipment requirements, protective clothing, hazardous materials, and accident prevention. Construction safety and exposure standards for lead and asbestos are set forth in Title 8.

Title 14 of the CCR establishes minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal.

Title 17 of the CCR establishes regulations relating to the use and disturbance of materials containing naturally occurring asbestos.

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-21

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan The (CA) California State Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) represents the state’s primary hazard mitigation guidance document - providing an updated analysis of the state’s historical and current hazards, hazard mitigation goals and objectives, and hazard mitigation strategies and actions. The plan represents the state’s overall commitment to supporting a comprehensive mitigation strategy to reduce or eliminate potential risks and impacts of disasters in order to promote faster recovery after disasters and, overall, a more resilient state. State Hazard Mitigation Plans are required to meet the Elements outlined in the FEMA’s State Mitigation Plan Review Guide (revised March 2015, effective March 2016). Upon approval, the CA SHMP is then adopted by the State for implementation for the next five (5) years. Cal OES is responsible for updating the SHMP for California. The current version of the SHMP was last updated in September 2018.

State of California Emergency Plan The State of California Emergency Plan (SEP) addresses California’s response to emergency situations associated with natural disasters or human-caused emergencies. The SEP provides a consistent, statewide framework to enable state, local, tribal governments, federal government, and the private sector to work together to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from the effects of emergencies regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity. In accordance with the California Emergency Services Act, this plan is in effect at all times and applies to all levels of State government and its political subdivisions.

The plan incorporates and complies with the principles and requirements found in federal and state laws, regulations, and guidelines. It is intended to conform to the requirements of California’s Standardized Emergency Management System), the National Incident Management System and be consistent with federal emergency planning concepts such as the National Response Framework and catastrophic concept of operations (CONOPS) documents developed jointly by the Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX and the State. CONOPS are developed in support of the State Emergency Plan. The plan is part of a larger planning framework that supports emergency management within the state.

The SEP includes a descripton of the California Standardized Emergency Management System, which manages multiagency and multijurisdictional responses to emergencies in California and unifies all elements of California’s emergency management community into a single integrated system and standardizes key elements. State agencies are required to use the Standardized Emergency Management System, and local government entities must use the system in order to be eligible for any reimbursement of response-related costs under the State’s disaster assistance programs.

4-22 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

LOCAL City of Pittsburg General Plan The current City of Pittsburg General Plan identifies the following policy framework related to emergency response and evacuation routes.

Goal 10-G-10: Encourage redevelopment of areas with potential hazardous materials issues. Pursue a leadership role in the remediation of brownfield sites throughout Pittsburg.

POLICY 10-P-33: Prevent the spread of hazardous leaks and spills from industrial facilities to residential neighborhoods and community focal points, such as Downtown.

Goal 11-G-8: Require development in areas of high fire hazard to be designed and constructed to minimize potential losses and maximize the ability of fire personnel to suppress fire incidents.

Using fire-resistant construction materials and landscaping will both slow the pace at which fire spreads and improve the likelihood that the structure will survive a fire incident.

POLICY 11-P-29: Ensure adequate road widths in new development for fire response trucks, per the subdivision regulations.

Contra Costa County Emergency Operations Plan The purpose of the Contra Costa County Emergency Operations Plan is to provide the basis for a coordinated response before, during and after an emergency affecting Contra Costa County, including as follows:

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-23

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

• Facilitate multi-jurisdictional and interagency coordination in emergency operations, particularly between local government, private sector, operational area (geographic county boundary), State response levels and appropriate Federal agencies; • Serve as a County plan, a reference document, and when possible, may be used for pre-emergency planning in addition to emergency operations; • To be utilized in coordination with applicable local, State and Federal contingency plans; • Identify the components of an Emergency Management Organization (EMO) and establish associated protocols required to effectively respond to, manage and recover from major emergencies and/or disasters; • Establish the operational concepts and procedures associated with field response to emergencies and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) activities; • Establish the organizational framework of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS) within Contra Costa County.

The Contra Costa County Emergency Operations Plan may be activated by the Administrator of Emergency Services, (CAO) in collaboration with the Director of the Contra Costa Sheriff Office of Emergency Services (OES) or their designated alternates under any of the following circumstances:

• Upon proclamation by the Governor that a State of Emergency exists in an area of the state; • Automatically on the proclamation of a State of War Emergency as defined in the California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7, Division 1, Title 2, California Government Code.); • Upon declaration by the President, of the existence of a National Emergency; • Any Emergency Operations Center (EOC) response or exercise where it would be beneficial to use the plan.

The Contra Costa County Emergency Operations Plan describes that Contra Costa County is vulnerable to a wide range of threats. An all-hazards threat perspective will incorporate a complete range of threats including emerging technological factors. It is important to consider past events for future planning, with attention to the location, scope of hazards and how they can change over time. Below are resources used to identify, asses, and track hazards in Contra Costa County:

• Digital Sandbox, a secured computer-based software program that provides threat and risk analysis as well as monitoring. Digital Sandbox is used to quantify and monitor risks from natural and human caused threats, and to direct resources based on threat and risk priorities. • THIRA, The Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment is a tool that allows a jurisdiction to understand its threats and hazards and how the impacts may vary according to time of occurrence, season, location, and other community factors. This knowledge helps a jurisdiction establish informed and defensible capability targets.

Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard mitigation is the use of long-term and short-term policies, programs, projects, and other activities to alleviate the death, injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster. Contra Costa County and a partnership of local governments within the county have developed a hazard mitigation plan to reduce risks from natural disasters in the Contra Costa County Operational Area—defined as the unincorporated county and incorporated jurisdictions within the geographical boundaries of the county. The plan complies with federal and state hazard mitigation planning requirements to establish eligibility for funding under the FEMA grant programs. The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan also lists actions that make up the District hazard mitigation action plan.

4-24 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

The Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan includes mitigation actions that are designed to reduce or eliminate losses resulting from natural hazards, as shown in Table 4.2-1.

TABLE 4.2-1: AREA-WIDE HAZARD MITIGATION ACTIONS HAZARDS RANKING PRIORITY Action #CW-1: Continue to maintain a County-wide hazard mitigation website that will store the hazard mitigation plan and provide the public an opportunity to monitor plan implementation progress. Each planning partner can support this High initiative by including an initiative in its action plan of creating a link to the County hazard mitigation website. Action #CW-2: Leverage public outreach partnering capabilities in the planning area (such as CERT) to promote a uniform High and consistent message on the importance of proactive hazard mitigation. Action #CW-3: Coordinate mitigation planning and project efforts in the planning area to leverage all resources available to High the planning partnership. Action #CW-4: Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of structures in hazard-prone areas to protect the structures from future damage, with repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss properties as a priority. Seek opportunities Medium to leverage partnerships in the planning area in these pursuits. Action #CW-5: Continue to update hazard mapping with best available data and science as it evolves, within the capabilities Medium of the partnership. Support FEMA’s RiskMAP initiative. Action #CW-6: To the extent possible based on available resources, provide coordination and technical assistance in applying High for grant funding. Action #CW-7: A steering committee will remain as a working body over time to monitor progress of the hazard mitigation plan, provide technical assistance to planning partners, manage data, and oversee the update of the plan according to High schedule. This body will continue to operate under the ground rules established at its inception. SOURCE: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN, 2018 Contra Costa Disaster Debris Management Plan For the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare of residents and visitors, Contra Costa County recognizes the responsibility to be prepared for a debris-generating incident. Disasters can produce substantial volumes of debris, creating hazardous conditions that endanger the public and disrupt the essential daily lifestyle and economy of the community.

The Contra Costa County Disaster Debris Management Plan (DDMP) provides a comprehensive framework for management of debris following a disaster. It addresses the roles and responsibilities of government organizations as well as private firms and non-governmental organizations that might have a role in debris operations. The County of Contra Costa DDMP ensures consistency with current policy guidance and describes the interrelationship with other levels of government. The plan will continue to evolve, responding to lessons learned from actual disaster and emergency experiences, ongoing planning efforts, training and exercise activities, and federal guidance.

Contra Costa Operational Area Earthquake Concept of Operations Plan An earthquake-specific plan includes the standard elements of a typical Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) but focuses on addressing the impacts of and challenges associated with the earthquake.

The Contra Costa Operational Area Earthquake Concept of Operations Plan is a scenario-driven, function-specific application of the Contra Costa Operational Area EOP. It describes the Operational Area response to a catastrophic earthquake in the Bay Area. This plan provides:

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-25

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

• An outline of the Operational Area’s response operations; • Tools for initial decision-making that will support the Operational Area’s efforts to address the priorities created by the earthquake; • An incident-specific application of procedures for requesting and implementing resources from outside the jurisdiction.

City of Pittsburg Emergency Operations Plan The City of Pittsburg Emergency Operations Plan provides guidance to City staff to promote effective response and recovery operations when any emergency affects City operations or citizens. The scope of the EOP includes the City’s population, personnel, property, and facilities, and it is applicable to any incident resulting from any hazard or threat. The EOP:

• Describes the City’s organizational structure and management system for emergency response; • Sets forth lines of authority and organizational relationships, and shows how emergency response activity will be coordinated; • Identifies the actions taken to activate and operate the City EOC; • Identifies personnel, equipment, facilities, supplies, and other resources available to support EOC operations; • Provides detailed guidance for EOC staff to carry out their responsibilities; and • Describes EOC processes and products such as the EOC Action Plan and Situation Status Report.

The objectives of the EOP are to:

• Describe the internal processes that address emergency response and coordination including identifying the roles and responsibilities of EOC positions that may be staffed at the City EOC upon activation; • Describe the Incident Command System (ICS) which will be used in the preparation for, response to, and recovery from emergencies, and may be used to aid in the mitigation of potential threats; • Provide tools and templates such as emergency procedures and communications methods for EOC and other staff to use in supporting response to emergencies.

City of Pittsburg Hazard Mitigation Plan The City of Pittsburg has prepared the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) in order to assess the natural, technological, and human-caused risks to Pittsburg so as to reduce the potential impact of the hazards by creating mitigation strategies. The purpose of mitigation planning is for local governments to identify the hazards that may impact them, identify a plan of actions and activities to reduce losses from those hazards, and establish a coordinated process to implement the plan through the use of the City’s resources. The 2017 HMP represents the City of Pittsburg’s commitment to create a safer, more resilient, community by taking actions to reduce risk and by committing resources to lessen the effects of hazards on the people and property of Pittsburg.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Pittsburg Emergency Services Program has the major responsibility of preparing the City of Pittsburg for various incidents, events, and disasters and has provided disaster preparedness information and training to all City departments. The City’s Emergency Operations Center is activated during extraordinary emergencies or events and during disasters. The City utilizes its Emergency Operations Plan that guides the City on how to operate during an emergency (the City of Pittsburg

4-26 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Emergency Operations Plan). Additionally, Pittsburg and the Pittsburg Police Department maintain an emergency alert and notification system called ALERT Pittsburg that provides emergency information in a timely fashion, via email, text, and phone.

Although local police, fire, and medical service personnel are usually the first to respond to a local emergency in the Planning Area, the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff Office of Emergency Services is responsible for planning, outreach, and training as it relates to disaster management and emergency preparedness in Contra Costa County. Additionally, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (is a California cabinet-level agency that is responsible for emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and homeland security activities within the state. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Homeland Security) maintains partnerships with infrastructure partners, as well as local, state and federal agencies in order to share critical information to safeguard persons and property. Homeland Security reviews tips and leads to ensure appropriate agencies and resources are notified.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY PLAN The State of California Emergency Plan identifies hazards and vulnerabilities that have the potential to cause fatalities, injuries, property damage, infrastructure damage, agricultural losses, damage to the environment, interruption of business, or other types of harm or loss. The SEP lists the many hazards and vulnerabilities faced in the state, based on the State of California Enhanced Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP). The following hazards and vulnerabilities have the potential to occur in the Planning Area.

Earthquake According to the FEMA, nearly 70% of the national earthquake risk – an annualized loss of $3.1 billion dollars – is concentrated in the State of California. Growing urbanization and increasing reliance on complex infrastructure for power, water, telecommunications, and transportation magnify that risk. Section 5.4 of this Existing Conditions Report (ECR) provides further detail on earthquake risks in the Planning Area.

Flood Substantially populated counties with disproportionately high numbers of individuals with a disability or an access or functional need are in flood-prone areas such as the San Francisco Bay Area. Over five million Californians, or approximately 15 percent of the total population, live in a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designated floodplain. Most of this population resides in expanding urban centers located in floodplains where flooding could result in extensive loss of life and billions of dollars in damages. The potential direct flood damages in the Sacramento area alone could exceed $25 billion. Sections 4.5 and 6.2 of this ECR provide further detail on flooding risks in the Planning Area.

Fire Depending upon terrain and vegetation, wildfire hazard risk exposure is generally pervasive, with high concentrations in southern California. Since 1954, 73 percent of presidentially declared disasters in California were the result of wildfires. Over the past 57 years, wildfires have claimed 97 lives, resulted in 1,504 injuries, and $2.1 billion in California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) administered disaster costs. Sections 4.4 and 6.2 of this ECR provide further detail on fire risks in the Planning Area.

Landslides Landslides commonly occur in connection with other major natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, and floods; however, landslides can also be caused by normal, seasonal rainfall or erosion. Expansion of residential

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-27

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

and recreational developments into hillside areas leads to more people threatened by landslides each year. Section 5.4 of this ECR provides further detail on landslide risks in the Planning Area.

Dam and Levee Failure California has over 1,400 dams and over 13,000 miles of mostly earthen levees that protect the state’s residents, agricultural lands, and water supply. Section 4.5 of this ECR provides further detail on flooding risks in the Planning Area.

Severe Weather Extremely hot or cold temperatures can result in death, especially among the medically fragile and elderly, and have significant impacts on agriculture. Approximately 20 people 12 die each year from heat-related emergencies, but a severe or extended heat wave can cause more casualties. For example, a 13-day heat wave in 2006 resulted in 136 deaths. Pittsburg maintains several cooling centers within the Planning Area where people can seek refuge from extreme heat days. Section 4.5 of this ECR provides further detail on earthquake risks in the Planning Area.

Tsunami Depending on the location of an incident, a tsunami can reach the California coast in as little as ten minutes, for a local-source earthquake, or take from five to 14 hours, for a distant-source earthquake. The Great Alaskan earthquake of 1964 generated a tsunami that killed 12 people and destroyed 30 blocks in Crescent City, California. Section 4.5 of this ECR provides further detail on tsunami risks in the Planning Area.

Hazardous Materials Emergency California has approximately 160,000 businesses regulated for storing, transporting, or handling hazardous materials. There are also four nuclear power plant sites in the state, one of which is operational and three in the process of being decommissioned. General categories of hazardous materials include chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, explosive, oil spills, and any incident that results in the release of agents into the environment including stationary sources, railway, ports, and highways.

There are about 6,600 hazardous materials releases each year. Depending on the severity of release and type of material, a hazardous materials emergency may cause injury, death, property damage, environmental damage, or may result in orders to evacuate or shelter in place. Section 4.1 of this ECR provides further detail on hazardous materials emergency risks in the Planning Area.

Energy Disruption California’s energy production, storage, and distribution systems are vulnerable to physical hazards as well as shortages caused by market forces, weather, and operating conditions. For example, incidents like the Aliso Canyon leak, during which nearly 100,000 tons of methane gas escaped, may lead to blackouts or disruption in the production of energy. Section 3.5 of this ECR provides further detail on electricity and natural gas infrastructure serving the Planning Area.

Civil Unrest Civil unrest is usually triggered by dramatic political or social events. Every major metropolitan area in California has experienced and is at risk for civil unrest. The most recent and significant civil unrest incident in the state was the 1992 Los Angeles Civil Disturbance that resulted in 53 deaths, over 2,300 injuries, and over $800 million in damages. This event also precipitated simultaneous, but smaller, incidents throughout California and the country. Section 3.6 of this ECR provides further detail on public safety services (such as police) serving the Planning Area.

4-28 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Pandemic and Epidemic A disease outbreak can cause illness and result in significant casualties. Since 1900, there have been four influenza pandemics that killed approximately 775,000 people in the United States. In recent years, the 2014 Ebola virus and 2016 Zika outbreaks highlight how, in the absence of a functional health system to monitor the public health situation and quickly develop an integrated response, an epidemic can proliferate rapidly and pose significant problems to our communities. Section 3.9 of this ECR provides further detail on health care facilities serving the Planning Area.

Terrorist Attack/Cyber Attack Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives (CBRNE) weapons are a threat to the people of California. Chemical weapons, biological agents, and explosive devices are used to cause fear and to injure or kill. Radiation Dispersal Devices (RDDs) are explosive devices that contain radioactive materials to spread contamination causing disruption of normal activities. An Improvised Nuclear device (IND) is a nuclear weapon bought or stolen from a nuclear state, or a weapon fabricated by a terrorist group from illegally obtained nuclear weapons material, that produces a nuclear explosion and causes widespread destruction from the blast as well as dangerous radioactive fallout over large areas. Although traditional nuclear weapons, RDDs, or INDs have not been used by foreign governments or terrorists to date, these unlikely events would have extremely high consequences. A nuclear detonation would challenge the capacity of public health and first responder systems, and have widespread impacts to the public at large. Sections 3.6 and 3.9 of this ECR provides further detail on public safety services and health care facilities serving the Planning Area.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN The chart below indicates the top seven natural hazards that have been identified in Contra Costa County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. Contra Costa County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan primarily uses data from HAZUS, a nationally applicable standardized methodology utilized by the FEMA. HAZUS contains models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes and other specified disasters data which is the FEMA's Methodology for estimating potential losses from disasters. Table 4.2-2 shows the Natural Hazards Risk Ranking provided in the Contra Costa County Emergency Operations Plan.

TABLE 4.2-2: NATURAL HAZARDS RISK RANKING HAZARDS RANKING HAZARD EVENT CATEGORY 1 Earthquake High 2 Severe Weather High 3 Landslide Medium 4 Flood Medium 5 Wildfire Medium 6 Drought Low 7 Dam Failure Low SOURCE: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN, 2015

During an incident or exercise, EOC staff members will carry out their assignments and accomplish their responsibilities using the Incident Command System. The ICS is used for the command, control, and coordination of emergency response. ICS incorporates personnel, policies, procedures, facilities, and equipment, integrated into a common organizational structure designed to improve emergency response operations of all types and complexities.

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-29

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

In compliance with the SEMS Regulations, the County has EOC staff to manage emergency responses within the County’s jurisdiction. The EOC Director in collaboration with department heads and OES staff requests team members, as needed, to the County EOC to carry out their duties.

The Contra Costa County EOC staff is responsible for coordinating the resources, strategies, and policy for any event in the Operational Area that exceeds the capabilities of first responders. Tactical control remains the responsibility of field Incident Commanders (ICs) at all times.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN A Planning Partnership was formed for the Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan to leverage resources and to meet requirements of the federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) for as many eligible local governments as possible. Each participating planning partner has prepared a jurisdiction-specific annex to this plan. The Delta Diablo District includes the Planning Area, and is considered a participating planning partner, as identified in the Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Table 4.2-3 lists past occurrences of natural hazards for which specific damage was recorded in the Delta Diablo service area. Table 4.2-4 presents the local ranking for Delta Diablo of all hazards of concern. The ranking process involves an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence for each hazard, along with its potential impacts on people, property and the economy.

TABLE 4.2-3: NATURAL HAZARDS FOR DELTA DIABLO SERVICE AREA FEMA DISASTER # TYPE OF EVENT DATE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT (IF APPLICABLE) Severe Weather, Landslides DR-4301 2/14/2017 Not Available State Emergency Drought NA 4/1/2015 Not Available Earthquake FEMA-845 10/17/1989 $20,000 SOURCE: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (VOLUME II), 2018

TABLE 4.2-4: HAZARD RISK RANKING FOR DELTA DIABLO SERVICE AREA HAZARDS RANKING HAZARD EVENT CATEGORY 1 Earthquake High 1 Flood High 2 Landslide Low 2 Severe Weather Low 3 Drought Low 4 Dam and Levee failure Low 4 Wildfire Low 5 Sea Level Rise None 5 Tsunami None SOURCE: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (VOLUME II), 2018

CITY OF PITTSBURG EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN The City provides its own public services through eleven (11) departments: City Administration (City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk), the City Housing Authority, Successor Agency, Development Services, Finance, Marina, Human Resources, Parks and Recreation, Pittsburg Power Company, Police Department, and Public Works. The primary public safety organizations consist of the Police Department and the Public Works Department. The City contracts for fire, rescue and emergency medical services with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Transportation routes within the Planning

4-30 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Area include California State Highway 4 which runs through the City and is the primary east/west travel route serving the central and eastern communities in Contra Costa County. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) serves Eastern Contra Costa with the Pittsburg/Bay Point Station, which is networked with the traditional BART third rail train system, and the new extension, powered by clean diesel trains, with stations at Pittsburg Central Station and Hillcrest Station in Antioch.

Tri-Delta Transit is a bus operator serving the communities in the eastern section of the county. East Bay Para-Transit is a bus service for persons with disabilities throughout the county. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad operates one rail line in the City, two rail lines out of Richmond, and one rail line in Port Chicago (known as short lines). Union Pacific operates Amtrak; maintains stations in Richmond, Martinez, and Antioch; and utilizes Burlington Northern and Santa Fe tracks within the county. The nearest major airports are Oakland International Airport (42 miles), Stockton Metropolitan Airport (46 miles), and San Francisco International Airport (52 miles).

Medical facilities, which provide routine and preventative health care in or near the City, include the Pittsburg Health Center, Diamond Ridge Healthcare Center and Sutter Delta Medical Center. The closest hospitals to the City include Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Walnut Creek (approximately ten miles); Sutter Delta Medical Center in Antioch (approximately six miles); and John Muir Medical Center in Concord (approximately nine miles). There are several assisted living facilities in the City: American Legacy Care Home, Rose’s Garden, Santa Teresa Care Home, Sheila’s Crystal Care Home, Pittsburg Care Center, Tender Loving Care, and Muir Creek. There are also retirement homes and senior living facilities in the City, such as Stoneman Village, Alpine Retirement Home, Siena Court Senior Apartments and East Santa Fe Apartments, and Delta Hawaii Senior Apartments. Residents at these facilities may require additional assistance in a local emergency or disaster. These sites are identified as sites for Functional Assessment Service Team assistance and services during a disaster.

REFERENCES California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2015. California Emergency Services Act, California Disaster Assistance Act, Emergency Compacts, California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement. Available: https://www.caloes.ca.gov/LegalAffairsSite/Documents/Cal%20OES%20Yellow%20Book.pdf

California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2016. Bay Area Earthquake Plan. July 6, 2016. Available: https://www.caloes.ca.gov/PlanningPreparednessSite/Documents/BayAreaEQConops(Pub_Version)_2016.pdf

California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2017. State of California Emergency Plan. October 1, 2017. Available: http://www.cocosheriff.org/documents/ESD/CalOES

California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2018. 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available: https://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oes-divisions/hazard-mitigation/hazard-mitigation-planning/state-hazard-mitigation- plan

City of Pittsburg. 2015. General Plan Pittsburg 2020: A Vision for the 21st Century. Last updated May 4, 2015. Available: http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/index.aspx?page=228

City of Pittsburg. 2018. City of Pittsburg Emergency Operations Plan. December 2018. Available: http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=10694

Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Coroner. 2015. Contra Costa County Emergency Operations Plan. Approval Date of June 16, 2015.

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-31

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Contra Costa County. 2016. Contra Costa County Disaster Debris Management Plan. Available: http://www.cocosheriff.org/documents/ESD/DebrisPlan2016.pdf

Contra Costa County. 2018. Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan. January 2018. Available: http://www.co.contra- costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/48893/Contra-Costa-County-Draft-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-Volume-1-January- 31-2018?bidId=

Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services. 2010. Contra Costa Operational Area Earthquake Concept of Operations Plan. Interim Plan. February 2010. Available: http://www.cocosheriff.org/documents/ESD/CCC%20EQ%20Plan%20-%20Base%20Plan%20Feb%202010.pdf

4-32 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

4.3 AIR TRAFFIC The State Division of Aeronautics has compiled extensive data regarding aircraft accidents around airports in California. This data is much more detailed and specific than data currently available from the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). According to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook prepared by the State Division of Aeronautics, 18.2% of general aviation accidents occur during takeoff and initial climb and 44.2% of general aviation accidents occur during approach and landing. The State Division of Aeronautics has plotted accidents during these phases at airports across the country and has determined certain theoretical areas of high accident probability.

APPROACH AND LANDING ACCIDENTS As nearly half of all general aviation accidents occur in the approach and landing phases of flight, considerable work has been done to determine the approximate probability of such accidents. Nearly 77% of accidents during this phase of flight occur during touchdown onto the runway or during the roll-out. These accidents typically consist of hard or long landings, ground loops (where the aircraft spins out on the ground), departures from the runway surface, etc. These types of accidents are rarely fatal and often do not involve other aircraft or structures. Commonly these accidents occur due to loss of control on the part of the pilot and, to some extent, weather conditions. (California Division of Aeronautics, 2011).

The remaining 23% of accidents during the approach and landing phase of flight occur as the aircraft is maneuvered towards the runway for landing, in a portion of the airspace around the airport commonly called the traffic pattern. Common causes of approach accidents include the pilot’s misjudging of the rate of descent, poor visibility, unexpected downdrafts, or tall objects beneath the final approach course. Improper use of rudder on an aircraft during the last turn toward the runway can sometimes result in a stall (a cross-control stall) and resultant spin, causing the aircraft to strike the ground directly below the aircraft. The types of events that lead to approach accidents tend to place the accident site fairly close to the extended runway centerline. The probability of accidents increases as the flight path nears the approach end of the runway. (California Division of Aeronautics, 2011).

According to aircraft accident plotting provided by the State Division of Aeronautics, most accidents that occur during the approach and landing phase of flight occur on the airport surface itself. The remainder of accidents that occur during this phase of flight are generally clustered along the extended centerline of the runway, where the aircraft is flying closest to the ground and with the lowest airspeed. (California Division of Aeronautics, 2011).

TAKEOFF AND DEPARTURE ACCIDENTS According to data collected by the State Division of Aeronautics, nearly 65% of all accidents during the takeoff and departure phase of flight occur during the initial climb phase, immediately after takeoff. This data is correlated by two physical constraints of general aviation aircraft:

• The takeoff and initial climb phase are times when the aircraft engine(s) is under maximum stress and is thus more susceptible to mechanical problems than at other phases of flight; and • Average general aviation runways are not typically long enough to allow an aircraft that experiences a loss of power shortly after takeoff to land again and stop before the end of the runway.

While the majority of approach and landing accidents occur on or near to the centerline of the runway, accidents that occur during initial climb are more dispersed in their location as pilots are not attempting to get to any one specific point (such as a runway). Additionally, aircraft vary widely in payload, engine power, glide ratio, and several other factors that affect glide

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-33

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

distance, handling characteristics after engine loss, and general response to engine failure. This further disperses the accident pattern. However, while the pattern is more dispersed than that seen for approach and landing accidents, the departure pattern is still generally localized in the direction of departure and within proximity of the centerline. This is partially due to the fact that pilots are trained to fly straight ahead and avoid turns when experiencing a loss of power or engine failure. Turning flight causes the aircraft to sink faster and flying straight allows for more time to attempt to fix the problem. (California Division of Aeronautics, 2011).

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FEDERAL Aviation Act of 1958 The Federal Aviation Act resulted in the creation of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA was charged with the creation and maintenance of a National Airspace System.

Federal Aviation Regulations (CFR, Title 14) The Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) establish regulations related to aircraft, aeronautics, and inspections and permitting.

STATE Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code §21001) The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics bases the majority of its aviation policies on the Aeronautics Act. Policies include permits and annual inspections for public airports and hospital heliports and recommendations for schools proposed within two miles of airport runways.

Airport Land Use Commission Law (Public Utilities Code §21670 et seq.) The law, passed in 1967, authorized the creation of Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) in California. Per the Public Utilities Code, the purpose of an ALUC is to protect public health, safety, and welfare by encouraging orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimizes exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses (§21670). Furthermore, each ALUC must prepare an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Each ALUCP, which must be based on a twenty-year planning horizon, should focus on broadly defined noise and safety impacts.

LOCAL City of Pittsburg General Plan The existing City of Pittsburg General Plan does not include policies related to airport facilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING LOCAL AIRPORT FACILITIES Buchanan Field Airport. There are no private or public airport facilities in the Planning Area. The closest airport facility to the Planning Area is the Buchanan Field Airport. This airport is located in the City of Concord, approximately 8.9 miles southwest of the Pittsburg city limits. The Buchanan Field Airport is a public airport and is categorized as a reliever airport by the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. The airport is located at an elevation of approximately 26 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The Planning Area is not located within the airport influence zone for the Buchanan Field Airport.

4-34 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

MAJOR REGIONAL AIRPORT FACILITIES San Francisco International Airport (SFO): SFO is the largest airport in the region, and a hub for United Airlines. It provides a wide range of domestic airline service and all of the region’s long-haul international flights. San Francisco serves 68% of regional Bay Area air passengers and 43% of regional air cargo shipments.

Metropolitan Oakland International Airport (OAK): Oakland Airport has traditionally been the hub for low cost carriers and a major air cargo center due to operations by FedEx and UPS. Oakland serves 17% of Bay Area regional air passengers and 52% of air cargo.

Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC): Traffic at San Jose Airport has been affected by the recent realignment of airline services in the Bay Area. The airport does not currently offer any long-haul international flights, and air cargo facilities are limited due to space constraints. San Jose serves 15% of the Bay Area regional air passengers and 6% of air cargo.

Sacramento International Airport (SMF): The Sacramento Airport served nearly 9 million passengers in 2012 with 150 daily departures to 36 destinations. Southwest provides the majority of flights. Many Sacramento area air passengers use Oakland and San Francisco for their air service needs. Conversely, some Bay Area passengers choose Sacramento Airport.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD AVIATION ACCIDENT DATABASE The National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Database identifies two aircraft accidents with Pittsburg identified as the location between January 1, 1950 to June 12, 2019. (National Transportation Safety Board, 2019). These incidents were small, causing a total of two fatal accidents. The most recent accident occurred on October 25, 2016 in a Beechcraft A36 propeller plane (two fatal accidents). The second accident occurred on July 15, 1992 in a Cessna 150L plane (nonfatal).

REFERENCES Airnav. 2019. Airnav.com data for Buchanan Field Airport. Available: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCCR

California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. 2011. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

City of Pittsburg. Last updated May 4, 2015. General Plan Pittsburg 2020: A Vision for the 21st Century. Available: http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/index.aspx?page=228

Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission. 2000. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 13, 2000. Available: http://www.cccounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/851/Cover-Introduction-and-County- wide-Policies?bidId=

National Transportation Safety Board. Accessed June 12, 2019. Available: http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-35

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

4.4 WILDFIRE HAZARDS This section addresses the hazards associated with wildfires in the Planning Area. The discussion of fire suppression resources is located in the Community Services and Facilities section of this report.

REGULATORY SETTING FEDERAL FY 2001 Appropriations Act Title IV of the Appropriations Act required the identification of “Urban Wildland Interface Communities in the Vicinity of Federal Lands that are at High Risk from Wildfire” by the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture.

STATE California Government Code Section 65302 This section, which establishes standards for developing and updating General Plans, includes fire hazard assessment and Safety Element content requirements. This section describes that a Safety Element shall include protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence; liquefaction; and other seismic hazards identified pursuant to Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section 2690) of Division 2 of the Public Resources Code, and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body; flooding; and wildland and urban fires. The Safety Element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, military installations, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards.

The Safety Element is also required to:

• Identify information regarding flood hazards; • Establish a set of comprehensive goals, policies, and objectives for the protection of the community from the unreasonable risks of flooding; • Establish a set of feasible implementation measures designed to carry out the applicable goals, policies, and objectives; • Be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire for land classified as state responsibility areas and land classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; • Be reviewed and updated as necessary to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the city or county.

Assembly Bill 337 Per AB 337, local fire prevention authorities and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) are required to identify “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) in Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). Standards related to brush clearance and the use of fire-resistant materials in fire hazard severity zones are also established.

California Public Resources Code The State’s Fire Safe Regulations are set forth in Public Resources Code Section 4290, which include the establishment of State Responsibility Areas (SRA). An SRA is the area of the state where the State of California is financially responsible for the prevents and suppression of wildfires. SRA does not include lands within city boundaries or in federal ownership. Areas in

4-36 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

federal ownership are under Federal Responsibility Areas (FRA), and areas within city boundaries are included in Local Responsibility Areas.

Public Resources Code Section 4291 sets forth defensible space requirements, which are applicable to anyone that …owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is covered with flammable material (Section 4291(a)). These requirements include:

• Maintenance of defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the structure, not beyond the property line except as required by state law, local ordinance, rule, or regulation; • An insurance company that insures an occupied dwelling or occupied structure may require a greater distance than that required under paragraph (1) if a fire expert, designated by the director, provides findings that the clearing is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of transmission of flame or heat sufficient to ignite the structure, and there is no other feasible mitigation measure possible to reduce the risk of ignition or spread of wildfire to the structure. • Removal of the portion of a tree that extends within 10 feet of the outlet of a chimney or stovepipe; • Maintenance of a tree, shrub, or other plant adjacent to or overhanging a building free of dead or dying wood; • Maintenance of the roof of a structure free of leaves, needles, or other vegetative materials; • Prior to constructing a new building or structure or rebuilding a building or structure damaged by a fire in an area subject to this section, the construction or rebuilding of which requires a building permit, the owner shall obtain a certification from the local building official that the dwelling or structure, as proposed to be built, complies with all applicable state and local building standards.

California Fire Code The California Fire Code establishes standards related to the design, construction, and maintenance of buildings. The standards set forth in the California Fire Code range from designing for access by firefighters and equipment and minimum requirements for automatic sprinklers and fire hydrants to the appropriate storage and use of combustible materials.

California Code of Regulations Title 8 In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 8, Sections 1270 and 6773 (Fire Prevention and Fire Protection and Fire Equipment), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) establishes fire suppression service standards. The standards range from fire hose size requirements to the design of emergency access roads.

California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Natural Resources) Division 1.5 (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection), Title 14 of the CCR establishes a variety of wildfire preparedness, prevention, and response regulations.

California Code of Regulations Title 19 (Public Safety) Title 19 of the CCR establishes a variety of emergency fire response, fire prevention, and construction and construction materials standards.

California Code of Regulations Title 24 (CA Building Standards Code) The California Fire Code is set forth in Part 9 of the Building Standards Code. The California Fire Code, which is pre-assembled with the International Fire Code by the International Code Council (ICC), contains fire-safety building standards referenced in other parts of Title 24.

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-37

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

California Health and Safety Code Section 13000 et seq. State fire regulations are set forth in Section 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which is divided into “Fires and Fire Protection” and “Buildings Used by the Public.” The regulations provide for the enforcement of the California Fire Code and mandate the abatement of fire hazards.

The code establishes broadly applicable regulations, such as standards for buildings and fire protection devices, in addition to regulations for specific land uses, such as childcare facilities and high-rise structures.

California Public Utilities Code Section 8367 et seq. State regulations relating to wildfire mitigation are set forth in Section 8387 of the California Public Utilities Code. The regulations provide that each local publicly owned electric utility and electrical cooperative shall construct, maintain, and operate its electrical lines and equipment in a manner that will minimize the risk of wildfire posed by those electrical lines and equipment. The local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative is also required to prepare a wildfire mitigation plan.

LOCAL City of Pittsburg General Plan The current City of Pittsburg General Plan identifies the following policy framework related to fire:

Land Use Element POLICY 2-P-26: Ensure that new hillside development utilizes fire-resistant building materials, per the Uniform Building Code. Require that all residential units adjacent to open slopes maintain a 30-foot setback with fire-resistant landscaping.

POLICY 2-P-27: Minimize single-access residential neighborhoods in the hills; maximize access for fire and emergency response personnel.

POLICY 2-P-28: During development review, ensure that the design of new hillside neighborhoods minimizes potential land use incompatibilities with any grazing/agricultural activities in the southern hills.

Growth Management Element POLICY 3-P-1: Allow urban and suburban development only in areas where public facilities and infrastructure (police, fire, parks, water, sewer, storm drainage, and community facilities) are available or can be provided.

Urban Design Element POLICY 4-P-27: Maximize water conservation, fire resistance, and erosion control in landscape design through use of sturdy, native species. Use irregular planting on graded slopes to achieve a natural appearance.

Health and Safety Element Goal 10-G-11: Ensure emergency response equipment and personnel training are adequate to follow the procedures contained within the Emergency Response Plan for a major earthquake, wildland fire, or hazardous substance event.

POLICY 10-P-36: Maintain, modernize, and designate new sites for emergency response facilities, including fire and police stations, as needed to accommodate population growth.

POLICY 10-P-37: Prepare and disseminate information to local residents, businesses, and schools about emergency preparedness and evacuation routes, including hazardous materials spills.

4-38 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

POLICY 10-P-38: Ensure that critical facilities, including medical centers, police and fire stations, school facilities, and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community, remain operative during emergencies.

Public Facilities Element POLICY 11-P-5: Work with Contra Costa Water District in planning the development of new pressure zones as needed to ensure adequate fire flows in hillside areas.

POLICY 11-G-8: Require development in areas of high fire hazard to be designed and constructed to minimize potential losses and maximize the ability of fire personnel to suppress fire incidents.

POLICY 11-P-24: Amend the subdivision regulations to include a requirement for detailed fire prevention and control, including community firebreaks, for projects in high and extreme hazard areas.

POLICY 11-P-26: Cooperate with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District to ensure that new or relocated fire stations are constructed on appropriate sites within the 1.5-mile response radii from new or existing development.

POLICY 11-P-27: Cooperate with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District in obtaining sites to either relocate or establish new fire stations within City limits to provide more efficient response times.

POLICY 11-P-28: Cooperate with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District in obtaining a site for a new fire station (or relocation of Station 86) in the vicinity of State Route 4 and west of Bailey Road.

POLICY 11-P-29: Ensure adequate road widths in new development for fire response trucks, per the subdivision regulations.

EXISTING CONDITIONS CALFIRE FIRE THREAT AREAS CalFire’s Fire Threat Model identifies fire threats using fuel rank, which is a ranking system developed by CalFire that incorporates four wildfire factors: fuel model, slope, ladder index, and crown index, and modeled characteristics regarding fire probability and behaviors.

The U.S. Forest Service has developed a series of fuel models, which categorize fuels based on burn characteristics. These fuel models help predict fire behavior. In addition to fuel characteristics, slope is an important contributor to fire hazard levels. A surface ranking system has been developed by CalFire, which incorporates the applicable fuel models and slope data. The model categorizes slope into six ranges: 0-10%, 11-25%, 26-40%, 41-55%, 56-75% and >75%. The combined fuel model and slope data are organized into three categories, referred to as surface rank. Thus, surface rank reflects the quantity and burn characteristics of the fuels and the topography in a given area.

The ladder index of the distance from the ground to the lowest leafy vegetation for tree and plant species. The crown index is a reflection of the quantity of leafy vegetation present within individual specimens of a given species.

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-39

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

The surface rank, ladder index, and crown index for a given area are combined in order to establish a fuel rank of medium, high, or very high. Fuel rank is used by CalFire to identify areas in the California Fire Plan where large, catastrophic fires are most likely.

The fuel rank data are used by CalFire to delineate fire threat based on a system of ordinal ranking. Thus, the Fire Threat model creates discrete regions, which reflect fire probability and predicted fire behavior. The four classes of fire threat range from moderate to extreme.

As shown in Figure 4.4-1, the City of Pittsburg contains areas with “moderate”, “high”, and “very high” fire threats. “Very high” fire threats are located in the southern and western portions of the Planning Area, where there tends to be a greater amount of combustible vegetation and where slopes are greater. CalFire data for the areas immediately south and west of the Planning Area also include “very high” fire threats. CalFire data for the areas immediately north and east of the Planning Area include “moderate” and “high” fire threats.

FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES The state has charged CalFire with the identification of Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) within State Responsibility Areas. In addition, CalFire must recommend Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) identified within any Local Responsibility Areas. The FHSZ maps are used by the State Fire Marshall as a basis for the adoption of applicable building code standards. Figure 4.4-2 illustrates the City’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas.

As shown in Figure 4.4-2, the majority of the Planning Area is not located in a “moderate”, “high”, or “very high” FHSZs. However, small portions of the Planning area are located in “moderate” and “high” FHSZs, including areas in the southeast, southwest, and western portions of the Planning Area. Within the current city limits, small areas containing “moderate” or “high” FHSZs are located only in the southeast and southwest portions of the city. No areas within the Planning Area are categorized as containing a “very high” FHSZs by CalFire.

As shown in Figure 4.4-2, the majority of the Planning Area is located within a Local Responsibility Area. A small portion in the western section of the Planning Area located near Port Chicago Highway is in a Federal Responsibility Area. Additionally, a portion of the City outside of the city limits but within the southeast portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence is located in a State Responsibility Area. Furthermore, the area to the south and southeast of the city limits and the Sphere of Influence, but within the Planning Area, is currently located in a State Responsibility Area.

REFERENCES California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2010. 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2012. About the Fire Prevention Fee. Available: http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2019. Contra Costa County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Accessed April 2019.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2019. Contra Costa County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Accessed April 2019.

4-40 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2019. Fuel Ranking Maps and Data. Accessed May 2019. Available: http://frap.fire.ca.gov/data/fire_data/fuel_rank/index

City of Pittsburg. Last updated May 4, 2015. General Plan Pittsburg 2020: A Vision for the 21st Century. Available: http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/index.aspx?page=228

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-41

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

4.5 FLOODING This section addresses the hazards associated with flooding in the Planning Area. The discussion of storm drainage infrastructure is located in the Community Services and Facilities section of this report.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FEDERAL Federal Emergency Management Agency The Federal Emergency Management Agency operates the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Participants in the NFIP must satisfy certain mandated floodplain management criteria. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 has adopted as a desired level of protection, an expectation that developments should be protected from floodwater damage of the Intermediate Regional Flood (IRF). The IRF is defined as a flood that has an average frequency of occurrence on the order of once in 100 years, although such a flood may occur in any given year. Communities are occasionally audited by the California Department of Water Resources to insure the proper implementation of FEMA floodplain management regulations.

Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 One of the country’s first environmental laws, this Act established a regulatory program to address activities that could affect navigation in Waters of the United States.

Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 The Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA) established a program to regulate activities that result in the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States

Clean Water Act of 1977 The Clean Water Act (CWA), which amended the WPCA of 1972, sets forth the §404 program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into Waters of the U.S. and the §402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate the discharge of pollutants into Waters of the U.S. The §401 Water Quality Certification program establishes a framework of water quality protection for activities requiring a variety of Federal permits and approvals (including CWA §404, CWA §402, FERC Hydropower and §10 Rivers and Harbors).

Flood Control Act The Flood Control Act (1917) established survey and cost estimate requirements for flood hazards in the Sacramento Valley. All levees and structures constructed per the Act were to be maintained locally but controlled federally. All rights of way necessary for the construction of flood control infrastructure were to be provided to the Federal government at no cost. Federal involvement in the construction of flood control infrastructure, primarily dams and levees, became more pronounced upon passage of the Flood Control Act of 1936.

National Flood Insurance Program The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 identified three fundamental purposes: Better indemnify individuals for flood losses through insurance; Reduce future flood damages through State and community floodplain management regulations; and Reduce Federal expenditures for disaster assistance and flood control. While this act provided for subsidized flood insurance for existing structures, the provision of flood insurance by the FEMA became contingent on the adoption of floodplain regulations at the local level. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 led to the creation of the National Flood Insurance Program.

4-42 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

The NFIP goals are two-fold:

• To provide flood insurance for structures and contents in communities that adopt and enforce an ordinance outlining minimal floodplain management standards. • To identify areas of high and low flood hazard and establish flood insurance rates for structures inside each flood hazard area.

Flood Disaster Protection Act The Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) of 1973 was a response to the shortcomings of the NFIP, which were experienced during the flood season of 1972. The FDPA prohibited Federal assistance, including acquisition, construction, and financial assistance, within delineated floodplains in non-participating NFIP communities. Furthermore, all Federal agencies and/or federally insured and federally regulated lenders must require flood insurance for all acquisitions or developments in designated Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in communities that participate in the NFIP.

Improvements, construction, and developments within SFHAs are generally subject to the following standards:

• All new construction and substantial improvements of residential buildings must have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood elevation (BFE). • All new construction and substantial improvements of non-residential buildings must either have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the BFE or dry-floodproofed to the BFE. • Buildings can be elevated to or above the BFE using fill, or they can be elevated on extended foundation walls or other enclosure walls, on piles, or on columns. • Extended foundation or other enclosure walls must be designed and constructed to withstand hydrostatic pressure and be constructed with flood-resistant materials and contain openings that will permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. Any enclosed area below the BFE can only be used for the parking of vehicles, building access, or storage.

STATE Assembly Bill 162 This bill requires a general plan’s land use element to identify and annually review those areas covered by the general plan that are subject to flooding as identified by floodplain mapping prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Department of Water Resources (DWR). The bill also requires, upon the next revision of the housing element, on or after January 1, 2009, the conservation element of the general plan to identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitat, and land that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management. By imposing new duties on local public officials, the bill creates a State-mandated local program.

This bill also requires, upon the next revision of the housing element, on or after January 1, 2009, the safety element to identify, among other things, information regarding flood hazards and to establish a set of comprehensive goals, policies, and objectives, based on specified information for the protection of the community from, among other things, the unreasonable risks of flooding.

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-43

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Assembly Bill 70 This bill provides that a city or county may be required to contribute its fair and reasonable share of the property damage caused by a flood to the extent that it has increased the State’s exposure to liability for property damage by unreasonably approving, as defined, new development in a previously undeveloped area, as defined, that is protected by a State flood control project, unless the city or county meets specified requirements.

CA Government Code The Senate and Assembly bills identified above have resulted in various changes and additions to the California Government Code. Key sections related to the above referenced bills are identified below.

Section 65302 Revised safety elements must include maps of any 200-year floodplains and levee protection zones within the Planning Area.

Section 65584.04 Any land having inadequate flood protection, as determined by the FEMA or DWR, must be excluded from land identified as suitable for urban development within the planning area.

Section 8589.4 California Government Code §8589.4, commonly referred to as the Potential Flooding-Dam Inundation Act, requires owners of dams to prepare maps showing potential inundation areas in the event of dam failure. A dam failure inundation zone is different from a flood hazard zone under the National Flood Insurance Program. NFIP flood zones are areas along streams or coasts where storm flooding is possible from a “100-year flood.” In contrast, a dam failure inundation zone is the area downstream from a dam that could be flooded in the event of dam failure due to an earthquake or other catastrophe. Dam failure inundation maps are reviewed and approved by the California Office of Emergency Services. Sellers of real estate within inundation zones are required to disclose this information to prospective buyers.

LOCAL City of Pittsburg Municipal Code Chapter 13.28 (Stormwater Management and Discharge Control) of the City of Pittsburg Municipal Code requires that every development project that is subject to the development requirements in the City’s NPDES permit is required to also submit and implement a stormwater control plan that meets the criteria in the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater Section C.3 Guidebook. Chapter 13.28 requires that development projects manage increases in runoff volume, flows, and durations in order to ensure that runoff rates from post construction will not exceed pre-construction rates and durations.

Chapter 15.80 (Floodplain Management) of the City of Pittsburg Municipal Code includes regulations to:

1. Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities; 2. Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; 3. Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel floodwaters; 4. Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage;

4-44 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

5. Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas.

This chapter also outlines the requirements for development within a special flood hazard area.

City of Pittsburg General Plan The existing City of Pittsburg General Plan identifies the following goals, policies, and implementation measures related to flooding:

Resource Conservation Element GOAL 9-G-4: Minimize the runoff and erosion caused by earth movement by requiring development to use best construction management practices.

GOAL 9-G-6: Preserve and protect the Contra Costa Canal from storm drainage and runoff contaminating the City’s municipal water supply.

POLICY 9-P-15: As part of development plans, require evaluation and implementation of appropriate measures for creek bank stabilization as well as necessary BMPs to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Encourage preservation of natural creeks and riparian habitat as best as possible.

POLICY 9-P-16: Establish development standards for new construction adjacent to riparian zones to reduce sedimentation and flooding. Standards should include:

• Requirements that low berms or other temporary structures such as protection fences be built between a construction site and riparian corridor to preclude sheet-flooding stormwater from entering the corridors during the construction period. • Requirements for installing of storm sewers before construction occurs to collect stormwater runoff during construction.

POLICY 9-P-17: To prevent flood hazards in the Kirker Creek watershed, ensure that new development minimizes paved areas, retaining large blocks of undisturbed, naturally vegetated habitat to allow for water infiltration.

Additional flood control mitigation may include intermixing areas of pavement with the naturally vegetated infiltration sites to reduce the concentration of stormwater runoff from pavement and structures.

POLICY 9-P-18: Require an encroachment permit from Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) for any storm drain facility crossing or encroaching onto Contra Costa Canal rights-of-way. Require all crossings to be constructed in accordance with CCWD standards and requirements.

POLICY 9-P-19: As part of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, establish regulations for the preservation of mature trees. Include measures for the replacement of all mature trees removed.

Trees are valuable along creeks and watersheds because their root systems help stabilize topsoil and reduce erosion.

POLICY 9-P-21: As part of project review and CEQA documentation, require an assessment of downstream drainage (creeks and channels) and City storm-water facilities impacted by potential project runoff.

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-45

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Calculate potential sedimentation and runoff based on the maximum storm event and determine necessary capacity of the downstream drainage system. If the project presents potential downstream sedimentation, runoff or flooding issues, require additional mitigation including but not limited to limitations on grading, construction only in dry seasons, and funding for downstream improvements, maintenance, and repairs.

GOAL 9-G-7: Comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources.

POLICY 9-P-21: Continue working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board in the implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), with specific requirements established in each NPDES permit.

POLICY 9-P-23: Require new urban development to use Best Management Practices to minimize creek bank instability, runoff of construction sediment, and flooding.

The City’s BMPs will ensure that new development projects consider the effects of construction debris and sediment on local water supplies. However, it is imperative that the City review and update the BMPs to promote state-of-the-art construction practices.

POLICY 9-P-24: Reduce sedimentation and erosion of waterways by minimizing site disturbance and vegetation removal along creek corridors.

POLICY 9-P-25: Encourage rehabilitation and revegetation of riparian corridors and wetlands throughout the City to contribute to bioremediation and improved water quality.

POLICY 9-P-26: Monitor water quality in the local creek and reservoir system to ensure clean supplies for human consumption and ecosystem health.

POLICY 9-P-27: Protect water quality by reducing non-point sources of pollution and the dumping of debris in and near creeks, storm drains, and Contra Costa Canal. Continue use and implementation of the City’s storm drain marking program in newly developed or redeveloped areas.

The quality of groundwater and water flowing into the City’s creeks is most likely to be affected by non-point pollution sources in Pittsburg. Urban development can potentially pose a threat to surface and groundwater quality through construction sediment, use of insecticides and herbicides, and related increases in automobile use.

POLICY 9-P-28: Prepare and disseminate information about the harmful effects of toxic chemical substances and safe alternative measures.

Brochures and a page on the City’s web site describing the harmful effects of toxic chemicals and alternatives, including information about safe alternatives to toxics for home and garden use, should be made available to residents of Pittsburg.

GOAL 10-G-8: Ensure that new development mitigates impacts to the City’s storm drainage capacity from storm water runoff in excess to runoff occurring from the property in its undeveloped state.

4-46 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

POLICY 10-P-18: Evaluate storm drainage needs for each development project in the context of demand and capacity when the drainage area is fully developed. Ensure drainage improvements or other mitigation of the project’s impacts on the storm drainage system appropriate to the project’s share of the cumulative effect.

POLICY 10-P-19: Assure through the Master Drainage Plan and development ordinances that proposed new development adequately provides for on-site and downstream mitigation of potential flood hazards.

POLICY 10-P-20: Develop and implement a Storm Flooding Mitigation Fee Program to fund required drainage improvements during construction of new development.

Cooperate with the County Flood Control District in developing a Storm Flooding Mitigation Fee Program for incorporated and unincorporated lands within the City’s watersheds.

POLICY 10-P-23: Ensure that all new development (residential, commercial, or industrial) contributes to the construction of drainage improvements in the Kirker Creek and other watersheds in the Planning Area, as required by the City’s adopted ordinances.

POLICY 10-P-24: Allow the construction of detention basins as mitigation in new developments. Ensure that detention basins located in residential neighborhoods, schools, or child-care facilities are surrounded by a gated enclosure, or protected by other safety measures.

The enclosure of detention basins, particularly in areas where small children are present, is necessary to ensure the safety of local residents when recessed areas are saturated with floodwaters.

POLICY 10-P-25: Ensure adequate minimum setbacks to reduce potential for property damage from storm flooding.

POLICY 10-P-26: Reduce the risk of localized and downstream flooding and runoff through the use of high infiltration measures, including the maximization of permeable landscape.

POLICY 10-P-27: Adopt practices for development and construction on sites where the erosion potential is moderate to severe.

POLICY 10-P-28: Bench terraces should be used where areas of long slopes may create a stormwater gradient flow. Berms should be constructed between any riparian corridor and the construction site to preclude sediment-laden stormwaters from entering riparian zones.

POLICY 10-P-30: Encourage residential development that includes post-construction Best Management Practices to minimize runoff from the site to the stormdrain system (for example, using permeable surfaces for parking lots, sidewalks, and bike paths, or using roof runoff as irrigation).

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit The cities of Clayton, Concord, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek, the towns of Danville and Moraga, Contra Costa County, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (the Contra Costa Permittees) joined together to form the Contra Costa Clean Water Program. The Permittees submitted a permit application (Report of Waste Discharge), dated September 30,

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-47

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

2003, for reissuance of their waste discharge requirements under the NPDES permit to discharge stormwater runoff from storm drains and watercourses within the Contra Costa Permittees’ jurisdictions. The application was approved and the Contra Costa Permittees are currently subject to NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, issued by Order No. R2-2009-0074 on October 14, 2009, which pertains to stormwater runoff discharge from storm drains and watercourses within their jurisdictions.

The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCCFCWCD) provides a variety of services related to flood protection within Contra Costa County. Such services include flood control planning and maintenance, development review and infrastructure financing fees, development of flood control standards, data collection and hydraulic modeling, and technical review of developments and environmental documents. The CCCFCWCD is separated into formed drainage areas, and new developments within drainage areas are assessed drainage fees. The proposed project is located in drainage area 48B, and is subject to the relevant CCCFCWCD fees for that drainage area.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Flooding is a temporary increase in water flow that overtops the banks of a river, stream, or drainage channel to inundate adjacent areas not normally covered by water.

Much of Pittsburg has steep topography and a minimal risk of flooding. However, there are low-lying areas of the City, as well as areas adjacent to streams, where flooding can occur. Localized flooding may occur in low spots or where infrastructure is unable to accommodate peak flows during a storm event. In most cases, water dissipates quickly after heavy rain ceases. For additional information on stormwater and drainage infrastructure see Chapter 3 (Community Services and Facilities).

CLIMATE Pittsburg experiences a hot summer Mediterranean climate, bordering on a semi-arid climate (Koppen climate classification system) because of the Mt. Diablo rain shadow in East Contra Costa County. Pittsburg averages approximately 16 inches of rain, on average, per year. Summers in the Planning Area are warm ranging from an average high in June of 91°F to an average low of approximately 58°F. Winters are cool and mild, with an average high of 58°F and a low of 38°F in January. Precipitation occurs as rain most of which falls between the months of November through March, peaking in January at 2.7 inches.

FEMA FLOOD ZONES The FEMA mapping provides important guidance for the City in planning for flooding events and regulating development within identified flood hazard areas. The FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program is intended to encourage State and local governments to adopt responsible floodplain management programs and flood measures. As part of the program, the NFIP defines floodplain and floodway boundaries that are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The FEMA FIRM for the Planning Area is shown on Figure 4.5-1.

Areas that are subject to flooding are indicated by a series of alphabetical symbols, indicating anticipated exposure to flood events:

• Zone A: Subject to 100-year flooding with no base flood elevation determined. Identified as an area that has a one percent chance of being flooded in any given year. • Zone AE: Subject to 100-year flooding with base flood elevations determined.

4-48 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

• Zone AH: Subject to 100-year flooding with flood depths between one and three feet being areas of ponding with base flood elevations determined. • 500-year Flood Zone: Subject to 500-year flooding. Identified as an area that has a 0.2 percent chance of being flooded in a given year. The Planning Area is subject to flooding problems along the natural creeks and drainages that traverse the area. The primary flood hazards are the creeks that travel north from Mt. Diablo (e.g. Diablo Creek, Kirker Creek) and low-lying areas adjacent to the tidal marsh zone along the northern portion of the Planning Area (including Winter Island and Browns Island). The low- lying areas in the northern portion of the Planning Area are located adjacent to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, which is subject to occasional flooding. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta consists of approximately 57 reclaimed islands and tracts, surrounded by 1,100 miles of levees that border 700 miles of waterways.

The 100-year floodplain is largely confined to the northern portion of the City limits and the creeks traveling downslope from Mt. Diablo. Similarly, the 500-year floodplain is located along a section of Kirker Creek, which travels downslope from Mt. Diablo, and along the border with the tidal marsh zone in the northern portion of the City limits. The Planning Area is located just to the west of the California’s Central Valley Watershed, in an area not subject to the requirements of SB 5.

DAM INUNDATION Earthquakes centered close to a dam are typically the most likely cause of dam failure. Dam Inundation maps have been required in California since 1972, following the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake and near failure of the Lower Van Norman Dam. The Planning Area has the potential to be inundated by one dam: the New Melones Dam. The dam inundation area for the Planning Area is shown in Figure 4.5-2. The New Melones dam is briefly described below:

• The New Melones Dam, owned and operated by Bureau of Reclamation’s Central Valley Project, is utilized for irrigation, power production, and downstream flood control. This earth and rockfill dam is located on the Stanislaus River in southern Mother Lode, off of Highway 49. New Melones Dam was completed in 1979 at a height of 625 feet and a storage capacity of 2,400,000 acre-feet. The New Melones Dam is a non-jurisdictional dam. This dam does not have a history of failure; however, it is identified as having the potential to inundate habitable portions of the Planning Area in the unlikely event of dam failure. The dam owner/operator, the Bureau of Reclamation, are responsible for the management, monitoring, and improvements to these dams to reduce the risk of dam failure and inundation.

Portions of the 100-year floodplain would be subject to inundation in the event of dam failure. Although the likelihood is remote, the area subject to inundation within the Study Area is not specifically defined, but would generally coincide with the area delineated as the 100-year floodplain.

Overall, the risk of dam failure inundating portions of the Planning Area is considered low. Dam failure can occur under three general conditions: as a result of an earthquake, an isolated incident due to structural instability, or because of intense rain in excess of design capacity.

Section 8589.5 of the California Government Code requires local jurisdictions to adopt emergency procedures for the evacuation of populated inundation areas identified by dam owners. The local Office of Emergency Services has prepared a Dam Failure Plan. This plan includes a description of dams, direction of floodwaters, responsibilities of local jurisdictions, and evacuation plans.

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-49

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

REFERENCES California Department of Conservation. 2002. California Geological Survey, Note 36.

California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Dams Owned and Operated by a Federal Agency and Dams within the Jurisdiction of the State of California. September 2012. Available: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/All-Programs/Division-of-safety-of-dams/Files/Publications/Dams-Within-Jurisdiction-of-the-State-of- California-2018-Alphabetically-by-Dam-Name.pdf

California Department of Water Resources. 2018. California Water Plan Update 2018. December 21, 2018. Available: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/California-Water- Plan/Docs/Update2018/PRD/California-Water-Plan-Update-2018-Public-Review-Draft.pdf

California Department of Water Resources. 2016. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Interim Update 2016. Published December 22, 2018. Available: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118

California Department of Water Resources. 1980. Groundwater Basins in California – A Report to the Legislature in Response to Water Code Section 12924. Bulletin 118 – 80. 73 p. January.

CalWater, California Interagency Watershed Mapping Committee. 2018. California Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). Available: https://data.ca.gov/dataset/watershed-boundary-dataset-wbd

City of Pittsburg. Last updated May 4, 2015. General Plan Pittsburg 2020: A Vision for the 21st Century. Available: http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/index.aspx?page=228

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2019. FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Version 1.1.1.0.

U.S. EPA. 2019. Waters GeoViewer. Available: https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer

4-50 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

4.6 NOISE KEY TERMS ACOUSTICS The science of sound.

AMBIENT NOISE The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given area consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre-project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.

ATTENUATION The reduction of noise.

A-WEIGHTING A frequency-response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response. CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24-hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 p.m. - 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of 10 prior to averaging.

DECIBEL OR DB Fundamental unit of sound, defined as ten times the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared.

FREQUENCY The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic acoustic signal, expressed in cycles per second or Hertz.

IMPULSIVE Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.

LDN Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.

LEQ Equivalent or energy-averaged sound level.

LMAX The highest root-mean-square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.

L(N) The sound level exceeded as a described percentile over a measurement period. For instance, an hourly

L50 is the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the one-hour period.

LOUDNESS A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.

NOISE Unwanted sound. SEL A rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train passby, that compresses the total sound energy into a one-second event

FUNDAMENTALS OF ACOUSTICS Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz).

Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-51

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals) as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.

The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A-weighted levels, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted.

The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70 dBA sound is half as loud as an 80 dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound.

Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady-state A-weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor,

Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.

The day/night average level (Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because

Ldn represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. CNEL is similar to Ldn, but includes a +3 dB penalty for evening noise. Table 4.6-1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations.

TABLE 4.6-1: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS NOISE LEVEL COMMON OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES COMMON INDOOR ACTIVITIES (DBA) --110-- Rock Band Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft) --100-- Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft) --90-- Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft), Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft) --80-- at 80 km/hr (50 mph) Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft) Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft) Commercial Area --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft) Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft) Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime --50-- Dishwasher in Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference Room (Background)

4-52 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

NOISE LEVEL COMMON OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES COMMON INDOOR ACTIVITIES (DBA) Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library Quiet Rural Nighttime --20-- Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background) --10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing SOURCE: CALTRANS, TECHNICAL NOISE SUPPLEMENT, TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS PROTOCOL. NOVEMBER 2009.

EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:

• Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction; • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; and • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling.

Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it.

With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:

• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and • A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response.

Stationary point sources of noise – including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles – attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e., atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FEDERAL Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) The FHWA has developed noise abatement criteria that are used for Federally funded roadway projects or projects that require Federal review. These criteria are discussed in detail in Title 23 Part 772 of the Federal Code of Regulations (23CFR772).

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-53

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The EPA has identified the relationship between noise levels and human response. The EPA has determined that over a 24- hour period, an Leq of 70 dBA will result in some hearing loss. Interference with activity and annoyance will not occur if exterior levels are maintained at an Leq of 55 dBA and interior levels at or below 45 dBA. Although these levels are relevant for planning and design and useful for informational purposes, they are not land use planning criteria because they do not consider economic cost, technical feasibility, or the needs of the community.

The EPA has set 55 dBA Ldn as the basic goal for residential environments. However, other Federal agencies, in consideration of their own program requirements and goals, as well as difficulty of actually achieving a goal of 55 dBA Ldn, have generally agreed on the 65 dBA Ldn level as being appropriate for residential uses. At 65 dBA Ldn activity interference is kept to a minimum, and annoyance levels are still low. It is also a level that can realistically be achieved.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was established in response to the Urban Development Act of 1965 (Public Law 90-448). HUD was tasked by the Act (Public Law 89-117) “to determine feasible methods of reducing the economic loss and hardships suffered by homeowners as a result of the depreciation in the value of their properties following the construction of airports in the vicinity of their homes.”

HUD first issued formal requirements related specifically to noise in 1971 (HUD Circular 1390.2). These requirements contained standards for exterior noise levels along with policies for approving HUD-supported or assisted housing projects in high noise areas. In general, these requirements established the following three zones:

• 65 dBA Ldn or less - an acceptable zone where all projects could be approved.

• Exceeding 65 dBA Ldn but not exceeding 75 dBA Ldn - a normally unacceptable zone where mitigation measures would be required and each project would have to be individually evaluated for approval or denial. These measures must provide 5 dBA of attenuation above the attenuation provided by standard construction required in a 65 to 70

dBA Ldn area and 10 dBA of attenuation in a 70 to 75 dBA Ldn area.

• Exceeding 75 dBA Ldn - an unacceptable zone in which projects would not, as a rule, be approved.

HUD’s regulations do not include interior noise standards. Rather a goal of 45 dBA Ldn is set forth and attenuation requirements are geared towards achieving that goal. HUD assumes that using standard construction techniques, any building will provide sufficient attenuation so that if the exterior level is 65 dBA Ldn or less, the interior level will be 45 dBA

Ldn or less. Thus, structural attenuation is assumed at 20 dBA. However, HUD regulations were promulgated solely for residential development requiring government funding and are not related to the operation of schools or churches.

The Federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the EPA. Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility’s or construction contractor’s health and safety plan. With the exception of construction workers involved in facility construction, occupational noise is irrelevant to this study and is not addressed further in this document.

STATE California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Caltrans has adopted policy and guidelines relating to traffic noise as outlined in the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (Caltrans 1998b). The noise abatement criteria specified in the protocol are the same as those specified by FHWA.

4-54 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) OPR has developed guidelines for the preparation of general plans (Office of Planning and Research, 1998). The guidelines include land use compatibility guidelines for noise exposure.

City of Pittsburg General Plan The City of Pittsburg General Plan Noise Element establishes goals and policies, as well as criteria for evaluating the compatibility of individual land uses with respect to noise exposure.

Noise Element: GOAL 12-G-1: Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing the effects of existing noise problems, and by preventing increased noise levels in the future.

GOAL 12-G-2: Encourage criteria such as building design and orientation, wider setbacks, and intense landscaping in lieu of sound walls to mitigate traffic noise along all major corridors, except along State Route 4.

GOAL 12-G-3: Continue efforts to incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions, and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses.

Policy 12-P-1: As part of development review, use Figure 12-3 [shown below] to determine acceptable uses and installation requirements in noise-impacted areas.

Figure 12-3 [shown below] is based on land use and noise exposure compatibility levels in Appendix A of the State of California General Plan Guidelines. The table is consistent with the provision of State law that requires special noise

insulation for new multi-family housing units within 60 dB Ldn noise exposure contours. The table’s land use categories do not correspond to the land use classifications on the General Plan Land Use Diagram, but to actual uses in development projects.

Policy 12-P-2: Work with Caltrans to provide sound walls designed to reduce noise by 10 dB in residential areas along State Route 4.

Policy 12-P-3: Support implementation of State legislation that requires reduction of noise from motorcycles, automobiles, trucks, trains, and aircraft.

Policy 12-P-4: Require noise attenuation programs for new development exposed to noise above normally acceptable levels. Encourage noise attenuation programs that avoid visible sound walls.

Policy 12-P-5: Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development, such as schools, residences, and hospitals, in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures.

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-55

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Policy 12-P-6: Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches, and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL (Figure 12-1), incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL.

4-56 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Policy 12-P-7: Require the control of noise at the source through site design, building design, landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques, for new development deemed to be noise generators.

Policy 12-P-8: Develop noise attenuation programs for mitigation of noise adjacent to existing residential areas, including such measures as wider setbacks, intense landscaping, double-pane windows, and building orientation muffling the noise source.

Policy 12-P-9: Limit generation of loud noises on construction sites adjacent to existing development to normal business hours between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.

Policy 12-P-10: Reduce the impact of truck traffic noise on residential areas by limiting such traffic to appropriate truck routes. Consider methods to restrict truck travel times in sensitive areas.

EXISTING NOISE LEVELS TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD 77-108) was used to develop Ldn (24-hour average) noise contours for all highways and major roadways in the Planning Area. The model is based upon the CALVENO noise emission factors for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA Model predicts hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions, and is generally considered to be accurate within 1.5 dB. To predict Ldn values, it is necessary to determine the hourly distribution of traffic for a typical 24-hour period.

Existing traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic modeling performed for the Planning Area. Day/night traffic distributions were based upon continuous hourly noise measurement data and Saxelby Acoustics file data for similar roadways. Caltrans vehicle truck counts were obtained for Highway 4. Using these data sources and the FHWA traffic noise prediction methodology, traffic noise levels were calculated for existing conditions. Table 4.6-2 shows the results of this analysis. The traffic noise modeling results are included in Appendix A.

TABLE 4.6-2: PREDICTED EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS NOISE LEVEL AT DISTANCES TO TRAFFIC NOISE ROADWAY SEGMENT CLOSEST RECEPTORS CONTOURS, LDN (FEET) 1 (DB, LDN) 70 DB 65 DB 60 DB Buchanan Road East of Loveridge 60.9 149 69 32 Evora Road West of San Marco 62.4 186 86 40 Harbor Street North of Buchanan 66.3 131 61 28 Kirker Pass Road South of Buchanan 70.0 346 161 75 N. Parkside Drive West of Railroad 65.1 110 51 24 Railroad Avenue North of Buchanan 64.9 106 49 23 Highway 4 West of Bailey 67.1 2186 1015 471 Highway 4 Bailey to Railroad 68.7 2101 975 453 Highway 4 Railroad to Somersville 68.2 1967 913 424 Highway 4 East of Somersville 72.4 1888 876 407 Willow Pass Road West of Bailey 62.9 78 36 17

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-57

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

NOISE LEVEL AT DISTANCES TO TRAFFIC NOISE ROADWAY SEGMENT CLOSEST RECEPTORS CONTOURS, LDN (FEET) 1 (DB, LDN) 70 DB 65 DB 60 DB Willow Pass Road East of Bailey 56.5 63 29 14 W. 10th Street West of Herb White 64.2 96 44 21 NOTES: DISTANCES TO TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS ARE MEASURED IN FEET FROM THE CENTERLINES OF THE ROADWAYS. 1 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS ARE PREDICTED AT THE CLOSEST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS OR AT A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET IN COMMERCIAL/RETAIL AREAS. SOURCE: TJKM, CALTRANS, SAXELBY ACOUSTICS., 2019.

Traffic noise levels are predicted at the sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each Planning Area roadway segment. In some locations, sensitive receptors may be located at distances which vary from the assumed calculation distance and may experience shielding from intervening barriers or sound walls. However, the traffic noise analysis is believed to be representative of the majority of sensitive receptors located closest to the Planning Area roadway segments analyzed in the noise analysis.

The actual distances to noise level contours may vary from the distances predicted by the FHWA model due to roadway curvature, grade, shielding from local topography or structures, elevated roadways, or elevated receivers. The distances reported in Table 4.6-2 are generally considered to be conservative estimates of noise exposure along roadways in the City of Pittsburg.

RAILROAD NOISE LEVELS In order to quantify noise exposure from existing train operations, continuous (24-hour) noise level measurement surveys were conducted along the Union Pacific (UP) railroad lines which run along the north side of the City. In addition to freight, the line also carries Amtrak commuter trains.

The purpose of the noise level measurements was to determine typical sound exposure levels (SEL) for railroad line operations, while accounting for the effects of travel speed, warning horns and other factors which may affect noise generation. In addition, the noise measurement equipment was programmed to identify individual train events so that the typical number of train operations could be determined.

Table 4.6-3 shows a summary of the continuous noise measurement results for railroad activity within the City.

TABLE 4.6-3: RAILROAD NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS MEASUREMENT RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING TRAIN EVENTS PER 24- AVERAGE SEL AT 165 LOCATION TRACK / WARNING HORN HOUR PERIOD FEET LT-1 U.P. and Amtrak Yes 24 97 dBA SOURCE: SAXELBY ACOUSTICS, 2019.

Noise measurement equipment consisted of Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 precision integrating sound level meters equipped with LDL ½" microphones. The measurement systems were calibrated using a LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator before and after testing. The measurement equipment meets all of the pertinent requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type 1 (precision) sound level meters.

To determine the distances to the day/night average (Ldn) railroad contours, it is necessary to calculate the Ldn for typical train operations. This was done using the SEL values and above-described number and distribution of daily train operations. The

Ldn may be calculated as follows:

4-58 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Ldn = SEL + 10 log Neq - 49.4 dB, where:

SEL is the mean Sound Exposure Level of the event, Neq is the sum of the number of daytime events (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) per day, plus 10 times the number of nighttime events (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) per day, and 49.4 is ten times the logarithm of the number of seconds per day. Based upon the above-described noise level data, number of operations and methods of calculation, the Ldn value for railroad line operations have been calculated, and the distances to the Ldn noise level contours are shown in Table 4.6-4.

TABLE 4.6-4: APPROXIMATE DISTANCES TO THE RAILROAD NOISE CONTOURS DISTANCE TO EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS, FEET EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL AT 100 FEET, LDN 60 DB LDN 65 DB LDN 70 DB LDN U.P. AND A.C.E LINE WITH WARNING HORNS 70 dB 461’ 214’ 99’ SOURCE: SAXELBY ACOUSTICS, 2019.

FIXED NOISE SOURCES The production of noise is a result of many industrial processes, even when the best available noise control technology is applied. Noise exposures within industrial facilities are controlled by Federal and State employee health and safety regulations (OSHA and Cal-OSHA), but exterior noise levels may exceed locally acceptable standards. Commercial, recreational, and public service facility activities can also produce noise which affects adjacent sensitive land uses. These noise sources can be continuous and may contain tonal components which have a potential to annoy individuals who live nearby. In addition, noise generation from fixed noise sources may vary based upon climatic conditions, time of day, and existing ambient noise levels.

In Pittsburg, fixed noise sources typically include parking lots, loading docks, parks, schools, and other commercial/retail use noise sources (HVAC, exhaust fans, etc.)

From a land use planning perspective, fixed-source noise control issues focus upon two goals:

1. To prevent the introduction of new noise-producing uses in noise-sensitive areas, and 2. To prevent encroachment of noise sensitive uses upon existing noise-producing facilities.

The first goal can be achieved by applying noise level performance standards to proposed new noise-producing uses. The second goal can be met by requiring that new noise-sensitive uses in near proximity to noise-producing facilities include mitigation measures that would ensure compliance with noise performance standards.

Fixed noise sources which are typically of concern include but are not limited to the following:

• HVAC Systems • Cooling Towers/Evaporative Condensers • Pump Stations • Lift Stations • Steam Valves • Steam Turbines • Generators • Fans • Air Compressors • Heavy Equipment • Conveyor Systems • Transformers • Pile Drivers • Grinders

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-59

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

• Drill Rigs • Gas or Diesel Motors • Welders • Cutting Equipment • Outdoor Speakers • Blowers • Chippers • Cutting Equipment • Loading Docks • Amplified Music and Voice

The types of uses which may typically produce the noise sources described above include, but are not limited to: wood processing facilities, pump stations, industrial/agricultural facilities, trucking operations, tire shops, auto maintenance shops, metal fabricating shops, shopping centers, drive-up windows, car washes, loading docks, public works projects, batch plants, bottling and canning plants, recycling centers, electric generating stations, race tracks, landfills, sand and gravel operations, and special events such as concerts and athletic fields. Typical noise levels associated with various types of stationary noise sources are shown in Table 4.6-5.

TABLE 4.6-5: TYPICAL STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LEVELS DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS, FEET NOISE LEVEL 50 DB LEQ 45 DB LEQ USE AT 100 FEET, 50 DB LEQ 45 DB LEQ 1 (WITH 5 DB (WITH 5 DB LEQ (NO SHIELDING) (NO SHIELDING) SHIELDING) SHIELDING) Auto Body Shop 56 dB 200 355 112 200 Auto Repair (Light) 53 dB 141 251 79 141 Busy Parking Lot 54 dB 158 281 89 158 Cabinet Shop 62 dB 398 708 224 398 Car Wash 63 dB 446 792 251 446 Cooling Tower 69 dB 889 1,581 500 889 Loading Dock 66 dB 596 1,059 335 596 Lumber Yard 68 dB 794 1,413 447 794 Maintenance Yard 68 dB 794 1,413 447 794 Outdoor Music Venue 90 dB 10,000 17,783 5,623 10,000 Paint Booth Exhaust 61 dB 355 631 200 355 School Playground / 54 dB 158 281 89 158 Neighborhood Park Skate Park 60 dB 316 562 178 316 Truck Circulation 48 dB 84 149 47 84 Vendor Deliveries 58 dB 251 446 141 251 1 ANALYSIS ASSUMES A SOURCE-RECEIVER DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET, NO SHIELDING, AND FLAT TOPOGRAPHY. ACTUAL NOISE LEVELS WILL VARY DEPENDING ON SITE CONDITIONS AND INTENSITY OF THE USE. THIS INFORMATION IS INTENDED AS A GENERAL RULE ONLY, AND IS NOT SUITABLE FOR FINAL SITE-SPECIFIC NOISE STUDIES. SOURCE: J.C. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2017.

COMMUNITY NOISE SURVEY A community noise survey was conducted to document ambient noise levels at various locations throughout the city. Short- term noise measurements were conducted at six locations throughout the city on June 24th and 26th, 2019. In addition, three continuous 24-hour noise monitoring sites were also conducted to record day-night statistical noise level trends. The data

4-60 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

collected included the hourly average (Leq), median (L50), and the maximum level (Lmax) during the measurement period. Noise monitoring sites and the measured noise levels at each site are summarized in Table 4.6-6 and Table 4.6-7. Figure 4.6- 2 shows the locations of the noise monitoring sites.

TABLE 4.6-6: EXISTING CONTINUOUS 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING RESULTS MEASURED HOURLY NOISE LEVELS, DBA LOW-HIGH (AVERAGE) SITE LOCATION DAYTIME NIGHTTIME (7:00 AM - 10:00 PM) (10:00 PM – 7:00 AM) LDN

(DBA) LEQ L50 LMAX LEQ L50 LMAX Americana Park 50 ft. from centerline of LT-1 70 67 63 83 63 56 79 North Parkside Dr. Ambrose Park 250 ft. from median of CA-4 / LT-2 75 70 70 82 68 66 79 BART Los Medanos College 40 ft. from median of LT-3 70 69 64 87 61 56 78 East Leland Rd. Kirker Pass Rd. at Castlewood Dr., 60 feet LT-4 from centerline of Kirker Pass Rd. (collected 68 65 62 83 61 54 78 06/25/2019) SOURCE: SAXELBY ACOUSTICS, 2019.

TABLE 4.6-7: EXISTING SHORT-TERM COMMUNITY NOISE MONITORING RESULTS MEASURED SOUND LEVEL, DB SITE LOCATION TIME¹ NOTES LEQ L50 LMAX Primary noise source is traffic on Rancho Bernado Dr. Larry Lasater ST-1 3:30 p.m. 47 45 60 Secondary noise source is activity from neighboring Park schools. Lynbrook Primary noise source is traffic on Kevin Dr. ST-2 3:50 p.m. 55 50 74 Park Secondary noise source is activity from park-goers. Primary noise source is train horn from adjacent California ST-3 10:47 a.m. 55 50 74 railway. Secondary noise source is activity from traffic Seasons Park on Winter Way and park-goers. Primary noise source is traffic on Winter Way. Columbia Linear ST-4 11:37 a.m. 52 50 58 Secondary noise source is traffic on Pittsburg Antioch Park Hwy. Primary noise source is traffic on Yosemite Drive and Buchanan ST-5 8:08 a.m. 50 48 65 Harbor Street. Secondary sources include park-goers Park and wildlife. Primary source of noise is traffic on Rangewood Highlands Ranch ST-6 8:31 a.m. 48 48 57 Drive. Secondary sources include park-goers and Park traffic on Buchanan Road. Primary source of noise is traffic on Summit Way. Markley Creek ST-7 1:05 p.m. 45 44 52 Secondary noise source is construction in adjacent Park vacant field north of park boundary. 1 - ALL COMMUNITY NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES HAVE TEST DURATIONS OF 10:00 MINUTES. SOURCE: SAXELBY ACOUSTICS, 2019.

Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report 4-61

4.0 HAZARDS, SAFETY AND NOISE

Community noise monitoring equipment included Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 812, 820, and 831 precision integrating sound level meters equipped with LDL ½" microphones. The measurement systems were calibrated using a LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator before and after testing. The measurement equipment meets all of the pertinent requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type 1 (precision) sound level meters.

The results of the community noise survey shown in Tables 4.6-8 and 4.6-9 indicate that existing transportation noise sources were the major contributor of noise observed during daytime hours, especially during vehicle passbys.

4-62 Envision Pittsburg Existing Conditions Report

Figure 4.1-1: HAZARDOUS SITES WITH AN ACTIVE SO LAN CO O C N OU CLEANUP STATUS TRA N CO TY STA CO UN Legend TY

Pittsburg City Limits Pittsburg Sphere of Influence Planning Area Neighboring City Cleanup Site Types: !( Port Chicago Hwy GeoTracker Database ") Cleanup Program Site ") LUST Cleanup Site Pacifica Ave E ") Military Cleanup Site r Third D ") St ") d !( ")!( !( EnviroStor Database o !( ") o ") !( !( ") !( ") !( Corrective Action iftw !( Dr Willow Pass Rd ")") ") Evo N Parkside Dr !( !( Non-Operating ra Rd !( ") E Fourteenth St ") !( !( Operating !( !(

!( State Response 4 t UV S ") !(") r !( o ") Voluntary Cleanup b ") W Leland Rd r a !( P H ittsb ") !( UV4 urg Antioch Hwy Lela nd R d Cen ") tury ") B ") lvd ")

") Buchanan Rd ") d R Antioch ille v rs e m o Concord S

Rd iley M Ba 0 ½ 1

Miles

rker Pass Ki Rd Sources: City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa County; California Department of Toxic Substance Control EnviroStor; California State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker; ArcGIS Online World Imagery Map Service. Map date: June 18, 2019. Figure 4.3-1: 113 Rio Vista UV12 UV Municpal Airport 84 NEARBY AIRPORTS Fairfield UV Rio Vista UV160 Legend Pittsburg City Limits Pittsburg Sphere of Influence S o l a n o C o u n t y 680 Planning Area ¨¦§ S a c r a m e n t o Grizzly Bay County Boundary C o u n t y Neighboring City r Airport Area ive R Benicia to en ÆP Hospital Heliport m Honker Bay ra ac UV160 Suisun Bay S

iver aquin R San Jo ¨¦§680 UV4

Martinez Buchanen Field Airport Oakley

UV242 Concord Antioch

Pleasant Hill Clayton Brentwood ÆP Walnut Creek ÆP Lafayette 24 UV C o n t r a C o s t a C o u n t y UV4

M ¨¦§680 Moraga 0 1 2

Miles Byron Danville Airport

Sources: CalTrans; City of Pittsburg; Contra Costa County. Map date: April 23, 2019. Figure 4.4-1:

SO S LAN p CO O Honker Bay o NT CO o Sac R U n ram FIRE HAZARD A C NT ento Ri OS Y B ver TA i CO ll UN C TY re SEVERITY ZONES ek Suisun Bay

Legend

r o Pittsburg City Limits a d

l o

Pittsburg Sphere of Influence u M g idd h le Planning Area S Port Chicago H McAvoy lo sta Can wy u tra Co al g Sherman Neighboring City Con Harbor h Lake Responsibility Areas N Pacifica Ave ew Local (LRA) r Marin E T Yo D a B hi rk lv d rd S Slo d t ugh State (SRA) o Willow Creek o WTe tw nth S S rif t an Federal (FRA) D Willow Pass Rd J Evora N Parks oa Rd ide Dr qu in Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA R E ive e F r v ou Moderate A rte t e d nt 4 S h UV a St o r r o High il Le b W Leland Rd land a r Rd R a Pi H 4 ttsbu Very High (none within mapped extent) UV rg A d ntioch Hwy e R W 10Th St Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA idg C E L r C on eland R e en tra C d v tury os o e ta L B There are no VHFHSZ within the in Ca lv v d C n M a a l l mapped extent t. a R D y r i o a to l b n w lo a C C L re an e a k l Buchanan Rd Antioch d R e ill v rs e m o S

Concord n o y n a C y le Rd rk iley a Ba M Contra Loma K ir Reservoir ke Ba r C il r ey ee C k t Galindo Creek er Pa irk ss Rd M K 0 ½ 1 Clayton Miles Walnut Creek Sources: CDF-FRAP fhszS06_3, SRA18_2, c7fhszl06_3; City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa County. Map date: April 18, 2019. Figure 4.4-2:

SO S LAN p CO O Honker Bay o NT CO o Sac R U n ram FIRE THREAT A C NT ento Ri OS Y B ver TA i CO ll UN C TY re TO PEOPLE ek Suisun Bay

Legend B

r o

a Pittsburg City Limits d

l o

u Pittsburg Sphere of Influence M g idd h le S Planning Area Port Chicago H McAvoy lo sta Can wy u tra Co al g Sherman Con Harbor h Neighboring City Lake County Boundary N Pacifica Ave ew r Marin E T Yo Fire Threat to People D a B hi rk lv d rd S Slo d t ugh o Willow Creek Little or No Threat o WTe tw nth S S rif t an D Willow Pass Rd J Moderate Threat Evora N Parks oa Rd ide Dr qu in R High Threat E ive e F r v ou A rte t e Very High Threat d nt 4 S h UV a St o r r o il Le b W Leland Rd land a r Rd R a P H ittsb 4 urg UV An Rd tioch Hwy W 10Th St dge C E L ri C on eland R e en tra C d v tury os o e ta L B in Ca lv v d C n M a a l l t. a R D y r i o a to l b n w lo a C C L re an e a k l Buchanan Rd Antioch d R e ill v rs e m o S

Concord n o y n a C y le Rd rk iley a Ba M Contra Loma K ir Reservoir ke Ba r C il r ey ee C k t Galindo Creek er Pa irk ss Rd M K 0 ½ 1 Clayton Miles Walnut Creek Sources: CDF-FRAP fthrt05_1, publication data 20040101; City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa County. Map date: April 18, 2019. Figure 4.5-1:

SO S LAN p CO O Honker Bay o NT CO o Sac R U n ram FEMA FLOOD ZONE A C NT ento Ri OS Y B ver TA i CO ll UN C DESIGNATIONS TY re ek Suisun Bay

Legend B

r o

Pittsburg City Limits S

l o

u Pittsburg Sphere of Influence M g idd h le S lo Planning Area Port Chicago Hwy McAvoy u g Sherman Harbor h Neighboring City Lake

N County Boundary Pacifica Ave ew r Marin E T Yo D a B hi rk lv d rd S Slo FEMA Designation d t ugh o Willow Creek o WTe tw nth S S 100-yr Flood Zone rif t an D Willow Pass Rd J Evora N Parks oa Rd ide Dr qu Regulatory Floodway in R E ive e F r 500-yr Flood Zone v ou A rte t e d nt 4 S h UV a St o r r Open Water l o i Le b W Leland Rd land a r Rd R a P H ittsb Possible but Undetermined Flood Hazard 4 urg UV An Rd tioch Hwy W 10Th St unshaded dge Area of Minimal Flood Hazard C E L ri C on eland R e en tra C d v tury os o e ta L B in Ca lv v d C n M a a l l t. a R D y r i o a to l b n w lo a C C L re an e a k l Buchanan Rd Antioch d R e ill v rs e m o S

Concord n o y n a C y le Rd rk iley a Ba M Contra Loma K ir Reservoir ke Ba r C il r ey ee C k t Galindo Creek er Pa irk ss Rd M K 0 ½ 1 Clayton Miles Walnut Creek Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Version 1.1.1.0, 20190205; City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa County. Map date: April 18, 2019. Figure 4.5-2:

SO S LAN p CO O Honker Bay o NT CO o Sac R U n ram DAM INUNDATION A C NT ento Ri OS Y B ver TA i CO ll UN C MAP TY re ek Suisun Bay

r o Legend a d

l Pittsburg City Limits o u M g idd h le Pittsburg Sphere of Influence S Port Chicago H McAvoy lo sta Can wy u tra Co al g Sherman Planning Area Con Harbor h Lake Neighboring City N Pacifica Ave ew

County Boundary r Marin E T Yo D a B hi rk lv d rd S Slo d t ugh New Melones Dam Inundation Area o Willow Creek o WTe tw nth S S rif t an D Willow Pass Rd J Evora N Parks oa Rd ide Dr qu in R E ive e F r v ou A rte t e d nt 4 S h UV a St o r r o il Le b W Leland Rd land a r Rd R a P H ittsb 4 urg UV An Rd tioch Hwy W 10Th St dge C E L ri C on eland R e en tra C d v tury os o e ta L B in Ca lv v d C n M a a l l t. a R D y r i o a to l b n w lo a C C L re an e a k l Buchanan Rd d R e Antioch ill v rs e m o Concord S

n o y n a C y le Rd rk iley a Ba M Contra Loma K ir Reservoir ke Ba r C il r ey ee C k t Galindo Creek er Pa irk ss Rd M K 0 ½ 1 Clayton Miles Walnut Creek Sources: California OES; City of Pittsburg, Contra Costa County. Map date: April 18, 2019.