Document elcerrito_gov_doc_bce8de23df

October 2010 PU BL IC R E V I E W D R A F T EL CER R I TO S A F E WAY PROJ EC T I N I T I A L ST U DY/ M I T IG AT ED N EG AT I V E DECL A R AT ION ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- reduce these impacts. The Initial Study did not identify any environmental topics as being associated with potentially significant impacts with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. 6. Initial Study and Negative Declaration: Project plans, an environmental analysis of the potential effects of the project and related background source materials may be reviewed at the following location: during normal business hours at the City of El Cerrito Planning Department, located at 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA; and on the City of El Cerrito’s main web page at www.el-cerrito.org. 7. Hazardous Materials: The site is listed on a hazardous materials database, but would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND. 8. Public Review: The public comment period for this environmental determination will begin on October 18, 2010. Anyone who wishes to comment on the findings of this environmental analysis must submit these comments in writing to attention of Jennifer Carmen, City of El Cerrito, Community Development Department, City Hall,10890 San Pablo Ave El Cerrito, CA 94530. Emailed comments may be sent to [EMAIL REDACTED]. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on November 16, 2010. 9. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration: Notice is hereby given that the City of El Cerrito Planning Commission will consider the adoption of this proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and its findings at a public hearing tentatively scheduled on November 17, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 10890 San Pablo Avenue, in El Cerrito. This proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration does not signify approval or disapproval of this project by City decision-making bodies. The final decision-making body will consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process to determine whether the project will have a significant impact on the environment. Jennifer Carman Planning Manager, City of El Cerrito ---PAGE BREAK--- Submitted to: City of El Cerrito Community Development Department City Hall, 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 [PHONE REDACTED] EL CER R I TO S A F E WAY PROJ EC T I N I T I A L ST U DY/ M I T IG AT ED N EG AT I V E DECL A R AT ION October 2010 PU BL IC R E V I E W D R A F T ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT i TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION B. DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE C. SUMMARY D. PROJECT E. ENVIRONMENTAL I. II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST III. AIR QUALITY IV. BIOLOGICAL V. CULTURAL VI. GEOLOGY AND VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY X. LAND USE AND PLANNING XI. MINERAL XII. NOISE XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING XIV. PUBLIC XV. XVI. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF F. REPORT G. H. CONTACTS APPENDICES APPENDIX A: AIR QUALITY DATA AND HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT APPENDIX B: GEOTECHNICAL STUDY APPENDIX C: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT APPENDIX D: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX E: NOISE DATA ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ii FIGURES Figure 1: Project Vicinity and Regional Location Figure 2: Aerial Figure 3: Existing Site Figure 4: Conceptual Site Figure 5a: Conceptual Elevation Views – West and North Figure 5b: Conceptual Elevation Views – East and Figure 6: Conceptual Landscape Figure 7: Project Site Vicinity and Study Figure 8: Former Target Store, Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 9: Existing Conditions, Peak Hour Traffic Figure 10: Inbound Trip Distribution and Figure 11: Outbound Trip Distribution and Assignment Figure 12: Existing Plus Project Conditions – Peak Hour Traffic Figure 13: Cumulative Conditions Without Project – Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 14: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions – Peak Hour Traffic Figure 15: Site Plan Recommendations TABLES Table 1: Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day Table 2: Project Inhalation Health Risks from Delivery Table 3: General Plan Noise Level Standards Table 4. Modeled Noise Levels at 50 feet from Roadway Centerline dBA Table 5: Signalized Intersection LOS Table 6: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Table 7. Trip Generation of Former Target Table 8: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Table 9: Trip Generation for Proposed Table 10: Existing Conditions – Project Trips as Percentage of Total Volume Table 11: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Table 12: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Signal Warrant Table 13: San Pablo Avenue Parking Table 14: Existing Plus Project With Improvements Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ...98 Table 15: Travel Time Comparison – With Table 16: Cumulative Conditions – Project Trips as Percentage of Total Table 17: Cumulative Conditions – Project Trips as Percentage of Other Table 18: Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Table 19: Cumulative Peak Hour Signal Warrant Analysis ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1 A. INTRODUCTION This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) includes an evaluation of the environ- mental effects of the proposed El Cerrito Safeway Project (project). All significant environmental impacts of the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures outlined in this document. Components of the IS/MND. The IS/MND includes the following components: • A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, the formal finding made by the City of El Cerrito (City) that the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment (after mitigation); • Summarized project information (including a list of agencies that would grant project approvals); • A detailed Project Description; • The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Checklist, which provides standards for determining whether a project’s environmental impacts would be significant in relation to 17 different topical areas. Brief discussions are provided outlining the project’s antici- pated environmental impacts in relation to each environmental topic, and mitigation measures are recommended to reduce each identified significant impact to a less-than-significant level. • Appendix materials that provide more detailed information on air quality, geotechnical analysis, hazardous materials, and traffic issues as they relate to the Safeway project. CEQA Process. The CEQA process for this project started after Safeway, Inc. (the project applicant) submitted applications for the following approvals and permits: an Administrative Use Permit; a Vesting Tentative Map; a Master Signage Program; and Design Review. Because these permits and approvals involve discretionary approvals by the City of El Cerrito (City) that could result in adverse environmental effects, the project is subject to CEQA. An Initial Study (IS), which comprises a portion of this document, was prepared to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND/MND) would need to be prepared to satisfy CEQA requirements. The analysis in this IS indicates that, with recommended mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts; therefore, an MND has been prepared. The IS/MND will be released for 30 days for public and agency review; at this time, individuals and agencies may submit comments on the adequacy of the environmental review. Following the public review period, the City will consider any comments received on the IS/MND in its decision to adopt the MND. After adoption of the MND, the City will decide whether to grant the discretionary approvals requested by the project applicant. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2 B. DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Name. El Cerrito Safeway Project Location. The project site is located in the City of El Cerrito in Contra Costa County. The project site is located at 11450 San Pablo Avenue, and is generally bound by the BART tracks and the Ohlone Greenway to the east, Hill Street to the north, San Pablo Avenue to the west, and Blake Street to the south. Description of Project. The project would result in the adaptive reuse of a vacant Target building to include 65,209 square foot Safeway grocery store and 16,652 square feet of independent retail shop space. Circulation changes to the project site would include the installation of a new right-in/right-out driveway on San Pablo Avenue as well as a truck loading area on Blake Street. The proposed project would also divide the existing project site into two separate parcels. The smaller “Hill Street Parcel” would be conveyed to the City for future development. While no specific development has been identified for the Hill Street Parcel, for purposes of this analysis it is assumed (pursuant to the ongoing San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan environmental review) to be developed with 56 dwelling units and 4,000 square feet of retail uses. As specific development details height, building footprint, parking configuration) are not known at this time, subsequent specific development on the site would be subject to further environmental review. Findings. It is hereby determined that, based on the information contained in the attached Initial Study, the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Mitigation measures necessary to avoid potentially significant effects on the environment are detailed on the following pages. These mitigation measures are hereby incorporated and are fully made part of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project applicant hereby agrees to incorporate as part of the project and implement each of the identified mitigation measures, which would be adopted as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. City of El Cerrito ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3 C. SUMMARY INFORMATION 1. Project Title: El Cerrito Safeway Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of El Cerrito Community Development Department City Hall, 10890 San Pablo Ave El Cerrito, CA 94530 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jennifer Carman, Planning Manager [PHONE REDACTED] 4. Project Location: The project site is a 5.93 acre site located at 14450 San Pablo Avenue in the City of El Cerrito, and is generally bound by the BART tracks and Ohlone Greenway to the east, Hill Street to the north, San Pablo Avenue to the west, and Blake Street to the south. Directional convention for the purpose of this IS/MND assumes San Pablo Avenue is a north-south roadway and Hill Street and Blake Street are east-west roadways. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Safeway, Inc. NorCal Division Todd Paradis 5918 Stoneridge Mall Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial/Mixed Use 7. Zoning: Transit Oriented Mixed-Use 8. Description of Project The project applicant proposes subdivision of an existing parcel the adaptive reuse of the existing building to include a 65,209 square foot Safeway grocery store and 16,652 square feet of other retail shop space. A new right turn-in/right turn-out driveway would be provided along San Pablo Avenue to serve the new retail shop space, and a new truck loading area would be installed on Blake Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4 Additionally, as part of the project, the project applicant is requesting a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to divide the site into two separate parcels. The first parcel (the “Safeway Parcel”) would be approximately 5.061 acres and would include the vacant Target building and a large portion of the parking lot. The second parcel (the “Hill Street Parcel”) will be located in the northern portion of the site and would be approximately 0.868 acres. The Hill Street Parcel would be conveyed to the City for future development. While at this time the City has not developed site plans or identified funding for development of the Hill Street Parcel, for purposes of the analysis within the IS/MND (pursuant to the ongoing San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan environmental review), it is assumed the site would be developed with 56 dwelling units and 4,000 square feet of retail uses. Specific development details height, building footprint, parking configuration, exterior façade) are not known at this time, and any subsequent specific development project on the Hill Street Parcel would be subject to further environmental review. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Ohlone Greenway and BART tracks are located immediately east of the project site. Hill Street forms the northern boundary of the project site. The El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station is located on the north side of Hill Street and includes a surface parking lot and platform station. The Del Norte BART Station Parking Garage is located east of the BART Station. San Pablo Avenue forms the western boundary of the project site. Commercial and residential uses are located west of the project site. Interstate 80 (I-80) is located further west and is visible from the project site. Blake Street forms the southern boundary of the project site. Uses located on the south side of Blake Street include multi-family residential, retail and office uses. Commercial and office uses are located further south. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) • California Department of Transportation • Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5 D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following section provides a description of the project and site vicinity, the history of the project site, a description of the proposed project, and requested approvals. 1. Setting of Project and Site Vicinity The project site is located in the City of El Cerrito in Contra Costa County. The project is proposed on a 5.93 acre site at 11450 San Pablo Avenue, and is generally bounded by the BART tracks and the Ohlone Greenway to the east, Hill Street to the north, San Pablo Avenue to the west, and Blake Street to the south.1 The site is designated as Commercial/ Mixed Use on the El Cerrito General Plan Land Use Map and is currently zoned as Transit Oriented Mixed-Use. See Figure 1 for a map of the project location and Figure 2 for an aerial photograph of the project site. Existing Site Uses. The project site is generally level, and includes a vacant parking lot on the northern portion of the site and a vacant Target building on the southern portion of the site. The existing one-story structure is approximately 84,958 square feet and includes an attached approximately 9,264 square foot garden center. The exterior of the existing building is a mix of tile and stucco. The entrance is located on the northern side of the building which fronts on the parking lot. The existing parking lot contains 388 parking spaces, with the majority of driving aisles oriented in a north/south direction. Safety lighting and planter trees are located throughout the parking lot. A truck loading area is provided at the northeast corner of the existing build- ing. Vehicle access to the site is provided via drive- ways on San Pablo Avenue and Hill Street. The entire site is currently surrounded by a chain link fence. Figure 3 illustrates the existing site plan for the project site. 1 The directional convention used in this IS/MND describes San Pablo Avenue as a north-south roadway and Hill Street and Blake Street as east-west roadways. Closed Target store from north end of site Parking lot, BART and Berkeley hills San Pablo Avenue frontage ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT SITE feet 650 0 325 project site true project Richmond 92 Petaluma 680 Oakland Vallejo 80 San Francisco San Leandro Richmond Berkeley Emeryville PROJECT LOCATION Emeryville Pacific Ocean San Rafael 101 580 880 580 280 San Rafael 680 24 Sausalito Sausalito SAN FRANCISCO BAY Brisbane REGIONAL LOCATION El Cerrito FIGURE 1 El Cerrito Safeway Project IS/MND Project Vicinity and Regional Location SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\figures\Fig_1.ai (3/5/10) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 7 Surrounding Land Uses. The Ohlone Greenway and BART tracks are located immediately east of the project site. Electrical equipment associated with the BART system is located adjacent to the northeast corner of the property. Residential uses are located further east of the project site. Hill Street forms the northern boundary of the project site. The El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station is located on the north side of Hill Street and includes a surface parking lot and platform station. The Del Norte BART Station Parking Garage is located east of the BART Station. A mix of commercial uses is located further north along the San Pablo Avenue Corridor. San Pablo Avenue forms the western boundary of the project site. Commercial and residential uses are located west of the project site. Interstate 80 (I-80) is located further west and is visible from the project site. Blake Street forms the southern boundary of the project site. Uses located on the south side of Blake Street include multi-family residential, retail and office uses. Commercial and office uses are located further south along the San Pablo Avenue Corridor. 2. History of Project Site The construction of the existing Target store was initiated in 1988 and was the result of a collaboration between the City of El Cerrito Redevelopment Agency (Agency) and Target Corporation. The Agency acquired the two parcels that comprise the existing project site, and construction of the El Cerrito Target Store was initiated in September 1991 and completed in July 1992. This Target Store remained in operation until July 2008, and has remained vacant since then. Prior to development of the Target store, the project site contained urban uses. The 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps show the site was comprised of a number of parcels of varying size, which included an auto camp, filling station, homestead, and fruit shed. In 1949, the northern portion of the project site was developed with a building materials facility, which was redeveloped into a bowling alley in the 1960s.2 While the businesses located on the project site may have changed throughout the years, the site has largely been developed with urban uses (commercial/residential) for the last 80 years. 2 Kleinfelder, 2009. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed Site of Safeway Store No. 2940, 11450 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, California. June 10. Ohlone Greenway, looking north from Blake Street BART Station, looking north from site Nearby shopping center, looking northwest from site ---PAGE BREAK--- Hill St Hill St Blake St Blake St San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Eastshore Blvd Eastshore Blvd Potrero Ave Potrero Ave Potrero Ave Potrero Ave Peerl ess A ve Lexington Ave Lexington Ave Liberty St Liberty St Richmond St Richmond St Ohlone Greenway Ohlone Greenway Cutting Blvd Cutting Blvd Kearney St Kearney St S. 52nd St S. 52nd St El Cerrito El Cerrito Del Norte Del Norte BART Station BART Station Staples Staples Orchard Orchard Supply Supply Hardware Hardware Hill St Blake St San Pablo Ave Eastshore Blvd Potrero Ave Potrero Ave Peerl ess A ve Lexington Ave Liberty St Richmond St Ohlone Greenway Cutting Blvd Kearney St S. 52nd St El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station Staples Orchard Supply Hardware 80 feet 300 0 150 project site true project FIGURE 2 SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, 2009; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010. I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\figures\Fig_2.ai (3/5/10) El Cerrito Safeway Project IS/MND Aerial Photograph ---PAGE BREAK--- 8"W PLANTER 6' HIGH C/L FENCE OR 5.929 acres AREA: 258, 264 sq. ft. AC GATE CONC. CONCRETE WALK METAL 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 0 30 30 60 30 120 15 CONC. S WK PLANTE R CONC. PLANTE R CONC. S WK AC PAVEMENT DIRT DOOR S AC PAVEMENT (TYP) CONC. ISLAND CONC. ISLAND CONC. AD PLANTE R BRICK BRICK R OOF OVE R HANG ROOF OVERHANG CONC. STEPS UNDER SWK 4"X12" DRAIN R AMP PAVEMENT BRICK CONCR E TE CONCR E TE GATE ME TAL GR ATE DETECTOR INV=45.8± RIM=52.35 SSMH INV=47.6± THRU INV=48.8± IN RIM=52.39 SDMH CB GR=51.39 INV=47.1± SIGN ID SSMH RIM=52.02 INV=44.3± INV=47.8± RIM=54.52 SSMH SDMH RIM=57.95 INV=53.7± G HEADWALL CONC. STREET KEARNEY INV=45.0± RIM=51.96 SSMH SIGN ID INV=49.9± RIM=57.65 SDMH INV=50.6± GR=51.72 CB EB SIGN 35.78' S 27º48'10"E 289.99' S 62º22'31" W 34.92' S 30º39'27"E L = 23.62' R = 15.00' = 90º13'31" L = 23.55' R = 15.00' = 89º56'59" 291.73' N62º11'50"E 765.33' N 28º01'41" W 328.29' S 62º01'20" W 795.31' S 30º39'27" E APN: 502-100-040-0 B. A. R. T. D. BLAKE S TR E E T HILL S TR E E T SAN PABLO AVENUE G G G G G G G G JT JT JT G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G E E E E E E E E E JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W 6"W 6"W 6"W 6"W 6"W 6"W 8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W 8"W W W W W W W W W W W W W 6"S S 6"S S 6"S S 6"S S 6"S S 6"S S 6"S S 6"SS S S " 6 S S " 6 6"SS 6"SS S S " 6 S S " 6 6"SS S S " 6 S S " 6 S S " 6 S S " 6 S S " 6 S S " 6 S S " 6 S S " 6 S S " 6 6"SS 6"SS 8"S S 6"S S 6"S S 8"S S 8"S S 8"S S 8"S S 8"S S 8"S S S S 18"S D S S S S 38"x60" S D 38"x60" S D 38"x60" S D 38"x60" S D 10"S D 10"S D 10"S D 10"S D 10"S D 10"S D SDCO D S D 38"x60" 4'x3' CONC. BOX 10"S D 10"SD SDCO D D D D 6"S D 6"S D 12"S D 15"S D 15"S D 8"S D 8"S D 15"SD 15"SD 15"SD 15"SD 15"SD 15"SD D D S D S D 30"S D 30"S D 30"S D 30"S D 30"S D 30"S D 30"S D D 18"S D 15"S D 15"S D 15"S D 12"S D SCO S STOP & RIGHT TURN ONLY SIGN AD AD LOADING RAMP CONCRETE DIRECTIONAL PARKING HANDICAPPED AHEAD SIGN PED CROSSING RIGHT SIGN MUST TURN RIGHT LANE CONC. DWY STOP SIGN INV=49.5± CB GR=52.83 INV=49.3± GR=51.06 CB INV=48.7± GR=52.55 CB INV=49.0± GR=53.17 CB INV=49.9± GR=53.40 CB CB GR=53.48 INV=49.8± CB GR=53.24 INV=50.1± CB GR=53.13 INV=49.2± INV=49.4± GR=53.44 CB SCO SDCO TB WM SLB 8"STUMP SLB SLB EB WM SLB SLB SLB TSB TB SLB TSB TB TSB EB EB EB WM WM WM COL. STOP SIGN S GM FDC ASR 2-PIV D Y H WV WV WV D Y H D Y H WV WV WV WV WV WV WV T FENCE (TYP.) CONSTRUCTION FENCED ENCLOSURE DOOR DOOR DOOR CONC. CONC. CONC. CONCRETE WALK (TYP.) CONC. COL PROBABLE PUBLIC STORM DRAIN ENCROACHMENT BART PAVING ENCROCHMENT TO 20'± INTO PROPERTY PROBABLE PUBLIC STORM DRAIN ENCROACHMENT PROBABLE PUBLIC STORM DRAIN ENCROACHMENT 25 73 74 76 76 39 25 project true feet 0 30 60 SOURCE: JOHNSON LYMAN ARCHITECTS, 12/10/09 I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\Figures\Fig_3-11x17.ai (3/5/10) El Cerrito Safeway Project IS/MND Existing Site Plan FIGURE 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- project true feet 0 45 90 hill street parcel SOURCE: JOHNSON LYMAN ARCHITECTS, 5/25/10 I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\Figures\Fig_4-11x17.ai (5/27/10) El Cerrito Safeway Project IS/MND Conceptual Site Plan FIGURE 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 30" high Internally illuminated individual letter signage (typ) 25' 0" 25' 0" Bart Track Plaster Decorative Cornice Aluminum & Glass Storefronts Decorative Metal Rail Composite Panels Composite Siding Metal Trellis 24' 0" Glass tower Corner feature 24' 0" Frosted Glass 22' 6" 30'6" 26'0" 60" high Internally illuminated individual letter signage Slate Glass tower Corner feature Frosted Glass 28'0" 24' 0" Composite Siding with Cedar stain 48" round Internally illuminated signage 48" high slate wall @ plaza with 48" round Internally illuminated signage feet 0 20 40 SOURCE: JOHNSON LYMAN ARCHITECTS, 5/24/10 I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\Figures\Fig_5a-11x17.ai (4/27/10) El Cerrito Safeway Project IS/MND Conceptual Elevation Views - West and North FIGURE 5a West Elevation - From San Pablo Avenue North Elevation - From Parking Area ---PAGE BREAK--- Shops Safeway Plaster 27' 0" 23' 0" Compactor Trellis with screen wall @ Loading Area Mechanical Screen Rooftop signage Plaster Refuse Enclosure 10' 0' 20' 30' 40' Plaster Service Doors 23' 0" 27' 0" 26' 0" Aluminum & Glass storefront Mechanical Screen Trellis with lattice Plaza with low wall Rooftop signage Grade of Ohlone Trail Shown dotted Decorative Cornice Bart Structure shown dotted feet 0 20 40 SOURCE: JOHNSON LYMAN ARCHITECTS, 5/24/10 I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\Figures\Fig_5b-11x17.ai (10/12/10) El Cerrito Safeway Project IS/MND Conceptual Elevation Views - East and South FIGURE 5b East Elevation - From Ohlone Trail South Elevation - From Blake Street ---PAGE BREAK--- project true not to scale SOURCE: PACIFIC LAND SERVICES, 5/25/10 I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\Figures\Fig_6-11x17.ai (5/27/10) El Cerrito Safeway Project IS/MND Conceptual Landscape Plan FIGURE 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 19 3. Proposed Project The following section describes the components of the proposed project. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 4. Conceptual elevations of the store are shown in Figure 5. Safeway Grocery Store. The project applicant proposes the adaptive reuse of the existing building to include an approximately 65,209 square foot grocery store and approximately 16,652 square feet of other retail shop space (described below). The front of the grocery store would be located on the north side of the building and would face the parking lot. The truck loading area would be relocated so that trucks would enter the site from Blake Street. This “Lifestyle” grocery store would include the following departments: Deli; Bakery; Beer & Wine; Pharmacy; Service Meat and Seafood; Produce; and Starbucks. Some snacks and drinks would be available for onsite consumption. A new outdoor seating area would be located at the northeast corner of the building. The exterior of the building would be developed with a contemporary façade that would include a mixture of composite siding, plaster, metal and glass. Illuminated signage would also be incorporated into the exterior design. Please see Figure 5 for conceptual elevations of the building. Retail Shops. Approximately 16,652 square feet of the building would be developed for a series of independent retail shops. This area would be located on the west side of the building and would front on San Pablo Avenue. While no specific tenants have been identified for this area, it is anticipated that uses in this space could include retail, restaurants, and/or business/professional offices. As part of the project, the applicant is requesting a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map that would create a commercial condominium project with 10 condominium units. Subdivision of the Parcel. The Vesting Tentative Parcel Map requested by the project applicant would also subdivide the site into two separate parcels. The first parcel (the “Safeway Parcel”) would be approximately 5.061 acres and would include the vacant Target building and a large portion of the parking lot. The second parcel (the “Hill Street Parcel”) will be located in the northern portion of the site and would be approximately 0.868 acres. The Hill Street Parcel would be conveyed to the City for future development. The location of this parcel is shown in Figure 4. Mixed Use Building. Currently, the City has not developed site plans or identified funding for development of the Hill Street Parcel. However, for purposes of the analysis within the IS/MND (pursuant to the ongoing San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan environmental review), it is assumed that this site would be developed with 56 dwelling units and 4,000 square feet of retail uses. Specific development details height, building footprint, parking, exterior façade) are not known at this point in time, and any subsequent specific development proposal on this site would be subject to further environmental review. Parking. The proposed project would include 381 parking spaces within the surface parking lot (including those on the Hill Street Parcel). The surface parking lot spaces would be generally located in the same configuration as currently exists, with the majority of parking aisles running in a north/south direction. The existing parking lot lighting fixtures would remain. When the Hill Street ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 20 Parcel is developed, 240 parking spaces would be available within the remaining area of the surface parking lot. Fifteen new parking spaces, located along San Pablo Avenue, would be provided for the retail shops. These spaces would be accessed by a new right turn-in/right turn-out driveway, as shown in Figure 4. Circulation. Access to the surface parking lot would be provided off of San Pablo Avenue and Hill Street. As noted above, a new right turn-in/right turn-out driveway would be provided along San Pablo Avenue to serve the new retail shop space. To make deliveries to the project site, the applicant anticipates delivery trucks to take north bound Kearney Street, then to turn left on Blake Street to allow for trucks to back into the delivery docks. To leave the site, trucks would exit Blake Street to the west and turn right onto San Pablo Avenue. Bicycle and pedestrian access to the site would also be provided off the Ohlone Greenway. A direct connection from the Ohlone Greenway to the project site would be provided at the outdoor seating area at the northeast portion of the building. Bike lockers would be incorporated into the project site at this location. Bike racks would be provided on the north and west sides of the building. Site Operations. The project applicant anticipates that the Safeway would be open 24 hours a day and employ approximately 177 employees. Truck deliveries would occur throughout the day and may also occur at night. The applicant anticipates approximately 5 larger (65 foot) semi trailer trucks and 10 smaller trucks would make deliveries per day. The Safeway store will also operate an internet-based food ordering and delivery service. It is antici- pated that smaller delivery trucks would be used for this service. While the types of uses that would occupy the retail shops space are not yet known, it is anticipated that they would generate approximately 50 employees. Given the location and scale of the retail shops, it is likely that truck deliveries would be made by smaller trucks. Landscaping. Landscaping is proposed for the site frontage, interior parking lot, and side yards, and can be seen in Figure 6. Approximately 98 existing trees would be removed, and approximately 88 trees would be planted on site. An irrigation system would be installed to allow remote management and automatic irrigation schedule adjustment based on real-time weather data. Greenway Master Plan. As part of the project, the applicant would make improvements to the Ohlone Greenway or provide the City and Redevelopment Agency with an $487,000 in-lieu fee. Construction Schedule. The project applicant anticipates that the renovation of the existing structure and improvements to the site would require approximately 5 months to complete. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 21 4. Requested Approvals The project applicant is requesting the following approvals: • An Administrative Use Permit for general market use and minor variations from the City’s landscaping ordinance • A Vesting Tentative Map (including a commercial condominium plan) • Design Review of the Project • Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 22 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. „ Aesthetics ˆ Agricultural and Forestry Resources „ Air Quality „ Biological Resources „ Cultural Resources „ Geology/Soils ˆ Greenhouse Gas Emissions „ Hazards & Hazardous Materials „ Hydrology/Water Quality ˆ Land Use/Planning ˆ Mineral Resources „ Noise ˆ Population/Housing ˆ Public Services ˆ Recreation „ Transportation/Traffic ˆ Utilities/Service Systems „ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination. (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ˆ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ˆ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ˆ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been ade- quately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ˆ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Jennifer Carman, AICP, Planning Manager, City of El Cerrito ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 23 E. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qual- ity of the site and its surroundings? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Scenic vistas in the City of El Cerrito include views from public spaces and streets in upper hillside areas that encompass notable Bay Area landmarks such as San Francisco and San Pablo bays, Mt. Tamalpais, Marin County, and the Golden Gate Bridge. Scenic vistas also include views to the east, of the East Bay Hills and Albany Hill. The General Plan includes policies to preserve key public views of the Bay and other prominent visual resources, including the hillsides.3 Implementation of the Safeway project would result in the adaptive reuse of an existing structure; the height and building mass of the building would not significantly change. While there would be altera- tions to the building exterior, parking areas, and landscaping, these changes would not be expected to significantly impact a scenic vista. Development of the Hill Street Parcel may occur in the future; however, unknown at this time are the building type, number of stories, or other design details of this potential structure. The Safeway Parcel and the Hill Street Parcel are located on San Pablo Avenue, an urban commercial corridor that is highly developed with big box and multi-story buildings. The Hill Street Parcel development would be required to adhere to the building standards outlined in the City of El Cerrito Zoning Ordinance, as well as the design guidelines outlined in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan4 (when adopted by the City of El Cerrito City Council). Given the application of these policies and design guidelines, devel- opment of the Hill Street Parcel would not have a significant impact on a scenic vista. 3 City of El Cerrito, 1999. City of El Cerrito General Plan, August 30. 4 MIG, 2009. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, Draft Plan, City of El Cerrito and City of Richmond, July. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 24 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? (No Impact) The only officially designated State scenic highways within Contra Costa County are portions of Highway 24 and Interstate 680.5 The project site is not visible from these highways. Therefore, the proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a designated State scenic highway. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The following discussion summarizes the proposed project’s impacts on both the visual character of the project site, as well as the visual character of the surrounding neighborhood. Visual Character of the Site. Implementation of the Safeway project would not degrade the visual character of the project site. Currently, the main visual characteristic of the project site is a vacant Target building with a vacant parking lot. The existing site includes minimal landscaping, and is currently surrounded by chain link fencing. As shown in Figures 5a and 5b, implementation of the project would result in an adaptive reuse of the existing building on site. A variety of façade materials, including plaster, slate, composite siding, frosted glass, and metal would be incorporated into the exterior of the structure. Additionally, decora- tive features, including trellises and landscaping, would be incorporated into the project to further add visual interest to the site. Please see Figure 6 which shows landscaping details. Implementation of the Safeway project would not degrade the existing visual character of the project site and would generally be recognized as an improvement when compared to existing conditions. Currently, no site plans have been proposed or developed for the Hill Street Parcel development. The City of El Cerrito would require that any proposed project for the Hill Street Parcel undergo Design Review. Additionally, the project would be required to adhere to the building standards outlined in the City of El Cerrito Zoning Ordinance, as well as the design guidelines outlined in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Visual Character of the Surrounding Area. The project site is located on San Pablo Avenue, which is a major vehicle arterial roadway for El Cerrito and surrounding cities, as well as a busy commercial corridor. A mix of building types are located in the surrounding area, including big box retail build- ings, single-story strip mall development, and multi-story structures. The proposed Safeway building would be consistent with the existing development in the area. While no building details are known for the future Hill Street Parcel development, that project would be required to adhere to the building standards outlined in the City of El Cerrito Zoning Ordinance, as well as the design guidelines outlined in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and would generally complement adjacent and nearby development. 5 California Department of Transportation, 2010. California Scenic Highway Program. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. (accessed March 23). ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 25 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Lighting. The project site is located in an urban area with a significant amount of nighttime lighting to enhance public safety. While the project site is currently vacant, lighting of the parking lot at night is still utilized for security purposes. Parking lot lighting under the proposed project would stay the same as currently exists. While illuminated signage would be incorporated into the proposed Safeway building, this signage would be similar to other developments in the area and along San Pablo Avenue. As no site plans have been developed for the Hill Street Parcel development, it is unknown what type of lighting would be incorporated into the site plan. As such, the following mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures AES-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Hill Street Parcel appli- cant shall submit a lighting plan for City review and approval. The plan shall include provisions to ensure that outdoor lighting is designed, located, installed, directed and shielded in such a manner as to prevent glare across property lines, and to ensure exterior lighting is directed downward and away from property lines. Glare. As shown in the conceptual elevation included as Figures 5a and 5b, the proposed project would incorporate new exterior façade materials. These materials would include significantly more glass details than the current building includes, which could produce glare. The following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure AES-2: The Safeway applicant shall incorporate into the project glass, surfaces that are non-mirrored or include non-reflective films, coatings and shade devices to reduce glare. Lighting design shall not include “accent up-lighting” to avoid glare to surround- ing properties. The architectural detail regarding glass shall be reviewed and approved by the City during the design review process. As there are no design details regarding the potential Hill Street Parcel development, the following mitigation measure would reduce any glare impacts related to that project component to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure AES-3: The Hill Street Parcel applicant shall incorporate into the project glass, surfaces that are non-mirrored or include non-reflective films, coatings and shade devices to reduce glare. Lighting design shall not include “accent up-lighting” to avoid glare to sur- rounding properties. The architectural detail regarding glass shall be reviewed and approved by the City during the design review process. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 26 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ˆ ˆ ˆ e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ˆ ˆ ˆ ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 27 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farm- land), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Pro- gram of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (No Impact) No agricultural resources are located on or near the project site. The project site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the State Department of Conservation.6 Implementation of the proposed project would not convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses and is not operated under a Williamson Act contract. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (No Impact) The project site is located in an urban area of El Cerrito, and approximately 90 percent of the site is covered in impervious surfaces. The project site would not meet the definition of forest land (as defined by Public Resources Codes Section 12220 timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zone Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g). d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (No Impact) The project site is located in an urban area of El Cerrito, and approximately 90 percent of the site is covered in impervious surfaces. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (No Impact) The project site is located in an urban area and is not used for farming. 6 California Department of Conservation, 2010. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2008/con08.pdf. (Accessed March 23). ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 28 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the fol- lowing determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applica- ble air quality plan? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substan- tially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ˆ ˆ ˆ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less-than- Significant Impact) The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards. Such plans describe air pollution control strategies to be imple- mented by a city, county or region. The City of El Cerrito is located in the San Francisco Bay air basin and is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD prepares a Clean Air Plan (CAP) in coordination with the Metropolitan Transporta- tion Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). On January 4, 2006, the BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, which is the most recently adopted Clean Air Plan. The control strategy for the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy is to implement all feasible measures on an expeditious schedule in order to reduce emissions of ozone precursors and consequently reduce ozone levels in the Bay Area and reduce transport to downwind regions. The latest draft Clean Air Plan, 2010 Clean Air Plan, is expected to be adopted by BAAQMD later this year and will contain district-wide control measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions ROG and NOx) and particulate matter. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan will: ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 29 • Update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone; • Provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter (PM), air toxics, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan; • Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and • Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010-2012 timeframe. The BAAQMD Guidelines7 present the following elements for evaluation of consistency between the General Plan and the CAP: • General Plan population projections are consistent with CAP and ABAG projections; • Rate of increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) does not exceed rate of increase in population; • General Plan implements CAP transportation control measures; and • General Plan provides buffer zones around sources of odors, toxics and accidental releases. The City of El Cerrito General Plan is consistent with both the existing and proposed Clean Air Plans. The Safeway project is consistent with the General Plan. However, due to the lack of a specific site plan, it is unknown at this time if the Hill Street Parcel development will be consistent with the General Plan. For changes in land use, the BAAQMD Guidelines recommend that the impact of the change in land use designation with respect to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and the potential for the project to expose sensitive receptors to sources of objectionable odors, toxics, or accidental releases of hazardous materials be evaluated. The “Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project,” endorsed by the BAAQMD, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), has found that communities can promote transit, walking, and cycling by encouraging compact, infill development providing a mix of uses of moderate or high densities. Increasing the amount of housing within the Bay Area to accommodate the region’s growing workforce and slow the movement of Bay Area workers to neighboring counties for more affordable housing is among the key principles of the Smart Growth Project vision.8 Because the average growth in employment in the Bay Area is projected to be 1.3 percent per year between 2010 and 2030 and the average growth in population only 0.7 percent per year, providing more housing in areas, such as El Cerrito, which are closer to the urban centers of the Bay Area will help to reduce VMT since employees will be closer to the centers of employment. The project is also located within walking distance of the El Cerrito Del Norte BART station, which would also help to reduce VMT. Therefore, the potential change in any land use designation to accommodate the Hill Street Parcel development would be consistent with the strategies being developed in the CAP to bring the Basin into compliance with national and State air quality standards. A search of the BAAQMD’s permitted toxic air contaminant source database indicates the project site is not located near any existing toxic sources. The City of El Cerrito’s General Plan is consistent with 7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. June. 8 MTC, 2005. Transportation 2030 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, February. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 30 the CAP, and any change in land use designation that might be required for the Hill Street Parcel would conform to the Smart Growth Project objectives; the change in land use designation would not expose sensitive receptors to objectionable odors, toxics, or accidental releases of hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air qual- ity violation? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Construction Impacts. The City of El Cerrito uses the threshold of significance established by the BAAQMD to assess air quality impacts. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include a proposed significance threshold for the two ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5) for construction activities.9 The significance criteria for PM10 and PM2.5 are based on exhaust emissions only. Temporary air quality impacts may result from renovation of the existing structures and other construction activities on the project site. The BAAQMD has established a construction-related screening criteria size of 277,000 square feet for supermarkets and retail stores and 240 dwelling units for low-rise apartments. Projects below this screening criteria size would be considered less than significant for construction emissions. The Safeway project includes approximately 65,209 square foot grocery store and approximately 16,652 square feet of other retail shop space, and it is assumed the Hill Street Parcel development would include 56 dwelling units with 4,000 square feet of retail uses. Even with the combined land uses, the project would be below the construction-related screening criteria size and therefore additional analysis of construction emissions is not required. However, for all proposed projects, BAAQMD recommends the implementation of all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce particulate and exhaust emissions to a less than significant level. Therefore, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The following construction practices shall be implemented at the project site during the construction and pre-construction phases of the project: • All exposed surfaces parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. June. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 31 • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • A publicly visible sign shall be installed with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of El Cerrito regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take correc- tive action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce air quality construction impacts to a less- than-significant level. Operational Air Quality Impacts. Long-term air emission impacts are those associated with station- ary sources and mobile sources. Stationary source emissions result from the consumption of natural gas and electricity. Mobile source emissions result from vehicle trips generated by the project and therefore result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire air basin. Regional emissions associated with the project’s area source and operational source emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2007 model. The incremental daily emission increase associated with the proposed project is identified in Table 1 for reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) (two precursors of ozone) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for ozone precursors and PM2.5 of 54 pounds per day, while the threshold for PM10 is 82 pounds per day. As shown in Table 1, emissions from the Safeway project and the Hill Street Development project would not exceed these thresholds of significance; the impacts to air quality from criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions related to project operations would be less than significant. The proposed project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Table 1: Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day Reactive Organic Gases Nitrogen Oxides PM10 PM2.5 Area Source Emissions 4.08 1.31 0.02 0.02 Operational Emissions 35.19 36.80 56.40 10.80 Total Emissions 39.27 38.11 56.42 10.82 BAAQMD Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceed? No No No No Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 32 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) As shown in Table 1, operation of the proposed project would generate regional emissions below the significance thresholds established by the BAAQMD. Therefore, the project would also not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in regional emissions. As also discussed above, the proposed project would not result in significant emissions of criteria air pollutants during the short-term construction period. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would ensure that the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the air basin’s non-attainment status for ozone and particulate matter. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Construction Impacts. Residents and other sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site would be temporarily exposed to diesel engine exhaust during the construction period due to the operation of construction equipment. Construction of the Safeway project would only require renovation of the existing building on the project site, therefore minimizing the emissions that would typically be released during construction of projects that start from the ground-up. The limited construction associated with the Safeway renovation would not expose residents closest to the project site to significant pollutant concentrations. A document released in May 2010 by the BAAQMD titled Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction indicates that certain construction projects that are located within 95 meters of an existing sensitive receptor could pose a significant health risk. Portions of the Hill Street Parcel could potentially be within 95 meters of homes located east of the project site depending on the final building design. Therefore, construction of the Hill Street Parcel development could expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations. Until the building plans are finalized, precise modeling and estimations of pollutant concentrations cannot be calculated. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would be required to ensure that residents located north of the Hill Street Parcel development would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Prior to construction of the proposed Hill Street Parcel development, the Hill Street Parcel applicant shall conduct a project-level construction health risk assessment following the methodology of the BAAQMD’s May 2010 document titled, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards (or any future revisions thereof), and submit the assessment to the City for review. Project construction must meet the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds of an excess cancer risk level of less than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer chronic or acute) hazard index less than 1.0 or an incremental increase of less than 0.3 µg/m3 annual average PM2.5. Operational Impacts. Although the project is not subject to a risk reduction plan, project operation would draw approximately five diesel delivery trucks to the project site each day. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 33 According to the BAAQMD, if emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) or fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5) exceed any of the Thresholds of Significance listed below, the proposed project would result in a significant impact: • Non-compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan; or, • An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer chronic, or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0 would be a cumulatively considerable contribution; • An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) annual average PM2.5 would be a cumulatively considerable contribution. The proposed project would not be subject to a risk reduction plan; therefore, the applicable threshold would be related to excess cancer risk and the incremental increase in PM2.5. To determine the health risk of on-site truck operations to future residents of the site, as well as the existing residents nearby, LSA conducted a screening level health risk assessment. The complete health risk assessment is included in Appendix A. A summary of the results of the carcinogenic inhalation and chronic health risk assessment is shown in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the proposed project is not expected to exceed the carcinogenic risk levels or chronic risk levels established by the BAAQMD (see bullet 2 above). As shown in Appendix A, the threshold for PM2.5 is 0.3 µg/m3 and the proposed project would have an incremental increase of 0.039 µg/m3 annual average of PM2.5. Based on the results of the health risk assessment, the project would not exceed the thresholds of significance established by the BAAQMD and would therefore not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The proposed project is not expected to generate odors and is not located near a source of odors. The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Table 2: Project Inhalation Health Risks from Delivery Trucks Carcinogenic Inhalation Health Risk Chronic Inhalation Health Index 30-Year Risks 0.19 in 1 million 0.00027 70-Year Risks 0.43 in 1 million 0.00027 Child Risk Levels 0.08 in 1 million 0.00027 BAAQMD Threshold 10 in 1 million 1.0 Exceeds Threshold? No No Source: LSA Associates, Inc. May 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 34 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Cali- fornia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Through direct removal, filling, hydrologi- cal interruption, or other means? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corri- dors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ˆ ˆ ˆ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ˆ ˆ ˆ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any spe- cies identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact) The existing conditions at the project site include a large building and surface parking lot, with very little wildlife habitat value. Wildlife species that would be expected to use or pass through the site are common species that are adapted to urban and suburban conditions. No protected species are known to ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 35 occur within the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial direct or indirect effect on protected species. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The project site is located within an urban area of El Cerrito, and does not contain any sensitive natural communities. However, a drainage creek, which is part of the Baxter Creek Watershed, is located immediately adjacent to the southeast corner of the project site. The creek is daylighted as it crosses the Ohlone Greenway, and then is culverted under the corner of the project site as it connects to storm drainage conveyances in Blake Street that eventually empty into the San Francisco Bay. Given that the project site is currently developed, implementation of the proposed project would not measurably affect the water quality of this creek. However, the project site eventually drains to the San Francisco Bay, which hosts a variety of sensitive natural communities. Runoff from the project site could adversely affect water quality in the Bay and associated natural communities. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Implement Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1a, HYDRO-1b, and HYDRO-1c. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact) A culverted storm drainage channel crosses the southeast corner of the project site. No changes (removal, filling, interruption, etc.) are proposed to this drainage channel and the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse effect on protected wetlands. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The project site is located within a dense urban corridor, has been subject to human disturbance since at least 1926. Wildlife associated with the project site is generally adapted to disturbed urban sites and would not be substantially affected by the proposed project. However, trees and shrubs have the potential to support nests of common native bird species. All native birds and their nests, regardless of their regulatory status, are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. If conducted during the breeding season (March through August), vegetation removal activities could directly impact nesting birds by removing trees and/or vegetation that support active nests. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: If commercially feasible, all vegetation removal shall be conducted during the non-breeding season August 1 to February 28) to avoid direct impacts to nesting ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 36 birds. If such work is scheduled during the breeding season, a qualified ornithologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine if any birds are nesting in the vegetation to be removed. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March though May (since there is higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 30 days prior to the start of work from June through July. If active nests are found during the survey, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist in consultation with the CDFG, and would be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, and the expected types of disturbance. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact) The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City does not have a tree protection ordinance. Any trees that are removed from the site would be replaced by trees on the City’s approved tree list. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? (No Impact) The project site is not subject to the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ˆ ˆ ˆ ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 37 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The project site has a history of development, and includes a structure built 18 years ago. However, it is possible that historical resources, as defined by CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, could be encountered during construction activities. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, by both the Safeway applicant and any future Hill Street Parcel applicant, would ensure that potential impacts to historic resources that may be encountered during project activities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure CULT-1: Should an archaeological resource be encountered during project construction activities, the construction contractor shall halt construction within 25 feet of the find and immediately notify the City of El Cerrito. Construction activities shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the City, shall: 1) evaluate the archaeological deposit to determine if it meets the CEQA definition of a historical or unique archaeological resource and 2) make recommendations about the treatment of the deposit, as warranted. If the deposit does meet the CEQA definition of a historical or unique archaeological resource, then it shall be avoided to the extent feasible by project construction activities. If avoidance is not feasible, then adverse effects to the deposit shall be mitigated as specified in CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b) (for historic resources) or CEQA section 21083.2 (for unique archaeological resources). This mitigation may include, but is not limited to, a thorough recording of the resource on Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 records, or archaeological data recovery excavation. If data recovery excavation is warranted, CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), which requires a data recovery plan prior to data recovery excavation, shall be followed. If the significant identified resources are unique archaeological resources, mitigation of these resources shall be subject to the limitations on mitigation measures for archaeological resources identified in CEQA sections 21083.2(c) through 21083.2(f). b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) It is possible that archaeological resources, as defined by CEQA section 21083.2(g) could be encoun- tered during construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1, by both the Safeway applicant and any future Hill Street Parcel applicant, would ensure that impacts to any archaeological resources discovered during construction would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic fea- ture? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Although there is no documentation that suggests paleontological resources are present within or in the vicinity of the project site, there is a possibility that construction activities could uncover paleontological resources beneath the surface. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, by both the Safeway applicant and any future Hill Street Parcel applicant would ensure that potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 38 Mitigation Measure CULT-2: If paleontological resources are encountered during site prepara- tion or grading activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified paleontologist has assessed the discoveries and made recommendations. Paleontologi- cal resources include fossil plants and animals, and evidence of past life such as trace fossils and tracks. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, adverse effects to such resources shall be avoided by project activities to the extent feasible. If project activities cannot avoid the resources, the adverse effects shall be mitigated in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3). Mitigation may include data recovery and analysis, preparation of a final report, and the formal transmission or delivery of any fossil material recovered to a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). Upon completion of project activities, the final report shall document methods and findings of the mitigation and be submitted to the City of El Cerrito and a suitable paleontological repository. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The potential to uncover Native American human remains exists in locations throughout California. Although not anticipated, human remains could be identified during site-preparation and grading activities and could result in a significant impact to Native American cultural resources. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, by both the Safeway applicant and any future Hill Street Parcel applicant, would reduce potential adverse impacts to human remains to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure CULT-3: If human remains are encountered during construction activities, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the Alameda County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situa- tion and consult with the appropriate agencies. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City of El Cerrito and the Northwest Informa- tion Center, and the applicant shall follow the recommendations outlined in the report. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 39 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ˆ ˆ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ˆ ˆ ˆ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ˆ ˆ ˆ iv) Landslides? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ˆ ˆ ˆ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ˆ ˆ ˆ The following section is based on the Geotechnical Study, Safeway Store No. 2940, El Cerrito, California, prepared by Fugro West, Inc., in 2009.10 The geotechnical investigation included four exploratory borings to gain additional information about soils underlying the project site, and is included in Appendix B of this document. 10 Fugro West, Inc., 2009. Geotechnical Study, Safeway Store No. 2940, El Cerrito, California. December. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 40 a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geol- ogy Special Publication 42; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; iii) Seismic-related ground fail- ure, including liquefaction; iv) Landslides? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Fault Rupture. The San Francisco Bay region is a seismically active region that is subject to large earthquakes; there are 30 known faults in the Bay Area that are considered capable of generating earthquakes. The Hayward Fault is the nearest active fault to the project site and is located approxi- mately 1 mile northeast of the site. The project site is not located within a State Designated Fault- Rupture Hazard Zone. The project site is not located in close proximity to other faults. Other faults around the project site include: the Rogers Creek fault, approximately 21 miles from the project site; and the Concord and Mount Diablo faults, approximately 24 miles from the project site. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 27 miles to the west of the site. Since surface faulting or ground rupture tends to occur along previous fault lines and identified fault lines are not located within the site, implementation the proposed project would not adversely affect persons or structures due to the rupture of a known earthquake fault. Ground-shaking. The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is considered one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. In 2007, the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, in conjunction with the United States Geological Survey, found that there is a 93 percent probability that at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will occur in the Bay Area in the next 30 years. Earthquakes on any of the faults within the Bay Area could cause strong ground shaking at the project site depending upon the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance of the project site from the earthquake epicenter, the type of geologic materials that underlie the site, as well as other factors. Because it affects a much broader area, ground shaking, rather than surface fault rupture, is the cause of most damage during earthquakes. The project is likely to be subject to earthquakes during its operational period. Structural damage to buildings results from the transmission of earthquake-induced vibrations through the ground. A large earthquake on any of the faults in the area (but especially an earthquake on the Hayward Fault) would result in strong ground shaking at the project site. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires that structures be designed using certain earthquake design criteria. The proposed Safeway project would be designed in accordance with the geotechnical report and applicable building codes. Implementation of the following mitigation measure by the Safeway applicant would reduce the impact of ground-shaking to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Implement the recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Study, Safeway Store No. 2940, El Cerrito, California, prepared by Fugro West, Inc., and published in December 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 41 The following mitigation measure implemented by the Hill Street Parcel applicant would reduce the impact of ground shaking to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measures GEO-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Hill Street Parcel applicant shall submit a site specific geotechnical report prepared by a qualified and licensed geotechnical engineer. This report shall address on site conditions and shall provide specific building foundation recommendations to reduce the risk associated with geologic/soils hazards. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the City of El Cerrito, and the Hill Street Parcel applicant shall comply with the measures outlined in the report. Ground Failure and Liquefaction. The project site is shown on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) liquefaction susceptibility and liquefaction potential planning maps (2004) as within mapped areas of moderate liquefaction susceptibility and low to moderate liquefaction potential. Settlement can occur in some soils as a result of seismic ground shaking due to densification and liquefaction of subsurface soils. In both liquefaction and densification, ground shaking causes pre- dominantly granular soils to become more compact, therefore occupying less volume and resulting in settlement. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction and densification are loose to medium dense, clean, poorly graded, fine-grained sands. Borings taken on the Safeway parcel indicate that subsurface soils consist primarily of stiff to very stiff clays generally considered to not be susceptible to liquefaction or densification, nor significant liquefaction settlement. Some minor lenses of clayey sand were encountered during the borings; however, it appears that seismic settlement, if any, which could result due to these layers is not anticipated to significantly affect the performance of the proposed improvements. Additionally, available design and construction data review by Fugro West as part of the Geotechnical Study did not indicate that liquefaction-related mitigation measures were instituted for the existing store building. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce the potential liquefaction impacts on the Hill Street Parcel to a less-than-significant level. Landslides. The project site is relatively flat and is comprised of an existing building and paved parking lot. The proposed project would not be subject to landslide activity. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitiga- tion Incorporated) Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1a, which requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, would ensure the potential impacts associated with soil erosion during the project-construction period, would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The proposed project is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. The project site is relatively flat, and would not be subject to landslide or lateral spreading. As noted in Section VI.a, ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 42 borings taken at the Safeway Parcel indicate liquefaction is not a significant hazard. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential hazards associated with on site soils. While no borings were taken on the Hill Street Parcel, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce any potential liquefaction hazard that could exist to a less-than-significant level. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incor- porated) Soils on the project site have been identified as having moderate to high expansion potential, and could be subjected to significant volume changes during seasonal fluctuations in moisture content. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 by the Safeway applicant, and Mitigation Measure GEO-2 by the Hill Street Parcel applicant, would reduce this potential impact to a less-than- significant level. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Less-than- Significant Impact) Sewer infrastructure is available on the site and septic tacks or alternative waste water disposal systems would not be used as part of the project. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Background. In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S-3-05. The Executive Order established the following goals for the State of California: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 43 California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the “Global Warming Solutions Act,” passed by the California State legislature on August 31, 2006. This effort aims at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has established the level of GHG emissions in 1990 at 427 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2eq. The emissions target of 427 MMT requires the reduction of 169 MMT (approximately 28.5%) from the State’s projected business-as-usual 2020 emissions of 596 MMT. Methodology. As authorized by Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has elected to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards in determining the significance of the proposed project’s GHG emissions.11 The project’s GHG emissions shall be deemed to have a significant impact on the environment if the project would conflict with the goals of AB 32. Discussion. GHG emissions associated with the project would occur over the short term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from vehicle and equipment exhaust. There would also be long-term regional emissions associated with a project through vehicle trips, energy consumption, and water consumption. Construction Emissions. Construction would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During site preparation and construction of the project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typi- cally use fossil-based fuels to operate. However, construction of the proposed project is expected to generate considerably less GHG emissions than other projects with comparable square footage, since the Safeway/retail portion of the project would consist of the reuse of an existing building, and the project site is already entirely paved. Thus, the only heavy-duty construction activities are expected to occur in connection with the residential component of the project on the Hill Street Parcel. Architectural coatings used in construction of the proposed project may contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are similar to reactive organic gases (ROGs) and are part of ozone precursors. However, there would be only minimal emissions of GHGs from architectural coatings. Operations-Related Emissions. Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate direct GHG emissions from mobile sources and site activities, and indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, water use, and solid waste disposal. • Mobile source, or transportation-related GHG emissions would include vehicle trips associated with the residential and retail uses. However, most or all of the trips by Safeway consumers and employees would replace trips to and from the two Safeway stores (in Richmond and El Cerrito) that will be closed once this project opens for business. Furthermore, because the other retail uses within the proposed project are expected to provide goods and services to the existing population of the surrounding areas, consumer trips to and from these uses also would simply be diverted from other neighborhood-serving retail uses and would not be new trips that increase the vehicle miles traveled (and thus the GHG emissions) within the region. Finally, the project is a transit- 11 As discussed in more detail below, although the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted new thresholds of significance for GHG emissions in June 2010, BAAQMD’s policy is that these new thresholds of significance apply to projects for which environmental analysis begins after that date. Because environmental review for the proposed project commenced in early 2010, BAAQMD’s new thresholds of significance for GHG emissions do not apply to the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 44 oriented, infill project located less than ¼ mile from a BART station and extremely accessible by bicycle and bus. Since there likely would be no net increase in retail consumer trips in the region as a result of the proposed project, only minimal new GHG emissions are expected to result from these retail uses. • Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance of proposed land uses. Overall, the level of landscaping and maintenance activities at the project site would be minimal. The introduction of new green building and operational practices as part of the Safeway/retail element of the project likely would further reduce the level of GHG emissions. Finally, Safeway’s use of refrigerants at this site will involve mechanical elements with higher energy efficiency ratings than existing Safeway stores. • Increases in emissions would also occur at off-site utility providers as a result of demand for electricity, natural gas, and water by the proposed uses. An evaluation of a project’s GHG emissions includes the consideration of project design features and attributes. The proposed Safeway project would include a number of features that would further reduce GHG emissions. The project is proposed for an infill development site located less than ¼ mile from a BART station and includes both residential and retail uses, which would further minimize vehicle trips as residents are within walking distance to goods and services. It would entail the future construction of a residential building (which will improve the City’s jobs/housing balance) and the renovation/ adaptive reuse of an existing vacant Target store, which would, among other things, result in a more energy-efficient structure. The project will incorporate green building and operational practices, including the following: Measures Applicable to the Safeway Store • Having a dedicated employee transportation coordinator the store manager) to assist in the creation of carpools and other trip-reduction programs; • Providing a commuter check program, which provides tax-free benefits to employees who commute to work by public transit or vanpool; • Providing $500,000 to the City to improve pedestrian and bicycle access from BART to the project and other areas of the City, which will help to encourage City residents to use alternative modes of transportation; • Providing bicycle racks for Safeway employees inside the store, thus reducing car commute trips; • Accommodating future alternative transportation technology (such as electric vehicle parking) in Safeway’s parking lot; and • Providing electrical outlets at Safeway’s loading docks for truck cooling systems and requiring trucks to shut down their engines while at the loading docks.12 12 State law generally prohibits diesel trucks weighing more than 10,000 pounds from idling for more than five minutes in any location. California Code of Regulations § 2485. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 45 Measures Applicable to the Entire Safeway/Retail Project the Safeway Plus Adjacent Retail Uses)13 • Installing energy-efficient appliances and boilers; • Installing an EMS (Energy Management System) to provide programmable thermostat timers, thus maximizing and maintaining energy-efficient heating and cooling systems; • Providing bicycle racks for customers around the exterior of the building in order to reduce customers’ reliance on cars; • Providing a third-party report on HVAC commissioning and verification of energy savings upon project completion; • Obligating the contractor of the retail project to recycle 50 percent to 70 percent (by weight) of all demolished construction materials, and to create a Construction Waste Management Plan that identifies the waste to be recycled, and subsequent documentation of all construction waste that has been recycled/diverted from landfill; • Installing dual-flush toilets to minimize water usage; • Replacing all existing landscaping with new low- and medium-water-use plants, with the balance leaning towards low-water-use plants; and • Installing a water-efficient, “drip” irrigation system, including a weather-based irrigation controller. AB 32 was not intended to flatly prohibit new growth or development, and so long as new projects take adequate steps to reduce GHG emissions, they may be deemed consistent with its goals. In the present case, this project – although technically a “new” project for the purposes of CEQA analysis – will replace a previously-existing retail store with a higher-density, transit-oriented, mixed-use development that will offer convenient goods and services as well as housing to City residents. As discussed above, the project will incorporate energy efficiency measures that exceed those currently required by law, and will probably generate smaller amounts of GHG emissions than the prior use on the site. The project is not expected to compromise the goals of AB 32. Therefore, the project’s GHG emissions would have a less-than-significant impact on the environment. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less-than-Significant Impact) State Regulations Early Action Measures. In addition to reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, AB 32 directed CARB to identify by June 30, 2007, a list of “discrete early action GHG reduction measures” that could be adopted and made enforceable by January 1, 2010. In June 2007, CARB approved a list of 37 early action measures that were “expected to yield significant GHG emission reductions, are likely to be cost-effective and technologically feasible,” including three “discrete” early action measures that staff concluded were appropriate for adoption by January 1, 2010. In October 2007, 13 All of these measures will also be considered, and incorporated where feasible, when development of the Hill Street Parcel occurs. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 46 CARB approved additional early action measures, bringing the total number of early action measures to 44 and increasing the number of “discrete” early action measures to a total of nine, as follows: • Adoption of a low carbon fuel standard in accordance with Executive Order S-01-07 (Jan. 18, 2007), which requires the State to attempt to achieve a 10-percent reduction in the carbon intensity of passenger vehicle fuel sold in California by the year 2020; • Adoption of restrictions on the use of high-global-warming-potential refrigerants through a prohibition on individuals personally recharging their leaky automotive air conditioning systems; • Improvements in the capture of landfill methane gas at municipal solid waste landfills; • Adoption of standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from certain aerosol consumer products, including tire inflators, electronics cleaners, and dust removers; • Placing a ban on the nonessential use of sulfur hexafluoride in other than the electricity and semiconductor sectors; • Adoption of the Green Ports Initiative, through which vessels docked at ports will be required to use onshore electric power instead of auxiliary diesel engines; • Approval of standards to reduce emissions of perfluorocarbons in the semiconductor industry; • Approval of a SmartWay Truck Efficiency Program under which trucks and trailers must be retrofitted with equipment to reduce aerodynamic drag; and • Adoption of a tire inflation program that would require, in part, that tire inflation be included as part of commercial automobile service work. All nine measures were adopted officially by CARB prior to January 1, 2010. Scoping Plan. AB 32 also required CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline and for reducing GHGs that contribute to global climate change. The Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 12, 2008, and includes measures to address a range of GHG reduction actions, including: the expansion and strengthening of existing energy efficiency programs; direct regulations; alternative compliance mechanisms; monetary and non-monetary incentives and fees; voluntary actions; and market-based mechanisms such as a cap- and-trade system. Each specific measure in the Scoping Plan will not be binding until after it is adopted through the normal rulemaking process,14 and therefore most measures are only recommendations at this time. SB 375. The California Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), which became effective in January 2009, requires CARB to develop automobile and light truck GHG emissions reduction targets for the years 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of California’s eighteen Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Each MPO must then prepare a “Sustainable Communities Strategy” (SCS), which must demonstrate an ability to attain the proposed reduction targets though the use of integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning. Once adopted by 14 The CARB rulemaking process includes preparation and release of each of the draft measures, public input through workshops and a public comment period, followed by a CARB Board hearing and rule adoption. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 47 the applicable MPO, each region’s SCS must then be incorporated into its federally-enforceable regional transportation plan. The 2020 and 2035 reduction targets were adopted by CARB in September 2010; the targets for the Bay Area Region are a 7 percent reduction in per-capita emissions by 2020, and a 15 percent reduction in per-capita emissions by 2035. The MPOs have not yet prepared SCS documents. However, the MPOs worked directly with CARB to develop policy scenario analyses and set the 2020 and 2035 reduction targets; the strategies evaluated during that process included increased compact development, expansion of transit networks, improved jobs-housing balance, and various pricing strategies. BAAQMD Policies. In June 2010, the BAAQMD adopted new thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. According to BAAQMD’s document entitled “Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance,”15 “[i]t is the Air District’s policy that the adopted thresholds apply to projects for which a Notice of Preparation is published, or environmental analysis begins, on or after the applicable effective date. The adopted CEQA thresholds – except for the risk and hazards thresholds for new receptors – are effective June 2, 2010.” Preparation of this Initial Study for the proposed project commenced in February 2010; therefore, according to BAAQMD policy, BAAQMD’s new thresholds of significance for GHG emissions do not apply to the project. City of El Cerrito Policies. El Cerrito is a member of the Small Cities Climate Action Partnership (the other members are the cities of Albany, Piedmont, and San Pablo), which was awarded a highly competitive $500,000 EPA Climate Showcase Communities grant in 2009. This partnership has committed to achieving GHG reductions in small cities by:16 • Implementing mechanisms for monitoring energy use and installing efficiency upgrades; • Developing Climate Action Plans for each city in the partnership; • Promoting participation in existing programs; and • Creating ways to replicate the program. City staff is currently working to draft a Climate Action and Resiliency Plan by late winter 2011. Staff will also work with the City’s Environmental Quality Committee and its subcommittees in an advisory capacity and to provide the community opportunities for ongoing involvement. Workshops and public comment on the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan are expected to take place early in 2011, and City Council consideration for adoption is planned for early spring 2011. The Climate Action and Resiliency Plan is expected to: • Summarize the risks that El Cerrito faces from the effects of global warming; • Investigate ways to minimize those risks; • Set a goal for reducing the emissions that cause global warming; 15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines, http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and- Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx 16 United States Environmental Protection Agency, The Small Cities Climate Action Partnership, http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/local/showcase/small-cities.html. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 48 • Analyze options to meet that emissions reduction goal; and • Develop a roadmap to using those options to create a safer and more sustainable El Cerrito. Once the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan is complete, projects undergoing CEQA review will be evaluated for consistency with that document, but no such plan has yet been approved. Project Consistency. AB 32 Early Action Measures. The early action items adopted by CARB in October 2007 focus on industrial production processes, agriculture, and transportation sectors. Early action items associated with industrial production and agriculture do not apply to the proposed project. The transportation sector early action items such as truck efficiency, low carbon fuel standard, proper tire inflation, truck stop electrification and strengthening light duty vehicle standards are either not specifically applicable to the proposed project or would result in a reduction of GHG emissions associated with the project. The project thus would not conflict with the early action measures. AB 32 Scoping Plan. Most of the AB 32 Scoping Plan measures are only recommendations at this time and have not yet been adopted by CARB. Those few measures that have already been adopted (for example, the Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management Program that will go into effect in January 2011) are either not specifically applicable to the proposed project or would result in a reduction of GHG emissions associated with the project. SB 375. Although the GHG emissions reduction targets have been adopted by CARB, no Sustainable Communities Strategy has yet been prepared for the region pursuant to SB 375. However, in light of the types of policies expected to be included in SCSs, the project is expected to be consistent with SB 375 implementation. BAAQMD Policies. As noted above, BAAQMD’s recently-adopted air quality thresholds of significance do not apply to the proposed project. City Policies. No City policies yet exist that would provide standards to which the project’s GHG emissions must conform. The proposed project is an urban, mixed-use, infill project that is located within walking distance of the Del Norte BART station. As detailed above, it would incorporate green building features and implement energy conservation measures that may well generate smaller amounts of GHG emissions than the prior use on the site. Development of the project also would be subject to all applicable permit and planning requirements in place or adopted by the City of El Cerrito at the time that permits for construction are granted. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 49 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazard- ous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ˆ ˆ ˆ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ˆ ˆ ˆ f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private air- strip, would the project result in a safety hazard for peo- ple residing or working in the project area? ˆ ˆ ˆ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacua- tion plan? ˆ ˆ ˆ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where resi- dences are intermixed with wildlands? ˆ ˆ ˆ ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 50 The following is section is based on information from the following reports: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed Site of Safeway Store No. 2940, 11450 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, California, prepared by Kleinfelder, June 10, 2009; and Asbestos Survey for Safeway Site 2840, 11450 San Pablo Avenue in El Cerrito, California, prepared by Monte Deignan & Associates, May 11, 2009. Both of these documents are included in Appendix C of this IS/MND. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The proposed project would redevelop the site with a Safeway store, other retail uses, and a retail/ residential mixed use building on the Hill Street Parcel. The proposed project would involve the use and disposal of chemical agents, solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials associated with construction activities. The amount of these chemicals present during construction would be limited, would be in compliance with existing government regulations, and would not be considered a significant hazard. During construction of the proposed project, no significant impact is expected to result from the routine use and disposal of these materials. While the types of retail uses that would occupy the Hill Street Parcel development, or the accessory retail located in the Safeway building, are not known at this time, it is not anticipated that they would routinely handle, transport or dispose of large quantities of hazardous materials. Routine operation of the project site would not be characterized by the use or storage of significant amounts of hazardous materials. Implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environ- ment? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Prior to development of the existing building on the site (previously used as a Target store), the project site was comprised of 6 separate parcels and included a variety of uses. These uses included a lumber yard in the northern half of the property and a gasoline station in the southwest corner of the site. With regards to the lumber yard, no records were uncovered to indicate a documented release of hazardous materials to soils or groundwater; however, lumber yard activities have been known to include the use of hazardous substances as well as petroleum products. The gasoline station was in operation for many years on the project site, and two or three underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed (circa 1977) from that location before the Target store structure was built in 1992. It appears that limited soil remediation was performed at the time of UST removal; however, sampling documents are not available. Subsequent soil investigation and groundwater monitoring wells constructed at the time of Target’s development in 1992. This sampling revealed low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater and soil samples. Impacted soils were reportedly removed from two excavations: 270 cubic yards up to 13 feet below ground surface (bgs), and 530 cubic yards up to 8 feet bgs. Samples were collected from three monitoring wells between 1992 and 1994. About 400 gallons of ground- water was purged from the well. Because petroleum-related constituents were generally below ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 51 laboratory reported limits in the quarterly groundwater samples, the LUST Remedial Action Case closed in 1996. The case was officially closed June 4, 1998. Documents reviewed for Phase I indicate that regulatory closure was formally provided in 1998 after the three groundwater monitoring wells were sealed. While there may be some localized minor residual soil impacts in the area of the former USTs that were untested (under the southwest corner of the existing structure), based on subsequent groundwater testing, regulatory agencies determined no further work was required. Additionally, it should be noted that in preparing the Phase I (dated June 10, 2009), Kleinfelder reviewed a Phase I completed by SECOR (dated May 2, 2008), that indicated that the leaking under- ground storage tank (LUST) at the site was not remediated and the site was subject to land use controls. However, records obtained by Kleinfelder indicate otherwise (as described above), and Contra Costa County records do not indicate land use controls are in-place for the site. An asbestos survey of the Target building was completed in 2009 to determine if it was likely there were materials containing asbestos within the building. Approximately 26 samples were taken from the building, and none of the samples tested positive for containing asbestos. While none of the samples tested positive for asbestos, it is possible that different types of roofing or flooring materials, which could contain asbestos, could be discovered during the demolition process. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this potential impact to a less- than-significant level: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: If during demolition other types of flooring or roofing materials are discovered, in addition to those previously tested for asbestos, the Safeway applicant shall hire a licensed asbestos abatement contract to test samples of new materials identified during demolition. If asbestos is identified, asbestos containing materials shall be abated in accordance with all applicable regulations. Given that the Target building was constructed in the 1990s, it is unlikely to contain lead based paint. To reduce potential soil hazards associated with the Hill Street Parcel, the Hill Street Parcel applicant shall implement the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Prior to approval of a grading permit for the Hill Street Parcel, a Phase I investigation shall be conducted in accordance with ASTM standards to determine whether past land uses could potentially have affected the subsurface. If potential effects are identified, a licensed professional shall provide recommendations for a subsurface investigation (Phase II). The results of the Phase II investigation shall be evaluated by a licensed professional and recommendations provided regarding remediation of soil and/or groundwater in consultation with a local or state regulatory agency to ensure the site is safe for residential uses. Any development of the Hill Street Parcel must comply with recommendations identified in the Phase I and Phase II reports. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less-than-Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 52 Windrush School in El Cerrito is within 0.25 miles of the project site. As described in Section VIII.a, the proposed project would redevelop the site with a Safeway store, other retail uses, and a retail/ residential mixed use building on the Hill Street Parcel. The proposed project would involve the use and disposal of chemical agents, solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials associated with construction activities. The amount of these chemicals present during construction would be limited, would be in compliance with existing government regulations, and would not be considered a signifi- cant hazard. While the types of retail uses that would occupy the Hill Street Parcel development, or the accessory retail located in the Safeway building, are not known at this time, it is not anticipated that they would routinely handle, transport or dispose of large quantities of hazardous materials. If future retail uses were to handle hazardous materials, they would be required to comply with all applicable government regulations. This potential impact would be considered less than significant. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The project site is listed on the HAZNET database for the transfer of relatively small amounts of laboratory waste chemicals, as well as: 0.93 tons of waste oil; 2.62 tons of oil-containing waste; 0.83 tons of oil/separator sludge; 0.09 tons of organic mixture; and 0.27 tons of inorganic mixture. These materials were disposed of through a deposit at a recycler, transfer station, or incinerator. Addition- ally, the site was listed in the Contra Costa County Sites List, Cortese, and LUST databases due to a past LUST event. Soils were reportedly impacted by gasoline, and the LUST cleanup case for the project was closed as of June 1998 (as described in Section VII.b). Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant hazard as known hazards on the project site have been abated, as described above. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Blake Street and San Pablo Avenue, adjacent to the project site, are identified as two of the many Emergency Response Routes within the City, as shown in Figure 8 of the City of El Cerrito General Plan.17 The project would include the addition of a loading dock on Blake Street, as well as driveways 17 City of El Cerrito, 1999. City of El Cerrito General Plan, Figure 8, Emergency Response and Truck Routes, August. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 53 on San Pablo Avenue. These changes would not impede the operation of these Emergency Response Routes as numerous existing driveways are located along these routes. Additionally, there are several other Emergency Response Routes identified within the vicinity of the project site, including Potrero Avenue, Cutting Boulevard, and Richmond Street. Thus, the proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (No Impact) The project site is located within an urban area, and is not located adjacent to wildland areas. The City of El Cerrito General Plan does not identify the site as within a Very High Fire Severity Zone.18 The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? ˆ ˆ ˆ 18 City of El Cerrito, 1999. City of El Cerrito General Plan, Figure 13, Natural Hazards, August. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 54 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ˆ ˆ ˆ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ˆ ˆ ˆ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ˆ ˆ ˆ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ˆ ˆ ˆ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ˆ ˆ ˆ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Water quality in surface and groundwater bodies is regulated by the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The project site is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board which is responsible for implementation of State and federal water quality protection guidelines in the Bay Area (including the project site). The is responsible for implementing the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan),19 a master policy document for managing water quality issues in the region. The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water bodies within the region. Runoff water quality is regulated by the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Nonpoint Source Program (established through the Clean Water Act); the NPDES program objective is to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from nonpoint discharges, such as polluted runoff from parking lots. The City of El Cerrito is a participant in the Contra Costa Clean Water Program which administers the County’s NPDES permit. The which includes representatives of Contra Costa County, 19 incorporated cities in the County, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, maintains compliance with the NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit 19 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1995. Water Quality Control Plan, June 21. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 55 and promotes storm water pollution prevention within that context. County compliance with the NPDES permit is mandated by State and federal laws, statutes, and regulations. Participating agencies (including the City of El Cerrito) must comply with the provisions of the County permit by ensuring that new development and adaptive reuse mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, water quality impacts to storm water runoff both during construction and operation periods of projects. The new permit was enacted in December 2009. New development and significant adaptive reuse projects, which create/replace over 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, are subject to the Provision C.3 of the County’s NPDES permit. The goal of Provision C.3 is to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and adaptive reuse projects to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and adaptive reuse projects. Provision C.3 helps to reduce potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed project. This goal is to be accomplished primarily through the implementation of low impact development (LID) techniques. C.3 requirements apply to “Group 1” and “Group 2” projects. Group 1 projects are development that create or replace 1 acre or more of impervious surfaces. Group 2 projects are developments that would create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. As the proposed Safeway project would replace approximately 0.81 acres, and the development of the Hill Street Parcel could replace up to 0.868 acres, both projects together would be considered a Group 1 project. However, it should be noted that no specific site plan, construction schedule, applicant, or funding has been identified for the Hill Street Parcel development, the specific amount of impervious surface that would be replaced as part of this future project is unknown at this time. The project site currently comprises a large vacant Target building and surface parking lot. Approxi- mately 233,537 square feet (90%) of the project site is impervious surface. Implementation of the Safeway project would result in 231,368 square feet of impervious surface, or a 2,169 square foot reduction of impervious surface. As detailed site plans have not been developed for the Hill Street Parcel, the change in pervious/impervious surfaces of that site is unknown. Implementation of the following three-part mitigation measure by the Safeway applicant and/or the Hill Street Parcel applicant would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1a: The project applicant either the Safeway applicant or the Hill Street Parcel applicant) shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction period of the relevant project. It is not required that the be submitted to the but must be maintained on-site and made available to staff upon request. The shall require implementation of specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs), including practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with storm water. The shall specify properly designed centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain. The shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor, and must include both dry and wet weather inspections. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 56 Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1b: To meet the Contra Cost Clean Water Program’s subdivision policy, as well as to ensure C.3 requirements will be implemented as part of the subdivision of the property, the applicant for subdivision (Safeway) must implement one of the following measures prior to approval of the vesting tentative map: • Demonstrate that it is possible to comply with C.3 by distributing all runoff from impervious areas, including new or widened streets and new sidewalks, to pervious areas without exceeding the permissible 2:1 ratio of impervious area to pervious area. This can be done by either: a. Showing existing setbacks, zoning, easements, or deed restrictions provide that the required area be maintained as pervious landscaping, or b. Providing easements or deed restrictions to preserve the suitable amount of pervious area. In addition, the building permit application(s) for the subject lot(s) should demonstrate the site is graded and drained to create self-retaining areas, and the site includes no direct or indirect connections to storm drains except for overflow from self-retaining areas. • Agree to construct, as a condition of approval of the proposed subdivision, stormwater treatment facilities and hydrograph modification management facilities, if required. The treatment facilities should be sized to accommodate drainage from the maximum allowable impervious area on each site, plus the impervious area of any streets, sidewalks, and common areas. • Identify stormwater treatment facilities and hydrograph modification management facilities, if required and, in lieu of constructing such facilities, include a deed restriction requiring the owner of each subdivided lot to construct and perform other requirements before, or concurrent with, construction of any site improvements. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1c: The project applicant either the Safeway applicant or the Hill Street Parcel applicant) shall prepare a Stormwater Control Plan which incorporates Best Management Practices into each relevant project to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality associated with operation of the project. These features shall be included in the final development drawings and meet the requirements of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. The Stormwater Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of El Cerrito prior to issuance of a building permit. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The proposed project would be connected to existing water infrastructure on site, and would not use local groundwater supplies by installation of pumping of water supply wells), and would therefore not lower the groundwater table as a result of groundwater extraction. Currently, the majority of the project site is covered in impervious surface. Implementation of the proposed project would add approximately 2,169 square feet of the landscaping to the project site, which would marginally facilitate additional groundwater infiltration. The proposed project would not significantly affect ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 57 groundwater recharge. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial ero- sion or siltation on- or off-site? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) While there is an existing storm drainage channel under the southeast and southwest corners of the project site, no changes to this channel are proposed as part of this project. The project site is currently occupied by a vacant big box retail store and a surface parking lot. Given the existing developed nature of the project site, implementation of the project would not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern on the project site. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Less-Than-Signifi- cant Impact) The project site is currently developed with a big box retail store and surface parking lot. The proposed project would decrease the impervious area on the project site by adding approximately 2,169 square feet of landscaping resulting in a slight change to the drainage pattern on the project site. However, the change would result in more pervious surface on the project site, and would not substantially alter the drainage pattern on site such that on- or off-site flooding would occur. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The project site is currently developed with a big box retail store and surface parking lot, and is currently connected to the area’s existing storm drainage system. Development of the Safeway project would include approximately 2,169 square feet of additional landscaping, which would result in a reduction of impervious surface and a slight reduction in runoff generated on the project site. Development details of the Hill Street Parcel development are unknown at this time; however, given the parcel is currently an impervious parking lot with minimal landscaping, it can be assumed that the stormwater runoff created on the Hill Street Parcel development site would be similar to the existing conditions. As such, it can be assumed that runoff generated on site would be largely similar to the existing conditions. While the project would not generate additional runoff than currently experienced at the site, construction and operation of the proposed project could result in additional sources of polluted runoff due to fuel leaks, tire wear, sediment release, and exposure of polluted soil to rain. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1a, HYDRO-1b and HYDRO-1c would help reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 58 While the project would not increase the rate or volume of runoff at the site, construction and operation of the proposed project could result in additional sources of polluted runoff due to fuel leaks, tire wear, sediment release, and exposure of polluted soil to rain. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1a, HYDRO-1b and HYDRO-1c would reduce this potential impact to water quality to a less-than-significant level. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Impact) The Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency indicate that the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard zone. 20 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (No Impact) See IX, g, above. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (No Impact) As described above, the project site is not located with in a 100-year flood hazard zone. Additionally, the Association of Bay Area Governments does not identify the project site as being within a dam failure inundation area.21 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact) The project site is not located in an area subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Seiches are not considered hazards in most areas of El Cerrito, including the project site. The project site is located in a flat urban area and is not located adjacent to areas within a slope stability hazard zone;22 as such, the project site would not be subject to mudflow. Tsunamis are only likely to substantially affect portions of El Cerrito that are within close proximity to San Francisco Bay, and would not affect the project site.23 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 20 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Contra Costa County and Incorporated Areas, Panel 240 of 602, Map Number 06013C0240F. (accessed June 16) 21 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2010. Geographic Information Systems, Dam Failure Inundation Areas. (accessed June 1) 22 City of El Cerrito, 1999. City of El Cerrito General Plan Figure 13. August 30. 23 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2010. Geographic Information Systems, Tsunami Inundation Emergency Planning Map for the San Francisco Bay Region. (accessed July 16) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 59 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Physically divide an established community? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area. The project site is surrounded by an established, built-up urban area. The project would include the addition of a loading dock on Blake Street, as well as driveways on San Pablo Avenue, but this would not significantly impair mobility in and around the project site. The project would retain the existing sidewalks along the north, west, and south sides of the project site; pedestrian access along the east side of the project site would be provided via the Ohlone Greenway. Implementation of the project would not result in a significant impact related to the division of an established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal pro- gram, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The El Cerrito General Plan identifies the project site as Commercial/Mixed Use. This designation is intended primarily for all types of commercial uses and secondarily for residential uses, or a combination of the two. The designation is intended to encourage ground floor, pedestrian friendly, retail sales and service uses with upper floor of office and residential uses; however, neither residential nor office uses are required. The Mixed-Use Commercial category applies to commercial activity ranging from neighborhood convenience stores to community shopping centers and regionally oriented specialty stores. The General Plan identifies Mixed-Use Commercial normal density of up to 35 dwelling units per acre, or up to 45 dwelling units per acre with City Incentives. City Incentives include density bonuses, ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 60 FAR bonuses, or other benefits that the City may grant in return for special benefits provided by the development for the project. Additionally, up to 70 dwelling units per acre may be allowed through a city density-bonus incentive program for housing for elderly and handicapped persons where there is a commitment to provide services such as congregate care, onsite counseling, or medical services. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for this General Plan designation is up to 2.0, or 3.0 with City Incentives. The Safeway project would meet the land use designation guidelines outlined in the General Plan. As there has been no site plan developed for the Hill Street Parcel, it is unknown at this time if that project would meet the General Plan density and intensity ranges. However, the Hill Street Parcel application would be required to go through a city review process, which would ensure its compliance with the General Plan. The El Cerrito Zoning Ordinance identifies the project site as Transit Oriented Mixed-Use (TOM). The purpose of this zoning district is to create, maintain, and enhance activity center nodes around BART stations and along transportation corridors and San Pablo Avenue that provide a mix of commercial, office and higher-density residential uses in a pedestrian-oriented setting. The TOM district is intended to encourage ground-floor, pedestrian-friendly retail sales and personal service uses with upper floors of office and residential uses. This district has a minimum density of 35 dwelling units within 300 feet of BART, and allows for up to 70 dwelling units per acre for housing for elderly and disabled persons if services are provided. The FAR is 2.0, or 3.0 with City Incentives. The maximum building height is up to 65 feet with a conditional use permit. Given the proximity to BART in this district, parking requirements are reduced in this district. The Safeway project would meet the zoning ordinance development standards. As there has been no site plan developed for the Hill Street Parcel, it is unknown at this time if that project would meet the zoning ordinance development regulations. However, the Hill Street Parcel application would be required to go through a city review process, which would ensure its compliance with the zoning ordinance. The project site would also fall within the boundaries of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, a joint planning effort between the Cities of El Cerrito and Richmond that is currently underway to provide a comprehensive transit-oriented development vision to new development within the San Pablo Avenue corridor, regardless of the jurisdictional boundary. A draft of the Specific Plan identifies zoning overlay zones which are intended to promote coordinated and cohesive site planning and design which maximize use of alternative forms of transportation. The project site falls within the SPA-2 Overlay, which supports increased intensity around Del Norte and El Cerrito BART Stations, and encourages a mix of moderate to high density residential and mixed-use developments. Development standards include an average density between 40 to 70 dwelling units per acre, a maximum average FAR of 2.0, and minimum height of 45 feet and a maximum height of 65 feet. Currently, the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan has not been adopted by the El Cerrito City Council, and development standards are not currently in effect. It is unlikely that the Specific Plan would be adopted prior to a City decision (approval or denial) on the Safeway project application. However, even if the Specific Plan is adopted prior to a decision on the Safeway application, the proposed project would comply with the land use identified for the project site. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 61 Given that no site plan has been developed for the Hill Street Parcel, it is possible that this development standards outlined in the Specific Plan would be applicable to any proposed development on the Hill Street Parcel. The Hill Street Parcel application would be required to go through a city review process, which would ensure its compliance with the development guidelines outlined in the Specific Plan. The proposed project would not result in a significant conflict with a land use plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and environmental effect. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Impact) No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan exists for the project site. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? (No Impact) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact) The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans as a locally-important mineral recovery site. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 62 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise lev- els in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ˆ ˆ ˆ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ˆ ˆ ˆ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physio- logical or damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 63 is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for 24-hour sound measurements which better represent how humans are more sensitive to sound at night. These measurements include the day/night sound level (Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).24 The City has set acceptable noise exposure levels, consistent with the California Building Code, as shown in Table 3. The California State Noise Insulation Standards require a study of proposed project design to ensure that interior noise levels of new housing units will not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB. Where residential units are exposed to 60 dB Ldn or higher, the City stipulates that interior instantaneous noise levels should not exceed 50 dB in the bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms. This measure is particularly important for noise from BART trains. The City has set a noise level goal of 60 dB Ldn for outdoor residential uses, which are defined as backyards in single-family houses and recreation areas in multi-family housing. This goal does not apply to patios or small decks associated with apartments and condominiums. The Planning Commission is permitted to raise this standard to 65 dB at its discretion. Additionally, if the key noise source creating the high levels is BART, the City allows outdoor noise exposure up to 70 dB Ldn for residential uses. Residential uses exposed to levels of up to 75 dB Ldn may be permitted once noise insulation techniques are included in the project design. For new commercial, industrial and office land uses, the General Plan allows noise levels of up to 80 dB Ldn after a detailed analysis of the interior noise reduction requirements is conducted. According to the City, appropriate interior noise levels in commercial, industrial, and office buildings are a function of the use of space and shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The City also regulates noise through its Municipal Code. Construction activities are regulated by the El Cerrito Municipal Code, which restricts construction work hours to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., weekends and holidays.25 Existing Noise Environment. Primary sources of noise at the project site include San Pablo Avenue traffic and BART trains running along the elevated tracks. Noise levels produced by BART trains entering and leaving the Del Norte BART station typically range from 72 to 76 dBA Lmax. Noise levels increase to 75 to 80 dBA further from the station as the trains travel at faster speeds. Studies included in the General Plan indicate that typical noise levels from I-80 are between 70 and 75 dB Ldn at a distance of 1,200 to 400 feet from the centerline, respectively and are not expected to increase signifi- 24 Ldn is the 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. CNEL is the 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 5 decibels to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Source: Harris, Cyril M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurement and Noise Control. 25 El Cerrito Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.02, Section 110.1. Table 3: General Plan Noise Level Standards Location Normally Acceptable Standard Conditionally Acceptable Standarda Residential Exterior 60 dB Ldn b,c 75 dB Ldn Residential Interior 45 dB Ldn 45 dB Ldn Commercial Exterior 60 dB Ldnc 80 dB Ldn a Specified land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed noise insulation features included in the design. b Does not apply to apartment patios. Where 60 dB is not feasible, the Planning Commission may increase the standard to 65 dB. c Projects located near BART are allowed a level of 70 dB Ldn. Source: El Cerrito General Plan, 1999. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 64 cantly through 2020.26 Noise levels from the freeway are attenuated at the project site by the intervening buildings located west of the site. Noise levels on the project site are estimated to be between 72 and 74 dBA Ldn with the primary noise sources of traffic along San Pablo Avenue and BART trains. These levels exceed the normally City’s 70 dB Ldn noise standard for exterior residential (Hill Street Parcel) that is near the BART line but fall within the conditionally acceptable range for residential uses of up to 75 dBA Ldn or commercial uses of up to 80 dBA Ldn. The new Safeway project will utilize the existing building that was previously used as a Target store. As noted in the City’s General Plan, appropriate interior noise levels in commercial buildings are a function of the use of space. Interior noise levels for the proposed Safeway use of the existing building would be appropriate for the retail use as they were with the previous Target retail use; therefore, noise levels for the proposed Safeway use would be acceptable. According to the General Plan, the existing noise levels that fall within the conditionally acceptable range (such as the noise levels on the Hill Street Parcel) are conditionally acceptable after the noise reduction requirements and necessary noise insulation features are included in the design. Therefore, the proposed development of the Hill Street Parcel would require additional noise analysis once the site design is completed. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure noise levels would be reduced to acceptable levels and reduce the impact of existing noise on proposed uses to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The Hill Street Parcel applicant shall prepare and submit to the City a noise study that shall be prepared by a qualified person experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics. Noise levels shall be documented with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe noise conditions and noise sources on project site. Existing and projected noise levels shall be estimated in terms of Leq and Ldn. The study shall determine the measures required for residential units on the project site to meet the interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn. Measures could include windows with increased sound transmission class (STC) ratings, upgraded wall assemblies and/or alternative forms of ventilation, such as air conditioning. The identified measures must be incorporated into the design prior to issuance of the building permit. Construction Activities. Implementation of the Safeway project would result in construction activities over approximately 6 months on the project site, resulting in short-term noise impacts associated with grading, renovations, and building construction. Construction activities would likely last over a longer period of time for the Hill Street Parcel development. Construction-period noise levels are higher than existing noise levels, but would cease once construction is complete. Noise levels from construction activities could average from 76 to 90 dBA within 50 feet from the noisiest source and would be audible to residences in proximity to the proposed project. However, construction period noise is not expected to be significant as it would be short-term and generally set back from existing residential areas. 26 City of El Cerrito, 1999. City of El Cerrito General Plan, August 30. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 65 Construction activities are regulated by the El Cerrito Municipal Code, which restricts construction work hours to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekends and holidays.27 There would, at times, be high intermittent construction noise in the project area during the construction period. Implementation of the City’s construction restrictions would limit these noise impacts to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Consistent with the municipal code, the hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Project Operation. Noise sources for the proposed project would include the retail uses, mechanical equipment, and traffic associated with the project. Noise generated by the retail uses would be regu- lated by the General Plan, which restricts noises created by commercial sources associated with new development. Safeway policy requires delivery trucks idle for no longer than five minutes. Noise generated by mechanical equipment such as air conditioners and emergency generators would be similar to noise levels existing in the vicinity of the project site and would not create a significant increase in noise levels. The project would generate traffic which would increase noise on local roadways. Existing traffic noise levels were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Traffic data used in the model were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers, included in Appendix D. Results of the analysis, shown in Table 4 below, indicate that the project would not significantly increase traffic noise in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project will not expose the surrounding residents to noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards. 27 El Cerrito Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.02, Section 110.1. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 66 Table 4. Modeled Noise Levels at 50 feet from Roadway Centerline dBA Roadway Segment Existing Existing With Project Difference Between Existing With Project and Existing No Project Cumulative (2030) No Project Cumulative (2030) With Project Difference Between Cumulative With Project and Existing Difference Between Cumulative and Cumulative With Project Significant Project Contribution to Cumulative Impact? Cutting Blvd West of San Pablo Ave. 65.1 65.3. 0.2 65.4 65.6 0.5 0.2 No San Pablo Ave Cutting Blvd to Hill Street 66.0 66.4 0.4 66.8 67.1 1.7 0.3 No Blake Street to Portrero Ave 64.5 64.9 0.4 65.5 65.8 1.3 0.3 No Blake Street San Pablo Ave to Elm Street 53.7 54.5 0.8 53.7 54.9 1.2 1.2 No Potrero Ave East Shore Blvd to San Pablo Ave 61.1 61.8 0.7 62.2 62.7 1.2 0.5 No San Pablo Ave to Liberty Street 61.5 61.9 0.4 62.3 62.7 1.2 0.5 No Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2010 Of the on-site operational noise sources that would result from implementation of the proposed project, noise generated by delivery truck activity would generate the highest maximum noise levels. Delivery truck loading and unloading activities can result in maximum noise levels from 75 dBA to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. There are generally two types of loading that will occur on the site: small deliveries like parcels and packages, and large deliveries of pallets of grocery items. The former are typically made via passenger car, van, or single-unit truck. The project applicant expects, on average, up to five daily deliveries by large delivery vehicles and up to ten daily deliveries by smaller delivery vehicles. The closest sensitive land uses to the loading dock area are the multi-family residences on the south side of Blake Street northeast of Kearney Street. The nearest façade of these residences is located over 110 feet from the proposed loading dock area. At this distance, noise from truck delivery activities would attenuate to below the range of 69 dBA to 79 dBA Lmax. It should be noted that there are no outdoor active use areas associated with these residences. In addition, these noise levels from the approximately 15 daily delivery events, when averaged over a 24 hour period, would not result in a noticeable (3 dBA or greater) increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, noise from delivery activities associated with implementation of the project will not expose the surrounding residents to noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable standards. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Existing noise sources in the project vicinity include BART trains and traffic from San Pablo Avenue. The BART tracks adjacent to the project site are elevated, which reduces potential ground-borne vibration levels at the project site to less than significant levels. Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could temporarily expose persons in the vicinity of the project ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 67 site to ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Existing noise levels at the project site range from 72 dB to 76 dB. Noise sources in the vicinity of the site include BART and traffic on San Pablo Avenue. The uses associated with the proposed project would generate noise resulting from traffic, retail use operations, and mechanical equipment for the residential and retail uses. However, these uses are consistent with the type of development envisioned for the area within the General Plan and are not expected to create a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. As shown in Table 4 above, the project would increase traffic noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. However, the increase would be less than 3 dBA and therefore would not be significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorpo- rated) Project related construction activities could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-sig- nificant level. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons within the project site to high levels of airport-related noise. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The proposed project would not expose on the project site to excessive airport-related noise. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 68 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and busi- nesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The estimated population of the City of El Cerrito in 2010 was 23,600, with an average household size of 2.26.28 The total number of households is estimated at 10,420. The Hill Street Parcel project would include 56 dwelling units, and would include a population of 127 persons (56 x 2.26 = 127). This would represent less than 1 percent of the City’s population, or approximately 64 percent of the population growth expected in El Cerrito between 2010 and 2015. The project could indirectly induce some population growth through the creation of new jobs on the project site. It is estimated that the Safeway project would result in 227 employees. For purposes of this analysis, it is estimated that the Hill Street Parcel would generate 10 employees. These new jobs could cause new employees to relocate to El Cerrito. For the purposes of this analysis in order to be highly conservative so as not to underestimate potential impacts) it is assumed that the 237 employees who would work at the project site would relocate to El Cerrito or adjacent cities, consisting of Richmond, Berkeley, Emeryville or Oakland. Even under such conservative assumptions, this population growth would not be considered substan- tial in the context of the combined estimated 2010 population of these cities (666,100). Between 2010 and 2015, the total population of these cities is projected to increase by 36,700, and the proposed project would comprise less than 1 percent of that growth. 28 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009. Projections and Priorities, 2009, Building Momentum, San Francisco Bay Area Population, Households, and Job Forecasts. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 69 The direct population growth, and employment growth and potential indirect residential growth, is consistent with the growth projections in El Cerrito and surrounding region over the long-term and would be considered a less-than-significant impact. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) The project site does not currently contain any residential units. Implementation of the proposed pro- ject would not displace existing housing. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) See XIII. b above. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physi- cally altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construc- tion of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ˆ ˆ ˆ Fire protection? ˆ ˆ ˆ Police protection? ˆ ˆ ˆ Schools? ˆ ˆ ˆ Parks? ˆ ˆ ˆ Other public facilities? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govern- mental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 70 any of the public services: Fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, other public facili- ties? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The following section includes a discussion of the project’s potential effects on fire service; police service; schools; and parks and other public facilities. Impacts to public services would occur if the project increased demand for the services such that new or expanded service facilities would be required, and these new facilities themselves cause environmental impacts. Fire The El Cerrito Fire Department operates three fire stations that provide first response services to the project site. In addition, the City has a mutual aid agreement with the Richmond, Kensington, and West County fire departments to provide service across jurisdictional boundaries. The closest fire station to the project site is located at 10900 San Pablo Avenue, approximately 0.5 miles from the project site. The project site is located within an urban area of El Cerrito, and the proposed Safeway building is an existing building that is currently served by the El Cerrito Fire Department. Implementation of the Safeway project would result in increased use of the site, which has been vacant since 2008, and would marginally increase the demand for fire protection services over existing conditions. As the proposed Safeway building would have a similar commercial use as the former Target building, it is anticipated that the proposed project would require a similar level of fire protection services as was provided when the building was occupied by Target. No new facilities would be required. Development of the Hill Street Parcel would bring new residential uses to the project site. As noted in the El Cerrito General Plan, prior to the approval of new development the project applicant is required to demonstrate that adequate emergency water supply, storage, and conveyance facilities, and access for fire protection exists or will be provided. When specific site plans are developed, the specific project on the Hill Street Parcel would be required to undergo further environmental review to determine if it might result in any adverse physical effects related to fire services. Police The City of El Cerrito Police headquarters are located at 10900 San Pablo Avenue, approximately 0.5 miles from the project site. The Safeway building is an existing building that is currently served by the El Cerrito Police Department. Implementation of the Safeway project would result in increased use of the site, which has been vacant since 2008, and would marginally increase the demand for police services. However, the proposed Safeway building would have a similar commercial use as the former Target building, it is anticipated that the proposed project would require a similar level of police services as was provided when the building was occupied by Target. No new facilities would be required. Development of the Hill Street Parcel would bring new residential uses to the project site. As noted in the El Cerrito General Plan, prior to the approval of new development the Police Department shall be requested to review all applications to determine the ability of the department to provide protection services. When specific site plans are developed, the specific project on the Hill Street Parcel would be required to undergo further environmental review to determine if it might result in any adverse physical effects related to police services. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 71 Schools El Cerrito is part of the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD). The WCCUSD operates 57 schools serving the communities of El Cerrito, San Pablo, Richmond, Pinole, Kensington, Hercules, and El Sobrante. There are 38 elementary (K-5) and six middle schools seven high schools, and six alternative schools and continuing education facilities. At this time, the project site is within the attendance boundary of Madera Elementary School, Portola Middle School, and El Cerrito High School. All schools are located within an approximate 2 mile radius from the proposed project site. Student enrollment during the 2009-2010 school year at Madera Elementary School, Portola Middle School, and El Cerrito High School are 440, 607, and 1,237 students respectively.29 Madera Elementary School is currently operating over capacity by four students, while Portola Middle School is currently operating at approximately 55 percent capacity. El Cerrito High is operating at about 76 percent capacity.30 The Safeway project would not include residential units and would not generate students. However, the Hill Street Parcel development would include residential units. While the type of units studio, 1-bedroom) that would be constructed is not known, to provide a conservative assessment, it is assumed that the units could accommodate families not studio units). The following student generation rates per unit (SGR)31 for multi-family housing were used: 0.105 for grades K-5; 0.026 SGR for grades 6-8; and 0.013 SGR for grades 9-12.32 Using the SGRs, the proposed project would generate approximately seven students (six for grades K-5 and one for grades 6-8) in K-8 grades and one student in grades 9-12. In total, the project would generate eight students. Madera Elementary School is currently over capacity. However, there are currently 38 elementary schools within the WCCUSD. Portola Middle School and El Cerrito High School both have capacity to accommodate additional students. Additionally, Senate Bill 50 (SB50), which revised the existing limitation on developer fees for school facilities and became effective on November 4, 1998 as a result of the California voters approving a bond measure (Proposition 1A). SB50 established a 1998 base amount of allowable developer fees (Level One fee) for residential construction (subject to adjustment) and prohibits school districts, cities, and counties from imposing school impact mitigation fees or other requirements in excess or in addition to those provided in the statute. Consistent with SB 50, the Hill Street Parcel applicant will be required to pay developer fees to WCCUSD. These fees would be directed towards maintaining adequate service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities. Implementation of this State fee system would ensure that any significant impacts to schools that could result from the 29 King, Cheryl, 2010. Senior Associate, Jack Schreder & Associates. Written communication with LSA Associates, Inc. October 12. 30 Ibid. 31 According to Jack Schreder & Associates, the following SGRs are for preliminary calculations only. 32 King, Cheryl, 2010. Senior Associate, Jack Schreder & Associates. Written communication with LSA Associates, Inc. October 12. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 72 proposed project would be offset by development fees, and in effect, reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Parks As of 1999, the City of El Cerrito had a total of 182 acres of parks and open space including 32 acres of publicly-owned parks, 100 acres of public open space, 23 acres of recreation facilities, and 27 acres of School District-owned recreation areas. Canyon Trail Park, the Hillside Natural Area, and Castro park are all within 0.5 miles of the project site. Other parks near the project site, but located within the City of Richmond, include Plaza Park and Booker T. Anderson Jr. Park. The El Cerrito General Plan identifies a level of service standard of five acres of publicly owned parkland per 1,000 residents. Using the 2010 ABAG population estimates, the City of El Cerrito has approximately 7.7 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. With the addition of the anticipated Hill Street Parcel development residents (127 residents), the City would continue to meet its parks level of service standard. Additionally, new multi-family residential project would be required to provide on- site open space and recreational facilities for residents, or a combination of in-lieu fees and on-site facilities. Development of the Safeway project could incrementally increase the use of surrounding parks. However, since the employees would generally use the facilities on a day-use basis (for example as a place to eat their lunch, or walk or rest during breaks), this potential increase in use is not expected to adversely affect the physical conditions of local and regional open space areas, or require the provision of new park facilities. Additionally, the proposed project would contribute $487,000 to be used to improve the Ohlone Greenway recreational trail. The project would not result in adverse impacts to parks. Other Public Facilities The El Cerrito Library is located at 6510 Stockton Avenue in El Cerrito, less than 2 miles from the project site. The El Cerrito Library is part of the Contra Costa County Library, a library system which includes twenty five libraries throughout the county. It is estimated that by 2010, the El Cerrito Library will have an annual book circulation of 146,763, and that the total Contra Costa County Library system book circulation will be over 7 million.33 Implementation of the proposed project could increase the use of the library. However, given the limited number of residents associated with the proposed project, and that El Cerrito Library is part of a County-wide library system that includes 24 other libraries, the project would not significantly impact this public facility. 33 Williams, John Frye, 2006. Contra Costa County Library, New Strategic Plan Working Draft, June 9. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 73 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighbor- hood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the envi- ronment? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Development of the proposed project would result approximately 237 employees on site, as well as 127 new residents associated with the development of the Hill Street Parcel. New employees and residents would use local parks and community facilities in El Cerrito, in addition to regional recrea- tional facilities such as the San Francisco Bay Trail, regional parks in the Berkeley/Oakland Hills, and Eastshore State Park. These residents and employees would increase demand for recreational facilities; however, the increased demand resulting from the project would not result in a substantial increase in use of these facilities. This occasional use would not be expected to result in physical deterioration of any parks in El Cerrito, including those in the vicinity of the project site. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact) Implementation of the Safeway project would not include the construction of any recreational facilities. Specific design details of the Hill Street Parcel development are unknown at this time. When site specific plans are developed, the Hill Street Parcel applicant would be required to undergo further environmental review to determine if any recreational facilities associated with the Hill Street Parcel project might result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 74 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom- patible uses farm equipment)? ˆ ˆ ˆ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ˆ ˆ ˆ f) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ˆ ˆ ˆ The following section was prepared based on a transportation study prepared by Fehr & Peers, included in Appendix D The study evaluates the transportation impacts that would result from the proposed project, including impacts associated with traffic congestion, transit ridership, and pedestrian and bike circulation. Please see Appendix D for additional detail. a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 75 Overview The traffic analysis focuses on the operations of key intersections in the vicinity of the site during the weekday morning and evening peak commute periods, when traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways are highest. The operations of the study intersections were evaluated for the following four scenarios: • Scenario 1: Existing Conditions – Existing Conditions were established using traffic counts collected in 2006, 2007 and 2010. • Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project Conditions – Existing Plus Project traffic forecasts were developed by adding the project-generated traffic to the existing counts from Scenario 1. • Scenario 3: Cumulative Without Project Conditions – Cumulative Without Project traffic forecasts were obtained from the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, which assumed growth to year 2030 consistent with the CCTA Travel Demand Model and specific land use adaptive reuse assumptions along San Pablo Avenue throughout the City of El Cerrito. The Specific Plan forecasts included traffic generated by the planned Safeway and mixed-use project, so these traffic volumes were subtracted from the Cumulative Without Project Conditions. • Scenario 4: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions – Cumulative Plus Project traffic forecasts were developed by adding the project-generated traffic to traffic forecasts for Scenario 3. The traffic forecasts for the Cumulative Plus Project Conditions are equivalent to the Specific Plan forecasts, although there are small differences resulting from changes in the Safeway project trip distribution that were made after the completion of the Specific Plan traffic analysis. Intersections with potential impacts were selected in consultation with City staff based on the amount of traffic projected to be added by the proposed project. The intersections listed below and shown in Figure 7 represent the locations most likely to experience traffic impacts associated with the project. 1. Knott Avenue/San Pablo Avenue 2. Cutting Boulevard/I-80 Westbound Ramps 3. Cutting Boulevard/I-80 HOV Ramps 4. Cutting Boulevard/San Pablo Avenue 5. Eastshore Boulevard/Hill Street/San Pablo Avenue 6. Hill Street/Safeway Driveway/BART Driveway 7. Key Boulevard/Hill Street/Elm Street 8. Safeway Driveway/San Pablo Avenue 9. Blake Street/San Pablo Avenue 10. Blake Street/Elm Street/Richmond Street 11. Potrero Avenue/South 55th Street/I-80 Westbound Ramps 12. Potrero Avenue/Eastshore Boulevard/I-80 Ramps 13. Potrero Avenue/San Pablo Avenue 14. Potrero Avenue/Richmond Street 15. Knott Avenue/Key Boulevard 16. Cutting Boulevard/Kearney Street/BART Driveway 17. Cutting Boulevard/Key Boulevard 18. Liberty Street/Key Boulevard All study intersections listed above are under City of El Cerrito jurisdiction except the I-80 ramp- terminal intersections and four of the five intersections along San Pablo Avenue (all except Knott Avenue), also designated as State Route 123, which are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Analysis Methodology The operational performance of a roadway network is commonly described with the term level of service or LOS. LOS is a qualitative description of operating conditions, ranging from LOS A (free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (oversaturated conditions where traffic ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 76 flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays). The LOS analysis methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual were used in this study. Signalized Intersections. Table 5 summarizes the relationship between the control delay and LOS for signalized intersections. Table 5: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria Level of Service Description Average Control Delay (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable traffic signal progression and/or short cycle < 10.0 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle > 10.0 and ≤ 20.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20.0 and ≤ 35.0 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35.0 and ≤ 55.0 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. > 55.0 and ≤ 80.0 F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle > 80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Due to the degree of development in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan in the Del Norte BART Station area, and existing congested conditions in the PM peak hour, a detailed study of the intersec- tions within the Del Norte BART Station Area was performed. This analysis was conducted using SimTraffic, which is a companion software to used for modeling and simulating traffic operations based on the behavior of individual drivers in a network. The software accounts for physical features of the transportation system, traffic signal operations, traffic flow conditions, and driver behavior characteristics to estimate travel delays and other performance measures that describe traffic operations. SimTraffic can be used to estimate other measures of effectiveness such as travel speed and travel times through the roadway network, intersection queuing, and the percentage of traffic demand that could be served by the transportation system. Microsimulation programs, such as SimTraffic, incorporate the element of randomness inherent in traffic flow. Therefore, in order to average out the random fluctuations and obtain a statistically more significant result, a microsimulation model is run a number of times and the average of the runs is reported. For this study, the SimTraffic files were each run a total of ten times. The 6.0 software was used to simulate PM peak hour traffic conditions at the Knott Avenue, Cutting Boulevard, Hill Street/Eastshore Boulevard/Peerless Avenue, and Blake Street intersections with San Pablo Avenue, along with the driveways to the east of San Pablo Avenue on Cutting Boulevard and Hill Street. In addition, the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and the proposed Safeway driveway, located south of Hill Street, was included. Because levels of traffic are higher in the PM peak hour than in the AM peak hour, detailed station area traffic simulation was only performed for the PM peak hour. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 77 Unsignalized Intersections. In Chapter 17 of the Transportation Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, the LOS for unsignalized intersections (side-street or all-way stop con- trolled intersections) is also defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds). The control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay is calculated for each stop-con- trolled movement and for the uncontrolled left turns, if any, from the main street. The delay and LOS for the intersection as a whole and for the worst movement are reported for side-street stop intersec- tions. The intersection average delay is reported for all-way stop intersections. Table 6 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. The delay ranges for unsignalized intersections are lower than for signalized intersections as drivers expect less delay at unsignalized intersections. Table 6: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Little or no delays < 10.0 B Short traffic delays > 10.0 and ≤ 15.0 C Average traffic delays > 15.0 and ≤ 25.0 D Long traffic delays > 25.0 and ≤ 35.0 E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 and ≤ 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). Significance Criteria Currently the City of El Cerrito does not have written guidelines governing the threshold of when impacts to the transportation network rise to the level of being considered “significant” and in need of mitigation; however, there are criteria that have been used by the City in previous studies that will serve as the standards of significance for this project. It is noted that the West Contra Costa Trans- portation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) also maintains Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) for Regional Routes, of which San Pablo Avenue is one. The MTSO for San Pablo Avenue is to “maintain LOS E or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Avenue.” The significance thresholds below are consistent with, and in fact more strict than, the WCCTAC MTSO. The proposed project would be considered to have a significant effect on the transportation network based on the following criteria. • Signalized and All-Way Stop Controlled Intersections. A significant traffic-related impact would occur at signalized and all-way-stop controlled intersections if the addition of project traffic were to results in: o Intersection operations degrading from LOS D or better to LOS E or F; or ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 78 o The volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) increasing by 1 or more percent for intersections already operating at LOS E or LOS F under the no project condition. • Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersections. A side-street stop-controlled intersection functions differently than a signalized or all-way stop-controlled intersection, in that the primary street’s through movements incur no delay while the turns to/from the side street incur delay, and the side street traffic volumes are often so low that a signal is not warranted. In cases where long delays occur at low-volume side streets, drivers can typically seek other routes that offer lower overall delay. Therefore, for side-street stop-controlled intersections, a significant traffic-related impact would occur at side-street stop-controlled intersections if the addition of project-related traffic were to cause: o The worst side-street approach to degrade from LOS E or better to LOS F; and o The intersection meets peak hour signal warrants. • Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities. The project would have a significant impact if it would: o Hinder or eliminate an existing or designated bikeway, or interfere with implementation of a proposed bikeway. o Result in unsafe conditions for bicyclists, including unsafe bicycle/pedestrian or bicycle/motor vehicle conflicts. o Adversely affect an existing pedestrian facility or result in unsafe conditions for pedestrians, including unsafe pedestrian/bicycle or pedestrian motor vehicle conflicts. • Transit. The project would have a significant impact if it would: o Cause a substantial delay in transit service or increase demand for transit beyond existing or planned service capacity. • Additional Significance Criteria. The project will also be judged to have a significant impact if it would: o Result in inadequate emergency access. o Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses or create unsafe conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists. o Conflict with local or regional policies or programs supporting alternative transportation. Existing Conditions The roadways in the study area are described below and their locations in relation to the site are shown on Figure 7. • Interstate 80 (I-80) is a major east-west freeway that begins in San Francisco at Highway 101 and extends cross-country to New Jersey in the east. In Contra Costa County, I-80 is a major commute route connecting residents in the northeast Bay Area to employment centers in the region. In the vicinity of the project, I-80 has a north-south orientation. I-80 is also designated as I-580 through Albany, Berkeley, and Emeryville. Through El Cerrito, I-80 provides three mixed-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. Access to the project site from I-80 is provided via interchanges at Cutting Boulevard and Potrero Avenue. I-80 has an average daily ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 79 traffic (ADT) volume of 180,000 vehicles per day between Buchanan Street and Gilman Street interchanges.34 • San Pablo Avenue (State Route 123) is a four-lane north-south arterial with a combination of center median sections and two-way left turn lane sections. The portion of San Pablo Avenue in the project area has a mix of fronting retail and office uses with on-street parking on select segments and a posted speed limit of 30 mph. San Pablo Avenue extends between 17th Street in Oakland in the south to Willow Avenue in Rodeo in the north. San Pablo Avenue is a designated State highway and has an ADT of 29,000 vehicles per day south of Cutting Boulevard. Changes to San Pablo Avenue require review and approval from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). • Blake Street is an east-west two-lane local street with on-street parking in both directions. Blake Street extends from San Pablo Avenue in the west to Ganges Avenue in the east, with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Blake Street forms the southern boundary of the project site. • Cutting Boulevard is an east-west roadway that extends from Garrard Boulevard in the west to Lane in the east. West of San Pablo Avenue, Cutting Boulevard is a four-lane minor arterial with a center median or two-way left turn lane and a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. East of San Pablo Avenue, Cutting Boulevard extends for one block as a one-way westbound roadway serving traffic and buses exiting the Del Norte BART Station area, then a two-lane minor arterial to the east, with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. On-street parking within the study area is only allowed on the segments east of the Ohlone Greenway. Access to I- 80 is provided via an interchange on Cutting Boulevard. • Eastshore Boulevard is a short north-south minor arterial street that extends from San Pablo Avenue in the north to the I-80/Potrero Avenue eastbound off-ramp intersection. Eastshore Boulevard provides two lanes in the southbound direction and one lane in the northbound direction. Access to the I-80 eastbound off-ramp and the westbound on-ramp is provided from Eastshore Boulevard. • Hill Street is a short minor arterial street that extends from San Pablo Avenue in the west to Elm Street in the east, with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Between San Pablo Avenue and Lexington Avenue, Hill Street provides two lanes in each direction. Between Lexington Avenue and Elm Street, Hill Street provides two eastbound lanes. Access to the project site would be provided from a driveway on Hill Street. • Elm Street is a north-south two-lane minor arterial street with on-street parking in both directions. Elm Street extends from Glen Mawr Street in the north to Schmidt Lane in the south, with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. • Kearney Street is a two-lane north-south local street that extends between Knott Avenue and Cutting Boulevard within the study area. Between Cutting Boulevard and Hill Street, there is a two-lane northbound bus circulation roadway within the BART station that is aligned with Kearney Street to the north. • Key Boulevard is a north-south two-lane minor arterial street that extends from McLaughlin Street in the north to Elm Street in the south. Key Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. 34 Caltrans, 2008 (http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2008all.htm). ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 80 • Knott Avenue is an east-west two-lane local street that extends just west of San Pablo Avenue to Hagen Boulevard in the east, with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. • Lexington Avenue is a north-south two-lane local street that extends from Hill Street in the north to Gladys Avenue in the south, with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Between Blake Street and Hill Street, Lexington Avenue is one-way southbound. • Liberty Street is a north-south two-lane local street that extends from Key Boulevard in the north to the El Cerrito Plaza Shopping Center in the south, with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Between Schmidt Lane and Hill Street, Liberty Street is one-way northbound. • Potrero Avenue is a two to four-lane east-west minor arterial that extends from Carlson Boulevard in the west to Arlington Boulevard to the east. Potrero Avenue has a mix of retail and residential uses with on-street parking provided for most of its length within the study area. Access to I-80 is provided via an interchange on Potrero Avenue. Potrero Avenue is posted at 25 miles per hour in the study area. • Richmond Street is a north-south two-lane minor arterial street with on-street parking in both directions. Richmond Street extends between Blake Street in the north to Fairmount Avenue in the south, with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Existing Intersection Operations. Intersection turning movement counts were collected from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 and Thursday, January 28, 2010 for study intersections 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16 and 18. Intersection turning movement counts for study intersections 4 and 5 were taken from the traffic study performed for the San Pablo Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Cutting Blvd Cutting Blvd Elm St Elm St Key Blvd Key Blvd Blake St Blake St 55th St 55th St Potrero Ave Potrero Ave Hill St Hill St 56th St 56th St Hagen Blvd Hagen Blvd Richmond St Richmond St 52nd St 52nd St Everett St Everett St Knott Ave Knott Ave e v A s e g n a G A s e g n a G ve Ells Ln Ells Ln Kearney St Kearney St Gately Ave Gately Ave Gladys Ave Gladys Ave 50th St S h t 0 5 Manila Ave Manila Ave Fleming Ave Snowdon Ave Snowdon Ave Alameda Ave Alameda Ave Harper St Harper St Creely Ave Creely Ave Norvell St Norvell St t S h t 7 5 S h t 7 5 t Gatto Ave Gatto Ave Tapscott Ave Tapscott Ave Junction Ave Junction Ave Donal Ave Donal Ave ve ve Madison Ave Madison Ave Fallon Ave Fallon Ave Glen Mawr Ave Glen Mawr Ave Liberty St Liberty St v A o n o M e v A o n o M 49th St 49th St s Ave s Ave e Walnut St Walnut St Carlos Ave Carlos Ave A z e niu q r a C v A z e niu q r a C ve ve Hudson St Hudson St sia p la m a T A sia p la m a T Wesley Ave Wesley Ave State Ave State Ave Campbell St Campbell St t S sllE t S sllE Kenilworth Ave Kenilworth Ave d vlB e r o h sts a Eastshor lB e vd t S d r 3 5 r 3 5 t S d Conlon Ave Conlon Ave Fray Ave Fray Ave Lexington Ave Lexington Ave Fairview Dr Fairview Dr Nunn St Nunn St Mira Vista Dr Mira Vista Dr d Ave d Ave Victor Ave Victor Ave Reid Ct Reid Ct t Downey Pl Downey Pl e v A ss elr e e P v A ss elr e e P e Plank Ave Plank Ave ate Ct ate Ct School St School St Ave Ave Irma Av Irma Av Ernest Ave Ernest Ave Manor Cir Manor Cir Humboldt A Humboldt A Gordon Ave Gordon Ave F St F St eece Ct eece Ct y Ct y Ct Plaza Way Plaza Way Canyon Trl Canyon Trl Plaza Cir Plaza Cir Tamalpais Pl Tamalpais Pl Junction Ave Junction Ave Wall Ave Wall Ave Cypress Ave Cypress Ave Wall Ave Wall Ave Liberty St Liberty St 50th St 50th St 49th St 49th St 49th St 49th St Cypress Ave Cypress Ave Kearney St Kearney St Kearney St Elm St Elm St Fall Ave Fall Ave Madison Ave Madison Ave Liberty St Liberty St Kearney St Kearney St Lexington Ave Lexington Ave San Pablo Ave Cutting Blvd Elm St Key Blvd Blake St 55th St Potrero Ave Hill St 56th St Hagen Blvd Richmond St 52nd St Everett St Knott Ave e v A s e g n a G Ells Ln Kearney St Gately Ave Gladys Ave 50th St Manila Ave Fleming Ave Snowdon Ave Alameda Ave Harper St Creely Ave Norvell St t S h t 7 5 Gatto Ave Tapscott Ave Junction Ave Donal Ave ve Madison Ave Fallon Ave Glen Mawr Ave Liberty St v A o n o M e 49th St s Ave e Walnut St Carlos Ave A z e niu q r a C v ve Hudson St sia p la m a T A Wesley Ave State Ave Campbell St t S sllE Kenilworth Ave d vlB e r o h sts a E t S d r 3 5 Conlon Ave Fray Ave Lexington Ave Fairview Dr Nunn St Mira Vista Dr d Ave Victor Ave Reid Ct t Downey Pl e v A ss elr e e P Plank Ave ate Ct School St Ave Irma Av Ernest Ave Manor Cir Humboldt A Gordon Ave F St eece Ct y Ct Plaza Way Canyon Trl Plaza Cir Tamalpais Pl Junction Ave Wall Ave Cypress Ave Wall Ave Liberty St 50th St 49th St 49th St Cypress Ave Kearney St Kearney St Elm St Fall Ave Madison Ave Liberty St Kearney St Lexington Ave 123 C A L I F O R N I A 123 C A L I F O R N I A 80 80 PROJECT SITE OHLONE GREENWAY 2 3 4 7 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 15 18 17 16 LEGEND F Not to Scale BART Line Ohlone Greenway Study Intersection 1 El Cerrito Safeway FIGURE 1-1 May 2010 WC09-2668_1-1_StudyArea PROJECT SITE VICINITY AND STUDY LOCATIONS not to scale FIGURE 7 El Cerrito Safeway Project IS/MND Project Site Vicinity and Study Locations SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, MAY 2010. I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\figures\Fig_7.ai (6/21/10) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 82 Back of Figure 7: Project Site Vicinity and Study Locations 8.5 x 11 color ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 83 Specific Plan, and are dated May 2007.35 All other study intersection turning movement counts were taken from the Mayfair Block Traffic Impact Study, and are dated January 2006.36 The count data were compared and adjusted to reflect consistent traffic flows between closely spaced intersections; generally the 2010 traffic counts were increased to be consistent with the older counts which included traffic from the previous Target store on the site. Then, the Target trips were estimated and subtracted from the intersection volumes, to reflect the current condition with the vacant Target store. For this step, ITE Trip Generation rates were used to estimate the trips generated by the former Target store. The ITE rates for free-standing discount store, and the corresponding average pass-by rates published in ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition were used. Table 7 shows the estimated trip generation of the Target store. After accounting for pass-by trips, the 85,000 square-foot Target Store is estimated to have generated 90 AM peak hour trips and 354 PM peak hour trips, as shown in Table 7. The traffic volumes were then adjusted (reduced) at the appropriate intersections based on the trip generation shown in Table 7 and the trip distribution shown in Figure 8. The trips removed at each intersection are shown in Figure 8. Figure 9 represents an existing scenario in which the site is unoccupied and shows the intersection peak hour turning movement volumes. Table 7. Trip Generation of Former Target Store AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use ITE Code Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Target 8152 85 ksf 61 29 90 213 213 426 Pass-By Vehicle Reduction - PM (17%)3 -36 -36 -72 Estimated Target Trips 61 29 90 177 177 354 Notes: 1 KSF = 1,000 square feet 2 Following ITE trip generation equations used (ITE Code 815 – Free Standing Discount Store): AM: = 1.06 Enter = 68%, Exit = 32% PM: = 5.00 Enter = 50%, Exit = 50% Where X = 1,000 square feet of floor area, T = number of vehicle trips, Ln = natural log 3 ITE Trip Generation Handbook average pass-by rate for free-standing discount store. Source: Trip Generation Manual (8th Edition), ITE, 2008. Existing operations were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours at the study intersections. Table 8 summarizes the intersection analysis results. As shown, all of the study intersections currently operate at acceptable service levels (LOS D or better for signals and all-way stop-controlled intersections, and LOS E or better for the worst side street approach at side street stop-controlled inter-sections). The traffic simulation indicates that the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Hill Street/Eastshore Boulevard operates at LOS D in the PM peak hour, with the worst congestion and vehicle queuing in the northbound direction. The current 120 second cycle length is adequate to serve all vehicles, if green time was solely distributed based on vehicle demand; however, pedestrians wishing to cross 35 Fehr & Peers, 2007. Existing Conditions Report, San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. 36 Korve Engineering, 2007. Mayfair Block Traffic Impact Study. ---PAGE BREAK--- not to scale FIGURE 8 El Cerrito Safeway Former Target Store Peak Hour Traffic Volumes SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, MAY 2010. I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\figures\Fig_8.ai (6/21/10) ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE 9 El Cerrito Safeway Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, MAY 2010. I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\figures\Fig_9.ai (6/21/10) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 86 San Pablo Avenue while Eastshore Boulevard traffic has the green time or wishing to cross Eastshore Boulevard while Peerless Avenue has the green time extend those phases when they call to cross the street. When pedestrians are not at the intersection, all unused green time reverts back to the north- bound and southbound movements, providing enough time to serve all demand, and even residual demand from previous cycles. However, when pedestrians appear for consecutive cycles, there is not enough green time allocated to the northbound movement to serve all of the vehicle demand in a single signal cycle. The pedestrian demand at this intersection is high enough to significantly affect the green time allocated to the north-south movements. There are about 120 pedestrians crossing at the inter-section in the AM peak hour and 75 pedestrians crossing in the PM peak hour. Detailed intersection LOS calculation worksheets are presented in Appendix D. Table 8: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Delay (in seconds)2 LOS 1. Knott Avenue/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 13 18 B B 2. Cutting Boulevard/I-80 Westbound Ramps Signal AM PM 11 12 B B 3. Cutting Boulevard/I-80 HOV Ramps Signal AM PM 10 4 A A 4. Cutting Boulevard/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 26 39 C D 5. Eastshore Boulevard/Hill Street/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 24 54 C D 6. Hill Street/BART Driveway none AM PM 1 1 A A 7. Key Boulevard/Hill Street/Elm Street Signal AM PM 45 35 D D 8. Driveway/San Pablo Avenue N/A AM PM n/a n/a 9. Blake Street/San Pablo Avenue SSSC AM PM 1 (11) 2 (11) A A 10. Blake Street/Elm Street/Richmond Street AWSC AM PM 12 11 B B 11a. Potrero Avenue/55th Street SSSC AM PM 4 (20) 5 (26) A A 11b. Potrero Avenue/I-80 Westbound On-ramp None AM PM 1 1 A A 12. Potrero Avenue/Eastshore Boulevard/I-80 Ramps Signal AM PM 10 7 B A 13. Potrero Avenue/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 33 30 C C 14. Potrero Avenue/Richmond Street Signal AM PM 9 8 A A 15. Knott Avenue/Key Boulevard AWSC AM PM 12 11 B B 16. Cutting Boulevard/Kearney Street/BART Driveway SSSC AM PM 2 (11) 2 A A 17. Cutting Boulevard/Key Boulevard AWSC AM PM 16 15 C C 18. Liberty Street/Key Boulevard SSSC AM PM 1 (13) 3 (14) A A Table notes on next page. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 87 Notes: Results in bold represent unacceptable levels of service. 1 Signal = signalized intersection, SSSC = side street stop controlled intersection, AWSC = all-way stop-controlled intersection 2 For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay is reported as: Intersection average (worst case approach). Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2010. Trip Generation Table 9 provides the AM and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed project site. Accounting for trips generated by pass-by, transit share, and internalization of the new trips, it is estimated the proposed project would add 307 AM peak hour trips and 550 PM peak hour trips to the roadway network. Table 9: Trip Generation for Proposed Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use ITE Code Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Safeway 8502 65.2 ksf 143 91 234 339 325 664 Transit Use Reduction (10%) -14 -9 -23 -34 -33 -67 Pass-By Vehicle Reduction - PM (36%)3 -119 -119 -238 Net New Safeway Trips 129 82 211 186 173 359 Retail 8204 16.1 ksf 31 20 51 92 95 187 Internalization (5%)5 -2 -1 -3 -5 -5 -10 Pass-By Vehicle Reduction – PM (34%)6 -32 -32 -64 Net New Retail Trips 29 19 48 55 58 113 Apartments 2207 56 DU 6 23 29 23 12 35 Internalization (5%)5 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 Transit Use Reduction (10%) -1 -2 -3 -2 -1 -3 Net New Apartment Trips 5 20 25 20 10 30 Retail 8204 4 ksf 14 9 23 36 38 74 Pass-By Vehicle Reduction – PM (34%)6 -13 -15 -26 Net New Mixed Use Retail Trips 14 9 23 23 25 48 New Project Trips 177 130 307 284 266 550 Notes: 1 KSF = 1,000 square feet 2 Following ITE trip generation equations used (ITE Code 850 – Supermarket): AM: = 3.59 Enter = 61%, Exit = 39% PM: Ln(T) = 0.61 Ln(X) + 3.95; Enter = 51%, Exit = 34% Where X = 1,000 square feet of floor area, T = number of vehicle trips, Ln = natural log 3 ITE Trip Generation Handbook average pass-by rate for supermarket. 4 Following ITE trip generation equations used (ITE Code 820 – Shopping Center): AM: Ln(T) = 0.58 Ln + 2.32; Enter = 61%, Exit = 39% PM: Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X) + 3.37; Enter = 49%, Exit = 51% Where X = 1,000 square feet of floor area, T = number of vehicle trips, Ln = natural log 5 Based on surveys conducted by Fehr & Peers in Oakland, CA in June 2008. 6 ITE Trip Generation Handbook average pass-by rate for shopping center 7 Following ITE trip generation equations used (ITE Code 220 – Apartments): AM: = 0.51 Enter = 20%, Exit = 80% PM: = 0.62 Enter = 65%, Exit = 35% Where X = Number of dwelling units, T = number of vehicle trips Source: Trip Generation Manual (8th Edition), ITE, 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 88 Internal trips are defined as those which begin and end within the project site and do not add any new trips to the external roadway network. For projects that contain a mixture of uses, it is reasonable to expect that some trips would remain internal to the site. Pass-by trips are those that occur when a driver on an adjacent roadway to a particular use decides to stop on their way to their final destination to purchase an item on their way home from work). These trips are not considered as new trips on the roadway network. Because the project site is adjacent to the El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station, which also serves as a hub for several bus routes, it is reasonable to expect transit use by Safeway employees and patrons that is somewhat higher than the average ITE rate for supermarkets. Typically, supermarkets have low transit mode share as it is difficult for most shoppers to carry their groceries on transit. Two recent surveys conducted by Fehr & Peers at local supermarkets showed transit mode shares of less than one percent and seven percent: a survey at the Berkeley Whole Foods Market on Telegraph Avenue, which is about ½ mile from a BART station and frequently served by buses, found less than one percent transit mode share, and a similar survey at the Safeway Supermarket on College Avenue in Oakland, which is less than ½ mile from a BART station and frequently served by buses, found about a seven percent transit mode share. It is noted that the Whole Foods customer demographic may have different mode choice characteristics than the Safeway customer demographic. Given the better BART proximity and bus route coverage available to the current project site, relative to either of the above survey sites, a ten percent decrease in trip generation, relative to that projected by average ITE rates, was determined to be reasonable for this study. Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment. Trip distribution is defined as the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would use to arrive at and depart from the site. Project trip distribution was based on the results of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)’s Countywide Travel Demand model, discussions with Safeway about the expected market catchment area, and discussions with City staff about the expected distribution of patrons. Inbound and outbound trip distribution and assignment figure is shown in Figures 10 and 11. Project-generated trips were assigned to the surrounding transportation network based on the following general directions of approach and departure: • 19% of trips begin/end along San Pablo Avenue south of Potrero Avenue • 18% of trips begin/end along San Pablo Avenue north of Knott Avenue • 10% of trips begin/end along Cutting Boulevard west of I-80 • 10% of trips begin/end along Richmond Street south of Potrero Avenue • 7% of trips begin/end along Potrero Avenue west of I-80 • 6% of trips begin/end south of Potrero Avenue and west of Richmond Street37 • 5% of trips begin/end along I-80 south of Potrero Avenue • 5% of trips begin/end along I-80 north of Cutting Boulevard • 5% of trips begin/end along Potrero Avenue east of Richmond Street 37 This portion of the distribution represents local neighborhood trips, and the project volumes turning to/from Potrero from Elm Street and Liberty Street are projected to be low enough that the operation of Potrero/Elm and Potrero/Liberty would not be substantially affected. ---PAGE BREAK--- San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Cutting Blvd Cutting Blvd Elm St Elm St Key Blvd Key Blvd Blake St Blake St 55th St 55th St Potrero Ave Potrero Ave Hill St Hill St 56th St 56th St Hagen Blvd Hagen Blvd Richmond St Richmond St 52nd St 52nd St Everett St Everett St Knott Ave Knott Ave e v A s e g n a G A s e g n a G ve Ells Ln Ells Ln Kearney St Kearney St Gately Ave Gately Ave Gladys Ave Gladys Ave 50th St S h t 0 5 Manila Ave Manila Ave Fleming Ave Snowdon Ave Snowdon Ave Alameda Ave Alameda Ave Harper St Harper St Creely Ave Creely Ave Norvell St Norvell St t S h t 7 5 S h t 7 5 t Gatto Ave Gatto Ave Tapscott Ave Tapscott Ave Junction Ave Junction Ave Donal Ave Donal Ave ve ve Madison Ave Madison Ave Fallon Ave Fallon Ave Glen Mawr Ave Glen Mawr Ave Liberty St Liberty St v A o n o M e v A o n o M 49th St 49th St s Ave s Ave e Walnut St Walnut St Carlos Ave Carlos Ave A z e niu q r a C v A z e niu q r a C ve ve Hudson St Hudson St sia p la m a T A sia p la m a T Wesley Ave Wesley Ave State Ave State Ave Campbell St Campbell St t S sllE t S sllE Kenilworth Ave Kenilworth Ave t S d r 3 5 r 3 5 t S d Conlon Ave Conlon Ave Wilson Way Wilson Way Fray Ave Fray Ave Lexington Ave Lexington Ave Fairview Dr Fairview Dr Nunn St Nunn St Mira Vista Dr Mira Vista Dr d Ave d Ave Victor Ave Victor Ave Reid Ct Reid Ct t Downey Pl Downey Pl Peerless Ave Peerless Ave Plank Ave Plank Ave ate Ct ate Ct School St School St Ave Ave Irma Av Irma Av Ernest Ave Ernest Ave Manor Cir Manor Cir Humboldt A Humboldt A Gordon Ave Gordon Ave F St F St eece Ct eece Ct y Ct y Ct Plaza Way Plaza Way Canyon Trl Canyon Trl Plaza Cir Plaza Cir Tamalpais Pl Tamalpais Pl Junction Ave Junction Ave Wall Ave Wall Ave Cypress Ave Cypress Ave Wall Ave Wall Ave Liberty St Liberty St 50th St 50th St 49th St 49th St 49th St 49th St Cypress Ave Cypress Ave Kearney St Kearney St Kearney St Elm St Elm St Fall Ave Fall Ave Madison Ave Madison Ave Liberty St Liberty St Kearney St Kearney St Lexington Ave Lexington Ave San Pablo Ave Cutting Blvd Elm St Key Blvd Blake St 55th St Potrero Ave Hill St 56th St Hagen Blvd Richmond St 52nd St Everett St Knott Ave e v A s e g n a G Ells Ln Kearney St Gately Ave Gladys Ave 50th St Manila Ave Fleming Ave Snowdon Ave Alameda Ave Harper St Creely Ave Norvell St t S h t 7 5 Gatto Ave Tapscott Ave Junction Ave Donal Ave ve Madison Ave Fallon Ave Glen Mawr Ave Liberty St v A o n o M e 49th St s Ave e Walnut St Carlos Ave A z e niu q r a C v ve Hudson St sia p la m a T A Wesley Ave State Ave Campbell St t S sllE Kenilworth Ave d vlB e r o h sts a E t S d r 3 5 Conlon Ave Wilson Way Fray Ave Lexington Ave Fairview Dr Nunn St Mira Vista Dr d Ave Victor Ave Reid Ct t Downey Pl Peerless Ave Plank Ave ate Ct School St Ave Irma Av Ernest Ave Manor Cir Humboldt A Gordon Ave F St eece Ct y Ct Plaza Way Canyon Trl Plaza Cir Tamalpais Pl Junction Ave Wall Ave Cypress Ave Wall Ave Liberty St 50th St 49th St 49th St Cypress Ave Kearney St Kearney St Elm St Fall Ave Madison Ave Liberty St Kearney St Lexington Ave 123 C A L I F O R N I A 123 C A L I F O R N I A 80 80 PROJECT SITE OHLONE GREENWAY 2 3 4 7 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 17 18 15 16 72 (114) 72 (114) 4 4 2 2 2 2 12 (20) 9 (14) 33 (54) 18 (28) 5 5 9 (14) 9 (14) 9 (14 ) 18 (28) 27 (42) 9 (14) 37 (60) 32 (51) 17 (28) 9 (14) 32 (51) 72 (114) 67 (107) 9 (14) 5 16 (27) 86 (141) 26 (42) 26 (42) 26 (42) 41 (65) 104 104 (169) (169) 104 (169) 18% 18% 5% 5% 10% 10% 7% 7% 5% 5% 19% 19% 10% 10% 5% 5% 18% 5% 10% 7% % 9 1 % 5 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% LEGEND F Not to Scale Inbound Trips BART Line Ohlone Greenway Study Intersection 1 Project Trip Distribution AM (PM) Peak Hour Project Trips XX (YY) XX (YY) XX (YY) El Cerrito Safeway FIGURE 3-2 May 2010 WC09-2668_3-2_Alt1In ALTERNATIVE 1 (UNSIGNALIZED DRIVEWAY) INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT not to scale FIGURE 10 El Cerrito Safeway Inbound Trip Distribution and Assignment SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, MAY 2010. I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\figures\Fig_10.ai (6/21/10) ---PAGE BREAK--- San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave Cutting Blvd Cutting Blvd Elm St Elm St Key Blvd Key Blvd Blake St Blake St 55th St 55th St Potrero Ave Potrero Ave Hill St Hill St 56th St 56th St Hagen Blvd Hagen Blvd Richmond St Richmond St 52nd St 52nd St Everett St Everett St Knott Ave Knott Ave e v A s e g n a G A s e g n a G ve Ells Ln Ells Ln Kearney St Kearney St Gately Ave Gately Ave Gladys Ave Gladys Ave 50th St S h t 0 5 Manila Ave Manila Ave Fleming Ave Snowdon Ave Snowdon Ave Alameda Ave Alameda Ave Harper St Harper St Creely Ave Creely Ave Norvell St Norvell St t S h t 7 5 S h t 7 5 t Gatto Ave Gatto Ave Tapscott Ave Tapscott Ave Junction Ave Junction Ave Donal Ave Donal Ave ve ve Madison Ave Madison Ave Fallon Ave Fallon Ave Glen Mawr Ave Glen Mawr Ave Liberty St Liberty St v A o n o M e v A o n o M 49th St 49th St s Ave s Ave e Walnut St Walnut St Carlos Ave Carlos Ave A z e niu q r a C v A z e niu q r a C ve ve Hudson St Hudson St sia p la m a T A sia p la m a T Wesley Ave Wesley Ave State Ave State Ave Campbell St Campbell St t S sllE t S sllE Kenilworth Ave Kenilworth Ave t S d r 3 5 r 3 5 t S d Conlon Ave Conlon Ave Wilson Way Wilson Way Fray Ave Fray Ave Lexington Ave Lexington Ave Fairview Dr Fairview Dr Nunn St Nunn St Mira Vista Dr Mira Vista Dr d Ave d Ave Victor Ave Victor Ave Reid Ct Reid Ct t Downey Pl Downey Pl e v A ss elr e e P v A ss elr e e P e Plank Ave Plank Ave ate Ct ate Ct School St School St Ave Ave Irma Av Irma Av Ernest Ave Ernest Ave Manor Cir Manor Cir Humboldt A Humboldt A Gordon Ave Gordon Ave F St F St eece Ct eece Ct y Ct y Ct Plaza Way Plaza Way Canyon Trl Canyon Trl Plaza Cir Plaza Cir Tamalpais Pl Tamalpais Pl Junction Ave Junction Ave Wall Ave Wall Ave Cypress Ave Cypress Ave Wall Ave Wall Ave Liberty St Liberty St 50th St 50th St 49th St 49th St 49th St 49th St Cypress Ave Cypress Ave Kearney St Kearney St Kearney St Elm St Elm St Fall Ave Fall Ave Madison Ave Madison Ave Liberty St Liberty St Kearney St Kearney St Lexington Ave Lexington Ave San Pablo Ave Cutting Blvd Elm St Key Blvd Blake St 55th St Potrero Ave Hill St 56th St Hagen Blvd Richmond St 52nd St Everett St Knott Ave e v A s e g n a G Ells Ln Kearney St Gately Ave Gladys Ave 50th St Manila Ave Fleming Ave Snowdon Ave Alameda Ave Harper St Creely Ave Norvell St t S h t 7 5 Gatto Ave Tapscott Ave Junction Ave Donal Ave ve Madison Ave Fallon Ave Glen Mawr Ave Liberty St v A o n o M e 49th St s Ave e Walnut St Carlos Ave A z e niu q r a C v ve Hudson St sia p la m a T A Wesley Ave State Ave Campbell St t S sllE Kenilworth Ave d vlB e r o h sts a E t S d r 3 5 Conlon Ave Wilson Way Fray Ave Lexington Ave Fairview Dr Nunn St Mira Vista Dr d Ave Victor Ave Reid Ct t Downey Pl e v A ss elr e e P Plank Ave ate Ct School St Ave Irma Av Ernest Ave Manor Cir Humboldt A Gordon Ave F St eece Ct y Ct Plaza Way Canyon Trl Plaza Cir Tamalpais Pl Junction Ave Wall Ave Cypress Ave Wall Ave Liberty St 50th St 49th St 49th St Cypress Ave Kearney St Kearney St Elm St Fall Ave Madison Ave Liberty St Kearney St Lexington Ave 123 C A L I F O R N I A 123 C A L I F O R N I A 80 80 PROJECT SITE OHLONE GREENWAY 2 3 4 7 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 17 16 18 15 7 (13) 7 (13) 36 (34) 36 (34) 13 (27) 13 (27) 35 (32) 35 (32) 63 (126) 63 (126) 52 (48) 52 (48) 9 (19) 7 (13) 24 (50) 13 (27) 3 3 33 (69) 7(13) 47 (95) 7 (13) 13(27) 7 (13) 23 (48) 62 (126) 24 (50) 43 (88) 7 (13) 7 (13) 16 (32) 21(44) 21(44) 21(44) 26 (56) 18% 18% 5% 5% 10% 10% 7% 7% 5% 5% 19% 19% 10% 10% 18% 5% 10% 7% 5% 19% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% LEGEND F Not to Scale Outbound Trips BART Line Ohlone Greenway Study Intersection 1 Project Trip Distribution AM (PM) Peak Hour Project Trips XX (YY) XX (YY) XX (YY) El Cerrito Safeway FIGURE 3-3 May 2010 WC09-2668_3-3_Alt1Out ALTERNATIVE 1 (UNSIGNALIZED DRIVEWAY) OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT not to scale FIGURE 11 El Cerrito Safeway Outbound Trip Distribution and Assignment SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, MAY 2010. I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\figures\Fig_11.ai (6/21/10) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 91 • 5% of trips begin/end along Elm Street east of Key Boulevard • 5% of trips begin/end along Knott Avenue east of San Pablo Avenue • 5% of trips begin/end along Blake Street east of Elm Street Figure 12 shows the Existing Plus Project intersection peak hour traffic volumes. Table 10 shows the number of project trips added to each study intersection, as well as the project’s percentage of the total future traffic volume. Through the San Pablo Avenue corridor between Blake Street and Knott Avenue, the project contributes approximately 5.0% of the total traffic volume in the AM peak hour and 7.8% in the PM peak hour. Note that the Hill Street Parcel development constitutes about 15 percent of each of the above percentages. Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service. The Existing Plus Project intersection analysis results are presented in Table 11. As shown, all but three study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable service levels (LOS D or better for signals and all-way stop-controlled intersections, and LOS E or better for the worst approach at side-street stop controlled intersections). The three exceptions are: • San Pablo Avenue/Hill Street/Eastshore Boulevard, PM peak hour • San Pablo Avenue/Safeway Driveway, PM peak hour • San Pablo Avenue/Blake Street, PM peak hour ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE 12 El Cerrito Safeway Existing Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, MAY 2010. I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\figures\Fig_12.ai (6/21/10) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 93 Table 10: Existing Conditions – Project Trips as Percentage of Total Volume Existing Proposed Project Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volume Project Trips Percentage 1. Knott Avenue/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 1,707 2,273 64 113 3.7% 5.0% 2. Cutting Boulevard/I-80 Westbound Ramps AM PM 2,338 2,316 39 69 1.7% 3.0% 3. Cutting Boulevard/I-80 HOV Ramps AM PM 2,052 2,158 39 69 1.9% 3.2% 4. Cutting Boulevard/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 3,001 3,548 110 195 3.7% 5.5% 5. Eastshore Boulevard/Hill Street/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 2,704 3,099 155 346 5.7% 11.2% 6. Hill Street/BART Driveway AM PM 592 526 181 453 30.6% 86.1% 7. Key Boulevard/Hill Street/Elm Street AM PM 1,120 917 56 109 5.0% 11.9% 8. Driveway/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 1,451 1,831 149 365 10.3% 19.9% 9. Blake Street/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 1,462 1,870 128 219 8.8% 11.7% 10. Blake Street/Elm Street/Richmond Street AM PM 952 804 51 97 5.4% 12.1% 11a. Potrero Avenue/55th Street AM PM 985 956 21 39 2.1% 4.1% 11b. Potrero Avenue/I-80 Westbound On-ramp AM PM 1,009 946 21 39 2.1% 4.1% 12. Potrero Avenue/Eastshore Boulevard/I-80 Ramps AM PM 1,793 1,670 37 66 2.1% 4.0% 13. Potrero Avenue/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 2,407 2,544 110 191 4.6% 7.5% 14. Potrero Avenue/Richmond Street AM PM 1,067 971 53 98 5.0% 10.1% 15. Knott Avenue/Key Boulevard AM PM 766 687 16 27 2.1% 3.9% 16. Cutting Boulevard/Kearney Street/BART Driveway AM PM 458 660 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 17. Cutting Boulevard/Key Boulevard AM PM 953 875 7 13 0.7% 1.5% 18. Liberty Street/Key Boulevard AM PM 553 558 7 13 1.3% 2.3% Note: Through the San Pablo Avenue corridor between Blake and Knott, the project contributes approximately 5.0 percent of the total traffic volume in the AM peak hour and 7.8 percent in the PM peak hour. Note that the mixed-use project constitutes about 15 percent of each of the above (5.0 and 7.8) percentages. Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 94 Table 11: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service No Project Proposed Project Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Delay2 LOS Delay2 LOS 1. Knott Avenue/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 13 18 B B 13 53 B D 2. Cutting Boulevard/I-80 Westbound Ramps Signal AM PM 11 12 B B 11 12 B B 3. Cutting Boulevard/I-80 HOV Ramps Signal AM PM 10 4 A A 10 4 A A 4. Cutting Boulevard/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 26 39 C D 27 46 C D 5. Eastshore Boulevard/Hill Street/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 24 54 C D 29 79 C E 6. Hill Street/BART Driveway SSSC AM PM 1 1 A A 4 (21) 14 (46) A B 7. Key Boulevard/Hill Street/Elm Street Signal AM PM 45 35 D D 46 36 D D 8. Driveway/San Pablo Avenue SSSC/ Signal AM PM n/a n/a 1 (11) 95 (>100) A F 9. Blake Street/San Pablo Avenue SSSC AM PM 1 (11) 2 (11) A A 1 (11) 32 (>100) A D 10. Blake Street/Elm Street/Richmond Street AWSC AM PM 12 11 B B 13 12 B B 11a. Potrero Avenue/55th Street SSSC AM PM 4 (20) 5 (26) A A 4 (21) 5 (28) A A 11b. Potrero Avenue/I-80 Westbound On-ramp none AM PM 1 1 A A 1 1 A A 12. Potrero Avenue/Eastshore Boulevard/I-80 Ramps Signal AM PM 10 7 B A 11 8 B A 13. Potrero Avenue/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 33 30 C C 34 28 C C 14. Potrero Avenue/Richmond Street Signal AM PM 9 8 A A 9 9 A A 15. Knott Avenue/Key Boulevard AWSC AM PM 12 11 B B 12 11 B B 16. Cutting Boulevard/Kearney Street/BART Driveway SSSC AM PM 2 (11) 2 A A 2 (11) 2 A A 17. Cutting Boulevard/Key Boulevard AWSC AM PM 16 15 C C 16 16 C C 18. Liberty Street/Key Boulevard SSSC AM PM 1 (13) 3 (14) A A 1 (13) 3 (15) A A Notes: Results in bold represent unacceptable levels of service. 1 Signal = signalized intersection, SSSC = side street stop controlled intersection, AWSC = all-way stop-controlled intersection 2 For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay is reported as: Intersection average (worst case approach). Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2010. Peak Hour Signal Warrant Analysis. The MUTCD peak hour volume traffic signal warrant (Warrant 3) for urban conditions was evaluated for the unsignalized intersections in the study area. As shown in Table 12, the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and the proposed Safeway driveway meets the peak hour signal warrant. An evaluation of all applicable warrants should be conducted and additional factors congestion, approach conditions, driver confusion) should be considered ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 95 before the decision to install a signal is made. Detailed signal warrant calculations are provided in Appendix D. Table 12: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Signal Warrant Analysis No Project Proposed Project Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Warrant Met? Peak Hour Warrant Met? 6. Hill Street/BART Driveway SSSC NO NO 8. Driveway/San Pablo Avenue SSSC2 NO YES 9. Blake Street/San Pablo Avenue SSSC NO NO 10. Blake Street/Elm Street/Richmond Street AWSC NO NO 11a. Potrero Avenue/55th Street SSSC NO NO 15. Knott Avenue/Key Boulevard AWSC NO NO 16. Cutting Boulevard/Kearney Street/BART Driveway SSSC NO NO 17. Cutting Boulevard/Key Boulevard AWSC NO NO 18. Liberty Street/Key Boulevard SSSC NO NO Notes: 1 SSSC = side street stop controlled intersection, AWSC = all-way stop-controlled intersection Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2010. Operational Characteristics of Safeway Driveway on San Pablo Avenue. The SimTraffic simulation indicates that the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Hill Street/Eastshore Boulevard does not operate acceptably in the PM peak hour, most notably in the northbound direction. Queuing from this intersection affects the ability to turn right onto San Pablo Avenue from Blake Street and from the Safeway driveway. The northbound queues spill back past these intersections to near Potrero Avenue, limiting the number of gaps for vehicles to move onto San Pablo Avenue. With no signal and no mitigation measures implemented, vehicles exiting the Safeway driveway will have difficulty finding gaps in the northbound traffic stream, leading to poor internal circulation and possible diversion of traffic to residential streets east of the project site. Potential for Diversion to Residential Streets. Twenty-four hour vehicle counts were collected in January 2010 on Lexington Avenue and Liberty Street to determine average daily traffic (ADT) volumes and peak hour volumes on the residential roadways that parallel San Pablo Avenue (See Appendix D for summary). These one-way roadways serve volumes that are within the typical range for residential roadways, although their proximity to the BART Station and the commercial San Pablo Avenue corridor means that they serve some through traffic not generated by the homes on the blocks counted). Without mitigations at the intersections along San Pablo Avenue, there are vehicles that would possibly divert down these streets to avoid congestion on San Pablo Avenue. The most likely vehicles to do this are those who want to exit the site from the Hill Street driveway. The Hill Street corridor could be subject to heavy congestion without improvements, and it would be difficult for vehicles leaving Safeway to turn left onto Hill Street. If half of all vehicles making this movement in the PM peak hour were to divert to southbound Lexington, about 31 additional vehicles would be added to the 37 existing vehicles counted. While these are significant numbers proportionally, they represent about one additional vehicle very two minutes. The increases would be lower during other hours of the day, both due to lower Safeway trip generation, and to less congestion and therefore less diversion. Overall, ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 96 the diverted trips would not increase the street volume above that of a typical urban residential street capacity of 800 – 1,000 vehicles per day. The mitigations discussed in the next section will improve operations at San Pablo Avenue/Hill Street/Eastshore Boulevard, which would minimize the need for drivers to divert from their desired route. Existing Plus Project Conditions Impacts. Traffic operations at the intersection of San Pablo Avenue/Hill Street/Eastshore Boulevard would deteriorate from LOS D under existing conditions to LOS F and the V/C ratio at this intersection would increase by 0.13 (13 percent). This would constitute a significant impact. The intersection of San Pablo Avenue/Safeway Driveway would operate at LOS F for the outbound right turn. This is a significant impact as the signal warrant is also met. The addition of project traffic would also exacerbate northbound queuing and worsen the side street LOS at San Pablo Avenue/Blake Street (but the signal warrant would not be met here). Project traffic would also worsen queues and congestion on westbound Hill Street. None of these results are signifi- cant impacts under the City’s thresholds, but they are noted because they result from the increase in congestion forecast to occur at San Pablo Avenue/Hill Street/Eastshore Boulevard. The mitigation measures proposed below will resolve the significant impacts identified above to a less-than-significant level. The measures are a part of the larger roadway improvement plan that is included in the Draft San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Only the components of the larger plan that are necessary to mitigate the Existing Plus Project impacts are described herein listed below. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a: The Safeway project applicant shall add a third through-lane along San Pablo Avenue in the northbound direction, by re-striping the existing pavement space, from Blake Street to about 150 feet north of Knott Avenue. At the intersection with Eastshore Boulevard/Hill Street, this involves converting the right-turn-only/bus by-pass lane into a through-right lane. Between Eastshore Boulevard/Hill Street and Cutting Boulevard, there are already three northbound through lanes. Between Cutting Boulevard and Knott Avenue, San Pablo Avenue currently drops a lane in the northbound direction; it is recommended that this lane be allowed to continue through Knott Avenue. The lane-drop can then occur north of Knott Avenue and will require the removal of 4 to 6 on-street parking spaces north of Knott Avenue. Effect of TRANS-1a on Bus Travel Times. The northbound right-turn lane on San Pablo Avenue at Hill Street is currently signed “Right Lane Must Turn Right, Except Buses”. With the proposed re- striping of this lane, northbound buses that currently use that lane to by-pass through-traffic queues will no longer have that advantage, as the lane would be available to all traffic. An evaluation of the effect of the mitigation measure on bus delays was performed, using the turning movement-specific results of the level of service analysis. This evaluation gives approximate results, as bus delays are not directly modeled in the methodology. Through-buses currently using the right-turn lane to travel through the intersection (as allowed by the posted sign) would experience increased delays with the re-striping. The increase is estimated at 23 seconds. Right-turning buses would experience increases of 8 seconds. Overall, through-traffic delays (for all vehicles) improve with the restriping. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 97 A comparable evaluation of bus delays is provided in the Transportation Impact Analysis Report (included in Appendix D) cumulative analysis, in which the full set of San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan mitigations are assumed and in which overall through traffic on the San Pablo Avenue corridor is higher. This evaluation shows that the full set of cumulative traffic improvements improves bus delays in the Cumulative No Project condition, relative to existing delays, and that the project adds similar increases in delay to those cited above. Effect of TRANS-1a on On-Street Parking Availability. To determine the availability of adjacent parking supplies to accommodate the loss of 4 to 6 spaces on the east side of San Pablo Avenue north of Knott Avenue, a parking survey was completed on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 between 11:00 am and 1:00 pm on the block of San Pablo Avenue between Knott Avenue and Wall Avenue. Currently there are 17 parking spaces on the east side of San Pablo Avenue, 11 parking spaces on Wall Avenue, and 54 parking spaces in the parking lot for the mixed-use development on the east side of San Pablo Avenue.38 Of these 82 parking spaces, 64 provide at least two hours of parking on weekdays; of the 64, a minimum of 21 were available (unoccupied) during the parking survey (16 off-street spaces and five on-street spaces). Table 13 summarizes the results of the survey. Based on this survey, the loss of 4 to 6 spaces to accommodate the vehicle transition lane would not result in a substantial parking deficit in the immediate vicinity. Table 13: San Pablo Avenue Parking Survey Intersection Parking Spaces Disabled Spaces Timed Spaces (Less than 2 hours) Minimum Available During Survey San Pablo Avenue – On-street Parking 17 2 5 Wall Avenue – On Street Parking 11 11 Mixed Use Development Parking Lot 54 5a 16 a Includes 1 parking space that is reserved for owner. Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2010. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1b: The Safeway project applicant shall add a third westbound lane at Hill Street approaching San Pablo Avenue, creating a left-turn lane, a through lane, and right-turn lane for vehicles. The additional lane would decrease delay for westbound vehicles, and it would also improve circulation to/from the project and BART driveways. Safeway’s scope of work shall include the replacement of any existing improvements sidewalk, street trees and traffic controls) that were disturbed by Safeway’s Hill Street construction activities. The Existing Plus Project intersection analysis results with these mitigations in place are presented in Table 14. The only intersections shown are those included in the simulations, as they are the only intersections affected by the mitigations. 38 Wall Street was included in the survey as the most likely alternate on-street parking supply to San Pablo Avenue, since it is located just from the San Pablo Avenue spaces. While Knott Avenue was not surveyed, anecdotally the north side of Knott Street east of San Pablo Avenue had several vacant spaces during the survey. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 98 Table 14: Existing Plus Project With Improvements Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service No Project Proposed Project Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Delay2 LOS Delay2 LOS 1. Knott Avenue/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 13 18 B B 13 16 B B 4. Cutting Boulevard/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 26 39 C D 27 37 C D 5. Eastshore Boulevard/Hill Street/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 25 54 C D 25 54 C D 6. Hill Street/BART Driveway SSSC AM PM 1 1 A A 4 (21) 8 (25) A A 8. Driveway/San Pablo Avenue SSSC AM PM n/a n/a 1 (10) 4 (15) A A 9. Blake Street/San Pablo Avenue SSSC AM PM 1 (11) 2 (10) A A 1 (11) 1 A A 16. Cutting Boulevard/Kearney Street/BART Driveway SSSC AM PM 2 (11) 2 A A 2 (11) 2 A A Notes: Results in bold represent unacceptable levels of service. 1 Signal = signalized intersection, SSSC = side street stop controlled intersection, AWSC = all-way stop-controlled intersection 2 For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay is reported as: Intersection average (worst case approach). Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2010. With Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a and TRANS-1b, the northbound queues that are otherwise projected to spill back past the Safeway driveway and Blake Street are significantly reduced. As shown in Table 15, with this segment of roadway operating more efficiently, vehicles from side streets can enter with minimal delay and the potential impact would be less than significant. Table 15: Travel Time Comparison – With Improvements Measure of Effectiveness Existing Conditions With Project Northbound Travel Timea 2 minutes 1 minute 45 seconds a Total travel time on San Pablo Avenue, from Potrero Avenue to Hill Street/ Eastshore Boulevard. Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2010. Cumulative Conditions A Cumulative Conditions analysis was performed to identify potential long-term impacts of the project. The analysis horizon year, 2030, assumes full development of the land use projections in the Draft San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (Draft Specific Plan), along with regional through traffic growth as projected in the traffic study for the Draft Specific Plan. While the Draft Specific Plan is not yet adopted, it has undergone an extensive and public participation process and its adoption is reasonably foreseeable. In fact, it includes the subject Safeway project in its land use and trip generation assumptions, due to the concurrent planning processes of the Draft Specific Plan and the Safeway Project. A discussion of the roadway improvements and Draft Specific Plan land uses assumed for the cumulative analysis are included in the TIA included in Appendix D. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 99 Cumulative Plus Project. Based on the trip generation and distribution assumptions described above, trips generated by the project were assigned to the study intersections. Cumulative Plus Project peak hour traffic forecasts were developed by adding the assigned project trips at each study intersec- tion to the Cumulative No Project forecasts. The Cumulative Conditions forecast is shown in Figure 13, and Cumulative Plus Project peak hour traffic forecasts are shown on Figures 14. Table 16 shows the percentage of total future traffic that the project is responsible for at each intersec- tion, and Table 17 shows the percentage of traffic growth that the project is responsible for. Through the San Pablo Avenue corridor between Blake Street and Knott Avenue, the project contributes approximately 4.1% of the total future traffic volume in the AM peak hour and 6.3% in the PM peak hour. The project contributes approximately 22.5% of the traffic growth in the AM peak hour and 34.5% in the PM peak hour. Note that the Hill Street Parcel development constitutes about 15 percent of each of the above percentages. Table 16: Cumulative Conditions – Project Trips as Percentage of Total Volume Proposed Project Intersection Peak Hour Cumulative Traffic Volume Project Trips Percentage 1. Knott Avenue/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 2,276 2,864 64 113 2.8% 3.9% 2. Cutting Boulevard/I-80 Westbound Ramps AM PM 2,838 2,566 39 69 1.4% 2.7% 3. Cutting Boulevard/I-80 HOV Ramps AM PM 2,202 2,308 39 69 1.8% 3.0% 4. Cutting Boulevard/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 3,578 4,253 110 195 3.1% 4.6% 5. Eastshore Boulevard/Hill Street/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 3,024 3,735 155 346 5.1% 9.3% 6. Hill Street/BART Driveway AM PM 582 605 181 453 31.1% 74.9% 7. Key Boulevard/Hill Street/Elm Street AM PM 1,233 1,014 56 109 4.5% 10.7% 8. Driveway/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 1,956 2,315 149 365 7.6% 15.8% 9. Blake Street/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 1,976 2,355 128 219 6.5% 9.3% 10. Blake Street/Elm Street/Richmond Street AM PM 1,048 888 51 97 4.9% 10.9% 11a. Potrero Avenue/55th Street AM PM 1,127 1,069 21 39 1.9% 3.6% 11b. Potrero Avenue/I-80 Westbound On-ramp AM PM 1,161 1,065 21 39 1.8% 3.7% 12. Potrero Avenue/Eastshore Boulevard/I-80 Ramps AM PM 1,943 1,789 37 66 1.9% 3.7% 13. Potrero Avenue/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 3,075 3,187 110 191 3.6% 6.0% 14. Potrero Avenue/Richmond Street AM PM 1,174 1,074 53 98 4.5% 9.1% 15. Knott Avenue/Key Boulevard AM PM 844 767 16 27 1.9% 3.5% 16. Cutting Boulevard/Kearney Street/BART Driveway AM PM 899 902 0 0 0.0% 0.0% ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 100 Proposed Project Intersection Peak Hour Cumulative Traffic Volume Project Trips Percentage 17. Cutting Boulevard/Key Boulevard AM PM 1,116 1,040 7 13 0.6% 1.3% 18. Liberty Street/Key Boulevard AM PM 608 616 7 13 1.2% 2.1% Note: Through the San Pablo Avenue corridor between Blake and Knott, the Project contributes approximately 4.1 percent of the total future traffic volume in the AM peak hour and 6.3 percent in the PM peak hour. Note that the mixed use project constitutes about 15 percent of each of the above (4.1 and 6.3) percentages. Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2010. Table 17: Cumulative Conditions – Project Trips as Percentage of Other Growth Proposed Project Intersection Peak Hour Other Growth Traffic Volume Project Trips Percentage 1. Knott Avenue/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 569 591 64 113 11.2% 19.1% 2. Cutting Boulevard/I-80 Westbound Ramps AM PM 500 250 39 69 7.8% 27.6% 3. Cutting Boulevard/I-80 HOV Ramps AM PM 150 150 39 69 26.0% 46.0% 4. Cutting Boulevard/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 577 705 110 195 19.1% 27.7% 5. Eastshore Boulevard/Hill Street/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 320 636 155 346 48.4% 54.4% 6. Hill Street//BART Driveway AM PM n/a (See Below) 7. Key Boulevard/Hill Street/Elm Street AM PM 113 97 56 109 49.6% 112.4% 8. Driveway/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 505 484 149 365 29.5% 75.4% 9. Blake Street/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 514 485 128 219 24.9% 45.2% 10. Blake Street/Elm Street/Richmond Street AM PM 96 84 51 97 53.1% 115.5% 11a. Potrero Avenue/55th Street AM PM 142 113 21 39 14.8% 34.5% 11b. Potrero Avenue/I-80 Westbound On-ramp AM PM 152 119 21 39 13.8% 32.8% 12. Potrero Avenue/Eastshore Boulevard/I-80 Ramps AM PM 150 119 37 66 24.7% 55.5% 13. Potrero Avenue/San Pablo Avenue AM PM 668 643 110 191 16.5% 29.7% 14. Potrero Avenue/Richmond Street AM PM 107 104 53 98 49.5% 95.1% 15. Knott Avenue/Key Boulevard AM PM 78 80 16 27 20.5% 33.8% 16. Cutting Boulevard/Kearney Street/BART Driveway AM PM 441 242 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 17. Cutting Boulevard/Key Boulevard AM PM 163 165 7 13 4.3% 7.9% 18. Liberty Street/Key Boulevard AM PM 55 58 7 13 12.7% 22.4% ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 101 Note: Volume growth comparisons are not directly comparable at this intersection, due to the changes that result from the bus driveway circulation converting from one-way to two-way. Through the San Pablo Avenue corridor between Blake and Knott, the Project contributes approximately 22.5 percent of the traffic growth in the AM peak hour and 34.5 percent in the PM peak hour. Note that the mixed use project constitutes about 15 percent of each of the above (22.5 and 34.5) percentages. Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2010. Intersection Level of Service. The intersection operation analyses for Cumulative Conditions were performed using the same methodologies as for the Existing and Existing Plus Project scenarios. The Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project intersection analysis results are presented in Table 18. All intersections would operate acceptably. Table 18: Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service No Project Proposed Project Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Delay2 LOS Delay2 LOS 1. Knott Avenue/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 12 10 B B 13 20 B B 2. Cutting Boulevard/I-80 Westbound Ramps Signal AM PM 19 13 B B 19 13 B B 3. Cutting Boulevard/I-80 HOV Ramps Signal AM PM 12 4 B A 12 5 B A 4. Cutting Boulevard/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 26 41 C D 27 39 C D 5. Eastshore Boulevard/Hill Street/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 24 40 C D 28 55 C D 6. Hill Street//BART Driveway SSSC AM PM 1 1 A A 3 (19) 7 (25) A A 7. Key Boulevard/Hill Street/Elm Street Signal AM PM 50 37 D D 52 38 D D 8. Driveway/San Pablo Avenue SSSC AM PM n/a n/a 1 (11) 3 (16) A A 9. Blake Street/San Pablo Avenue SSSC AM PM 1 (12) 1 A A 1 (13) 1 A A 10. Blake Street/Elm Street/Richmond Street AWSC AM PM 14 13 B B 15 14 B B 11a. Potrero Avenue/55th Street SSSC AM PM 6 (29) 6 (35) A A 6 (30) 6 (39) A A 11b. Potrero Avenue/I-80 Westbound On-ramp none AM PM 1 1 A A 1 1 A A 12. Potrero Avenue/Eastshore Boulevard/I-80 Ramps Signal AM PM 12 8 B A 13 8 B A 13. Potrero Avenue/San Pablo Avenue Signal AM PM 35 32 C C 38 31 D C 14. Potrero Avenue/Richmond Street Signal AM PM 10 9 A A 10 10 A A 15. Knott Avenue/Key Boulevard AWSC AM PM 13 12 B B 14 13 B B 16. Cutting Boulevard/Kearney Street/BART Driveway SSSC AM PM 2 (17) 8 (22) A A 2 (17) 3 (11) A A 17. Cutting Boulevard/Key Boulevard AWSC AM PM 24 24 C C 25 26 C C 18. Liberty Street/Key Boulevard SSSC AM PM 1 (14) 3 (16) A A 1 (14) 3 (16) A A ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 102 Notes: Results in bold represent unacceptable levels of service. 1 Signal = signalized intersection, SSSC = side street stop controlled intersection, AWSC = all-way stop-controlled intersection 2 For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay is reported as: Intersection average (worst case approach). Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2010. Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis. The MUTCD peak hour volume traffic signal warrant (Warrant 3) for urban conditions was evaluated for the unsignalized intersections in the study area. As shown in Table 19, the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and the proposed Safeway driveway meets the peak hour signal warrant; however, this does not create a significant and unavoidable impact because no side-street approach has degraded to LOS F. An evaluation of all applicable warrants should be conducted and additional factors congestion, approach conditions, driver confusion) should be considered before the decision to install a signal is made. Detailed signal warrant calculations are provided in Appendix D. Table 19: Cumulative Peak Hour Signal Warrant Analysis No Project Proposed Project Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Warrant Met? Peak Hour Warrant Met? 6. Hill Street/BART Driveway SSSC NO NO 8. Driveway/San Pablo Avenue SSSC2 NO YES 9. Blake Street/San Pablo Avenue SSSC NO NO 10. Blake Street/Elm Street/Richmond Street AWSC NO NO 11a. Potrero Avenue/55th Street SSSC NO NO 15. Knott Avenue/Key Boulevard AWSC NO NO 16. Cutting Boulevard/Kearney Street/BART Driveway SSSC NO NO 17. Cutting Boulevard/Key Boulevard AWSC NO NO 18. Liberty Street/Key Boulevard SSSC NO NO Note: 1SSSC = side street stop controlled intersection, AWSC = all-way stop-controlled intersection Source: Fehr & Peers, October 2010. Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Impacts. The project would not result in any cumulative traffic impacts. All signalized intersections operate acceptably, due to the roadway and intersection improvements that are planned as part of the Draft Specific Plan. It should be noted that Safeway’s construction of the improvements in Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a and TRANS-1b shall constitute Safeway’s “fair share” contribution with respect to the roadway and intersection improvements contemplated by the Draft San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Contra Costa County is the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). In western Contra Costa County, the Regional Transportation Planning Committee is the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC). ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE 13 El Cerrito Safeway Cumulative Conditions Without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, MAY 2010. I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\figures\Fig_13.ai (6/21/10) ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE 14 El Cerrito Safeway Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, MAY 2010. I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\figures\Fig_14.ai (6/21/10) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 105 WCCTAC maintains an Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (Action Plan); the most recent update was prepared in 2009. The Action Plan presents Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSO) for the routes of regional significance. There are two routes of regional significance included in this transportation impact analysis San Pablo Avenue and Cutting Boulevard. The primary traffic-related MTSO for these routes are a minimum LOS standard of E for signalized intersections along San Pablo Avenue, and of D for signalized intersections along Cutting Boulevard. The LOS standards are based on the CCTALOS volume-to-capacity (v/c) methodology (as opposed to the 2000 HCM delay-based calculation). The 2009 CMP Monitoring Report listed the intersection of San Pablo Avenue/Cutting Boulevard at LOS A in the AM peak hour, and LOS B in the PM peak hour. With mitigation measures described above, the signalized intersections along San Pablo Avenue, including San Pablo Avenue/Cutting Boulevard, would operate at LOS D or better. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact on CMP facilities. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No Impact) The project site is not located near an airport; the project would not change air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses farm equipment)? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Parking Stall and Drive Aisle Dimensions. The site plan identifies perpendicular parking aisles with two-way circulation in the main parking lot. The small parking lot on the west side of the project site provides one-way northbound circulation only. Various aspects of on-site vehicle circulation are discussed below. Drive Aisles. The main parking lot provides five north-south two-way drive aisles with perpendicular parking on both sides. All drive aisles meet or exceed the 24-foot minimum width required by the El Cerrito Municipal Code (Section 19.24.060). The small parking lot provides one north-south drive aisle with angled parking on the east side. This drive aisle exceeds the 18-foot minimum width required by the El Cerrito Municipal Code (Section 19.24.060). Parking Stall Dimensions. City of El Cerrito requires that standard perpendicular parking spaces be at least 18-feet long by 9-feet wide. Parking spaces throughout the site that do not meet this design criterion are identified as compact spaces in the project site. The minimum size for compact parking spaces is 16-feet long by 8-feet wide. City of El Cerrito allows up to 15 percent of required parking spaces to be compact spaces (Municipal Code Section 19.24.040.H). Based on the project site plan, the main parking lot would provide 121 compact parking spaces, which is about 32 percent of the total parking supply in the main parking lot. However, because the parking lot exceeds the total parking supply required by the City Code by 133 spaces, the number of compact parking spaces is consistent with City requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 106 Sight Distance at Driveways. Project landscape plans indicate new shrubbery and trees planned throughout the site, including adjacent to the driveways. It is important that the landscaping not limit driver visibility for drivers entering and exiting the site. While not a significant impact, Recommendation 1 includes guidance on landscaping to ensure that sight distance for drivers is adequate. Recommendation 1: Maintain landscaping in areas near driveways to a height of less than three feet and tree branches trimmed to heights greater than seven feet to provide adequate sight distance for drivers. On-Site Vehicle Queuing. Based on the traffic simulations conducted as part of the traffic impact analysis, on-site queuing in the PM peak hour at the project driveways would extend well into the project site, in the unmitigated cases. Queues are projected to be 250 feet (95th percentile)/200 feet (average) at the driveway turning onto San Pablo Avenue. At the Hill Street driveway, queues are projected to be 250 feet (95th percentile)/175 feet (average). Given that there is less than 40 feet separating each driveway and the closest parking cross-aisle, these queues would create many conflict points between vehicles at the driveways, vehicles in the drive aisles, and vehicles entering/exiting parking stalls. With the proposed mitigations, however, the PM peak hour 95th percentile queues decrease to less than 100 feet at each driveway, and the average queues are 60 – 80 feet. In the mitigated cases, periodic aisle blockages are still expected to occur, but the queuing should be contained to the immediate area of each driveway. This is a typical condition for supermarket parking lots during peak hours, and should not create excessive congestion within the parking aisles. Emergency Vehicle Access. The project design adequately accommodates emergency vehicles, via the full-access driveway on Hill Street, the right-in/right-out driveway on San Pablo Avenue, and the retail parking lot driveways providing direct access to the project’s retail spaces. Other Access and Circulation Recommendations. The following recommendations are intended to clarify right-of-way on site and to minimize the potential for vehicle conflicts. Recommendation 2: Install “Stop” signs – shown in Figure 15 – at the northbound project driveway on Hill Street and the two westbound driveways on San Pablo Avenue. In addition, install a “Right-Turn Only” sign at the two westbound driveways, and “One Way” signs on the opposite median on San Pablo Avenue. Ensure that low landscaping and signage is no higher than 3 feet tall, and that trees limbs are trimmed high enough to avoid blockage of drivers’ sight lines at the Hill Street and San Pablo Avenue driveways. It is noted that Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a recommends the re-striping of the pavement on San Pablo Avenue adjacent to the project site to provide a third northbound through lane. This change is noted here as it affects the area immediately adjacent to the project’s proposed driveways on San Pablo Avenue. With the improvement, drivers will turn into and out of the three San Pablo Avenue driveways from/to the new, third northbound through lane. Trucks and Delivery Vehicles. The proposed project would provide truck loading on the south side of the building with access to and from Blake Street. The project would provide loading docks for two delivery trucks, one loading area for a trash compactor, and a staging area for up to four “dot com” ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 107 trucks which are used to make home deliveries. The number of loading docks provided for Safeway satisfies the El Cerrito Municipal Code (Section 19.24.080.B). Deliveries will be made by both Safeway trucks and small vendor trucks. The project applicant has estimated that there will be 5 Safeway truck deliveries each day scattered throughout a 24-hour period and 10 small vendor deliveries each day (such as packaged breads, chips & snacks, beer & wine) that take place generally between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. each day. Trucks will not be allowed to double-park on Blake Street. All large Safeway trucks will access the site via Blake Street. The trucks will approach the site from the I-80 northbound off-ramp to Potrero eastbound/Kearney northbound/Blake westbound, and then back into the loading docks. They will exit Blake Street to the west and turn right on San Pablo Avenue. Truck turning movement analysis was completed using the AutoTurn software to ensure that these movements were feasible; the graphics are shown in Appendix D. Recommendation 3: In order to minimize potential intrusion into the adjacent residential neighborhoods, all delivery trucks shall use eastbound Potrero Avenue, northbound Kearney Street, and westbound Blake Street to access the site. The project does not provide any loading docks or areas for the retail uses on the west side of the project. This is consistent with the City’s Municipal Code (Section 19.24.080.B), which does not require loading docks for individual retail uses less than 10,000 square feet. It is expected that deliveries for these stores would be by smaller trucks that will double park in the small parking lot to unload. Recommendation 4: In order to minimize trucks blocking circulation in the small parking lot, deliveries for the additional retail uses should be scheduled for hours when these stores are closed. If deliveries cannot be rescheduled, then delivery trucks should be redirected to double park on Blake Street where adequate width is provided and trucks would not block through traffic. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The project design adequately accommodates emergency vehicles, via the full-access driveway on Hill Street, the right-in/right-out driveway on San Pablo Avenue, and the retail parking lot driveways providing direct access to the project’s retail spaces. f) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (Less- than-Significant Impact) Pedestrian Access and Circulation. Pedestrian circulation is accommodated by the sidewalks and walking paths within and surrounding the project site, as well as on-site facilities for pedestrians. Safe facilities are continuous and well signed with adequate warning measures at hazardous locations such as driveways and intersections. The pedestrian network would be accessible to all users and integrated with the surrounding environment to connect the project to nearby destinations. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 108 Pedestrians can access the project site from various directions. Most pedestrians would approach the site from the nearby residential areas, the El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station, or the bus stops at the BART station and on San Pablo Avenue. Pedestrian facilities are provided on all four sides of the project site: sidewalks on the north, south, west, and east, and the Ohlone Trail on the east. Safeway will ensure that a connection to the Ohlone Trail will be provided at all times, both during the BART seismic upgrade work and after the City’s planned Ohlone Greenway Improvement Project is complete. The Ohlone Trail and the connecting path would most likely be used by pedestrians accessing the site from the east, or from the BART Station. Access between the BART Station and the project site is also provided by a path/sidewalk immediately west of the BART tracks. This path, which would also be completed by the City after the BART seismic upgrades have been completed, would use the existing crosswalk on Hill Street between the project driveway and BART tracks and provide a connection to the Safeway store on the east side of the main parking lot. The majority of buses providing transit access to the site have local stops at the BART Station, and can be accessed by pedestrians similar to BART as described above. On southbound San Pablo Avenue, the nearest bus stop to the project site is located just north of the project driveway. Since no mid-block crossings are provided on San Pablo Avenue, pedestrians must use the crossing at the Eastshore Boulevard/Hill Street/San Pablo Avenue intersection, which is about 200 feet north of the bus stop. The proposed project would provide three new curb cuts to provide vehicular access to the site. Two curb-cuts are located on San Pablo Avenue and would provide vehicular access to and from the small parking lot. The third curb-cut is on Blake Street and would provide access to the loading docks. The three curb cuts would provide adequate sight distance for both pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles entering or exiting the site. The project improvements will ensure accessibility and ADA- compliance at all new and existing driveways. Overall, the project site plan is consistent with City policies regarding pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Bicycle Access and Circulation. Although bicycle access is permitted on all streets surround- ing the project site, it is expected that most bicyclists would use the Ohlone Trail, which provides a Class I bicycle path, to access the project site. Paths connecting the Ohlone Trail and Safeway would be constructed after BART’s seismic upgrades have been completed. City of El Cerrito requires one short-term bicycle parking space per 3,000 square feet of space for all retail uses (Municipal Code Section 19.24.090). Short-term bicycle parking generally serves shoppers who are expected to park not more than two hours and can consist of bicycle racks. The project would need to provide 27 bicycle parking spaces to satisfy the City code requirements. The project site plan identifies several bicycle parking areas along the north and west faces of the building, near the front doors to the Safeway store and retail shops, respectively. ---PAGE BREAK--- STOP STOP ONLY STOP ONLY STOP STOP ONLY Provide Stop sign and Right-Turn Only sign Provide Stop sign true project not to scale LEGEND Bicycle Parking Pedestrian Access Routes FIGURE 15 SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, MAY 2010. I:\SFY1001 EC Safeway\figures\Fig_15.ai (6/21/10) El Cerrito Safeway Project IS/MND Site Plan Recommendations ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 110 Back of Figure 15: Site Plan Recommendations 8.5 x 11 color ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 111 The El Cerrito City code requires one long-term bicycle parking space for each 25 employees, for businesses with 50 or more employees (Municipal Code Section 19.24.090(c)). Safeway will have an estimated 177 employees, with up to 35 employees on-site during the largest shift. The retail shops are presumed to employ less than 50 employees. Thus, it is recommended that two long-term bicycle parking spaces be provided for Safeway employees. Recommendation 5: Provide short-term bicycle parking for at least 27 bicycles located near building entrances and at least two long-term bicycle parking spaces. Transit Access and Ridership. As noted in Section above, bus stops are conveniently located near the project site both at the Del Norte BART Station and on northbound and southbound San Pablo Avenue. Pedestrian facilities exist to serve those walking between these sites and the project site. Customers of the Safeway store and retail shops who use transit are expected to be largely those who are already taking the bus or BART and make use of the store’s proximity to the bus stops and BART station; the net new bus or BART ridership generated by the project is expected to be low, and is not expected to result in an increase in demand beyond the existing service capacity of AC Transit or BART. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signifi- cant environmental effects? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the pro- ject from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ˆ ˆ ˆ ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 112 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commit- ments? ˆ ˆ ˆ f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? ˆ ˆ ˆ g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regula- tions related to solid waste? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The project site is currently served by existing utility infrastructure, including sanitary sewer and water lines. Stege Sanitary District currently provides the City with wastewater collection services, and wastewater generated with the City is treated by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Water Treatment Plant in Oakland. EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant treats domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater for an 83-square mile area which includes the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Piedmont, and Stege Sanitary District (which includes El Cerrito, Kensington and part of Richmond). EBMUD provides primary treatment for up to 320 million gallons per day (MGD) and secondary treatment for a maximum flow of 168 MGD. Current average daily flow is 73 MGD. Estimates of the Safeway project’s anticipated wastewater flows are approximately 4,658 gallons per day.39 While the existing Target store is currently vacant, the Target store was operating as recently as July 2008 and it is likely that it generated a similar amount of wastewater. Additionally, wastewater generated at the Safeway project site would be minimal (less than 0.006 percent) when compared to the average daily flow for the Water Treatment Plan. Wastewater generated by the project would be fully treated by the existing wastewater treatment plant operated by EBMUD and is not anticipated to cause an exceedance of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s treatment standards. Development of the Hill Street Parcel would require new connections to the City’s wastewater system. Estimates of the Hill Street Parcel anticipated wastewater flows are approximately 15,616 gpd.40 Given there are limited details regarding this development (size of units, types of commercial development), 39 Environ, 2010. Table 1, Baseline GHG Emissions, Safeway, 11450 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, California. 40 Ibid. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 113 this wastewater estimate is somewhat speculative. However, this amount of wastewater generated at the Hill Street Parcel would represent 0.002 percent of the average daily flow. Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expan- sion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Water supply and treatment are provided to the City by EBMUD. Stege Sanitary District provides the City with wastewater collection services. Both water and sewer impact fees are collected and levied by EBMUD. As noted in Section XVII.a, the Safeway project site is currently served by sanitary sewer and water lines. The Safeway project would use an estimated water supply of 4,658 gpd, and the Hill Street Parcel development would use an estimated 15,616 gpd. 41 While the existing Target store is currently vacant, the Target store was operating as recently as July 2008, and it is likely that it used a similar amount of water. The most current EBMUD Urban Water Management Plan (2005) has projected that current water demand will be approximately 232 MGD in 2030. The increased demand that would result from the proposed project is an insignificant fraction of this anticipated demand. As noted in Section XVII.a, the EBMUD Wastewater Treatment Plant has an average daily flow of 80 MGD and a primary and secondary treatment capacity of 320 MGD and 168 MGD, respectively. Therefore, increased water demand and wastewater generated by the proposed project would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Storm drainage facilities on the project site connect to the City’s storm drainage facilities. The existing project site currently includes 233,537 square feet of impervious area. Implementation of the Safeway project would result in a reduction of impervious surface to 231,368 square feet (2,169 square feet of additional pervious area after implementation of the proposed project). This would result in additional storm water infiltration on the project site, and a slight reduction in the amount of storm water generated on the project site. Development details of the Hill Street Parcel development are unknown at this time; however, given the parcel is currently an impervious parking lot with minimal landscaping, it can be assumed that the stormwater runoff created on the Hill Street Parcel development site would be similar to the existing conditions. When site specific plans are developed, the specific project on the Hill Street Parcel would be required to undergo further environmental review to determine potential impacts related to the storm water drainage. Additionally, as part of the building permit review process, all departments and 41 Ibid. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 114 agencies responsible for providing utilities and public services are consulted to determine their ability to provide services to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to new storm water drainage facilities, or expansion of existing facilities. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Refer to Section XVII.b. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Refer to Section XVII.a and XVII.b. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The City of El Cerrito is within the jurisdiction boundaries of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA), a joint powers agency created by the Cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo. WCCIWMA is responsible for providing waste processing services (landfilling, recyclables processing, composting, etc) of the franchised waste stream in West Contra Costa County. The City of El Cerrito contracts with East Bay Sanitary Company for garbage collection. A number of landfills within the Bay Area are used by the WCCIWMA. In 2008, the landfills that received the greatest amount of waste from WCCIWMA were the Potrero Hills Landfill and Hays Road Landfill, Inc., both of which are located within Solano County.42 Although the Potrero Hills Landfill has an estimated closure date of 2011, there are plans to expand the landfill. The Hays Road Landfill is not expected to reach capacity until 2077. Existing landfills in the area have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste generation. g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Less- than-Significant Impact) Every year, the City must divert at least 50 percent of its solid waste through reduction, recycling, composting, and other activities. In order to achieve this aim, the City offers recycling services and requires new development projects to comply with Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding recycling. The project is expected to comply with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 42 Department of Resource Recycling and Recovery, 2010. West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority Profile. (Accessed July 20) http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile2.asp?RG=R&JURID= 568&JUR=West+Contra+Costa+Integrated+Waste+Management+Authority ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 115 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife popula- tion to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the num- ber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually lim- ited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively con- siderable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current pro- jects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitiga- tion Incorporated) The proposed project site is located in an area that has been previously developed. This infill site is within an urbanized area having little biological value. However, trees within the project site have the potential to support nests of common native bird species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level. Additionally, the project could potentially contribute to the degradation of water quality through storm water runoff, which may adversely affect riparian wildlife species. Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1a, HYDRO-1b and HYDRO-1c would reduce this potential impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-1, CULT-2, and CULT-3 would ensure that potential impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)? (Less-than-Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 116 The project’s close proximity to BART and its location in a central urban area with existing infrastructure would reduce the possible cumulative effects the project may have in combination with other planned development in El Cerrito and surrounding communities. The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The project could have substantial adverse effects on human beings through: air quality degradation; placing people at risk to seismic and soil hazards; and placing new residents close to noise sources. The proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of Mitigation Measures AES-1, AES-2, AES-3, AIR-1, AIR-2, BIO-1, BIO-2, CULT-1, CULT-2, CULT-3, GEO-1, GEO-2, HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HYDRO-1a, HYDRO-1b, HYDRO-1c, NOISE-1, NOISE-2, TRANS-1a and TRANS-1b. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 117 F. REPORT PREPARERS LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 David Clore, AICP, Principal In Charge Amy C. Paulsen, AICP, Associate Amy Fischer, Associate Caroline Park, Assistant Planner Phil Ault, Air Quality/Noise Analyst Jason Paukovits, Senior Air Quality/Climate Change Planner Charis Cronan, Word Processing Patty Linder, Graphics G. BIBLIOGRAPHY Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009. Projections and Priorities, 2009, Building Momentum, San Francisco Bay Area Population, Households, and Job Forecasts. Association of Bay Area Governments, 2010. Geographic Information Systems, Dam Failure Inundation Areas, (accessed June Association of Bay Area Governments, 2010. Geographic Information Systems, Tsunami Inundation Emergency Planning Map for the San Francisco Bay Region. (accessed July 16) Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. June. California Department of Conservation, 2010. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/ 2008/con08.pdf. (accessed March 23). California Department of Transportation, 2010. California Scenic Highway Program. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. (accessed March 23). Caltrans, 2008 (http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2008all.htm). Department of Resource Recycling and Recovery, 2010. West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority Profile. (Accessed July 20) http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/ JurProfile2.asp?RG=R&JURID=568&JUR=West+Contra+Costa+Integrated+Waste+Managemen t+Authority East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), 2007. Urban Water Management Plan. November. El Cerrito Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.02, Section 110.1. El Cerrito, City of, 1999. City of El Cerrito General Plan, August 30. El Cerrito, City of, 1999. City of El Cerrito General Plan, Figure 8, Emergency Response and Truck Routes, August. El Cerrito, City of, 1999. City of El Cerrito General Plan, Figure 13, Natural Hazards, August. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . E L C E R R I T O S A F E W A Y P R O J E C T O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\SFY1001 ECSafeway\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\ElCerritoSafewayPublicReview_2.doc (10/18/2010) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 118 Environ, 2010. Table 1, Baseline GHG Emissions, Safeway, 11450 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, California. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Contra Costa County and Incorporated Areas, Panel 240 of 602, Map Number 06013C0240F. (accessed June 16) Fehr & Peers, 2007. Existing Conditions Report, San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Fehr & Peers, 2010. El Cerrito Safeway Traffic Impact Study, October. Fugro West, Inc., 2009. Geotechnical Study, Safeway Store No. 2940, El Cerrito, California. December. Kleinfelder, 2009. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed Site of Safeway Store No. 2940, 11450 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, California. June 10. Korve Engineering, 2007. Mayfair Block Traffic Impact Study. MIG, 2009. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, Draft Plan, City of El Cerrito and City of Richmond, July. Monte Deignan & Associates, 2009. Asbestos Survey for Safeway Site 2840, 11450 San Pablo Avenue in El Cerrito, California, May 11. MTC, 2005, Transportation 2030 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, February. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1995. Water Quality Control Plan, June 21. Williams, John Frye, 2006. Contra Costa County Library, New Strategic Plan Working Draft, June 9. United States Environmental Protection Agency, The Small Cities Climate Action Partnership, http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/local/showcase/small-cities.html. H. CONTACTS King, Cheryl, 2010. Senior Associate, Jack Schreder & Associates. Written communication with LSA Associates, Inc. October 12. Paradis, Todd, 2010. Real Estate Manager, Safeway. Personal Communication with LSA Associates, various dates.