Implementation of AMM PAL-1 would require preparation of a Paleontological Mitigation Plan and would entail full-time monitoring if Pleistocene deposits are observed or discovered during ground disturbing activities. In addition, work in the immediate vicinity of a discovery would be halted until it can be evaluated by a qualified paleontologist.
See Appendix C for specific details about AMMs. With incorporation of AMM PAL-1, no the impact would be less than significant.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-22
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION
3.2.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the proposed
project:
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant
impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing
the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gases emitted during construction would be temporary and would be offset by anticipated emissions reduction during project operation.
As shown in Table 3.2-1, the estimated annual CO2 emissions for the Build Alternative during the opening year (2025), horizon year (2040), and design year (2045) of the proposed project would be lower than the emissions for the No Build Alternative. This difference is due to the reduction in regional VMT under the Build Alternative, which would result from improved connectivity and circulation within the intersection. The estimated annual CO2 emissions for the Build and No Build Alternative would be lower in the opening year (2025) compared to the existing year (2018) because federal and state fuel economy standards are expected to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over time; however, the CO2 emissions for the Build and No Build Alternative would be higher in the horizon year (2040) and design year (2045) compared to the existing year (2018). This is because regional VMT is expected to increase about 20 and 25 percent with or without the proposed project by the horizon year (2040) and design year (2045), respectively. This would exceed the rate of GHG emission reductions currently expected through federal and state regulatory programs.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-23
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Because the proposed project would reduce GHG emissions below levels anticipated under the No-Build Alternative, this impact would be less than significant.
Table 3.2-1 Operational CO2 Emissions
Existing
Conditions
(2018)
Opening Year (2025)
No Build Build
Horizon Year (2040)
No Build Build
Design Year (2045)
No Build Build
Daily
VMT 2,071,480 2,239,684 2,235,317 2,499,264 2,494,434 2,585,791 2,580,806 CO2
(metric
tons/year)
273,500 270,600 270,100 274,400 273,800 278,900 278,400 Source: Baseline Environmental Consulting, 2020
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. The proposed project is included in the current RTP and TIP, both of which contain regional strategies for reducing GHG emissions from transportation sources.
One of the main strategies to reduce GHG emissions is to make transportation systems more efficient by reducing congestion. The proposed project would improve travel within the I-80/Ashby Avenue interchange by reconfiguring the I-80/Ashby Avenue connector ramps, providing multimodal transportation options, and increasing bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety. No impact would occur.
3.2.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the proposed
project:
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment through
the routine transport,
use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment through
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-24
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Would the proposed
project:
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving the
release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile
of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site
which is included on a
list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it
create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located
within an airport land
use plan or, where such
a plan has not been
adopted, within two
miles of a public airport
or public use airport,
would the proposed
project result in a safety
hazard for people
residing or working in
the project area?
f) Impair implementation
of or physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-25
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Would the proposed
project:
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) 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?
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. Project construction would require the transport, use, and disposal of products and the excavation of soil that may contain contaminants such as petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, and asbestos. With the incorporation of AMM HAZ1 and AMM HAZ-3, project construction would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the transport, use, or disposal of, hazardous materials. See Appendix C for specific information about AMMs.
As a transportation infrastructure project, project operations would not directly involve the routine use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous materials and would not have a significant impact on the public or the environment. With implementation of AMM HAZ-1 and AMM HAZ-3, this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Excavation could encounter contaminated groundwater as well as other potential risks from existing contaminated sites. Refer to Figure 2.2-4 for a map of contaminated sites near the project area. Construction would entail large areas of grading, installation of road surfaces, drainage improvements and cut/fill I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-26
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION embankments. Project construction would also require vehicles trips to deliver materials and remove waste products or excavated soil. Excavation and grading could encounter residual contamination associated with previous residential and commercial uses on the project area. There is the potential for the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Adherence to AMM HAZ-1 (perform a Preliminary Site Investigation during the final design phase), AMM HAZ-2 (store and characterize groundwater from dewatering), and AMM HAZ-3 (prepare and implement a site safety plan) would require additional site testing prior to construction, development of a site safety plan, and retention of contaminated groundwater in temporary on-site tanks to avoid exposure of construction workers or further spread of contamination.
During operation, automobile traffic could result in collisions that result in the accidental release of substances such as fuel, lubricants, or hazardous freight. In order to account for these potential hazards, the proposed project would be designed and engineered to standard Caltrans engineering requirements for roadway slopes, curvature, speeds, storm water treatment, lane orientation, and other standard roadway design criteria.
Compliance with these standards would minimize the potential for hazardous material or waste release under accident conditions. The proposed project would be designed and operated consistent with all applicable standards and regulations for safety and would not present a unique or above-average risk for accidents involving hazardous materials.
With implementation of AMM HAZ-1, AMM HAZ-2, and AMM HAZ-3, this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. The closest school to the project area is Rosa Parks Elementary School,
1.1 miles away. As a transportation network, the proposed project would not result in the use or frequent handling of hazardous materials. Due to the distance between the project area and the nearest school, it is unlikely that the proposed project would result in impacts associated with hazardous emissions or hazardous materials. No impact would occur.
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? No Impact. The project area is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 6596.5. No impact would occur. 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 I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-27
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
And
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The closest fire station to the project area is the Alameda County Fire Station No. 35, approximately 1 mile to the southeast. The Emeryville Police Department is located 1 mile north of the interchange. Although no property owned or used by emergency service providers would be acquired, construction activities have the potential to temporarily disrupt roadway access, potentially affecting emergency access. Adherence to PF UTL-2 would require emergency responders be notified prior to temporary road closures or detours. Refer to Appendix C for the full text of this project feature. With implementation of PF UTL-2, this impact would be less than significant.
g) 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 area is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ), demonstrating a low susceptibility to fire hazards. Construction and operation of the proposed project would represent little to no threat of exposing people or structures to fire hazards. Therefore, no impact would occur.
3.2.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the proposed
project:
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water
quality standards or
waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially
with groundwater
recharge such that there
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-28
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local
groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a
level which would not
support existing land
uses or planned uses for
which permits have
been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? i) result in a substantial
erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
ii) substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on- or
offsite;
iii) create or contribute
runoff water which would
exceed the capacity or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff;
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?
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-29
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION e) Create or contribute
runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of
existing or planned
stormwater drainage
systems or provide
substantial additional
sources of polluted
runoff?
f) Otherwise
substantially degrade
water quality?
g) Place housing within
a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-
year flood hazard area
structures which would
impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or
structures to a
significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving
flooding, including
flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) Inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would involve ground disturbing activities such as excavation, trenching, grading, demolition, and shrub removal. Construction activities could result in runoff that contains sediment and other pollutants. Sources of sediment include uncovered or improperly covered I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-30
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION stockpiles, unstable slopes, bare soil, construction staging areas, and construction equipment not properly maintained or cleaned. Polluted runoff could degrade water quality if not properly controlled. Therefore, the proposed project would have the potential to temporarily affect water quality. The estimated area of disturbed soil for the proposed project is 34.15 acres.
Potential effects to water quality would be minimized in accordance with the 2016 Caltrans Statewide SWMP through the application of AMM WQ-1. This measure includes construction erosion and sediment control BMPs, storm monitoring, and maintenance activities to prevent any construction materials or debris from entering storm drains or drainage ditches within the project area. AMM WQ-2 would also be applied to minimize construction-period effects and permanent water quality impacts.
This measure includes full revegetation of all graded and disturbed areas. See Appendix C for the full text of these AMMs.
During construction, construction vehicles would be stored, refueled, and repaired/maintained at the project area. This presents a risk of accidental spills or releases of fuels, oils, or other potentially toxic materials. An accidental release could pose a threat to water quality if contaminants enter storm drains, open channels, or surface water receiving bodies. Waste management and materials pollution control measures would be applied through PF WQ-5 to avoid accidental spills or accidental releases that could affect water quality. See Section 1.0 for specific details about project features. This impact would be less than significant.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting 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. Groundwater conditions would be verified during the final design phase, but groundwater is expected to occur between 5 to 10 feet below ground surface. As such, some dewatering would be required during construction.
However, dewatering activities would comply with the Caltrans Standard Specifications and Field Guide to Construction Site Dewatering. The proposed project would not use groundwater during operation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 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? i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-31
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) 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;
And
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?
No Impact. The increased impervious surface area for the proposed project would generate minor increases in stormwater peak flow rates and runoff volumes. The proposed project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation and increases in surface runoff would be minimized because Caltrans would require the contractor to prepare and comply with a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) (PF WQ-3).
Existing drainage systems in the project area have poor integrity and would therefore be replaced by new pipes installed under I-80. Additionally, a new outfall would be added to replace the existing outfall north of Point Emery that is buried by accumulated sediment. Therefore, the project would improve drainage within the project area and there would be 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would avoid and/or minimize permanent impacts related to stormwater pollution and capacity by incorporating new stormwater treatment facilities and replacing existing drainage systems that have poor integrity. The proposed project’s temporary impacts would be addressed with construction BMPs included in AMM WQ-1, AMM WQ-2, and AMM WQ-3. Refer to Appendix C for the full text of these avoidance and minimization measures. With incorporation of these avoidance and minimization measures, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The number of dissolved contaminants, automotive oil, and grease contained in stormwater runoff would also increase. Adherence to standard protocols and regulation described in AMM WQ-1 and AMM WQ-2 would avoid adverse effects to water quality from oil, grease, and other chemical pollutants.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-32
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION The proposed project would comply with Caltrans’ guidelines on the application and use of chlorpyrifos-based pesticides for control of weeds and invasive plants for maintenance of vegetated areas. Diazinon or DDT would not be used. Caltrans’ Vegetation Control Policy mandates preparation of a Vegetation Control Plan, which regulates the use and application of pesticides by trained personnel. The policy requires the use of the least toxic chemical that is available and effective to control the target plan species. Caltrans maintains a current listing of state-approved pesticides for use.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
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 proposed project is a transportation infrastructure project and does not propose housing. Therefore, no impact would occur.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not add any structures to a 100-year flood hazard area. A small (less than one acre) area of fill in a portion of a 100-year flood hazard area associated with the KRE Radio Station property would be required. However, the new BPOC and interchange would not redirect or impede flood flows as the area is already paved with a vacant parking lot, and the proposed project would not change the topography of this area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? And
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. The Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2020) requires the proposed project design include appropriate measures to prevent flooding from surface runoff. In order to meet this requirement, the proposed drainage system would be designed to capture and convey stormwater runoff from the design storm in the project area. The drainage improvements, construction of a new outfall, in conjunction with stormwater BMPs application, would help minimize stormwater impacts due to surface runoff and/or sea level rise. The proposed project would not cause a significant or longitudinal encroachment. Therefore, no impact would occur.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-33
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION
3.2.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposed
project:
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an
established community?
b) Conflict with any
applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of
an agency with
jurisdiction over the
proposed 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?
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The proposed project includes modifying existing transportation infrastructure within an existing interchange to improve overall efficiency of the local transportation network and add bicycle. The proposed project also features pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements increasing mobility within the project area.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed 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? No Impact. The land use study area surrounding the interchange consists of flat terrain developed with urban and commercial land uses interspersed with residential neighborhoods.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-34
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION The Emeryville and Berkeley’s general plans identify the interchange as an area that could benefit from improved circulation and enhanced mobility. MTC, as the regional transportation planning agency in the San Francisco Bay Area, has also included the proposed project in the RTP. Therefore, the project changes are accounted for in both local general plans and overarching, regional plans. Moreover, the proposed project would not require or result in changes to existing land uses or zoning in the project area.
Although some property acquisitions would be required, such acquisition would be minimal and would not conflict with local plans (see Section 2.1.3, Community Impacts).
The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction of the proposed project. Therefore, no impact would occur.
3.2.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the proposed
project:
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that
would be of value to the
region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific
plan or other land use
plan?
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?
And
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-35
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION 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 area is located 9.8 miles away from the nearest known mineral resource of statewide, regional, or local value. The proposed project would not disturb protected mineral resources and no impact would occur.
3.2.13 NOISE
Would the proposed
project:
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the
proposed project in
excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of
excessive ground borne
vibration or ground
borne noise levels?
c) For a project within
the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such
a plan has not been
adopted within two miles
of a public airport of
public use airport, would
the proposed project
expose people residing
or working in the project
area to excessive noise
levels?
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-36
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Information in this section is based on the Noise Study Report (October 2021) prepared for the proposed project.
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
And
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. As presented in the discussion below, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to these topics.
Operation
FHWA Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 (TNM 2.5) was used to provide representative predictions of future traffic noise levels at sensitive land uses in the project area, assuming the worst-case (loudest) traffic speeds and maximum lane capacities. At each modeled receptor, predictions were made for future worst-case traffic noise levels with and without the proposed project, and for the maximum noise level change with respect to existing conditions. Traffic noise impacts occur at a noise-sensitive land use if predicted design year noise levels exceed or approach the noise abatement criteria (NAC) of 67 A-weighted dB equivalent sound level (dBA Leq[h]) or if predicted design year noise levels increase substantially (by 12 dBA or more) over existing levels.
The existing noise environment throughout the project area varies by location, depending on site characteristics such as proximity to other roadways or noise sources, the relative elevation of roadways and receptors, and any intervening structures or topography.
As shown in Table 2.2-10 in Section 2.2.7, Noise and Vibration, both the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative are expected result in increased noise levels over existing conditions by 0 to 10 dBA at most receivers. This is because traffic on I-80 is the primary source of noise in the project area. Because the proposed project would not add capacity to I-80, future noise levels would be similar under both the Build and No Build scenarios.
As noise impacts are expected to occur at these receiver locations, noise abatement was considered for the proposed project. Noise abatement in the form of sound walls was considered in the Noise Study Report prepared for the proposed project. There is no existing sound wall. As described in detail in Section 2.2.7, Noise, the cost of adding I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-37
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION suggested sound walls was determined not to be reasonable. Therefore, none of the new sound walls are recommended.
Though the future condition with the proposed project (2045 with project) would approach or exceed the NAC of 67 dBA, future noise levels with the no-project condition (2045 No Project) are also expected to exceed this threshold as increased traffic on existing roads would increase NAC in both scenarios. Additionally, no uses are proposed that would generate substantial ground borne vibration. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Construction
The Emeryville and Berkeley Municipal Codes contain policies that regulate construction related noise for development. These policies require that:
▪ General construction noise on private and public projects shall be limited to weekdays from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm. Pile driving, and similarly loud activities shall be limited to weekdays from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
▪ Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work between weekday hours of 7 pm and 7 am, or 8 pm and 9 am on weekends or holidays such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial property line.
▪ Vibration. Operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates a vibration, which annoys or disturbs at least two or more reasonable persons of normal sensitiveness who reside in separate residences at or beyond the property boundary of the source, or at least 150 feet (46 meters) from the source, if on a public space or right-of-way is prohibited.
Construction phases would include excavation and grading, construction of bridge structures; miscellaneous concrete work; relocation of utilities; pacing, and installation of overhead signs and lighting. Construction noise would primarily result from the operation of heavy construction equipment and arrival and departure of heavy-duty trucks. The highest maximum instantaneous noise levels would result from paving and demolition activities. No pile driving would be required for the proposed project, so the generation of substantial ground borne noise and vibration is not anticipated.
For the purpose of the Noise Study Report (October 2021) prepared for the proposed project, general roadway construction noise levels were projected based on typical equipment and activity levels related to roadway construction activities. Typical construction noise levels at 100 feet and daytime noise level estimates for construction I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-38
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION of the proposed project are shown in Tables 15 and 16 of the Noise Study Report (October 2021).
Incorporation of PF NOI-1 through PF NOI-6 referenced in Section 2.2.7, Noise and Vibration, would reduce construction-period noise below 86 dBA and minimize the potential for noise impacts from project construction. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. c) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, would the proposed project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The proposed project is not within two miles of a private airstrip or airport land use plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
3.2.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the proposed
project:
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial
population growth in an
area, either directly (for
example, by proposing
new homes and
businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through
extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing
housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
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)?
And
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-39
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project would improve traffic movement throughout the project area, but it would not increase the capacity of I-80 or the local roadway network.
The proposed project is not anticipated to be growth inducing. The proposed project would not include right of way relocations or the purchase and displacement of housing or people. There would be no impact.
3.2.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the proposed
project:
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
a) Would the proposed project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire Protection and Police Protection
Less than Significant Impact. The closest fire station to the project area is Alameda County Fire Station Number 35, located approximately 0.3 mile to the east of the project area. The closest police station is the Emeryville Police Department located approximately one mile south of the project area. Although no property owned or used by emergency service providers would be acquired, construction activities would have I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-40
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION the potential to temporarily disrupt roadway access within the project area, potentially affecting emergency response times. Adherence to AMM UTL-2 would ensure that emergency service providers are notified in advance of any roadway closure or change in local access. This would allow emergency service providers to be aware of detours in advance and plan alternate routes where needed. Additionally, the proposed project would not cause growth that would increase demand for fire or police services.
Therefore, with implementation of AMM UTL-2, this impact would be less than significant.
Schools
No Impact. The proposed project does not have the potential to directly or indirectly induce population growth in the project area. Given this, the proposed project would not result in increased demand for schools or result in impacts related to new or expanded school facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Parks and Other Public Facilities
No Impact. Open space and other public facilities such as libraries and community centers are typically provided to serve the residents of their respective jurisdictions. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. Given this, the proposed project would not increase demand for open space or other public facilities. Additionally, a temporary detour along the San Francisco Bay Trail would not impact access to public recreational resources including Point Emery, as pedestrian and bicycle access would be maintained. Therefore, no impact would occur.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-41
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION
3.2.16 RECREATION
Would the proposed
project:
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Increase the use of
existing neighborhood
and regional parks or
other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or
expansion of
recreational facilities
which might have an
adverse physical effect
on the environment?
a) Would the proposed 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? And
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. The proposed project would not include residential, recreational, or business uses and does not have the potential to induce population growth in the project area. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks such that substantial physical deterioration or expansion would occur. Temporary vehicular detours along the San Francisco Bay Trail would not impact access to recreational resources, including Point Emery, as pedestrian and bicycle access would be maintained. No impact would occur.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-42
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION
3.2.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the proposed
project:
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program,
plan, or ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
a) Conflict with a program, plan, or ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No Impact. The proposed project is sponsored by Alameda County Transportation Commission and Caltrans as a project identified to improve connectivity, accessibility, safety, traffic flow, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No Impact. Construction of the Build Alternative would be anticipated to reduce total VMT by about 4,000 to 5,000 miles per day when compared to the No Build Alternative (see Table 3.2-2). This reduction is the result of the new connections between I-80 southbound and Shellmound Street and the replacement of the existing interchange with a more efficient form. The existing interchange also has larger free flowing ramps I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-43
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION and when they are replaced with a tight diamond form, the overall VMT decreases.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Table 3.2-2 2025 and 2045 VMT
Scenario
Daily Vehicle Miles Travelled
No Build
Alternative Build Alternative Difference
Opening Year (2025) 2,239,684 2,235,317 -4,367
Design Year (2045) 2,585,791 2,580,806 -4,984
Source: Kittleson & Associates, Inc., 2020
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The proposed project would not increase hazards due to a design feature.
Common design features to the Build Alternative would include upgrades such as new on- and off- ramps, intersection signalization, and a new bridge structure. In addition, the new BPOC would reduce automobile/bicycle conflicts at the ramps. None of the additional features mentioned would increase the risk of hazards in the existing area.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. Long term impacts of the proposed project on emergency access would generally be positive because of reductions in traffic delays and congestion at the study intersections. Temporary lane closures during construction would be required, which could result in short-term temporary impacts to emergency access. This impact would be minimized by the incorporation of PF TRA-1, and AMM ULT-2.Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
As required by PF TRA-1, a TMP will be prepared to ensure efficient movement of local and regional traffic during construction. The TMP will provide for public outreach to inform community agencies, such as the fire department, and the public of the times and locations of upcoming construction, signage in and approaching the project area, and incident management for traffic control in the vicinity of construction activities.
Creation and implementation of a TMP is a standard requirement for all Caltrans projects. Additionally, AMM ULT-2, would require that emergency Services will be notified prior to construction of any temporary road closures and/or detours as part of the TMP established in PF TRA-1. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-44
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION
3.2.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposed
project:
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local
register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined
by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the
significance of the resource
to a California Native
American tribe.
Information in this section is based in part on the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) prepared for the proposed project (August 2020). a) Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-45
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)
No Impact. As discussed in Section 2.1.7, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change to any properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution (as defined in PRC section 5020.1(k)). The project area contains the KRE Radio Station that qualifies for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources.
However, the boundaries of the historic property are limited to the KRE Radio Station building and do not include the area where proposed improvements along Bay Street would modify guy wires supporting the radio tower. No other listed or potentially eligible resources are present within the project area. Therefore, no impact would occur. ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than Significant Impact. A Sacred Lands File Search was conducted on behalf of the proposed project by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in 2019.
Although the NAHC determined that no Tribal Cultural Resources have been previously identified within the APE, a list of interested Native American tribal representatives with traditional lands or cultural places within Alameda County was included in the NAHC response.
In November 2019 certified Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) letters were sent to all Native American contacts provided by the NAHC describing the proposed project, providing a location map, and requesting any information and concerns the Tribes may have reading the proposed project or study area. Chairperson Perez of the North Valley Yakuts Tribe requested consultation on the proposed project and a site visit. A field review of the project area was conducted on February 13, 2020, by Chairperson Perez and two other tribal representatives, along with Caltrans District 4 archaeology personnel, Kathryn Rose and Katie Jorgensen, and other members of the project team.
Chairperson Perez expressed concern for the potential of deeply buried cultural I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-46
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION resources beneath the fill on which I-80 and the interchange has been constructed.
Project team members shared the general excavation would only be up to 10 feet, while cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) pile foundations would require drilled excavations of approximately 80 feet. Thus, while possible, the likelihood of discovering deeply buried cultural resources is low. Caltrans will continue Native American consultation throughout the life of the proposed project.
While no tribal cultural resources have been recorded in the APE, there is the possibility that unrecorded resources could be unearthed during construction. Adherence to PF CUL-1 would ensure the if tribal resources are discovered during construction, all earthmoving activity would cease until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the fine, thus avoiding impacts to such resources.
Once construction is complete, the proposed project would not entail earth-moving activities with the potential to damage or discover previously unrecorded tribal cultural resources. Given this, the proposed project would not endanger the integrity of tribal cultural resources long term. With incorporation of PF CUL-1, the impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
3.2.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the proposed project: Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of
new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could
cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the proposed project and
reasonably foreseeable
future development during
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-47
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Would the proposed project: Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination
by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or
may serve the proposed
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the
proposed project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in
excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal,
state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
And
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact. As a roadway project, operation would not include the regular use of water or recycled water services other than minor use for irrigation of highway plantings. No natural gas or telecommunications facilities and minimal electric I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-48
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION power would be required. Although water may be used intermittently at the project area for maintenance purposes such as street sweeping, this use would be similar to existing conditions and adequate water supplies would be available. Similarly, operation of the proposed project would not generate wastewater, as no habitable structures or other facilities such as restrooms are proposed. Furthermore, the proposed project would replace existing stormwater drainage systems that lack integrity. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the proposed project that it has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. The proposed project would not require additional capacity for wastewater treatment, as project construction and operation would not generate wastewater or otherwise increase the volume of wastewater requiring treatment by a provider.
Therefore, there would be no impact, and no mitigation would be required. d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
No Impact. Proposed project operation would not result in the regular generation of solid waste. Therefore, there would be no impact, and no mitigation would be required. e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. As a transportation improvement project, the proposed project would not require landfill capacity or solid waste disposal. Operation of the proposed project would not generate solid waste and municipal waste collection would not be needed.
Therefore, regulations related to solid waste would not apply and no impact would occur.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-49
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION
3.2.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones,
would the proposed project:
Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in
temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or
structures to significant risks,
including downslope or
downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-50
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
And
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
And
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
And
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) FHSZ Maps include proposed FHSZ Maps for State Responsibility Area lands. CAL FIRE allows those reviewing local responsibility area hazard zone maps to verify any adopted ordinances that may affect communities’ hazard mapping and building code requirements. The project area is located with a local responsibility area. Due to the project being within an urbanized area and well-maintained parks with surface water features surrounding the project area, the risk for wildfire is considered very low. The project area is not located within a FHSZ, and no wildfire impacts would occur.2 2 Cal Fire Database. 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. Available here:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazardsbuilding-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Accessed: March 17, 2020.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-51
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION
3.2.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the proposed project: Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the proposed 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,
substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the proposed project
have impacts that are
individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and
the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the proposed project
have environmental effects
which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or
indirectly?
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-52
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION a) Does the proposed 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, substantially 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? Less than Significant Impact. The project area is in a developed area and contains no sensitive wildlife communities. The project would result in a small (0.007 acre) loss of federally-designated critical habitat for southern DPS green sturgeon, Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, central California coast steelhead, and Central Valley steelhead within the San Francisco Bay. However, this loss would occur in a shallow area near the coastline where these species are not expected to occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially reduce the habitat of any fish or wildlife species. Furthermore, adherence to AMM BIO-2 through BIO-7, described in Section
3.2.4, Biological Resources, as well as AMM BIO-1 (avoid regulated trees and replace where unavoidable) and AMM BIO-8 (avoid spread and introduction of invasive plants) would further minimize impacts to fish and wildlife species. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
b) Does the proposed 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. The proposed project would involve the redesign of an existing interchange and the addition of a new BPOC. No other projects are proposed within the area of disturbance that would combine with the proposed project to cause cumulatively considerable direct impacts on the environment. Within the broader project area, the proposed project would contribute to reductions in VMT and associated pollutant emissions, and improve bicycle/pedestrian access across I-80. Therefore, with incorporation of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures discussed in this section, the proposed project would not make a substantial contribution to a cumulatively considerable impact.
c) Does the proposed project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant. With incorporation of project features and avoidance and minimization measures identified herein, all potential impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in impacts that would cause I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.2-53
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, these impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
3.3 CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change refers to long-term changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, and other elements of the earth's climate system. An ever-increasing body of scientific research attributes these climatological changes to GHG emissions, particularly those generated from the production and use of fossil fuels.
While climate change has been a concern for several decades, the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization in 1988 has led to increased efforts devoted to GHG emissions reduction and climate change research and policy. These efforts are primarily concerned with the emissions of GHGs generated by human activity, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), HFC-23 (fluoroform), HFC-134a (s, s, s, 2- tetrafluoroethane), and HFC-152a (difluoroethane).
In the U.S., the main source of GHG emissions is electricity generation, followed by transportation.3 In California, however, transportation sources (including passenger cars, light-duty trucks, other trucks, buses, and motorcycles) are the largest contributors of GHG emissions.4 The dominant GHG emitted is CO2, mostly from fossil fuel combustion.
Two terms are typically used when discussing how we address the impacts of climate change: “greenhouse gas mitigation” and “adaptation.” "Greenhouse gas mitigation" is a term for reducing GHG emissions to reduce or "mitigate" the impacts of climate change. “Adaptation" refers to planning for and responding to impacts resulting from climate change (such as adjusting transportation design standards to withstand more intense storms and higher sea levels). This analysis will include a discussion of both.
3.3.1 REGULATORY SETTING
This section outlines federal and state efforts to comprehensively reduce GHG emissions from transportation sources.
3 Environmental Protection Agency, 2019. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-greenhouse-gas-inventory-report-1990-2014; last accessed: July 2020
4 California Air Resources Board, 2019. GHG Current California Emission Inventory Data. Available online at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm; last accessed: July 2020
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-54
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION
FEDERAL
To date, no national standards have been established for nationwide mobile-source GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level.
The NEPA (42 United States Code [USC] Part 4332) requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making a decision on the action or project.
The FHWA recognizes the threats that extreme weather, sea-level change, and other changes in environmental conditions pose to valuable transportation infrastructure and those who depend on it. FHWA therefore supports a sustainability approach that assesses vulnerability to climate risks and incorporates resilience into planning, asset management, project development and design, and operations and maintenance practices.5 This approach encourages planning for sustainable highways by addressing climate risks while balancing environmental, economic, and social values—“the triple bottom line of sustainability.”6 Program and project elements that foster sustainability and resilience also support economic vitality and global efficiency, increase safety and mobility, enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve the quality of life. Addressing these factors up front in the planning process will assist in decision-making and improve efficiency at the program level and will inform the analysis and stewardship needs of project-level decision-making.
Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects. The most important of these was the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1972 (42 USC Section 6201) and corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. This act establishes fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles sold in the United States. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is determined through the CAFE program based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of its vehicles produced for sale in the United States.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT92, 102nd Congress H.R.776.ENR): With this act, Congress set goals, created mandates, and amended utility laws to increase clean energy use and improve overall energy efficiency in the United States. EPACT92 5 U.S. Department of Transportation, 2019. Sustainability, Resilience. Available online at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/; last accessed:
October 2019
6 U.S. Department of Transportation, 2019. Sustainable Highways Initiative. Available online at: https://www.sustainablehighways.dot.gov/overview.aspx; last accessed:
October 2019
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-55
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION consists of 27 titles detailing various measures designed to lessen the nation's dependence on imported energy, provide incentives for clean and renewable energy, and promote energy conservation in buildings. Title III of EPACT92 addresses alternative fuels. It gave the U.S. Department of Energy administrative power to regulate the minimum number of light-duty alternative fuel vehicles required in certain federal fleets beginning in fiscal year 1993. The primary goal of the Program is to cut petroleum use in the United States by 2.5 billion gallons per year by 2020.
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (109th Congress H.R.6 (2005–2006): This act sets forth an energy research and development program covering: (1) energy efficiency; (2) renewable energy; (3) oil and gas; (4) coal; (5) Indian energy; (6) nuclear matters and security; (7) vehicles and motor fuels, including ethanol; (8) hydrogen; (9) electricity; (10) energy tax incentives; (11) hydropower and geothermal energy; and (12) climate change technology.
The U.S. EPA in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Study Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for setting GHG emission standards for new cars and light-duty vehicles to significant increase the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. Fuel efficiency standards directly influence GHG emissions.
Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, 74 Federal Register 52117 (October 8, 2009): This federal EO set sustainability goals for federal agencies and focuses on making improvements in their environmental, energy, and economic performance. It instituted as policy of the United States that federal agencies measure, report, and reduce their GHG emissions from direct and indirect activities.
Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, 80 Federal Register 15869 (March 2015): This EO reaffirms the policy of the United States that federal agencies measure, report, and reduce their GHG emissions from direct and indirect activities. It sets sustainability goals for all agencies to promote energy conservation, efficiency, and management by reducing energy consumption and GHG emissions. It builds on the adaptation and resiliency goals in previous executive orders to ensure agency operations and facilities prepare for impacts of climate change. This order revokes Executive Order 13514.
U.S. EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Clean Air Act and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
Responding to the Court’s ruling, U.S. EPA finalized an endangerment finding in I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-56
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing Act and EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for EPA’s regulatory actions.
U.S. EPA in conjunction with the NHTSA issued the first of a series of GHG emission standards for new cars and light-duty vehicles in April 2010 and significantly increased the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. 7 The standards required these vehicles to meet an average fuel economy of 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016. In August 2012, the federal government adopted the second rule that increases fuel economy for the fleet of passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles for model years 2017 and beyond to average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Because NHTSA cannot set standards beyond model year 2021 due to statutory obligations and the rules’ long timeframe, a mid-term evaluation is included in the rule. The Mid-Term Evaluation is the overarching process by which NHTSA, EPA, and ARB will decide on CAFE and GHG emissions standard stringency for model years 2022–2025. NHTSA has not formally adopted standards for model years 2022 through 2025. However, the EPA finalized its mid-term review in January 2017, affirming that the target fleet average of at least 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 was appropriate. In March 2017, President Trump ordered EPA to reopen the review and reconsider the mileage target.8
NHTSA and EPA issued a Final Rule for “Phase 2” for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to improve fuel efficiency and cut carbon pollution in October 2016. The agencies estimate that the standards will save up to 2 billion barrels of oil and reduce CO2 emissions by up to 1.1 billion metric tons over the lifetimes of model year 2018– 2027 vehicles.
Presidential Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, of March 28, 2017, orders all federal agencies to apply cost-benefit analyses to 7Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2019. Available online at:
http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/greenhouse-gas-regulation-faq; last accessed: October 2020
8ABS News, 2017. Trump Rolls Back Obama-Era Fuel Economy Standards. Available online at: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/trump-rolls-back-obama-era-fueleconomy-standards-n734256.
The Daily Journal of the United State Government, 2017. Notice of Intention to Reconsider the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicles. Available online at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/22/2017-05316/notice-ofintention-to-reconsider-the-final-determination-of-the-mid-term-evaluation-ofgreenhouse; last accessed” October 2020 I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-57
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION regulations of GHG emissions and evaluations of the social cost of carbon, nitrous oxide, and methane.
STATE
California has been innovative and proactive in addressing GHG emission and climate change by passing multiple Senate and Assembly bills and executive orders (EOs) including, but limited to, the following:
Assembly Bill 1493, Pavley Vehicular Emissions: Greenhouse Gases, 2002: This bill requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck GHG emissions. These stricter emissions standards were designed to apply to automobiles and light trucks beginning with the 2009-model year.
EO S-3-05 (June 1, 2005): The goal of this executive order (EO) is to reduce California’s GHG emissions to: (1) year 2000 levels by 2010, (2) year 1990 levels by 2020, and (3) 80 percent below year 1990 levels by 2050. This goal was further reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 in 2006 and SB 32 in 2016.
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), Chapter 488, 2006: Núñez and Pavley, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: AB 32 codified the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goals as outlined in EO S-3-05, while further mandating that ARB create a scoping plan and implement rules to achieve “real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.” The Legislature also intended that the statewide GHG emissions limit continue in existence and be used to maintain and continue reductions in emissions of GHGs beyond 2020 (Health and Safety Code Section 38551(b)). The law requires ARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG reductions.
Executive Order S-20-06 (October 18, 2006): This order establishes the responsibilities and roles of the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) and state agencies with regard to climate change.
EO S-01-07 (January 18, 2007): This order sets forth the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) for California. Under this EO, the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels is to be reduced by at least 10 percent by the year 2020. ARB re-adopted the LCFS regulation in September 2015, and the changes went into effect on January 1, 2016. The program establishes a strong framework to promote the low-carbon fuel adoption necessary to achieve the Governor's 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction goals.
Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), Chapter 185, 2007, Greenhouse Gas Emissions: This bill requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to develop recommended I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-58
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions. The amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), Chapter 728, 2008, Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection: This bill requires ARB to set regional emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. The Metropolitan Planning Organization for each region must then develop a "Sustainable Communities Strategy" that integrates transportation, land-use, and housing policies to plan how it will achieve the emissions target for its region.
Senate Bill 391 (SB 391), Chapter 585, 2009, California Transportation Plan: This bill requires the State’s long-range transportation plan to meet California’s climate change goals under AB 32.
EO B-16-12 (March 2012) orders State entities under the direction of the Governor, including ARB, the California Energy Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission, to support the rapid commercialization of zero-emission vehicles. It directs these entities to achieve various benchmarks related to zero-emission vehicles.
EO B-30-15 (April 2015) establishes an interim statewide GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. It further orders all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions to implement measures, pursuant to statutory authority, to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG emissions reductions targets. It also directs ARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). Finally, it requires the Natural Resources Agency to update the state’s climate adaptation strategy, Safeguarding California, every 3 years, and to ensure that its provisions are fully implemented.
Senate Bill 32, (SB 32) Chapter 249, 2016, codifies the GHG reduction targets established in EO B-30-15 to achieve a mid-range goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Senate Bill 1386, (SB1386), Chapter 545, 2016, declared “it to be the policy of the state that the protection and management of natural and working lands … is an important strategy in meeting the state’s greenhouse gas reduction goals, and would require all state agencies, departments, boards, and commissions to consider this policy when revising, adopting, or establishing policies, regulations, expenditures, or grant criteria relating to the protection and management of natural and working lands.” AB 134, Chapter 254, 2017, allocates Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds and other sources to various clean vehicle programs, demonstration/pilot projects, clean vehicle rebates and projects, and other emissions-reduction programs statewide.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-59
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION SB 743, Chapter 386 (September 2013): This bill changes the metric of consideration for transportation impacts pursuant to CEQA from a focus on automobile delay to alternative methods focused on vehicle miles travelled, to promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emission and traffic related air pollution and promoting multimodal transportation while balancing the needs of congestion management and safety.
SB 150, Chapter 150, 2017, Regional Transportation Plans: This bill required ARB to prepare a report that assesses progress made by each metropolitan planning organization in meeting their established regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
EO B-55-18 (September 2018) sets a new statewide goal to achieve and maintain carbon neutrality no later than 2045. This goal is in addition to existing statewide targets of reducing GHG emissions.
EO-N-19-19 (September 2019) advances California’s climate goals in part by directing the California State Transportation Agency to leverage annual transportation spending to reverse the trend of increased fuel consumption and reduce GHG emissions from the transportation encouraging alternatives to driving. This EO also directs ARB to encourage automakers to produce more clean vehicles, formulate ways to help Californians purchase them, and propose strategies to increase demand for zeroemission vehicles.
3.3.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
In 2006, the Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which created a comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce GHG emissions in California. AB 32 required ARB to develop a Scoping Plan that describes the approach California will take to achieve the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Scoping Plan was first approved by ARB in 2008 and must be updated every 5 years. ARB approved the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. ARB is moving forward with a Discussion Draft of an Updated Scoping Plan that will reflect the 2030 target established in EO B-30-15 and SB 32.
The AB 32 Scoping Plan and the subsequent updates contain the main strategies California will use to reduce GHG emissions. As part of its supporting documentation for the Draft Scoping Plan, ARB released the GHG inventory for California.9 ARB is responsible for maintaining and updating California's GHG Inventory per H&SC Section 9California Air Resources Board, 2019. GHG Current California Emission Inventory Data. Available online at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm; last accessed: July 2020
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-60
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION 39607.4. The associated forecast/projection is an estimate of the emissions anticipated to occur in the year 2020 if none of the foreseeable measures included in the Scoping Plan were implemented.
An emissions projection estimates future emissions based on current emissions, expected regulatory implementation, and other technological, social, economic, and behavioral patterns. The projected 2020 emissions provided in Figure 3.3-1 represents a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario assuming none of the Scoping Plan measures are implemented. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate assists ARB in demonstrating progress toward meeting the 2020 goal of 431 MMTCO e.10 2 The 2017 edition of the GHG emissions inventory found total California emissions of 440.4 MMTCO2e, showing progress towards meeting the AB 32 goals.
The 2020 BAU emissions projection was revisited in support of the First Update to the Scoping Plan (2014). This projection accounts for updates to the economic forecasts of fuel and energy demand as well as other factors. It also accounts for the effects of the 2008 economic recession and the projected recovery. The total emissions expected in the 2020 BAU scenario include reductions anticipated from Pavley I and the Renewable Electricity Standard (30 MMTCO2e total). With these reductions in the baseline, estimated 2020 statewide BAU emissions are 509 MMTCO2e. 10The revised target using Global Warming Potentials (GWP) from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-61
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Figure 3.3-1 2020 Business as Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection 2014 Edition
3.3.3 PROJECT ANALYSIS
An individual project does not generate enough GHG emissions to significantly influence global climate change. Rather, global climate change is a cumulative impact.
This means that a project may contribute to a potential impact through its incremental change in emissions when combined with the contributions of all other sources of GHG.
In assessing cumulative impacts, it must be determined if a project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable” (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(1) and 15130). To make this determination the incremental impacts of the proposed project must be compared with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. To gather sufficient information on a global scale of all past, current, and future projects to make this determination is a difficult, if not impossible, task.
GHG emissions for transportation projects can be divided into those produced during operations and those produced during construction. The following represents a best faith effort to describe the potential GHG emissions related to the proposed project.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-62
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION
3.3.4 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve interchange access and circulation, provide multimodal connectivity, provide a westbound I-80 connection to Shellmound Street, provide safe bicycle and pedestrian connectivity across I-80, improve circulation at I-80/Powell Street and 7th Street, and alleviate local surface street congestion. The proposed project will not increase the vehicle capacity of these roadways. This type of project generally causes minimal or no increase in operation GHG emissions.
As shown in Table 3.2-1 in Section 3.2.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the estimated annual CO2 emissions for the Build Alternative during the opening year (2025), horizon year (2040), and design year (2045) scenarios would be lower than the emissions for the No-Build Alternative, which is primarily attributed to the reduction in regional VMT under the Build Alternative. The estimated annual CO2 emissions for the Build and No Build Alternative would be lower in the opening year (2025) compared to the existing year (2018) because federal and state fuel economy standards are expected to reduce GHG emissions over time; however, the CO2 emissions for the Build and No Build Alternative would higher in the horizon year (2040) and design year (2045) compared to the existing year (2018). This is because regional VMT is expected to increase about 20 and 25 percent with or without the proposed project by the horizon year (2040) and design year (2045), respectively, which would exceed the rate of GHG emission reductions currently expected through federal and state regulatory programs.
3.3.5 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction GHG emissions would result from material processing, on-site construction equipment, and traffic delays due to construction. These emissions will be produced at different levels throughout the construction phase; their frequency and occurrence can be reduced through innovations in plans and specifications and by implementing better traffic management during construction phases.
In addition, with innovations such as longer pavement lives, improved traffic management plans, and changes in materials, the GHG emissions produced during construction can be offset to some degree by longer intervals between maintenance and rehabilitation activities. Currently Caltrans has not adopted GHG significance thresholds that apply to construction activities. For informational purposes, the total CO2e emissions and annual average CO2e emissions estimated for construction of the Build Alternative is 3,551 CO2e (total metric tons). Annually, the CO2e emissions for the Build Alternative is 1,420 CO2e (metric tons). The temporary increase in GHG emissions resulting from project construction would be offset by the long-term improvement in operational GHG emissions compared with the No Build Alternative.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-63
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION
3.3.6 CEQA CONCLUSION
Both the future with proposed project and future No Build scenarios show decreases in CO2 emissions over the existing levels. Therefore, it is Caltrans determination that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific information related to greenhouse gas emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative to make a determination regarding significance of the proposed project’s direct impact and its contribution on the cumulative scale to climate change. However, Caltrans is firmly committed to implementing measures to help reduce the potential effects of the proposed project.
These measures are outlined in the following section.
3.3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES
STATEWIDE EFFORTS
In an effort to further the vision of California’s GHG reduction targets outlined an AB 32 and SB 32, Governor Brown identified key climate change strategy pillars (concepts).
These pillars highlight the idea that several major areas of the California economy will need to reduce emissions to meet the 2030 GHG emissions target. These pillars are (1) reducing today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent; (2) increasing from one-third to 50 percent our electricity derived from renewable sources; (3) doubling the energy efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; (4) reducing the release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived climate pollutants; (5) managing farm and rangelands, forests, and wetlands so they can store carbon; and (6) periodically updating the state's climate adaptation strategy, Safeguarding California.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-64
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Figure 3.3-2 The Governor’s Climate Change Pillars: 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2019
The transportation sector is integral to the people and economy of California. To achieve GHG emission reduction goals, it is vital that we build on our past successes in reducing criteria and toxic air pollutants from transportation and goods movement activities. GHG emission reductions will come from cleaner vehicle technologies, lowercarbon fuels, and reduction of vehicle miles traveled. One of Governor Brown's Key Pillars sets the ambitious goal of reducing today's petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent by 2030.
Governor Brown called for support to manage natural and working lands, including forests, rangelands, farms, wetlands, and soils, so they can store carbon. These lands have the ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through biological processes, and to then sequester carbon in above- and below-ground matter.
CALTRANS ACTIVITIES
Caltrans continues to be involved on the Governor’s Climate Action Team as the ARB works to implement EOs S-3-05 and S-01-07 and help achieve the targets set forth in AB 32. EO B-30-15, issued in April 2015, and SB 32 (2016), set a new interim target to cut GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The following major initiatives are underway at Caltrans to help meet these targets.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-65
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION California Transportation Plan (CTP 2050)
The California Transportation Plan (CTP) is a statewide, long-range transportation plan to meet our future mobility needs and reduce GHG emissions. The CTP defines performance-based goals, policies, and strategies to achieve our collective vision for California’s future statewide, integrated, multimodal transportation system. It serves as an umbrella document for all of the other statewide transportation planning documents.
SB 391(Liu 2009) requires the CTP to meet California’s climate change goals under AB
32. Accordingly, the CTP 2050 identifies the statewide transportation system needed to achieve maximum feasible GHG emission reductions while meeting the state’s transportation needs. While MPOs have primary responsibility for identifying land use patterns to help reduce GHG emissions, CTP 2050 identifies additional strategies in Pricing, Transportation Alternatives, Mode Shift, and Operational Efficiency.
Caltrans Strategic Management Plan
The Strategic Management Plan, released in 2021 creates a performance-based framework to preserve the environment and reduce GHG emissions, among other goals. Specific performance targets in the plan that will help to reduce GHG emissions include:
▪ Increasing percentage of non-auto mode share
▪ Reducing VMT per capita
▪ Reducing Caltrans’ internal operational (buildings, facilities, and fuel) GHG emissions
Funding and Technical Assistance Programs
In addition to developing plans and performance targets to reduce GHG emissions, Caltrans also administers several funding and technical assistance programs that have GHG reduction benefits. These include the Bicycle Transportation Program, Safe Routes to School, Transportation Enhancement Funds, and Transit Planning Grants. A more extensive description of these programs can be found in Caltrans Activities to Address Climate Change (2013).
Caltrans Director’s Policy 30 (DP-30) Climate Change (June 22, 2012) is intended to establish a department policy that will ensure coordinated efforts to incorporate climate change into departmental decisions and activities.
Caltrans Activities to Address Climate Change (April 2013) provides a comprehensive overview of activities undertaken by Caltrans statewide to reduce GHG emissions resulting from agency operations.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-66
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Project-Level GHG Reduction Strategies
The following measures will also be implemented in the proposed project to reduce GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts from the proposed project.
Adaptation Strategies
“Adaptation strategies” refer to how Caltrans and others can plan for the effects of climate change on the state’s transportation infrastructure and strengthen or protect the facilities from damage—or, put another way, planning and design for resilience. Climate change is expected to produce increased variability in precipitation, rising temperatures, rising sea levels, variability in storm surges and their intensity, and the frequency and intensity of wildfires. These changes may affect the transportation infrastructure in various ways, such as damage to roadbeds from longer periods of intense heat; increasing storm damage from flooding and erosion; and inundation from rising sea levels. These effects will vary by location and may, in the most extreme cases, require that a facility be relocated or redesigned. These types of impacts to the transportation infrastructure may also have economic and strategic ramifications.
Federal Efforts
At the federal level, the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, co-chaired by the CEQ, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, released its interagency task force progress report on October 28, 201111, outlining the federal government's progress in expanding and strengthening the nation's capacity to better understand, prepare for, and respond to extreme events and other climate change impacts. The report provided an update on actions in key areas of federal adaptation, including building resilience in local communities, safeguarding critical natural resources such as fresh water, and providing accessible climate information and tools to help decision-makers manage climate risks.
The federal Department of Transportation issued U.S. DOT Policy Statement on Climate Adaptation in June 2011, committing to “integrate consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation into the planning, operations, policies, and programs of DOT in order to ensure that taxpayer resources are invested wisely, and that 11The White House President Barak Obama, 2014. Council on Environmental Quality, Climate Change Resilience. Available online at:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/resilience; last accessed: July 2020
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-67
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION transportation infrastructure, services and operations remain effective in current and future climate conditions.”12
To further the DOT Policy Statement, on December 15, 2014, FHWA issued order 5520 (Transportation System Preparedness and Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events).13 This directive established FHWA policy to strive to identify the risks of climate change and extreme weather events to current and planned transportation systems. The FHWA will work to integrate consideration of these risks into its planning, operations, policies, and programs in order to promote preparedness and resilience; safeguard federal investments; and ensure the safety, reliability, and sustainability of the nation’s transportation systems.
FHWA has developed guidance and tools for transportation planning that fosters resilience to climate effects and sustainability at the federal, state, and local levels.14 State Efforts
On November 14, 2008, then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed EO S-13-08, which directed a number of state agencies to address California’s vulnerability to sealevel rise caused by climate change. This EO set in motion several agencies and actions to address the concern of sea-level rise and directed all state agencies planning to construct projects in areas vulnerable to future sea-level rise to consider a range of sea-level rise scenarios for the years 2050 and 2100, assess project vulnerability and, to the extent feasible, reduce expected risks and increase resiliency to sea-level rise.
Sea-level rise estimates should also be used in conjunction with information on local uplift and subsidence, coastal erosion rates, predicted higher high water levels, and storm surge and storm wave data.
Governor Schwarzenegger also requested the National Academy of Sciences to prepare an assessment report to recommend how California should plan for future sealevel rise. The final report, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington (Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report) was released in June 2012 and included relative sea-level rise projections for the three states, taking into account 12U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011. Policy and Guidance, US DOT Policy Statement on Climate Change Adaptation. Available online at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/policy_and_guidance/usd ot.cfm; last accessed: July 2020
13U.S. Department of Transportation, 2014. FHWA Order 5520. Available online at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/5520.cfm; last accessed: July 2020 14U.S. Department of Transportation, 2019. Sustainability, Resilience. Available online at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/; last accessed: July 2020
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-68
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION coastal erosion rates, tidal impacts, El Niño and La Niña events, storm surge, and land subsidence rates; and the range of uncertainty in selected sea-level rise projections. 15 It provided a synthesis of existing information on projected sea-level rise impacts to state infrastructure (such as roads, public facilities, and beaches), natural areas, and coastal and marine ecosystems; and a discussion of future research needs regarding sea-level rise.
In response to EO S-13-08, the California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency), in coordination with local, regional, state, federal, and public and private entities, developed The California Climate Adaptation Strategy (Dec 2009), which summarized the best available science on climate change impacts to California, assessed California's vulnerability to the identified impacts, and outlined solutions that can be implemented within and across state agencies to promote resiliency. The adaptation strategy was updated and rebranded in 2014 as Safeguarding California:
Reducing Climate Risk (Safeguarding California Plan). 16 Governor Jerry Brown enhanced the overall adaptation planning effort by signing EO B30-15 in April 2015, requiring state agencies to factor climate change into all planning and investment decisions. In March 2016, sector-specific Implementation Action Plans that demonstrate how state agencies are implementing EO B-30-15 were added to the Safeguarding California Plan. This effort represents a multi-agency, cross-sector approach to addressing adaptation to climate change-related events statewide.
EO S-13-08 also gave rise to the State of California Sea-Level Rise Interim Guidance Document (SLR Guidance), produced by the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team (CO-CAT), of which Caltrans is a member. First published in 2010, the document provided “guidance for incorporating sea-level rise (SLR) projections into planning and decision making for projects in California,” specifically, “information and recommendations to enhance consistency across agencies in their development of approaches to SLR.” The March 2013 update finalizes the SLR Guidance by incorporating findings of the National Academy’s 2012 final SeaLevel Rise Assessment Report; the policy recommendations remain the same as those in the 2010 interim SLR Guidance. 17 The guidance will be updated as necessary in the 15The National Academies Press, 2012. Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington, Past, Present, and Future (2012). Available online at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389; last accessed: July 2020 16California Climate Change, 2013. California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Available online at: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/strategy/index.html; last accessed: July 2020
17 Ocean Protection Council, 2013. State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document. Available online at: http://www.opc.ca.gov/2013/04/update-to-the-sea-levelrise-guidance-document/; last accessed: July 2020 I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-69
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION future to reflect the latest scientific understanding of how the climate is changing and how this change may affect the rates of SLR.
Climate change adaptation for transportation infrastructure involves long-term planning and risk management to address vulnerabilities in the transportation system from increased precipitation, and flooding; the increased frequency and intensity of storms and wildfires; rising temperatures; and rising sea levels. Caltrans is actively engaged in in working towards identifying these risks throughout the state and will work to incorporate this information into all planning and investment decisions as directed in EO B-30-15.
3.3.8 ADAPTATION
Reducing GHG emissions is only one part of an approach to addressing climate change. Caltrans must plan for the effects of climate change on the state’s transportation infrastructure and strength or protect the facilities from damage. Climate change is expected to produce increased variability in precipitation, rising temperatures, rising sea levels, variability in storm surges and their intensity, and variability in the frequency and intensity of wildfires. Flooding and erosion can damage or wash out roads; longer periods of intense heat can buckle pavement and railroad tracks, and storm surges combined with a rising sea level can inundate highways. Wildfire can directly burn facilities and indirectly cause damage when rain falls on denuded slopes that suffer landslides after a fire. Effects will vary by location and may, in the most extreme cases, require that a facility be relocated or redesigned. Accordingly, Caltrans must consider these types of climate stressors in how highways are planned, designed, built, operation, and maintained.
FEDERAL EFFORTS
Under NEPA assignment, Caltrans is obligated to comply with all applicable federal environmental laws and FHWA NEPA regulations, policies, and guidance.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program delivers a report to Congress and the president every 4 years, in accordance with the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. Chapter 56A Section 2921 et seq.). The Fourth National Climate Assessment, published in 2018, presents the foundational science and the “human welfare, societal, and environmental elements of climate change and variability for 10 regions and 18 national topics, with particular attention paid to observed and projected risks, impacts, consideration of risk reduction, and implications under different mitigation pathways.” Chapter 12 “Transportation,” presents a key discussion of vulnerability assessments. It notes that “asset owners and operators have increasingly conducted more focused studies of particular assets that consider multiple climate hazards and I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-70
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION scenarios in the context of asset-specific information, such as design lifetime” (USGCRP 2018).
The U.S. DOT Policy Statement on Climate Adaptation in June 2011 committed the federal Department of Transportation to “integrate consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation into the planning, operations, policies, and programs of DOT in order to ensure that taxpayer resources are invested wisely, and that transportation infrastructure, services and operations remain effective in current and future climate conditions” (U.S. DOT 2011).
FHWA order 5520 (Transportation System Preparedness and Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events, December 15, 2014) established FHWA policy to strive to identify the risks of climate change and extreme weather events to current and planned transportation systems. FHWA has developed guidance and tools for transportation planning that foster resilience to climate effects and sustainability at the federal, state, and local levels (FHWA 2019).
STATE EFFORTS
Climate change adaptation for transportation infrastructure involves long-term planning and risk management to address vulnerabilities in the transportation system. California Fourth Climate Change Assessment (2018) is the state’s effort to “translate the state of climate science into useful information for action” in a variety of sectors at both statewide and local scales. It adopts the following key terms used widely in climate change analysis and policy documents.
▪ Adaptation to climate change refers to adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial to opportunities
▪ Adaptive capacity is the “combination of the strengths, attributes, and resources available to an individual, community, society, or organization that can be used to prepare for and undertake actions to reduce adverse impacts, moderate harm, or exploit beneficial opportunities.”
▪ Exposure is the presence of people, infrastructure, natural systems, and economic, cultural, and social resources in areas that are subject to harm. ▪ Resilience is the “capacity of any entity – an individual, a community, an organization, or a natural system – to prepare for disruptions, to recover from shocks and stresses, and to adapt and grow from a disruptive experience.” Adaptation actions contribute to increasing resilience, which is a desired outcome or state of being.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-71
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION ▪ Sensitivity is the level to which a species, natural system, or community, government, etc., would be affected by changing climate conditions. ▪ Vulnerability is the “susceptibility to harm from exposure to stresses associated with environmental and social change and from the absence of capacity to adapt.” Vulnerability can increase because of physical (built and environmental), social, political, and/or economic factor(s). These factors include, but are not limited to: ethnicity, class, sexual orientation and identification, national origin, and income inequality. Vulnerability is often defined as the combination of sensitivity and adaptive capacity as affected by the level of exposure to changing climate.
Several key state policies have guided climate change adaptation efforts to date.
Recent state publications produced in response to these policies draw on these definitions.
EO S-13-08, issued by then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in November 2008, focused on sea-level rise and resulted in the California Climate Adaptation Strategy (2009), updated in 2014 as Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk (Safeguarding California Plan). The Safeguarding California Plan offers policy principles and recommendations and continues to be revised and augmented with sector-specific adaptation strategies, ongoing actions, and next steps for agencies.
EO S-13-08 also led to the publication of a series of sea-level rise assessment reports and associated guidance and policies. These reports formed the foundation of an interim State of California Sea-Level Rise Interim Guidance Document (SLR Guidance) in 2010, with instructions for how state agencies could incorporate “sea-level rise (SLR) projections into planning and decision making for projects in California” in a consistent way across agencies. The guidance was revised and augmented in 2013. Rising Seas in California – An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science was published in 2017 and its updated projections of sea-level rise and new understanding of processes and potential impacts in California were incorporated into the State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Update in 2018.
EO B 30 15, signed in April 2015, requires state agencies to factor climate change into all planning and investment decisions. This EO recognizes that effects of climate change other than sea-level rise also threaten California’s infrastructure. At the direction of EO B-30-15, the Office of Planning and Research published Planning and Investing for a Resilient California: A Guidebook for State Agencies in 2017, to encourage a uniform and systematic approach. Representatives of Caltrans participated in the multiagency, multidisciplinary technical advisory group that developed this guidance on how to integrate climate change into planning and investment.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-72
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION AB 2800 (Quirk 2016) created the multidisciplinary Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group, which in 2018 released its report, Paying it Forward: The Path Toward ClimateSafe Infrastructure in California. The report provides guidance to agencies on how to address the challenges of assessing risk in the face of inherent uncertainties still posed by the best available science on climate change. It also examines how state agencies can use infrastructure planning, design, and implementation processes to address the observed and anticipated climate change impacts.
CALTRANS ADAPTATION EFFORTS
Caltrans Vulnerability Assessments
Caltrans is conducting climate change vulnerability assessments to identify segments of the State Highway System (SHS) vulnerable to climate change effects including precipitation, temperature, wildfire, storm surge, and sea-level rise. The approach to the vulnerability assessments was tailored to the practices of a transportation agency, and involves the following concepts and actions:
▪ Exposure – Identify Caltrans assets exposed to damage or reduced service life from expected future conditions.
▪ Consequence – Determine what might occur to system assets in terms of loss of use or costs of repair.
▪ Prioritization – Develop a method for making capital programming decisions to address identified risks, including considerations of system use and/or timing of expected exposure.
The climate change data in the assessments were developed in coordination with climate change scientists and experts at federal, state, and regional organizations at the forefront of climate science. The findings of the vulnerability assessments will guide analysis of at-risk assets and development of adaptation plans to reduce the likelihood of damage to the SHS, allowing Caltrans to both reduce the costs of storm damage and to provide and maintain transportation that meets the needs of all Californians.
Project Adaptation Analysis
Although CEQA does not require analysis of effects of climate change on a project, an environmental document should disclose if a project would exacerbate the effects of climate change related to flooding, hazards, and wildfire.
Climate-change risk analysis involves uncertainties as to the timing and intensity of potential risks. Such uncertainties may be documented in the proposed project’s risk register. For example, if a project design feature is not implemented in the proposed I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-73
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION project because of cost, the future consequence may be greater cost (in dollars, time, and lost service) to repair the damage.
Sea Level Rise
The State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance, 2018 Update (2018 SLR Guidance), was used to obtain scenario based on SLR projections applicable for the project area.
The SLR projects for the San Francisco Bay included the 2018 SLR Guidance, which uses 2000 as a baseline for SLR projections and have low and high emission scenarios leading up to 2150.
Since the proposed project includes both structures and roadway improvements, a design life of 40 years for roadway improvements was taken into consideration. SLR for the project area was projected for the year 2066, which is 40 years from the anticipated completion of construction in 2026. The proposed project’s SLR depth of 3.14 feet was interpolated assuming medium-high emissions and using 0.5% (1-in 200) chance of occurrence.
The Location Hydraulic Study Report identifying the floodplains within the project area was approved by Caltrans on May 14, 2021. The report also documents SLR, mitigation, and or minimization measures that would be considered during the design phase. Per the Location Hydraulic Study, the 100-year flood elevation for the project area is approximately 13 feet based on North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88). Depending upon the aversion, the water surface elevation in this area is expected to increase to 16.14 feet by 2066. Even though proposed project elements, including the Ashby overcrossing, bike-pedestrian overcrossing, ramps, and re-aligned West Frontage Road are above elevation 16.1 feet; I-80 within the project area, Point Emery, San Francisco Bay Trail, and remaining portions of the West Frontage Road beyond the area are below 16.1 feet in elevation. The existing drainage inlets within the project area, especially those along Aquatic Park Lagoon, Potter Street, West Bolivar Drive, and Ashby Avenue north of the railroad tracks are also below elevation 16.1 feet. High tide stages, storm surges, and SLR may cause flooding within the project area due to the back flow through the drainage system or from overland tidal inundation.
Caltrans is currently evaluating the addition of a tidal flap gate or a duck bill valve at the proposed new outfall structure to prevent backwater from the San Francisco Bay into the drainage system. Caltrans, in collaboration with local and regional stakeholders, including BCDC and others, is also developing local and regional responses to sea-level rise impacts. Multi-agency collaboration will help Caltrans and our partner agencies achieve a multi-benefit approach to protecting bayfront development, infrastructure, and assets, and distribute potential mitigation costs, as well as balancing environmental justice concerns to achieve equitable adaptation solutions.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-74
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION Caltrans cannot act alone in developing individual adaptation responses on a project by project basis, as sea level rise presents a regional problem demanding coordinated, consistent regional solutions. Regional approaches to addressing sea level rise are occurring concurrently with the proposed project. Such adaptive measures include constructing a sea wall/flood wall, and installing a tidal flap gates at all out-fall structures along the I-80 corridor to reduce the risk of exposure. A decision on the addition of a tidal flap gate or a duck bill valve at the proposed new outfall structure as a near-term measure to prevent backwater flow conditions for the proposed project will be made during final design.
Floodplains
The District 4 Caltrans Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment discusses how climate change is expected to bring less precipitation falling in heavier individual rainfall events in the District. These heavier events may change and become more frequent over time. To evaluate how to incorporate the risk of such events in the design of transportation assets, analysts consider changes in the 100-year return period storm event. Water courses within project limits consist of flood controls. The proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surface area. This increase would not significantly affect the regional level of impervious surface area or alter the 100-year flood water surface elevations.
If flooding increases in frequency or severity as a result of climate change, floodplains may need to be remapped. The reduction in water surface elevation and design adjustments based on further hydraulic analysis will ensure the proposed project’s resilience to potential changes in precipitation and flooding under climate change.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-75
CHAPTER 3.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION This page left intentionally blank.
I-80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3.3-76
4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
4.1 EARLY COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION
Early and continuing coordination with local, state, and regional agencies is an essential part of the environmental process. It helps California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) determine the necessary scope of environmental documentation and the level of analysis required, and identify potential impacts and avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures and related environmental requirements. Agency consultation and public participation for the proposed project have been accomplished through a variety of formal and informal methods, including project development team (PDT) meetings, interagency coordination meetings, and public meetings. This chapter summarizes the results of Caltrans’ efforts to fully identify, address, and resolve projectrelated issues through early and continuing coordination.
4.1.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
PUBLIC AND AGENCY SCOPING PROCESS
Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC), Caltrans, and the project design team held a public open house meeting on May 22, 2019, at the South Berkeley Senior Center in Berkeley, CA. The purpose of the meeting was to solicit input on the preliminary Build Alternatives from local agencies and the community. The location was chosen due to its accessibility and proximity to the project.
The meeting featured an overview of the proposed project, including key take-aways such as funding sponsors, working groups, history, and the schedule of the proposed project. Information on the proposed project alternatives, with the accompanying data and statistics of the traffic patterns was also presented. After the presentation, members of the public were able to ask questions and submit written comments and concerns about the proposed project.
Outreach ahead of the May 2019 meeting included several channels of outreach:
Mailer invitations to the public open house meeting were sent to approximately 1,400 addresses within a 0.25-mile radius of the I-80/Ashby Avenue interchange Postcards were distributed at nearby bike-to-work energizer stations at Parker Street and Seventh Street, 2234 9th Street, Berkeley Bowl West, and Greenway and 65th Street
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 4-1
CHAPTER 4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Invitation letters to the open house meeting were sent to approximately 60 elected officials and select staff in the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley Email invitations to the public open house meeting were sent to approximately 160 recipients, including businesses near the interchange, project work group participants, transit agencies within a 0.5-mile radius of the interchange, and key stakeholders
Digital advertisements were placed on Berkelyside
(https://www.berkeleyside.org), E’ville Eye (https://evilleeye.com), and Facebook Invitation posts to the open house meeting were shared via Alameda CTC’s Facebook and Twitter feeds, Caltrans District 4 Facebook and Twitter feeds, and Nextdoor Emeryville
Website postings on the Alameda CTC home page (https://www.alamedactc.org) and I-80/Ashby Avenue Interchange Improvement Project page (https://www.alamedactc.org/programs-projects/highway-improvement/i-80- ashby-avenue-sr-13-interchange-improvements).
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVEMENT
Stakeholder outreach began in 2018 and has included a variety of community events.
Key stakeholder groups near the project area were identified collaboratively with local agencies. Each of the stakeholder groups were contacted via email in early Spring 2018. Follow-up email and phone messages were sent four to eight days prior to each stakeholder meeting, and a reminder message was sent the day-of.
Stakeholder groups were selected based on their interest and proximity to the project area. These events gave the outreach team opportunities to connect with stakeholder members at established community activities. A detailed description of each stakeholder meeting is provided below.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Meetings
Meeting #1: Bicycle and Pedestrian
Bicycle and Pedestrian Meeting #1 was held at 125 12th Suite #400 on Thursday, February 14, 2019, at 3 pm. The purpose of this meeting was to convene key stakeholders, specifically those who focus on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The meeting attendees shared their concerns and comments regarding the proposed project. Topics of discussion fell into the following categories: project vehicle and bicycle infrastructure; level of service and safety; access to and from Shellmound Street; and financial resources.
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 4-2
CHAPTER 4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Participants raised questions about the types of connections proposed; the demand for the proposed bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing (BPOC) structure, connectivity with other existing and planned projects in the area, and the need to consider future bicycle and pedestrian trip origins.
Participants expressed a desire for the proposed project to improve the Level of Service of the interchange. Participants also raised questions about the relationship between the project’s Level of Service and safety for future bicyclists and pedestrians and indicated that safety should be the top priority.
Participants asked how the project would affect bicycle traffic on Shellmound Street and suggested that additional bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure on that roadway might be necessary to accommodate increased demand.
Caltrans and Alameda CTC participants shared information regarding the use of Measure B funding and the possibility of future funding opportunities.
Meeting #2: Bicycle and Pedestrian
Bicycle and Pedestrian Meeting #2 was held at 1111 Broadway on Wednesday, April 10, 2019, from 3:00 pm to 4:30pm. The purpose of the meeting was to reconvene with the group that participated in the Meeting #1 (February 14, 2019), and present them with project updates in relation to pedestrian and bicycle safety. There were nine participants.
Participants raised questions about the types of connections proposed; the demand for the proposed BPOC structure; signalized and stop controlled ramp termini; connectivity with other existing and planned projects in the area; and the need to consider how the proposed 22-foot width can be allocated for bicycle and pedestrian pathways.
Meeting #3: Bicycle and Pedestrian
Bicycle and Pedestrian Meeting #3 was held at 1111 Broadway on Wednesday, November 6, 2019, at 5 pm. This meeting was held to provide updates about project alternatives and solicited input from the various stakeholder groups. Representatives from 12 local agencies and cities were in attendance, including Emeryville, Berkeley, Caltrans, and Alameda CTC.
Participants raised questions regarding types of connections proposed, the demand for the proposed BPOC structure, and the proposed Build Alternative.
Participants requested updates on the proposed bicycle-pedestrian connections to Shellmound/Bay Street, Berkeley, and Aquatic Park in Berkeley.
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 4-3
CHAPTER 4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Caltrans and Alameda CTC participants shared information regarding the use of Measure BB and ATP funding and the possibility of future funding opportunities.
Meeting #4: Bicycle and Pedestrian
Bicycle and Pedestrian Meeting #4 was a virtual meeting held on Microsoft Teams on October 7, 2020, from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. The purpose of the meeting was to provide project updates, status of action items from Meeting #3, status of Shellmound Street, Vista Park concept and the West Frontage Road/San Francisco Bay Trail connection. In addition, the aesthetics of the project design and BPOC concepts were discussed. The meeting had 34 participants.
Participants showed concerns regarding the project’s cost and how the project would be funded. The current projected cost of $100 million dollars, which would be supplied by Measure BB funds, ATP Grants, and other sources was discussed. For additional details regarding funding for the proposed project, see Chapter 1.0, Proposed Project.
Participants expressed a desire for the proposed project to improve the Level of Service of the interchange. Participants also raised questions about the relationship between the project’s Level of Service and safety for future bicyclists and pedestrians and indicated that safety should be the top priority.
Work Group Meetings
Meeting #1: Work Group Meeting
Work Group Meeting #1 was held at 1111 Broadway on Wednesday October 10, 2018, from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm. The purpose of this meeting was to convene key stakeholders in a collaborative “work group” to interface directly with the Project Development Team as well as share valuable input. The inaugural work group meeting was attended by 15 participants from various stakeholder groups including Bike East Bay and the East Bay Regional Park District.
The primary concern was around adding a new vehicular connection to Shellmound and potentially increasing vehicular traffic as a result. Shellmound Street is currently a Class III facility providing access to Aquatic Park; it is used by members of the community for its connection to Aquatic Park. A secondary concern was making sure the design on Ashby west of the Union Pacific Railroad crossing is designed for separated bicycle and walking facilities with connections to Aquatic Park.
Participants relayed concerns regarding sea level rise within the project area, specifically around West Frontage Road. Given the Ashby Interchange’s proximity to the San Francisco Bay, participants discussed the potential for sea level rise effects and flooding in the project area.
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 4-4
CHAPTER 4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Participants discussed ensuring that the proposed project also does not simply displace congestion onto neighboring roadways, inadvertently giving rise to other traffic and/or safety issues.
Meeting #2: Work Group Meeting
Work Group Meeting #2 was held at 1111 Broadway on Tuesday, April 16, 2019, from 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm. This meeting was to reconvene key stakeholders from Work Group Meeting #1 in order to ensure there was sufficient representation from the broadest possible cross-section of the proposed project’s key stakeholder groups.
Representatives from responsible agencies, Caltrans, and Alameda CTC responded to questions and comments. The work group meeting was attended by 16 participants, 8 of whom were members of the public.
Primary concerns discussed during the meeting included features to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety (e.g., signals and crosswalks), and limiting interactions between bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles.
Meeting #3: Work Group Meeting
Work Group Meeting #3 was a virtual meeting held on Zoom on May 13, 2021, from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. This meeting was held to reconvene the key stakeholders in the work group and update them on the project status and discuss the single build alternative; BPOC design concepts; and the project schedule. Representatives from responsible agencies, Alameda CTC, and the City of Emeryville responded to questions and comments mainly concerning project costs and funding gaps, and a bicycle/pedestrian bridge connection at Ashby Avenue. A total of 19 people attended the meeting.
Participants raised questions regarding types of connections proposed, the demand for the proposed BPOC structure, and the proposed Build Alternatives.
Caltrans and Alameda CTC participants shared information regarding the use of Measure B funding and the possibility of future funding opportunities.
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
A Notice of Availability was circulated to the project mailing list and to parties listed on the distribution list (see Chapter 6.0, Distribution List) on November 30, 2021. All property owners/occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project area received a project mailer informing them of the availability of the IS/EA. The notice provided information on the proposed project including a summary of the alternatives being considered, where the environmental document can be reviewed, the address to where comments can be sent, and the close of the comment period.
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 4-5
CHAPTER 4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
PUBLIC MEETING
Information on the proposed project and the Draft IS/EA will be presented at the following public forum. The public open house will be conducted virtually during the public comment period on January 11, 2022.
Comments on the Proposed IS/Draft EA must be submitted by January 31, 2022 at 5:00 p.m.
4.1.2 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
On August 22, 2019, archeologists contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a search of the Sacred Lands File on behalf of the proposed project. The NAHC responded stating that no significant resources have previously been identified in the area of potential effect. A list of interested Native American Tribal representatives with traditional lands or cultural places within Alameda County was included in the NAHC response.
The NAHC provided a list of seven tribal contacts that may have information pertinent to the project area or have concerns regarding the proposed project. In November 2019, letters were sent via certified mail to the following seven contacts provided by the NAHC:
The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Valentin Lopez, Representative Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Tony Cerda, Chairperson Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Coastanoan, Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson
North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Katherine Erolinda Perez, Chairperson The Confederated Villages of Lisjan, Corrina Gould, Chairperson Ohlone Indian Tribe, Andrew Galvin, Chairperson
One response was received via email from Chairperson Katherine Perez of the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe. A field review of the project area was conducted on February 13, 2020, by Chairperson Perez and two other tribal representatives, along with Caltrans District 4 archaeology personnel, Kathryn Rose and Katie Jorgensen.
Chairperson Perez expressed concern for the potential of deeply buried cultural resources beneath the fill on which I-80 and the interchange has been constructed.
Project team members shared the general excavation would only be up to 10 feet, while INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 4-6
CHAPTER 4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) pile foundations would require drilled excavations of approximately 80 feet. Thus, while possible, the likelihood of discovering deeply buried cultural resources is low. Additionally, with adherence to PF-CUL-1 and PF-CUL-2, the potential effects would be minimized. For additional information about consultation with Native American tribes, see Section 2.1, Human Environment.
4.1.3 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM
Regular PDT meetings have provided a forum for coordination, issue resolution, and information feedback between Caltrans, Alameda CTC, the cities of Emeryville and Berkeley, and project consultants.
PDT meetings have occurred since 2017 and will continue to occur throughout the remainder of the environmental and project approval process. The PDT represents various fields of expertise, including design, environmental, traffic operations, right-ofway, and project management. Accordingly, the PDT convenes to review the project status, address issues as they arise, and provide overall direction throughout the project development process.
AGENCY CONSULTATION
There are several public agencies involved in environmental clearance and permitting of the proposed project. These agencies include the State Historic Preservation Officer, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Air Quality Conformity Task Force.
MTC is responsible for updating the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which is a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, freight, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) program San Francisco Bay Area projects in the RTP Plan Bay Area 2050. The I80/Ashby Avenue Interchange improvement is included in the RTP under reference number ID 17-01-0037. The proposed project is also included in the MTC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) under reference numbers ID ALA170002.
The proposed project is also included in the MTC adopted the TIP on May 17, 2021.
FHWA approved and incorporated the TIP into the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) on July 16, 2021.
A quantitative particulate matter (PM) analysis is required under the U.S. EPA Transportation Conformity rule for projects of air quality concern (POAQC). On March 10, 2006, the U.S. EPA published a final rule that establishes the transportation conformity criteria and procedures for determining which transportation projects must be INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 4-7
CHAPTER 4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
analyzed for local air quality impacts. MTC’s Air Quality Conformity Task Force met on July 23, 2020, as part of interagency consultation for the Build Alternatives and took action to conclude that the proposed project is not a POAQC.
Caltrans has begun early consultation with BCDC regarding the required permit for temporary work within BCDC jurisdiction. As part of the permitting process, BCDC requires a Sea Level Rise Assessment and a comprehensive construction closure, detour, and signage plan. A Sea Level Rise Memorandum was prepared for the project, and approved November 1, 2021. A virtual BCDC Focus meeting for the proposed project was held on August 18, 2021.
Permits and approvals from various agencies, such as the MTC, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be required for project construction. Table 1.6-1 in Chapter 1 provides a list of all anticipated permits and approvals needed for this project.
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 4-8
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
Division of Environmental Planning and Engineering
Lindsay Vivian, Office Chief, Office of Environmental Analysis Wahida Rashid, Senior Environmental Planner, Office of Environmental Analysis Brooklyn Klepl, Associate Environmental Planner, Office of Environmental Analysis Matthew Rechs, Senior Environmental Planner, Office of Biological Sciences and Permits Sara Moss, Associate Environmental Planner, Office of Biological Sciences and Permits Kathryn Rose, Senior Environmental Planner (Archaeology), Office of Cultural Resource Studies
Althea Asaro, Associate Environmental Planner (Archaeology), Office of Cultural Resource Studies
Katherine Jorgensen, PQS Lead Archaeology Surveyor (Archaeology), Office of Cultural Resource Studies
Helen Blackmore, Senior Environmental Planner (Architectural History), Office of Cultural Resource Studies
Charles Palmer, Principal Architectural Historian (Architectural History), Office of Cultural Resource Studies
Kevin Krewson, Office Chief, Office of Environmental Engineering Shilpa Mareddy, Senior Transportation Engineer (Air AND Noise), Office of Environmental Engineering
Christopher Wilson, Senior Transportation Engineer (Hazardous Waste), Office of Environmental Engineering
Dragomir Bogdan, Interim Office Chief, Office of Water Quality Norman Gonsalves, Senior Transportation Engineer, Office of Water Quality Khai Leong, Office Chief, Office of Hydraulics and Stormwater Design Lydia Mac, Senior Landscape Architect, Office of Landscape Architecture INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 5-1
CHAPTER 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Felix Onukwugha, Landscape Associate Office of Landscape Architecture Chris Risden, Senior Engineering Geologist, Office of Geotechnical Design-West Division of Program/Project Management
Ron Kiaaina, Regional Project Manager, Alameda County
Division of Design
Tin Win, Project Engineer, Office of Design East- Alameda Albert Zepeda, Senior T.E., Branch Chief, Office of Design East- Alameda Caltrans Headquarters Division of Environmental Analysis Brenda Powell-Jones, Senior Environmental Planner, Climate Change Policy Advisor, Office of Environmental Program/Project Management
Division of Transportation Planning and Local Assistance Vishal Ream-Rao, Senior Transportation Planner, Climate Change Branch (Branch Chief), District 4 Office of System & Regional Planning
Dick Fahey, Senior Transportation Planner, GIS Support Branch (Branch Chief), District 4 Office of System & Regional Planning
LOCAL AGENCY PARTNERS
Kanda Raj, Project Manager (Consultant), Alameda County Transportation Commission Farid Javandel, Transportation Division Manager, Public Works, City of Berkeley Ryan O’Connell, Senior Civil Engineer, Public Works, City of Emeryville
ENGINEERING AND CONSULTANT TEAM
T.Y. Lin International Group
John Kenyon, Bay Area Unit Manager, Associate Vice President Sneha Pavuluri, Roadway Design Engineer
Sam Chui, Senior Transportation Engineer
Circlepoint
Scott Steinwert, President/Senior Managing Principal
Audrey Zagazeta, Managing Principal
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 5-2
CHAPTER 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Andrew Metzger, Project Manager
Liane Chen, Senior Associate Planner
Justine Garner, Associate Planner
Danielle Keith, Assistant Planner
Krysten McCue, Assistant Planner
Bailey Warren, Assistant Planner
Janet Kung, Assistant Planner
Baseline Environmental Consulting
Patrick Sutton, Environmental Engineer
Horizon Water and Environment
Janis Offermann, Cultural Resources Practice Leader
Robin Hunter, Associate
Wilson Ihrig
Deborah Jue, Principal & CEO
Ani Toncheva, Associate
Paleo Solutions, Inc.
Courtney Richards, Principal Paleontologist
Barbara Webster, GIS Specialist
Vincent Zhao, Paleontologist
Andrew Hernandez, Operations Manager
Haygood & Associates
Leah Haygood, Principal
Field of Vision
Richard Tsai, Founder and Owner
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Aaron Elias, Senior Engineer
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 5-3
CHAPTER 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
This page left intentionally blank
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 5-4
6.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST
This Draft Initial Study and Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) was distributed to the following responsible and trustee agencies and elected officials. Distribution of this Draft IS/EA included hard copies, electronic media, reference to the web site in which the document is available, or a combination of these. Agency names marked with an asterisk (*) received copies through the State Clearinghouse.
In addition to the following list, local officials, stakeholders, community groups, businesses, and interested persons on the project mailing list were notified of the availability of this document and public meetings as described in Chapter 4.0, Comments and Coordination. Furthermore, all property owners/occupants within a 500- foot radius of the project area received a project mailer informing them of the availability of the Draft IS/EA.
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, Federal Activities Office,
CMD-2
75 Hawthorne Street #11
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2800 Cottage Way W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825
US Army Corps of Engineers,
San Francisco District
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Director, Office of Protected Resources
NOAA Fisheries, National Marine
Fisheries Service
650 Capitol Mall
Suite 5-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
STATE AGENCIES
*California Air Resources Board
Executive Officer Richard Corey
1001 I Street
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95814
*California Department of Fish & Wildlife
Bay Delta Region
Regional Manager Gregg Erickson
650 Capitol Mall
Suite 8-300
Sacramento, CA 95814
California Department of Conservation*
Director David Shabazian
801 K Street, MS 24-01
Sacramento, CA 95814
*Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6-1
CHAPTER 6.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST
*California Highway Patrol
3601 Telegraph Avenue
Oakland, CA 94609
*California Office of Historic Preservation*
State Historic Preservation Officer
Julianne Polanco
1725 23rd Street #100
Sacramento, CA 95816
*California Public Utilities Commission
Executive Director Rachel Peterson
505 N Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
*California Department of Toxic
Substances Control
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-2828
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812
*Native American Heritage Commission
Executive Secretary Christina Snider
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
*California Department of Housing and
Community Development
2020 West El Camino Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95833
*Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Region 2
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
*San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
375 Beale Street, Suite 510
San Francisco, CA 94105
*State Water Resources Control Board
Water Quality Division
Executive Director Eileen Sobeck
1001 “I” Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
REGIONAL AGENCIES
Association of Bay Area Governments
Therese Watkins McMillan
Executive Director
375 Beale Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Jack Broadbent
Chief Executive Officer
375 Beale Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94105
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6-2
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Therese Watkins McMillan
Executive Director
375 Beale Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
CHAPTER 6.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST
ELECTED/LOCAL OFFICIALS
Mayor Dianne Martinez
City of Emeryville
1333 Park Avenue
Emeryville, CA 94608
Mayor Jesse Arreguin
City of Berkeley
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
The Honorable Alex Padilla
United States Senate
333 Bush Street, Suite 3225
San Francisco, CA 94104
The Honorable Diane Feinstein
United States Senate
One Post Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94104
The Honorable Barbara Lee
United States House of Representatives,
13th District
1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1010
Oakland, CA 94612
The Honorable Nancy Skinner
California State Senate, 9th District
1515 Clay Street, Suite 2202,
Oakland, CA 94612
The Honorable Buffy Wicks
Assemblymember, 15th District
1515 Clay Street, Suite 2201,
Oakland, CA 94612
TRIBAL CONTACTS
Katherine Erolinda Perez, Chairperson
North Valley Yokuts Tribe
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA 95236
Corrina Gould, Chairperson
The Confederated Villages of Lisjan
10926 Edes Avenue
Oakland, CA 94603
Tony Cerda, Chairperson
Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
244 E. 1st Street
Pomona, CA 91766
Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San
Francisco Bay Area
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA 94546
Andrew Galvan
Ohlone Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 3152
Fremont, CA 94539
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA 95024
Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San
Juan Bautista
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA 94062
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6-3
CHAPTER 6.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST
OTHER
California Transportation Commission
Executive Director Mitch Weiss
1120 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Kevin Johnston
2288 Buena Vista Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
INTERSTATE 80/ASHBY AVENUE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6-4