Pinole City Council
June 10, 2024

FINDINGS

CROSS STREETS
No Cross Streets Identified
7085970- 6 Page 4

City Directory Images

-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A2
Target Street Cross Street Source
2017
500 LETCHER BROTHERS AUTO REPAIR

LOCKSMITH
517 METRIC MOTORSPORT
550 ACCU TECH AUTO CARE INC
600 EMBERS THE
610 1ST LIBERTY FINANCE

ALL STARS BARBER SHOP

ARMOR LOCKSMITH SERVICES

BARNES BARBER SHOP

BARNES CUTS & STYLES

BRONZE BUNS

G & L LIQUOR
K 9 CREATIONS SPA BOUTQIUE

K LE TIME

MA YOLANDA CABOBOY

PETES PLACE
620 99 CENTS ONLY STORES

SOARING EAGLES TAE KWON DO ACADEMY
SUBWAY
624 COSMOPROF

NOSTALGIC SOUL BS

SERENITY NAIL SPA

THE NEW DELI
632 HO, KWONG C

HUNAN VILLA

TACHIKAWA RESTAURANT
636 LETCHER BROTHERS AUTO REPAIR
640 PUBLIC STORAGE
645 JEHOVAHS WITNESS
650 CLEMES & CLEMES INC
674 LINDSEY, LYNETTE A
675 THOMPSON, TAMMY

WU, YU C
690 THE NEARLY NEW SHOPPE
711 REYNOSO, ELIZABETH
720 DAVES AUTO REPAIR

DREAMS AUTO COLLISION CENTER
730 INTEGRITY MUFFLER & AUTO CARE

LETCHER BROTHERS AUTO REPAIR

SCOLARI MARBLE & GRANITE

SUPERHAUL MECHANICAL
739 ANGUIANO, LUIS

CDL PACIFIC JANITORIAL SERVICE

CHAPMAN, CYNTHIA A

DURHAM, DURELL T

FAJARITO, JERWIN J

GALLEGOS, RAFAEL

GUTIERREZ, MARCO A

HAZZARD, MARKITA

SCOTT, GREGORY

(Cont'd)
-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A3
Target Street Cross Street Source
2017
739 TAN, PAUL
745 CARADINE, BETTY J

GURUWAYA, JOSEPH M

MADISON, DAVID

PITTMAN, NICHOLAS A

REYES, MARIA G

ROBINSON, GEORGE H

STEWART, EUGENA A

TRUDEL, JACK H

WEBSTER, DANYELL D

YOUNG, LEILANIE P
747 ARANA, SHERWIN C

BAOAS, DANILO

CORCUERA, THELMA C

GIBSON, CLAYTON J

HUGHES, ENRIQUE

LIMO, ROY K

MAPA, A L

MORALES, DIANA

TIANG, KIMCHEA

TOMADA, LUCITO T

VALENCIA, LUZ
775 BIOMAX ENVIRONMENTAL LLC
781 R E ROSINE & CO INC
785 WILLIAMSON, LESLIE
795 MCMULLEN GLASS CO
799 NAVARRO, STEVEN
806 NUTTLE, SUSAN L

SUSAN NUTTLE DDS
812 3 H VENTURES LLC

ASCEND EAGLE
815 ATENCIO, REMEDIOS S

COWPERTHWAITE HININGER

COWPERTHWAITE, DAVID G

LAROCQUE, JOCELYN A

NGUYEN, DIEM T

SHIPMON, JANICE R
825 KISTER SAVIO & REI INC KSRINC
828 360 MEDICAL SUPPLY LLC
855 GABLES MOTEL
890 INDUSTRIAL RAILWAYS CO
893 ST CLAIRES HOME FOR SENIORS
900 AAA LOCKSMITH

CROCKETTS PREMIER AUTO BODY
901 TOVARJIMENEZ, HECTOR
910 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
920 DUMLAOS MARTIAL ARTS
930 CASTORNOVA & ASSOCIATES

EUREKA THE CALIFORNIA CAREER INFORMA

GOLDEN BAY TAX BOOKKEEPING

(Cont'd)
-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A4
Target Street Cross Street Source
2017
930 RIGHT AT HOME

SMITH & ASSOCIATES
951 MADELINESTAX SERVICE
953 BELLA BRASIL BUSINESS SERVICES

MATAYOSHI NSURANCE SERVICES
971 10TH INNING BASEBALL CARDS

PINOLE PAWS PET GROOMING

SHEAR CUTS

SUNSHINE FLOOR COVERING
990 DOLAN LUMBER CO OF PINOLE
993 FOSTERS FREEZE
1007 SMART STOP

-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A5
Target Street Cross Street Source
2014
500 LETCHER BROTHERS AUTO REPAIR
517 METRIC MOTORSPORT

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
550 ACCU TECH AUTO CARE INC
600 EMBERS THE
610 1ST LIBERTY FINANCE

ADT SECURITY SERVICES

BARNES BARBER SHOP

BARNES CUTS & STYLES

BRONZE BUNS

DISH NETWORK

G & L LIQUOR
K 9 CREATIONS SPA BOUTQIUE

PETES PLACE
620 99 CENT ONLY STORES

SOARING EAGLES TAE KWON DO ACADEMY

SUBWAY SANDWICHES
624 99 CENT STORE

COSMOPROF

NEW DELI THE

NOSTALGIC SOUL BS

SERENITY NAIL SPA
632 HO, KWONG C

HUNAN VILLA

TACHIKAWA RESTAURANT
636 JIM DANDY TRANSMISSIONS
640 PUBLIC STORAGE
645 JEHOVAHS WITNESSES PINOLE CONGRIGAT
650 CLEMES & CLEMES INCCURVED PLYWOOD

CONTRA COSTA POOL CENTER
655 WRIGHT, JOSHUA
665 CLEMES, HELLENA L
674 LINDSEY, LYNETTE A
675 CUADROS, LIZ

THOMPSON, TAMMY
690 THE NEARLY NEW SHOPPE
711 PORTILLO, ELENA
720 DAVES AUTO REPAIR

DREAMS AUTO COLLISION CENTER
725 IRENES WOMEN OF FAITH FOUNDATION
730 LETCHER BROTHERS AUTO REPAIR

PINOLE GRANITE COMPANY

PROF SMOG

SCOLARI MARBLE & GRANITE

SENZER, ERNEST
739 ABERIN, EDGARDO B

CDL PACIFIC JANITORIAL SERVICE

FABIA, EUSEBIO C

GALLEGOS, RAFAEL

GHUMMAN, AFZAL

(Cont'd)
-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A6
Target Street Cross Street Source
2014
739 GUTIERREZ, MARCO A

MADARIS, LATRICE

MAHRT, REBECCA L

QUOSHENA, CYNTHIA I

SCOTT, GREGORY

TAN, SHERRYL
745 GIBSON, NAMANA

GURUWAYA, JOSEPH M

MARTINEZ, HUBERT

PITTMAN, NICHOLAS A

REYES, GRACIA

ROBINSON, GEORGE H

SALMERON, YOLANDA A

TOMADA, LUCITO T

TRUDEL, JACK H
747 ARANA, SHERWIN C

BHATTARAI, MANASH

BINHLOI, LY

CERRATO, JOSE A

CREER, JEAN

KIMCHEA, TIANG

LIMO, ROY K

LOZANO, ESPERANZA L

MANAOIS, ANA

MAPA, A L

RAMIREZ, ROSALVA

VALENCIA, LUZ
775 BIOMAX ENVIRONMENTAL LLC
781 R E ROSINE & CO INC
785 FERGUSON, CARRIE L
795 MCMULLEN GLASS CO
799 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
800 SUGAR CITY BUILDING MATERIALS CO
806 NUTTLE SUSAN DDS

NUTTLE, SUSAN L
812 FASTENAL
815 BORRMEO, BONNIE J

COWPERTHWAITE HININGER

KUIPER, GERARD E

MATTA, BERNADETTE
825 KISTER SAVIO & REI INC
828 360 MEDICAL SUPPLY LLC
855 GABLES MOTEL
870 WEBB, JAMES
890 INDUSTRIAL RAILWAYS CO
893 SAINTCLAIRES HOME FOR SENIORS
900 CROCKETTS PREMIER AUTO BODY
901 OROZCO, VICTOR
910 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
920 OCU EASE OPTICAL PRODUCTS INC

(Cont'd)
-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A7
Target Street Cross Street Source
2014
930 CASTORNOVA & ASSOCIATES

CU SERVICES

EUREKA THE CALIFORNIA CAREER INFORMA

LEBON REAL ESTATE INC

SMITH & ASSOCIATES
951 MADELINESTAX SERVICE
953 BELLA BRASIL BUSINESS SERVICES

MATAYOSHI NSURANCE SERVICES
971 10TH INNING BASEBALL CARDS

PINOLE PAWS PET GROOMING

SHEAR CUTS

SUNSHINE FLOOR COVERINGS
990 DOLAN LUMBER CO OF PINOLE
DOLANS

DOLANS LUMBER WINDOWS & DOORS
993 FOSTER FREEZEPINOLE
1007 SMART STOP

-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A8
Target Street Cross Street Source
2010
500 LETCHER BROTHERS AUTO REPAIR
517 METRIC MOTORSPORT

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
550 ACCUTECH AUTO CARE INC
600 EMBERS
610 BRONZE BUNS

G & L LIQUOR INC

HAIRITAGE BEAUTY SALON

KUMON MATH & READING CTR

PETES PLACE

SAN PABLO CLEANERS
620 99 CENTS ONLY STORES
624 99 STORE

COSMO PRO

FERENITY NAIL SPA

NEW DELI
632 HO, KWONG C

HUNAN VILLA
636 JIM DANDY MUFFLER
640 PUBLIC STORAGE
645 JEHOVAHS WITNESSES PINOLE
650 CLEMES & CLEMES INCCURVED

CONTRA COSTA POOL CTR
655 WRIGHT, JOSEPH
665 CLEMES, HELLENA L
674 LINDSEY, LYNETTE A
675 MANNING, MARY A
690 SECOND HAN WANTS & NEEDS
711 PORTILLO, FRANCISCO A
720 DAVES AUTO REPAIR

DREAMS AUTO COLLISION CTR

HOLLERANS FABRICATION

JOHN DON KONICS
730 ABC AUTO REPAIR & TOWING

BAYOU CUSTOM

DE, ANDA M

DEANDA, MARIA J

FARIA, RAYMOND D

FRANCISCOS MOBILE AUTO SVC

INTEGRITY MUFFLER & AUTO CARE

INTERNATIONAL ORNAMENTAL IRON

PROF SMOG

ROCKET WORKSHOP

SCOLARI MARBLE & GRANITE

SUPERHAUL MECHANICAL
739 ALBERTO, MARLENE

AMEY, GWEN

COCKERAN, IYSIS

CORDOVA, SONIA M

DWYER, MICHAEL

(Cont'd)
-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A9
Target Street Cross Street Source
2010
739 GALLEGOS, RAFAEL

GARCIA, CESAR M

GUTIERREZ, ALEX

JACKSON, ELONDA

RABUTASO, DANTE D

SAMANO, ERIKA

SUM, YUN C

UHLES, GLEN P
745 BENAMER, JOB N

BURATHOKI, BISHANT

CARADINE, BETTY J

CUYNO, ELENITA

GONZALEZ, EDWIN

MARTINEZ, HUBERT

ONYIKE, EUGENE

PORTILLO, OSCAR A

RAMIREZ, CATHERINE

RAMIREZ, KAMILO

REYES, GRACIA

ROBINSON, GEORGE H

SUM, YUN C

TRUDEL, JACK H

WEBSTER, DAN
747 HOLSTON-VINES, ANN E

KEOSAENG, CHAN

ORELLANA, DALIO A

RAMIREZ, ROSALVA

RODGERS-DEZA, CATHLENE R

SANDOC, ERWIN

TOMADA, LUCITO T

ZIVNEY, MALEA
760 TERRA FIRMA CO
775 BIOMAX ENVIRONMENTAL LLC
781 R E ROSINE & CO
785 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
787 KNISELY, DIANE M
789 CEZARIO, CHRISTIE E
791 JANKE, ZACHARY
795 MC MULLEN GLASS CO
799 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
806 NUTTLE SUSAN L DDS

NUTTLE, SUSAN L
815 ATENCIO, REMEDIOS S

COWPERTHWAITE & HININGER

KUIPER, GERARD
825 KISTER SAVIO & REI INC
855 GABLES MOTEL
870 WEBB, JAMES
890 INDUSTRIAL RAILWAYS CO
893 SENIOR CARE OUTREACH INC

(Cont'd)
-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A10
Target Street Cross Street Source
2010
893 ST CLAIRES HOME FOR SENIORS
900 CROCKETTS PREMIER AUTO BODY
910 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANIMAL SVC
920 OCUEASE OPTICAL PRODUCTS INC
930 BAY AREA TAX & BOOKKEEPING

CALIFORNIA CAREER INFO SYSTS

EXIT REALTY CARSON

T K FINANCIAL
951 DIAMOND ACUPRESSURE

MADELINE & MARIANNES TAX SVC
953 KINGON, ROI

MATAYOSHI INSURANCE SVC
971 10TH INNING BASEBALL CARDS

CINDYS SHEAR CUTS

PINOLE PAWS PET GROOMING
990 DOLANS LUMBER WINDOWS & DOORS
993 FOSTERS FREEZE
1007 SMART STOP

-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A11
Target Street Cross Street Source
2005
500 LETCHER BROTHERS AUTO REPAIR
550 ACCUTECH ONE
600 EMBERS
610 BRONZE BUNS

BRUNO TERESA

BRUNO, TERESA S

CONTRA COSTA POOL CENTER

DHALIWAL PRITAM SINGH

DRUIDS OF CALIF U A O D

G & L LIQUOR INC

HAIRITAGE BEAUTY SALON

JAP & GILL INC

PETES PLACE

SKIN ESSENTIALS

SNOW WHITE CLEANERS
620 EMOTION & COMMOTION INC

GOODWILL STORE

HERRERA S JEWELERS

O & R EXCLUSIVE AUTO TOPS & INTERIOR
624 99 STORE

CYD INC

DANCE UNLIMITED

NEW DELI THE
632 HUNAN VILLA

TACHIKAWA JAPANESE RESTAURANT
640 PUBLIC STORAGE
650 CLEMES & CLEMES INC
655 IPCOM INC

WRIGHT, JOSEPH
665 CLEMES, ROY B
674 LINDSEY, LYNETTE A
675 MANNING, MARY A

SOSENSKY, JOSEPH I
690 DRIP LINE CYCLES
711 HANSELL, THOMAS
720 BURNS AUTOMOTIVE

BURNSSIMPLY HONDA

CATHEYS BODY SHOP
725 GLOBAL CHRISTIAN ACADEMY
730 BECHTLE, MAX R

INTEGRITY MUFFLER

METRIC MOTORSPORT

PROMOTIONAL TRADING CO

RUIZ METAL FABRICATORS
739 AMEY, GWENDOLYN

BERTRAND, TROY E

BRITT, SONIA

CORWIN, DAVID W

FREEMAN, IRENE

HA, MABLE L

(Cont'd)
-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A12
Target Street Cross Street Source
2005
739 SUM, YUN C

TAN, KEAN P
745 BENAMER, JOB N

CARADINE, BETTY J

GREENLEE, BRIAN

LAZO, FLORENCIO

MADISON, SHENNA

NGUYEN, LUC T

ROBINSON, GEORGE H

SUM, YUN C

TRUDEL, JACK H
747 BARKAOUI, OMAR

BISHOP, ROBERT M

BLAZO, CHARLOTTE

DIXON, JESSICA N

HOLSTON-VINES, ANN E

LEWIS, JR

MUNOZ, JOHN

NELSON, GLEN E

SALAS, ALBERTO

TRAN, DUC
760 PACIFIC BODY WORKS
781 CHAN JANET OD

WAN WILLIAM OD
785 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
787 KNISELY, DIANE M
789 VIOLETTE, ROBERT M
795 MCMULLEN GLASS CO
815 C & H CONSTRUCTION

COWPERTHWITE HNNGR GN CENTERS

LAROCQUE, JOCELYN A

PONTEFRACT, YVES

REYES, CHRISTINE
825 NICHOLS GARAGE DOOR

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
850 CATES, JERRY E
855 GABLES MOTEL
890 INDUSTRIAL RAILWAYS CO INC CA
900 CROCKETT AUTO BODY PNT & DETAIL

CROCKETTS PREMIER AUTO BODY

ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR
PINOLE
901 LOYA, JANICE M
914 LIVAS, ALEJANDRA
920 OCU EASE OPTICAL PRODUCTS INC
940 BAY WEST MORTGAGE

VICTORIA BY THE BAY REALTY

WESTPRO REALTY INC
951 DIAMOND ACUPRESSURE

MADELINE & MARIANNES TAX SERVICE

(Cont'd)
-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A13
Target Street Cross Street Source
2005
951 PAK, KWANG C
953 BIRTHRIGHT

KINGON, MICHELLE L

MATT MATAYOSHI INSURANCE AGC
970 THOMSEN & LOWE ASSOCIATES INC
971 10TH INNING BASEBALL CARDS
990 DOLANS OF PENOLE

DOLANSCONCORD
993 FOSTER FREEZE PINOLE
1007 SMART STOP

-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A14
Target Street Cross Street Source
2000
500 LETCHER BROTHERS VOLKSWAGEN REPAIR
550 ACCUTECH ONE

ACCUTUNE & BRAKE

PRECISION TUNE AUTO CARE
600 EMBERS THE
610 BRONZE BUNS A TANNING SALON

BRUNO TERESA STYLST

BRUNO, T

CONTRA COSTA POOL CENTER

DRUIDS OF CALIF U A O D GRAND SECYS OFFICE

G & L LIQUOR INCORPORATED

HAIRITAGE BEAUTY SALON

KUMON CENTER PINOLE HERCULES

PETES PLACE

SNOW WHITE CLEANERS

THAT PET SHOP
620 GOODWILL STORE

HERRERAS CUSTOM DESIGN JEWELRY

O & R EXCLUSIVE AUTO TOPS & INTERIORS

PACIFIC GYM
624 AROMA STUDIO

DANCE UNLIMITED

JUMPING BEAN RESTAURANT

NEW DELI THE
632 HUNAN VILLA

TACHIKAWA JAPANESE RESTAURANT
640 PUBLIC STORAGE STORAGE LOCATIONS
650 CLEMES & CLEMES INCORPORATED CURVED PLYWOOD
655 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
665 CLEMES, ROY B
675 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
711 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
720 CATHEYS BODY SHOP

DAVES AUTO REPAIR

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
725 GLOBAL CHRISTIAN ACADEMY
729 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
730 BAYOU CUSTOM

BECHTLE, MAX R

BRADSHAW, PHILLIP
739 BUDD, CHRIS A

CANTRELL, KRISTY L

CONTRERAS, MARTHA

CORONEL, JUAN M

CORWIN, DAVID

ELLIS, KENNETH

TAN, KEAN P
745 BENAMER, JOB N

CHAMORRO, ERNESTO A

FITZSIMMONS, MATTHEW J

(Cont'd)
-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A15
Target Street Cross Street Source
2000
745 GUTIERREZ, RHINA M

HOFFMAN, HAROLD R

MELGOZA, JOEL

PASTORE, MAYRA B

TRUDEL, JACK H
747 PURCELL, LISA

RACADAG, CECILIO R

RUBIO, LETICIA

SCHWARTZ, JOHN E

SHAHKAMRANI, MARYAM
760 PACIFIC BODY WORKS
775 BIOMAX ENVIRONMENTAL

POLKABLA, J M
781 WAN WILLIAM OD
795 MCMULLEN GLASS COMPANY
800 SUGAR CITY BUILDING MATERIALS COMPANY
825 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
850 ANTHONY, ARLEY E

SELL RITE AUTO SALES
854 RAYBURN, C
855 GABLES MOTEL
870 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
890 INDUSTRIAL RAILWAYS COMPANY
893 M C CARE HOME
901 LOYA, JANICE M
933 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
950 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
951 LEE-MEIDER DOROTHY DC

MADELINE & MARIANNES TAX SERVICE

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,

PACIFIC CHIROPRACTIC
953 ABORTION ALTERNATIVES BIRTHRIGHT

BIRTHRIGHT

CADEAUX INSURANCE SERVICES

KINGON, ROI J
971 CINDYS SHEAR CUTS

D & S FLOOR COVERINGS

MADRUGA CINDY CINDYS SHEAR CUTS

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,

PINOLE PET SHOP

TENTH INNING BASEBALL CARDS
990 DOLAN LUMBER COMPANY OF PINOLE

DOLANS DOORS WINDOWS & LUMBER
993 FOSTER FREEZE PINOLE
1001 PINOLE HERCULES LITTLE LEAGUES
1007 CHEAPER

-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A16
Target Street Cross Street Source
1995
550 ACCUTUNE & BRAKE
600 EMBERS
610 CONTRA COSTA POOL CTR

G & L LIQUOR INC

HAIRITAGE BEAUTY SALON

HERRERAS CUSTOM DESIGN JWLRY

PETES PLACE

SCHOOL PHOTO SVC

SNOW WHITE CLEANERS

THAT PET SHOP

ULTRA TAN
620 CHARLES CARPET & DRAPES

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES

HERNANDEZ, ROXANNE

PACIFIC GYM
624 ADOBE CAMERA

ALFONSOS MEXICAN RESTAURANT

BAUTISA, MERCY

CHOCOLATE CREATIONS

DATATEX INC

EMS SWEETS

MACAPINLAC, JOEY

NEW DELI
632 HUNAN VILLA CHINESE RESTAURANT

TACHIKAWA JAPANESE RESTAURANT
640 KODER, WARD

PUBLIC STORAGE
650 CLEMES & CLEMES INC
655 FRANCIS, ANTONE
665 CLEMES, ROY B
675 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
690 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN

S & S TOWING
700 JIM DANDY MUFFLER

JIM DANDY TRANSMISSIONS AC
711 HANSELL, NORMAN G
720 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
725 BAKKEN, HARDIS C

GLORIA DEI LUTHERAN CHURCH
730 BOBS CHEM DRY CARPET CLEANING

BRADSHAW, PHIILLI

LETCHER BROTHERS VW RSTRTN

O & R EXCLUSIVE AUTO TOPS

RODE AUTO CARE
739 COBO, MANUELA

GRAYSON, D

MOSASAGH, K A

MOVASAGH, K A

OFTRING, THOMAS G

SOLIS, E

(Cont'd)
-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A17
Target Street Cross Street Source
1995
739 THOMAS, B
745 ANDERSON, GERALD

ROBERSON, CINDY J

TOMBLIN, EMILY

VOLKMAN, BARBARA J

WALLMUTH, N L

WETTSTEIN, THERESA M
747 BROKEMAN, BONI

BRONKEMA, BONI

GIPSON, CLAYTON

HALL, EDKER L

LUNA, FRANK T

STOUT, STACI
760 PACIFIC BODY WORKS
775 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
781 WILLIAM WAN OD
785 CLARK, LINDA L
789 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
791 WANSICK, SUSANN
795 MC MULLEN GLASS CO
797 DAVIS, P R
800 SUGAR CITY BUILDING MTRL
815 PLAYTIME CLUB
825 RAYBURN, MURREL
850 ANTHONY AUTO WRECKERS

OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
852 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN

SELL RITE AUTO SALES
854 CATES, JERRY E
855 GABLES MOTEL

VAKALOLOM, TEMA
870 ULVERSOY, JEAN C
890 INDUSTRIAL RAILWAY CO

OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
893 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
894 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
898 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
900 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
901 OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
951 AFFORDABLE CHIROPRACTIC

REALTY WORLD

REALTY WORLD HOMES
953 EMBROIDERY FACTORY

FATIMA NORTH HAIR STYLING

WORLD OF CURL
970 RODEO CONSTRUCTION
971 10TH INNING BASEBALL CARDS

D & S FLOOR COVERINGS

PINOLE PET SHOP

WAYNE PERRAULT INSURANCE

(Cont'd)
-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A18
Target Street Cross Street Source
1995
990 DOLAN LUMBER CO PINOLE

DOLANS LUMBER
993 FOSTER FREEZE
1007 CHEAPER

-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A19
Target Street Cross Street Source
1992
600 EMBERS THE
610 CHARLES CARPET&DRPS

CONTRA CSTA POOL CT

G&L LIQUOR INC

HAIRITAGE BTY SLN

HERRERAS DSGN JWLRY

PETES PLACE

SCHOOL PHOTO SERV

SILVERIDGE BARBER

SNOW WHITE CLEANERS

THAT PET SHOP

ULTRA TAN
620 CINDERFELLA CHIMNEY

GOODWILL STORE

PAC GYM
624 ADOBE CAMERA

ALFONSOS MEXCN REST

CHOCOLATE CREATIONS

DATATEX PC USERS

NEW DELI THE
632 HUNAN VILLA

TACHIKAWA RSTRNT
636 PINOLE VISTA AUTO
640 PUBLIC STORAGE
650 CLEMES&CLEMES INC
655 FRANCIS, TONY
690 S&S TOWING
700 JIM DANDY MUFFLER
725 GLORIA DEI LUTH CH
730 BRADSHAW, PHILLIP

LETCHER BROS VW RPR

PERFECT IMAGE PRNTR

TOEPFER JIM CABINTS
739 CARRILLO, DONALD

MOLL, W

OFTRING, THOMAS G
745 BLACK, N

CATHCART, WILLIAM L

WALLMUTH, N L
747 LOVELESS, PAUL

STECHER, KEVIN
760 PAC BODY WORKS
781 WAN WILLIAM OD
789 SILVA, P
791 BROWN, BARBARA A
795 MCMULLEN GLASS CO
800 SUGAR CTY BLDG MTRL
815 PLAYTIME CLUB
850 ANTHONY AUTO WRCKRS
852 SELL RITE AUTO SLS

(Cont'd)
-

SAN PABLO AVE
EDR Digital Archive
7085970.6 Page: A20
Target Street Cross Street Source
1992
855 GABLES MOTEL
890 INDSTRL RAILWAYS CO
893 M C RSDNTL CARE HM
900 MIRA VISTA REL EST

ROSS, DEBRA
951 HIGGINS ANTHONY DC

REALTY WORLD HOMES

UNIVRSL LAND INVST
953 EMBROIDERY FACTORY

V&C INDUSTRIES

WORLD OF CURL
971 10TH INNING CARDS

BLUE SHIELD AGENT

D&S FLOOR COVERINGS

MISS PS PET SHOP
990 DOLAN LUMBER YARD
993 PINOLE FOSTER FRZ
1001 PINOLE HERCULES LGE

-

SAN PABLO AVE
Haines Criss-Cross Directory
7085970.6 Page: A21
Target Street Cross Street Source
1987

-

SAN PABLO AVE
Haines Criss-Cross Directory
7085970.6 Page: A22
Target Street Cross Street Source
1987

-

SAN PABLO AVE
Haines Criss-Cross Directory
7085970.6 Page: A23
Target Street Cross Street Source
1983

-

SAN PABLO AVE
Haines Criss-Cross Directory
7085970.6 Page: A24
Target Street Cross Street Source
1983

-

SAN PABLO AVE
Haines Criss-Cross Directory
7085970.6 Page: A25
Target Street Cross Street Source
1976

-

SAN PABLO AVE
Haines Criss-Cross Directory
7085970.6 Page: A26
Target Street Cross Street Source
1976

APPENDIX E

REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS
Project No. 467803
September 2, 2022

Public Records Request Form
Date: ____________
Name: _______________________________ Business Name: ______________________ Address: ______________________________ Phone #: ____________________________ _______________________________ E-mail: ____________________________ I am requesting the following public record(s) from Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Programs.

RECORD(S) REQUESTED: (Use additional form (s) if more space is needed) Our records are available electronically. We will send the requested records via email. If PDF files are too large to send via email, we will place the files on a disc or thumbdrive and ask you to choose one of the following methods below.

Please copy the record(s) and send FedEx to the above mailing address.

The cost is $15.00 and is payable by check or credit card (Visa, Discover or M/C).

Please copy the record(s) and notify me when ready for pick up.

The cost is $3.00 and is payable by check or cash (MUST BE EXACT).

You may email the completed form to [email protected], or mail or hand deliver to Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Programs at 4585 Pacheco Blvd., Suite 100, Martinez, CA 94553; or FAX to (925) 646-2073.
______________________________________________________________________________ Office Use Only:

Date Received________ Completed________ □No records exist responsive to this request.

Picked Up________ or FedEx________ XR_______________ Time Spent________ Rev. August 2020
SR#______________
(office use only)
Anna M. Roth, RN, MS, MPH
Health Services Director
Randall L. Sawyer
Deputy Health Director
Matthew S. Kaufmann
Director of Hazardous Materials Programs
Contra Costa
Hazardous
Materials Programs
4585 Pacheco Boulevard, Suite 100
Martinez, California 94553
Ph (925) 655-3200
Fax (925) 646-2073
[email protected]
www.cchealth.org/hazmat/
• Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services • Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Environmental Health & Hazardous Materials Programs • • Contra Costa Health, Housing & Homeless Services • Contra Costa Health Plan • Contra Costa Public Health • Contra Costa Regional Medical Center & Health Centers •

Re: (AEI #467803) Public Records Request
ccchazmat <[email protected]>
Thu 8/18/2022 7:58 AM
To: Lea Palumbo <[email protected]>
Good morning,
We have no records for 830 San Pablo Ave, Pinole.

Our records go back to 1986, anything prior to this would be the jurisdiction of the local fire department.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,
Erika Amaya, Clerk Specialist
Contra Costa Health Services
Hazardous Materials Programs
4585 Pacheco Blvd., Suite 100
Martinez, CA  94553
(925) 655-3200 Phone
(925) 646-2073 Fax
[email protected]
From: Lea Palumbo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 3:39 PM
To: ccchazmat <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] (AEI #467803) Public Records Request Hello,
Please see the aƩached request for records.

Best,
Lea Palumbo (She/Her)
Project Manager
AEI Consultants
2500 Camino Diablo
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
O: 925.746.6087
C: 925.708.7325
E: [email protected]
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADJhN2FkYjY3LTIz... 1 of 1 8/18/2022, 9:09 AM Page 1180 of 1733
Building Permits
830 San Pablo Avenue, Pinole
Hello, I am looking to obtain
electronic copies of all building
permits on file for the property
located at: 830 San Pablo
Avenue, Pinole, CA 94564 (APNs:
4402230022, 4402230020,
4402230018, 4402230017,
4402230016, and 4402230015)
Thank you.

Service Request Edit Page https://pinoleca.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(z3qskuah3jwksty5gjxzviwp)... 1 of 2 8/31/2022, 3:30 PM Page 1181 of 1733
Service Request Edit Page https://pinoleca.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(z3qskuah3jwksty5gjxzviwp)... 2 of 2 8/31/2022, 3:30 PM Page 1182 of 1733
Other / Multiple Departments
830 San Pablo Avenue, Pinole
I am looking to obtain electronic
copies of all records on file with
the Fire Department related to
hazardous materials,
aboveground storage tanks, and
underground storage tanks on
file for the property located at:
830 San Pablo Avenue, Pinole, CA
94564 (APNs: 4402230022,
4402230020, 4402230018,
4402230017, 4402230016, and
Service Request Edit Page https://pinoleca.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(z3qskuah3jwksty5gjxzviwp)... 1 of 2 8/31/2022, 3:30 PM Page 1183 of 1733
Electronic via Records Center
Service Request Edit Page https://pinoleca.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(z3qskuah3jwksty5gjxzviwp)... 2 of 2 8/31/2022, 3:30 PM Page 1184 of 1733

CASE CLOSURE SUMMARY
I. AGENCY INFORMATION Date: June 13, 2017
Agency Name: SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Address: 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 City/State/Zip: Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-622-2300
Responsible Staff Person: Martin Musonge Title: Water Resource Control Engineer II. SITE INFORMATION
Site Facility Name: Sugar City Building Materials Company Site Facility Address: 800 San Pablo Avenue, Pinole, CA 94564 Regional Water Board Case No.:
07-0804
Local or LOP Case No.: N/A
(Not Applicable)
Priority: N/A
URF Filing Date: Undocumented SWEEPS No.: N/A
Responsible Party:

Sugar City Building Materials Company
Attn.: Ms. Lois Rose
P.O. Box 69
Pinole, CA 94564
Tel: (510) 724-6065
Email: N/A
Tank No. Size in Gallons Contents Closed In—Place/Removed? Date 1 4,000 Gasoline Removed 1/26/1999
2 12,000 Diesel fuel Removed 1/26/1999
III. RELEASE AND SITE CHARACTERIZATION INFORMATION
Cause and Type of Release: Underground Storage Tank (UST) overfilling resulting in release to soil and groundwater Site characterization complete? Yes Date Approved by Oversight Agency: 6/9/2017 Monitoring wells installed? Yes Number: 11 Proper screened interval? Yes Highest Groundwater Depth Below Ground Surface:

2.28 feet
Lowest Depth: 10.70 Groundwater Flow Direction: West
Most Sensitive Current Groundwater Use: Potential Drinking Water Most Sensitive Potential Groundwater Use: Drinking Water Probability of Use: Undetermined
Summary of water wells in vicinity: None
Are drinking water wells affected? No Aquifer Name: East Bay Plain Is surface water affected? No Nearest surface water name: San Pablo Bay (1,140 feet north) Offsite Beneficial Use Impacts (Addresses/Locations): None observed Report(s) on file? Yes Where is report(s) filed? Region 2 Water Board, Oakland – GeoTracker website: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/

File No.: 07-0804 Page 2 of 3

TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF AFFECTED MATERIAL
Material Amount (Include Units) Action (Treatment or Disposal w/Destination) Date Tanks 2 Tanks disposed by Gilbert Construction, no
disposal records exist
1/26/1999
Piping N/A Product piping disposed by Gilbert Construction, no disposal records exist
1/26/1999
Petroleum Free
Product
N/A No free product was observed in tank excavation N/A Soil N/A No record of soil removal exists N/A
Groundwater N/A No record of groundwater exists, groundwater was not actively treated
N/A
Barrels N/A No barrels of hazardous materials related to this investigation were removed from the site
N/A
MAXIMUM DOCUMENTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS—BEFORE AND AFTER CLEANUP POLLUTANT Soil (mg/kg) Water (µg/l) POLLUTANT Soil (mg/kg Water (µg/l) Before After Before After Before After Before After
Total
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
(TPHgasoline)
N/A 79 42,000 350 Naphthalene ND 5.8 NA NA
TPH (diesel) 290 140 6,200 79 Methyl tertbutyl etherND <0.2 <0.5 <2.5 Benzene 6.7 0.045 1,000 83 Xylenes ND 10 10,000 8.8
Toluene ND 3.6 420 0.6 Ethylbenzene 21 2.0 2,300 17
Comments (Depth of Remediation, etc.):

N/A = Not Applicable; NA = No Samples Analyzed
ND = Non-detectable
IV. CLOSURE
Does completed corrective action protect existing beneficial uses per the Regional Board Basin Plan? Yes Does completed corrective action protect potential beneficial uses per the Regional Board Basin Plan? Yes Does corrective action protect public health for current land use? Yes Site Management Requirements: Residual contamination in soil remains at the site that could pose an unacceptable risk under certain development activities such as site grading, excavation, or installation of water wells. Therefore, the impact of the disturbance of any residual contamination or the installation of a water well near the residual contamination shall be assessed and appropriate action taken so that there is no significant impact to human health, safety or the environment. This could necessitate additional sampling, health risk assessment, and mitigation measures.

Alameda County Environmental Health Department, and the appropriate planning and building department shall be notified prior to any changes in land use, grading activities, excavation, and installation of water wells. This notification shall include a statement that residual contamination exists on the property and list all mitigation actions, if any, necessary to ensure compliance with this site management requirement. The concentrations of residual contamination and any associated site risks are expected to reduce with time.

Should corrective action be reviewed if land use changes: Yes

File No.: 07-0804 Page 3 of 3
Monitoring Wells Decommissioned: Yes Number Decommissioned: 11 Number Retained: 0 List Enforcement Actions Taken: None List Enforcement Actions Rescinded: None V. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, DATA, ETC.

This case does meet all the criteria of the State Water Resources Control Board Low-Threat Underground Storage Tank Case Closure Policy1. Regional Board staff determined the case meets the Site closure criteria of the 1996 Regional Water Board’s Supplemental Instructions to the Interim Guidance on required Cleanup at Low Risk Fuel Sites2
. According to this Interim Guidance, Water Board staff finds that:

1. The leak has been stopped and ongoing sources, including petroleum free product, removed or remediated.

2. Site characterization for soil and groundwater has been completed.

3. The dissolved hydrocarbon plume is not migrating.

4. No water wells, deeper drinking water aquifers, surface water, or other sensitive receptors are likely to be impacted.

5. The Site presents no significant threat to human health.

6. The Site presents no significant threat to the environment.

VI. TECHNICAL REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. THAT THIS CLOSURE

RECOMMENDATION WAS BASED UPON
Report Issuance Date
Well Destruction Report, Tim Cook, 5/4/2017
Request for Closure, Tim Cook 8/31/2016
Sub-slab Soil Gas and Ambient Air Samples, Tim Cook 4/14/2016 Quarterly Monitoring Report, Tim Cook 10/31/2012
This document and the related CASE CLOSURE LETTER shall be retained by the lead agency as part of the official Site file.
1 See State Water Resources Control Board webpage:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/resolutions/2012/rs2012_0016atta.pdf 2 See Regional Water Board webpage: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/docs/supp_inst_low_risk_fuel_sites.pdf

APPENDIX F

OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Project No. 467803
September 2, 2022

3.29.2022
2ND

APPENDIX G

QUALIFICATIONS
Project No. 467803
September 2, 2022

www.aeiconsultants.com Page 1
Lea Palumbo
Project Manager, Due Diligence

EDUCATION
• BS – Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning, University of California, Davis

SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Ms. Palumbo provides project management to ensure ASTM compliance and satisfaction of client requirements for Phase I Environmental Assessments, Environmental Transaction Screens, Regulatory Database Review, and Historical Records Review.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Project experience for Ms. Palumbo includes:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (PHI ESA)
• Environmental Transaction Screens (ETS)
• Limited Environmental Site Assessments
• Records Research with Risk Assessments
• Regulatory Database Review
• Historical Records Review
In addition, prior to joining the environmental consulting industry, Ms. Palumbo spent four years studying a diverse range of environmental disciplines including:
environmental policy analysis, environmental law, geology, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), sustainable development, and environmental planning.

www.aeiconsultants.com Page 1
Marsha Thompson
National Client Manager

EDUCATION
• B.S. – Bachelor of Science, Environmental Science, Barry University

SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Ms. Thompson has been in the environmental service and due diligence industry since 2007. Her AEI project management experience includes Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, Environmental Transaction Screens, Regulatory Database Reviews, Historical Records Reviews, and Limited Environmental Site Assessments. Ms.

Thompson has successfully completed assessments on a variety of properties including: industrial, commercial, agricultural, residential, and vacant sites and has managed multi-site portfolios of properties spread across various states. Ms.

Thompson is accustomed to the needs and requirements of a variety of reporting standards including Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and customized client formats.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Project experience for Ms. Thompson includes:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessments
• Environmental Transaction Screens
• Regulatory Database Reviews
• Historical Records Reviews
• Limited Environmental Site Assessments
• Project coordination and setup
As a National Client Manager, Ms. Thompson provides in-house technical guidance and review to ensure all projects meet client’s goals and scope expectations and develops an understanding of client’s goals to facilitate the delivery of consulting to meet those needs.

APPENDIX H

LIST OF COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONS
Project No. 467803
September 2, 2022

UNITS
µg/L Micrograms per Liter pCi/L PicoCuries per Liter
mg/kg Milligrams per Kilogram ppb Parts per Billion
mg/L Milligrams per Liter ppm Parts per Million

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACM Asbestos-Containing Material NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
ADJ Adjacent site NFA No Further Action
AEI AEI Consultants NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act NLR No Longer Reporting APN Assessor’s Parcel Number NOV Notice of Violation
AST Aboveground Storage Tank NPL National Priorities List AUL Activity and Use Limitation O&M Operations and Maintenance bgs Below Ground Surface OEC Other Environmental Considerations BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and
Xylenes OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

CERCLIS
Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Information
System
PCE,
PERC
Perchloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene,
Tetrachloroethene
CESQGs Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
COC Contaminant of Concern REC Recognized Environmental Condition CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental
Condition RP Responsible Party
EC Engineering Controls SDS Safety Data Sheet
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System EPA Environmental Protection Agency SF Square Footage/Square Feet ERIS Environmental Risk Information Services SP Subject Property ERNS Emergency Response Notification System SQG Small Quantity Generator ESA Environmental Site Assessment SWLF Solid Waste Landfill GPR Ground-Penetrating Radar SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound HREC Historical Recognized Environmental
Condition TCE Trichloroethylene, Trichloroethene
HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons HWS Hazardous Waste Site TPHd Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (diesel range) IC Institutional Controls TPHg Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (gasoline range) LBP Lead-Based Paint TPHo Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (oil range) LCP Lead-Containing Paint TRPH Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons LLP Landowner Liability Protection TSDF Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility LQG Large Quantity Generator USDA United States Department of Agriculture LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank USGS United States Geological Survey MCL Maximum Contaminant Level UST Underground Storage Tank MTBE Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program ND None Detected VOC Volatile Organic Compound

Appendix E-1

20300.SCP

STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN
(SWCP)

CITY OF PINOLE

PROJECT NAME & OWNER

PINOLE SHORES PHASE II

GRP SHORES, LLC

PROJECT LOCATION

PINOLE SHORES BUSINESS PARK, PHASE II
830 – 848 SAN PABLO AVENUE

PREPARED FOR

JOHN DIEMER

GRP SHORES, LLC
2350 N. UNIVERSITY DRIVE #848300
PEMBROKE PINES, FLORIDA 33024

PREPARED BY

KISTER, SAVIO & REI, INC
825 SAN PABLO AVENUE
PINOLE, CA 94564
PREPARED: DECEMBER 7, 2021
MATTHEW L. REI, PRES.

R.C.E. 39863 - L.S. 7115

L A N D S U R V E Y O R S & C I V I L E N G I N E E R S PATRICK M. REI, V.P.

L.S. 8178
DONALD E. KISTER (1905-1969)
CHARLES J. SAVIO (1921-2006)
MICHAEL P. REI (Retired)
PINOLE, CA 94564
PHONE (510) 222 - 4020
FAX (510) 222 - 3718
E-MAIL i n f o @ k s r i n c . n e t
825 SAN PABLO AVENUE
kl SI cR, SAVIO & Rel INC.

Appendix F

20300.SCP

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. Project Data 1
II. Setting 1
A. Project Location and Description 1
B. Existing Site Features and Conditions 1
C. Opportunities and Constraints for Stormwater Control 2 III. Low Impact Development Design Strategies 2
A. Optimization of Site Layout 2

1. Limitation of development envelope

2. Preservation of natural drainage features

3. Setbacks from creeks, wetlands, and riparian habitats

4. Minimization of imperviousness

5. Use of drainage as a design element
B. Use of Permeable Pavements 2

20300.SCP
C. Dispersal of Runoff to Pervious Areas 3
D. Bioretention or other Integrated Management Practices 3 IV. Documentation of Drainage Design 3
A. Descriptions of each Drainage Management Area 3

1. Table of Drainage Management Areas

2. Drainage Management Area Descriptions
B. Integrated Management Practice Descriptions 5
C. Tabulation and Sizing Calculations

1. Contra Costa IMP Calculator Summary Report 6 - 10
V. Source Control Measures 11
A. Site Activities and potential sources of pollutants 11 B. Source Control Table 11
C. Features, Materials, and Methods of Construction of Source Control BMP’s 12
VI. Stormwater Facility Maintenance 12
A. Ownership and Responsibility for Maintenance in Perpetuity 12 B. Summary of Maintenance Requirements for Each Stormwater Facility 12 VII. Construction Plan C.3 Checklist 13
VIII. Certifications 13
Tables & Figures
Table 1 - Project Data 1
Grading, Drainage & Utility Plans/Stormwater Control Plan Insert

20300.SCP
Table 1 – Project Data Page 1
Project Name/Number One Corp Pinole Shores Phase II
Application Submittal Date December 8, 2021
Project Location 830 - 848 San Pablo Avenue, Pinole, CA Name of Developer/Owner GRP SHORES, LLC
Project Phase No. 2 of 2
Project Type and Description Phase 2 – Building #1 – 37,482 square feet & Building #2 – 80,461 square feet
Project Watershed San Francisco Bay
Total Project Site Area (acres) 7.37 Acres
Total Area of Land Disturbed (acres) 6.10 Acres
Total New Impervious Surface Area (sq. ft.) 234,245 square feet Total Replaced Impervious Surface Area 0 sf
Total Pre-Project Impervious Surface Area 0 sf
Total Post-Project Impervious Surface Area 234,245 square feet 50% Rule Applies
Project Density N/A
Applicable Special Project Categories None
Percent LID and non-LID treatment 100% of stormwater runoff of impervious surfaces will be treated by on-site Bioretention facilities
HMP Compliance Applies – more than one acre of impervious surfaces II. SETTING
A. Project Location & Description
The Project Site is located at 830 - 848 San Pablo Avenue, at the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Meadow Avenue in Pinole, California. The subject parcel is bounded by BNSF Railroad to the north, Sugar City Building Materials property to the west and multi-family parcels to the east. The area of the subject parcel, Assessor's Parcel Numbers 402-230-015 thru 018 & 020, is 320,959 square feet, 7.37 acres, and is irregular in shape. The zoning for the subject parcels is Office Industrial Mixed Use (OIMU) with a “Three Corridors Specific Plan Area” overlay as well as being zoned for Planned Development. Phase 1 of the Pinole Shores Business Park was constructed more than a decade ago and features four existing buildings on the southern half of the Business Park. Phase 2 of the Business Park contains the Project Site and will feature two new buildings: Building 1 will contain approximately 37,482 square feet, featuring two dock high doors and building 2 will contain 80,461 square feet, featuring seven dock high doors. Access to the Project Site will be from the main driveway on San Pablo Avenue at the northern extension of Meadow Avenue. The main access road being served by the main driveway runs north to the Project Site. The preliminary design of Phase II will incorporate a looped main access road around both proposed Phase II buildings, connecting to the northerly east-west access road of Phase I. The approximate area of new and existing impervious construction is 234,245 square feet.

B. Existing Site Features and Description
The Project Site has been vacant for more than a decade since the construction of Phase I of the Pinole Shores Business Park. Approximately half of the Project Site, 3.7 acres, in the middle portion of the property is fairly level, sloping approximately 1.5% from the southern property line down to the northern portion of the property. The existing topography on the west, north and east sides of the level middle portion of the property slopes approximately 3:1 or flatter, downhill towards the respective property lines.

The elevation of the existing east-west row of parking along the south property line of the Project Site is approximately elevation 78. The high point of the Project Site at the southwest corner of the site is approximately elevation 90 and the low point is at approximately elevation 37 near the northeast corner of the Project Site.

During construction of the Phase I improvements, storm drainage and sanitary sewer improvements were installed along the unimproved Phase II loop road. The phase II improvements will connect proposed sanitary sewer laterals into this existing sanitary sewer main along the east side of the loop road.

20300.SCP

All Phase I storm drainage improvements along the unimproved Phase II loop road are still intact. Several of these structures will be utilized for the new Phase II improvements.

Phase I underground utility improvements, such as PG&E gas and electric, as well as EBMUD water mains were not installed in the Phase II Project Site. These utilities were installed up to the common property line between the two phases and will need to be extended into Phase II to service the two proposed buildings.

An updated geotechnical investigation will be performed for the proposed Phase II project and will include a review of on-site soils, and design grading & foundation recommendations. The geotechnical investigation will likely reveals the site contains clayey soils. This soil type has a very low infiltration rate.

C. Opportunities and Constraints for Stormwater Control Treatment of stormwater runoff from the Phase II Project Site is to be provided. The total post-project impervious surface area will be approximately 234,245 square feet. This project will require stormwater management facilities that provide hydrograph modification benefits because the project will be creating more than one acre of impervious surfacing. There is an existing Mechanical Stormwater Vault in the northeast corner of the proposed Phase II loop road. This vault was installed as part of the Phase I improvements and provides stormwater quality for the Phase I improvements. The Phase II improvements will not rely on this Mechanical Stormwater Vault. However, this vault will remain in place to continue to provide stormwater quality for the Phase I improvements.

Disposal of runoff to deep infiltration is not feasible on this site due to the low permeability of the clay soils.

III. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STRATEGIES
A. Optimization of Site Layout

1. Limitation of development envelope. The Project Site is defined by the proposed loop road that was designed as part of the Phase I improvements of the Pinole Shores Business Park. Storm Drain and Sanitary Sewer improvements were installed within the proposed loop road during the Phase I improvements. Phase II improvements will be installed within the development envelope that is defined by proposed loop road.

Existing slopes on the west, north and east sides of the proposed development will be maintained.

2. Preservation of natural drainage features. There are no natural drainage features on the subject parcel. There is an existing drainage swale east of the Project Site on an adjacent parcel but will not be impacted by this development.

3. Setbacks from creeks, wetlands, and riparian habitats. There are no wetlands or riparian habitats on the subject parcel.

4. Minimization of Imperviousness. The proposed total impervious area (including roofs, concrete walkways and asphalt concrete paving) is 234,245 square feet or 73% of the

7.37 acres of the subject parcel. The architectural design attempts to create a compact site of new improvements towards the center of the parcel within the development envelope created by the proposed loop road designed in Phase I.

5. Use of drainage as a design element. The project design and grading set out to maximize the total area that receives stormwater treatment.

B. Use of Permeable Pavements
Due to soil constraints listed above, permeable pavements will not be incorporated into the Project Site.

20300.SCP
C. Dispersal of Runoff to Pervious Areas Page 3
No stormwater runoff from impervious areas will be directed to pervious areas of the Project Site.

D. Bioretention or other Integrated Management Practices Seventeen Integrated Management Practice (IMP) facilities are proposed for the Project Site. All are InGround Vegetated Flow-Through Planter Bioswales.

IV. DOCUMENTATION OF DRAINAGE DESIGN
A. Descriptions of each Drainage Management Area

1. Table of Drainage Management Areas
DMA Name Surface Type Area (square feet)
DMA A1 Concrete/Asphalt 4,800
DMA A2 Landscaping 180
DMA B1 Roof 6,600
DMA C1 Roof 11,440
DMA D1 Roof 11,440
DMA E1 Concrete/Asphalt 4,195
DMA E2 Landscaping 390
DMA F1 Roof 10,600
DMA G1 Roof 16,320
DMA H1 Concrete/Asphalt 16,420
DMA H2 Landscaping 3,550
DMA I1 Roof 20,640
DMA J1 Concrete/Asphalt 34,140
DMA J2 Landscaping 1,635
DMA K1 Roof 22,400
DMA K2 Concrete/Asphalt 9,655
DMA K3 Landscaping 2,240
DMA L1 Roof 4,010
DMA M1 Roof 5,450
DMA N1 Roof 3,120
DMA O1 Concrete/Asphalt 52,965
DMA O2 Landscaping 6,244

20300.SCP

2. Drainage Management Area Descriptions Page 4
DMA A1: Totaling 4,800 square feet. This is new asphalt concrete pavement at the south/southwest side of Building #2. DMA A1 drains to IMP A – Bioretention Facility.

DMA A2: Totaling 180 square feet. This is new landscaping along the south/southwest side of Building #2. DMA A2 drains to IMP A – Bioretention Facility.

DMA B1: Totaling 6,600 square feet. This is roof area in the southwest portion of Building #2. DMA B1 drains to IMP B – Bioretention Facility.

DMA C1: Totaling 11,440 square feet. This roof area in the southwest portion of Building #2 (east of DMA B1). DMA C1 drains to IMP C1 & C2 – Bioretention Facilities.

DMA D1: Totaling 11,440 square feet. This roof area in the southeast portion of Building #2 (east of DMA C1). DMA D1 drains to IMP D1 & D2 – Bioretention Facilities.

DMA E1: Totaling 4,195 square feet. This is new asphalt concrete pavement at the south/southeast side of Building #2. DMA E1 drains to IMP E – Bioretention Facility.

DMA E2: Totaling 390 square feet. This is new landscaping along the south/southeast side of Building #2. DMA E2 drains to IMP E – Bioretention Facility.

DMA F1: Totaling 10,650 square feet. This roof area in the southeast portion of Building #2. DMA F1 drains to IMP F – Bioretention Facility.

DMA G1: Totaling 16,320 square feet. This roof area in the northeast portion of Building #2. DMA G1 drains to IMP G – Bioretention Facility.

DMA H1: Totaling 16,420 square feet. This is new asphalt concrete pavement at the west/northwest side of Building #2. DMA H1 drains to IMP H – Bioretention Facility.

DMA H2: Totaling 3,550 square feet. This is new landscaping along the west/northwest side of Building #2. DMA H2 drains to IMP H – Bioretention Facility.

DMA I1: Totaling 20,640 square feet. This is roof area in the northwest portion of Building #2. DMA I1 drains to IMP I – Bioretention Facility.

DMA J1: Totaling 34,140 square feet. This is new asphalt concrete pavement at the north side of Building #2 and west/southwest side of Building #1. DMA J1 drains to IMP J – Bioretention Facility.

DMA J2: Totaling 1,635 square feet. This is new landscaping along the north side of Building #2 and west/southwest side of Building #1. DMA J2 drains to IMP H – Bioretention Facility.

DMA K1: Totaling 22,400 square feet. This is roof area in the south portion of Building #1. DMA K1 drains to IMP K – Bioretention Facility.

DMA K2: Totaling 9,655 square feet. This is new asphalt concrete pavement at the northwest side of Building #1. DMA K2 drains to IMP K – Bioretention Facility.

DMA K3: Totaling 3,200 square feet. This is new landscaping along the northwest side of Building #1. DMA K3 drains to IMP K – Bioretention Facility.

DMA L1: Totaling 4,010 square feet. This is roof area in the north/northwest portion of Building #1. DMA L1 drains to IMP L – Bioretention Facility.

20300.SCP

DMA M1: Totaling 5,450 square feet. This is roof area in the north/northeast portion of Building #1. DMA M1 drains to IMP M – Bioretention Facility.

DMA N1: Totaling 3,120 square feet. This is roof area in the east portion of Building #1.

DMA N1 drains to IMP N – Bioretention Facility.

DMA O1: Totaling 52,965 square feet. This is new asphalt concrete pavement along the east side of Building #2 and the north and east sides of Building #1. DMA O1 drains to IMP O – Bioretention Facility.

DMA O2: Totaling 8,920 square feet. This is new landscaping along the east side of Building #2 and the north and east sides of Building #1. DMA O2 drains to IMP O – Bioretention Facility.

DMA X1: Totaling 56,812 square feet. This Self-Treating area is the undeveloped existing ground surface on the west, north and east sides of the proposed loop road.

B. Integrated Management Practice Descriptions
Integrated Management Practice (IMP) facilities – Flow Through Planters - are proposed for the Project Site. The Planters will incorporate the following features:
• Surrounded by a concrete curb/wall on all 4 sides
• Each layer built flat, level, and to the elevations specified in the plans:
o Bottom of Gravel Layer (BGL)
o Top of Gravel Layer (TGL)
o Top of Soil Layer (TSL)
o Overflow Grate
o Facility Rim
• 12 inches, minimum, Class 2 permeable drain rock, Caltrans specification 68-2.02F(3). • 18 inches sand/compost mix meeting the specifications approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in April 2016.
• 6 in. dia. PVC SDR 35 perforated pipe underdrain, installed with the invert at the bottom of the Class 2 permeable layer with holes facing down, and connected to the overflow structure • 6-inch-deep reservoir between top of soil elevation and overflow grate elevation • Concrete drop inlet with frame overflow structure, with grate set to specified elevation • Plantings selected for water conservation
• Irrigation system with drip emitters and “smart” irrigation controllers C. Tabulation and Sizing Calculations
Information Summary for IMP Design
Total Project Area (Square feet) 320,959
Mean Annual Precipitation 21 inches
IMPs Designed For: Treatment plus flow control
Areas Draining to IMPs

20300.SCP

IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP A
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
A1 4,800 Concrete or Asphalt 1.00 4,800 IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or
Volume
A2 180 Landscape 0.70 126
Total 4,926
Area 0.050 0.965 238 238
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 200 200
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 261 262
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.01
Orifice Diameter (in) 0.59
IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP B
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
B1 6,600 Conventional Roof 1.00 6,600 IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or Total Volume 6,600
Area 0.050 0.965 318 320
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 267 268
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 350 351
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.01
Orifice Diameter (in) 0.68
IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP C1 & C2
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
C1 11,440 Conventional Roof 1.00 11,440 IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or Total Volume 11,440
Area 0.050 0.965 552 575
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 464 465
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 607 608
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.02
Orifice Diameter (in) 0.90

20300.SCP

IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP E
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
E1 4,195 Concrete or Asphalt 1.00 4,195 IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or
Volume
E2 390 Landscape 0.70 273
Total 4,468
Area 0.050 0.965 216 216
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 181 182
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 237 238
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.01
Orifice Diameter (in) 0.57
IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP F
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
F1 10,650 Conventional Roof 1.00 10,650
IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or Total Volume 10,650
Area 0.050 0.965 514 520
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 432 432
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 565 566
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.02
Orifice Diameter (in) 0.87
IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP D1 & D2
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
D1 11,440 Conventional Roof 1.00 11,440 IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or Total Volume 11,440
Area 0.050 0.965 552 575
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 464 465
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 607 608
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.02
Orifice Diameter (in) 0.90

20300.SCP
IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP G
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
G1 16,320 Conventional Roof 1.00 16,320 IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or Total Volume 16,320
Area 0.050 0.965 787 795
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 661 662
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 866 867
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.03
Orifice Diameter (in) 1.07
IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP H
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
H1 16,420 Concrete or Asphalt 1.00 16,420 IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or
Volume
H2 3,550 Landscape 0.70 2,485
Total 18,905
Area 0.050 0.965 912 915
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 766 767
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 1,003 1,004
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.04
Orifice Diameter (in) 1.19
IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP I
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
I1 20,640 Conventional Roof 1.00 20,640 IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or Total Volume 20,640
Area 0.050 0.965 996 1,010
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 836 837
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 1,095 1,096
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.04
Orifice Diameter (in) 1.21

20300.SCP

IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP J
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
J1 34,140 Concrete or Asphalt 1.00 34,140 IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or
Volume
J2 1,635 Landscape 0.70 1,145
Total 35,285
Area 0.050 0.965 1,702 1,703
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 1,430 1,430
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 1,872 1,873
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.07
Orifice Diameter (in) 1.59
IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP K
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
K1 22,400 Conventional Roof 1.00 22,400
IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or
Volume
K2 9,655 Concrete or Asphalt 1.00 9,655
K3 3,200 Landscape 0.70 2,240
Total 34,295
Area 0.050 0.965 1,654 1,665
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 1,390 1,390
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 1,820 1,820
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.07
Orifice Diameter (in) 1.58
IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP L
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
L1 4,010 Conventional Roof 1.00 4,010 IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or Total Volume 4,010
Area 0.050 0.965 193 205
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 162 163
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 213 213
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.01
Orifice Diameter (in) 0.53

20300.SCP

IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP M
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
M1 5,450 Conventional Roof 1.00 5,450 IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or Total Volume 5,450
Area 0.050 0.965 263 265
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 221 221
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 289 290
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.01
Orifice Diameter (in) 0.62
IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP N
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
N1 3,120 Conventional Roof 1.00 3,120 IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or Total Volume 3,120
Area 0.050 0.965 151 168
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 126 127
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 166 166
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.01
Orifice Diameter (in) 0.47
IMP Type: Flow-Through Planter – IMP O
Soil Type: D
DMA
Name
DMA
Area
(sq ft)
PostProject
Surface
Type
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area
x
Runoff
Factor
IMP Sizing
O1 52,965 Concrete or Asphalt 1.00 52,965 IMP
Sizing
Factor
Rain
Adjustment
Factor
Minimum
Area or Volume
Proposed
Area or
Volume
O2 8,920 Landscape 0.70 6,244
Total 59,209
Area 0.050 0.965 2,856 2,857
Surface Volume 0.042 0.965 2,399 2,400
Subsurface Volume 0.055 0.965 3,142 3,143
Maximum Underdrain Flow (cfs) 0.12
Orifice Diameter (in) 2.09

20300.SCP

V. SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES

A. Site Activities and potential sources of pollutants
The following activities planned for the project have potential to allow pollutants to enter runoff:
1) On-site drain inlets
2) Refuse disposal
3) Landscape maintenance
4) Fertilizers and pesticides used in landscaping area
To further reduce the potential to enter runoff, permanent and operational BMP’s will be implemented as described in the following Table.

B. Source Control Table
Potential source of
runoff pollutants
Permanent
source control BMPs
Operational
source control BMPs
On-site drain inlets Inlets that could be accessed
from paved areas, sidewalks
and landscaped areas will be
marked with a “No Dumping –
Drains to Bay
• Inlet markings will be inspected
annually and replaced or
renewed as needed
• Owners will receive stormwater
pollution prevention information
to be provided by the City
• Bioretention and related
structures and features will be
inspected and maintained as
specified in the BMP Operation
and Maintenance Plan
Refuse areas All dumpsters will be marked
with a “Do not dump Hazardous
Materials here” or similar
• Adequate litter receptacles will
be provided throughout the
project site
• Groundskeeping crew or
contractor will inspect and clean
up daily. Spills will be cleaned
up using dry methods
Landscaping/outdoor
pesticide use
• Landscaping will be designed
to minimize required irrigation
and runoff, to promote surface
infiltration, and to minimize
the use of fertilizers and
pesticides that can contribute
to storm water pollution
• Plants will be selected
appropriate to site soils,
slopes, climate, sun, wind,
rain, land use, air movement,
ecological consistency, and
plant management
• All site landscaping is to be
maintained by a professional
landscaping contractor.

Contract to state that
landscaping is to be maintained
using IPM principles, with
minimal or no use of pesticides
• Owners will receive integrated
pest management information

20300.SCP
• Plantings for swales will be
selected to be appropriate to
anticipated soil and moisture
conditions
Interior floor
drains/interior parking
garage
• Interior floor/parking garage
drains will be plumbed to
sanitary sewer
• Inspect and maintain drains to
prevent blockages and overflow
Sidewalks and
parking lots
• Sweep sidewalks and parking
lots regularly to prevents
accumulation of litter and
debris. Collect debris from
pressure washing to prevent
entry into the storm drain
system. Collect wash water
containing any cleaning agent
or degreaser and discharge to
the sanitary sewer not a storm
drain
C. Features, Materials, and Methods of Construction of Source Control BMP’s VI. STORM WATER FACILITY MAINTENANCE
A. Ownership and Responsibility for Maintenance in Perpetuity All stormwater treatment facilities in this plan will be owned and maintained in perpetuity by the property owner, General Realty. The contractor, if different from the property owner, accepts responsibility for interim operation and maintenance of the facilities until such time as this responsibility is formally transferred to the property owner.

The property owner, General Realty, is required to provide a Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for review of the City of Pinole, and record an Operation and Maintenance Agreement, including and necessary rights-of-way, prior to issuance of a building permit. Additionally, the property owner will be required to annex into any financing mechanisms formed to ensure that all costs associated with the perpetual Operation & Maintenance, administration and reporting of these water quality features (including costs associated with all required City of Pinole administration and reporting) are paid for by the property owner.

B. Summary of Maintenance Requirements for each Stormwater Facility Bioretention and related facilities remove pollutants primarily by filtering runoff slowly through an active layer of soil. Routine maintenance is needed to ensure that flow is unobstructed, that erosion is prevented, and that soils are held together by plant roots and are biologically active. Typical routine maintenance consists of the following:
1) Inspect inlets, exposure of soils, or other evidence of erosion. Clear any obstructions and remove any accumulations of sediment. Examine rock or other material used as a splash pad and replenish if necessary.
2) Inspect outlets for erosion or plugging.
3) Examine the vegetation to insure that it is healthy and dense enough to provide filtering and to protect soils from erosion. Replenish mulch as necessary, remove fallen leaves and debris, prune large shrubs or trees, and mow turf areas. Confirm that irrigation is adequate and not excessive. Replace dead plants and remove invasive vegetation.
4) Observe soil at the bottom of the bioretention planter or filter for uniform percolation throughout. If portions of the swale or filter do not drain within 48 hours after the end of the storm, the soil should be tilled and replanted. Remove any debris or accumulations of sediment.

20300.SCP

5) Abate any potential vectors by filling in the ground and around swale and by ensuring that there are no areas where water stands longer than 48 hours following a storm. If mosquito larvae are present and persistent contact the County Vector Control District for information and advice. Mosquito larvicides should be applied only when absolutely necessary and then only by a licensed individual or contractor.

VII. CONSTRUCTION PLAN C.3 CHECKLIST

STORMWATER

CONTROL PLAN PLAN SHEET

REFERENCE BMP DESCRIPTION NUMBER
CCCo IMP Summary Report Vegetated Flow-Through Planter Civil Sheets Bioretention Detail & Exhibit Bioswale Detail C2.01 & C2.02 Source Control Table V.B. On-site drain inlets to be marked Stormwater With “no dumping” message Control Plan
Source Control Table V.B. Plant selection to minimize irrigation, Landscape Plans minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides,
and for pest resistance.

Source Control Table V.B. Adequate litter receptacles throughout Architectural Plans project area
VIII. OWNER’S CERTIFICATION
The selection, sizing, and preliminary design of stormwater treatment and other control measures in this plan meet the requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Board Order R2-2015-0049.

830-848 SAN PABLO AVENUE

WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT

NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT
Pinole, California
April 22, 2024
Prepared for:

Olivia Ervin
Principal Environmental Planner
M-Group
1275 4th Street #265
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Prepared by:

Carrie J. Janello
Michael S. Thill
429 East Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
(707) 794-0400
I&R Job No.: 22-136
IWNGWORTH&RoalCJN,INC.
/Ill• Acoustics • Air Quality •1111
Appendix G

1 INTRODUCTION
The project site is located about 700 feet north of San Pablo Avenue on a single vacant parcel that is 7.37 acres located at 830-848 San Pablo Avenue. The project proposes to construct a single light industrial building totaling approximately 119,226 square feet (sf). The project would include 18 loading docks located along the southeastern façade of the proposed building. To provide shielding for the nearest neighbors to the east, a 10-foot sound wall located along the eastern edge of the access driveway is planned as part of the project.

This report evaluates the project’s potential to result in significant impacts with respect to applicable California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The report is divided into three sections: 1) the Setting Section provides a brief description of the fundamentals of environmental noise and groundborne vibration, summarizes applicable regulatory criteria, and discusses ambient noise conditions in the project vicinity; 2) the Plan Consistency Analysis section discusses noise and land use compatibility utilizing policies in the City’s General Plan; and 3) the Impacts and Mitigation Measures Section describes the significance criteria used to evaluate project impacts, provides a discussion of each project impact, and presents mitigation measures, where necessary, to mitigate project impacts to a less-than-significant level.

SETTING
Fundamentals of Environmental Noise
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is the intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave.

In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1.

There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the Aweighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the

2 variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events.

This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration.

The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports.

The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA.

Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night -- because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 pm - 10:00 pm) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period.

Effects of Noise
Sleep and Speech Interference
The thresholds for speech interference indoors are about 45 dBA if the noise is steady and above 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating. Outdoors the thresholds are about 15 dBA higher. Steady noises of sufficient intensity (above 35 dBA) and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA have been shown to affect sleep. Interior residential standards for multi-family dwellings are set by the State of California at 45 dBA DNL. Typically, the highest steady traffic noise level during the daytime is about equal to the DNL and nighttime levels are 10 dBA lower. The standard is designed for sleep and speech protection and most jurisdictions apply the same criterion for all residential uses.

Typical structural attenuation is 12 to 17 dBA with open windows. With closed windows in good condition, the noise attenuation factor is around 20 dBA for an older structure and 25 dBA for a newer dwelling. Sleep and speech interference is therefore possible when exterior noise levels are about 57 to 62 dBA DNL with open windows and 65 to 70 dBA DNL if the windows are closed.

Levels of 55 to 60 dBA are common along collector streets and secondary arterials, while 65 to 70 dBA is a typical value for a primary/major arterial. Levels of 75 to 80 dBA are normal noise levels at the first row of development outside a freeway right-of-way. In order to achieve an acceptable interior noise environment, bedrooms facing secondary roadways need to be able to have their windows closed, those facing major roadways and freeways typically need special glass windows.

3 Annoyance
Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that the causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The DNL as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. When measuring the percentage of the population highly annoyed, the threshold for ground vehicle noise is about 50 dBA DNL. At a DNL of about 60 dBA, approximately 12 percent of the population is highly annoyed. When the DNL increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to about 25 to 30 percent of the population. There is, therefore, an increase of about 2 percent per dBA between a DNL of 60 to 70 dBA. Between a DNL of 70 to 80 dBA, each decibel increase increases by about 3 percent the percentage of the population highly annoyed. People appear to respond more adversely to aircraft noise. When the DNL is 60 dBA, approximately 30 to 35 percent of the population is believed to be highly annoyed. Each decibel increase to 70 dBA adds about 3 percentage points to the number of people highly annoyed. Above 70 dBA, each decibel increase results in about a 4 percent increase in the percentage of the population highly annoyed.

4 TABLE 1 Definition of Acoustical Terms Used in this Report Term Definition
Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20 micro Pascals.

Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro Pascals (or 20 micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e. g., 20 micro Pascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter.

Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.

A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.

Equivalent Noise Level,
Leq
The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.

Lmax, Lmin
The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.

L01, L10, L50, L90
The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.

Day/Night Noise Level,
Ldn or DNL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level,
CNEL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.

Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Harris, 1998.

5 TABLE 2 Typical Noise Levels in the Environment
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 dBA Rock band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet
100 dBA
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
90 dBA
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet 80 dBA Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawn mower, 100 feet 70 dBA Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 dBA
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime 50 dBA Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime 40 dBA Theater, large conference room Quiet suburban nighttime
30 dBA Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall
(background)
20 dBA
Broadcast/recording studio
10 dBA
0 dBA
Source: Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS), California Department of Transportation, September 2013.

6 Fundamentals of Groundborne Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.

Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One method is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. In this report, a PPV descriptor with units of mm/sec or in/sec is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human complaints.

Table 3 displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings that continuous or frequent intermittent vibration levels produce. The guidelines in Table 3 represent syntheses of vibration criteria for human response and potential damage to buildings resulting from construction vibration.

Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors.

The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related groundborne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the PPV descriptor has been routinely used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to cause damage and the degree of annoyance for humans.

The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life, are evaluated against different vibration limits. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher vibration level.

Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as paint flaking or minimal extension of cracks in building surfaces; minor, including limited surface cracking; or major, that may threaten the structural integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher. The damage criteria presented in Table 3 include several categories for ancient, fragile, and historic structures, the types of structures most at risk to damage. Most buildings are included within the categories ranging from “Historic and some old buildings” to “Modern industrial/commercial buildings”. Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure.

The annoyance levels shown in Table 3 should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at lower levels than those shown, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage.

7 TABLE 3 Reaction of People and Damage to Buildings from Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels
Velocity Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.01 Barely perceptible No effect

0.04 Distinctly perceptible Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type to any structure

0.08 Distinctly perceptible to
strongly perceptible
Recommended upper level of the vibration to which
ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected

0.1 Strongly perceptible Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to fragile buildings with no risk of damage to most buildings

0.25 Strongly perceptible to severe Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to historic and some old buildings.

0.3 Strongly perceptible to severe Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to older residential structures

0.5 Severe - Vibrations considered
unpleasant
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to new
residential and modern commercial/industrial structures Source: Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020.

Regulatory Background – Noise
This section describes the relevant guidelines, policies, and standards established by State Agencies and the City of Pinole. The State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, are used to assess the potential significance of impacts pursuant to local General Plan policies or the applicable standards of other agencies. A summary of the applicable regulatory criteria is provided below.

Federal Government
Federal Transit Administration. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has identified construction noise thresholds in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 1 which limit daytime construction noise to 80 dBA Leq at residential land uses, 85 dBA Leq at commercial land uses, and 90 dBA Leq at industrial land uses.

State of California
State CEQA Guidelines. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) contains guidelines to evaluate the significance of effects of environmental noise attributable to a proposed project.

Under CEQA, noise impacts would be considered significant if the project would result in:
(a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; 1 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 0123, September 2018.

8 (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; (c) For a project located 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 or public use airport, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
2022 California Building Cal Green Code. The State of California established exterior sound transmission control standards for new non-residential buildings as set forth in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (Section 5.507.4.1 and 5.507.4.2). The sections that pertain to this project are as follows:

5.507.4.1 Exterior noise transmission, prescriptive method. Wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building envelope shall meet a composite STC rating of at least 50 or a composite OITC rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30 when the building falls within the 65 dBA Ldn noise contour of a freeway or expressway, railroad, industrial source or fixed-guideway noise source, as determined by the local general plan noise element.

5.507.4.2 Performance method. For buildings located, as defined by Section 5.507.4.1, wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building envelope shall be constructed to provide an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent noise level (Leq (1-hr)) of 50 dBA in occupied areas during any hour of operation.

The performance method, which establishes the acceptable interior noise level, is the method typically used when applying these standards.

City of Pinole
Pinole General Plan Update 2010. The City of Pinole General Plan Health and Safety Element sets forth goals, policies, and actions related to noise in the community as follows:

GOAL HS.8 Ensure all new development complies with the noise standards established in the Pinole Health and Safety Element and prevent all new noise sources from increasing the existing noise levels above acceptable standards.

POLICY HS.8.1 New development projects should meet acceptable exterior noise level standards. The normally acceptable noise standards for new land uses are established in Land Use Compatibility for Community Exterior Noise Environments (as shown below).

9 Action HS.8.1.1 Adopt a noise ordinance with noise level performance standards, including maximum allowable noise exposure, ambient versus nuisance noise, method of measuring noise, and enforcement procedures.

Action HS.8.1.2 Review development proposals to assure consistency with noise standards.

Require new development of noise-creating uses to conform to the City’s noise level standards.

Action HS.8.1.3 Require a combination of design features to reduce noise impacts on adjacent properties through the following and other means, as appropriate:
• Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment.
• Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings. • Modify building designs and site planning to reduce noise exposure through a combination of sound attenuation (e.g., sound-rated windows and ventilation systems, insulation, physical and landscape buffers) and site planning (e.g., increased separation and private open area buffers) to reduce noise exposure.
• Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts.
• Require additional landscaping to assist with buffering where feasible.

Action HS.8.1.4 New development of noise-sensitive land uses will not be permitted in areas exposed to existing or planned transportation noise sources that exceed the levels specified in Policy HS.8.1, unless the project design includes measures to reduce exterior and interior noise levels to those specified in Policy HS.8.1 of the proposed General Plan Update.

Lau~ t:se Comp•tibilit)· for Commmli~· )ioise Eu,ironm,nts R,,,d<mw_Ho«k
and~ottk
Outdoor Sporn aiw:1 Rrcr~atiou, Nt:ighborbooo
Pmh and Playgrounds
Schoo1s, Llbrnrifi, Ml.MU1ll'o, Hospiml!o,
PfflOllill Carr, M~na Hall!., Ch111d1a
Offic, &Jtldmgs. a..,,,,,, Co°"""oal and
Prof.,.,ooa1
Aoo,tori11ms. COOCffl Hall,, Amphid1,a1m
lndustnal, )..ftumfecrurina, litilmes aoo Agnculmrt
E:ictHlor Holst Eltposur• (ldn or CNEL, dB)
□ ;'\()1' 101'llyAc-«-1>t " ()lf'
Specifled hmd use is s,;:nisfac,ory. based upon the a'i!sumption that any buildi.np involved arc of nomial con\'cntional consm,.1c1ion. without any spcc-ial noise ius.ufaliou requirements,
■ COu (UII0~1RIJ:,' Att .. l)lt1t,I.-
Specifled 1An(1 us;,e m.'ly be perm.ine(I only after dern,,te(t ~u.alysis of the noi-.e reducrion requ11-emen 1s .and needed noise ins.cul:uion fe:m1re-s iixh.tded iu the dc::sjpi,
D U 11act"eprablf'
New construction or dcvdopmcn.1 should ~cncrally not be- rn1dcrtakcn 1,:,ec::l\l$e mi1i~:uio 11 is tlSIL'llly OQI fe.a,;;11,)le IQ comply wit h NOi$4? J;lelll~ll policies.

10 Action HS.8.1.5 Require the use of temporary construction noise control measures including the use of temporary noise barriers, temporary relocation of noise-sensitive land uses, or other appropriate measures as mitigation for noise generated during construction of public and/or private projects.

POLICY HS.8.2 Ensure that proposed nonresidential land uses likely to exceed the City’s standards do not create noise disturbances in existing noise-sensitive areas.

Action HS.8.2.1 Require an acoustical analysis as part of the environmental review process when noise-sensitive land uses are proposed in areas where current or projected exterior noise levels exceed the City’s standards.

Action HS.8.2.2 Require that any potential noise impacts identified during the acoustical analysis be mitigated in the project design to the maximum extent feasible.

Action HS.8.2.3 Prepare and periodically update a map of citywide noise-sensitive areas.

POLICY HS.8.3 Work with the railroads and adjoining communities to seek quiet zone status for rail lines through Pinole.

POLICY HS.8.4 Require site-specific noise studies for noise-sensitive projects which may be affected by railroad noise, and incorporate noise attenuation measures into the project design to reduce any impacts.

GOAL HS.9 Eliminate or reduce noise from existing objectionable noise sources.

POLICY HS.9.1 Noise created by commercial or industrial sources associated with new projects or developments should be controlled so as not to exceed the noise level standards set forth in the table below (Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Stationary Noise Sources), as measured at any affected residential land use.

Action HS.9.1.1 Adopt the following allowable noise standards:

Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Stationary Noise Sources1 Daytime 5 Nighttime 2
•
5 (7 AM to 10 PM) (10 PM to 7 AM)
Hourly L.q, dB 3 55 45
Maximum Level, dB 3 70 65
Maximum Level, dB - Impulsive Noise 4 65 60

1. As determined at the property line of the receiving land use. When determining effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the standards may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property line noise mitigation measures.

2. Applies only where the receiving land use operates or is occupied during nighttime hours.

3. Sound level measurements shall be made with ' slow• meter response.

4. Sound level measurements shall be made with "fast" meter response.

5. Allowable levels shall be raised to the ambient noise levels where the ambient levels exceed the allowable levels. Allowable levels shall be reduced 5 dB if the ambient hourly Leq is at least 1 O dB lower than the allowable level.

11 POLICY HS.9.2 Require new noise sources to use best available control technology (BACT) to minimize noise emissions.

Action HS.9.2.1 Noise control techniques used should be what most effectively mitigates the noise impacts of the development. Such measures may include building setbacks, building orientation and noise barriers. If a noise barrier is required for mitigation of exterior noise levels, it should be constructed of tight-fitting, massive materials (1-inch-thick wood, stucco, masonry, etc.) and should be of sufficient height to interrupt line of sight between the source and receiver. Line of sight should be determined by drawing a straight line between the effective heights of the noise source and receiver.

POLICY HS.9.3 Work with the railroad companies to reduce existing rail noise in Pinole.

Action HS.9.3.1 Establish a quiet zone designation at the railroad crossings in Pinole. Work with railroad companies to determine and install required safety devices to acquire the designation.

City of Pinole Municipal Code. City of Pinole Municipal Code standards relevant to the proposed project are outlined in Chapters 8 and 15 of the Municipal Code.

8.35.010 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

The city council declares that certain loud noises are detrimental to the health and welfare of the citizenry and should be regulated in the public interest. The purpose of this chapter is to limit and control excessive, unnecessary, annoying and unreasonable noises within the city in order to protect the peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Pinole. (Ord. 2017-05 § 2 (part), 2017)

8.35.020 DEFINITIONS.

A. COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. The use, operation, or maintenance of sound-amplifying equipment for the purpose of advertising business, goods and services, or for the purpose of attracting the attention of the public to, or advertising for, or soliciting patronage to or for a performance, show, entertainment, exhibition or event, or for the purpose of demonstrating any such sound equipment.

B. EMERGENCY. Conditions posing an imminent danger to the public health or safety of any individual.

C. SOUND-AMPLIFYING EQUIPMENT. Any machine or device for the amplification of the human voice, music, or any other sound, excluding a warning device on authorized emergency vehicle or horn or other warning device used for traffic safety purposes. (Ord. 2017-05 § 2 (part), 2017)

12 8.35.030 GENERAL NOISE REGULATIONS.

A. It is unlawful for a person to willfully make a loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of a neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area.

B. The factors which shall be considered in determining whether a violation of this section exist shall include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The sound level of the objectionable noise when compared to all audible noise in the area;

2. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual;

3. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping areas;

4. The nature and zoning of the area from which the noise emanates;

5. The density of the inhabitation of the area from which the noise emanates;

6. The time of day or night the noise occurs;

7. The duration of the noise;

8. Whether the noise is continuous, recurrent or intermittent;

9. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity;

10. Whether the noise is caused by sound amplifying equipment. (Ord. 2017-05 § 2 (part), 2017)

8.35.040 USE PERMIT.

A. Use permit. The city may grant a use permit allowing noise generating events or land uses on a temporary basis as described in Chapter 17.12 of the Zoning Code. Noise generating use permits shall be of as short duration as reasonable. An application for a permit must be submitted at least ten business days before the proposed activity and must be accompanied by an application fee in the amount set by city council resolution.

B. Emergencies. This chapter shall not apply to emergencies. (Ord. 2017-05 § 2 (part), 2017)

8.35.050 PENALTIES.

A. Violation an infraction. A person who violates a provision of this section is guilty of an infraction and subject to the penalty set forth in Chapter 1.12 of this code.

13 B. Violation a nuisance. In addition to the penalties herein provided, any condition caused, maintained or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, and is declared and deemed a public nuisance and shall be punishable as such as provided by this code and applicable law. (Ord. 2017-05 § 2 (part), 2017)

15.02.070 PERMITTED HOURS AND CONDITION OF CONSTRUCTION; PENALTIES.

A. Work is allowed from seven a.m. (7:00 a.m.) to five p.m. (5:00 p.m.) on non-federal holidays.

Work is allowed on holidays recognized by the City of Pinole, but not acknowledged federally which include Cesar Chavez's Birthday and the Day After Thanksgiving, but no inspections will be performed.

B. Saturday work is allowed in commercial zones only, from nine a.m. (9:00 a.m.) to six p.m. (6:00 p.m.), as long as it is interior work and does not generate significant noise.

C. Exceptions for residential property owners.

1. Homeowners performing additions, repairs, or remodeling are allowed to work on their residences on weekends and holidays between nine a.m. (9:00 a.m.) and five p.m. (5:00 p.m.).

2. By written authorization of the Building Official, a residential property owner with a valid permit to construct a single-family residence for personal occupancy shall be allowed to work on weekends and holidays between nine a.m. (9:00 a.m.) and five p.m. (5:00 p.m.). This authorization shall be granted to applicants who have not built a residence in the City in the previous five (5) year period and who affirm in writing their intention to reside at the subject property.

D. Exceptions for commercial construction. The City Council designates the City Manager (or his/her designee) to further modify on a case-by-case basis the hours of construction in commercial zones. Additionally, the City Manager (or his/her designee) has the ability to modify the construction hours on a case-by-case basis based on inclement weather conditions or certain construction procedures (such as setting up for a concrete pour) and construction project characteristics that may require working beyond five p.m. (5:00 p.m.) on weekdays or six p.m. (6:00 p.m.) on Saturday.

E. The minimum fine for a citation or penalty for violating construction hours is one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), and escalates in one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) increments.

F. Work must be controlled to prevent causing a public nuisance due to dust, noise, vibrations, and the like.
(Ord. 2019-08 § 3 (part), 2019; Ord. 2016-08 § 3 (part), 2016)

14 Existing Noise Environment
The project site is located at 830-848 San Pablo Avenue in Pinole, California. The western portion of the site is a former auto wrecking yard that was previously developed with a commercial building and a detached single-family residence; these buildings have been demolished. The eastern portion is undeveloped and is crossed by a seasonal drainage channel. The site is bound to the south and west by industrial land uses; to the north by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line, with the Union Pacific rail line and San Francisco Bay to the north of the railroad tracks; and to the east by residential land uses.

The existing noise environment at the site results primarily from traffic noise along San Pablo Avenue and operational noise from surrounding industrial land uses.

A noise monitoring survey consisting of two long-term (LT-1 and LT-2) and three short-term (ST1 through ST-3) noise measurements was made at the site between Wednesday, October 19, 2022, and Friday, October 21, 2022. All measurement locations are shown in Figure 1.

Long-term noise measurement LT-1 was made in the southwestern corner of the project site, approximately 500 feet east of Pinole Shores Drive and approximately 350 feet southeast of the nearest Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line tracks. Hourly average noise levels typically ranged from 44 to 63 dBA Leq during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) and from 39 to 54 dBA Leq during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). The day-night average noise level on Thursday, October 20, 2022, was 56 dBA DNL. The daily trend in noise levels at LT-1 is shown in Figures A1 through A3 of Appendix A.

LT-2 was made approximately 35 feet south of the nearest Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line tracks along the northern boundary of the project site. Hourly average noise levels at LT-2 typically ranged from 43 to 68 dBA Leq during daytime hours and from 39 to 68 dBA Leq during nighttime hours. The day-night average noise level on Thursday, October 21, 2022, was 66 dBA DNL. The daily trend in noise levels at LT-2 is shown in Figures A4 through A6 of Appendix A.

Short-term noise measurements were made on Wednesday, October 19, 2022, between 12:40 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. (ST-1) and on Thursday, October 20, 2022, between 10:20 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. (ST2 and ST-3) in 10-minute intervals. Results of the measurements are summarized in Table 4.

ST-1 was made near LT-2, approximately 130 feet from the nearest Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line tracks. Ambient background noise levels (in the absence of vehicle and train noise) at ST1 was about 43 to 45 dBA. A freight train with two engines and 68 cars traveling southbound at about 20 mph passed ST-1 between 12:41 p.m. to 12:46 p.m., generating noise levels of 53 to 69 dBA. A freight train on the UPRR tracks (about 595 feet from ST-1), which is barely visible due to terrain, traveled northbound between 12:55 p.m. and 12:58 p.m. at 40 mph, generating noise levels at ST-1 of 53 to 65 dBA. Additional noise sources included a fog horn (47 to 49 dBA), a distant leaf blower (44 dBA), birds (47 dBA), and distant train whistles (51 to 65 dBA). The 10- minute Leq measured at ST-1 ranged from 56 to 57 dBA.

ST-2 was made at 560 Sunnyview Drive, along the eastern boundary of the project site. Eleven passenger cars traveled along Sunnyview Drive in this 10-minute period, generating noise levels

15 of 43 to 50 dBA. Traffic noise from distant sources ranged from 43 to 47 dBA. Additional noise sources included surrounding industrial uses (46 to 47 dBA) and birds (49 dBA). The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-2 was 45 dBA.

ST-3 was made at 648 Carlotta Circle, north of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line tracks.

Note, ST-3 was made behind an eight-foot sound wall located along the tracks. A single passenger car passed along Carlotta Circle during this 10-minute period, generating noise levels of 56 dBA.

Train pass-bys generated noise levels of 47 to 59 dBA at ST-3. Additional sources included birds (46 to 52 dBA), nearby industrial sources (46 to 52 dBA), and jet flyovers (56 dBA). The 10- minute Leq measured at ST-3 was 51 dBA.

TABLE 4 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurements (dBA)
Noise Measurement
Location Date, Time Measured Noise Level, dBA
Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq
ST-1: ~130 feet from
the nearest Burlington
Northern Santa Fe rail
line tracks
10/19/2022,
12:40-12:50
69 68 59 53 45 57
10/19/2022,
12:50-13:00
65 64 60 51 47 56
ST-2: at 560 Sunnyview
Drive
10/20/2022,
10:20-10:30
50 49 46 45 44 45
ST-3: ~115 feet from
the centerline of Piercy
Road
10/20/2022,
10:50-11:00
59 58 53 50 48 51

16 FIGURE 1 Aerial Image of the Project Site and Vicinity Showing Long- and Short-Term Measurement Locations Source: Google Earth, 2024.

17 PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Noise and Land Use Compatibility
The Cal Green Code standards specify an interior noise environment attributable to exterior sources not to exceed an hourly equivalent noise level (Leq (1-hr)) of 50 dBA in occupied areas of nonresidential uses during any hour of operation.

The future noise environment at the site would continue to result primarily from vehicular traffic along San Pablo Avenue and train activity on the adjoining tracks. The traffic study completed for the proposed project includes existing and cumulative plus project traffic volumes. Comparing the cumulative plus project volumes to the existing volumes resulted in a noise level increase of 2 dBA DNL. Train activity is not expected to change under future project conditions and therefore would not contribute to a measurable noise level increase.

Future Interior Noise Environment

The nearest building façade is more than 700 feet from the centerline of San Pablo Avenue. At this distance, daytime hourly average noise levels at the proposed building exteriors would range from 46 to 66 dBA Leq, with day-night average noise levels up to 58 dBA DNL.

The nearest building façades to the UPRR tracks would be set back about 95 feet from the edge of the near tracks. At this distance, daytime hourly average noise levels at the building exteriors would range from 39 to 64 dBA Leq, with day-night average noise levels up to 64 dBA DNL.

Standard construction materials for non-residential uses would provide about 25 dBA of noise reduction in interior spaces. The inclusion of adequate forced-air mechanical ventilation systems is normally required so that windows may be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion and would provide an additional 5 dBA reduction. The standard construction materials in combination with forced-air mechanical ventilation would satisfy the daytime threshold of 50 dBA Leq(1-hr).

NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This section describes the significance criteria used to evaluate project impacts under CEQA, provides a discussion of each project impact, and presents mitigation measures, where necessary, to reduce project impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Significance Criteria
The following criteria were used to evaluate the significance of environmental noise and vibration resulting from the project:
(a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;

18 (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; (c) For a project located 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 or public use airport, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Impact 1a: Temporary Construction Noise. Existing noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to a temporary increase in ambient noise levels for a period of less than one year. With the implementation of measures identified in the General Plan and included in the Initial Study,
2 this temporary noise increase would be reduced to a
less-than-significant level.

The project applicant proposes the construction of one light industrial building on the project site.

The construction schedule assumed that the earliest possible start date would be early January 2025, and the development would be built over a period of about seven months, with construction expected to conclude by the end of July 2025. Construction phases would include site preparation, grading, trenching, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. During each phase of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by phase and vary within phases, based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating.

Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time.

Action HS.8.1.5 of the City’s General Plan requires the use of temporary construction noise control measures, including the use of temporary noise barriers, to reduce temporary noise levels during construction. Additionally, the Municipal Code limits construction hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on non-federal holidays. Saturday work is allowed in commercial zones only between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., as long as construction activities are limited to interior work and does not generate significant noise.

While the City of Pinole does not establish noise level thresholds for construction activities, this analysis uses the noise limits established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to identify the potential for impacts due to substantial temporary construction noise. The FTA identifies construction noise limits in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 1 During
daytime hours, an exterior threshold of 80 dBA Leq shall be applied at residential land uses, 85 dBA Leq shall be applied at commercial land uses, and 90 dBA Leq shall be applied at industrial land uses.
2 City of Pinole, Pinole Shores Business Park Initial Study, October 5, 2005.

19 Construction activities for individual projects are typically carried out in phases. During each phase of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by phase and vary within phases, based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating. The typical range of maximum instantaneous noise levels for the proposed project would be 70 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet (see Table 5) from the equipment. Table 6 shows the hourly average noise level ranges, by construction phase, typical for various types of projects. Hourly average noise levels generated by construction are about 75 to 89 dBA Leq for industrial buildings, measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of a busy construction site. Construction-generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of the distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain often result in lower construction noise levels at distant receptors.

Equipment expected to be used in each construction phase are summarized in Table 7, along with the quantity of each type of equipment and the reference noise level at 50 feet, assuming the operation of the two loudest pieces of construction equipment for each construction phase.

Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to calculate the hourly average noise levels for each phase of construction, assuming the two loudest pieces of equipment would operate simultaneously, as recommended by the FTA for construction noise evaluations. This construction noise model includes representative sound levels for the most common types of construction equipment and the approximate usage factors of such equipment that were developed based on an extensive database of information gathered during the construction of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts (CA/T Project or "Big Dig"). The usage factors represent the percentage of time that the equipment would be operating at full power. Table 7 also summarizes the construction noise levels for the two loudest pieces of equipment propagated to the surrounding receiving land uses.

To assess construction noise impacts at the receiving property lines of existing noise-sensitive receptors, the worst-case hourly average noise level, which is calculated by combining all pieces of equipment per phase, was propagated from the geometrical center of the project site to the nearest property lines of the surrounding land uses. These noise level estimates are shown in Table

8. Noise levels in Table 8 do not assume reductions due to intervening buildings or existing barriers.

20 TABLE 5 Construction Equipment 50-Foot Noise Emission Limits Equipment Category Lmax Level (dBA)1,2 Impact/Continuous Arc Welder
Auger Drill Rig
Backhoe
Bar Bender
Boring Jack Power Unit
Chain Saw
Compressor3
Compressor (other)
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Concrete Saw
Concrete Vibrator
Crane
Dozer
Excavator
Front End Loader
Generator
Generator (25 KVA or less)
Gradall
Grader
Grinder Saw
Horizontal Boring Hydro Jack
Hydra Break Ram
Impact Pile Driver
Insitu Soil Sampling Rig
Jackhammer
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram)
Paver
Pneumatic Tools
Pumps
Rock Drill
Scraper
Slurry Trenching Machine
Soil Mix Drill Rig
Street Sweeper
Tractor
Truck (dump, delivery)
Vacuum Excavator Truck (vac-truck)
Vibratory Compactor
Vibratory Pile Driver
All other equipment with engines larger than 5 HP
73 85
80 80
80 85
70 80
85 82
90 80
85 85
85 80
82 70
85 85
85 80
90 105
84 85
90 85
85 77
85 85
82 80
80 84
84 85
80 95
85 Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Impact
Impact
Continuous
Impact
Impact
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Notes:
1 Measured at 50 feet from the construction equipment, with a “slow” (1 sec.) time constant. 2 Noise limits apply to total noise emitted from equipment and associated components operating at full power while engaged in its intended operation.
3Portable Air Compressor rated at 75 cfm or greater and that operates at greater than 50 psi.

21 TABLE 6 Typical Ranges of Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet, Leq (dBA) Domestic Housing
Office Building,
Hotel, Hospital,
School, Public
Works
Industrial Parking
Garage, Religious
Amusement &
Recreations, Store,
Service Station
Public Works
Roads & Highways,
Sewers, and
Trenches

I II I II I II I II
Ground
Clearing 83 83 84 84 84 83 84 84
Excavation 88 75 89 79 89 71 88 78
Foundations 81 81 78 78 77 77 88 88
Erection 81 65 87 75 84 72 79 78
Finishing 88 72 89 75 89 74 84 84
I - All pertinent equipment present at site.

II - Minimum required equipment present at site.

Source: U.S.E.P.A., Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104, 1973.

22 TABLE 7 Estimated Construction Noise Levels for the Proposed Industrial Buildings at a Distance of 50 feet
Phase of Construction Total
Workdays
Construction Equipment
(Quantity)
Estimated
Construction Noise
Level at 50 feet,
dBA Leq
Demolition 20
Excavator (1)
Rubber-Tired Dozer (1)a
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)
a
82 Site Preparation 20
Grader (1)
a
Rubber-Tired Dozer (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)
a
84 Grading/Excavation 20
Excavator (1)
Grader (1)a
Rubber-Tired Dozer (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)
a
84 Trenching/Foundation 10 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)
a
Excavator (1)a
82 Building – Exterior 40
Crane (1)
Forklift (1)
Generator Set (1)a
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)
a
Welder (1)
82 Building – Interior/
Architectural Coating 20 Air Compressor (1)a
74 Paving 10
Paver (1)
a
Paving Equipment (1)
a
Roller (2)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)
a
84 a Denotes two loudest pieces of construction equipment per phase.

23 TABLE 8 Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Land Uses Phase of Construction
Calculated Hourly Average Noise Levels, Leq (dBA)
East Residential
(255ft)
Northwest Residential
(390ft)
Distant South
Residential (895ft)
South Office &
Commercial (145ft)
Demolition 69 65 58 74
Site Preparation 70 67 60 75
Grading/ Excavation 71 67 60 76
Trenching/Foundation 68 64 57 72
Building –Exterior 69 65 58 74
Building – Interior/
Architectural Coating 60 56 49 65
Paving 71 68 60 76

24 As shown in Table 8, construction noise levels would intermittently range from 49 to 71 dBA Leq at existing residential uses and from 65 to 76 dBA Leq at existing office and commercial uses when activities are focused near the center of the nearest project buildings. These construction noise levels would not exceed the exterior threshold of 80 dBA Leq at existing residential land uses surrounding the site (i.e., east of the site, northwest of the site, and more than 800 feet south of the site) or the 85 dBA Leq threshold at office and commercial land uses in the project vicinity when activities occur near the center of the buildings. When occurring 50 feet from the adjoining property lines, construction noise levels would range from 74 to 84 dBA Leq.

While specific construction activities would at times exceed these thresholds when work is conducted near shared property lines, construction would move throughout the project site during the planned seven-month period. While the proposed project would result in temporary noise increases above ambient conditions, the Initial Study included measures consistent with those identified in the City’s General Plan that would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

These measures shall be included as part of the proposed project as a condition of approval:
• The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise sources as far from existing sensitive receptors as possible. If stationary sources must be located near existing sensitive receptors, they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds or other structures.
• At a minimum, the construction contractor shall implement the following control measures: improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds. Noise controls can reduce noise levels at 50 feet by 1 to 16 dBA, depending on the type of equipment. • Equipment used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools (e.g., jack hammers) wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Where use of pneumatically-powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. A muffler could lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used (such as drilling rather than impact equipment) wherever feasible. • The construction contractor shall not allow any construction equipment, trucks, or vehicles to idle.
• Prior to the commencement of any construction activities, the construction contractor shall notify, via mail, all residences within a 300-foot radius of the project site of the project’s approximate construction schedule, including the approximate duration of demolition, clearing, grading, excavation, paving, and building construction, et al. In addition, at least 24 hours prior to grading activities, the construction contractor shall post signage in appropriate locations within a 300-foot radius of the project site. The signage shall include a phone number to the City Public Works Department for residents to call with noise complaints. If the City Public Works Department receives

25 more than three complaint calls regarding construction noise, the City reserves the discretion to require the project applicant to conduct an acoustical noise analysis to determine more appropriate measures to reduce noise levels due to construction activities.
• The construction contractor shall limit construction activity to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. No construction will be allowed on weekends and holidays recognized by the City of Pinole. Debris hauling and materials delivery shall be prohibited between the hours of 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. • All staging of construction equipment, trucks, and vehicles shall be limited to the southern and western portions of the project site, as far away from residential development to the east as possible.
• All construction trucks and vehicles shall access the site via San Pablo Avenue.

With the implementation of the General Plan and Municipal Code requirements, as well as the above measures as conditions of approval, the temporary construction noise impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Recommended Condition 1a: Impose the measure above.

Impact 1b: Permanent Noise Level Increase/Exceed Applicable Standards. The proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent noise level increase but could generate noise levels that would exceed the applicable standards at the residential uses to the east. This is a potentially significant impact.

The State of California and City of Pinole would consider a significant permanent noise impact to occur if one or more of the following happen due to proposed project:
• The project would increase noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors by 3 dBA DNL or more where ambient noise levels exceed the “normally acceptable” noise level standard (60 dBA DNL according to the City’s General Plan) or by 5 dBA DNL or more where ambient noise levels are at or below 60 dBA DNL. The permanent noise level increase is calculated by comparing the day-night average noise levels (estimated on a 24-hour basis) generated by new sources at the project site to the existing ambient noise levels at receptors. • The proposed industrial project generates noise levels from stationary sources exceeding hourly average noise levels of 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA Leq during nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. at existing residential land uses, as established in Policy HS.9.1 of the City’s General Plan. Hourly average noise levels for noise sources at the project site are averaged over a 60-minute period based on realistic usage of each source in a given hour. • The proposed industrial project generates noise levels from stationary sources exceeding maximum instantaneous noise levels of 70 dBA Lmax during daytime hours and 65 dBA Lmax

26 during nighttime hours at existing residential land uses. For impulsive noise sources, maximum noise levels of 65 and 60 dBA Lmax shall not be exceeded during daytime and nighttime hours, respectively. These instantaneous thresholds could be generated in less than 1 minute in any given hour.

Existing residences are located to the east and to the northwest of the project site, as well as south of San Pablo Avenue. All surrounding residences would continue be exposed to noise from existing train activity and vehicular traffic.

Project Traffic Increase
The traffic study included peak hour turning movements for existing and existing plus project traffic volumes at two intersections in the vicinity of the project site: 1) project driveway/Meadow Avenue and San Pablo Avenue; and 2) Pinon Avenue/Appian Way and San Pablo Avenue. By comparing the existing plus project volumes to the existing volumes, the project’s contribution to the overall noise increase is calculated. Table 9 summarizes the estimated noise level increase along each roadway segment included in the traffic report. As shown in Table 9, the project’s traffic would result in a 1 dBA DNL increase along Meadow Avenue, south of San Pablo Avenue.

All remaining segments would not measurably contribute to ambient noise levels in the area (0 dBA DNL increase). This would be a less-than-significant impact.

27 TABLE 9 Estimated Noise Level Increases of Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Over Existing Volumes at Receptors in the Project Vicinity
Roadway Segment
Estimated DNL, dBA Estimated Noise
Level Increase, dBA
Existing Noise Levels DNL
Existing Plus Project
Noise Levels
Meadow Avenue South of San Pablo Avenue 56 57 1
Pinon Avenue North of San Pablo Avenue 52 52 0
Appian Way South of San Pablo Avenue 64 64 0
San Pablo Avenue
East of Pinon Avenue/Appian
Way 69 69 0
Pinon Avenue/Appian Way to
Meadow Avenue 68 68 0
West of Meadow Avenue 68 68 0

28 Mechanical Equipment
The proposed warehouse will not be air conditioned, but the offices located in the southwestern corner of the proposed building would include a heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) unit. Typically, HVAC units are located on the roof, which is the assumed location in this study.

The site plan shows the roof elevation to be about 43 feet above the ground.

For light industrial uses similar to the proposed project, typical HVAC units would generate noise levels ranging from 61 to 62 dBA at a distance of 20 feet. This type of equipment generates constant noise levels during operation, which means the maximum noise level generated by mechanical equipment would be equal to the hourly average noise level, assuming the equipment operates continuously throughout the hour. Assuming the HVAC unit operates continuously every hour during a 24-hour period, which would represent worst-case conditions, the total potential noise generated by the HVAC unit would be up to 68 dBA DNL at 20 feet (day-night average noise level).

The estimated mechanical equipment noise levels due to HVAC units on the rooftop of the offices, as propagated to the nearest property lines of the surrounding land uses are summarized in Table

10. A minimum attenuation of 5 dBA is assumed for all surrounding ground-level receptors, assuming the HVAC units are set back 10 feet from the nearest edge of the office rooftop.

Additionally, an existing eight-foot sound wall is located along the residential boundary of the land uses to the northwest, which would account for additional attenuation. Conservatively, 10 dBA attenuation is assumed for the northwest residences. The residences located south of San Pablo Avenue would be mostly shielded by the office and commercial buildings south of the project site.

Conservatively, these buildings, in combination with the elevation of the rooftop equipment, would provide a minimum attenuation of 10 dBA for the distant residences to the south.

Hourly average noise levels due to mechanical equipment would range from 20 to 30 dBA Leq at the nearest surrounding residences, assuming worst-case conditions. These noise levels would not exceed the City’s daytime threshold of 55 dBA or the City's nighttime threshold of 45 dBA threshold.

This would be a less-than-significant impact.

As stated above, this noise source would generate constant noise levels throughout a given hour, making the hourly average noise levels and the maximum instantaneous noise levels equivalent.

Maximum noise level thresholds of 70 dBA during daytime hours and 65 dBA during nighttime hours would not be exceeded. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

For all residential and commercial land uses in the project vicinity, the calculated noise level increase would not measurably contribute to ambient noise levels in the area (0 dBA DNL increase). This would be a less-than-significant impact.

29 TABLE 10 Estimated Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels at Receiving Land Uses Receptor
Distance from
Rooftop
Equipment,
feet
Hourly Leq, dBA
DNL,
dBA
Noise Level
Increase,
DNL, dBA
Estimated Leq at
Receiving Property
Line
55 dBA (Daytime) or 45 dBA
(Nighttime) Exceeded?a
East Residential 465 29 to 30b No (both) 36b 0
Northwest Residential 370 26 to 27c No (both) 33c 0
Distant South
Residential 800 ≤ 20c No (both) 26c 0
South Office &
Commercial 70 45 to 46b N/A 53b 0
a Thresholds apply to residential receptors only.
b Minimum attenuation of 5 dB is assumed due to elevation of noise sources and distance of ground-level receptors being within 200 feet of the proposed building. c Minimum attenuation of 10 dB is assumed due to intervening buildings and distance of receptors being more than 700 feet of the proposed building.

30 Parking Lot Noise
Surface parking for passenger cars would be located along the building perimeter. Truck parking associated with the proposed project is discussed separately under the truck loading section.

Noise sources associated with the use of the parking lots would include vehicular circulation, loud engines, door slams, and human voices. The maximum noise level of a passing car at 15 mph typically ranges from 45 to 55 dBA Lmax at a distance of 100 feet. The noise generated during an engine start is similar. Door slams cause slightly lower noise levels. The hourly average noise levels resulting from all of these noise-generating activities in a busy parking lot typically ranges from 40 to 50 dBA Leq at a distance of 100 feet from the parking area. Noise levels decrease at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance.

For the proposed project, busy parking lot noise would only be expected during daytime hours when most employees would be accessing the site. Some cars may access the site during nighttime hours, but passenger car activity would occur for minimal time in a given hour and would result in insignificant hourly average noise levels; however, one car in an hour would generate instantaneous noise levels, which would be compared to maximum noise levels established by the City. Therefore, hourly average noise levels during daytime hours only and maximum instantaneous noise levels during daytime and nighttime hours are used in parking lot analysis.

Table 11 summarizes the estimated parking lot noise at the surrounding receptors when the noise source is centered at the nearest parking spaces facing the receptors. The residences to the northwest would be partially shielded from the ground-level parking lot noise by the eight-foot sound wall along their property lines. Conservatively, a 5 dBA attenuation is assumed for these receptors. Additionally, the intervening office and commercial buildings would provide attenuation for the distant residences to the south. Conservatively, a 10 dBA attenuation is assumed for these receptors. Residences to the east and commercial buildings to the south would have direct line-of-sight to parking lot activity. No attenuation is assumed for these receptors.

Hourly average noise levels from parking activities would be at or below 48 dBA Leq at all surrounding residences. This would be less than the daytime hourly average threshold of 55 dBA Leq. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

Maximum noise levels would be at or below 53 dBA Lmax at all surrounding residences. This would be less than the daytime and nighttime thresholds of 70 and 65 dBA Lmax, respectively. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

The proposed parking lot/parking activities would not measurably contribute to ambient noise levels in the area (0 dBA DNL increase). This would be a less-than-significant impact.

31 TABLE 11 Estimated Parking Lot Noise Levels at Receiving Land Uses Receptor
Distance
from
Center of
Nearest
Parking
Area, feet
Hourly Leq, dBA Lmax, dBA
DNL,
dBA
Noise Level
Increase,
DNL, dBA
Estimated
Leq at
Receiving
Property
Line
55 dBA
(Daytime)
Exceeded?a
Estimated
Lmax at
Receiving
Property
Line
70 dBA
(Daytime) or
65 dBA
(Nighttime)
Exceeded?a
East Residential 130 38 to 48 No 43 to 53 No (both) 41 0 Northwest
Residential 130 33 to 43a No 38 to 48b No (both) 36b 0
Distant South
Residential 790 < 20 to 22b No < 20 to 27c No (both) < 20c 0 South Office &
Commercial 50 46 to 56 N/A 51 to 61 N/A 49 0
a Thresholds apply to residential receptors only.
b Minimum attenuation of 5 dB is assumed due to the eight-foot sound wall along the receptors’ property lines. c Minimum attenuation of 10 dB is assumed due to intervening buildings.

32 Project Truck Trips
The proposed project would include 18 loading docks located along the southeastern façade of the proposed building. Additionally, five heavy truck parking spots are located along the southern property line.

All truck deliveries would be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. According to the traffic study, 107 daily truck trips would access the site. The peak hour truck trips would include 17 trips during the peak AM hour and 11 trips during the peak PM hour. For all remaining hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., seven to eight truck trips per hour are assumed.

Truck delivery noise would include both maneuvering activities occurring at the loading docks and truck parking spaces located between the buildings, as well as truck trips occurring along the driveway.

Trucks maneuvering would generate a combination of engine, exhaust, and tire noise, as well as the intermittent sounds of back-up alarms and releases of compressed air associated with truck/trailer air brakes. Heavy trucks used for incoming deliveries typically generate maximum instantaneous noise levels of 70 to 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. The noise level of backup alarms can vary depending on the type and directivity of the sound, but maximum noise levels are typically in the range of 65 to 75 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Assuming maneuvering activities for one truck would take up to 10 minutes in a given hour, hourly average noise levels would range from 71 to 74 dBA Leq at 50 feet for seven to 17 truck trips per hour.

Due to the orientation of the building and the surrounding buildings, truck loading and unloading activities would be shielded from the northwest residences and the distant south residences. The east residences and the south office and commercial uses would have direct exposure to the loading docks. Table 12 summarizes the estimated truck maneuvering noise at the east residences and the south office and commercial uses, assuming seven to 17 truck trips per hour between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m and with the construction of a 10-foot sound wall, which is recommended to be imposed as a project condition of approval in compliance General Plan Goal HS. 8.1 and Action HS 8.1.3.

The project shall install a 10-foot sound wall barrier along the outside of the access driveway, which would provide shielding for the east residences. Figure 2 shows the location of the planned barrier. It is assumed that the proposed barrier would be continuous from grade to top, with no cracks or gaps, and have a minimum surface density of three lbs/ft2(e.g., concrete masonry units (CMU)), and the total length of the barrier would be about 420 feet. SoundPLAN Version 9.0 (SoundPLAN), a three-dimensional ray-tracing computer program, was used to estimate the attenuation from a 10-foot barrier shown in Figure 2. Calculations accounted for the truck maneuvering activities at the center of the loading docks. The proposed building and the surrounding existing buildings were also included in the model. For worst-case conditions, the terrain at the site and the surrounding area was assumed to be flat. While attenuation would vary depending on the location of the truck maneuvering source levels, the minimum attenuation calculated in SoundPLAN was 11 dBA for the east residences. This attenuation is applied to the noise levels in Table 12.

33 FIGURE 2 Planned 10-foot Barrier Location
With the sound wall, hourly average noise levels generated by truck deliveries at the proposed building would range from 51 to 55 dBA Leq at the east residences and from 67 to 72 dBA Leq at the south offices and commercial uses. Hourly average noise levels due to truck loading and unloading activities would not exceed the daytime threshold of 55 dBA Leq at the east residences with the planned barrier. This is a less-than-significant impact.

The east residences would be exposed to maximum noise levels up to 50 dBA Lmax when truck deliveries occur at nearest loading docks, while maximum noise levels at the south offices and commercial uses would be up to 68 dBA Lmax. These maximum noise levels would be below the daytime threshold of 70 dBA Lmax at the adjoining residences with the sound wall. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

With the sound wall, when 107 on-site truck trips occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., the combined day-night average noise level calculated at the east residential property line would be 49 dBA DNL and at the south offices and commercial uses would be 66 dBA DNL. The calculated noise level increase compared to the ambient noise environment would not be measurable or detectable at the east residences (i.e., 0 dBA DNL increase) and 2 dBA DNL at the south offices and commercial uses. This would be a less-than-significant impact. •' Planned 10-foo_t Barrier

34 TABLE 12 Estimated Truck Delivery Noise Levels at Receiving Land Uses (with sound wall) Receptor
Distance from
Center of
Truck Loading
Docks, feet
Hourly Leq, dBA Lmax, dBA
DNL,
dBA
Noise
Level
Increase,
DNL,
dBA
Estimated
Leq at
Receiving
Property
Line
55 dBA
(Daytime)
Exceeded?a
Estimated
Lmax at
Receiving
Property Line
70 dBA
(Daytime)
Exceeded?a
East Residential 240 to 325 51 to 55b No 41 to 50b No 49b 0 South Office &
Commercial 115 to 310 67 to 72 N/A 54 to 68 N/A 66 2
a Thresholds apply to residential receptors only.
b Conservative attenuation of 11 dBA assumed for the planned barrier.

35 To estimate the pass-by noise levels for heavy trucks traveling at speeds of 15 to 25 mph, Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model (FHWA TNM), version 2.5, was used to model various hourly scenarios for truck traffic, based on the daily trip distribution assumed for the project.

At a distance of 75 feet from the centerline of the driveway, a truck pass-by would generate noise levels ranging from 65 to 67 dBA Lmax, and hourly average noise levels for seven to 17 truck passbys would range from 52 to 56 dBA Leq at a distance of 75 feet when trucks are traveling at a speed of 15 mph, assuming no attenuation. Table 13 summarizes the estimated truck pass-by noise levels at all surrounding receptors, assuming the nearest driveway on the project site, which would represent the worst-case scenario for each of the surrounding receptors. Conservatively, a 5 dBA attenuation is assumed for the northwest residences due to the existing barrier, and 11 dBA attenuation is assumed for the east residences due to the planned 10-foot barrier. Note, truck passbys are only assumed to occur along the driveways accessing the loading docks; therefore, truck pass-bys would not occur along the driveways north of the planned 10-foot barrier.

The maximum noise thresholds and hourly average noise thresholds only apply to stationary sources levels and would not apply to pass-by truck noise. However, the threshold for the permanent noise increase would apply to truck pass-bys. As shown in Table 13, 24-hour truck pass-bys would not measurably contribute to ambient noise levels in the area (0 dBA DNL increase). This is a lessthan-significant impact.

36 TABLE 13 Estimated Truck Pass-by Noise Levels at Receiving Land Uses Receptor
Distance from
Center of Nearest
Driveway, feet
Hourly Leq, dBA Lmax, dBA DNL, dBA
Noise Level
Increase, dBA
DNL
East Residential 175 34 to 38a 46 to 48a 32a 0
Northwest
Residential 430 32 to 36b 45 to 47b 30b 0
Distant South
Residential 110 49 to 53 61 to 63 47 0
South Office &
Commercial 55 55 to 59 67 to 69 53 0
a Minimum attenuation of 11 dB is assumed due to the planned project barrier. b Minimum attenuation of 5 dB is assumed due to the eight-foot sound wall along the receptors’ property lines.

37 Total Combined Project-Generated Noise
The operational noise levels produced by the proposed project combined (i.e., traffic, mechanical equipment, parking lot, truck loading/unloading activities, and truck pass-bys) would potentially result in a permanent noise increase of 1 dBA DNL or less at existing residential receptors in the project vicinity and 2 dBA DNL or less at the existing commercial and offices uses to the south.

This would be a less-than-significant permanent noise level increase.

Operational noise levels would not exceed the City’s daytime or nighttime maximum noise level thresholds of 70 and 65 dBA Lmax, respectively, or the City’s daytime or nighttime hourly average noise level thresholds of 55 and 45 dBA Leq, respectively. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

Recommended Condition 1b:

With the inclusion of the planned 10-foot sound wall, as shown in Figure 2, noise levels associated with truck loading and unloading activities at the loading dock area would meet the City’s daytime threshold at the adjacent east residences, assuming the planned barrier would be continuous from grade to top, with no cracks or gaps, and have a minimum surface density of three lbs/ft2(e.g., concrete masonry units (CMU)).

Impact 2: Exposure to Excessive Groundborne Vibration. Construction-related vibration levels could potentially exceed applicable vibration thresholds at nearby sensitive land uses. This is a less-than-significant impact.

The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams) are used. Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation work, foundation work, and new building framing and finishing. Pile driving equipment, which can cause excessive vibration, is not expected to be required for the proposed project.

The City of Pinole does not define vibration thresholds. For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, which typically consist of buildings constructed since the 1990s. A conservative vibration limit of 0.3 in/sec PPV has been used for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern (see Table 3 above for further explanation). The 0.3 in/sec PPV vibration limit would be applicable to properties in the immediate vicinity of the project site since there are no known historic buildings in the vicinity.

Vibration levels exceeding these thresholds would be capable of cosmetically damaging adjacent buildings but would not be expected to result in minor or major damage. Cosmetic damage (also known as threshold damage) is defined as hairline cracking in plaster, the opening of old cracks, the loosening of paint or the dislodging of loose objects. Minor damage is defined as hairline cracking in masonry or the loosening of plaster. Major structural damage is defined as wide cracking or the shifting of foundation or bearing walls.

38 Table 14 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. Project construction activities, such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.), may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity. Jackhammers typically generate vibration levels of 0.035 in/sec PPV, and drilling typically generates vibration levels of 0.09 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet.

Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Table 14 also summarizes the distances to the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for all buildings.

TABLE 14 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec) Minimum Distance to Meet 0.3 in/sec PPV (feet) Clam shovel drop 0.202 18
Hydromill (slurry
wall)
in soil 0.008 1
in rock 0.017 2
Vibratory Roller 0.210 19
Hoe Ram 0.089 9
Large bulldozer 0.089 9
Caisson drilling 0.089 9
Loaded trucks 0.076 8
Jackhammer 0.035 4
Small bulldozer 0.003 <1
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., January 2023.

Table 15 summarizes the vibration levels at each of the surrounding buildings in the project vicinity. Vibration levels are highest close to the source and then attenuate with increasing distance at the rate (
𝐷𝑟𝑒𝑓
𝐷
⁄ )

1.1 , where D is the distance from the source in feet and Dref is the reference distance of 25 feet. While construction noise levels increase based on the cumulative equipment in use simultaneously, construction vibration levels would be dependent on the location of individual pieces of equipment. That is, equipment scattered throughout the site would not generate a collective vibration level, but a vibratory roller, for instance, operating near the project site boundary would generate the worst-case vibration levels for the receptor sharing that property line.

Further, construction vibration impacts are assessed based on damage to buildings on receiving land uses, not receptors at the nearest property lines. Therefore, the distances used to propagate construction vibration levels (as shown in Table 15), which are different than the distances used to propagate construction noise levels (as shown in Table 8), were estimated under the assumption that each piece of equipment from Table 14 was operating at the nearest construction area on the project site to the nearest receiving building, which would represent the worst-case scenario.

As shown in Table 15, the nearest structure adjoining the project site would be the residential structures to the east and the office and commercial buildings to the south, which are 65 feet or more from the nearest construction work at the project site. At these distances, all buildings would be exposed to vibration levels at or below 0.073 in/sec PPV, which is below the State’s 0.3 in/sec I
I

39 PPV threshold. All other buildings in the project vicinity would be exposed to lower vibration levels due to project construction.

Neither cosmetic, minor, or major damage would occur at conventional buildings surrounding the project site. At these locations, and in other surrounding areas where vibration would not be expected to cause cosmetic damage, vibration levels may still be perceptible. However, as with any type of construction, this would be anticipated and would not be considered significant, given the intermittent and short duration of the phases that have the highest potential of producing vibration (use of jackhammers and other high-power tools). By use of administrative controls, such as notifying neighbors of scheduled construction activities and scheduling construction activities with the highest potential to produce perceptible vibration during hours with the least potential to affect nearby businesses, perceptible vibration can be kept to a minimum.

TABLE 15 Vibration Levels at Nearest Receptors
Equipment
PPV (in/sec)
East Residential
(65ft)
Northwest
Residential
(110ft)
South Distant
Residential
(765ft)
South Offices &
Commercial
(65ft)
Clam shovel drop 0.071 0.040 0.005 0.071
Hydromill
(slurry wall)
in soil 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.003
in rock 0.006 0.003 0.0004 0.006
Vibratory Roller 0.073 0.041 0.005 0.073
Hoe Ram 0.031 0.017 0.002 0.031
Large bulldozer 0.031 0.017 0.002 0.031
Caisson drilling 0.031 0.017 0.002 0.031
Loaded trucks 0.027 0.015 0.002 0.027
Jackhammer 0.012 0.007 0.001 0.012
Small bulldozer 0.001 0.001 0.0001 0.001
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., January 2023.

In summary, the construction of the project would not generate vibration levels exceeding the State’s 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold at conventional buildings surrounding the project site. No potential for this site would generate perceptible vibration levels during daily operations. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

Recommended Condition 2:None required.

Impact 3: Excessive Aircraft Noise. The project site is located more than 10 miles from the nearest airports in the area. The noise environment attributable to these aircrafts are considered normally acceptable. This is a less-than-significant impact.

The project site is more than 10 miles from San Rafael Airport, Buchanan Field Airport, and Oakland International Airport. Therefore, the project site would lie well outside the 60 dBA CNEL/DNL contour lines for all airports. The proposed project would be compatible with the City’s exterior noise standards for aircraft noise. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

I
I

40 Recommended Condition 3:None required.

41 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative noise impacts would include temporary construction noise from cumulative construction projects. From the City’s website,3the following planned or approved projects are located within 1,000 feet of the proposed project:
• 811 San Pablo Avenue (SAHA) – this project is located approximately 765 feet south of the project and is bound by the residences located south of San Pablo Avenue. This project consists of 33 residential units, which would be 100% affordable housing complex. This project has been approved, but construction has not started. The residential receptors identified in this report as distant residences to the south would have direct exposure to the 811 San Pablo Avenue site but would have minimal exposure to the proposed Pinole Shores project site. These noise-sensitive receptors would be over 500 feet from the Pinole Shores project site, and the noise generated by the 811 San Pablo Avenue site and traffic along San Pablo Avenue dominate these receptors, with the Pinole Shores construction causing minimal disruption. This would not be considered a significant cumulative construction impact.

No other planned or approved projects are located within 1,000 feet of the project site. Therefore, potential cumulative construction impacts would be less-than-significant.

For a substantial permanent cumulative noise increase to occur at operation, two qualifications must be met: 1) if the cumulative plus project traffic volumes result in a noise level increase at sensitive receptors of 5 dBA DNL or greater, with a future noise level of less than 60 dBA DNL, or of 3 dBA DNL or greater, with a future noise level of 60 dBA DNL or greater, compared to existing traffic volumes; and 2) if the cumulative plus project traffic volumes result in a 1 dBA DNL or more noise level increase compared to cumulative (no project) conditions, which would be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to the overall traffic noise increase.

The traffic study included cumulative and cumulative plus project volumes at two intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Table 16 summarizes the noise level difference calculated by comparing both the cumulative (no project) and cumulative plus project traffic scenarios to the existing scenario. As shown in Table 16, no roadway segments would result in a noise level increase of 3 dBA DNL or more under either cumulative (no project) or cumulative plus project scenarios. Further, the same increase of 2 dBA DNL or less was calculated for both traffic scenarios when compared to the existing volumes. Therefore, the project would not result in cumulative traffic noise increase of 1 dBA DNL or more. There would not be a cumulative noise level increase at project operation.
3 https://www.ci.pinole.ca.us/city_government/planning/current_projects

42 TABLE 16 Estimated Noise Level Increases of Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes Over Existing Volumes at Receptors in the Project Vicinity
Roadway Segment
Estimated Noise Level Increase Over
Existing Volumes, dBA DNL Project’s
Contribution,
Cumulative dBA DNL Cumulative Plus
Project
Meadow Avenue South of San Pablo Avenue 2 2 0
Pinon Avenue North of San Pablo Avenue 1 1 0
Appian Way South of San Pablo Avenue 2 2 0
San Pablo Avenue
East of Pinon Avenue/Appian Way 2 2 0
Pinon Avenue/Appian Way to
Meadow Avenue 2 2 0
West of Meadow Avenue 2 2 0

43 APPENDIX A
FIGURE A1 Daily Trend in Noise Levels for LT-1, Wednesday, October 19, 2022 110
105
100
95 90
85 < Ill 80
'e
'-'
.; 75
t
... 70
-- --A- -· Lmax
---¢-- L(1)
--L(10)
_,,__ L(50)
.,
·-"' 65 0
z
----- L(QO)
--Lmin
60 • Leq (hr)
55 50
45 40
35 <::, <::, <::, <::, <::, <::, <::, <::, <::, <;;<:; ..._<;> ,.,,; ,.,,,; i,;.';> '5<,; q;',i -,;',i q;',i <J,<:,<::, ,.§' ,/? a•'? "'-<? ,;.'? '5',><::, q;'? -.;'? "'-<? "'<? ,;:;':><::, o"-<? o'v,§> a'><? ~ , ,v ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ·v v ·v ·v Hour Beginning

44 FIGURE A2 Daily Trend in Noise Levels for LT-1, Thursday, October 20, 2022 110
105
100
95 90
85 ,...,
<
~ 80 ._,
'0
-., 75
• · -:6· •• lmax
-<>- L(1)
- L(10)
... .,
,-1 70 -Q- L(50)
.,
-"' 0 ~ 65
z
--L(IX>)
--Lmin
60 • Leq (hr)
55 01'L=56dBA
50 45
40 s:, s:, s:, s:, s:, s:, s:, s:, ..:;'ii 1,'ii ,s'ii ~~ ,;'ii ,;,'ii .;'ii .;'ii ct,'i>"' ,.§' .§' 1,f ,.f ~f f,l rof "'f ~l ~f ~f ft ... f .'t-,s, .-sf ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ·v -~ ·v - ~ Hour Beginning

45 FIGURE A3 Daily Trend in Noise Levels for LT-1, Friday, October 21, 2022 110
105
100
95 90
85 < • ..... .. Lrnax
' j:I) 80 ----<>-- l (1) 'C t " "
- --jl II
75 ,'--,,
.:: , - •· --l (10)
t • -
70 -, _: --s--- l (50) ... ,- .. ,_ .,, ·- .c - c-- - l (90) ·- 65 0
z --Lmin
60 • leq (hr)
55 50
45 40
35 #### ##### #;~~~;~~~~;,~~~
Hour Beginning

46 FIGURE A4 Daily Trend in Noise Levels for LT-2, Wednesday, October 19, 2022 110
105
100
95 90
85 < Ill 80
'e
'-'
.; 75
t
... 70
-- --A- -· Lmax
---¢-- L(1)
--L(10)
_,,__ L(50)
.,
·-"' 65 0
z
----- L(QO)
--Lmin
60 • Leq (hr)
55 50
45 40
35 <::, <::, <::, <::, <::, <::, <::, <::, <::, <:;<:; ..._<;> 1,'iJ ,.,'iJ r;_';> '5<:; r;,'iJ -,;'iJ q;'iJ <f,<:,<::, ,§' ,/:><::, o•f "'-f ,;.f .;':><::, r;,f -,;f "'-f ..,f ,;;.':><::, 0 -.f o'v,S, o'>f ~ , , v ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ·v v ·v ·v
Hour Beginning

47 FIGURE A5 Daily Trend in Noise Levels for LT-2, Thursday, October 20, 2022 11 0
105
100
95 90
85 < i:!l 80
'C
-
. " • . H
' . :• ' •
' , ~ ..
.. ---<>-- L(I)
.:: 75
t
,-,l 70
--l (IO)
--s--l(50)
..,
.,,
·- 65 0
z
- l(90)
--Lmin
60 • Leq (ht)
55 D:"1.•66dBA
50 45
40 35 ~~~ - +----+========+----+- +--+=======+---+- t---+----+===+==l <>"'"' "'"'"' ..f.>"' .,s;,"' ~"'"' ,;<:>"' ,,;""" -.:"'"' ·"""" ,."'"' "~ -~ "'~ .§' .,f ,.... ......... ,v ,., ....

Hour Beginning

48 FIGURE A6 Daily Trend in Noise Levels for LT-2, Friday, October 21, 2022 110
105
100
95 90
85 <
~ 80 ~
'-'
.: 75
t
,-l 70
"' .,,
·s 65
z
60 55
50 45
40 35
"' "'"' "'"' "' "' ,;s<;i ,. ~ ,s<;i ~<;i ()
.;<;i "' q;<;i ()
"i<;i ()
q;<;i
L...J
~"'"' is' ._.J' <v,s, "'~ ~,s, ,.;~ ~~ ~~ ,1o~ ~~ ~~ ,.., .. .s> ,cv,s, t{;~ Hour Beginning
- - -:6.--· Lmax
--L(1)
--L(10)
_,,__ L(50)
--++- L(QO)
--Lmin
• l eq (hr)

2201 Broadway | Suite 602 | Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 834-3200 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: April 24, 2024
To: Olivia Ervin, M-Group
From: Sam Tabibnia and Ken Der, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Pinole Shores Project – Transportation Impact Analysis OK22-0492
This memorandum summarizes the Transportation Impact Analysis conducted by Fehr & Peers for the proposed Pinole Shores Project (the project) in Pinole, CA. Based on a site plan dated November 2023, the project would consist of an approximately 121,700 square-foot industrial laundry facility.

Based on our evaluation:
• The project does not meet any of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) screening criteria for Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) impact. However, based on a detailed analysis, the project would have a less than significant impact on VMT. • The project would generate approximately 700 daily, 107 AM peak hour, and 90 PM peak hour passenger car equivalent (PCE)1 trips.
• The San Pablo Avenue/Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway intersection may meet the peak hour signal warrant with the addition of the traffic generated by the proposed project; therefore, the following are recommended:
◦ Recommendation 1: Prior to the occupancy of the project, convert the Project Driveway and the Meadow Avenue approaches at the San Pablo Avenue/Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway intersection to right-turns only by prohibiting left-turns and through movements via signage and striping. The Project Driveway approach at the intersection shall also be narrowed from two lanes to one lane. ◦ Recommendation 2: Lengthen the eastbound left turn pocket on San Pablo Avenue from 60 to 130 feet, increasing the queue storage for large trucks. The current 60- foot left-turn pocket can accommodate only one WB-67 truck and other vehicles 1 Passenger car equivalent (PCE) is used to convert truck and bus trips to passenger car trips to account for trucks and buses being larger and moving slower than passenger cars.

FEHRk PEERS
Appendix H

Olivia Ervin
April 24, 2024

queuing on the eastbound left-turn pocket would spill back onto the through travel lanes on San Pablo Avenue.
◦ Recommendation 3: Relocate the existing crosswalk across the project driveway closer to the intersection to align with the existing sidewalk along the north side of San Pablo Avenue, which would provide additional queue storage for vehicles exiting the project site and improve pedestrian circulation along the project frontage. ◦ Recommendation 4: Install a new stop sign with pavement markings at the private parking lot intersection immediately north of the intersection with San Pablo Avenue, which would minimize queuing within the project site, maintain access to the drive aisle just north of the project driveway, and minimize the inbound project queues spilling back onto San Pablo Avenue.
◦ Recommendation 5: Within one year after the full occupancy of the project, install a traffic signal at the San Pablo Avenue/Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway intersection, unless a full signal warrant study has been completed for the intersection that shows a signal is not needed. If a signal is installed at the intersection, the right-turn only restrictions at the Project Driveway and the Meadow Avenue approaches of the intersection shall be removed and the Project Driveway approach at the intersection shall be widened to two lanes.

The remainder of this memorandum provides more detail on our assumptions and findings on these topics.

Project Description
The project site is located at 830 San Pablo Avenue and is currently a 7.4-acre vacant lot. Based on the site plan dated November 2023 and provided in Appendix A, the project would consist of a single building providing about 121,700 square feet of space for an industrial laundry facility.

The project site is about 700 feet north of San Pablo Avenue.

The project would provide 125 passenger vehicle parking spaces, 6 ADA parking spaces, 5 truck parking spaces, and 18 loading docks. Access to the site would be provided through one existing driveway on San Pablo Avenue which is shared with other uses located between the project site and San Pablo Avenue. The driveway is located opposite Meadow Avenue with all movements allowed at the intersection and stop signs on the minor northbound and southbound approaches.

VMT Assessment
This section presents the effects of the project on VMT using guidelines, thresholds of significance, and screening criteria for evaluating VMT in CEQA documents as recommended by CCTA.

Olivia Ervin
April 24, 2024

California Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process that changed the way transportation impact analysis is conducted as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include elimination of automobile delay, LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. According to SB 743, these changes are intended to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” In December 2018, the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) completed an update to the CEQA Guidelines to implement the requirements of SB 743. The Guidelines state that VMT must be the metric used to determine significant transportation impacts. The Guidelines require all lead agencies in California to use VMT-based thresholds of significance in CEQA documents published after July 2020.

The OPR Guidelines recommend developing screening criteria for development projects that meet certain criteria that can readily lead to the conclusion that they would not cause a significant impact on VMT. The OPR Guidelines also recommend evaluating VMT impacts using an efficiency-based version of the metric, such as VMT per resident for residential developments and/or VMT per worker for office or other employment-based developments.

While the City of Pinole has not developed their screening criteria or thresholds of significance for VMT assessment, the CCTA, which supports travel demand modeling for all jurisdictions in the county, has developed VMT screening criteria, analysis methodologies, and thresholds of significance. Therefore, this analysis uses the screening criteria, analysis methodologies, and the thresholds of significance recommended by CCTA as described in the VMT Analysis Methodology for Land Use Projects in Contra Costa Technical Memorandum (CCTA VMT Methodology Memorandum, March 2022).

VMT Definitions
Terms used for VMT screening and estimation are defined below:
• Home-work VMT – VMT associated with commute trips between a residence and an employment-generating use, also referred to as home-based-work or commute trips.

Home-work VMT per worker is defined as the total VMT generated by workers in a geographic area commuting between home and work and tracked throughout the regional network on a typical weekday divided by the number of workers in that geographic area.
• Local Serving Uses – Land uses that are expected to draw users from a local area, typically no more than a 2- to 3-mile radius. The definition of local-serving uses may vary

Olivia Ervin
April 24, 2024

by jurisdiction. These uses may generally include local-serving public facilities such as a branch library, a police or fire station, neighborhood-based schools, and local-serving retail businesses such as grocery stores, coffee shops or dry cleaners. • Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) – TPAs are areas of close proximity to a significant transit mode, defined as one-half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. Public Resources Code, § 21064.3 defines “major transit stop” as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Public Resources Code, § 21155 defines a “high-quality transit corridor” as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

VMT Screening
According to the CCTA VMT Methodology Memorandum, screening thresholds can be used to quickly identify projects that can be expected to cause a less than significant impact without conducting a detailed study. The CCTA VMT Methodology Memorandum recommended screening thresholds and their applicability to the project are described below. • Small Projects – Projects that have fewer than 10,000 square feet of non-residential space or 20 residential units or less may be assumed to cause a less than significant VMT impact. The project would have over 10,000 square feet of non-residential space, therefore it would not meet this screening threshold.
• Local-Serving Uses – Projects that consist of local-serving uses can be presumed to have a less than significant impact, since they would primarily draw users and customers from a relatively small geographical area. The project would likely not include any local-serving public facilities and a warehouse or R&D use would draw users from an area greater than a 2- to 3-mile radius. It would not meet this screening threshold. • Located in TPAs – Projects located within a TPA can be presumed to have a less than significant impact, unless the project meets one or more of the following:

1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;

2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees than required by the lead agency (if the agency allows but does not require the project to supply a certain amount of parking);

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)); or

4. Results in a net reduction in multi-family housing units.

Olivia Ervin
April 24, 2024

WestCAT, the bus service provider in western Contra Costa County, operates Routes C3 and JL/JR along San Pablo Avenue with connections to Contra Costa College, Hercules Transit Center, and the El Cerrito del Norte BART station with combined weekday headways of 15 minutes during the weekday peak commute periods (as of April 2024).

The nearest Route C3 and JL/JR bus stops to the project site are located on both directions of San Pablo Avenue at Meadow Avenue and the access driveway to the site.

Thus, this segment of San Pablo Avenue is classified as a high-quality transit corridor, and the project is located in a TPA. However, the project cannot be presumed to have a less than significant impact as it would not satisfy the first condition for this screening threshold as described below:

1. It would have an FAR of 0.38, which is less than 0.75;

2. The project would include 131 parking spaces. City of Pinole Municipal Code Section

17.48.050 requires one parking space per 1,000 square feet of space plus one parking space per four employees for warehousing, wholesaling, research, and other industrial uses. A general light industrial use typically has 0.7 employees per 1,000 square feet. Thus, the project would be required to provide up to 143 parking spaces.

Since the project would provide fewer parking spaces than required by the Code, it would not include more parking for use by customers or employees than required by the lead agency;

3. The project is located in the Pinole Old Town San Pablo Avenue Priority Development Area (PDA) and is therefore, not inconsistent with the applicable SCS; and

4. The project would not demolish any existing housing units and would therefore not result in a net reduction in multi-family housing units. • Located in Low VMT Areas –Employment-generating projects located within a low VMTgenerating area can be presumed to have a less than significant impact. CCTA defines Low VMT areas as follows:
o For employment-generating projects: Cities and unincorporated portions of CCTA’s five subregions that have existing home-work VMT per worker that is 85% or less of the existing regional average. Based on the data developed by CCTA using the Countywide Travel Demand Model (CCTA Model), the City where the project is located (Pinole) has an existing home-work VMT per worker of 13.6, which is not less than 85% of the regional average home-work VMT per worker of 13.2 (the existing regional home-work VMT per worker is 15.6). Therefore, the project would not meet this screening threshold.

Since the project does not meet any of the screening thresholds, a more detailed evaluation of the project’s VMT impact is required.

Olivia Ervin
April 24, 2024

Detailed VMT Analysis
The detailed VMT evaluation for the project is conducted using the CCTA Travel Demand Model.

The CCTA Model is a is a regional travel demand model that uses socio-economic data and roadway and transit network assumptions to forecast traffic volumes, transit ridership, and VMT using a four-step modeling process that includes trip generation, trip distribution, mode split, and trip assignment. This process accounts for changes in travel patterns due to future growth and expected changes in the transportation network. The CCTA Model, which encompasses the entire nine-county Bay Area region, with additional zonal and network detail within Contra Costa County, is based on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Plan Bay Area 2040 (i.e., Sustainable Communities Strategy) transportation network and land uses for 2020 and 2040.

As a regional planning tool, the CCTA Model was developed through an extensive model validation process and is intended to replicate existing vehicular travel behavior. Therefore, it can provide a reasonable estimate of the VMT generated in various geographic areas on a typical weekday, as well as estimate future VMT that reflects planned local and regional land use and transportation system changes.

Since the project would be an “employment-generating project,” the home-work VMT per worker metric is used to generate VMT estimates. As recommended in the CCTA VMT Methodology Memorandum, the project is added to the baseline land use database in the Model to estimate the home-work VMT per worker for the project.

According to the CCTA, the project generated home-work VMT per worker constitutes a significant impact if it exceeds the following significance thresholds, whichever is less stringent: 1) 85% of the home-work VMT per worker in the subject municipality (i.e., City of Pinole), or 2) 85% of the existing Bay Area region-wide average home-work VMT per worker. Since the existing average home-work VMT per worker is 13.6 for the City of Pinole and 15.6 for the Bay Area region, this analysis uses the 85% of the existing Bay Area region-wide average home-work VMT per worker as the significance threshold.

Table 1 summarizes the 2020 home-work VMT as estimated by the CCTA Model. The table also compares the home-work VMT per worker for the project with the region-wide average and 85% of the region-wide average, which is the significance threshold used to determine the significance of the VMT impact.

The 2020 home-work VMT per worker for the project is estimated to be 12.8. The 2020 homework VMT per worker for the project would be below 85% of the region-wide Bay Area average.

This VMT estimate does not account for the TDM Plan that the project would be required to implement. The project impact on VMT is less than significant under CEQA, and no mitigation is required.

Olivia Ervin
April 24, 2024

Table 1: Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary
Geography 2020 Home-Work VMT per
Worker
Region-wide Average 15.6
85% of the Region-wide Average
(i.e., Significance Threshold) 13.2
Project (TAZ 10215) 12.8
Below Threshold? Yes
Source: CCTA Model, 2021; Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Trip Generation
Trip generation is the process of estimating the number of vehicles that would likely access the project site. Fehr & Peers estimated the trip generation for the project using the data and methodology published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition. The ITE Trip Generation Manual provides trip generation data for various land use types based on observations at similar sites throughout the country.

The ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide specific trip generation data for industrial laundry facilities. This analysis uses the data for general light industrial use (ITE Land Use Code 110) because it is the ITE land use category that best describes the project.

To present conservative results, this analysis uses the truck trip generation rates for a high-cube parcel hub warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 156) to estimate the truck trip generation. Since trucks are larger and operate slower than passenger vehicles, a PCE of 2.5 is used to convert the truck trips to passenger vehicle trips (each truck is counted as 2.5 passenger vehicles).

Table 2 presents the trip generation for the project. It is estimated that the project would generate about 700 daily, and 107 AM and 90 PM peak hour net new trips.

CCTA’s Growth Management Program Implementation Guide (February 2021) requires the preparation of a traffic study that evaluates the impacts of a proposed development on traffic operations at nearby intersections for projects that would generate more than 100 net new peak hour trips and require a general plan amendment (GPA) and/or preparation of a detailed environmental study (i.e., negative declaration or EIR). Although the project would generate more than 100 net new peak hour trips, preparation of a traffic study is not required because the project would not require a GPA or a detailed environmental document. However, the next section of this memorandum summarizes the focused traffic operations analysis completed for the project.

Olivia Ervin
April 24, 2024

Table 2: Project PCE Trip Generation
Land Use Size¹ Daily
Trips
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
General Light Industrial² 121.7 KSF 593 79 11 90 11 68 79 Truck PCE Adjustment³ 107 9 8 17 6 5 11
Total PCE Trips 700 88 19 107 17 73 90
Notes:

1. KSF = 1,000 square feet.

2. Based on vehicle trip generation rates in ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition land use category 110 (General Light Industrial) in General Urban/Suburban Setting:

Daily: T = 4.87 * X
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.74 * X
PM Peak Hour: T = 0.65 * X

3. Based on truck trip generation rates in ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, land use category 156 (High-Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse) in General Urban/Suburban Setting:

Daily: T = 0.58 * X
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.09 * X
PM Peak Hour: T = 0.06 * X
This trip generation estimate assumes a PCE of 2.5 for the truck trips.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Traffic Operations Analysis
This section presents the traffic operations analysis completed for the project. Consistent with OPR guidelines which prohibit the use of delay-based metrics in environmental documents, the traffic operations analysis is conducted outside of the CEQA process. This section starts by describing trip distribution and trip assignment for the project, describing the methodologies used to evaluate traffic operations, followed by selection of study intersections, summary of traffic operations under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions, and summary of project effects on delay and level of service (LOS) at the study intersections, signal warrants at the unsignalized study intersection, and recommended improvements.

Trip Distribution, Trip Assignment, and Study Intersection Selection The trip distribution and assignment process estimates how the vehicle trips generated by the project would distribute across the roadway network. Figure 1 shows the trip distribution and trip assignment at the study intersections. The directions of approach and departure for the project account for the project location, the street network serving the project site, location of complementary land uses, and consider the expected traffic congestion and travel times in the area. This analysis assumes that about 50% of trips would use I-80 and Appian Way, about 20% would use San Pablo Avenue from the north, and about 30% would use San Pablo Avenue from the south.

Olivia Ervin
April 24, 2024

This analysis evaluates the AM and PM peak hour intersection operations at the following two study intersections under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions:

1. San Pablo Avenue/Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway

2. San Pablo Avenue/Appian Way/Pinon Avenue
These intersections were selected for analysis because the proposed project would add 50 or more peak hour trips, and they are most likely to be affected by the proposed project.

Analysis Methodology and Tools
Intersection operations are described using the term “Level of Service” (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Letter grades range from LOS A, with no congestion and little delay, to LOS F, which represents over-capacity conditions with excessive vehicle delay. The Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provides a methodology to calculate LOS at intersections based on average vehicle delay. Appendix B describes the various LOS and the corresponding ranges of delays for both signalized and unsignalized intersections based on HCM 2010 methodology. The Pinole General Plan does not outline any specific LOS goals, only a broad guideline to maintain acceptable LOS standards (generally LOS A to LOS D) for traffic operations outside of Old Town Pinole.

The Synchro 11 Software is used to estimate delay and the corresponding LOS. Synchro uses the equations provided in the 2010 HCM to calculate control delay. These equations use intersection characteristics, such as vehicle and pedestrian volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasings, as inputs in estimating control delay. At intersections that could not be evaluated using the 2010 HCM, the 2000 HCM is used.

Traffic Volumes
Existing traffic volumes at both study intersections were collected on Tuesday, November 15, 2022. Appendix C presents the detailed volume data for the study intersections. Figure 2 shows the existing AM and PM peak hour intersection vehicle volumes (7:30 to 8:30 AM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM), lane configurations, and signal controls at the study intersections. Figure 2 also shows the Existing Plus Project traffic volumes, which consists of traffic volumes under Existing No Project conditions plus traffic generated by the project (Figure 1). This analysis assumes no other roadway modifications at the study intersections under the Existing Plus Project conditions.

Intersection LOS Analysis
Based on the volumes, intersection controls, and roadway configurations presented on Figure 2, and the signal timings at the signalized study intersection provided by the City of Pinole, Fehr & Peers calculated the AM and PM peak hour LOS at the study intersections using the

Olivia Ervin
April 24, 2024

methodologies presented above under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions. Table 4 summarizes the weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection LOS analysis results. Appendix D provides the detailed calculation worksheets.

As shown in Table 4, the signalized San Pablo Avenue/Appian Way/Pinon Avenue intersection operates at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under both the Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions. Thus, the intersection would be consistent with the City’s LOS goal for signalized intersections outside of Old Town Pinole.

The unsignalized San Pablo Avenue/Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway intersection operates at an overall LOS A with the side-street stop-controlled approaches operating at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour under Existing conditions. Under Existing Plus Project conditions, the intersection would continue to operate at an overall LOS A, but the sidestreet stop-controlled approach would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. The application of the peak hour signal warrant to the unsignalized study intersection is described in the next subsection of this memorandum.

Table 4: Intersection LOS Summary
# Intersection
Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Existing No Project Existing Plus Project
Delay
(Seconds) 1
LOS 1
Delay
(Seconds) 1
LOS 1
1 San Pablo Avenue/Meadow
Avenue/Project Driveway
Side-Street
Stop
AM 1 (28) A (D) 1 (36) A (E)
PM 1 (39) A (E) 4 (74) A (F)
2 San Pablo Avenue/Appian
Way/Pinon Avenue2 Signal
AM 20 B 22 C
PM 39 D 45 D
Notes

1. Average intersection delay and LOS based on the 2010 HCM method, unless noted. Average delay is reported for signalized intersections. Average delay and delay for the movement with the highest delay is reported for unsignalized intersections.

2. Average intersection delay and LOS based on the HCM 2000 method because the intersection cannot be evaluated in the 2010 HCM.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Signal Warrants Analysis
To assess the need for signalization of stop-controlled intersections, the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) includes eight signal warrants. Generally, meeting one or more of the signal warrants could justify signalization of an intersection. This analysis evaluates the California MUTCD peak hour vehicular volume warrants (Warrants 3A and 3B) for urban conditions for the stop-controlled San Pablo Avenue/Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway intersection. Satisfying one or more of these warrants could justify the installation of a signal at an I- IPage 1530 of 1733
Olivia Ervin
April 24, 2024

intersection. However, satisfying one or more of these warrants does not necessarily require the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection. Appendix E provides the detailed signal warrant worksheets.

The San Pablo Avenue/Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway intersection would meet Warrant 3B (peak-hour volume) primarily due to the traffic volume on the Project Driveway approach of the intersection during the PM peak hour under Existing Plus Project conditions. As shown in Table 4, the stop-controlled southbound Project Driveway approach at this intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour, primarily due to the left-turns out of the Project Driveway.

Recommended Improvements
In order to improve access and circulation at the intersection, the following improvements, as shown on Figure 3, are recommended:
• Recommendation 1: Prior to the occupancy of the project, convert the Project Driveway and the Meadow Avenue approaches at the San Pablo Avenue/Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway intersection to right-turns only by prohibiting left-turns and through movements via signage and striping. The Project Driveway approach at the intersection shall also be narrowed from two lanes to one lane. • Recommendation 2: Lengthen the eastbound left turn pocket on San Pablo Avenue from 60 to 130 feet, increasing the queue storage for large trucks (e.g., WB-40 and WB-67). The current 60-foot left-turn pocket can accommodate only one WB-67 truck and any other vehicles queuing on the eastbound left-turn pocket would spill back onto the through travel lanes on San Pablo Avenue.
• Recommendation 3: Relocate the existing crosswalk across the project driveway closer to the intersection to align with the existing sidewalk along the north side of San Pablo Avenue, which would provide additional queue storage for vehicles exiting the project site and improve pedestrian circulation along the project frontage. • Recommendation 4: Install a new stop sign with pavement markings at the private parking lot intersection immediately north of the intersection with San Pablo Avenue, which would minimize queuing within the project site, maintain access to the drive aisle just north of the project driveway, and minimize the inbound project queues spilling back onto San Pablo Avenue.

Since the specific project tenants have not been determined, the following improvement, as shown on Figure 4, is recommended due to the uncertainty in forecasting future traffic volumes at the project driveway:
• Recommendation 5: Within one year after the full occupancy of the project, install a traffic signal at the San Pablo Avenue/Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway intersection, unless a full signal warrant study has been completed for the intersection that shows a signal is not needed. If a signal is installed at the intersection, the right-turn only restrictions at the Project Driveway and the Meadow Avenue approaches of the

Olivia Ervin
April 24, 2024

intersection shall be removed and the Project Driveway approach at the intersection shall be widened to two lanes.

Table 5 summarizes the weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection LOS analysis for this intersection under Existing Plus Project conditions with the installation of a signal per Recommendation 5. The intersection would operate at LOS B or better during both AM and PM peak hours after signalization, meeting the City’s LOS guidelines.

Table 5: Intersection LOS Summary with Improvements
# Intersection
Peak
Hour
Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project with
Improvements
Traffic
Control
Delay
(Seconds)
LOS
Traffic
Control
Delay
(Seconds)
LOS
1 San Pablo Avenue/
Meadow Avenue/
Project Driveway
AM SideStreet
Stop
1 (36) A (E)
Signal
10 A
PM 4 (74) A (F) 11 B
Notes

1. Average intersection delay and LOS based on the 2000 HCM method. Average delay is reported for signalized intersections. Average delay and delay for the movement or approach with the highest delay is reported for unsignalized intersections.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Please contact Sam ([email protected], 510-835-1943) with questions or comments.

Attachments:

Figure 1 – Project Trip Assignment and Distribution
Figure 2 – Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Controls Figure 3 – San Pablo Avenue/Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway Conceptual Improvement Plans (Short-Term)
Figure 4 – San Pablo Avenue/Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway Conceptual Improvement Plans (Long-Term)
Appendix A – Project Site Plan
Appendix B – LOS Evaluation Criteria
Appendix C – Intersection Volumes
Appendix D – Intersection LOS worksheets
Appendix E – Signal Warrant worksheets

Figure 1
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
998. / 997. /
26 (5)6 (22) 13 (51)
62 (12)

1. Project Driveway/Meadow Ave/San Pablo Ave
44 (9)
4 (15)
10 (37)
18 (3)

2. Pinon Ave/Appian Way/San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
Project Driveway Meadow Ave
San Pablo Ave
Pinon Ave Appian Way
STOP
STOP
a af
f
a
cf
c
1 2
XX (YY) OK20-0376_X_BaseMap AM (PM) Peak Hour Trac Volumes Signalized Intersection STOP Stop Sign Project Site # Study Intersection XX% XX%
XX%
30 50
20 XX% Project Trip Distribution

1.Mi0ak llflo_
!
l
\
~ § \
0 lJottyAV@nu(IJ " §
i l ~ I
.. l 1 c.._, g
C lv'obHmA-..t1ue l I . ,c, ,;/ ? % ~ li
I
ark :,,C:C.urt
•
•
Hue StreOt
~
[
\ se1t.ai1DfiW
s,v"jwF""'"
!
San Pablo Ave
i J 1 e ' !f ., i " . l I f
q
e t.fob-t4.1 AYenue i
M,me~ta Qoad
' \
•
BtettCc.,1rt
LeFMeWay
- San Pab10 Ave I .
!
t " " a: f
E
I
" I ,.,
;
c:'-fit1cista9-.t,tP ;
!
9-
0 b
it
\
\
-
•
•
t'
!
e
.l
j
1 ----------Page 1533 of 1733
Figure 2
Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes,
Lane Configurations, and Traffic Controls
998. / 997. /
4 (4)0 (0)
13 (7)
6 (6)
593 (1,084)
10 (11) 0 (11) 0 (0)
1 (24)
24 (20)
768 (550)
4 (11)
1 (4)

1. Project Driveway/Meadow Ave/San Pablo Ave
169 (269)
17 (51)
155 (335)
2 (3)
5 (5)
433 (999)
229 (192) 8 (6) 46 (36)
48 (23)
32 (27)
655 (379)
335 (197)
1 (5)

2. Pinon Ave/Appian Way/San Pablo Ave
N
San Pablo Ave
Project Driveway Meadow Ave
San Pablo Ave
Pinon Ave Appian Way
Source: path:
4 (4)0 (0)
13 (7)
32 (11)
593 (1,084)
10 (11) 6 (33) 0 (0)
14 (75)
86 (32)
768 (550)
4 (11)
1 (4)

1. Project Driveway/Meadow Ave/San Pablo Ave
213 (278)
17 (51)
155 (335)
2 (3)
5 (5)
437 (1,014)
239 (229) 8 (6) 46 (36)
48 (23)
32 (27)
673 (382)
336 (197)
1 (5)

2. Pinon Ave/Appian Way/San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
Project Driveway Meadow Ave
San Pablo Ave
Pinon Ave Appian Way
STOP
STOP
ace
d
bf
ice
ice
acf
ae
ice
ace
d
bf
ice
ice
acf
ae
ice
2 1
STOP
STOP
XX (YY) OK20-0376_X_BaseMap AM (PM) Peak Hour Trac Volumes Signalized Intersection STOP Stop Sign Project Site # Study Intersection Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions d
Lane Configurations
1' ~l<Une
~ I)'<,
1 O 1MoC1t Q(' <f
<Te
9,.o'fP
C,
.._tl' GATELEY
~Road !\I'
+'~ ool' ...
a
~
0 ✓ .. .c
Ill
~ II>
0 C:

Q. sanP blo .
~
Cj/ B lt,11 r,
• l •
• -
• -
1$
>
;;.
,11
! 't
ri ~ ..
-
0 •
•
::,
u
t
C,
s
Rd
'
IAVF
!:
g_ Br I Cou
12 " ..
ti
I
:,
i
e
0 • Ii\ C,
<{
1 ----------

RECOMMENDATION 4: INSTALL NEW

STOP SIGN W/ PAVEMENT MARKINGS
RECOMMENDATION 2: LENGTHEN LEFT
TURN POCKET FROM 60 FEET TO 130 FEET
RECOMMENDATION 3: RELOCATE EXISTING

CROSSWALK CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION
RECOMMENDATION 1: PROHIBIT LEFT-TURNS &

THROUGH MOVEMENTS VIA SIGNAGE AND STRIPING
San Pablo Avenue/Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway Conceptual Improvements Plan (Short-Term)
Figure 3
N.T.S.

CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.
... - .... as
--¼-"t ..

RECOMMENDATION 4: INSTALL NEW

STOP SIGN W/ PAVEMENT MARKINGS
RECOMMENDATION 2: LENGTHEN LEFT
TURN POCKET FROM 60 FEET TO 130 FEET
RECOMMENDATION 3: RELOCATE EXISTING

CROSSWALK CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION
RECOMMENDATION 5: SIGNALIZE

INTERSECTION, REMOVE RIGHT-TURN ONLY

RESTRICTIONS AND ADJUST STRIPING
San Pablo Avenue/Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway Conceptual Improvements Plan (Long-Term)
Figure 4
N.T.S.

CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.

Appendix A: Project Site Plan

102
105
IOb
101
124
121
135
140
14b
14'1
KEYNOTES x
PROPOSED DRIVEi--lAY, PER JURl5DIC.TIONAL STANDARDS
C.ONC.RETE PAVINe
PROPOSED LANDSC.APED AREA. SEE LAND5GAPINc5 PLANS
(N) SIDEWALK. SEE LAND5GAPIN5 PLANS FOR DEC.ORATIVE TREATMENT "4HERE OC.C.URS
EXTERIOR C.ONGRETE LANDINe
C.ONC.RETE STAIR ON GRADE. TYPE "C,"
PAINTED C.ONC.RETE TILT-LIP SC.REEN i--lALL OR TRASH ENC.LOSURE !;,!ALL. PAINT BOTH SIDES AND TOP OF !;,!ALL. SEE ARGHITEC.TURAL DRAHINc55 FOR C.OLOR 5C.HEDULE.

TRASH ENC.LOSURE VII/ ROOF C.OVERINe
2 POSITION BIKE RAGK BY "DERO ROUNDRAC.K"
C.ONC.RETE TRUC.I< RAMP VII/ 42" HIGH C.ONGRETE TILT-UP GUARD ON OPEN 51DE(5).

PAINT ALL SIDES OF GUARD i--lA;,5 AND HANDRAILS. SEE ARGHITEC.TURAL DRAHINc55 FOR C.OLOR 5GHEDULE.

STEEL PIPE BOLLARD PROTEGTION POST
•
•
· ;B'-II"
24'-o" I
•
57 •
r--n-1 ---3
56 •
•
49 48 37
•
121
•
§~~~HITECTURAL SITE FLAN
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
------
_.,_..._1_5_._...,~
COMFACT8.5'Xl6.5'
FARKIN6 SPACE
•
•
•
1 9 8
112
•
•
120
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
· ... •:.•·.
·; .. •·.:-:·/···.
•::-•::-::-•::-:
"10'-8"
I
I
I
I
N
........
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + i
++++++++<
+ .. + .. + .. + ..
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + i
··•
SI TE LEcSENr,
LANDSC.APE AREA

BUILDING AREA
VEGET A icD FLOW-THl<U PLAN'ffiit
BIOSY'IALE -5EE C.IVIL DRN-IIN65
PATH Of TRAVEL
- - - - ~RTY LINE
• DOCK Hl6H DOOR
~ DRIVE THl<U DOOR
STANDARD PARKINe STALL
PER C.ITY REGUIREMl:NT
TYP. Ac.c.E551BLE PARKINe
STALL WITH 5'-0" AC.c.E55

AISLE PER
c.Bc. 2022 IIB-502.2
TYP. VAN Ac.c.1:55161..E
PARKINe STALL WITH e>'-0"
Ac.c.E55 AISLE PER C.BC.
2022 I IB-502.2
C.LEAN AIR PARKINe ST ALL,
IN THE PAINT U5fD FOR
STALL STRIPINe, THE
FOLLOWINe c.HAF<Ac.TERS
5UC.H THAT THE LOWER
EDGE Of THE LAST WORD
ALl5N5 WITH THE END Of
STALL STRIPINe AND 15

VISIBLE BENEATH A
PARKED VEHIC.LE,

GLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV
PER C.ALeREEN 5e>.106.5.2.I
ELEC.TRIC. VEHICLE
C.HARelNe STATION,
EVC.S STALL SHALL

PROVIDE SURFACE
MARKINe 5TATINe,
EVC.HARelNe
ONLY
IN LETicR 12" Hl6H MINIMUM.

THE LOWER EDeE Of THE
LAST WORD ALleNS WITH
THE END Of ST ALL 5TRIPINe

AND IS VISIBLE BENEATH A
PARKED VEHIC.LE .

PER C.Bc. 2022 I IB-bl2.q
NOTE,
FI/T\JRE c.HARelNe SPACES
GUALIFY AfJ DESISNA iB?
PARKINe AS Dl:Sc.RIBED IN
5EC.TION 5.106.5.2 SHALL

PROVIDE SURFACE
MARKINe 5TATINe,

GLEAN AIR/

VANPOOL/EV
SITE FLAN c5ENERAL NOTES
I. SITE PLAN SHALL MEET ALL ENGINEERING$ NPDE5 REGIUIREMENT5

2. GENERAL C.ONTRAC.TOR TO REVIEH THE SOILS REPORT AND ALL AMMENDMENT5 LISTED ON THE TITLE SHEET AND FOLLOH ALL REC.OMMENDATION5 U.O.N., ALL DIMENSIONS TO C.ONc.RETE VIIALL5 AND C.UREl5 ARE EITHER TO THE GENTER (5HOHN HITH A C.ENTERLINE) OR FAC.E OF THE !;,!ALL OR C.UREI. ALL DIMENSIONS TO FRAMED i--lALL5 ARE EITHER TO THE C.ENTERLINE OF THE VIIALL FRAMING (SHOVIIN HITH A C.ENTERLINE) OR THE STUDS .
:5. REFER TO C.IVIL PLANS TO C.ONFIRM UTILITY INFORMATION 5HOHN ON THE ARGHITEC.T'5 SITE PLAN AND FOR ADDITIONAL UTILITY INFORMATION. GENERAL C.ONTRAGTOR TO C.OORDINATE ALL POINTS OF C.ONNEC.TION.

4. REFER TO C.IVIL DRAHINc55 FOR ALL FINISHED GRADES AND SLOPES. ALL FINISHED GRADES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE Ai--lAY FROM THE EIUILDINe. GENERAL C.ONTRAGTOR TO FIELD VERIFY.

5. ALL AC.C.E5516LE ROUTES IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE PLAN DRAHINc55 C.ONFORM TO

THE FOLLOHING,
a) SLOPES IN THE DIREC.TION OF TRAVEL DO NOT EXC.EED 596. GROSS SLOPES DO NOT EXC.EED 296 .
b) C.LEAR HIDTH OF ALL !;,IALKi--lAY5 15 4'-0" MIN.
r,) C.HANGE5 IN LEVEL UP TO 1/2" C.OMPLY VII/ C.6G C.HAPTER 116 GHANGE5 IN LEVEL GREATER THAN 1/2" HHERE OC.C.UR5, SHALL 6E RAMPED. SEE PLANS. d) VERTIC.AL C.LEARANC.E ALONG AGC.E551BLE ROUTE 15 l>O" MIN b. ALL PAVED AND LAND5C.APED AREAS TO BE BOUND BY A MIN. b" Hlc5H, b" HIDE C.ONC.RETE C.UREI U.O.N.

1. A C.ONC.RETE MOH STRIP EXTENDINe 12" BEYOND EAGH END OF THE OPENINe SHALL 6E PROVIDED o ALL EXTERIOR GLAZINe HHERE THE SILL 15 HITHIN :5' VERTIC.AL OF THE FINISH eRADE.

I>. A C.ONC.RETE SPLASH 6LOC.K SHALL 6E PROVIDED AT THE BASE OF ALL EXTERIOR DOHN5POUT5 THAT DISC.HAR.GE ON 5URFAC.E5 OTHER THAN C.ONC.RETE 'I. PROVIDE PIPE BOLLARD PROTEC.TION POSTS AS REGIUIRED BY UTILITY C.OMPANIE5 AND/OR FIRE AUTHORITIES AT ALL EXTERIOR ELEC.TRIC.AL EGIUIPMENT AND FIRE PREVENTION DEVIC.E5. IF PIPE BOLLARD PROTEC.TION POST DETAILS ARE NOT PROVIDED BY UTILITY C.OMPANIE5 AND/OR FIRE AUTHORITY.

10. ALL EXPOSED 610RETENTION DEVIC.E C.OVERINc55 SHALL BE PAINTED FOREST c5REEN II. HHERE OC.C.UR5, GENERAL C.ONTRAGTOR TO PROVIDE FLUID APPLIED DAMP PROOFINe AT ALL RETAININe AND PLANTER !;,!ALLS HHERE THE SIDE OF THE HALL OPPOSITE THE SOIL SIDE 15 EXPOSED TO VIEH AND ALL EXTERIOR !;,!ALLS HHERE THE AD.JAC.ENT FLOOR 5LA6 15 6ELOH eRADE.
rsvl5lone ~
lllt4
architect~, planner~
.2"150 camlno dlablo
eulte 110
l'lalnut creek., ca
"145"11
("1.25) .256-604.2
~u
Q
N
Q
~ ~ ~
<
00 ~ < 00 ~ ~
::C:ooZ Q
~ ~~ "' t-,
00 ~ ~ ~
Q
~o~ "' \C
~ =~ ~
Q
0 00 u "' I.fl
= ~ "' ~
00 ~ ~ Q
I
Q
~~o ~
N
~ .. z I
N
o~== Q
~
zo z ~ ~ ~ ~ <
A~HITEC TU"AL.

SITE PL.AN
dra,;n
"H
c.neG-w
"H
"'"''"' I l/:2:2/:2O:2S
ac.ale

AS SHOV'IN
J'"' no.
:2soc=r
&neet
A2.I

Appendix B: LOS Evaluation Criteria

Appendix B – Intersection Level of Service Analysis Criteria Intersection operations are evaluated using the methods provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). These methods use intersection characteristics to estimate average control delay and then assigns a Level of Service (LOS) value. Control delay is defined as the delay associated with deceleration, stopping, moving up in the queue, and acceleration experienced by drivers at a signalized intersection. Tables A-1 and A-2 describe the various LOS and the corresponding ranges of delays for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

TABLE A-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level
of Service Grade
Average Control Vehicle
Delay (Seconds) Description
A ≤10.0
Free Flow or Insignificant Delays: Operations with very low delay, when signal progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green light phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all.

B >10.0 and ≤20.0
Stable Operation or Minimal Delays: Generally occurs with good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized.

C >20.0 and ≤35.0
Stable Operation or Acceptable Delays:

Higher delays resulting from fair signal progression and/ or longer cycle lengths. Drivers begin having to wait through more than one red light. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.

D >35.0 and ≤55.0
Approaching Unstable or Tolerable Delays: Influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays result from unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop. Drivers may have to wait through more than one red light. Queues may develop, but dissipate rapidly, without excessive delays.

E >55.0 and ≤80.0
Unstable Operation or Significant Delays: Considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. High delays indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths and high volume to capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Vehicles may wait through several signal cycles. Long queues form upstream from intersection.

F >80.0
Forced Flow or Excessive Delays: Occurs with oversaturation when flows exceed the intersection capacity. Represents jammed conditions. Many cycle failures. Queues may block upstream intersections.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.

TABLE A-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level
of Service Grade
Average Control Vehicle
Delay (Seconds) Description
A ≤10.0 Little or No Delays
B >10.0 and 15.0 Short Traffic Delays
C >15.0 and 25.0 Average Traffic Delays
D >25.0 and 35.0 Long Traffic Delays
E >35.0 and 50.0 Very Long Traffic Delays
F >50.0 Extreme Traffic Delays with Intersection Capacity Exceeded Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.

Appendix C: Intersection Volumes

National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Meadow Ave & San Pablo Ave
City: Pinole Project ID:

Control: 2-Way Stop(NB/SB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 1 0 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 1 0 3 110 2 1 187
7:15 AM 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 2 0 0 163 0 2 276
7:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 1 194 2 0 332
7:45 AM 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 146 2 0 0 208 1 1 362
8:00 AM 2 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 2 172 6 0 2 170 2 0 362
8:15 AM 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 143 2 0 1 196 19 0 368
8:30 AM 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 129 0 1 2 184 8 0 330
8:45 AM 3 1 0 0 3 0 2 0 8 96 2 1 1 225 10 1 353

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 11 1 24 0 4 0 2 0 16 986 15 2 10 1450 44 5 2570 APPROACH %'s : 30.56% 2.78% 66.67% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 1.57% 96.76% 1.47% 0.20% 0.66% 96.09% 2.92% 0.33% PEAK HR : 07:30 AM 39 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 4 0 13 0 1 0 0 0 6 593 10 0 4 768 24 1 1424 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.000 0.650 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.862 0.417 0.000 0.500 0.923 0.316 0.250 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 1 0 0 0.5 0.5 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 1 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 2 245 2 0 1 140 3 0 400
4:15 PM 2 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 2 236 2 0 1 120 3 3 375
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 7 0 6 0 0 301 0 2 1 134 4 2 457
4:45 PM 1 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 2 290 1 0 1 109 6 1 418
5:00 PM 1 0 3 0 14 0 4 0 0 288 1 0 6 131 0 2 450
5:15 PM 1 0 1 0 3 0 4 0 2 262 0 1 2 123 7 1 407
5:30 PM 1 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 1 247 3 0 2 152 8 0 421
5:45 PM 1 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 2 287 7 0 1 144 5 1 454

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 8 0 11 0 41 0 22 0 11 2156 16 3 15 1053 36 10 3382 APPROACH %'s : 42.11% 0.00% 57.89% 0.00% 65.08% 0.00% 34.92% 0.00% 0.50% 98.63% 0.73% 0.14% 1.35% 94.52% 3.23% 0.90% PEAK HR : 05:00 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 4 0 7 0 24 0 11 0 5 1084 11 1 11 550 20 4 1732 PEAK HR FACTOR : 1.000 0.000 0.583 0.000 0.429 0.000 0.688 0.000 0.625 0.941 0.393 0.250 0.458 0.905 0.625 0.500 22-080341-001
11/15/2022
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM

0.954 0.688 0.486 0.930 0.903
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM

0.967
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.607 0.250 0.846 0.922
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Total
Meadow Ave Meadow Ave San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave

National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Appian Way/Pinon Ave & San Pablo Ave
City: Pinole Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 1 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 18 3 15 0 3 9 2 0 0 40 42 0 43 100 2 0 277
7:15 AM 24 4 18 0 10 18 2 0 1 91 38 0 56 142 2 0 406
7:30 AM 24 1 12 0 6 7 3 0 0 80 61 0 66 160 4 0 424
7:45 AM 37 3 21 0 11 14 1 0 1 98 65 1 98 192 8 0 550
8:00 AM 29 2 41 0 15 14 2 0 0 133 54 0 88 148 4 0 530
8:15 AM 50 9 54 0 20 14 2 0 1 114 56 1 90 155 7 0 573
8:30 AM 53 3 39 0 2 4 3 0 3 88 54 0 59 160 13 1 482
8:45 AM 64 3 28 0 8 7 4 0 0 89 40 0 44 177 7 1 472

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 299 28 228 0 75 87 19 0 6 733 410 2 544 1234 47 2 3714 APPROACH %'s : 53.87% 5.05% 41.08% 0.00% 41.44% 48.07% 10.50% 0.00% 0.52% 63.68% 35.62% 0.17% 29.78% 67.54% 2.57% 0.11% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 169 17 155 0 48 46 8 0 5 433 229 2 335 655 32 1 2135 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.797 0.472 0.718 0.000 0.600 0.821 0.667 0.000 0.417 0.814 0.881 0.500 0.855 0.853 0.615 0.250 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 1 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 88 15 96 0 4 7 3 0 1 274 54 1 61 127 13 0 744
4:15 PM 55 8 84 0 5 12 0 0 0 224 42 0 46 87 5 0 568
4:30 PM 70 12 74 0 5 8 2 0 4 251 49 1 44 80 4 4 608
4:45 PM 56 16 81 0 9 9 1 0 0 250 47 1 46 85 5 1 607
5:00 PM 56 15 86 0 8 11 1 0 2 258 63 1 39 86 6 0 632
5:15 PM 50 10 80 0 5 12 3 0 3 221 53 0 70 107 9 1 624
5:30 PM 64 20 70 0 10 7 0 0 1 221 48 1 38 111 4 1 596
5:45 PM 62 15 75 0 3 5 0 0 0 253 37 0 41 109 6 0 606

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 501 111 646 0 49 71 10 0 11 1952 393 5 385 792 52 7 4985 APPROACH %'s : 39.83% 8.82% 51.35% 0.00% 37.69% 54.62% 7.69% 0.00% 0.47% 82.68% 16.65% 0.21% 31.15% 64.08% 4.21% 0.57% PEAK HR : 04:00 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 269 51 335 0 23 36 6 0 5 999 192 3 197 379 27 5 2527 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.764 0.797 0.872 0.000 0.639 0.750 0.500 0.000 0.313 0.911 0.889 0.750 0.807 0.746 0.519 0.313 Data - Total
Appian Way/Pinon Ave Appian Way/Pinon Ave San Pablo Ave San Pablo Ave

0.754 0.708 0.894 0.858
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
22-080341-002
11/15/2022
04:00 PM - 05:00 PM

0.849 0.823 0.855 0.908 0.756
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM

0.932

Appendix D: Intersection LOS
Worksheets

Pinole Shores Project
1: Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway & San Pablo Avenue Existing AM NP HCM 2010 TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Fehr and Peers
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 593 10 1 4 768 24 4 0 13 1 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 6 593 10 1 4 768 24 4 0 13 1 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 60 - - - 70 - - - - - - - 20
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 4 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 6 611 10 1 4 792 25 4 0 13 1 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 818 0 0 622 621 0 0 1035 1456 311 1134 1449 411 Stage 1 - - - - - - - 628 628 - 816 816 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 407 828 - 318 633 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 6.4 4.1 - - 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.5 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 819 - - 587 969 - - 189 131 691 160 132 596 Stage 1 - - - - - - - 442 479 - 341 393 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 597 389 - 673 476 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 818 - - 853 853 - - 187 129 691 155 130 595 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - 187 129 - 155 130 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - 439 476 - 338 390 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 593 386 - 655 473 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 13.9 28.4

HCM LOS B D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 423 818 - - 853 - - 155 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.041 0.008 - - 0.006 - - 0.007 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 13.9 9.4 - - 9.2 - - 28.4 0
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - D A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
"i tf+

Pinole Shores Project
2: Appian Way/Pinon Avenue & San Pablo Avenue Existing AM NP HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 5 433 229 1 335 655 32 169 17 155 48 Future Volume (vph) 2 5 433 229 1 335 655 32 169 17 155 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 1745 3149 1753 3449 1711 1837 1510 1742 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.75
Satd. Flow (perm) 1745 3149 1753 3449 1295 1837 1510 1367 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 5 466 246 1 360 704 34 182 18 167 52
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 73 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 132 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 7 639 0 0 361 736 0 182 18 35 52 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 1 2 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 4% 5% 0% 3% 4% 3% 2% 0% 2% 0%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot Prot NA custom NA custom custom Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.9 24.3 20.4 43.8 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4 Effective Green, g (s) 0.9 24.3 20.4 43.8 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.33 0.28 0.59 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 21 1038 485 2049 270 383 315 285
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.20 c0.21 0.21
v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 0.01 0.02 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.62 0.74 0.36 0.67 0.05 0.11 0.18
Uniform Delay, d1 36.1 20.8 24.3 7.7 26.8 23.3 23.6 24.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.4 0.9 5.4 0.1 5.9 0.0 0.1 0.2
Delay (s) 39.5 21.7 29.6 7.8 32.8 23.3 23.7 24.2
Level of Service D C C A C C C C
Approach Delay (s) 21.9 15.0 28.2
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.7 Sum of lost time (s) 13.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
""i tf+ ""i + .,,

2: Appian Way/Pinon Avenue & San Pablo Avenue
Pinole Shores Project
Existing AM NP
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers
Traffic Volume (vph)
Lane Configurations
Movement SBT SBR
46 8
Future Volume (vph) 46 8
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Frt 0.98
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1794
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1794
Adj. Flow (vph)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93
49 9
Turn Type
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0%
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 6 0
NA
Permitted Phases
Protected Phases
8 Clearance Time (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21
Effective Green, g (s) 15.4
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.4

4.6 v/s Ratio Perm
v/s Ratio Prot
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 374
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5

0.03 v/c Ratio 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 23.7
Level of Service
Delay (s) 23.9
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1
Progression Factor 1.00C
Approach LOS
Approach Delay (s) 24.0C
Intersection Summary
+-
v
'-

Pinole Shores Project
1: Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway & San Pablo Avenue Existing PM NP HCM 2010 TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Fehr and Peers
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 1084 11 4 11 550 20 4 0 7 24 0 11
Future Vol, veh/h 6 1084 11 4 11 550 20 4 0 7 24 0 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 3 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 60 - - - 70 - - - - - - - 20
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0
Mvmt Flow 6 1141 12 4 12 579 21 4 0 7 25 0 12
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 603 0 0 1153 1156 0 0 1485 1797 580 1208 1793 304 Stage 1 - - - - - - - 1162 1162 - 625 625 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 323 635 - 583 1168 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 6.4 4.1 - - 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.58 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - 6.58 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - 6.58 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.5 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.54 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 971 - - 269 612 - - 88 81 463 137 82 698 Stage 1 - - - - - - - 211 272 - 434 480 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 669 476 - 460 270 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 969 - - 453 453 - - 84 77 462 130 78 696 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - 84 77 - 130 78 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - 209 270 - 430 462 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 634 458 - 450 268 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 27 30.2

HCM LOS D D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 175 969 - - 453 - - 130 696
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.066 0.007 - - 0.035 - - 0.194 0.017 HCM Control Delay (s) 27 8.7 - - 13.2 - - 39.3 10.3
HCM Lane LOS D A - - B - - E B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.7 0.1
"i tf+

Pinole Shores Project
2: Appian Way/Pinon Avenue & San Pablo Avenue Existing PM NP HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 5 999 192 5 197 379 27 269 51 335 23 Future Volume (vph) 3 5 999 192 5 197 379 27 269 51 335 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 1745 3262 1754 3433 1709 1837 1507 1743 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.72
Satd. Flow (perm) 1745 3262 1754 3433 1304 1837 1507 1317 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 4 6 1175 226 6 232 446 32 316 60 394 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 14 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 268 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 10 1387 0 0 238 474 0 316 60 126 27 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 1 1 3 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 4% 5% 0% 3% 4% 3% 2% 0% 2% 0%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot Prot NA custom NA custom custom Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.2 45.4 17.3 61.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 Effective Green, g (s) 1.2 45.4 17.3 61.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.45 0.17 0.60 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 20 1454 298 2073 326 460 377 329
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.43 c0.14 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 0.03 0.08 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.95 0.80 0.23 0.97 0.13 0.34 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 50.0 27.2 40.6 9.3 37.8 29.6 31.2 29.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.0 14.1 13.0 0.0 41.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 Delay (s) 57.0 41.3 53.6 9.3 78.8 29.7 31.6 29.3
Level of Service E D D A E C C C
Approach Delay (s) 41.4 24.0 50.8
Approach LOS D C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 101.8 Sum of lost time (s) 13.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
""i tf+ ""i + .,,

2: Appian Way/Pinon Avenue & San Pablo Avenue
Pinole Shores Project
Existing PM NP
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers
Traffic Volume (vph)
Lane Configurations
Movement SBT SBR
36 6
Future Volume (vph) 36 6
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Frt 0.98
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1797
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1797
Adj. Flow (vph)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85
42 7
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 44 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0
0% 0%
Turn Type NA
Actuated g/C Ratio
Effective Green, g (s) 25.5
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.5
Permitted Phases 8
Protected Phases

0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.6
v/c Ratio
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/s Ratio Prot
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 450
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5

0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 29.3
Delay (s)
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1
Progression Factor 1.00

29.4 Level of ServiceC
Intersection Summary
Approach LOS C
Approach Delay (s) 29.3+- v
'-

Pinole Shores Project
1: Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway & San Pablo Avenue Existing Plus Project AM HCM 2010 TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Fehr and Peers
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 32 593 10 1 4 768 86 4 0 13 14 0 6
Future Vol, veh/h 32 593 10 1 4 768 86 4 0 13 14 0 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 60 - - - 70 - - - - - - - 20
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 4 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 33 611 10 1 4 792 89 4 0 13 14 0 6
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 882 0 0 622 621 0 0 1089 1574 311 1220 1535 443 Stage 1 - - - - - - - 682 682 - 848 848 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 407 892 - 372 687 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 6.4 4.1 - - 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - 6.5 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.5 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 775 - - 587 969 - - 172 111 691 138 117 568 Stage 1 - - - - - - - 411 453 - 327 380 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 597 363 - 626 450 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 774 - - 853 853 - - 164 105 691 130 111 567 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - 164 105 - 130 111 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - 393 434 - 313 377 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 587 360 - 588 431 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0.1 14.6 28.7

HCM LOS B D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 393 774 - - 853 - - 130 567
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 0.043 - - 0.006 - - 0.111 0.011 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.6 9.9 - - 9.2 - - 36.1 11.4
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - E B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.4 0
"i tf+

Pinole Shores Project
2: Appian Way/Pinon Avenue & San Pablo Avenue Existing Plus Project AM HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 5 437 239 1 336 673 32 213 17 155 48 Future Volume (vph) 2 5 437 239 1 336 673 32 213 17 155 48 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 1745 3144 1753 3449 1711 1837 1509 1742 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.75
Satd. Flow (perm) 1745 3144 1753 3449 1295 1837 1509 1367 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 5 470 257 1 361 724 34 229 18 167 52
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 79 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 128 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 7 648 0 0 362 755 0 229 18 39 52 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 1 2 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 4% 5% 0% 3% 4% 3% 2% 0% 2% 0%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot Prot NA custom NA custom custom Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.9 25.2 21.0 45.3 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 Effective Green, g (s) 0.9 25.2 21.0 45.3 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.32 0.27 0.58 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 20 1011 470 1995 305 434 356 322
v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.21 c0.21 0.22
v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 0.01 0.03 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.64 0.77 0.38 0.75 0.04 0.11 0.16
Uniform Delay, d1 38.4 22.7 26.4 8.9 27.8 23.1 23.4 23.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 1.2 7.0 0.1 9.5 0.0 0.1 0.2
Delay (s) 42.2 23.9 33.4 9.0 37.3 23.1 23.6 23.9
Level of Service D C C A D C C C
Approach Delay (s) 24.1 16.9 31.1
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.3 Sum of lost time (s) 13.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
""i tf+ ""i + .,,

2: Appian Way/Pinon Avenue & San Pablo Avenue
Pinole Shores Project
Existing Plus Project AM
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers
Movement SBT SBR
Traffic Volume (vph)
Lane Configurations
46 8
Future Volume (vph) 46 8
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Frt 0.98
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1794
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1794
Adj. Flow (vph)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93
49 9
Turn Type
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0%
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 6 0
NA
Permitted Phases
Protected Phases
8 Clearance Time (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24
Effective Green, g (s) 18.5
Actuated Green, G (s) 18.5

4.6 v/s Ratio Perm
v/s Ratio Prot
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 423
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5

0.03 v/c Ratio 0.12
Uniform Delay, d1 23.5
Level of Service
Delay (s) 23.6
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1
Progression Factor 1.00C
Approach LOS
Approach Delay (s) 23.8C
Intersection Summary
+-
v
'-

Pinole Shores Project
1: Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway & San Pablo Avenue Existing Plus Project PM HCM 2010 TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Fehr and Peers
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 1084 11 4 11 550 32 4 0 7 75 0 33 Future Vol, veh/h 11 1084 11 4 11 550 32 4 0 7 75 0 33
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 3 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 60 - - - 70 - - - - - - - 20
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0
Mvmt Flow 12 1141 12 4 12 579 34 4 0 7 79 0 35
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 616 0 0 1153 1156 0 0 1497 1822 580 1226 1811 311 Stage 1 - - - - - - - 1174 1174 - 631 631 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 323 648 - 595 1180 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 6.4 4.1 - - 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.58 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - 6.58 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - 6.58 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.5 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.54 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 960 - - 269 612 - - 86 78 463 132 79 691 Stage 1 - - - - - - - 207 268 - 431 477 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 669 469 - 453 266 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 958 - - 453 453 - - 79 74 462 125 75 689 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - 79 74 - 125 75 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - 204 264 - 425 459 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 612 452 - 440 262 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.3 28.2 54.3

HCM LOS D F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity (veh/h) 167 958 - - 453 - - 125 689
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.069 0.012 - - 0.035 - - 0.632 0.05 HCM Control Delay (s) 28.2 8.8 - - 13.2 - - 73.6 10.5
HCM Lane LOS D A - - B - - F B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0.1 - - 3.3 0.2
"i tf+

Pinole Shores Project
2: Appian Way/Pinon Avenue & San Pablo Avenue Existing Plus Project PM HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 5 1014 229 5 197 382 27 278 51 335 23 Future Volume (vph) 3 5 1014 229 5 197 382 27 278 51 335 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 1745 3248 1754 3434 1709 1837 1507 1743 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.72
Satd. Flow (perm) 1745 3248 1754 3434 1304 1837 1507 1317 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 4 6 1193 269 6 232 449 32 327 60 394 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 17 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 267 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 10 1445 0 0 238 477 0 327 60 127 27 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 1 1 3 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 4% 5% 0% 3% 4% 3% 2% 0% 2% 0%
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot Prot NA custom NA custom custom Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 4 4 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.2 45.4 17.3 61.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 Effective Green, g (s) 1.2 45.4 17.3 61.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.45 0.17 0.60 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 20 1448 298 2074 326 460 377 329
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.44 c0.14 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 0.03 0.08 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.50 1.00 0.80 0.23 1.00 0.13 0.34 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 50.0 28.2 40.6 9.3 38.1 29.6 31.2 29.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.0 22.9 13.0 0.0 50.6 0.1 0.4 0.1 Delay (s) 57.0 51.1 53.6 9.3 88.8 29.7 31.6 29.3
Level of Service E D D A F C C C
Approach Delay (s) 51.1 24.0 55.4
Approach LOS D C E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 45.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 101.8 Sum of lost time (s) 13.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
""i tf+ ""i + .,,

2: Appian Way/Pinon Avenue & San Pablo Avenue
Pinole Shores Project
Existing Plus Project PM
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers
Movement SBT SBR
Traffic Volume (vph)
Lane Configurations
36 6
Future Volume (vph) 36 6
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.6
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Frt 0.98
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1797
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1797
Adj. Flow (vph)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85
42 7
Turn Type
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0%
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 44 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0
NA
Permitted Phases
Protected Phases
8 Clearance Time (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25
Effective Green, g (s) 25.5
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.5

4.6 v/s Ratio Perm
v/s Ratio Prot
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 450
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5

0.02 v/c Ratio 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 29.3
Level of Service
Delay (s) 29.4
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1
Progression Factor 1.00C
Approach LOS
Approach Delay (s) 29.3C
Intersection Summary
+-
v
'-

Pinole Shores Project
1: Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway & San Pablo Avenue Existing Plus Project AM (Signalized) HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 32 593 10 1 4 768 86 4 0 13 14 0
Future Volume (vph) 32 593 10 1 4 768 86 4 0 13 14 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 11 12 11 11 11 12 8 12 12 10
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.90 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 1745 3348 1745 3339 1460 1685
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.75
Satd. Flow (perm) 1745 3348 1745 3339 1398 1324
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 611 10 1 4 792 89 4 0 13 14 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 0 11 0 0 13 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 619 0 0 5 870 0 0 4 0 0 14
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 4% 2% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 1.6 18.8 0.6 17.8 8.8 8.8
Effective Green, g (s) 1.6 18.8 0.6 17.8 8.8 8.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.45 0.01 0.43 0.21 0.21
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 66 1509 25 1425 295 279
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.18 0.00 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.41 0.20 0.61 0.01 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 19.7 7.7 20.3 9.3 13.0 13.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.8 0.2 3.9 0.8 0.0 0.1
Delay (s) 25.5 7.9 24.2 10.0 13.0 13.2
Level of Service C A C B B B
Approach Delay (s) 8.8 10.1 13.0 13.1
Approach LOS A B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 41.7 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
"i tf+

Pinole Shores Project
1: Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway & San Pablo Avenue Existing Plus Project AM (Signalized) HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6
Future Volume (vph) 6
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Lane Width 10
Total Lost time (s) 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Frt 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1489
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1489
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 6
RTOR Reduction (vph) 5
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0%
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8
Effective Green, g (s) 8.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21
Clearance Time (s) 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 314
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.00
Uniform Delay, d1 13.0
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0
Delay (s) 13.0
Level of Service B
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary

Pinole Shores Project
1: Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway & San Pablo Avenue Existing Plus Project PM (Signalized) HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 11 1084 11 4 11 550 32 4 0 7 75 0
Future Volume (vph) 11 1084 11 4 11 550 32 4 0 7 75 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 11 12 11 11 11 12 8 12 12 10
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.91 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3449 1744 3361 1478 1620
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.75
Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3449 1744 3361 1373 1280
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 1141 12 4 12 579 34 4 0 7 79 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 9 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 1152 0 0 16 608 0 0 2 0 0 79
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 2 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0%
Turn Type Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 22.5 0.7 22.5 10.0 10.0
Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 22.5 0.7 22.5 10.0 10.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.48 0.01 0.48 0.21 0.21
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 25 1661 26 1619 294 274
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.33 c0.01 0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.06
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.69 0.62 0.38 0.01 0.29
Uniform Delay, d1 22.8 9.4 22.9 7.7 14.4 15.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 13.8 1.3 36.3 0.1 0.0 0.6
Delay (s) 36.6 10.7 59.1 7.8 14.5 16.0
Level of Service D B E A B B
Approach Delay (s) 11.0 9.1 14.5 15.5
Approach LOS B A B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.7 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
"i tf+

Pinole Shores Project
1: Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway & San Pablo Avenue Existing Plus Project PM (Signalized) HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 33
Future Volume (vph) 33
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Lane Width 10
Total Lost time (s) 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00
Frt 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1488
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1488
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 35
RTOR Reduction (vph) 28
Lane Group Flow (vph) 7
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)
Heavy Vehicles (%) 0%
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0
Effective Green, g (s) 10.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21
Clearance Time (s) 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 318
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 14.5
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0
Delay (s) 14.5
Level of Service B
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary

Appendix E: Signal Warrant
Worksheets

Project Pinole Shores
Major Street San Pablo Avenue Scenario Existing Conditions Minor Street Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway Peak Hour PM Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 4 24 6 15 North/South
Through 0 0 1,084 550 x East/West
Right 7 11 11 20
Total 11 35 1,101 585
Intersection Geometry
1 4

30.2 Approach with Worst Case Delay SB
35 Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Existing Conditions
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Not Met Met

0.3 35 1,732
4 100 800
F EHR,f PEERS

Project Pinole Shores
Major Street San Pablo Avenue Scenario Existing Conditions Minor Street Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway Peak Hour PM Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 4 24 6 15 North/South
Through 0 0 1,084 550 x East/West
Right 7 11 11 20
Total 11 35 1,101 585
2 1
NO
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,686 35
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met San Pablo Avenue Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
F EHR,f PEERS

Project Pinole Shores
Major Street San Pablo Avenue Scenario Existing Plus Project Conditions Minor Street Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway Peak Hour PM Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 4 75 11 15 North/South
Through 0 0 1,084 550 x East/West
Right 7 33 11 32
Total 11 108 1,106 597
Intersection Geometry
1 4

54.3 Approach with Worst Case Delay SB
108
Stopped Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Total Vehicles on Approach
Number of Approach Lanes for Minor Street
Worst Case Delay for Minor Street
Not Met
Existing Plus Project Conditions
Limiting Value
Condition Satisfied?
Warrant Met
Warrant 3A, Peak Hour
NO
Total Approaches
Peak Hour Delay on
Minor Approach
(vehicle-hours)
Peak Hour Volume
on Minor Approach
(vph)
Peak Hour Entering
Volume Serviced
(vph)
Met Met

1.6 108 1,822
4 100 800
FEHRf PEERS

Project Pinole Shores
Major Street San Pablo Avenue Scenario Existing Plus Project Conditions Minor Street Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway Peak Hour PM Turn Movement Volumes Major Street Direction

NB SB EB WB
Left 4 75 11 15 North/South
Through 0 0 1,084 550 x East/West
Right 7 33 11 32
Total 11 108 1,106 597
2 1
YES
Number of Approach Lanes
* Note: Traffic Volume for Major Street is Total Volume of Both Approches.

Traffic Volume for Minor Street is the Volume of High Volume Approach.

Traffic Volume (VPH) * 1,703 108
Major Street Minor Street Warrant Met San Pablo Avenue Meadow Avenue/Project Driveway 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street Higher Volume Approach - VPH
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicle Per Hour (VPH) Warrant 3B, Peak Hour
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, 2014 150*
100*
2 or More Lanes & 2 or More Lanes
1 Lane & 1 Lane
2 or More Lanes & 1 Lane
FEHRf PEERS

Pinole Shores Project
Transportation Demand
Management Plan
Prepared for:

M-Group and City of Pinole
April 2024
OK22-0492
FEHR,1 PEERS
Appendix H-1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 City of Pinole Requirements .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Trip Generation ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Location and Setting ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Pedestrian Access and Circulation ................................................................................................................................ 3 Bicycle Access and Circulation ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Transit ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Commute Mode Splits in the Project Area ........................................................................................................................ 5

2. Transportation Demand Management Measures .................................................................. 8 TDM Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Required TDM Elements ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 Encouraged TDM Elements ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 TDM Program Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

3. Monitoring and Reporting ..................................................................................................... 13 Annual Employee Commute Survey ...................................................................................................................................13 Annual TDM Summary Report ..............................................................................................................................................13 No Expiration of TDM Plan or Programs ..........................................................................................................................14 Appendices
Appendix A: Sample Commute Survey

List of Figures
Figure 1 – Project Location ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 – Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network ................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3 – Existing Transit Facilities ............................................................................................................................................... 7 List of Tables
Table 1: Project PCE Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Table 2: Worker Commute Mode Split ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Table 3: Required TDM Measures.............................................................................................................................................. 10 Table 4: Encouraged TDM Measures ........................................................................................................................................ 12

Pinole Shores Project TDM Plan
April 2024
1 1. Introduction
The proposed Pinole Shores Project is required to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan consistent with the City of Pinole’s General Plan Policy CE.6.2. This report provides an overview of the City’s requirements, a description of the proposed project, and existing available transportation modes at the site. This is followed by a description of required and encouraged TDM measures specifically tailored for the project based on the project’s location, available travel modes, and the operating conditions at the project. The report concludes by presenting the monitoring and reporting aspects for the TDM Plan.

City of Pinole Requirements
Policy CE.6.2 of the Pinole General Plan (adopted in 2010) requires implementation of “transportation demand management strategies in conjunction with land uses in order to prevent future traffic congestion in the city,” and outlines six actions:

Action CE.6.2.1: Coordinate with ride-sharing programs to provide up-to-date lists of potential riders and to educate the public on commuting options.

Action CE.6.2.2: Encourage the development of employer-funded vanpool and shuttle bus services to new employment centers.

Action CE.6.2.3: Encourage employer provision of information on alternative modes of transit.

Action CE.6.2.4: Encourage employers to offer flextime arrangements to their employees in order to reduce the percentage of trips made during peak hours.

Action CE.6.2.5: Work with schools to encourage carpooling and a flexible class schedule in order to reduce the percentage of trips made during peak hours.

Action CE.6.2.6: Establish and apply minimum carpool requirements for all nonresidential developments.

Project Description
Figure 1 shows the location of the project, which is located at 830 San Pablo Avenue in the City of Pinole and is currently a 7.4-acre vacant lot. The project would provide about 121,700 square feet of space for an industrial laundry facility. The project site is about 700 feet north of San Pablo Avenue.

The project would provide 125 passenger vehicle parking spaces, 6 ADA parking spaces, 5 truck parking spaces, and 18 loading docks. Access to the site would be provided through one existing driveway on San Pablo Avenue which is shared with other uses located between the project site and San Pablo Avenue. The driveway is located opposite Meadow Avenue with all movements allowed at the intersection and stop signs on the minor northbound and southbound approaches.

Project Site Project Site
Project Location
Figure 1
9--o'i).d
~,-r.,'<'
'("i
c,~ce
~6- o,5R d I
'<>~
:(\
'<''Oj
~
~
,;0~
~<f,
:"I, -
\JV O Uin
Q
itl
"' g
0 GATE EV
...
q
111
Ill
...
0 .Cl
II)
a!"
0 Ci a: san pab o Ave.
~ q;
B ttyA\ienue o
BAYF
H z I Str e
2!
....
1 r UC urt
Q
E c a Av nu
I:) k !11 C C
c !! Qj a,
Bi "-!" .:, .,,. :<{ It:"

Pinole Shores Project TDM Plan
April 2024
3 Project Trip Generation
Table 1 summarizes the daily, and AM and PM peak hour trip generation for the project, assuming a “General Light Industrial” trip generating use. The project is estimated to generate about 700 daily, 107 AM peak hour, and 90 PM peak hour passenger car equivalent (PCE)1 trips on a typical weekday.

Table 1: Project PCE Trip Generation
Land Use Size¹ Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
General Light
Industrial² 121.7 KSF 593 90 79
Truck PCE Adjustment³ 107 17 11
Total PCE Trips 700 107 90
Notes:

1. KSF = 1,000 square feet.

2. Based on vehicle trip generation rates in ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition land use category 110 (General Light Industrial) in General Urban/Suburban Setting:

Daily: T = 4.87 * X
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.74 * X
PM Peak Hour: T = 0.65 * X

3. Based on truck trip generation rates in ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, land use category 156 (High-Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse) in General Urban/Suburban Setting:

Daily: T = 0.58 * X
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.09 * X
PM Peak Hour: T = 0.06 * X
This trip generation estimate assumes a PCE of 2.5 for the truck trips.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Project Location and Setting
Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in the project vicinity are described below.

Pedestrian Access and Circulation
Walk Score is a measure of the walkability of any address based on distance to amenities within a 5 to 30- minute walk, and other metrics such as block length and intersection density. The project site has a Walk Score of 35/1002, meaning most trips from this location require a car. The project is expected to generate some pedestrian trips given its proximity to San Pablo Avenue. However, the location of the project site behind three existing buildings and the winding nature of the ADA-accessible path around them could discourage walking between the project site and San Pablo Avenue. 1 Passenger car equivalent (PCE) is used to convert truck and bus trips to passenger car trips to account for trucks and buses being larger and moving slower than passenger cars. 2 Walkscore.com, 830-848 San Pablo Avenue, Pinole, CA 94564, April 2024 (https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml)
l l

Pinole Shores Project TDM Plan
April 2024
4 Sidewalks are present on both sides of San Pablo Avenue and all other streets near the project site. A marked uncontrolled crosswalk across San Pablo Avenue at the intersection with the site’s access driveway provides pedestrian access across San Pablo Avenue.

Bicycle Access and Circulation
Bike Score measures if an area is good for biking considering the availability of bike infrastructure, terrain, destinations, street connectivity, and number of bike commuters. The project site has a Bike Score of 32/1003, meaning that the area is not very bikeable and there exists minimal bike infrastructure in the immediate area.

Figure 2 shows existing and proposed bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project. Existing bicycle facilities include:
• The San Francisco Bay Trail north of the BNSF railroad tracks north of the project site, accessible via Pinole Shores Drive, about 550 feet west of the project site • A Class III bicycle route on Pinole Shores Drive between San Pablo Avenue and the San Francisco Bay Trail
The Three Corridors Specific Plan (City of Pinole, adopted in 2010 and updated in 2019), consistent with the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2019) proposes the following near the project site:
• Class II bicycle lanes on San Pablo Avenue
It is expected that most cyclists would use San Pablo Avenue and/or the Bay Trail to access the site.

Transit
Existing transit service in the project area is shown on Figure 3 and described below.

WestCAT is the local bus service provided in western Contra Costa County, including Pinole. The bus service shown on Figure 3 represents the current service, as of April 2024, in the study area. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, WestCAT has reduced service, including eliminating lines and reducing service frequencies.

Routes C3 and JL/JR operate along San Pablo Avenue with connections to Contra Costa College, Hercules Transit Center, and the El Cerrito del Norte BART station with combined weekday headways of 15 minutes during the weekday peak commute periods. Prior to the pandemic, WestCAT also operated Route 17 along San Pablo Avenue that connected the project with the Richmond Parkway Transit Center. The nearest existing eastbound and westbound Route C3 and JL/JR bus stops to the project site are on San 3 Walkscore.com, 830-848 San Pablo Avenue, Pinole, CA 94564, April 2024 (https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml)

Pinole Shores Project TDM Plan
April 2024
5 Pablo Avenue at the far side of the intersection with Meadow Avenue and the access driveway to the site.

Neither stop provides any amenities, such as a shelter or bench.

Commute Mode Splits in the Project Area
Table 2 summarizes the commute mode splits for workers in the project census tract. Based on the US Census data, about 78 percent of the workers in the area drive alone and about 11 percent carpool to and from work. About 11 percent of the workers in the project census tract use non-automobile modes to travel to and from work, which is consistent with the level of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and the transit service in the project vicinity described above.

Table 2: Worker Commute Mode Split
Travel Mode Percent Mode Split
Drove Alone 78%
Carpool 11%
Walk 3%
Bike 1%
Transit 6%
Other 1%
Total 100%
Source: Census Transportation Planning Products, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2012-2016 Five-Year Estimates, Census tract 3591.02, Contra Costa County, California, summarized by Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Project Site Project Site Existing — Class I Bicycle Path Existing — Class III Bicycle Route Proposed — Class II Bicycle Lane Project Location
Figure 1
Existing Transit Facilities
Existing — Class I Bicycle Path Existing — Class III Bicycle Route Proposed — Class II Bicycle Lane Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network
Figure 2
BAYF
Hal I Str~e
2::.
....
t Br tt cerurt
0 d
E!ic1 a Av nu
- - - ---

Project Site WestCAT Service Transit Stops
GAiE EV
....
0 BettyAvenu
0 -- •
-
Q
.,..
0 3:

Ill
ft z IS eet
?.
....

C
BA'l'f
C

Pinole Shores Project TDM Plan
April 2024
8 2. Transportation Demand
Management Measures
The TDM Plan for the Pinole Shores project was developed to meet the specific needs of the project, considering the logistical resources, challenges, and opportunities of the site. The TDM measures provided in this plan identify elements and actions that commit the project to their implementation.

This chapter presents the goals and objectives of the TDM Plan and presents details on the required and encouraged measures for the project.

TDM Goals and Objectives
The primary goal of TDM programs is to reduce the number of drive-alone trips generated by new developments, by shifting a proportion of trips to more sustainable modes, such as walking, biking, transit, or carpooling. This, in turn, helps to alleviate traffic congestion, reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) which results in reduced greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution, and reduce demand for parking. This TDM Plan is designed to reduce single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips generated by the project.

Because of the success of many individual TDM measures depends on operating characteristics of the project site such as hours of operations, or other factors, such as where employees live, whether they need to combine the work commute with dropping off or picking up children from school or day care, and many other personal factors, it is difficult to know in advance which non-SOV mode will be most attractive to any specific individual or which TDM measure is most likely to encourage them to try it. The Employee Survey, described in Chapter 3, will solicit feedback on employees’ perceptions of obstacles to using a non-SOV mode and what additional measures would be most effective in achieving the project’s goal.

Roles and Responsibilities
A successful TDM Plan requires a combination of supportive site design elements, programming, and incentives to encourage employees to shift to non-SOV modes for commuting to work. Thus, the TDM strategies included in this plan include both one-time physical infrastructure improvements as well as ongoing operational strategies. Physical improvements are anticipated to have a one-time capital cost with some level of ongoing maintenance for certain measures. Operational strategies provide ongoing incentives and support for the use of non-SOV transportation modes. These TDM measures have monthly or annual costs and will require ongoing management.

Pinole Shores Project TDM Plan
April 2024
9 Required TDM Elements
Table 3 summarizes the required TDM measures for the project, provides a description of each measure, presents the estimated costs of implementing the measure, and estimates the effectiveness of the measure in reducing the SOV trips generated by the project. The infrastructure improvement measures (measures 1 through 5) will be implemented by the project prior to the occupancy of the project buildings. The other operational measures (measures 6 through 14) will be implemented after the buildings are occupied and will be on-going.

Encouraged TDM Elements
Table 4 summarizes the TDM measures that the project is encouraged to implement. Most of these measures cannot be implemented at this time or may not be effective in reducing SOV trips at this time.

For example, depending on the start and end time of work shifts at the site, providing transit subsidies (measure 19) could attract more employees to utilize the frequent transit options along San Pablo Avenue.

TDM Program Effectiveness
The effectiveness of the measures in Tables 3 and 4 is primarily based on research compiled in Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA], December 2021). This report is a resource for local agencies to quantify the benefit, in terms of reduced VMT, of implementing various TDM strategies. Although the focus of the CAPCOA research is reductions to VMT, the research used to generate the reductions also indicates vehicle trip reductions are applicable as well. For the purposes of this analysis the reduction in SOV is assumed to equal the VMT reduction.

It is estimated that the required TDM measures presented in Tables 3 and 4 would reduce the SOV trips generated by the project by about 5 to 10 percent.

Pinole Shores Project TDM Plan
April 2024
10 Table 3: Required TDM Measures
TDM Strategy Description
Costs¹ Effectiveness
Range² One Time Annual

1. Pedestrian Connections
Improve walkability and pedestrian access
between the project site and San Pablo Avenue.

Consider providing a more direct pedestrian path
between the project site and San Pablo Avenue
than the current circuitous pedestrian path
through the existing parking facilities and loading
docks. Another option is aligning the crosswalk
across the project access driveway on San Pablo
Avenue with the sidewalks on both sides of the
driveway.
$$$-$$$$ Low

2. Bus Shelter
Coordinate with the City of Pinole and WestCAT
to explore the feasibility and if found feasible,
install bus shelters and/or other amenities at the
bus stops in both directions on San Pablo
Avenue.
$$-$$$ Low

3. Bicycle Parking – Longterm and Short-term Provide long-term and short-term bicycle storages for commuters who travel by bike. $$ Low

4. Bicycle Repair Fixit
Station
Provide at least one fixit station within the project
site which will provide the tools necessary to
perform basic bicycle repairs and maintenance.
$ Low

5. Showers and Locker
Room
Provide at least one shower per gender and six
lockers per shower for each building. $$ Low

6. Remote Work
Allow employees who do not have to physically
be present at the project site to complete their
tasks to work remotely at least one day per week
$ Medium

7. Carpool/Vanpool Parking Reserve preferred parking spaces for carpools and vanpools. $ Low

8. Carpool Matching Efforts
and Promotions
Encourage employees to sign-up for 511
Rideshare or other similar programs that provide
employees with a computerized list of other
commuters near their employment and
residential ZIP code, along with the closest cross
street, phone number and hours commuters are
available to commute to and from work.

Individuals are then able to select and contact
others with whom they wish to match for a ride.
$ Low

9. Emergency Ride Home
Program
Encourage employees to sign-up for 511 Contra
Costa’s Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH). When
unexpected circumstances arise, the GRH
Program provides a free ride home from work for
employees who choose to commute by not
driving alone. The GRH Program is free for
employees who register for the program, work in
Contra Costa County, and use sustainable forms
of transportation, including walking, biking,
taking transit, or ridesharing.
$ Low

Pinole Shores Project TDM Plan
April 2024
11 TDM Strategy Description
Costs¹ Effectiveness
Range² One Time Annual

10. Transportation Kiosk
Provide a transportation information board or
commuter kiosk in the employee lounge and/or
lobby of each project building. The kiosk will
contain transportation information such as transit
schedules, bicycle maps, commuter materials, and
511 ridematching incentives.
$$ $ Low

11. Commute Program Flyer
At the start of employment, provide each
employee with an employee commute flyer. This
flyer will include (but not be limited to)
information about carpool parking, vanpool
program, transit opportunities, ride-matching
services, bicycle routes, and emergency ride
home program.
$ $ Low

12. TDM Project Coordinator
and Employee
Transportation
Coordinators
Designate a TDM coordinator for the project site.

The TDM coordinator(s) will manage and monitor
the employer commute programs and will be
responsible for ensuring that all employees are
aware of their transportation options and would
serve as a point of contact regarding the TDM
program.
$$ Low

13. Promotional programs
(Bike to Work Day, Earth
Day, Transportation
Spare the Air notices, enewsletters, etc.)
Provide promotional events and periodic articles
by the project TDM Coordinator for internal
employee newsletters, with ongoing highlights of
alternative commuters and their successes.
$-$$ Low

14. Participate in the Bay
Area Commuter Benefits
Program
Air District Regulation 14, Rule 1, also known as
the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program,
requires employers with 50 or more full-time
employees to register and offer commuter
benefits to their employees.
$ Low
Notes:

1. Approximate cost ranges:
$ <$1,000
$$ $1,000 - $10,000
$$$ $10,000 - $100,000
$$$$ >$100,000

2. Approximate effectiveness in reducing SOV trips*:

Low <3%
Medium 3-8%
High >8%
*Due to inherent uncertainty in the effectiveness of any given TDM strategy, these values represent a reasonable range of effectiveness for strategies placed in each tier.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.