Richmond City Council
January 24, 2023

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 22
• To the extent feasible, construction traffic will be scheduled and routed to reduce congestion during peak travel times.
• As soon as practical after grading, the contractor will install mulch or plant vegetation to reduce windblown PM on spoils piles and areas not subject to near-term paving.

3.6.2 Geology and Soils
The Hydrology and Water Quality controls section below outlines erosion and sediment BMPs that would minimize impacts to geology and soils during construction.

3.6.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Construction General Permit requires that a Spill Prevention Plan be developed along with the Project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to detail site-specific BMPs to prevent accidental spills from impacting water and land resources. The plan must outline response protocols and information for contacting the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)and other responsible agencies. Additionally, spill containment and absorbent materials must be kept on-site at all times, and petroleum products and hazardous waste must be removed from the Project area and disposed of at an appropriate location.

3.6.4 Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction activities that disturb one acre or more of land, and construction on smaller sites that are part of a larger project, must comply with a California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit (Order 2009- 0009-DWQ) that regulates stormwater leaving construction sites. Site owners must notify the state, prepare, and implement a SWPPP and monitor the effectiveness of the plan. The SWPPP must outline measures that will protect hydrology and water quality resources, including groundwater, from negative impacts during construction.

Construction site stormwater BMPs would follow the Construction Site Best Management Practices Manual (Caltrans 2017) to control and minimize the impacts of construction related activities. Some of these controls are also outlined in Section

3.6.1 as mitigations for air quality. The following BMPs, at a minimum, would be implemented at the site during construction:

1. Temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs to prevent the transport of earthen materials and other construction waste materials from disturbed land areas, stockpiles, and staging areas during periods of precipitation or runoff (such as silt fence, erosion control fabric, fiber rolls).

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 23

2. Tracking controls (such as designated ingress and egress areas) and designated staging areas outside of drainage areas.

3. Revegetation of all disturbed areas, including staging with native species only.

4. Temporary BMPs to prevent wind erosion and sediment transport of disturbed areas, such as use of water for dust control and covering of stockpiles.

5. Construction boundary fencing to limit land disturbance to areas not planned for construction.

3.6.5 Traffic During Construction
For activities within a public ROW, a Temporary Traffic Control Plan and Pedestrian Control Plan conforming with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices must be prepared and submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of applicable encroachment permits. Reviewing agencies would include Caltrans, El Cerrito, and Richmond for their respective ROWs.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 24
Section 4 Environmental Evaluation
The following sections evaluate the potential adverse impacts of the Project in compliance with CEQA. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (California Association of Environmental Professionals 2022) provides a sample checklist with a series of questions designed to enable the lead agency, and Caltrans, to identify Project impacts for 20 environmental topics; this IS generally follows this checklist.

Except where a specific threshold has been adopted by a public agency and is specified in the sections below, such as an air quality threshold, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines are used as thresholds of significance for the CEQA checklist questions.

Potential environmental impacts are described as follows:
• Potentially Significant Impact: An environmental impact that could be significant and for which no feasible mitigation is known. If any potentially significant impacts are identified in this Checklist, an EIR must be prepared. • Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: An environmental impact that requires the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce that impact to a less than significant level. • Less than Significant Impact: An environmental impact may occur; however, the impact would not exceed significance thresholds. • No Impact: No environmental impacts would result from implementation of the Project.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 25

4.1 AESTHETICS

4.1.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is located in a highly urbanized area consisting primarily of paved local roadways (Central Avenue, San Mateo Street, Pierce Street, and San Luis Street).

The Project area is surrounded by a mix of single-family residential homes and apartments as well as an assortment of commercial and light industrial buildings.

The I-80/Central Avenue Interchange is approximately 200 feet west of Pierce Street and obstructs views west of the Project area. There is a 2.5-acre vacant property located along the east side of San Luis Street with a current land use entitlement allowing for construction of up to 172 multi-family apartment-type unit There are utility poles obstructing sidewalks along the roadways and landscaping is very sparse in the Project area. There are approximately 47 trees of varying type and size sporadically located along Central Avenue and San Mateo Street. Also, there are a small number of ornamental landscape trees and shrubs in front of a commercial property along Pierce Street.

Existing nighttime light sources in the Project area include street lighting along Central Avenue, San Mateo Street, Pierce Street, San Luis Street, and other adjacent roadways, as well as security lighting from the surrounding residences and commercial buildings.

A Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) was prepared for this Project and is available upon request (Vallier & Associates 2018).

4.1.2 CEQA Checklist Summary
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a state scenic highway?
No Impact
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant
Impact

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 26
CEQA Question Impact
Determination
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant
Impact

4.1.3 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099:
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact
Review of the Caltrans Vista Points dataset for Contra Costa County identified the Bird Roosting Island Vista Point west of the Project area along Central Avenue (Caltrans 2015). However, the Project area and designated vista point are separated by the I-80 Interchange and are not within visual proximity of one another.

There will be no significant change in vertical features that could block views within the area from any of the Project roadways. There is existing street lighting that will be relocated within the new roadway alignment but will not significantly alter any views. All other changes will occur at ground level and will provide visual improvements.

Based on the VIA, no scenic vistas were identified within the proposed Project setting (Vallier & Associates 2018). Views southward from Pierce Street to Albany Hill would be unaffected by the Project. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on a scenic vista.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact
No notable scenic resources were identified within the Project setting. Review of the Caltrans Scenic Highway Mapping System for Contra Costa County did not identify any officially designated scenic highways in the immediate vicinity of the Project area that would be impacted as a result of the proposed Project (Caltrans n.d.-a) Because the Project is not located within a designated state scenic highway, there would be no impact.

Based on the VIA, no scenic resources of note, nor any historic buildings, were identified within the Project setting (Vallier & Associates 2018). There are no local or state scenic roadways in the Project viewshed. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on a scenic resource.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 27
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project is in an urban area and would create minor levels of visual change within a setting of viewer sensitivity ranging from moderate (residents) to low (others). In general, visual changes due to the proposed Project would be relatively minor, including construction of new curbs, new paving and striping, relocation of traffic signals from the Pierce/San Luis intersection to the Central/San Mateo intersection, associated widening at the Central/San Mateo intersection to accommodate new turn lanes, a new bus stop at the southeast corner of the intersection, and a new short roadway extension between two existing roadways.

These comparatively minor visual changes would be consistent with the existing roadway-dominated character of the Central Avenue streetscape. Visual changes proposed for Pierce and San Mateo Streets, including new streetlights, potential undergrounding of utilities, and road extension would also be consistent with their existing character. An existing residence at 3221 San Mateo Street would be removed to accommodate the new proposed roadway alignment. This generally low level of visual change would occur within a setting of viewer sensitivity and response that ranges from moderate (residences) to low (others).

The Project is located primarily within the City of Richmond, with portions of two parcels in the City of El Cerrito. Within Richmond, the Project is located in an area designated in the General Plan for Regional Commercial Mixed-Use. No applicable policies that would pertain specifically to aesthetics or scenic quality of the Project were identified in the Richmond General Plan or Zoning Ordinance.

The El Cerrito portion of the Project is in the Transit Oriented Higher Intensity Mixed-Use General Plan designation and zoning district (City of El Cerrito 2014).

The applicable land use only includes the northwest corner of the apartment complex at San Mateo and Central Avenue, and the zoning does not indicate any specific aesthetic or scenic quality-related requirements applicable to the proposed Project.

Although the Community Development and Design Element of the El Cerrito 1999 General Plan articulates various broad goals for urban design in the city, no policies regarding aesthetics, scenic quality, or urban design that would specifically pertain to the proposed Project were identified. More specific land use and urban design goals and polices in the Plan are described in Design and Development Guidelines, in reference to specific priority development areas, but the proposed Project does not fall within any of these plan areas. The City of El Cerrito San Pablo Avenue

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 28
Specific Plan contains view standards in Section 2.05.02.03 to “acknowledge existing key natural and scenic views of Mount Tamalpais, the Golden Gate Bridge, Albany Hill, the East Bay Hills and the San Francisco Skyline, and to leverage context-sensitive design and minimize the impact of new development on these views” (City of El Cerrito 2014). The proposed Project does not fall within any of these natural and scenic views. Similarly, no specific zoning ordinances relating to the aesthetic/visual aspects of the Project were identified for either Richmond or El Cerrito. Neither Richmond nor El Cerrito identify scenic roadways or highways in their General Plans.

Thus, the Project would not conflict with applicable local zoning, general plan, or other regulations relating to scenic quality. The impact would be less than significant.

The VIA did note a potential nuisance concern regarding the northern wall of the Public Storage building that the sidewalk of the San Mateo Street extension would abut. There is concern that this wall would provide an attractive nuisance for graffiti. While not required to mitigate an impact under CEQA, it is recommended that the City adopt the following minimization and avoidance measure:

Avoidance Measure 1: In the event of future graffiti on the exposed walls, the City shall work with the property owners to coordinate repainting the affected wall with graffiti-resistant paint (per ASTM D6578/D6578M-13) or work with the property owners and arts community to paint a mural in that location. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Project would relocate the current traffic signal at Central Avenue and San Luis/Pierce Street to the Central Avenue/San Mateo Street intersection. This would not result in an overall increase in lighting.

There will be 13 streetlights protected, 20 new streetlights added, three parking lights removed, and two new parking lights added into the Project area. New pedestrian lighting would be installed along both the existing and proposed segments of San Mateo Street similar in character and intensity to the existing lighting. These light standards would be typical of urban residential neighborhoods and would represent a potential improvement in nighttime safety for the residences on this street. The potential for intrusive night lighting within nearby homes would be minimized by the canopies of new street tree plantings proposed along San Mateo Street in this segment.

Street lighting associated with the traffic signal at Central Avenue and San Luis/Pierce Street would be relocated to the intersection of Central Avenue and San

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 29
Mateo Street. This lighting would be essentially similar in character and intensity to the existing lighting at Central Avenue and San Luis/Pierce Street, thus no new net glare or lighting-associated adverse impacts are anticipated in this segment of Central Avenue.

Overall, no substantial new sources of light or glare are proposed, and no significant adverse effects on day or nighttime views is anticipated.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 30

4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site is located in a highly urbanized area of the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito. The Project area is zoned for commercial and residential uses (see Section 4.11, Land Use & Planning). The area has not been used historically for agricultural or timberland production.

There are no agriculture or forestry land uses on or near the Project site. The Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2018 Map depicts that the majority of farmland of regional or state importance in the east regions of Contra Costa County (California Department of Conservation 2018).

4.2.2 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code §
51104(g))?
No Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact

4.2.3 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 31
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact
As discussed in the Environmental Setting section, the Project is not located in an area of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency (California Department of Conservation 2019a). Additionally, the Project does not propose features that would result in a change in land use; therefore, the Project would have no impact on farmland, nor would it convert farmland to non-agricultural use. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact
There are no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) in the Project vicinity therefore, there are no Williamson Act contracts in the vicinity (California Department of Conservation 2016). Because there are no agricultural zoning designations and no Williamson Act contracts associated with the Project, there would be no impact.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?
No Impact
There are no forestland or timberland land uses or zoning designations in the Project vicinity. The nature of the Project has no impact on land development or conversion of land use. Therefore, the Project does not have potential to conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
There are no forestland or timberland land uses or zoning designations in the Project vicinity. The nature of the Project has no impact on land development or conversion of land use. Therefore, the Project does not have potential result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 32
No Impact
Refer to responses a-d. There is no potential for this infrastructure Project to result in a conversion of land and there is no farmland or forest land associated with the Project; therefore, there would be no impact on Farmland or agricultural uses.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 33

4.3 AIR QUALITY

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
The topography of a region can substantially impact air flow and resulting pollutant concentrations. California is divided into 15 air basins with similar topography and meteorology to better manage air quality throughout the state. Each air basin has a local air district that is responsible for identifying and implementing air quality strategies to comply with ambient air quality standards.

The Project is located within the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, which includes Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and parts of Sonoma and Solano counties. Air quality regulation in the San Francisco Air Basin is administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

Climate, weather, and terrain influence local air quality. Factors such as the amount of sunlight, wind and rain all have strong influences. Winds can transport ozone (O3) and O3 precursors from regionally, contributing to air quality problems downwind of sources. Furthermore, mountains can act as a barrier that prevents pollution from dispersing. Recent large fires in the Sierra Nevada have shown how winds can spread pollution. In one example from 2021, fire smoke from the Lake Tahoe region was clearly visible from space and traveled 100s of miles into central Utah. Hence, emissions generated in Richmond don’t only affect the city – pollution can travel, mix with other pollutants, and impact those downwind.

Richmond, like much of the coastal East Bay, enjoys a mild Mediterranean climate year-round. The average highs range from 57 to 73˚F and the lows are generally between 43 to 56˚F year-round. Richmond usually enjoys an “Indian Summer”, and September is, on average, the warmest month, while January is usually the coldest month. The highest recorded temperature in Richmond was 112˚F in September 2022 while the coldest was 24˚F in January 1990. The rainy season begins in late October and ends in April or May.

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common air pollutants. These standards are prescribed levels of pollutants that represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The federal and State ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related effects. As a result, federal and State standards differ in some cases.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 34
Federal Regulations
The EPA is responsible for enforcing the federal Clean Air Act and the 1990 amendments to it, as well as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that the EPA establishes. These standards identify levels of air quality for six criteria pollutants, which are considered the maximum levels considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. The six criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (PM10) and fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of

2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and lead.

State Regulations
CARB oversees air quality planning and control throughout California. It is primarily responsible for ensuring implementation of the 1989 amendments to the California Clean Air Act, responding to the federal Clean Air Act Amendment requirements, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products within the state. In general, California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are more stringent than federal standards. This is particularly true for ozone and PM

10. Transportation projects may create temporary increases in emissions or a “hot- spot.” Under the transportation conformity regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 93.123(c)(5)), construction-related activities that cause temporary increases in emissions are not required to conduct a “hot-spot” analysis.

These are exempted from special analysis if they occur only during the construction phase and last 5 years or less at any individual site.

Federal and State Air Quality Attainment Status
Air quality conditions in the Bay Area are compared against the NAAQS and the state level (California Ambient Air Quality Standards). The attainment status is classified for each pollutant.

Under the NAAQS, the Bay Area is classified as nonattainment for the one-hour and 8-hour ozone standard. The area is also classified as nonattainment for PM2.5.

Although the EPA issued a final rule in 2013 to determine that the Bay Area attains the 24-hour PM2.5 national standard, the Bay Area continues to be designated as “nonattainment” for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS standard until BAAQMD submits a “redesignation request” and a “maintenance plan” to EPA, and EPA approves the proposed redesignation. The Bay Area is designated attainment for nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead and sulfur dioxide. While BAAQMD monitoring data show the region meets the PM
10 NAAQS, the area is technically designated
“unclassified.” At the state level, the area is designated nonattainment for ozone, PM2.5 and PM10 and considered “attainment” for all other criteria air pollutants (CARB 2018b).

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 35
Local Regulations
Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2017b) to plan for and achieve compliance with the federal and State ozone standards. The 2017 plan updates the 2010 Clean Air Plan pursuant to air quality planning requirements. To fulfill state ozone planning requirements, the 2017 Plan includes a wide range of control measures designed to decrease emissions of harmful air pollutants, such as particulate matter, ozone (measured as reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NOx]), and toxic air contaminants; decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and decrease emissions of CO2 by reducing fossil fuel combustion (BAAQMD 2017b).

The BAAQMD has published their CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2010), which are used in this analysis to evaluate air quality impacts of projects; while these guidelines have been updated to reflect current Supreme Court opinions, they are currently being further updated. The Guidelines provide BAAQMD-recommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements. The control measures identified in the 2017 Plan (BAAQMD 2017b) are identified in the Guidelines as recommendations and/or mitigation measures.

Bay Area Plan 2050
In October 2021, the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission adopted the Bay Area Plan 2050. The plan looks at strategies to improve housing, transportation, climate change adaptation and economic development. The planning involved modeling various future scenarios and involved over 8,000 citizens, businesses, and other affected groups. The modeling involved levels called “Horizons” and “Futures.” According to the document, “The 35 strategies included in Plan Bay Area 2050 proved effective across multiple Futures or respond to challenges that remained unaddressed after the conclusion of the Horizon effort.” The following two transportation strategies apply to this Project:

T6. Improve interchanges and address highway bottlenecks. Rebuild interchanges and widen key highway bottlenecks to achieve short- to medium-term congestion relief.

T8. Build a Complete Streets network. Enhance streets to promote walking, biking and other micro-mobility through sidewalk improvements, car-free slow streets, and 10,000 miles of bike lanes or multi-use paths

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 36
Thresholds of Significance
In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA. These thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believe air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA.

Table 3 presents the significance thresholds used in this analysis, including annual emissions for operational emissions and daily standards for short‐term construction- related emissions. A project with daily emission rates below these thresholds is considered to have a less than significant effect on air quality (BAAQMD 2010).

Table 3. BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance for Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors (BAAQMD 2017b)
Criteria Air
Pollutant
Construction
Thresholds -
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Operational
Thresholds -
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Operational
Thresholds -Annual
Average Emissions
(tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
Carbon Monoxide Not Applicable

9.0 ppm (8-hour
average) or 20.0
ppm (1-hour
average)

9.0 ppm (8-hour
average) or 20.0 ppm
(1-hour average)
Fugitive Dust
Construction Dust
Ordinance or other
Best Management
Practices
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = coarse particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. If the Project’s expected emissions fall below

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 37
the de minimus threshold, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary.

HEALTH EFFECTS
Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions can cause adverse health impacts. High concentrations of ozone have the potential to irritate lungs, and long-term exposure may cause lung tissue damage and cancer. Typical sources of low-altitude ozone are almost entirely formed from ROG/volatile organic compounds and NOx in the presence of sunlight and heat. Common precursor emitters include motor vehicles and other internal combustion engines, solvent evaporation, boilers, furnaces, and industrial processes (CARB 2018b).

Particulate matter PM10 (respirable particulate matter) and PM2.5 (fine particulate matter) can irritate the eyes and respiratory tract and decrease lung capacity. Both are associated with increased cancer, heart disease, and mortality and contribute to haze and reduced visibility (CARB 2018a).

If emissions generated from project construction do not exceed the applicable BAAQMD thresholds for ozone, PM
10, and PM2.5, the emission of criteria pollutants
for which the area is non-attainment would not be associated with adverse health impacts.

4.3.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant
Impact
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant
Impact
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less Than Significant
Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant
Impact

4.3.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 38
Because the Project receives partial federal funding it must comply with special regulations for air quality impacts from transportation projects. The Project must conform to both regional and local plans.

The MTC prepares and updates transportation plans; the current plan is Bay Area Plan 2050. This plan includes a variety of projects, of which this Project is one. The MTC conducts regional air modeling to confirm that projects and actions would not inhibit air district efforts to achieve clean air. Thus, the MTC plan (under which this Project falls) is harmonized with the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan.

Projects that create new traffic volumes or that increase vehicle miles travelled would usually contribute to more pollution. Hence, they might be considered to have a significant impact on efforts to achieve the NAAQS and CAAQS. This Project does not increase miles travelled or create more trips. Its sole function is to reduce congestion and promote more efficient vehicle travel..
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project region is non-attainment for federal ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5, and state ambient air quality standards for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.

The BAAQMD has established that if the Project’s expected emissions fall below the de minimus threshold, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary.

Extensive modeling was conducted in 2018 using current and forecast traffic volumes to estimate vehicle emissions. These are shown in below.

Table 4. I-80 Central Avenue Summary of Operational Emissions 2018 Scenario/
Analysis Year
CO
Pounds
per
day/tons
per year
PM10
Pounds per
day/tons
per year
PM2.5
Pounds
per
day/tons
per year
NOx
Pounds per
day/tons per
year
Existing No Project 15.45 / 2.82 0.84 / 0.15 0.36 / 0.07 4.32 / 0.79 Existing Plus Project 14.46 / 2.64 0.78 / 0.14 0.34 / 0.06 4.05 / 0.74 2040 No Project 9.19 / 1.68 1.07 / 0.19 0.44 / 0.08 1.89 / 0.35 2040 Plus Project 9.21 / 1.68 1.05 / 0.19 0.43 / 0.08 1.82 / 0.33 Source: Illingworth & Rodkin 2019
As can be seen, these emissions are substantially lower than BAAQMD significance thresholds.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 39
Additionally, Fehr and Peers conducted traffic counts in August 2022 to verify the counts made in 2018. Traffic volumes changed slightly as shown in Table 5.

Average Daily Traffic Volumes Comparison below. Thus, the Build 2040 option traffic volumes might increase by the same percentages.

Table 5. Average Daily Traffic Volumes Comparison
Day of Week
ADT: Central Avenue
between San Mateo
and Carlson (2017)
ADT: Central
Avenue between
Pierce and San
Mateo (2022)
Percent
Change
Typical Weekday
(Wed. to Thurs.) 20,010 20,466 2.3%
Saturday 20,936 18,966 -9.4%
ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Source: Fehr & Peers 2022
As shown, average traffic volumes have increased between 2017 and 2022 on one part of Central Avenue and decreased on another segment. Looking at the worst increase, 2%, if this change holds for 2040, emissions will likely increase by about 2%. This does not materially change the Project’s compliance with BAAQMD Significance Thresholds. For example, the district’s PM2.5 threshold is 54 lbs/day.

The 2040 Build project is expected to create approximately 0.43 lbs/day PM2.5. A 2% increase of 0.43 lbs well below the 54 lbs/day Significance Threshold. The same holds true for the other criteria pollutant emissions modeled. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact
BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors to include residential dwellings, including apartments, houses, and condominiums; schools, colleges, and universities; daycare centers and hospitals, and senior-care facilities. Most of the surrounding area is developed with residential and commercial uses.

Project impacts related to increased community risk can occur either by introducing a new sensitive receptor, such as a residential use, in proximity to an existing source of toxic air contaminants or by introducing a new source of contaminants with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity. The Project would not introduce new sensitive receptors, nor would it introduce a new permanent toxic air contaminant source. However, construction activity would generate dust and equipment exhaust on a temporary basis that could affect nearby sensitive receptors.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 40
Since no new traffic will be created by the Project, exposure to sensitive receptors was analyzed for the construction period. Air modeling was conducted to estimate construction emissions. In the model, Project completion was assumed to require about 7 months, or 160 days. Estimated emissions are shown in the Table 6:

Table 6. Construction Emissions for the Build Alternative 2018 Scenario ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
CO2e
(metric
Tons)
Total construction
emissions (tons) 0.32 tons 3.37 tons 0.16 tons 0.15 tons 444.20 (metric tons)
Average daily
emissions (pounds)1

4.0 lbs/day

42.1 lbs/day

2.0 lbs/day

1.9 lbs/day
6,120.5
lbs/day
Note: 1Assumes 160 workdays
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin
All emissions are below the Thresholds of Significance. For all proposed projects, BAAQMD recommends the implementation of all Basic Construction Controls (BAAQMD 2010) whether or not construction-related emissions exceed applicable thresholds of significance. These controls are specified in Section 3.6.1. Therefore, the Project does not result in exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact
Disturbance to naturally occurring asbestos during construction is a concern in parts of California. According to information presented in the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology map, naturally occurring asbestos is not indicated in the Project footprint or in the vicinity of the Project (California Department of Conservation 2011).

Road construction and building demolition typically creates dust and diesel exhaust.

The house at 2021 San Mateo Street will be demolished and grading, digging for utilities, and paving will occur. These activities have a potential to create dust and exhaust fumes that are an annoyance to sensitive receptors. Additionally, dust can soil homes, cars, and businesses. Dust and exhaust the construction controls are specified in Section 3.6.1. These include standard BAAQMD construction controls as well as Caltrans’ Standard Specifications in Section 14-9 (2015). The construction controls specified in Section 3.6.1 would ensure construction emissions are less than significant.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 41

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.4.1 Environmental Setting
The Project area consists primarily of existing roadway and developed surfaces including parking lots and buildings, with some minor areas of landscaping and previously developed land. An NCE Scientist walked the entire Project area on June 22, 2018 to assess the potential for special status plant and animal species or their habitats to occur within the Project area. An NCE Scientist walked the entire revised Project area again on September 14, 2022, to identify and map all trees within and adjacent to the Project area. The diameter at breast height (dbh) was measured for each tree and it was noted whether the tree was native or non-native. No suitable habitat was identified within the Project area for any of the special status species.

There are 47 trees within or near the Project area.

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects plants and wildlife that are listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Section 9 of the FESA prohibits the taking of endangered wildlife, where taking is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct” (50 CFR 17.3). This statute also governs removing, possessing, maliciously damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on federal land and removing, cutting, digging up, damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on non-federal land in knowing violation of state law.

Under Section 7 of the FESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS and/or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration–National Marine Fisheries Service if their actions, including permit approvals or funding, could adversely affect a federally listed species (including plants) or its critical habitat.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds. The law applies to the removal of nests (such as swallow nests on bridges) occupied by migratory birds during the breeding season.

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species
Executive Order 13112 requires federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States. Invasive species are defined as “any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 42
of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.”
Federal Highway Administration guidance issued August 10, 1999, directs the use of the invasive species list, maintained by the California Invasive Species Council, to define the invasive plants that must be considered as part of the National Environmental Policy Act analysis of a proposed project within California.

State
California Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and Section 2081 of the CDFG Code, an Incidental Take Permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is required for projects that could result in the “take” of a State listed threatened or endangered species. Under CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species proposed for listing (called “candidates” by the state). Section 2080 of the CDFG Code prohibits the taking, possession, purchase, sale, and import or export of endangered, threatened, or candidate species, unless otherwise authorized by permit or in the regulations.

California Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) of 1977 (CDFG Code Sections 1900-1913) was created in order to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” The NPPA is administered by CDFW; they have the authority to designate native plants as “endangered” or “rare” and to protect endangered and rare plants from take. CESA provided further protection for rare and endangered plant species, but the NPPA remains part of the CDFG Code.

Local – Tree Removal
City of Richmond Municipal Code
The Municipal Code’s Tree Preservation Standards (15.04.840.050) state that the Director of the Department of Public Works shall review all projects, both new development and additions or renovations to existing properties, to ensure their compliance with the provisions of the Urban Forest Management Plan and related city or any other specific ordinances and guidelines. Landmark trees and major groves will be preserved as required by the Director of the Department of Public Works and this Code.

Chapter 10.8 Trimming, Pruning, Care, Planting, Removal and Moving of Trees, Shrubs or Plants. Section 10.08.030 requires permits be obtained prior to cutting,

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 43
removing, or interfering with any tree, shrub or plant upon any street, park, pleasure ground, boulevard, alley, or public place located in the City of Richmond.

City of Richmond General Plan
The Conservation, Natural Resources and Open Space Element of the General Plan includes the following policies aimed at protecting natural resources considered “vital to the City and surrounding region because they provide a biologically diverse environment for people” (City of Richmond 2012).

Policy CN1.2 – Local Native Plant Species promotes the use of locally propagated native plant and tree species, including removal and control of invasive exotic plant species.

City of Richmond Urban Greening Master Plan
The City’s Urban Greening Master Plan is structured around five core goals and identifies policies and actions to achieve these goals (Vallier Design Associates, MacNair & Associates, and LSA Associates 2017). Goal 1 seeks a net zero loss of trees. The Plan supports greening efforts in all areas of the City, although is primarily focused on planting street trees and additional landscaping.

El Cerrito Municipal Code
The Public Tree and Shrub Ordinance (13.28.020) states that “the City of El Cerrito City Council finds and declares that the urban forest, including existing and future public trees located within the City of El Cerrito, are a valuable and distinctive natural resource. The Urban Forest of the City augments the economic base through the provision of resources, community character, and enhancement of the living environment. These resources are a major infrastructure element, offering many benefits to the city, county, and region.”

13.28.070 Pruning and Removing Trees and Shrubs in Public Places, Including Street Trees and Shrubs. “Any Person may submit a request for the City to Prune or remove a Public Tree, and this request shall be considered and prioritized for action based on public safety, Tree health, and other criteria maintained by the Director.” El Cerrito General Plan
The Community Development and Design Element of the General Plan addresses land use, community design, housing, and growth management (City of El Cerrito 1999). The section on land use contains the future land use plan map and a description of the land use categories used in the plan. This includes policies, such as CD3.12 – Landscape Species. Indigenous and drought-tolerant species that reduce water usage and are compatible with El Cerrito’s climate are encouraged.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 44
El Cerrito Urban Forest Management Plan
The Urban Forest Management Plan describes the benefits a successful urban forest can provide, outlines the elements necessary for an urban forest to provide those benefits and provides the goals and strategies necessary for El Cerrito’s urban forest to reach this standard of performance (Vallier Design Associates and MacNair & Associates 2007). Goal 1 is the establishment and maintenance of a citywide commitment to a healthy, growing urban forest in the City of El Cerrito. The Plan requires street tree planting and maintenance as a condition of all development and renovation projects, including tree planting and staking, irrigation, and maintenance.

El Cerrito Urban Greening Plan
The Urban Greening Plan defines community priorities to make a sustainable, vibrant urban environment (MIG and the City of El Cerrito Community Development Department 2015). It contains Objective 2: Greener Gateways, such as Central Avenue in this Project, that reinforces community identity and sense of place by creating distinct gateways that improve and highlight natural elements, reinforcing the community’s commitment to environmental sustainability.

4.4.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)? Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?
No Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 45
CEQA Question Impact
Determination
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant
Impact
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact

4.4.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated A query of federally listed wildlife species for the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle encompassing the Project area was obtained from the USFWS’s Sacramento Endangered Species Office IPaC website on June 26, 2018 (USFWS n.d.). Additional information about the distribution of special status species with the potential to occur within the Project area was compiled from the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for occurrences of special status species within a 1-mile radius of the proposed Project alignment (CDFW n.d.); from aerial photographs of the Project area; and from USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps of the Project area. Information on the distribution of special status species with potential to occur in the Project region also was compiled from published literature. The CNDDB (CDFW n.d.), California Native Plant Society (n.d.), and IPaC (USFWS n.d.) databases were reviewed a second time in April 2022 to confirm if any special status plant and animal species were removed or added for the Project area. Results of these queries are discussed below.

The database searches identified five federally endangered wildlife species with the potential to be present within the Project area. The official list is provided within the Biological Resources Evaluation (NCE 2022b), provided upon request.

Reconnaissance-level field surveys of the Project area were conducted on June 26, 2018 and September 14, 2022. These surveys focused on identifying the presence of special status species or their habitat within the Project vicinity.

Based on a reconnaissance-level survey, background research of occurrence records for special status species, and the lack of suitable habitat present, it is unlikely that any special status species occur within the Project area.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 46
However, the Project area and adjacent lands contain trees which may provide habitat for migratory birds. Migratory birds are protected under the MBTA, and birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5. Both make it illegal to “take” protected species except under the terms of a permit. It is possible that nesting habitat could be disturbed during construction due to tree removal, noise, and vibrations from construction equipment. This would be a potentially significant impact on migratory birds and/or birds of prey.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to migratory birds and/or birds of prey to less than significant. • Mitigation Measure BIO-1:

1. If trees, shrubs, or herbaceous vegetation need to be removed, their removal shall occur during the non-breeding season (August 16 - January 31 in this area) if possible to avoid impacts to nesting birds and their habitat. If vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities with the potential to impact nesting birds or their habitat will be conducted during the breeding season (February 1 - August 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction avian surveys. These surveys shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of activities that have the potential to impact migratory birds and their habitat. A copy of the survey shall be submitted to the City Engineer or equivalent prior to the start of construction activities.

2. If nesting birds are detected within the Project area during the survey, consultation with the CDFW shall be conducted to establish avoidance or minimization measures that will protect nesting birds during construction.

An avoidance/minimization plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the City Engineer or equivalent and CDFW for review and approval prior to the start of construction activities. A suitable activity-free buffer shall be established around all active nests. The precise dimensions of the buffer shall be determined at that time and may vary depending on location and species. Buffers shall remain in-place for the duration of the breeding season or until it has been confirmed by a qualified biologist that all chicks have fledged and are independent of their parents. The avoidance or minimization plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer or equivalent for review and approval prior to the start of construction activities.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would protect nesting migratory birds and reduce potentially significant impacts to migratory birds to less than significant.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 47
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?
No Impact
Sensitive natural communities are those that are listed in the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database due to the rarity of the community in the state or throughout its entire range. No sensitive natural communities or riparian habitats were identified within or adjacent to the Project area (NCE 2022b). Thus, the proposed Project would have no impact on any riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact
No wetlands were identified within or adjacent to the Project area (NCE 2022b).

Thus, the proposed Project would have no impact on any state or federally protected wetlands.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated There are no established migratory corridors associated with the Project.

Construction could temporarily interrupt movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species through the Project site, but not significantly as it is already a roadway barrier.

As discussed above, the Project area may contain migratory bird and bird of prey nesting habitat. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, migratory species utilizing the Project area for nesting would be protected against significant impacts.

Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 provides sufficient species protection during construction to mitigate potential adverse effects on resident or migratory species to less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project area contains 47 trees, many of which would need to be removed during construction. The Project would be required to demonstrate consistency with

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 48
the City of Richmond and El Cerrito Municipal Code regarding trees by obtaining a tree removal permit prior to cutting, removing, or interfering with any tree, shrub or plant upon any street, park, pleasure ground, boulevard, alley, or public place.

The Project would comply with the conditions of the tree removal permits and would therefore not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Protection for trees and shrubs not scheduled for removal in construction areas would also be implemented within the Project area as part of typical construction management protocols. Landscape improvements would use native plants. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact
There are no known Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, nor any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans associated with the Project area. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an adopted conservation plan.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 49

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
Project screening for cultural and historic resources as part of the proposed Project was conducted by NCE in 2018, 2021, and 2022. Screening efforts consisted of an archival review, Native American tribal consultation, an intensive pedestrian survey, and recordation of any identified resources. An associated Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) (Tremaine and Laitinen 2022), Extended Phase I (XPI; Tremaine and Page-Schmit 2022a), and Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER; Brunzell 2022) were prepared to detail results of the screening efforts. The ASR describes the cultural context of the Project area in detail, documenting the prehistory of the region, along with background on the ethnography, and historic period. The HRER was prepared consistent with Caltrans’ regulatory responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 36 CFR Part 800). The cultural resources investigation reports are available upon request.

Key objectives of the HRER and ASR included establishing the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and Area of Direct Impact (ADI), and identifying prehistoric, ethnohistoric, and/or historic-period archaeological resources within or immediately adjacent to the APE. A 3.3-acre ADI was established for this Project and includes all areas subject to ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed Project.

The Area of Indirect Impact (AII) was generally established as the legal parcels adjacent to where potential direct impacts would occur. Most of the surface in the APE has been previously disturbed from utility placement, roadway construction, or commercial development.

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 1966) defined the role and responsibilities of the federal government in historic preservation and established the National Register of Historic Places. The NHPA directs agencies to identify and manage historic properties under their control, to undertake actions that would advance the Act’s provisions and avoid actions contrary to its purposes, to consult with others while carrying out historic preservation activities, and to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties.

State
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR is a guide to cultural resources that must be considered when a government agency undertakes a discretionary action subject to CEQA. The CRHR helps government agencies identify and evaluate California’s historical resources

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 50
and indicates which properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (PRC §5024.1(a)). Any resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the CRHR must be considered during the CEQA process.

Caltrans
Projects on the Caltrans State Highway System must comply with federal and state environmental laws and regulations designed to protect cultural resources significant in American archaeology, architecture, history, culture, and engineering.

Caltrans’ SER contains provisions for the discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources. Chapter 2 of the SER, Section 2.4.4 “Post-Review Discoveries,” offers guidance to assist Caltrans personnel in planning for the possibility of unexpected discovery of cultural resources and of unexpected effects on known historic properties (revised 2015). Chapter 3 of the SER outlines procedures that shall be followed if human remains are discovered during any Caltrans activity, in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California HSC. Chapter 5 outlines procedures that shall be followed if previously unidentified archaeological resources are encountered during construction.

PRC §5097.5 prohibits excavation or removal of any “… archaeological… or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands.” Public lands are defined to include lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority or public corporation, or any agency thereof. PRC § 5097.5 states that any unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological or historical or sites located on public lands is a misdemeanor.

Local
The Historic Resources Element is an optional element that Richmond has elected to include in its General Plan (City of Richmond 2012). The element is consistent with State of California Government Code which authorizes local jurisdictions to adopt additional elements to those required by State law when they relate to the physical development of the jurisdiction (Code section 65303). Policy HR1.1 Preservation of Diverse Resources directs the City to protect, preserve and enhance the diverse range of historic, cultural and archaeological sites and resources in the City for the benefit of current and future residents and visitors.

Within the El Cerrito General Plan, Chapter 7, “Resources and Hazards,” Goal R2 directs the City to Protect and rehabilitate architectural, historical, cultural, and archaeological resources that are of local, state, or federal significance (City of El Cerrito 1999).

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 51

4.5.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? No Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant
Impact

4.5.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? No Impact
A records search was conducted through the California Historic Resource Information System. Architectural Historian Kara Brunzell reviewed aerial photographs and historic maps to determine the location of historic-period buildings or structures within the area of potential effects (APE). Five parcels within the APE contain at least one non-exempt building constructed before 1976, including residential and commercial parcels. The five properties were each individually evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP and CRHR. The resources were also evaluated following Section 15064.5 (a)(2)-(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, using criteria outlined in Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code.

The historic-period resources were documented on the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms. DPR 523 A (Primary) and B (Building, Structure, and Object) forms were used to document the commercial/industrial buildings and residential properties. None of the resources surveyed are recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Therefore, the proposed Project would cause no change in the significance of a historical resource. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Ground disturbances within the ADI will range according to project elements. The majority of impacts (those related to roadway rehabilitation/grading/paving) will be between one and six feet deep, with the exception of the new San Mateo extension

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 52
that may include impacts to a depth of four to eight feet deep. Deeper impacts will occur related to underground utility relocation (up to 12 feet), the installation of approximately 20 streetlights (up to 12 feet), two parking lights (up to 12 feet), five traffic signal poles (up to 15 feet), and demolition with associated cleanup of a private residence at 3221 San Mateo Street (up to 8 feet).

A records search conducted on July 3, 2018 indicated one previously recorded site (P-07-003065; a shell mound) within the APE. On December 27, 2018, a pedestrian archaeological survey was conducted of the APE. The objective of the survey was to identify and record cultural resources within the proposed Project area. Hardscape (paved streets, sidewalks, buildings, and parking lots) covered most of the proposed Project area. As such, there was only a limited opportunity to examine exposed ground within softscaped areas.

During the field survey, a sparse number of shell fragments were observed and recorded in five locations within the residential neighborhood along Central Avenue and San Mateo Street. An XPI study was subsequently conducted to determine the presence or absence of subsurface cultural deposits associated with the prehistoric campsites located within the APE (Tremaine & Associates and NCE 2021). The XPI determined that the Central Avenue section of the Project has been heavily modified over the past century, cutting along the base of the hillslope on the north side of the street to construct the roadway. Any cultural deposits that might have once been in the vicinity of P-07-003065 have likely been destroyed. One boring during the XPI recorded a high acid content that could indicate a historic deposit, but no other evidence could confirm presence.

The planned roadway extension between Pierce and San Mateo Streets remains untested, however, due to a lack of access. This section will be cut into the high ground that once was situated directly adjacent to the historic Cerrito Creek before it was channelized. Sampling could not be completed within the property at 3221 San Mateo Street or the parking lot of the Saigon Seafood Harbor Restaurant, which would resolve presence-absence in this vicinity. There remains a possibility, while low, that this untested portion of the ADI may impact cultural resources.

The Project has the potential to affect one archaeological site (P-07-003065).

Pursuant to Section 106 PA Stipulation IX.B, an assessment of effects was conducted. Caltrans proposes No Adverse Effect without Standard Conditions, pursuant to Stipulation X.B.1(c) (Tremaine and Page-Schmit 2022b). Conditions proposed to avoid adverse effects include archaeological monitoring in the immediate vicinity of site P-07-003065 and a minor phased approach where testing could previously not take place. These conditions are outlined in a Post-Review Discovery, Monitoring, ESA Action, and Minor Phasing Plans (Tremaine and Page- Schmit 2022c). Review and approval of the phased approach and mitigation

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 53
measures is in progress with Caltrans and SHPO and must be completed prior to the Project moving into the ROW acquisition phase.

As a federally funded Project, the City must comply with all mitigation measures as outlined in the final documentation submitted to and approved by SHPO. Those measures include an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Action Plan, Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training, Minor Phasing Approach to Identification, Evaluation, & Treatment, and strict protocols for the discovery of Human Remains and Associated Grave Goods. Caltrans and SHPO oversight would provide the necessary mitigation to ensure the Project would have a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources.
• Mitigation CUL-1/TCR-1: During construction, the City and contractor shall comply with all conditions outlined in the Post Review Discovery, Monitoring, ESA Action, and Minor Phasing Plans in areas identified as sensitive in the Final XPI Report, as approved by Caltrans and SHPO, to avoid and protect unknown cultural and tribal cultural resources.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1/TCR-1 requires sufficient procedures, protocols, and oversight during construction to avoid and/or mitigate potential adverse effects on cultural resources, which would ensure a less than significant impact on subsurface cultural resources.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact
Based on the prehistoric and historic uses of the area and the prior ground disturbance within the APE, and minimal construction depths, human remains are not expected to be discovered during construction activities. Please see further discussion in Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources. As noted in discussion “b” above, a process for identification, evaluation, and determination of effects, including unanticipated discoveries is required by Caltrans in compliance with Section 106. This includes measures for appropriately managing the unanticipated discovery of human remains. Therefore, with compliance with State law and Mitigation Measure CUL-1/TCR-1, the potential for the Project to disturb human remains is less than significant. Page 371 of 1112
CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 54

4.6 ENERGY

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Richmond relies on clean energy sources, waste reduction practices, sustainable buildings, and innovative land use planning to reduce energy impacts.

The use of progressive measures has resulted in significant reductions in fossil fuel use as well as cost savings and emission reductions (City of Richmond 2012).

Existing energy uses associated with the Project are traffic, parking, and streetlights.

4.6.2 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than Significant
Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact

4.6.3 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact
Energy for the Project would primarily be required during construction and would not require additional capacity on a local or regional scale. One traffic signal will be relocated and upgraded to LED; thus, no net new energy would be required. Two new parking lights will be added to San Mateo and the Saigon Seafood Harbor Restaurant Parking Lot, all utilizing LED lighting; LED fixtures use 50% to 75% less energy than traditional high-pressure sodium vapor fixtures. The existing fixtures will be upgraded with LED. BAAQMD construction BMPs, would reduce use of fossil fuels and increase energy efficiency of construction vehicles. Because energy use would be temporary during construction and operational lighting would be energy efficient, and both would comply with BAAQMD efficiency requirements and the City’s fossil fuel reduction goals, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The impact would be less than significant.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 55
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact
The Project would not conflict or obstruct the goals and policies of the City of Richmond’s Energy and Climate Change Element of the General Plan (City of Richmond 2012). The Project would also not conflict or obstruct the City of El Cerrito’s R1 Goal to protect natural resources and clean air and water in the General Plan (City of El Cerrito 1999). Implementing BMPs to reduce fossil fuel use by construction vehicles would be consistent with these goals and policies. Because the Project will conform with the Goals and Policies of the Energy and Climate Change Element of the City of Richmond’s General Plan and R1 of El Cerrito’s General Plan, the Project would have no impact on plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 56

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
The Project area lies near the edge of the San Francisco Bay. The Project area is characterized as flat, asphalt-paved areas, with a grade of elevation of 24 feet above mean sea level(msl). The elevation increases from the southern end of the site to the northern end of the site.

A geotechnical investigation was conducted at the proposed Project area; the Geotechnical Report prepared for the Project is available upon request (Cal Engineering & Geology 2022).

Geologic Setting
The Project area is located in the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area, which lies within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province. The San Francisco Bay is generally a northwest-trending wide depression that is bounded by similarly trending ridges that comprise the Berkeley Hills to the east and the San Francisco and Marin Peninsulas to the west. This bay trough and ridge structure was formed as a result of a combination of faulting and warping related to the San Andreas Fault system whereby the bay is underlain by a down dropped or tilted block (California Division of Mines and Geology 1969).

The oldest and most widespread rocks in the San Francisco Bay Area are composed of the Jurassic-Cretaceous age Franciscan Formation. The Franciscan Formation can be fault-contacted with other Mesozoic sedimentary rocks and is then in turn overlain by Tertiary- and Quaternary-age sedimentary and volcanic rock units.

Within the San Francisco region, many of the valleys have been in-filled with quaternary-age sediments (e.g., alluvium and bay deposits) and include marine and non-marine clays, silts, sands, and gravels.

The Project area lies at the lower reaches of the Richmond Hills and is underlain by deposits of alluvium associated with San Pablo Creek. Below the alluvium is the Orinda Formation (Miocene Age), encountered at approximately 9 feet at each boring, consisting of poorly consolidated sedimentary rock including conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and claystone (Graymer, Jones, and Brabb 1994; Dibblee 1980).

Seismicity and Faulting
The Project area is within a seismically active region, and historically numerous moderate to strong earthquakes related to the San Andreas system of faults have occurred in this region. Active faults are considered to be those that have moved during the past 11,000 years. Generally, only active faults are considered in evaluating seismic risk for building construction. The nearest active fault is the

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 57
active Hayward fault, a designated Alquist-Priolo Fault located approximately 1.8 miles to the east of the Project area. Other major faults that could cause significant shaking in the Project area are the Chabot, Miller Creek, Moraga, Pinole, South Hampton, and Wildcat Fault. The Geotechical Report concluded that the potential for ground rupture due to primary faulting at the site is low (Cal Engineering & Geology 2022).

Liquefaction
Liquefaction can occur when wet or saturated cohesionless soils temporarily lose strength due to the buildup of excess water pressure during events such as earthquakes. Soil most susceptible to liquefaction is loose, clean, saturated, uniformly graded sand. The Susceptibility Map of the San Francisco Bay Area identifies the liquefaction risk in the Project area as ‘Very High’ to the west, and ‘moderate’ and ‘low’ to the east and south. However, the Geotechnical Report concluded that due to the absence of elevated groundwater conditions and the clayey nature of the surficial soils, the potential for liquefaction at the site is low (Cal Engineering & Geology 2022).

Groundwater
The Project area is located in the East Bay Plain Groundwater Basin. The basin is separated into two groundwater basins, the San Pablo Basin and the San Francisco Basin. The San Francisco Basin is further divided into seven sub-areas. The Project area is located in the Richmond sub-area at the southern end of the San Pablo Basin. Groundwater data collected during subsurface investigations adjacent to the Project area suggest that depth to groundwater ranges from 3 to 15 feet below ground surface (bgs) and that groundwater flow is generally to the south (Cardno Eri 2013).

Soils
Soil types found in Richmond include Tierra Loam, Millsholm Loam, Los Osos Clay Loam, and Clear Lake Clay. The predominant drainage class of these soils, which is a measure of the expected natural frequency and duration of wet periods, are moderately well drained or better (City of Richmond 2012).

There is one Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Soil Survey soil mapped in the Project area (Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture n.d.). The soil unit that can be found in the Project area is classified as Clear Lake clay, 0 to 15 percent slopes, MRLA 15-Central California Coast Range. MLRAs are used in statewide agricultural planning. This soil type is described to have poor drainage with high water runoff.

The Geotechnical Report revealed that the surficial soils near the proposed improvements consist mostly of lean clay and silty lean clay along Pierce Street and

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 58
have been interpreted as alluvium. The soils along San Mateo Street consist of an uneven mix of poorly graded sand, lean clay, silty lean clay, lean to fat clay, and fat clay. These soils are interpreted to be artificial fill underlain by alluvium.

4.7.2 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Could the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant
Impact
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact
iv. Landslides? Less Than
Significant Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant
Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant
Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 59

4.7.3 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact
The Project area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Department of Conservation 2019b) that designates a known active fault (fault that is defined to be active if it has ruptured or shows evidence of displacement in the Holocene or the last 11,000 years). Therefore, the Project area is not susceptible to fault rupture as defined by the California Geologic Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology), and the potential for fault rupture at the Project area is low.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact
The primary geologic hazard in the Project area is the potential for moderate to strong ground shaking associated with nearby faults discussed in the prior section on seismicity and faulting. Factors determining the characteristics of earthquake ground motion at the Project area would depend upon the magnitude of the earthquake, distance from the zone of energy release, travel path, topographic effects, subsurface materials, and rupture/source mechanism.

The proposed roadway construction has been designed to accommodate anticipated ground motions in accordance with appropriate seismic design criteria. No buildings are proposed as a part of the Project; therefore, there is no potential to expose people or structures from substantial adverse effects due to seismic ground shaking. Therefore, potential impacts associated with seismic shaking are considered less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact
The USGS Susceptibility Map for the San Francisco Bay Area shows a low to very high susceptibility for liquefaction throughout the Project area (Western Geographic Science Center 2021). The Geotechnical Report concluded that due to the absence of elevated groundwater conditions and the clayey nature of the surficial soils, the potential for liquefaction at the site is low (Cal Engineering & Geology 2022). Thus, potential impacts related to risk of loss, injury or death related to liquefaction would be considered less than significant.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 60
iv. Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project site and surrounding area are relatively flat, and seismically related landslides are not likely to occur. Seismically induced landslides result from the rapid movement of large masses of soil on unstable slopes during an earthquake.

The USGS has developed Seismic Hazard Zone Maps that delineate areas potentially at risk for seismically induced landslides. The Project area is outside the USGS hazard areas.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or topsoil loss. The Project would implement erosion and sediment BMPs as outlined in Section 3.6 that would prevent significant soil loss or erosion during construction, including use of native revegetation to stabilize disturbed areas. Implementation of the Project SWPPP would further reduce potential for erosion and topsoil loss during construction.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact
Lateral spreading is a type of ground instability that results in ground displacements when liquefaction of a soil layer causes insufficient strength for lateral stability. This phenomenon can occur when either the ground surface or the soil layer subject to liquefaction is sloped or an open slope face or stream channel adjacent to a potentially liquefiable soil layer.

The predominant soil type in the area is known as Clear Lake Clay. The Geotechnical Report concluded that given the nature of the bedrock encountered and the topographic nature of the site, the potential for lateral spreading to occur at the site is very low. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant.

d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact
Clear Lake Clay soils have a high expansion potential with estimated linear extensibility values ranging from 6.0 to 8.9 percent (Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture n.d.). However, the Project does not include any habitable structures and general design elements for

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 61
ground stability would be incorporated. Therefore, the potential for direct or indirect risks to life or property from soil expansion are less than significant.. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact
The Project would have no impact on septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The East Bay Municipal Utility District provides water and sewer service within the Project area and is a reviewing agency for the Project. The East Bay Municipal Utility District will provide direction to the City involving any utility adjustments related to water or sewer prior to Project construction or implementation.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Northwest Information Center records search revealed there are no previously recorded or existing paleontological resources identified within the Project area or mitigation site. No unique geological resources were identified during review of geologic resources within the Project boundary.

However, results from the Geotechnical Report indicate that the Orinda Formation, a terrestrial sedimentary sequence consisting of fluvial conglomerates, underlies the Project area. The Orinda Formation is fossiliferous, and the University of California Paleontology Museum database includes entries for the following vertebrates from these Miocene deposits:
• Gomphotherium (primitive elephantid)
• Hipparion, Nannipus, and Pliohippus (primitive horses) • Barbourofelis (a member of the primitive cat family Nimravidae) • Cranioceras (deer-like artiodactyl)
• Ticholeptus (an oreodont; an extinct group of pig-like grazing animals) • Desmostylus (an extinct sea-cow morphologically similar to a hippopotamus) Tedford and others (2004) assign most of the Orinda Formation vertebrate material to the middle Clarendonian Land Mammal Age, or about 11 to 12 million years ago.

Unlike the other Franciscan units, the melanges contain relatively abundant fossils, mainly Buchia, radiolarians, and dinoflagellates (Clarke Blake Jr. and Jones 1974).

Ground disturbances within the ADI will range according to Project elements. The majority of impacts (those related to roadway rehabilitation/grading/paving) will be

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 62
between one and six feet deep, with the exception of the new San Mateo extension and demolition that may include impacts to a depth of four to eight feet deep.

However, deeper impacts will occur related to underground utility relocation (up to 12 feet), the installation of approximately 20 streetlights (up to 12 feet), two parking lights (up to 12 feet), and five traffic signal poles (up to 15 feet). These depths could damage paleontological resources. Destruction of such resources would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that paleontological resources are protected during construction by requiring the City to coordinate with a qualified paleontologist to determine if the Project area requires a detailed paleontological resource impact assessment.
• Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The City shall retain a professional qualified paleontologist to review the Paleontological Resource Potential Maps and determine if the Project area contains the potential for paleontological resources. The City shall coordinate for a “request for opinion” from a qualified professional paleontologist, state paleontological clearinghouse, or an accredited institution with an established paleontological repository housing paleontological resources from the region of interest.

In areas determined to have high or undetermined potential for significant paleontological resources, an adequate program for mitigating the impact shall include:
a. Monitoring by a qualified paleontological resources monitor during excavations in previously undisturbed rock
b. Salvage of unearthed fossil remains and/or traces (e.g., tracks, trails, burrows)
c. Screen washing to recover small specimens, if applicable d. Preparation of salvaged fossils to a point of being ready for curation e. Identification, cataloguing, curation, and provision for repository storage of prepared fossil specimens
f. A final report of the findings and their significance To assure compliance at the start of the Project, a statement that confirms the site’s paleontological potential, confirms the repository agreement with an established public institution, and describes the program for impact mitigation, must be deposited with the City of Richmond and contractor(s) before any ground disturbance begins.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 63
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that paleontological resources are protected during construction, which would reduce the potential for impacts to a less than significant level.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 64

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The term ‘greenhouse gas’ describes atmospheric gases that absorb solar radiation and subsequently emit radiation in the thermal infrared region of the energy spectrum, trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. Greenhouse gases of concern include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have local or regional impacts, emissions of GHGs have a broader, global impact.

GHGs differ by the amount of heat each traps in the atmosphere, known as global warming potential. Carbon dioxide is the most significant GHG, so amounts of other gases are expressed relative to carbon dioxide, using a metric called “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO
2e). The global warming potential of carbon dioxide is
assigned a value of 1, and the warming potential of other gases is assessed as multiples of carbon dioxide. Generally, estimates of all GHGs are summed to obtain total emissions for a project or given time period, usually expressed in metric tons or million metric tons CO
2e.

4.8.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed Project is primarily located in the City of Richmond in Contra Costa County, although a portion in the northeast corner is in the City of El Cerrito. The primary sources of GHGs within City (City of Richmond 2016) include:
• Commercial/Industrial Energy (approximately 33%)
• Transportation on road (approximately 39%)
• Residential Energy use (approximately 17%)
• Transportation off road (approximately 4%)
• Solid waste (approximately 7%)
• Water (approximately <1%)

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
The EPA has no regulations or legislation enacted specifically addressing GHG emission reductions and climate change at the project-level. In addition, the EPA has not issued explicit guidance or methods to conduct project-level GHG analysis.

State
The State of California has taken several legislative steps including Assembly Bills (AB) and Senate Bills (SB) to reduce increases in GHG emissions. CARB is the lead agency in the development of reduction strategies for GHGs in California (CARB

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 65
2017). California’s GHG reduction requirements aim to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), thereby improving air quality by reducing GHG emissions from automobiles.

Local
In 2007, the Richmond and El Cerrito signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, committing the City of Richmond and the City of El Cerrito to reduce GHG emissions to meet or surpass the Kyoto Protocol targets (United States Conference of Mayors 2016). The Richmond City Council subsequently initiated a citywide GHG emissions inventory. This inventory establishes a baseline for emissions, identifies sources of energy use, and provides a foundation for developing relevant policies. The El Cerrito City Council subsequently accepted the City’s 2005 baseline GHG emissions inventory and adopted GHG emissions reduction targets of 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 30% below 2005 levels by 2035 (City of El Cerrito n.d.).

Recently approved State legislation (AB 32 and SB 375) and new air emissions standards adopted by CARB lay the foundation for local policy development on energy and climate change in Richmond and El Cerrito. Richmond’s Energy and Climate Change Element of the General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to position the City for sustainable, physical, and economic development (City of Richmond 2012). El Cerrito’s General Plan, Chapter 7, Resources and Hazards, includes Goal R1.4, “Air Quality,” and Goal R1.5, “Clean Energy Sources,” to manage locally generated pollutants and support the development of new sources of energy (City of El Cerrito 1999).

4.8.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant
Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant
Impact

4.8.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 66
The Project would result in short-term, temporary increases in GHG emissions during construction due to equipment and vehicle use. For a construction period of 160 working days, heavy equipment such as excavators, haul trucks, and worker commutes would generate exhaust. Emissions from construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would include carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. These compounds are described as CO2e, as discussed above.

Based on the air quality emissions analysis (Section 4.3, Table 3) estimated total Project construction CO2e would be 14 metric tons, which is significantly less than the BAAQMD’s annual 1,100 metric tons significance threshold for operational emissions. However, BAAQMD only provides thresholds for land use operational emissions, and not for construction emissions. Best management practices are recommended for reducing construction emissions.

Because the Project does not propose a new, long-term operational source of GHGs, Project effects would be considered less than cumulatively significant. BMPs identified by the air district as being effective in minimizing GHG emissions include using alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment for at least 15 percent of the fleet; using local building materials of at least 10 percent; and recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials.

The purpose of the Project is to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow. This will in turn reduce fuel consumption, albeit a small amount, and modest CO 2e emission
reductions will occur compared to the no-project alternative. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact
Given that emissions would be short term (over the course of 160 days), increases in GHGs that could be attributed to the Project would not interfere with adopted goals and policies to reduce GHGs. The GHG emissions generated during construction would not be considered significant and would not limit the State’s ability to attain the reduction targets identified in AB 32, the Scoping Plan, or SB

32. Additionally, implementation of the Project would not conflict with any of the GHG emission policies within the City of Richmond and El Cerrito’s Climate Action Plans. Therefore, the proposed Project does not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 67

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed Project is located in an area with a history of high-density residential, commercial, and light-industrial uses. In the past, industrial uses within and around the Project area have included fueling stations, automotive repair facilities, a lumber yard, a machine shop, and a gravel and aggregate operation. As discussed in the Project Description, current uses adjacent to the proposed Project include single- and multi-family residences, two service stations, a building supply warehouse, a restaurant, a storage facility, a painting contractor, a holistic wellness center, and a vacant lot.

NCE conducted an initial Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Project area in 2019. Subsequent design modifications changed the ROW Take areas and Project limits, necessitating an update to the Phase I ESA. The updated Phase I ESA (NCE 2022c) identified and confirmed, to the extent feasible, the potential for Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), or Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HREC) in connection with the Project area and adjoining properties. RECs/HRECS result from past improper use, manufacturing, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous or toxic substances. The Phase I ESA concluded the following:
• The Valero and Shell Service Stations at the southwestern and southeastern corners of the Central Avenue/Pierce Street intersection, respectively, qualify as RECs/HRECs. The parcels have documented historical releases of petroleum hydrocarbons to both soil and groundwater. Regulatory cases were filed by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB and No Further Action letters were issued for these cases in 2014. Nevertheless, Project construction requires excavation and potential dewatering, and the potential remains for residual hydrocarbon impacts to exist below the Project area. These residual hydrocarbons could be encountered during excavation, grading, trenching, and construction activities.
• The vacant lot to the east of the Project area (former lumber yard property) was the location of multiple industrial operations, including a lumber mill, a machine shop, and an auto repair shop. At least one diesel underground storage tank associated with historical operations was located on the property. Previous soil and groundwater investigations suggest that petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil and groundwater remain at the property. The documented contamination of soil and/or groundwater at the property meets the definition of a REC/HREC. Previous investigations do not provide sufficient data to fully characterize the release, and there is a

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 68
potential for impacts to the portion of the East ROW Take during Project construction activities.
• The general commercial and industrial nature of the area, including facilities such as the gravel and aggregate operation, suggests that the presence of other sources of contaminated soil and or groundwater on and/or beneath the Project area cannot be ruled out.
• Based on Project area age, historical use, and associated traffic volume, aerially deposited lead (ADL) is potentially present in Project area soils and adjoining areas. This is supported by results of a previous subsurface investigation (P&D 2012), although previous investigations do not provide sufficient data analysis to assess the potential impact of ADL on Project area conditions. The source of ADL was historically from automobiles, specifically tetraethyl lead in gasoline, which was banned in the 1970s.

NCE conducted a Phase II investigation to further examine the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination at the Project area. A Phase II Findings Report NCE 2022d) was prepared to transmit analytical results from groundwater and soil sampling, and to evaluate potential impacts to worker safety, Project construction activities, and proposed South, North, and East ROW takes. The investigation evaluated constituents of concern identified in prior investigations; specifically, ADL, CAM-17 Metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), and volatile organic compounds. The Phase II investigation concluded the following:
• Concentrations of metals above expected background generally occur throughout the Project area and no specific source was identified. The presence of elevated metals concentrations within the proposed ROW takes does not appear to be definitively associated with specific activities. • Petroleum hydrocarbons associated with the Valero and Shell Stations historical releases are present in soil within the smear zone that generally occurs below 7.0 to 9.5 feet bgs. Soil with petroleum hydrocarbon impacts may also occur at any depth throughout the Project area due to the general industrial use of the Project area and surrounding area. • ADL was found to occur in exposed shallow soils and shall require specific worker protection, soil management, and disposal provisions. ADL may also be present in shallow surface soils that were inaccessible at the time of the 2022 Phase II NCE investigation.
• Discharge associated with construction dewatering activities, if necessary, will likely contain elevated concentrations of CAM-17 Metals. This may require waste profiling, special discharge permits, and possibly treatment to allow water discharge into the publicly owned treatment works (POTW).

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 69
The Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are available upon request.

4.9.2 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant
Impact
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant
Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact

4.9.3 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project’s use of hazardous materials is limited to fuels, imported materials, and other maintenance related chemicals to run equipment machinery during construction; there are no long-term operational activities related to the Project.

New concrete and asphalt materials would be used to construct the new roadway extension, resurface the existing roadways, and construct curb, gutter, and

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 70
sidewalk improvements. Demolition materials would be disposed of as construction waste. The residential demolition may expose asbestos containing materials and lead based paint. Demolition of such materials and appropriate disposal are highly regulated by the state and federal government, and routine transport to an appropriate landfill would pose no significant hazard to the public.

Transport and use of hazardous materials are anticipated to be minimal. The use, storage, and management of fuels and other vehicle-related chemicals as well as construction materials would be managed according to the on-site SWPPP. For example, the SWPPP requires that equipment fueling and maintenance, if performed at the job site, must be performed in a designated area utilizing secondary containment with a spill kit nearby. Rinsing of concrete tools and chutes would also be performed according to the SWPPP, including utilizing concrete washouts and/or requiring that wastewater be kept within the concrete truck and hauled offsite for recycling.

Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Project scope involves excavation and grading, relocation of soil, and potential dewatering activities. Construction in the East ROW Take will require the demolition of residential structures that may contain asbestos-containing materials or other hazardous building materials. As identified in the Phase II investigation, there is the potential to encounter ADL, CAM-17 and TPH impacted soil and groundwater at levels potentially hazardous during Project construction activities. This would be a potentially significant impact.
• Mitigation Measure HAZ-1:
o The contractor is responsible for offsite disposal of soils. Soils shall require profiling and waste characterization within six months of removal and stockpiling for disposal facility acceptance. All soil spills generated at the Site shall be disposed of by the contractor and transported by a licensed waste hauler to an appropriately licensed waste disposal facility.
o Soil stockpiles shall be controlled, covered, and demarcated by the contractor when not in active use.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 71
o Worker protection and training shall be required by the City of the contractor in advance of and during construction to mitigate potential health concerns related to exposure of metals and petroleum hydrocarbons.
o The contractor shall comply with all regulatory requirements associated with any discharge to the POTW.
o The contractor shall prepare a soil and groundwater management plan (SGMP) that addresses the above mitigation requirements. The SGMP shall generally address soil and groundwater excavation, dewatering, disposal, stockpiling, and transportation. The SGMP shall explicitly address groundwater dewatering and dewatering discharge, handling and disposal of soil and groundwater, onsite soil management, onsite dewatering storage (if any), offsite soil disposal, profiling of soil and groundwater, transportation routes, and dust mitigation controls.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure that hazardous wastes exposed during construction are appropriately handled, characterized, and disposed of, which would protect construction workers, the public, and the environment from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment and reduce impacts to less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact
There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the Project area. The nearest school is Fairmont Elementary School, located approximately 0.4 miles northeast of the Project area. As discussed above, there is no long-term operational use of hazardous materials. The potential for the release of hazardous materials during construction would be mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. For a discussion on air quality, see Section 4.3. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact
This checklist question refers specifically to the Department of Toxic Substance Control “Cortese List” which is no longer being issued. There are two identified properties listed under HIST CORTESE including: 1) Lockaway Storage at 3230 Pierce Street, and 2) TEXECO Station - 5430 Central Avenue. As discussed in the

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 72
setting section above, the Phase I and Phase II ESAs determined the Project area is impacted by sites listed on GeoTracker and other governmental data bases.

GeoTracker is the SWRCB’s database system used to track and archive compliance data related to sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California (State Water Quality Control Board n.d.). This tool is used to evaluate community risk or Projects.

While soil in the Project area has some levels of petroleum contamination, there are no active cases open with the RWQCB on these properties. Levels of various compounds discovered in samples taken during the Phase II investigation are consistent with similar sites all over the Bay Area. All excavated areas will be paved over with new asphalt or concrete, and soils will be essentially sealed from movement through the air. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 will protect the public, construction workers and the environment from unintended releases during construction. Therefore, the impact of listed hazardous materials sites would be less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact
The nearest airport, Oakland International Airport, is located approximately 8 miles south of the Project area. The Project area is not located within a comprehensive land use planning area, and the Project does not involve habitable improvements that would be sensitive to airport operations.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact
Once constructed, the Project may have a beneficial impact on local emergency response or evacuation plans by reducing congestion on the Central Avenue corridor. Project construction would occur within public road rights-of way along Central Avenue and Pierce Streets and for the new connection between San Mateo Avenue and Pierce Street. Emergency response vehicles use both Central Avenue and Pierce Street. During the construction phase of the Project, Central Avenue, Pierce Street, San Mateo Avenue, and nearby side streets could be partially blocked by construction activities, equipment, and crews but would remain open to all emergency vehicles and for evacuation traffic. The Project would implement temporary traffic control measures in accordance with the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 6, where necessary during all construction activities (see Section 3.XVII, Transportation & Traffic).

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 73
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact
The Project proposes to improve traffic flow between two intersections. Roadway access will be provided at all times. The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 74

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.10.1 Environmental Setting
Contra Costa County is one of nine Bay Area counties with streams that are tributaries to the San Francisco Bay. The only hydrologic feature in the immediate vicinity of the Project area is a tributary to Cerrito North Creek. The tributary flows in an open concrete-lined channel from the southwest corner of Central Avenue and Belmont Avenue to the commercial properties located near the southern terminus of San Mateo Street. The creek channel then turns south and eventually flows along the southern edge of a storage facility to Pierce Street, where it is conveyed beneath Pierce Street in a culvert. The nearest significant body of water is the San Francisco Bay, which is located approximately 0.3 miles west of the site.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that delineate flood hazard zones for communities. Most of the Project area, including San Mateo and Pierce streets, is located within a FEMA- designated Zone A (FIRM Panel 06013C0243G, 09/30/2015) (). The Zone A designation applies to areas identified on the FIRM as Special Flood Hazard Areas, which are areas that will be inundated by a flood event having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 1-percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood. The segment of Central Avenue in the Project area is located in a FEMA-designated Zone X, which is a designation given to an area of minimal impact, also shown in .

A Location Hydraulic Study Form was conducted for the Project (NCE 2022e). The elevations of the site will not be changed significantly and will not increase fill within the floodplain. The Project will include the reconfiguration of approximately 105,000 square feet of roadway and other impervious area. Of this approximately 25,500 square feet is regulated for storm water mitigation under State and County guidelines. To treat stormwater runoff from the regulated area, 1,020 square feet of infiltrating bioswales will be constructed.

A Floodplain Encroachment Report was conducted for the Project (NCE 2022f). The Project area is within Zone A, without base flood information, of Cerrito Creek. It is a wide backwater area upstream of the Creek’s discharge into the Bay. The site is within an existing densely developed commercial/residential area. The Zone AE of the Cerrito Creek channel adjacent to the Zone A covering the site has a base flood Q100 of 2,940 cubic feet per second and a water surface elevation for a 100-yr flood of 15 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988).

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 75

Figure 4. National Flood Layer FIRMette

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act and NPDES Permit
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for stormwater discharges from municipal storm drain systems. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Basin (Basin Plan is the San Francisco RWQCB’s planning document (San Francisco Bay RWQCB n.d.). Stormwater discharges into the municipal separate storm sewer systems are regulated by the California RWQCB under the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049 (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2015).

Section 303(d) of the CWA authorizes the EPA to assist jurisdictions in listing impaired waters and developing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these waterbodies. A TMDL establishes the maximum levels of each pollutant allowed in a

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 76
waterbody and serves as the starting point or planning tool for restoring water quality. In California, the State and regional water boards assess water quality monitoring data for the state’s surface waters every 2 years to determine if they contain pollutants at levels that exceed protective water quality standards. Water bodies and pollutants that exceed these standards are placed on the state’s 303(d) List. The determination is governed by the Water Quality Control Policy for developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List. Currently, the 2018 303(d) list is in effect.

Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA implements the National Flood Insurance Program. Per Section 60.3(d)(3) of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations regarding floodplain management, the placement of fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway cannot result in any increase in flood levels during occurrences of the base flood discharge (100-year event).

State
Statewide Construction General Permit
Because the proposed Project would disturb more than 1 acre, it is subject to the statewide Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, which regulates stormwater leaving construction sites. Under this order, site owners must notify the state and implement a SWPPP prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP must outline measures that would protect hydrology and water quality resources, including groundwater, from negative impacts during construction through implementation of BMPs and monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs. This permit is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board and overseen by the RWQCB.

4.10.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant
Impact
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No Impact

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 77
CEQA Question Impact
Determination
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less Than Significant
Impact
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; Less Than Significant Impact
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Less Than Significant
Impact
iv. impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less Than Significant Impact

4.10.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Construction would be carried out in accordance with the state Construction General Permit. Appropriate best management practices (BMPs), including erosion, sediment and non-stormwater controls would be implemented to protect water quality at all times, as specified in Section 3.6.4 and the Construction General Permit. These controls would reduce potential water quality impacts during Project construction activities to a less than significant level by minimizing erosion and sedimentation and transport to receiving water bodies. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Impact
The Project does not propose any groundwater withdrawals and would have no adverse impact on groundwater recharge. The Project will be designed to maintain on-site infiltration of stormwater by incorporation of green infrastructure

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 78
(bioretention swales and rain gardens), which in turn benefits groundwater recharge. There would be no impacts to groundwater resulting from Project construction and implementation.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would implement construction BMPs as specified in Section

3.6.4 and the Construction General Permit and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation. Site-specific BMPs may include source control measures, site design elements, and post-construction treatment measures. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff.

The Project would include new green infrastructure design elements that do not currently exist in or around the immediate Project area. Installation of green infrastructure is anticipated to have beneficial results by increasing the capacity of surface runoff on- and off-site through bioretention swales, rain gardens, and storm drain improvements.
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed storm drain capacity or increase pollutants. Project plans provide additional on-site spaces for bioretention swales, rain gardens, and other new green infrastructure design elements that would increase capacity for infiltration of polluted runoff. Therefore, the completed Project could provide beneficial impacts by reducing the potential for pollutants to travel to the storm drain system or receiving waters. During construction, a site-specific SWPPP would ensure that all runoff would be treated prior to conveyance into the storm drain system.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact
The proposed Project does not include any structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. The proposed roadway improvements would not affect flood flows. The

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 79
Project would provide a minor beneficial impact by removing a residential structure from the floodplain.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact
The Project would provide a minor beneficial impact by reducing the risk for the release of pollutants resulting from inundation by removing a residential structure likely to contain asbestos and lead based paint from the floodplain. Best management practices installed during construction would minimize release of pollutants should flooding occur, as required by the state Construction General Permit.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would implement construction BMPs as specified in Section

3.6.4 and the Construction General Permit that would protect water quality during construction. A Project specific SWPPP would include a dewatering contingency plan if groundwater is encountered during Project construction. Site-specific BMPs may include source control measures, site design elements, and post-construction treatment measures. Project plans provide additional on-site spaces for bioretention swales, rain gardens, and other new green infrastructure design elements that would increase capacity for infiltration of polluted runoff thus improving water quality over existing conditions. Project construction and implementation would therefore not involve any activities that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 80

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.11.1 Environmental Setting
The Project area is situated in urbanized portions of the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito (see previous Figure 3 for city boundaries).

The Project limits within the City of Richmond include portions of Central Avenue, Pierce Street, San Mateo Street and San Luis Street. The Richmond portion of the Project area is zoned Regional Commercial (City of Richmond 2012). This zoning is intended for mid-rise, mixed-use development and regional shopping centers characterized by intensive development of retail space in compact and pedestrian- friendly environments. Existing establishments within and immediately adjacent to the Project area include single- and multi-family residential, gas stations, commercial, and the Saigon Seafood Harbor Restaurant, and public storage.

The Project limits within the City of El Cerrito include northeastern portions of Central Ave and San Mateo Street. The El Cerrito portion of the Project area is zoned Transit Oriented Higher Intensity Mixed-Use (City of El Cerrito 2014). This zoning is intended to provide “a vibrant, walkable, transit-oriented, higher-intensity area that allows retail commercial, residential, and public uses.” Existing properties within the City’s limits include a vacant lot, single family residential, and apartments.

4.11.2 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant
Impact

4.11.3 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would improve existing roadways and extend San Mateo to Pierce Street. Currently the Saigon Seafood Harbor Restaurant parking lot and a single family residence abut a Public Storage building. The San Mateo extension would separate the residential use from a commercial use with a two lane roadway.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 81
This improvement would not physically divide an established community because the residences on San Mateo have no direct access to the Public Storage building, and a two lane roadway provides access, unlike a freeway which may permanently separate residential areas from other uses. Therefore, construction of the San Mateo extension would have a less than significant impact related to physically dividing an established community.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Richmond portion of the Project area is zoned Regional Commercial, and the El Cerrito portion of the Project area is zoned Transit Oriented Higher Intensity Mixed- Use. The proposed Project would provide roadway and drainage improvements that are consistent with the current land use zoning and General Plan policies for both cities, as well as the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and the MTC Bay Area Plan 2050.

A segment of the new San Mateo Street extension would pass through the existing parking lot of a commercial property (Saigon Seafood Harbor Restaurant) located at 3150 Pierce Street. The lot currently provides 57 off-street parking spaces. The Project will reconfigure the parking lot to accommodate the San Mateo Street extension, resulting in a loss of 10 spaces; 47 off-street parking spaces would remain. The City of Richmond requires 5 parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of dining area (Richmond Code of Ordinances 15.04.607.040). The total square footage of the restaurant is 6,200 square feet, requiring 31 parking spaces if 100 percent of the building were used as dining area. The proposed Project would not reduce the number of parking spaces below the minimum required by the City.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 82

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

4.12.1 Environmental Setting
Minerals are naturally occurring chemical elements or compounds, or groups of elements and compounds, formed from inorganic processes and organic substances including, but not limited to, coal, peat, and oil-bearing rock, but excluding geothermal resources, natural gas, and petroleum. Rock, sand, and gravel are also considered minerals when extracted by surface mining operations (City of Richmond 2012).

Mineral production in Contra Costa County has been largely limited to sand, gravel, and rock products. Mining for manganese, crude oil, and clay once occurred the area. The most important mineral resources that are currently mined in the County include crushed rock near Mt. Zion, on the north side of Mt. Diablo, in the Concord area; shale in the Port Costa area; and sand and sandstone deposits, mined from several locations, but focused in the Byron area of southeast County.

Mining for sandstone and crushed rock was until recently limited to one quarry on Canal Boulevard near the Port of Richmond and another at Point Molate. The Canal Boulevard quarry has been closed and remediated. The Point Molate quarry is focused on recycling and handling operations rather than extraction. No quarry operations currently operate or are anticipated in the future in either city.

4.12.2 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact

4.12.3 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact
According to the State Mining and Geology Board and the Richmond General Plan, there are no state or regionally valuable mineral resources within the Project

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 83
boundary. The proposed Project would therefore not result in the loss of a known mineral resource.
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact
According to the State Mining and Geology Board, the Richmond General Plan, and the El Cerrito General Plan, there are no resource recovery sites associated with the Project; therefore, there would be no impact.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 84

4.13 NOISE

4.13.1 Environmental Setting
Noise is defined as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, objectional, or disruptive to daily life. The primary sources of noise in the vicinity of the proposed Project include local traffic along Central Avenue, San Mateo Street, and San Luis Street; distant traffic along I-80; and occasional aircraft overflights.

A noise monitoring survey was performed by Illingworth and Rodkin at sensitive receptor locations along the Project alignment beginning on Tuesday, October 9, 2018, and concluding on Thursday, October 11, 2018. The results from the survey concluded that loudest noise levels resulting from 2040 build conditions would range from 48 to 64 dBA Leq[h] at residential areas and parks along the Project area.

The Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects (Caltrans 2011) specifies the policies, procedures, and practices to be used by agencies that sponsor new construction or reconstruction of Federal or Federal-aid highway projects. The Protocol defines a noise increase as substantial when the predicted noise levels with project implementation exceed existing noise levels by 12 dBA Leq[h] or more.

A Noise Study Report (NSR) was updated in 2022 by NCE (NCE 2022g). Existing sound levels, 2040 No Build, and 2040 Build scenarios were evaluated for the Project. The NSR summarizes the noise monitoring results and provides an analysis of potential impacts with respect to noise. The NSR is available upon request.

4.13.2 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project result in:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
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?
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant
Impact
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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 85

4.13.3 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project result in 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?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Noise levels are measured to regulate ambient noise and protect people from exposure to excessive noise. Different land uses have different acceptability levels in terms of noise disturbance. For example, industrial uses have a higher noise threshold than residential uses. Noise standards provide a means of assessing exposure and compatibility based on specific uses.

The NSR provides a summary of applicable general plan policies and zoning ordinances for the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito. Based on the policy analysis the Project would not expose persons to or generate noise levels that would exceed applicable noise standards presented in the Richmond or El Cerrito General Plans or Municipal Codes (NCE 2022g).

Loudest-hour noise levels resulting from 2040 Build conditions would range from 48 to 64 dBA Leq[h] along the Project alignment. It is anticipated that future development associated with the Central Avenue Residential project would adhere to local standards, resulting in loudest-hour noise levels in noise sensitive areas of frequent human use of 58 dBA Leq[h] or less. Noise levels are calculated to increase by up to 2 dBA Leq[h] over Existing conditions under 2040 No Build conditions. Noise would increase up to 9 dBA Leq[h] over Existing under 2040 Build conditions. These operational noise level increases are not considered substantial because the Project would not result in an increase of 12 dBA Leq[h]. In accordance with 23 CFR 772, noise abatement is considered where noise impacts are predicted in areas of frequent human use that would benefit from a lowered noise level. No permanent traffic noise impacts are anticipated with development of the Project; therefore, no permanent noise abatement measures are required.

Construction activities would result in temporary increases to noise levels at adjacent noise-sensitive receptors. Project construction is anticipated to occur over a period of 6-months to 1-year. Construction activities would include demolition, earthwork, paving, concrete/rebar/formwork, utility trenching, and roadway striping. Pile driving is not anticipated for this Project. Construction noise would primarily result from the operation of heavy construction equipment and arrival and departure of heavy-duty trucks.

As indicated in Table 8-1 of the NSR, most construction phases would generate average noise levels that would exceed ambient daytime noise levels at adjacent land uses by 15 to 20 dBA Leq[h]. With the exception of short periods of heavy

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 86
demolition, construction noise levels would not be expected to exceed the quantitative noise limits established by local noise ordinances. Construction noise levels are anticipated to exceed the City of Richmond’s 75 dBA Leq[h] weekday and 60 dBA Leq[h] weekend criteria when construction is located adjacent to receptors.

The residence at 3221 San Mateo Street is scheduled to be removed, and that property used for the Project’s new road segment. A residence is immediately adjacent, at 3211 San Mateo Street. Demolition or removal of the 3221 residence will likely create noise levels exceeding the City of Richmond Noise Ordinance because of the close proximity of 3211 San Mateo Street to the construction activity (i.e., less than 50 feet at times).

To reduce the potential for noise impacts resulting from Project construction, the following measures should be implemented during Project construction. • Mitigation Measure NOIS-1:
o Construct a temporary noise barrier on the south side of 3211 San Mateo Street during demolition of the adjacent property (3221) and major construction activities, (e.g., grading and excavation for new utilities).

This barrier should be designed to be sufficient to protect the residents from sound levels exceeding the City of Richmond Noise Ordinance. o All construction equipment should conform to Section 14-8.02, Noise Control, of the latest Caltrans Standard Specifications. o When feasible, noise-generating construction activities should be restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, with no construction occurring on weekends or holidays.
o All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained.
o Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited. o All stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators are to be located as far as is practical from existing residences.
o Quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, are to be selected whenever possible.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOIS-1 would reduce construction noise impacts on adjacent sensitive receptors to less than significant.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 87
The proposed Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Vibration levels generated by construction activities would be perceptible indoors and may be considered annoying at times, causing irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows or doors.

However, architectural damage to normal residential structures would not be anticipated and vibration levels would be well below those anticipated to cause structural damage. In addition, construction would occur during daytime hours only, thus reducing the potential for residential annoyance during typical periods of rest or sleep. The duration of vibration-generating construction activities at individual locations along the Project alignment would be limited as construction moves along the roadway alignment as progress occurs. Therefore, groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during Project construction would be less than significant.
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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact
The nearest airport is about 8 miles away. The Project is not within any airport land use plan jurisdiction. Therefore, the Project will not expose construction workers to excessive noise levels from aircraft sources.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 88

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.14.1 Environmental Setting
As of 2021, the City of Richmond had an estimated population of 115,642 residents and an estimated housing stock of 42,082 dwelling units (California Department of Finance 2022). As of 2020 (no data available for 2021), the City of El Cerrito had an estimated population of 25,280 residents and an estimated housing stock of 10,880 dwelling units (California Department of Finance 2022). The Project area is surrounded by single family and multi-family residential, commercial, and light industrial uses.

4.14.2 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less than Significant
Impact

4.14.3 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact
The Project scope is limited to improving traffic operations, reducing local congestion, and improving traffic safety. The Project would remove one residence and would not construct housing or businesses. No utilities would be expanded into new areas currently not receiving service. Therefore, the proposed Project have no impact on population growth either directly or indirectly. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project proposes the removal of one residence, which is used as a rental property. The Contra Costa County Real Estate Division will be responsible for preparing a relocation plan and providing relocation assistance to the residents

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 89
upon acquisition of the property. The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, thus the impact would be less than significant.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 90

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

4.15.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is in an urban area served by existing infrastructure and public services.

Fire Protection
Fire protection in the Project area is provided by the Richmond Fire Department (RFD) and the El Cerrito-Kensington Fire Department. The RFD station closest to the Project site is Station #6, at 4801 Bayview Avenue, approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the Project area. The El Cerrito-Kensington Fire Department is located at 10900 San Pablo Avenue, approximately 1 mile northwest of the Project area.

Police Protection
Police protection, 911 emergency dispatch, and investigation services are provided to the Project area by the Richmond Police and El Cerrito Police Departments.

Richmond is divided into three districts (Northern, Central, and Southern), with three smaller beats per district. The Project area is within Beat 3 in the Southern District. The main police station is at 1701 Regatta Boulevard, approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the Project site. The El Cerrito Police Department shares the building with the El Cerrito-Kensington Fire Department. Police dispatching is contracted with the Richmond Police Department.

CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project result in:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need and/or provision of new or physically altered governmental services and/or facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services?
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
No Impact

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 91

4.15.2 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need and/or provision of new or physically altered governmental services and/or facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services? i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
No Impact
The Project would not increase dwelling units or road capacity in the vicinity and would not increase population or businesses; thus, the Project would not increase demand for public services such as schools, parks, or other public facilities such as libraries.

There are adequate fire and police services to protect the temporary construction site and construction workers without affecting emergency services ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require new or physically altered governmental services and/or facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 92

4.16 RECREATION

4.16.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Richmond is served by an array of 86 parks and regional open spaces.

The City owns and maintains 74 of those parks, including small pocket parks, play lots, neighborhood parks, ball fields, and joint-use parks. Additionally, there are seven Regional Parks and Open Spaces, and five joint-use parks in Richmond. In all, the City has over 6,500 acres of park and open space lands. The City also owns and operates a range of community recreational facilities including eight community centers, two senior centers, two aquatics facilities (including the historic Richmond Municipal Natatorium), and one indoor recreation complex. Private recreational facilities in Richmond include the Richmond Country Club, Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, Richmond Yacht Club Harbor, YMCA, Police Activities League, the Boys and Girls Club, and Red Rock Marina (City of Richmond 2012).

The City of El Cerrito operates 19 City-owned and maintained parks and open space facilities that include neighborhood parks, ball fields, playgrounds, joint-use parks, natural areas, and greenways, including four on school district property.at school sites (City of El Cerrito 2019) . Private recreational facilities include the Berkeley Country Club, Camp Herms Scout Camp, and Sunset View Cemetery. There is a total of 381.7 acres of combined recreation and open space facilities within the City of El Cerrito (City of El Cerrito 1999).

The closest recreational facility to the Project area is Central Park, which is located

0.01 miles to the north at the intersection of Central Avenue and Yolo Avenue mostly within the City of Richmond. Central Park covers 2.6 acres and includes a playground, baseball diamond, and lawns.

4.16.2 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 93

4.16.3 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact
The Project is a road improvement project. The Project does not include recreational features or facilities or require construction or expansion of recreational facilities because the Project does not influence population growth. Population growth is the main driver for new or expansion of facilities; therefore, there would be no effect on recreation and no subsequent environmental impact from construction or expansion activities.
b) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact
The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, such as trail biking or connectivity. The Project also would not induce population growth that would lead to an increased demand for recreational services or the need to construct or expand recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 94

4.17 TRANSPORTATION

4.17.1 Environmental Setting
As described in the Project description (Section 3), the P roject area includes portions of Central Avenue, San Mateo Street, and Pierce Street.

Central Avenue is a designated route of regional significance in the 2017 Co
untywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. It serves as the primary connection between the El Cerrito Plaza BART station and the Interstate 80 (I-80) and Interstate 580 (I-580) freeways. It also serves as an important east-west route between commercial areas and local neighborhoods. The four closely spaced signalized intersections along Central Avenue between Jacuzzi Street and Pierce Street lack adequate storage capacity, resulting in high vehicle delays during peak travel times, especially on weekends.

The purpose of the Project is to improve traffic operations, reduce local congestion, and improve traffic safety. The Project is needed to alleviate heavy traffic congestion that occurs within the Central Avenue corridor during both peak weekday and weekend periods. The proposed Project represents Phase 2 of a two- phase Project to improve traffic operations at the I-80/Central Avenue Interchange.

The Final Transportation Impact Assessment for the Central Avenue at I-80 Local Road Improvement Project (TIA) documented an evaluation of the existing and cumulative level of service (LOS) operating conditions for the study intersections along Central Avenue for conditions with and without the Phase 2 (Fehr & Peers 2018). LOS is a description of quality of an intersection’s operation, ranging from LOS A (indicating free flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (representing over-saturated conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delays). The City of Richmond’s General Plan policy is to maintain LOS D operations or better at all intersections. In El Cerrito, signalized intersections in the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan area must maintain LOS E or better. All of the study intersections were determined to operate overall at acceptable LOS D or better conditions during both the weekday AM and PM peak hour. However, during the weekend peak hour, the Central Avenue/Pierce Street signalized intersection operates at unacceptable LOS E conditions. Two side-street stop controlled intersections have side-streets that operate at LOS F conditions (Central Avenue/San Mateo Street and Central Avenue/Belmont Avenue).

The TIA used traffic count data collected in 2017. The TIA was updated in August 2022 to compare traffic volumes collected in 2017 to new traffic counts to determine if the previous analysis from the TIA is still valid. Twenty-four-hour pneumatic tube counts were collected on Central Avenue between San Mateo Street and Carlson Boulevard from Tuesday, February 14 to Saturday, February 18, 2017 to determine the ADT volumes on Central Avenue for the original TIA. To compare

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 95
the previous ADT to the current year, pneumatic tubes were used to collect daily traffic counts on Central Avenue between Pierce Street and San Mateo Street on Wednesday, June 1 to Saturday, June 4, 2022. Note that only the Wednesday and Thursday count data from 2017 was used to make similar comparisons for the weekday for consistency. summarizes the count data and growth rates.

Table 7. Average Daily Traffic Volumes Comparison (Repeat of Table 5) Day of Week
ADT: Central Avenue
between San Mateo
and Carlson (2017)
ADT: Central
Avenue between
Pierce and San
Mateo (2022)
Percent
Change
Typical Weekday
(Wed. to Thurs.) 20,010 20,466 2.3%
Saturday 20,936 18,966 -9.4%
ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Source: Fehr & Peers 2022
Compared to the 2017 ADT volumes, the 2022 ADT volumes show an increase of

2.38 percent on weekdays and decrease of 9.4 percent on Saturdays. Given that weekday counts show a minor change of less than five percent and Saturday shows a decrease, Fehr & Peers concluded that the intersection analysis performed in 2018 and the original findings would remain applicable to the current year volumes.

Transit Services
The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) provides local and Transbay bus service near the Project area. There are three bus stops near the Project site:
• South side of Central Avenue between Pierce Street and San Mateo Street:

AC Transit Route 80
• West side of Pierce Street just south of Central Avenue: AC Transit Route 80 and L
• East side of Pierce Street just south of Central Avenue: AC Transit Route L and LC
All of these bus stops serve transit routes traveling through the Central Avenue/ Pierce Street intersection.

Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and multi-use trails. Sidewalk is currently provided on both sides of Central Avenue between Pierce Street and San Mateo Street. Sidewalk is also provided on both sides of Pierce Street south of Central Avenue. However, there are locations where the effective width is less than four feet due to utility poles or other obstructions. San Mateo Street south of

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 96
Central Avenue provides some sidewalk on the west side and no sidewalk on the east side. Crosswalks are provided on all the legs of the Central Avenue/Pierce Street intersection. Crosswalks are not provided at the Central Avenue/San Mateo Street intersection.

There are currently no designated bicycle facilities on Central Avenue east of Pierce Street, along Pierce Street, or on San Mateo Street. However, the City of El Cerrito Active Transportation Plan identifies a future bicycle improvement (two-way cycle track) on Pierce Street south of Central Avenue.

4.17.2 Regulatory Setting
State
In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines update package. The CEQA Guidelines 2019 update added Section 15064.3 (SB 743), which describes the specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. The section focuses on using vehicle miles traveled as a measure for transportation impacts.

Local and Regional Transportation
The following local and regional transportation guidance documents apply to the Project:
• The State mandates that general plans include a circulation element regulating the location and extent of transportation modes, accessways, and thoroughfares in the City (California Government Code Section 65302b). As required by State law, the circulation element correlates with the Land Use and Urban Design Element of the General Plan for the City of Richmond and the Transportation and Circulation Chapter of the General Plan section for the City of El Cerrito (City of Richmond 2012; City of El Cerrito 1999). • The Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan lays out a vision for “our transportation future, the goals and strategies for achieving that vision, and the future transportation investments needed to promote a growing economy, advance technological changes, protect the environment, and improve our quality of life” (CCTA 2017).
• The Plan Bay Area 2050 is a 30-year plan that establishes 35 strategies to improve housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment across the Bay Area’s nine counties — Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma. This long-range plan, developed by the Bay Area’s two regional planning agencies, the MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), outlines a $1.4 trillion vision for “a more equitable and resilient future for Bay Area residents.” The

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 97
Plan identifies 12 transportation strategies; the strategies applicable to the proposed Project include:
o T1. Restore, operate and maintain the existing system. Commit to operate and maintain the Bay Area’s roads and transit infrastructure while reversing pandemic-related cuts to total transit service hours. o T8. Build a Complete Streets network. Enhance streets to promote walking, biking and other micro-mobility through sidewalk improvements, car-free slow streets, and 10,000 miles of bike lanes or multi-use paths.
• The City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan focuses on four primary goals, and a set of objectives to measure them (Fehr & Peers and Eisen Letunic 2011).

Goal 1 is to expand the city’s bicycle routes and parking facilities into an extensive, well‐connected, and well‐designed network, and improve and maintain these facilities over time. The objective includes increasing the number of bikeway miles by 75 percent. Goal 3 is to make the streets safer for bicyclists, not only during the day but also at night, with the objective of reducing the number of reported bicycle fatalities and injuries by 25 percent (even as the number of bicyclists increases). Goal 4 is to incorporate the needs and concerns of cyclists in all transportation and development projects by adopting and implementing “Complete Streets” and “Routine Accommodation” policies, and bicycle‐friendly design standards and guidelines for streets and developments.
• The City of El Cerrito Active Transportation Plan is a combined Bikeways Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan (City of El Cerrito Public Works and Community Development Departments and Fehr & Peers 2016). This Plan updates the Circulation Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians (2007), which established bicycle and pedestrian networks and project lists throughout the City.
• The City of El Cerrito San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan creates a framework for transforming San Pablo Avenue into a multimodal corridor that functions not just as a thoroughfare but as a place that provides a multitude of opportunities for living, working and community life (City of El Cerrito 2014).

Within the document, Chapter 3 Complete Streets discusses street typologies, standards, and guidelines for Central Avenue and San Mateo Avenue, among others. This Project is within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan boundary. The City of El Cerrito is currently in the final draft stage of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Update as well (City of El Cerrito 2022).

4.17.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 98
CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant
Impact
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)? No Impact
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant
Impact
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact

4.17.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Project would restore, maintain, and improve local circulation, improve sidewalk width and ADA access, provide Class III bike lanes on all roadway segments, and include other elements of complete streets projects such as safe and accessible transit stops, and frequent and safe crossings for pedestrians, including median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, and curb extensions. These elements are consistent with all local and regional transportation guidance documents applicable to the Project area.

The TIA concluded that roadway capacity would not change at existing intersections in or around the Project area once the proposed Project becomes operational.

Although no longer a CEQA consideration in terms of impact on the environment, Richmond has a policy in their General Plan to maintain LOS D operations or better at all intersections, and El Cerrito requires LOS E or better in their portion of the Project area. The Project is not expected to degrade any of the study intersections to unacceptable service levels, but instead improve operations at several locations currently operating at unacceptable service levels. During the weekend peak hour, the traffic operations are anticipated to improve from unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) to acceptable operations (LOS D or better) at the following locations:
• Central Avenue/Pierce Street
• Central Avenue/San Mateo Street
• Central Avenue/Belmont Avenue

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 99
• Central Avenue/Santa Clara Avenue.

In addition, the Project is anticipated to have a minimal effect on system-wide vehicle hours of delay during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM and weekend peak hour, the Project is however expected to reduce the vehicle hours of delay by 33% and 24% during the weekday PM and weekend peak hour respectively under cumulative plus Project conditions. With implementation of the Project, the vehicle hours of delay during the weekend peak hour is anticipated to drop even further (37% compared to Cumulative No Project conditions). Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No Impact
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b) pertains to the use of VMT to analyze transportation impacts. OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018) provides technical recommendations regarding the assessment of VMT, non- binding thresholds of significance, potential exemptions, presumptions of less than significant CEQA impacts, and mitigation measures. Project types that would likely lead to a measurable and substantial increase in vehicle travel generally include the addition of through lanes on existing or new highways, including general purpose lanes, HOV lanes, peak period lanes, auxiliary lanes, or lanes through grade- separated interchanges.

Roadway projects that would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel, and therefore generally should not require an induced travel analysis, include:
• Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, and repair projects designed to improve the condition of existing transportation assets (e.g., highways, roadways, bridges, culverts, tunnels, transit systems, and assets that serve bicycle and pedestrian facilities) and that do not add additional motor vehicle capacity
• Roadway shoulder enhancements to provide “breakdown space,” dedicated space for use only by transit vehicles, to provide bicycle access, or to otherwise improve safety, but which will not be used as automobile vehicle travel lanes
• Addition of an auxiliary lane of less than one mile in length designed to improve roadway safety

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 100
• Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets provided the project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit
• Removal or relocation of off-street or on-street parking spaces • Rehabilitation and maintenance projects that do not add motor vehicle capacity
• Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights-of-way The Project is not a land-use project and is designed to improve local circulation with no increase in roadway capacity.. Construction worker traffic would be minor and temporary. Therefore, the Project would not conflict or create inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1). c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature and would not develop incompatible uses. The turn restrictions at the Central Avenue/Pierce Street intersection as part of the Project would impact the delivery truck circulation on the south side of Central Avenue and in particular deliveries to the Pacific East Mall. As part of the Project, San Mateo Street between Central Avenue and Pierce Street has been designed with sufficient roadway width and turning radii to accommodate a typical package delivery truck. The new traffic signal at the Central Avenue/San Mateo Street intersection and the all-way stop control at the Pierce Street/San Mateo Street intersection would also minimize delivery truck delays.

The turn restrictions at the Central Avenue/Pierce Street (San Luis Street) intersection as part of the Project would result in some local redistribution of traffic on the north side and south side Central Avenue between Pierce Street (San Luis Street) and San Mateo Street. While traffic on Pierce Street (San Luis Street) is likely to remain the same or decrease, traffic on San Mateo Street just north and south of Central Avenue is likely to increase as traffic redistributes to access Central Avenue. Even with the potential increase in traffic on San Mateo Street, the roadway is anticipated to carry less than 3,000 vehicles per day, which is well below the roadway capacity of a minor collector road (Richmond) and consistent with a local street (El Cerrito) and would not present a safety issue.

The Project would alleviate heavy traffic congestion that occurs within the Central Avenue corridor during both peak weekday and weekend periods. Once operational,

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 101
the Project would provide increased safety and multi-modal transportation options by providing ADA-compliant crosswalks and sidewalks, Class III bike lanes, and a new bus stop along San Mateo Street. The Project proposes to provide sidewalks on both sides of San Mateo Street, including current locations that do not provide sidewalks. As part of the Project, the north/south crosswalks at the Central Avenue/Pierce Street intersection would be eliminated and new crosswalks would be provided on all legs of the Central Avenue/San Mateo Street intersection. At the new intersection of Pierce Street/San Mateo Street a crosswalk is proposed on the south and east legs of the intersection. The Project would likely result in some changes to pedestrian circulation as a result of eliminating the north/south crosswalks at the Central Avenue/Pierce Street intersection; however, the proposed crosswalk locations and new/improved sidewalk on Pierce Street and San Mateo Street should improve the overall pedestrian experience. These measures are expected to reduce existing hazards and safety issues in the Project area. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would not result in long-term adverse effects to emergency service access. Construction activities could result in temporary, minor delays for access of emergency vehicles to adjacent residences and businesses within the Project area.

As a requirement of the Traffic Control Plan, the City or approved contractor would be required to coordinate with law enforcement and emergency service providers prior to the start of construction. The goal is to ensure construction activities do not impair response by law enforcement and emergency services providers. In addition, individual property owners would be notified that access to their properties would not be obstructed during Project construction.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 102

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.18.1 Environmental Setting
Ethnographic literature indicates that the region surrounding the proposed Project area was near the northwestern extent of the Ohlone or Costanoan people’s precontact territory (Levy 1978). Their territory ranged from the San Francisco Peninsula in the north to Big Sur in the south and from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the Diablo Range in the east. Their vast region included the San Francisco Peninsula, Santa Clara Valley, Santa Cruz Mountains, Monterey Bay area, as well as present-day Alameda County, Contra Costa County, and the Salinas Valley.

The Ohlone language belongs to the Costanoan sub-family, a group of eight languages that were spoken by approximately 50 autonomous groups that occupied lands from the Carquinez Straight in Contra Costa County south into Monterey County. Villages were comprised of 50 to 500 members each, with an average of 200; members interacted freely in matters of marriages, trade, religious and other cultural practices (Levy 1978). The vicinity of the proposed Project area is within the area attributed to the Huchiun Costanoan (Millikin 1995).

Linguistic evidence suggests Ohlone people migrated from the San Joaquin- Sacramento River system and arrived in the San Francisco and Monterey Bay Areas around 2400 before the present (BP; Levy 1978). This migration is thought to have displaced or assimilated earlier Hokan-speaking populations. In the vicinity of the proposed Project, ancient shell mounds from the Newark and Emeryville areas suggest villages were established in those areas as early as 5900 BP (Stanger 1968).

The Ohlone people today belong to one of several geographically distinct groups.

The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe has members from around the San Francisco Bay Area and is composed of descendants of the Ohlone from the San Jose, Santa Clara, and San Francisco missions. The Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation, consisting of descendants of intermarried Rumsen Costanoan and Esselen speakers of Mission San Carlos Borromeo, are centered within the Greater Monterey Bay Area. The Amah-Mutsun Tribe, located inland from Monterey Bay, are descendants of Mutsun Costanoan speakers of Mission San Juan Bautista. The Costanoan Rumsien Carmel Tribe of Pomona/Chino are descendants from Mission San Carlos and now reside in southern California.

4.18.1 Regulatory Setting
Native American Consultation
In accordance with AB 52, as identified in the PRC Section 21080.3.1(b)(2) of CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA, Native American tribes (tribes) identified by the

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 103
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be invited to consult on projects.

On June 13, 2018, a letter was sent to the NAHC requesting a search of their Sacred Lands database and a list of contacts that may have knowledge of cultural or tribal resources within or immediately adjacent to the Project area (Tremaine & Associates and NCE 2021). A response was received June 26, 2018, indicating that the Sacred Lands database search identified the presence of Sacred Native American sites within the Project area. The commission requested that several Native American cultural resource representatives be contacted (Table 8). As requested by the City, tribal representative inquiry letters were mailed on June 27, 2018, and follow-up phone calls were made to each individual identified by the NAHC on September 04, 2018.

Due to Project delays, updated consultation letters were sent to these previous tribes contacted in 2018 on January 20, 2021. After receiving an updated contact list from the NAHC on March 11, 2021, three additional tribes were also sent consultation letters (Table 8). These letters were sent March 16, 2021, and follow up phone calls occurred on March 24, 2021. Three tribes, the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of San Juan Bautisa, and the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, have responded to date.

Table 8. Native American Correspondence between June 2018 and March 2021
Individual Tribe
Affiliation Letter Result Phone Call Results
Rosemary
Cambra
Charlene
Nijmeh
Monica Arellano
Muwekma
Ohlone Indian
Tribe of the SF
Bay Area
Letter unclaimed.

Email with updated
Project information
sent to Ms. Nijmeh
on 1/20/2021. No
response to date.

Contact made on 9/4/2018.

Tribe p
rovided recommendation
in case of discovery of human
remains or cultural resources
artifacts and offered to consult
if requested.

Left message on 3/24/2021 for
Ms. Nijmeh. No response to
date.

Ms. Arellano’s voice mailbox is
full and a message could not be
left on 3/24/2021.

Donald Duncan Guidiville Indian
Rancheria
Letter received
3/22/2021.

Email containing
letter sent on
On 3/24/2021 spoke to tribe
administration who indicated if
THPO did not respond to email,
it most likely means they have
no concerns with the Project.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 104
Individual Tribe
Affiliation Letter Result Phone Call Results
3/16/2021. No
response to letter or
email to date.

Andrew Galvan The Ohlone
Indian Tribe
Letter received (date
unreadable).

Email with updated
Project information
sent on 1/20/2021.

No response to letter
or email to date.

Call attempted 9/4/2018. Phone
number provided by the NAHC
is not valid.

Left message on 3/24/2021. No
response to date.

Corrina Gould
The
Confederated
Villages of
Lisjan
Letter received
3/19/2021.

Email containing
letter sent on
3/16/2021. No
response to letter or
email to date.

Message left on 3/24/2021.

Follow-up email sent on
4/2/2021. No response to date.

Katherine Perez
Timothy Perez
North Valley
Yokuts Tribe
Letter received
7/2/2018.

Email sent to Ms.

Perez with updated
Project information
sent on 1/20/2021.

Ms. Perez replied
indicating the Project

area is sensitive and
Native American
monitors should be
on site during
ground disturbance
activities.

Left message 9/4/2018.

Left message on 3/24/2021 for
Ms. Perez. No response to date.

Mr. Perez’s voice mailbox is full
and a message could not be left
on 3/24/2021.

Ann Marie
Sayers

Kanyon Sayers-
Roods
Indian Canyon
Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Letter received
7/9/2018.

Email sent to Ms.

Sayers with updated
Project information
sent on 1/20/2021
bounced back. Hard
Contact made 9/4/2018;
however, Ms. Sayers requested
a follow-up call from Jeremy
Hall (NCE Cultural Resources
Specialist). Mr. Hall called back
9/7/2018 and left a message.

No response to date.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 105
Individual Tribe
Affiliation Letter Result Phone Call Results
copy letter was sent
to Ms. Sayers on
1/25/2021. No
return
correspondence.

Spoke to Ms. Sayers on
3/24/2021. She recommended
an archaeologist and Native
American monitor be on-site
during any type of ground
disturbing activities including
the XPI geotechnical boreholes.

She indicated she would accept
any tribe monitor from within
the Ohlone territory be present
and requested she be updated
as the Project moves forward.

Left message on 3/24/2021 for
Ms. Sayers-Roods.

Dee Ybarra Rumsen Am:a
Tur:ataj Ohlone
Letter received
3/18/2021.

Email containing
letter sent on
3/16/2021. No
response to letter or
email to date.

Left message on 3/24/2021.

Irenne
Zwierlein
Amah Mutsun
Tribal Band of
Mission San
Juan Bautista
Letter received
7/7/2018.

Email with updated
Project information
sent on 1/20/2021.

No response to date.

Contact made 9/4/2018;
however, Ms. Zweirlein
requested a follow-up call from
Jeremy Hall (NCE Cultural
Resources Specialist). Mr. Hall
called back 9/7/2018 and left a
message.

Spoke to Ms. Zwierlein on
3/24/2021. She recommended
all workers be given cultural
resource sensitivity training
prior to ground disturbing
activities. She would like to be
notified of any Native American
resources identified during the
XPI or construction excavations.

Ms. Zwierlein has no concerns
regarding the XPI.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 106
Individual Tribe
Affiliation Letter Result Phone Call Results
Raymond
Hitchcock

Antonio Ruiz

Jesus Tarango
Wilton
Rancheria
Letter received
7/2/2018.

No return
correspondence.

Emails with updated
Project information
sent to Mr. Ruiz and
Mr. Tarango on
1/20/2021. No
responses to date.

Left message 9/4/2018. No
response to date.

Tribe no longer listed by NAHC
for Project area and no
additional follow-up calls
conducted.

4.18.2 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k), or
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated

4.18.3 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the Page 424 of 1112 CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 107
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k)?
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated

Native American consultation was conducted for the Project as described in above.

As a result of consultation efforts, the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of San Juan Bautisa, and the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan stated concerns for adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources in the APE and requested a tribal monitor be present for any cultural subsurface exploration conducted as part of the XPI subsurface testing. Therefore, tribal monitors were present during the XPI investigation, Phase II borings, and geotechnical investigation. Two of the consulting Tribes were provided a draft copy of the XPI results for their review on May 4, 2022. Both tribes concurred with the XPI results demonstrating the APE has been disturbed and the Project would not have an impact on intact cultural deposits that comprise a part of P-07-003065.

As a federally funded Project, the City must comply with all mitigation measures as outlined in the final documentation submitted to and approved by SHPO. Those measures include an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Action Plan, Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training, Minor Phasing Approach to Identification, Evaluation, & Treatment, and strict protocols for the discovery of Human Remains and Associated Grave Goods. Caltrans and SHPO oversight would provide the necessary mitigation to ensure the Project would have a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-1/TCR-1 requires that during construction, the City and contractor shall comply with all conditions outlined in the Post Review Discovery, Monitoring, ESA Action, and Minor Phasing Plans in areas identified as sensitive in the Final XPI Report, as approved by Caltrans and SHPO, to avoid and protect unknown cultural resources.

Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1/TCR-1 requires sufficient procedures, protocols, and oversight during construction to avoid and/or mitigate potential adverse effects on tribal cultural resources, which would ensure a less than significant impact on subsurface tribal cultural resources.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 108

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.19.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is in an urban area served by existing infrastructure, utilities, and service systems. The Project is a transportation infrastructure improvement project with no need for water or sewer services, thus this section focuses on stormwater and construction waste.

All stormwater from the Project area passes first into the Richmond’s stormwater collection system and into local streams and channels, then ultimately ends up in San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Section 402 of the CWA requires NPDES permits for stormwater discharges from municipal storm drain systems. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Basin (Basin Plan) (San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board n.d.) is the San Francisco RWQCB’s planning document. The Water Board issues the municipal stormwater NPDES permits to address stormwater impairments and recommend actions. Stormwater discharges into the municipal separate storm sewer systems are regulated by the California RWQCB under the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049 (California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region 2015).

Construction waste and demolition debris recovery and disposal for projects in Richmond are handled at the Golden Bear Transfer Station in North Richmond.

Clean source-separated debris such as landscape materials, clean lumber, asphalt, dirt, and clean concrete, is recycled at the West Contra Costa County Sanitary Landfill Processing Facility in Richmond. The materials are used on-site or recycled in a separate section of the closed landfill. Mixed construction debris is accepted for recycling (Contra Costa County Waste Reduction & Recycling 2022).

4.19.2 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the project:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant
Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
No Impact
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate No Impact

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 109
CEQA Question Impact
Determination
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant
Impact
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact

4.19.3 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project provides infrastructure improvements that do not need water, sewer, natural gas, or telecommunications. The Project would construct minor improvements to the current storm drain system in the Project area. These include constructing approximately 311 feet of new storm drain from the south end of San Mateo street along the extension to the new intersection with Pierce Street, and reconfiguring the existing storm drain system at the new intersection with Pierce Street extending approximately 160 feet south to the existing drainage channel outfall. These areas are part of the APE defined for the Project, and these improvements have been considered as part of the Project assessed in each of the resource topics covered in this initial study. All construction mitigation measures identified for the various topics, such as cultural resources and hazards, would apply and would mitigate potential significant effects from construction to less than significant. Therefore, the construction of minor drainage improvements would have a less than significant environmental effect.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
No Impact
The Project would not generate new demand for water. Any new landscaping as part of the Project would be rain-watered, and the Project design does not include an irrigation system.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 110
serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact
The Project would not generate any demand for wastewater. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact
California law requires a 50 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills. The West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority, which includes Richmond and El Cerrito, met the 50 percent waste diversion goal in 2006, and continues to work to maintain this level of diversion (West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority n.d.). Construction waste will be off-hauled and disposed of off-site at local landfills. Demolition waste is estimated at: concrete 35,226 square feet, asphalt 18,151 square feet, clearing and grubbing 6,339 square feet, removing the structure 1,397 square feet, and 40 trees and root balls. In terms of volumetric off-haul there would be the following waste: cut (for grading) 1,035 cubic yards, concrete improvements (curb and gutter) 291 cubic yards, concrete improvements (driveway) 151 cubic yards, concrete improvements (sidewalk) 237 cubic yards, concrete improvements (ramp) 57 cubic yards, paving for all three streets 4,938 cubic yards, and paving for parking lots 696 cubic yards.

As noted above, mixed construction debris is accepted for recycling, and clean source-separated debris such as landscape materials, clean lumber, asphalt, dirt, and clean concrete would be recycled at the West Contra Costa County Sanitary Landfill Processing Facility in Richmond. The materials are used on-site or recycled in a separate section of the closed landfill. Milled asphalt concrete/Portland cement concrete will be recycled on site during construction if useable.

Short-term construction waste would be recycled to the extent feasible, consistent with State and local standards, and the Project would not result in operational solid waste generation once construction is complete. Therefore, the Project would not significantly impact local landfill capacity or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 111

4.20 WILDFIRE

4.20.1 Environmental Setting
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) designates fire hazard severity zones for areas under state jurisdiction. For areas under local jurisdiction, CAL FIRE identifies areas that the department considers to be Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZs); the local jurisdiction must choose whether to adopt the CAL FIRE recommendations. The Project area is not within a state designated VHFHSZ or local designation of VHFHSZ for either the City of Richmond or the City of El Cerrito. However, the City has adopted the CAL FIRE- recommended local designation of VHFHSZ.

4.20.2 CEQA Checklist Summary
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones:

CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact

4.20.3 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact
The Project area is not located within a state responsibility area or on lands classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. The Project would improve fire response capabilities by reconfiguring the intersection and streets to improve traffic flow on Pierce Street, Central Avenue, San Mateo Street, and San Luis Street.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 112
b) Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact
The Project would improve traffic flow within the area in a relatively flat, urbanized area. The Project does not propose to construct or modify habitable structures within the Project area that could expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact
The proposed Project would construct street improvements in an urban area that is not located in a fire risk area and does not require the installation or maintenance of the types of infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact
The Project improves traffic flow between the intersections and within the area. The Project area is mostly flat and the proposed roadway improvements are not a fire susceptible land use that could expose people or structures to post-fire risks.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 113

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

4.21.1 CEQA Checklist Summary
CEQA Question Impact
Determination
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, or the effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than Significant
Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant
Impact

4.21.2 Answers to CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance Questions a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, Project construction could potentially impact resident and/or migratory birds but there is no sensitive habitat or species in the Project area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce the potential to disturb migratory birds to less than significant levels by requiring pre-construction bird nesting surveys and avoidance measures. As mitigated, the Project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, would not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, would not threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, and would not reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 114
As discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, the Project area is situated atop the Orinda formation, which is fossiliferous and may contain paleontological resources.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that paleontological resources are protected during construction by requiring the City to coordinate with a qualified paleontologist to determine if the Project area requires a detailed paleontological resource impact assessment. If the Project is determined to have high or undetermined potential for significant paleontological resources, the City would be required to implement an adequate program for mitigating the impact.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources may be present in the Project area. The Sacred Lands Search indicated the Project had positive results. Construction could inadvertently damage tribal cultural resources if they are present. Inadvertently displacing, removing, or harming tribal cultural resources during construction would be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1/TCR-1 would ensure that construction crews are sensitive to potential tribal cultural resources and understand the processes needed to protect them. The mitigation measure requires compliance with Caltrans procedures, protocols, and oversight developed in coordination with SHPO during construction to avoid and/or mitigate potential adverse effects on cultural and tribal cultural resources, which would ensure a less than significant impact on subsurface cultural and tribal resources.

As discussed in Section 4.13, Noise, the Project-generated construction noise could exceed local standards for a residence during demolition of the adjacent residential structure. Mitigation Measure NOIS-1 would require temporary construction fencing and other measures to reduce noise at the sensitive receptor, reducing the impact to a less than significant level with mitigation.

As discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure that hazardous wastes exposed during construction are appropriately handled, characterized, and disposed of, which would protect construction workers, the public, and the environment from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment and reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, or the effects of probable future projects?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project will not result in an increase in population or growth that would require new housing, facilities, or structures that would cause environmental degradation.

The Project does not result in an exceedance for any criteria air pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment; therefore, there would be no cumulatively

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 115
considerable net increase in criteria pollutants. The Project would be consistent with local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to the protection and mitigation of impacts to sensitive resources, and compliance with the terms of permitting conditions would ensure that adverse impacts to resources are mitigated and would not result in cumulative impacts. All identified potentially significant impacts from construction and implementation would be reduced to less than significant with the mitigation measures that have been included in the Project. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact
All potential impacts associated with construction and implementation of the Project identified in this IS/MND are either less than significant after mitigation or less than significant and do not require mitigation. No adverse effects on human beings, such as noise or hazards was identified. Additionally, implementation of BMPs and compliance with State and federal regulations protecting human and environmental health during construction, such as preparation of a SWPPP and Spill Prevention Plan, would be implemented. Therefore, the Project would not result in environmental effects that cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 116
Section 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
CEQA requires review of any project that could have significant adverse effects on the environment. In 1988, CEQA was amended to require reporting on, and monitoring of mitigation measures adopted as part of the environmental review process. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) is designed to aid the City of Richmond in their implementation and monitoring of measures proposed in the IS for the proposed Project.

Table 9 provides details of the MMRP. The mitigation measures are taken from the IS and are assigned the same number as in the IS. The MMRP describes the actions that must take place to implement each mitigation measure, the timing of those actions, and the entities responsible for implementing and monitoring the actions.

The table consists of the following columns:
• Monitoring and Reporting Action – Listing of the Mitigation Measure, Conservation Measure, or Construction Control from the IS. • Mitigation Activities – List of activities needed per Monitoring and Reporting Action
• Implemented By – Entities required to implement the action(s). • Monitored By – Entity responsible for monitoring the action(s). • Monitoring Schedule – Time(s) when monitoring will be conducted. • Verification of Compliance – Entity that confirms monitored was completed and the date

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 117
Table 9. Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation Activities Implemented
By
Monitored
By
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
of
Compliance
BIO-1

1. If trees, shrubs, or herbaceous
vegetation need to be removed, their
removal shall occur during the non-
breeding season (August 16 - January
31 in this area) if possible to avoid
impacts to nesting birds and their
habitat. If vegetation removal or
ground-disturbing activities with the
potential to impact nesting birds or
their habitat will be conducted during
the breeding season (February 1 -
August 15), a qualified biologist shall
conduct pre-construction avian
surveys. These surveys shall be
conducted no more than 30 days prior
to the initiation of activities that have
the potential to impact migratory birds
and their habitat. A copy of the survey
shall be submitted to the City Engineer
or equivalent prior to the start of
construction activities.

2. If nesting birds are detected within the
Project area during the survey,
consultation with the CDFW shall be
conducted to establish avoidance or
minimization measures that will protect
nesting birds during construction. An
Project
Contractors
shall hire a
qualified
biologist to
conduct
preconstruction
surveys as
described.

Project
Contractors
shall prepare
construction plans
that
incorporate
preconstruction
surveys and
buffer zones. If
required,
avoidance
procedures
shall be
implemented.

Project
Contractors

City of
Richmond
Capital
Projects
Division and
Biologist
No more than
14 days before
start
or restart of
construction
during the
months
of February
through
August.

Verified by:

Date:

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 118
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation Activities Implemented
By
Monitored
By
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
of
Compliance
avoidance/minimization plan shall be
prepared by a qualified biologist and
submitted to the City Engineer or
equivalent and CDFW for review and
approval prior to the start of
construction activities. A suitable
activity-free buffer shall be established
around all active nests. The precise
dimensions of the buffer shall be
determined at that time and may vary
depending on location and species.

Buffers shall remain in-place for the
duration of the breeding season or until
it has been confirmed by a qualified
biologist that all chicks have fledged
and are independent of their parents.

The avoidance or minimization plan
shall be submitted to the City Engineer
or equivalent for review and approval
prior to the start of construction
activities.

CUL-1/TCR-1
During construction, the City and
contractor shall comply with all conditions
outlined in the Post Review Discovery,
Monitoring, ESA Action, and Minor Phasing
Plans in areas identified as sensitive in the
Final XPI Report, as approved by Caltrans
and SHPO, to avoid and protect unknown
cultural and tribal cultural resources.

Project Contractor
City of
Richmond
Capital
Projects
Division and
Archaeologist
City of
Richmond
Capital
Projects
Division
During all
ground
moving
activities
Verified by:

Date:

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 119
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation Activities Implemented
By
Monitored
By
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
of
Compliance
GEO-1
The City shall retain a professional
qualified paleontologist to review the
Paleontological Resource Potential Maps
and determine if the Project area contains
the potential for paleontological resources.

The City shall coordinate for a “request for
opinion” from a qualified professional
paleontologist, state paleontological
clearinghouse, or an accredited institution
with an established paleontological
repository housing paleontological
resources from the region of interest.

In areas determined to have high or
undetermined potential for significant
paleontological resources, an adequate
program for mitigating the impact shall
include:
a. Monitoring by a qualified
paleontological resources monitor
during excavations in previously
undisturbed rock
b. Salvage of unearthed fossil remains
and/or traces (e.g., tracks, trails,
burrows)
c. Screen washing to recover small
specimens, if applicable
d. Preparation of salvaged fossils to a
point of being ready for curation
Project Contractor
City of
Richmond
Capital
Projects
Division and
Paleontologist
City of
Richmond
Capital
Projects
Division
During all
deep
excavation
activities
Verified by:

Date:

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 120
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation Activities Implemented
By
Monitored
By
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
of
Compliance
e. Identification, cataloguing, curation,
and provision for repository storage of
prepared fossil specimens
f. A final report of the findings and their
significance
To assure compliance at the start of the
Project, a statement that confirms the
site’s paleontological potential, confirms
the repository agreement with an
established public institution, and
describes the program for impact
mitigation, must be deposited with the City
of Richmond and contractor(s) before any
ground disturbance begins.

HAZ-1
• The contractor is responsible for offsite
disposal of soils. Soils shall require
profiling and waste characterization
within six months of removal and
stockpiling for disposal facility
acceptance. All soil spills generated at
the Site shall be disposed of by the
contractor and transported by a
licensed waste hauler to an
appropriately licensed waste disposal
facility.
• Soil stockpiles shall be controlled,
covered, and demarcated by the
contractor when not in active use.

Project Contractor
City of
Richmond
Capital
Projects
Division
City of
Richmond
Capital
Projects
Division
During all
ground
moving
activities
Verified by:

Date:

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 121
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation Activities Implemented
By
Monitored
By
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
of
Compliance
• Worker protection and training shall be
required by the City of the contractor in
advance of and during construction to
mitigate potential health concerns
related to exposure of metals and
petroleum hydrocarbons.
• The contractor shall comply with all
regulatory requirements associated
with any discharge to the POTW.
• The contractor shall prepare a soil and
groundwater management plan (SGMP)
that addresses the above mitigation
requirements. The SGMP shall generally
address soil and groundwater
excavation, dewatering, disposal,
stockpiling, and transportation. The
SGMP shall explicitly address
groundwater dewatering and
dewatering discharge, handling and
disposal of soil and groundwater, onsite
soil management, onsite dewatering
storage (if any), offsite soil disposal,
profiling of soil and groundwater,
transportation routes, and dust
mitigation controls.

NOIS-1
• Construct a temporary noise barrier on
the south side of 3211 San Mateo
Street during demolition of the
Project Contractor

City of
Richmond
Capital
Projects
Prior to final
inspection of
the site by
Verified by:

Date:

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 122
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation Activities Implemented
By
Monitored
By
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
of
Compliance
adjacent property (3221) and major
construction activities, (e.g., grading
and excavation for new utilities). This
barrier should be designed to be
sufficient to protect the residents from
sound levels exceeding the City of
Richmond Noise Ordinance.
• All construction equipment should
conform to Section 14-8.02, Noise
Control, of the latest Caltrans Standard
Specifications.
• When feasible, noise-generating
construction activities should be
restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. on weekdays, with no
construction occurring on weekends or
holidays.
• All construction equipment powered by
internal combustion engines shall be
properly muffled and maintained.
• Unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines is prohibited.
• All stationary noise-generating
construction equipment such as air
compressors or portable power
generators are to be located as far as is
practical from existing residences.

Division the City of
Richmond.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 123
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation Activities Implemented
By
Monitored
By
Monitoring
Schedule
Verification
of
Compliance
• Quiet construction equipment,
particularly air compressors, are to be
selected whenever possible.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

REFERENCES RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 124
Section 6 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010. “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.” http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california- environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017b. “Executive Summary of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.”
http://www.baaqmd.gov/%7E/media/files/planning-and-
research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/execsummary-pdf.pdf?la=en.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. “CEQA Guidelines Update.” 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-c limate/california- environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2018. “About Air Quality.” http://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality.

Brunzell, Kara. 2022. Historical Resources Evaluation Report, Highway I-80/Central Avenue Interchange Improvement Project, Phase 2, City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California.

Brunzell Historical and Yarbrough. 2022. Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER), Highway I-80/Central Avenue Interchange Improvement Project, Phase 2.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. “CARB Approves Plan to Meet California’s Bold Climate and Air Quality Goals.” 2017. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carb-approves-plan-meet-californias-bold- climate-and-air-quality-goals.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2018a. “AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan.” https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2018b. “Area Designations Maps/State and National.”
California Association of Environmental Professionals. 2022. 2022 CEQA Statute and Guidelines. https://www.califaep.org/statute_and_guidelines.php.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 2011. “California Environmental Quality Act”. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and- climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa.

California Department of Conservation. 2016. “California Important Farmland Finder.” https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

California Department of Conservation. 2018. “Farmland of Local Importance Contra Costa County.”
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/ContraCosta.aspx.

California Department of Conservation. 2019a. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp.

California Department of Conservation. 2019b. “EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application.”
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp.

California Department of Finance, State of. 2022. “American Community Survey (ACS).” https://dof.ca.gov/reports/demographic-reports/american- community-survey/.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

REFERENCES RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 125
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. n.d. “Map of CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas – El Cerrito.” https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5777/el_cerrito.pdf.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. n.d. “California Natural Diversity Database.” Accessed May 19, 2022. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). n.d.-a “Standard Environmental Reference.” Accessed August 18, 2022.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/standard- environmental-reference-ser.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). n.d.-b “Scenic Highways.” Accessed July 1, 2022. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-la ndscape- architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects. May. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2015. “Caltrans 2015 Vista Points.”
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=5f82ccb700874868bf07f8cfa2a4 3a1f.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2017. Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual. CTSW-RT-17-314.18.1. Sacramento, CA. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/construction/documents/environmental-compliance/csbmp- may-2017-final.pdf.

California Division of Mines and Geology. 1969. Geologic and Engineering Aspects of San Francisco Bay Fill. Special Report 97.

Cal Engineering & Geology. 2022. Geotechnical Report, Central Avenue at I=80 Local Road Improvement Project.

California Native Plant Society. n.d. “CNPS Rare Plant Inventory.” Accessed May 13, 2022. https://rareplants.cnps.org.

Cardno Eri. 2013. Leonard Well Investigation Report.

City of El Cerrito. n.d. “City Council Resolutions and Climate Action.” Accessed September 8, 2022. https://www.el-cerrito.org/324/City-Council- Resolutions-and-Climate-Act.

City of El Cerrito. 1999. City of El Cerrito 1999 General Plan. Accessed July 1, 2022. http://www.el-cerrito.org/718/General-Plan.

City of El Cerrito. 2014. San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Accessed October 27, 2022. https://www.el-cerrito.org/396/San-Pablo-Avenue-Specific-Plan City of El Cerrito. 2019. El Cerrito Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan.

Accessed October 26, 2022. http://el-
cerrito.org/DocumentCenter/View/11740/El-Cerrito-PRFMP_Master-Plan City of El Cerrito. 2022. City of El Cerrito San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Update- Final Draft. October 2022. https://www.el-cerrito.org/396/San-Pablo- Avenue-Specific-Plan
City of El Cerrito Public Works and Community Development Departments, and Fehr & Peers. 2016. City of El Cerrito Active Transportation Plan. https://el- cerrito.org/DocumentCenter/View/6290/Active-Transportation-Plan?bidId=.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

REFERENCES RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 126
City of Richmond. n.d. “Encroachment Permit Guidelines.” Engineering & Capital Improvements Project Department, Encroachment Services Division. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8807/10-Economic- Development-Element?bidId=.

City of Richmond. 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030.
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2608/General-Plan-2030.

City of Richmond. 2016. “Climate Action Plan.”
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/40636/CAP-combined.

City of Richmond. n.d. Encroachment Permit Guidelines. Engineering & Capital Improvement Projects Department, Encroachment Services Division. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/5363/Encroachment- Permit-Application-Guidelines?bidId=.

City of Richmond GIS, and Thomas Bros. Maps. n.d. “City of Richmond Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ).” Accessed August 19, 2022. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/416/Very-Hi gh-Fire-
Hazard-Severity-Zones-VHFHSZ-E-size?bidId=.

Clarke Blake Jr., M. and D.L. Jones. 1974. “Origin of Franciscan melanges in Northern California.” SEPM Special Publication. DOI 10.2110/pec.74.19.

Contra Costa County Waste Reduction & Recycling. 2022. “West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill.” 2022.
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/depart/cd/recycle/options/v5126.htm.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2009. I-80/Central Avenue Interchange Improvement Project Feasibility Study. Prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2017. 2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. 2017 Countywide Transportation Plan. September 20, 2017. https://ccta.net/planning/2017-countywide-transportation-plan/.

Dibblee, T.W. 1980. “Preliminary Geologic Map of the Richmond Quadrangle, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California.” US Geological Survey.

East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2022. “Service Area for East Bay Municipal Utility District.” 2022. https://www.ebmud.com/about-us/who-we-are/service-area.

Fehr & Peers. 2018. Final Transportation Impact Assessment.

Fehr& Peers. 2022. Central Avenue at I-80 Local Road Improvement Project - Average Daily Traffic Volumes Comparison Draft Memorandum.

Fehr & Peers, and Eisen Letunic. 2011. City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2739/Bicycle-Master-Plan.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416- 743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf.

Graymer, R.W, D.L Jones, and E.E Brabb. 1994. “Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock Formations in Contra Costa County, California: A Digital Database.” U.S. Geological Survey.
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr94622.

Levy, Richard. 1978. “Costanoan.” In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 1st edition, 8:485–95. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

REFERENCES RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 127
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and Association of Bay Area Governments. 2017. Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy for the San Francisco Bay Area 2017-2040.

MIG, Inc and the City of El Cerrito Community Development Department. 2015. El Cerrito Urban Greening Plan. December 15, 2015. https://el- cerrito.org/DocumentCenter/View/5415/UrbanGreeningPlan_Final-Draft- 121515?bidId=
Millikin, R. 1995. “A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1769-1810.” Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43, 4.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. n.d. “Web Soil Survey.” Accessed January 2, 2022.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.

NCE. 2018. Central Avenue at I-80 Local Road Improvement Project, Biological Resource Assessment.

NCE. 2022a. Air Quality Report, Central Avenue at I-80 Local Road Improvement Project.

NCE. 2022b. Biological Resources Evaluation, Central Avenue at I-80 Local Road Improvement Project.

NCE. 2022c. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Central Avenue at Interstate 80 (I-80) Local Road Improvement Project.

NCE. 2022d. Phase II Findings Report Soil and Shallow Groundwater Investigation, Central Avenue at Interstate 80 (I-80) Local Road Improvement Project.

NCE. 2022e. Location Hydraulic Study Form.

NCE. 2022f. Summary Floodplain Encroachment Report.

NCE. 2022g. Noise Study Report.

P&D. 2012. Subsurface Investigation Report, B1 Through B7, 5620 Central Avenue Richmond, CA.

San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. n.d. “Water Quality Control Plan.” Accessed June 18, 2022.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/~rwqcb2/basin_planning.html.

San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2015. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Order No. R2-2015-0049 NPDES Permit No.

CAS612008. November 19, 2015.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/st ormwater/Municipal/R2_2015_0049_amended.pdf.

Schwartz, Richard. 2002.. “Archaeological Sit Record for P-07-003065.” Stanger, Frank. 1968. La Peninsula. Vol. XIV No. 4.

State Water Quality Control Board. n.d. “GeoTracker.” Accessed September 23, 2020. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

Stege Sanitary District. n.d. “About SSD.” Stege Sanitary District. Accessed July 1, 2022. https://www.stegesan.org/about-ssd.

Tremaine, K., and M. Laitinen. 2022. Archaeological Survey Report and Extended Phase I Proposal, I-80 Central Avenue Interchange Improvement Project, Contra Costa County, California.

Tremaine, K., and K. Page-Schmit. 2022a. Extended Phase I Report, I-80 Central Avenue Interchange Improvement Project, Contra Costa County, California.

CENTRAL AVENUE AT INTERSTATE 80 (I-80) LOCAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

REFERENCES RICHMOND, CA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 2022 Page | 128
Tremaine, K., and K. Page-Schmit. 2022b. Finding of No Adverse Effect with Non- Standard Conditions, I-80 Central Avenue Interchange Improvement Project, Phase 2, Contra Costa County, California.

Tremaine, K., and K. Page-Schmit. 2022c. Compilation of Plans for a Phased Identification Effort, I-80 Central Avenue Interchange Improvement Project, Phase 2, Contra Costa County, California.

Tremaine & Associates. 2022. Finding of No Adverse Effect with Non-Standard Conditions.

Tremaine & Associates and NCE. 2021. Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) and Extended Phase I Investigation (XPI) Work Plan, I-80 Central Avenue Interchange Improvement Project, Phase 2.

United States Conference of Mayors. 2016. “Mayors Climate Protection Center.” December 6, 2016. https://www.usmayors.org/programs/mayors-climate- protection-center/.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d. “IPaC: Information for Planning and Consultation.” Accessed May 13, 2022. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/.

Vallier & Associates. 2018. Scenic Resource Evaluation/Visual Impact Assessment. https://www.slc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/AppC-2.pdf.

Vallier Design Associates, MacNair & Associates, and LSA Associates. 2017. “City of Richmond Urban Greening Master Plan.”
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/42026/Richmond- Urban-Greening-Master-Plan-April-2017?bidId=.

Vallier Design Associates and MacNair & Associates. 2007. City of El Cerrito Urban Forest Management Plan. https://www.el-
cerrito.org/DocumentCenter/View/893/Urban_Forest_Management_Plan?bidI d=.

West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority. n.d. “RecycleMore FAQ.” RecycleMore. Accessed July 1, 2022.
https://recyclemore.com/about/faq/.

Western Geographic Science Center. 2021.“A Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of the San Francisco/Oakland Area | U.S. Geological Survey. 2021. https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/liquefaction-susceptibility-map-san- franciscooakland-area.

January 24, 2023

Finance Department

DATE: January 24, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Shasa Curl, City Manager
Nickie Mastay, Deputy City Manager
Mubeen Qader, Acting Director of Finance
Bisa French, Police Chief
Angel Montoya, Fire Chief

Subject:

Mid-Year Budget Presentation
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for receiving department presentations.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City staff from various City departments will provide an overview of their programs, staffing, and Fiscal Year
2022-2023 budget.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE budget presentations from the city manager
and the Police and Fire departments – Finance
Department (Shasa Curl 510-620-6512/Bisa French 510-
621-1802/Angel Montoya 510-307-8041/Mubeen Qader
510-412-2077).

AGENDA
REPORT

January 24, 2023
DISCUSSION:

City departments are giving the City Council an update on their accomplishments and goals at the mid-point of the Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

Below is the schedule of presentations.

January 17, 2023: Public Works (Building Maintenance, Engineering & Capital Improvement Projects, Fleet, Maintenance & Abatement, Parks Maintenance, Water Resource Recovery)

January 24, 2023: Police (Administration, Traffic, Investigations, Patrol) Fire (Administration and Support, Emergency Services, Fire Prevention, Training)

February 7, 2023: Internal Services (Information Technology, Human Resources, Finance)
City Manager
Economic Development
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Council
Mayor’s Office

February 21, 2023: Community Services (Children and Youth, Employment & Training, Environmental and Community Investment Agreement Grant
Administration, Library, Office of Neighborhood Safety, Recreation, Transportation)
Community Development (Building, Code Enforcement, Housing Policy, Planning, Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency)

NEXT STEPS:

City staff will return on February 7th with the department presentations from Internal Services (Information Technology, Human Resources, Finance), City Manager, Economic Development, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Council, and Mayor’s Office.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Richmond Police and Fire Department Presentations

Police Department
FY 2022-23 Mid-Year
Budget Presentation
January 24, 2023
1 INSERT AN IMAGE

WHAT WE DO  Engage with the community to prevent crime and maintain order (Community Ambassador Academy,
Coffee with a Cop, Neighborhood Council
meetings).
 Smart policing through crime analysis and
adoption of new technologies (Crime Accountability
meetings, Police Strategies use of force analysis,
Peregrine data integration).
 Build public trust to strengthen community
relationships (command-level use of force review,
civilian oversight of Internal Affairs, Transparent
Richmond).
 Problem-solve community concerns to address
underlying conditions that contribute to crime
(geographic patrol deployment, decentralized chain
of command, community-policing culture).
2

WHAT WE DID IN FY 2022-23 (JULY – DECEMBER 2022)
 Collaborated with the Human Resources
Department to develop a comprehensive
recruiting strategy to fill vacant positions
within the police department.
 Reorganized specialty assignments to
preserve current expertise within the
department and continued providing
essential services to the community.
 Procured resources to implement a
comprehensive organizational wellness
program for all Police Department
personnel.
3

WHAT WE PLAN TO DO IN FY 2022-23 (JANUARY – JUNE 2023)
 Continue to recruit and hire all vacant
positions and enhance public safety services
to the community.
 Reconfigure the Police Department facility to
address community needs and improve
overall department efficiency.
 Continue collaborating with county mental
health professionals to transition the
responsibility of mental health and unhoused
service calls to non-sworn service providers.
 Continue working with City of Richmond and
County partners to reduce violent crime and
support community members affected by it.
4

5 WHO WE ARE (STAFF)

WHO WE ARE (STAFF)
FY 2022-23 Approved
Positions
Vacant Positions as of
December 31, 2022
Staffing 212 63

FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 BUDGET
6 FY2022-23 BUDGET vs. ACTUALS ( Thru December 31, 2022) Revised Budget Actuals
Revenue Licenses, Permits, Fees 90,500 219,273
Fines & Forfeitures 150,000 30,843
Use of Money/Property 2,263
Charges for Services 1,122,500 416,621
Other Revenue 82,000 52,196
Grants 977,127 212,641
Total Revenue 2,422,127 872,151
Expenditures Salaries & Wages 32,201,099 12,942,399
Benefits 28,524,847 11,086,808
Professional & Admin 4,473,527 1,506,495
Other Operating 2,568,753 1,317,634
Utilities 400,000 88,148
Equipment & Contract
Services 542,355 94,540
Provision for Ins Loss 5,200 5,200
Cost Pool 3,269,974 1,362,488
Asset/Capital Outlay 996,433 35,849
Debt Service 206,031 118,080
Total Expenditures 73,188,218 28,557,642
Net Impact (70,766,091) (27,685,491)

FIRE DEPARTMENT
January 24, 2022
7

OUR MISSION
8 ● The Richmond Fire Department is a
dedicated workforce of highly motivated
and technically skilled professionals of
rapid response. It is our purpose to
protect life and preserve property.
● We are a profession that knows no limit
to what we will respond to and we
prepare without constraint to meet the
challenges of our chosen profession.
● The citizens, businesses and visitors to the
City of Richmond can expect a caring,
courteous and competent response when
rendered our aid.

WHAT WE DO

FIRE PREVENTION
9 WHAT WE DO
● Administration: administers policies and
guidelines, manage contract execution,
payroll, purchase order requisition, and
payments
● Support Services: analyze and track budget,
logistics, incidents, risks, and performance
● Emergency Operations: fire suppression,
technical rescue, hazardous materials
response, emergency medical services
● Training Division: oversee training, EMS
licensure, quality improvement plan, and
acting certifications
● Fire Prevention: conduct State mandated
inspections, fire investigations, public
education, and fire prevention services to
Chevron
● Office of Emergency Services: provide
ongoing leadership, disaster plan/exercises,
and Emergency Operations Plan

WHAT WE DO

FIRE PREVENTION
10 ● Advocated for the finalization of Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) Agreement between
IAFF Local 188 and the City of Richmond
● Established a Return-To-Work training and
updated Richmond Fire Department Policy
Manual to reflect current operational
procedures
● Completed acting position lists for Battalion
Chief, Fire Captain, and Engineer
● Successfully interviewed 96 candidates from
over 400 Firefighter Trainee applicants
● Promoted and filled one (1) Battalion Chief
vacancy
WHAT WE DID IN FY 2022-23
(JULY-DECEMBER 2022)

WHAT WE DO

FIRE PREVENTION
11 WHAT WE DID IN FY 2022-23
(JULY-DECEMBER 2022)
● Conducted over 650 State mandated
inspections
● Presented fire and life safety classes to
local elementary schools
● Installed free smoke alarms to Richmond
residents in partnership with the American
Red Cross
● Provided toys and food to over 500 families
for the holiday season, in partnership with
the Richmond Police Department

12 WHAT WE PLAN TO DO IN
FY 2022-23
(JANUARY-JUNE 2023)
● Implement the Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) Contract, which City
Council approved on December 20,
2022
● Hire firefighter recruits
● Administer fire academy in March 2023
● Promote and fill one (1) Battalion Chief
position due to recent vacancy

13 ● Conduct promotional exams and
establish a promotional list for Captain,
and Engineer rank
● Fill one (1) Office of Emergency Services
(OES) Manager vacancy
● Collaborate with Richmond
Communication Center (RCC) to improve
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system
that is better suitable for the Fire
Department
● Place Tiller Truck Apparatus into Service

WHAT WE PLAN TO DO IN
FY 2022-23
(JANUARY-JUNE 2023)

14 WHO WE ARE (STAFF)
FY 2022-23 Approved
Positions
Vacant Positions as of
December 31, 2022
Staffing 94 15
8 MQ0

WHO WE ARE (STAFF)

15 FY2022-23 BUDGET vs. ACTUALS ( Thru December 31, 2022) Revised Budget Actuals
Revenue Property Taxes 215,586
Licenses, Permits, Fees 925,000 247,662
Use of Money/Property 1,452
Charges for Services 870,503 1,033,025
Total Revenue 2,011,089 1,282,139
Expenditures Salaries & Wages 18,574,259 8,714,168
Benefits 14,824,371 6,636,637
Professional & Admin 1,539,815 98,342
Other Operating 426,677 43,166
Utilities 33,500 8,910
Equipment & Contract Services 234,850 29,202
Provision for Ins Loss 23,441 23,441
Cost Pool 1,214,448 506,020
Asset/Capital Outlay 80,059 4,220
Debt Service 114,613
Operating Transfers Out 326,018 135,842
Total Expenditures 37,392,051 16,199,949
Net Impact (35,380,962) (14,917,810)
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 BUDGET

16 THANK YOU!
QUESTIONS?

January 24, 2023

Community Development

DATE: January 24, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development
Hector J. Rojas, Planning Manager
Andrea Villarroel, Planner II

Subject:

6th Cycle Housing Element Adoption Hearing
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact related to adoption of this resolution.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City of Richmond (City) has prepared an update to
its Housing Element, which will cover an eight-year
period between 2023 and 2031 (6th Cycle planning
period). The City's Housing Element is a state-required element and is one of 15 elements that comprise the
City’s General Plan. The 6th Cycle Housing Element
includes housing-related goals, policies, and programs to address the City’s existing and future housing needs. It also identifies changes in the City’s demographics,
economics, and housing supply; analyzes housing
constraints and resources; creates a plan that identifies sites for potential housing; and updates existing and/or develops new housing goals, objectives, policies, and
programs as appropriate.

AGENDA
REPORT

January 24, 2023
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ADOPT a resolution adopting the Addendum to the
Richmond General Plan 2030 Environmental Impact
Report (SCH#2008022018), adopting a General Plan
Amendment to repeal the Richmond General Plan 2015-
2023 Housing Element, and adopting the Housing
Element Update for the 2023-2031 (6th cycle) planning
period (PLN22-130) – Community Development
Department (Lina Velasco 510-620-6841/Hector Rojas
510-621-1220).

BACKGROUND:

The Housing Element is part of the City’s General Plan, and it identifies policies and programs to meet the housing needs of the City’s current and future residents. State law requires that every California city and county adopt a Housing Element every eight years. Additionally, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews and determines whether each jurisdiction’s Housing Element substantially complies with State Housing Element Law. The City’s current Housing Element was adopted and certified in May 2015, and covers the 5th Cycle planning period (2015-2023). The 6th Cycle Housing Element will cover the 2023-2031 planning period and must be adopted by January 31, 2023 (Exhibit B of Attachment 1). The 6th Cycle Housing Element includes several major components:

1. Policy and Programs Review: Assessment of progress in implementing the policies and programs from the prior Housing Element.

2. Housing Needs Assessment: Analysis of demographic data, economic trends, and current housing inventory and characteristics. The analysis also considers the needs of special needs populations (e.g., the unhoused, large households, low income, seniors, female-headed households, etc.).

3. Housing Constraints Assessment: Analysis and approach to addressing existing and potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the development of housing.

4. Adequate Sites Inventory: Identification of housing sites available for development or redevelopment, also ensuring sufficient capacity to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

5. Analysis of Fair Housing (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing): Analysis of existing fair housing and segregation issues and the plan to address any identified disparities in housing needs, displacement, or access to opportunity.

6. Housing Resources Assessment: Review of administrative and financial resources available to support the development, preservation, and rehabilitation

January 24, 2023
of housing.

7. Implementation Plan: Identification of goals, policies, and programs dedicated to meeting the City’s housing needs.

The City’s Housing Element Update triggers state laws (Senate Bills 1241 and 1000) requiring the City to amend its Public Safety and Noise Element to add information on fire risks and create a new Environmental Justice Element. The Environmental Justice Element and amendments to the Public Safety and Noise Element are underway and are anticipated to be considered by the City Council by April 2023.

DISCUSSION:

6th Cycle Housing Element

The 6th Cycle Housing Element aims to achieve several housing related goals that include:
 Promoting new housing construction to create more equitable and affordable options that meet Richmond’s RHNA targets;
 Facilitating different housing types to accommodate housing needs of moderate- and lower income households and create inclusive neighborhoods for all income levels;
 Removing constraints to the development of housing;
 Creating housing opportunities for people with special needs, including seniors, persons with disabilities, single-parent households, first-time homebuyers, large families, and unhoused individuals and families;
 Conserving and improving the existing housing stock to enhance quality of life and provide greater housing stability and community resiliency;  Promoting fair housing access and opportunities for all persons; and  Encouraging energy and resource conservation and sustainability measures.

The 6th Cycle Housing Element is comprised of four sections that outline current and future housing needs of the community, housing resources, and a housing plan. The housing plan builds upon and revises the goals, policies, and programs from the 5th Cycle Housing Element to ensure that the City can meet the housing needs of all Richmond residents through the 6th Cycle. The 6th Cycle Housing Element is supported by seven appendices, which provide more detailed information on the topics discussed in the element. Table 1 below includes a list of the sections and appendices comprising the 6th Cycle Housing Element:

Table 1: Housing Element Sections and Appendices
Sections Appendices
I - Introduction
II – Projected Housing Need
III – Housing Resources
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment
Appendix B: Sites Inventory and Methodology
Appendix C: Housing Constraints

January 24, 2023
Table 1: Housing Element Sections and Appendices
Sections Appendices
IV – Housing Plan Appendix D: Existing Programs Review
Appendix E: Public Participation Summaries
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Assessment
Appendix G: Housing Resources

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)

Every city in California receives a target for new housing, called the RHNA, which includes housing at all income levels. Cities do not need to ensure these units are built, but they do need to establish the proper zoning and address constraints so the private sector can build the targeted number of units.

For the new RHNA cycle, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) allocated jurisdiction-specific housing goals based on the projected 2050 population growth, proximity to jobs, transportation, and the presence of high-opportunity areas. “High- opportunity areas” are a new concept this cycle, and they are defined as residential neighborhoods with high property values and access to good schools, parks, and jobs within the greater region. The RHNA targets include total numbers of new homes that should be constructed, which are affordable to households in different income categories (very-low income to above-moderate income). The City’s income-specific RHNA targets for the previous and current cycles can be seen in Table 2 below:

Table 2: RHNA Allocation for Richmond
Cycle Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
5th
(2015-2023)
438 305 410 1,282 2,435
6th
(2023-2031)
840 485 638 1,651 3,614

Richmond’s RHNA for the 6th Cycle is higher than in previous cycles due to the new State law changes. For the 6th Cycle, the State’s methodology changed to account for unmet existing need, rather than only the projected housing need. This allocation is intended to address past housing deficits as well as projected demand. In developing its RHNA targets, the State also considered overcrowded households (i.e., households with more than one person per room), cost-burdened households (those paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing), and a target vacancy rate (minimum of five percent) for a healthy housing market. These factors contributed to a higher RHNA target for the 6th Cycle. Table 3 below demonstrates that the City has the capacity to meet its 6th Cycle RHNA targets through construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), already approved or entitled projects, projects currently under consideration

January 24, 2023
(preliminary pipeline projects), and development of opportunity sites identified in the sites inventory for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Table 3: RHNA Allocation and Residential Development Potential Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
6th Cycle RHNA 840 485 638 1,651 3,614
ADU 155 155 155 52 517
Approved/
Entitled Projects
172 371 257 2,569 3,369
Preliminary
Pipeline Projects
280 132 78 1,019 1,509
Sites Inventory 416 216 198 830
Total Capacity 1,681 706 3,838 6,225

Goals, Policies, and Programs

The 6th Cycle Housing Element aims to encourage the production of new housing to meet the city’s RHNA targets and increase housing for underrepresented populations.

This would be done by adopting a series of goals and policies that support housing programs related to key issue areas found throughout the community outreach process.

The key issue areas include focusing on increasing available housing, protecting existing housing stock, addressing specific housing needs and the needs of vulnerable populations, and promoting fair housing access. Table 4 below includes a list of specific goals and policies included in the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Table 4: 6th Cycle Housing Element Goals and Policies
Goals Policies
Goal 1: Promote new housing
construction to create more equitable
and affordable options that meet
Richmond’s Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA).

Policy 1.1 Housing Element Implementation. Coordinate and monitor the implementation of the City’ s Housing Element Policy 1.2 Adequate Supply of Housing Sites. Ensure an adequate supply of housing sites to achieve the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation numbers for the 2023-2031 planning period
Goal 2: Facilitate different housing
types to accommodate housing needs
of moderate- and lower-income
households and create inclusive
neighborhoods for all income levels.

Policy 2.1 Supply of Affordable Housing. Promote the development of homes that are affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households in all new residential developments as well as in existing single-family neighborhoods.

Policy 2.2 Variety of Housing Choices and Access. Promote a variety of housing types that meet the different lifestyle and life cycle needs of residents including young adults, young couples and single professionals, small and large families, empty-nesters, and older couples.

Policy 2.3 Funding for Affordable Housing Development. Identify and secure funding sources to assist with affordable housing development.

Policy 2.4 Balanced Neighborhoods. Encourage a mix of affordable and market rate housing within neighborhoods.

January 24, 2023
Table 4: 6th Cycle Housing Element Goals and Policies
Goals Policies
Policy 2.5 Rent Subsidies for Affordable Housing. Identify and secure funding to provide rent subsidies that assist extremely low and very low-income families, seniors, and persons.

Goal 3: Remove constraints to the
development of housing.

Policy 3.1 Reduction of Housing Production Constraints.

Implement measures to remove or reduce constraints to housing production in Richmond.

Policy 3.2 Collaboratively Address Constraints. Consult with stakeholders (e.g., housing organizations, for- and non-profit developers) to identify and seek solutions to address constraints to housing production.

Goal 4: Create housing opportunities
for people with special needs, including
seniors, persons with disabilities, single-
parent households, first-time
homebuyers, large families, unhoused
individuals and families.

Policy 4.1 Senior Housing Development. Actively seek to expand the development of affordable housing for extremely low, very low, low and moderate-income seniors.

Policy 4.2 Accessible Housing Opportunities. Actively seek to expand housing opportunities for persons with disabilities in new and existing single-family and multifamily developments.

Policy 4.3 Child Daycare. Actively seek to expand child daycare opportunities to assist single-parent and dual-income households, especially those who are extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income.

Policy 4.4 First-Time Homebuyer Opportunities. Actively seek to expand housing opportunities for extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income first-time homebuyers.

Policy 4.5 Large-Family Housing. Actively seek to expand housing opportunities for large families that are extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income.

Goal 5: Conserve and improve the
existing housing stock to enhance
quality of life and provide greater
housing stability and community
resiliency.

Policy 5.1 Preservation and Modernization of Public Housing.

Preserve and systematically modernize Richmond’s public housing developments.

Policy 5.2 Conservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing Units.

Facilitate the conservation of subsidized housing developments that are at risk of converting to market rate housing.

Policy 5.3 Abatement of Foreclosures, Substandard Housing, and Blight. Improve the physical, social, and economic health of neighborhoods by addressing foreclosures, substandard housing conditions, and neighborhood blight through a balanced program of education, code enforcement, inspections, acquisition, and financial assistance.

Goal 6: Promote fair housing access
and opportunities for all persons.

Policy 6.1 Tenant Protections. Explore reasonable and enforceable regulations that protect tenants from evictions and exorbitant rent increases and refer residents with issues such as foreclosures, landlord-tenant disputes, and unlawful evictions, and housing discrimination to counseling services.

Policy 6.2 Discrimination Prevention. Identify, monitor, and prevent discriminatory housing practices.

Policy 6.3 Displacement Avoidance. Create housing stability for current residents by supporting limited equity and community ownership models and facilitating the preservation and production of affordable housing units.

January 24, 2023
Table 4: 6th Cycle Housing Element Goals and Policies
Goals Policies
Policy 6.4 Resources Alignment. Prioritize programming and align funding and resources, including City staff, with highest needs.

Policy 6.5 Lower Income Family Needs. Assess unit size production of publicly subsidized units and align target unit sizes of publicly funded and private development projects with the needs of lower income families with children as feasible.

Goal 7: Encourage energy and
resource conservation and sustainability
measures.

Policy 7.1 Green Building Measures and Practices. Promote the incorporation of green building measures and practices in new residential development projects and existing residential structures.

Community Engagement and Outreach

The City led a robust community engagement and outreach process throughout the year by reaching out to stakeholders and the public and informing them of the City’s ongoing planning efforts and inviting them to give input on the community’s housing needs and priorities. Community outreach for the 6th Cycle Housing Element was conducted through a variety of methods to ensure access and participation by all economic segments of the population, but with a particular focus on outreach to traditionally underrepresented groups as required by Assembly Bill (AB) 686. AB 686 requires that community outreach efforts for the 6th Cycle Housing Element process include public housing authorities, housing and community development providers, advocacy groups (local, regional, and State level), members of protected classes, community members who are lower income, persons and households with special needs, fair housing agencies, independent living centers, regional centers, and homeless service agencies. The methods used for community engagement and outreach for the 6th Cycle Housing Element are summarized in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Community Engagement and Outreach Methods
Event Date Mode Description
Study Session
with the Planning
Commission
May 19,
2022
Online This session served as an introductory, educational, and expectation-setting meeting. The study session’s purpose was to provide background information and context (e.g., purpose of the Housing Element update, state law and
requirements, process and engagement strategy,
relationship between the Housing Element update and the Housing Equity Roadmap) and offered an opportunity for
early input.

Stakeholder
Interviews
February –
June 2022
Online Consultant teams conducted stakeholder interviews and focus groups with representatives from City and County
departments, elected and appointed local officials,
neighborhood councils and associations, and others.

Additionally, interviews with housing organizations, housing service providers, affordable housing developers, business and private development companies took place.

Pop-Ups April –
December
In-Person Staff and consultant team conducted in-person pop-ups to engage residents throughout the City. Pop-ups informed
residents about the Housing Element process and related

January 24, 2023
Table 5: Community Engagement and Outreach Methods
Event Date Mode Description
2022 General Plan amendments and offered residents the
opportunity to subscribe for email updates about upcoming public meetings.

Resident
Advisory Council
(“RAC”)
June –
September
2022
Hybrid A Resident Advisory Group (RAC) was formed to gather feedback on housing challenges and solutions and to ensure that key issues, data, and housing policies identified in the Housing Element update aligned with community concerns
and lived experiences. The RAC was made up of 10 City
resident members or other constituents (i.e., business
operators) and met 6 times either in person or virtually.

Community
Workshop
October 29,
2022
In-Person The purpose of the workshop was to share information on the Housing Element update, answer questions, and gather community input on relevant issues. This was also an
opportunity to inform the residents that the public review period for the draft Housing Element was open and of the many ways they could share input.

Public Review
Period
October 21 –
November
21, 2022
Online The public review period for the draft Housing Element update was open for 30 days as mandated by State law. The City offered three ways to submit comments: via email, mail, or an online comment form.

Public Hearings January
2023
Online Prior to its adoption, the Housing Element update will have had two public hearings, one with the Planning Commission (which occurred on January 5, 2023) and one with City
Council (scheduled for January 24, 2023).

Environmental Review

The City, acting as Lead Agency, certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2008022018) as part of General Plan Update in 2012. The City has prepared an Addendum to the 2012 EIR, which describes the 6th Cycle Housing Element and compares its impacts to those identified in the 2012 General Plan EIR (Exhibit A of Attachment 1). The analysis demonstrates that the proposed project does not require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.). More specifically, the 6th Cycle Housing Element would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, since the 6th Cycle Housing Element would not change any of the existing General Plan land use designations. In addition, new development proposed and considered during the 6th Cycle Housing Element would be subject to the same standards and review procedures currently in place, which includes CEQA review on a project-specific basis. The Richmond General Plan 2030 EIR is available at www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2608/General- Plan-2030 (Attachment 2).

January 24, 2023
Planning Commission Recommendation

On January 5, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Addendum to the General Plan 2030 EIR and adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 23-01 recommending: 1) adoption of the Addendum to the General Plan EIR, 2) repealing the 5th Cycle Housing Element, and 3) adopting the 6th Cycle Housing Element with some specific modifications (Attachment 3). The first modification recommended by the Planning Commission was that the proposed time frame for implementation of Program 1.I (Minimum Densities) and Program 2.B (Development Impact Fees) be moved to an earlier time within the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period. The only other modification recommended was to add additional program language in the Housing Element to highlight the importance of working with residents and property managers to identify and address any deteriorating housing conditions at multi-family common-interest and other residential developments that could eventually threaten the life and safety of its residents. The Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element, Exhibit B of Attachment 1, is redlined to show how the modifications recommended by the Planning Commission have been incorporated into the document.

CONCLUSION:

City staff recommends the City Council adopt the draft Resolution in Attachment 1 adopting the Addendum to the General Plan EIR, repealing the 2015-2023 Housing Element, and adopting the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Draft City Council Resolution
Exhibit A: Addendum to the Certified General Plan EIR
Exhibit B (with Appendices A – G): Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element (redlined to show the Planning Commission’s recommended changes) Exhibit C: Compliance with Statutory Provisions
Attachment 2: Richmond General Plan 2030 EIR
(available from: www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2608/General-Plan-2030) Attachment 3: Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-01

1 Attachment 1

PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ADOPTING THE ADDENDUM TO THE RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN 2030 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2008022018) AND ADOPT ING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REPEALLING THE GENERAL PLAN 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT

AND ADOPTING THE RICHMOND GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE FOR THE 2023-2031 (6TH CYCLE) PLANNING PERIOD (PLN22-130).

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65300 requires each city and county jurisdiction to adopt a comprehensive, long -term general plan for the physical development of the county and/or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning; and

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65302 lists the housing element as one of the general plan elements mandated by the State of California; and

WHEREAS, in May 2015, the City Council of the City of Richmond (the “City”) adopted the Richmond Housing Element Update for the 2015-2023 planning period, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) found that the Housing Element Update for the 2015-2023 planning period substantially conformed with State law; and

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65588 requires the City to update its general plan housing element every eight years; and

WHEREAS, the City is a jurisdiction within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (the Association of Bay Area Governments ( “ABAG”)) that adopted a Sustainable Communities Strategy (Plan Bay Area 2050) in compliance with SB 375; and

WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law ( Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City adopt a Housing Element for the upcoming eight-year planning period (2023-2031) to accommodate the City’s regional housing need s allocation ( “RHNA”) target of 3,614 housing units, comprised of 840 very-low income units, 485 low-income units, 638 moderate-income units, and 1,651 above moderate - income units; and

WHEREAS, the City has prepared the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update for the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) planning period (the “proposed Richmond Housing Element Update”); and

WHEREAS, the preparation, adoption, and implementation of a housing element requires a diligent effort to include all economic segments of the community; and

2 WHEREAS, the City conducted extensive community outreach beginning in February 2022, as described in detail in Appendix E (Public Participation Summaries) of the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65585(b), on October 21, 2022, the City posted the draft Richmond Housing Element Update and requested public comment for a 30-day review period; and

WHEREAS, on December 9, 2022 , the City posted a revised draft Richmond Housing Element Upd ate responding to public comments and submitted the document to HCD for its review; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the statutory requirements set forth in State Housing Element Law , the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update contains an assessment of existing and projected housing needs ; an inventory of sites availab le for housing development ; an analysis of constraints to local housing production ; an assessment of fair housing practices ; a set of specific housing programs designed to meet identified housing needs; and has identified sites that can accommodate hous ing units meeting the City’s RHNA , as shown in Exhibit B to this Resolution , which is incorporated herein by reference; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update meets all of t he applicable guidelines set forth in the State of California G eneral Plan Guidelines published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”); and

WHEREAS, the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update was reviewed and found to be consistent wi th the City’s General Plan and the Richmond Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, once adopted and certified , the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update will supersede and replace the existing 2015 -2023 Housing Element of the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, the prop osed Richmond Housing Element is subject to the requirements of the Ca lifornia Environmental Quality Act, as amended (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 -21178), and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3) (collectively, “CEQA”); and

WHEREAS, on April 24, 2012, the Council adopted the CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Significance, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program , and certified the Environmental Impact Report, for the Richm ond General Plan 2030 (SCH#2008022018) (the “Richmond General Plan 2030 EIR”); and

3 WHEREAS, on April 24, 2012, the Council adopted the Richmond General Plan 2030 document; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update is considered an amendment to the Richmond General Plan 2030; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City has prepared an Addendum, which is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A to this Resolution, affirming that the analysis contained in the Richmond General Plan 2030 EIR adequately addresses the potential physical i mpacts associated with implementation of the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update; and

WHEREAS, the Addendum was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CE QA Guidelines, and the City of Rich mond Guidelines and Procedures for the Implementation of CEQA; and

WHEREAS, based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included in the Addendum, none of the conditions described in Sections 15 162 and 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred; specifically:

a. There have not been any substantial changes in the project that require major revisions of the EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

b. There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is u ndertaken that require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and

c. There is no new information of substantial im portance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Final EIR was certified that shows any of the following: (a) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Fi nal EIR; (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Final EIR; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Addendum demonstrates that the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update does not contemplate an amount of housing unit development above what was already considered in the Richmond General Plan 2030 EIR and that

4 none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred; and

WHEREAS, on January 5, 2023 the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and recommended that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the Richmond General Plan 2030 EIR, repe al the 2015- 2023 Housing Element, and adopt the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update; and

WHEREAS, on January 24, 2023 the City Council conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider this Resolution regardi ng the proposed Housing Element, reviewed the Housing Element Update and all pertinent maps, documents and exhibits, the staff report and all attachments, and oral and written public comments.

NOW, THER EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Ci ty of Richmond does hereby resolve, declare, determine , and order as follows, based on substantial evidence in the record:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.

2. The City Council has considered the Addendum attached as Exhibit A to this resolution as well as the Richmond General Plan 2030 EIR included as Attachment 2 to the staff report.

3. The proposed Richmond Housing Element Update substantially complies with Housing Element Law, as provided in Go vernment Code 65580 et seq. , and contains all provisions required by State Housing Element Law, as shown in Exhibit C to this Resolution.

4. The 2015-2023 Housing Element is hereby repealed in its entirety, and the proposed Richmond Housing Element Update , which is incorporated herein as Exhibit B to this Resolution, is adopted.

5. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council.

6. The Community Development Director or designee is hereby directed to file all necessary material with HCD to find that the Richmond Housing Element Update is in conformance with State Housing Element Law and is further directed and authorized to make all non -substantive changes to the Richmond Housing Element Up date to make it internally consistent or to addre ss any non - substantive changes or amendments requested by HCD to achieve certification.