B. Existing Conditions
The RAAP site is currently listed as a federal Superfund site due to groundwater contamination and other pollutants at the site. Some remediation has already occurred and further remediation is planned for the future. Additionally, there are areas and buildings on the RAAP site that still require investigation and study to determine the extent of contamination.
As shown on Figure 4.9-1, and described below, there are several different levels of contamination on the site. The most significant contamination issue is a plume of subsurface groundwater that contains chromium and cyanide, which resulted from past spills at the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP). While the defects that caused the spills have been corrected, further treatment is required to remediate the contamination to State and federal standards. There are also other areas with less significant contamination issues, some of which limit where future development can occur. Areas within the RAAP site were divided into the following seven categories:
¨ Category 1. Areas where no release or disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred, including no migration of substances from adjacent areas. (Areas of the RAAP site shown with no color overlay on Figure 4.9-1 are within this category.)
¨ Category 2. Areas where only the release of petroleum has occurred.
FI G U RE 1 - 4
e Only
Required
mpleted
nitoring Underway
ed
0 250 500 Feet
FI G U RE 1 - 4
E NV IR O N ME N T A L REME D I A T IO N REQ U I R E M E NT S 2: Petroleum Release Only
3: No Remediation Required
4: Remediation Completed
5: Remediation/Monitoring Underway
7: Evaluation Needed
e status of contamination assessments within RBAAP's boundaries. ill, 2006; CH2M Hill, 2008.
0 250 500 Feet
RIV E RBANK LO C A L R E D E VE L O P M ENT AUTH O R IT Y
BASE R E USE PL A N
FI G U RE 1 - 4
E NV IR O N ME N T A L REME D I A T IO N REQ U I R E M E NT S Category 2: Petroleum Release Only
Category 3: No Remediation Required
Category 4: Remediation Completed
Category 5: Remediation/Monitoring Underway
Category 7: Evaluation Needed
Map highlights the status of contamination assessments within RBAAP's boundaries.
Source: CH2M Hill, 2006; CH2M Hill, 2008.
0 250 500 Feet
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION REQUIREMENTS
FIGURE 4.9-1
Source: Final CERFA Report, Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, 2006.
NORTH
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP S PECIFIC PLAN EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOU S MATERIALS
4.9-7
TABLE 4.9-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELATED TO
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Goal SAFE-1 Minimize the loss of life and damage to property natural and human-caused hazards.
Policy
SAFE-1.1
The City will ensure that approved development projects and public investments are consistent with the information provided in the Stanislaus County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Policy
SAFE-1.2
The City will continue to enforce State of California Building Standards Commission uniform codes, such as the Uniform Building Code and California Fire Code with adopted Fire District amendments.
Policy
SAFE-1.4
The City will require setbacks, ignition resistant building materials, or other measures to reduce exposure to potential wildfires in areas designated for natural open space preservation, in coordination with California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection recommendations and Maintenance of Defensible Space
Measures, as appropriate.
Policy
SAFE-1.5
Approved plans, projects, and subdivision requests will ensure adequate fire flow per City and Fire District standards. The installation of automatic fire sprinklers may, at the discretion of the City and the Fire Chief, allow for a reduction in the required fire flow, while still complying with the California Fire Code requirements.
Policy
SAFE-1.8
The City will require that hazardous materials are used, stored, transported, and disposed in a safe manner and in compliance with local, State, and federal safety standards.
Policy
SAFE-1.9
Developments located on farmland or former farmland shall prepare reports that analyze residual agricultural chemicals that may be present on-site. Developments on such sites shall include measures to remove any risk due to hazardous materials for onsite proposed land uses, as well as existing and proposed land uses and users in the vicinity.
Policy
SAFE-1.10
The City will review development requests and require that any airborne, waterborne, windborne, and other hazardous materials issues are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated to ensure against any risk relative to any nearby planned or existing land uses and their users.
Goal SAFE-2 Provide adequate access for emergency response.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOU S MATERIALS
TABLE 4.9-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELATED TO
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (CONTINUED)
4.9-8
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Policy
SAFE-2.2
The City will consult with fire protection service providers in reviewing development proposals. Development proposals will include City conditions that respond to concerns of fire protection service providers.
Policy
SAFE-2.3
New developments will provide fire flow as required in the Public Facilities and Services Element of the General Plan and relevant City Master Plans.
Policy
SAFE-2.4
The City will improve fire flow in existing developed areas of the City, as feasible, to meet standards presented in the Public Facilities and Services Element of the General Plan and relevant City Master Plans.
Goal CONS-6 Maintain or increase surface and groundwater quality and supply.
Policy
CONS-6.2
The City will coordinate with appropriate regional, State, and federal agencies to address local sources of groundwater and soil contamination, including underground storage tanks, septic tanks, agriculture, and industrial uses.
Goal CIRC-4 Move freight and passengers efficiently.
Policy
CIRC-4.1
The City will work with relevant public agencies and the railroad to appropriately regulate the movement of truck traffic and hazardous materials throughout the City. ¨ Category 3. Areas where contamination has occurred at a level that requires no further remediation. ¨ Category 4. Areas where sufficient remediation has already taken place and no further action is necessary.
¨ Category 5. Areas where contamination has occurred and remediation is underway, but further action or ongoing monitoring is required. ¨ Category 6. Areas where contamination has occurred, but for which no remediation effort has been implemented (no Category 6 sites were identified at RAAP).
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-9
¨ Category 7. Areas requiring further assessment.
In July 2009, a site visit was conducted by Weston Solutions to review the visual environmental site conditions of the RAAP site. Although not all areas were accessible due to locked areas, and areas requiring tenant permission for access, the site visit included Buildings 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the former production line areas, Building 11, (the former spheroidizing facility), as well as the industrial water treatment facilities, and landfill.
1. Former Production Line Buildings
a. Building 1
Building 1 appears to be used for equipment storage. Most of what was apparently the original production line equipment has been left in place within the building. Visible staining on equipment, floors, and pits and adjacent to floor drains was observed. There was evidence of concrete floor repair, which appeared to be a location where equipment was removed and the floor repaired or re-installed.
b. Building 2
Building 2 is similar in condition to other buildings with deteriorating wall and roof panels. Paint booths are located adjacent to the rebar tenant who is using the paint booths. It is not known if paint booth is operating under previously-issued permits, or if the tenant is has obtained new permits. Most of Building 2 appears to be used as defunct equipment storage with some of the space cleared for use by tenants at the east end of the facility. Hydraulic lifts are in use by tenants.
c. Building 4
Building 4 contained an active tenant production line for plastic leaning and shredding.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOU S MATERIALS
4.9-10
d. Building 5
Building 5 included remnants of wall or pipe insulation, and equipment remained in the building from previous production activity. During the time of the site visit, Building 5 was used for material and equipment storage.
Most of what could be seen throughout was in good to fair condition.
Production area sumps now collect any spills or leaks and flow through an overhead piping system to the IWTP. The old sump consisting of an underground piping system has been closed. e. Building 6
Building 6 contained sulfuric acid tanks, which were located in a bermed and trenched area that provides spill containment. During time of the site visit, Building 6 contained intact production equipment.
f. Building 7
Building 7 is adjacent to the loading dock and is a brick paved area. It is believed that this building was used as an interim storage area for materials that were still hot from ovens or the production line. At the time of the site visit, the former press area was used as a lunch and break area by employees.
Visible building infrastructure for production line support included overhead lines for compressed air, chilled water, production water, natural gas, and fire suppression. Several potentially asbestos containing transite panels and areas of missing panels were visible. Fire proofing material on building walls that potentially contains asbestos was also observed. Both very old and very new overhead lifts were located throughout the building. Potential PCBs in the hydraulic storage tanks for the lifts is a concern. Few pieces of equipment showed labeling indicating the status of PCB contents.
¨ Electrical feeds run from the transformer to the exterior of Building 7 on the south side. Wire coating showed signs of decay and potentially contains asbestos, lead, and PCBs. Visible evidence of wall and roofing material on the ground in the open areas between buildings, as well as chunks
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-11
of the electrical wiring coating were noted. Some staining was visible on the concrete near what appeared to be an outside metal lathe area. ¨ Heavy staining on concrete/asphalt adjacent to northeast side of Building 7 was noted. Dilapidated equipment and unused drums/containers were also deteriorating in this area.
g. Building 8
Building 8 is a newer building that was added to the east end of the production lines building and contained large metal presses, intact production equipment, and empty press pits, in the process of being removed. The empty press pits showed evidence of oil use/staining. Some equipment was labeled to show that polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) testing had occurred.
Sumps and pits surrounding the production equipment were lined with brick and concrete for thermal protection.
The north end of Building 8 included large presses and equipment storage.
Several large overhead lights stored on the floor under plastic in this area. It is unknown if any of the lights were mercury vapor lights or have PCB ballasts. The depth of large press pits appeared to be 10 to 12 feet below ground surface. Obvious staining on equipment was observed.
h. Building 11
Building 11 has two subfloors below the rail operation area. Long bunker style rooms with rack storage were present. No evidence of what was previously stored in the area was observed, although the facility was likely used for drum storage. At the time of the site visit, Building 11 was used by a tenant for rail cars transporting waste oil. There was visible staining on the rail line within and adjacent to the building. The building interior and exterior were in similar level of deterioration as Buildings 1, 2, and 7. i. Building 51
Building 51 was labeled as a chemical quality control laboratory. Access was limited during the site visit, but it appeared to contain standard laboratory equipment associated with chemical quality control. The floors in the labora-
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOU S MATERIALS
4.9-12
tories were 9-inch by 9-inch vinyl floor tile, which is could potentially contain asbestos. j. Building 180
At the time of the site visit, Building 180 was identified as the hazardous waste storage area, but materials inside were not labeled and the emergency eye wash station was disconnected or not in operation.
2. Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant
Visual evidence at the IWTP indicated that one clarifier was not in operation, and the other was being used minimally. The majority of process tanks appear to be defunct and not maintained. Chemical placarding did not appear to match actual material being stored, and acids and bases appeared to be stored in the same containment area. A waste bin storage area was located adjacent to the IWTP and several containers were in use. Some staining was observed in the area south of the IWTP.
3. Landfill
The landfill area appears to be well maintained. No erosion from the top or sides was visible and no obvious signs of subsidence were apparent. The vegetation appeared consistent across the area and animal traps for burrowing animals were located at regular intervals around the base of the landfill. As noted above, the landfill area has been characterized as being underlain with groundwater contamination, but the area does not require removal or other remedial response.
C. Standards of Significance
The Plan would have a significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials if it would:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-13
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.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
D. Impacts Discussion
1. Project Impacts
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Implementation of the Specific Plan would allow for future development that could, depending on the specific proposed uses, increase the amount of hazardous materials used and wastes generated in the Specific Plan Area, as well as the number of people and structures exposed to these hazards.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOU S MATERIALS
4.9-14
Goal SAFE-1 of the City of Riverbank General Plan calls for the minimization of the risk of loss of life and damage to property from natural and human-cause hazards. Current hazardous substance regulations generally require safe handling and disposal of hazardous substances, which would reduce the risk for a chemical release to occur as a result of handling and/or disposal practices. In addition, Policy SAFE-1.8 of the General Plan requires that hazardous material are used, stored, transported, and disposed of in a safe manner that complies with local, State, and federal safety standards. Policy SAFE1.10 requires the City to review development requests and require that any airborne, waterborne, windborne, and other hazardous materials issues are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated to ensure against any risk relative to any nearby planned or existing land uses and their users. With the implementation of these General Plan policies, the impact of the Specific Plan from the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. 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.
Increased development within the Specific Plan Area could increase the amount of accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The transportation of hazardous materials on area roadways and railroad spurs is regulated by the California Highway Patrol, Department of Transportation, and the California Public Utilities Commission, respectively.
The use and storage of these materials is regulated by the DTSC (22 CCR Sections 66001, et seq.). The use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials by developers, contractors, business owners, and others are required to be in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations during project construction and operation. Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency standards designed to avoid hazardous waste releases. All existing and future projects on the RAAP site would be required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations regarding the handling, disposal, and clean-up of hazardous materials. Furthermore, City of Riverbank General Plan Policies CONS-6.2,
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-15
SAFE-1.8, SAFE-1.9, and SAFE-1.10 (listed above in section A.3.d., City of Riverbank General Plan), would serve to reduce the potential impact resulting from the accidental release of hazardous materials from new development into the environment. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the RAAP site and the railroad spur, which might be used for the transportation of hazardous materials. As a result, no impact would occur. d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
As discussed above in Section B., Existing Conditions, the RAAP site contains known hazardous materials sites. However, they are either monitored and/or under active remediation by government agencies, or remediation activities have been completed.
The two remaining active sites within the project site are the landfill and groundwater contamination. The landfill will be under long-term management until 2015 at which time the completed landfill cap will be maintained.
Annual surveys to assure stability and annual management of a pesticide program to prevent damage to the completed landfill cap are planned.1 Remediation plans for the groundwater contamination area has included a long term maintenance schedule of 5-year reviews, continuing until 2023, however, active evaluation of in-situ treatment is underway and additional insitu treatment and extraction configuration modifications are anticipated to accelerate the cleanup process. A strategy for groundwater treatment sys-
1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009. Environmental Assessment for BRAC Disposal and Reuse of the Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, page 4-117.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOU S MATERIALS
4.9-16
tems, long term management, and delisting from the Superfund site list will be developed as the site moves toward cleanup.2
As identified in Figure 4.9-1 and discussed above in Section B.1, the RAAP site contains several buildings that will require evaluation should they be incorporated into future development proposals. Policy SAFE-1.10 of the City of Riverbank General Plan, requires that the City review development requests and require that any airborne, waterborne, windborne, and other hazardous materials issues are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated to ensure against any risk relative to any nearby planned or existing land uses and their users. Any future proposed action within the RAAP site that occurs within the areas identified as Category 7 areas of in Figure 4.9-1 will require evaluation in order to ensure that impacts are reduced. Through implementation of General Plan Policy SAFE-1.10, a less-than-significant impact would occur. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
The RAAP site is located approximately 1.2 miles from the Peterson Airport, a privately owned airport located at 5800 Langworth Road. The landing strip runs from east to west, and the landing approach is from the southwest. The Stanislaus County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) (amended in 2004) describes safety compatibility standards for privately owned airports in Stanislaus County. Airport operation hazards include: incompatible land uses, power transmission lines, wildlife hazards (e.g. bird strikes), and tall structures that penetrate the imaginary surfaces surrounding an airport. The term “imaginary surfaces,” established by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations (14 CFR 77), refers to heights above which any object or structure is considered by the FAA to constitute a hazard to aircraft navigation, and thus a hazard to both aircraft and people and structures on the
2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009. Environmental Assessment for BRAC Disposal and Reuse of the Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, page 4-123.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.9-17
ground. The RAAP site is not located within an established land use plan for the airport, nor is it located within close proximity to the runway that could result in conflicts between aircraft and people and structures on the ground.
Therefore, safety hazards associated with the Peterson Airport would be less than significant.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
As discussed above, the RAAP site is located approximately 1.2 miles from the Peterson Airport, a privately owned airport located at 5800 Langworth Road. The RAAP site is not located within an established land use plan for the airport, nor is it located within close proximity to the runway. As result, the conflicts between aircraft and people and structures on the ground would not result in safety hazards. This would be considered a less-than-significant impact.
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
As described in Chapter 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, development under the Specific Plan would make only minor changes to the existing road network although it would bring more employees to the area and more congestion on existing streets. The Stanislaus County MJHMP includes Office of Emergency Services inundation maps for the New Melones and other dams that would affect the county, in the event of earthquake or other causes of failure. If failure of the New Melones Dam were to occur, the City of Riverbank evacuation routes would be to the southeast toward higher ground, with the primary evacuation routes along Terminal/Santa Fe and Claus Road towards Empire and Waterford. Although the RAAP Specific Plan proposes to modify the visual character of Claus Road, vehicle travel would not be hindered or obstructed, and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the Stanislaus County MJHMP. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOU S MATERIALS
4.9-18
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
As discussed in the City of Riverbank General Plan, no areas or zones in the Planning Area are defined as Very High Fire Hazard Severity, and the Planning Area is not in a State responsibility area, which is defined as part of the state where CALFIRE is the primary service responsible for providing basic wildland fire protection assistance (CDF 1998). The SCFPD would respond to fires in the Planning Area. New development would be required by law to incorporate California Building Code, California Fire Code with adopted Fire District amendments, and other applicable state and local fire safety requirements. In addition, General Plan policies SAFE-1.1, SAFE-1.2, SAFE1.4, SAFE-1.5, and SAFE-2.2, SAFE-2.3, SAFE-2.4, listed above in Section A.3.d., would ensure people and structures would not be exposed to significant risk of loss of injury involving wildland fires. As a result, a less-thansignificant impact would occur.
2. Cumulative Impacts
This cumulative analysis considers the Specific Plan in the context of the General Plan. Although through the implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan, there will likely be an increase in the use of hazardous materials, all new use, storage, transport, and activities associated with remediation of contaminated sites are subject to local, State, and federal regulation, and risks are evaluated on a parcel-specific basis. There would therefore be a less-thansignificant cumulative impact due to hazardous materials and contaminated sites.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Since there are no significant impacts related to hazardous materials as a result of the Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-1
This section summarizes information on hydrology, including flooding, and water quality in the RAAP Site Specific Plan Area (Plan Area), and provides an evaluation of the effects the draft Specific Plan would have on these features of the natural environment.
A. Regulatory Framework
There are several laws and policy documents that affect the requirements and infrastructure needs for water quality and stormwater discharge in the Specific Plan Area, as well as flood protection. The most important of these are described below.
1. Federal Water Pollution Control Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to develop lists of water bodies that would not attain water quality objectives after implementation of required levels of treatment by pointsource dischargers (municipalities and industries). Section 303(d) requires the State to develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for each of the pollutants impacting the listed water bodies. The TMDL is the amount of loading that the water body can receive and still be in compliance with water quality objectives. The TMDL can also act as a plan to reduce loading of a specific pollutant from various sources to achieve compliance with water quality objectives. After implementation of the TMDL, it is anticipated that the problems that led to placement of a given water body on the Section 303(d) list would be remediated.
Section 402(p) of the CWA establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program.1
Section 402(p) requires that storm-
1 Authorized by the CWA, the permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources (discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches) that
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-2
water associated with industrial activity that discharges either directly to surface waters or indirectly through municipal separate storm sewers must be regulated by a NPDES permit. On December 8, 1999, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) circulated Phase II regulations for non-point sources requiring permits for stormwater. Permits will be required for discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4s) operators.2 In California, the NPDES program is administered by the State (see below).
2. Federal Emergency Management Agency
Floodplain zones are determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and used to create Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) designating these areas. These tools assist cities in mitigating flooding hazards through land use planning and building permit requirements. To address the need for insurance to cover flooding issues, FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Administration (NFIA) program. The NFIA program provides federal flood insurance and federally financed loans for property owners in flood prone areas. To qualify for federal flood insurance, the City must identify flood hazard areas and implement a system of protective controls.
The City of Riverbank does participate in the NFIA program.
discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. In most cases, the NPDES permit program is administered by authorized states with oversight from the EPA. Summarized from the EPA website, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/, accessed on July 21, 2009.
2 Small MS4s are publicly owned conveyances or conveyance systems of ditches, curbs, or underground pipes that divert stormwater into the surface waters of the State. Summarized from the EPA website, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/ munic.cfm, accessed on July 21, 2009.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-3
3. State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is responsible for implementing the CWA and does so through issuing NPDES permits to cities and counties through regional water quality control boards. Federal regulations allow two permitting options for stormwater discharges – individual permits and general permits. The SWRCB elected to adopt a statewide general permit (Water Quality Order No. 2003-0004-DWQ) for MS4s covered under the CWA to efficiently regulate numerous stormwater discharges under a single permit. Permittees must meet the requirements in Provision D of the General Permit, which require development and implementation of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.
4. Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act outlines the specific responsibilities of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB), and the procedures for coordinating with the SWQCB to meet federal CWA standards. Stanislaus County falls within the Central Valley Region, which is the largest in the State, stretching from the Oregon border south to Los Angeles County. It encompasses 60,000 square miles, or about 40 percent of the State’s total area, and includes 38 of the state’s 58 counties. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) headquarters are in Sacramento with branch offices in Redding and Fresno.
The CVRWQCB’s mission is to “preserve and enhance the quality of California’s water resources for the benefit of present and future generations.” This duty is carried out by formulating and adopting water quality control plans for specific ground and surface water basins and by prescribing and enforcing requirements on waste discharges. As mentioned above, jurisdictions submit various water quality and stormwater plans to the regional and State boards for approvals.3
3 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_information/ index.html, accessed on August 10, 2006.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-4
5. City of Riverbank General Plan
The City of Riverbank General Plan (2005 – 2025) states that approved projects, plans, and subdivisions shall provide for collection, conveyance, treatment, detention, and other stormwater management measures in a way that does not decrease water quality or alter hydrology in the Stanislaus River or associated groundwater recharge areas.
B. Existing Conditions
In general, the area around the Plant Production Area is mostly paved. The area consists of seven production lines, process water/groundwater treatment facilities and various buildings used for maintenance, administration, and storage. Approximately 155 buildings are located in the Plan Area. Some of the large buildings, such as the Main Production Area, have been subdivided into smaller internal buildings. The approximate total square footage of roofed areas at RAAP is 924,514 square feet.
The plant site is bounded on the east by pasture land and on the west by Claus Road and some residences. Rural residential areas are located to the north and south of the Plan Area.
1. Hydrogeology
The RAAP is not located in a 100-year floodplain. Five aquifer zones—A, A′, B, C, and D—were identified based on depth and stratigraphy during a previously conducted Remedial Investigation (RI) at the site. 4 Subsequent pump
testing indicated strong interaction between the A′, B, and C zones. These aquifer zones are summarized as follows:
¨ A – Unsaturated upper sand zone; average depth from 29 to 60 feet below ground surface (bgs).
4 Weston, Roy F. Inc. (Weston), 1991, Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant Remedial Investigation Report. Prepared for Commander, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010-5401.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-5
¨ A′ – Partially to fully saturated, well-graded silty sand; average depth from 60 to 90 feet bgs; approximately 30 feet thick.
¨ B – Saturated, semi-continuous sand units interbedded with thin silt and clay layers; average depth from 90 to 120 feet bgs; approximately 30 feet thick.
¨ C – Saturated sand zone; average depth from 120 to 150 feet bgs; approximately 30 feet thick. ¨ D – Saturated coarse sand and gravel with volcanic material; between 150 and 220 feet bgs; approximately 70 feet thick.
The aquifer zones defined above are connected hydraulically. The presence of discontinuous fine-grained sediment layers creates the potential for a complex flow pattern in the subsurface.
Aquifer testing indicates hydraulic connection between the A′, B, and C aquifer zones.5 The general groundwater direction is to the west of the plant.
The topography of the RAAP and the surrounding area can be described as flat valley land, and the gradient of the land surface slopes southwestward at a rate of 25 feet per mile. The average elevation of the plant is 135 feet above mean sea level.6
2. Surface Water Hydrology
The City of Riverbank is located within the Middle San Joaquin-Lower Merced-Lower Stanislaus watershed, a sub-watershed of the San Joaquin River watershed, which includes the San Joaquin Valley north of Fresno, along with the adjacent mountainous areas to the east and west. The average rain-
5 U.S. Army, 2006a, U.S. Army BRAC 2005 Environmental Condition of Property Phase I Report, Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant. Prepared by CH2M Hill, November 17.
6 U.S. Army, 2006a, U.S. Army BRAC 2005 Environmental Condition of Property Phase I Report, Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant. Prepared by CH2M Hill, November 17.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-6
fall in the Middle San Joaquin-Lower Merced-Lower Stanislaus watershed is approximately 12.1 inches.7
Runoff from the generally flat area is relatively slow. Much of the incident precipitation is absorbed by the soil, and very little runoff occurs from the agricultural lands except during unusually heavy rains. Runoff from paved areas is collected in numerous inlets located around the RAAP site that connect to a main storm drain line. The main storm drain line carries flows towards the north, opposite the surface grade, and the lift station conveys flow into the north reservoir. This reservoir is designed as a detention basin that allows for temporary stormwater runoff to facilitate settling of suspended sediment. Two outlets, with approximately 1 foot of elevation difference, are provided in the reservoir to discharge water into the Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) 30-inch diameter line that runs parallel to the north side of the reservoir. Between rain events, some water remains in the reservoir, below the outlets, and either evaporates, infiltrates into the ground, or is used by the vegetation that grows in the basin. The lift station located near the reservoir has a third smaller pump that conveys stormwater from the lift station directly to the OID pipe during periods of excessive rain.
A small portion of the site drains to the south stormwater reservoir, located near the southeast corner of the site. A lift station adjacent to the south stormwater reservoir pumps runoff from the reservoir to the south end, or high side, of the above-mentioned main storm drain.
3. Flooding
Areas of the city subject to historic flooding include areas along the Lower Stanislaus River, which traverses along the northern boundary of the City of Riverbank. However, as noted above, the Plan Area is not located in a FEMA-designated flood zone.
7 City of Riverbank, General Plan Recirculated DEIR, page 4.10-1.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-7
There are no significant large bodies of water in the immediate vicinity of the Plan Area. New Melones Lake, a reservoir formed by New Melones Dam, is located approximately 27 miles northeast of the Plan Area. Tulloch Reservoir is located downstream from New Melones and Tulloch, approximately 22 miles northeast of the Plan Area. Woodward Reservoir, located in the northeastern portion of Stanislaus County, is approximately eight miles from Riverbank. Modesto Reservoir and Turlock Lake are located southwest of Riverbank, approximately 18 miles away.8
The Plan Area is located within the dam failure inundation zones of the New Melones Dam.9
In the event of dam failure, the City and its surrounding area, including the Plan Area, could be inundated.10 The elevation of the Plan Area and distance from bays preclude potential inundation by coastal hazards such as tsunamis, extreme high tides, or future sea level rise.
C. Standards of Significance
The Plan would have a significant impact on hydrology and water quality if it would:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
8 City of Riverbank, General Plan Recirculated DEIR, page 4.10-1. 9 Map displays Stanislaus County with Dam Inundation Areas of regional dams, http://www.stanoes.com/pdf/mjhmp/2010-inundation-full-county-tabloid.pdf, accessed on June 6, 2012.
10 City of Riverbank, 2010, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Hazard Identification, http://hazardmitigation.calema.ca.gov/docs/approved_lhmps_under_2008_ fema_guidance/Riverbank_City%20of_Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan%20- 20June%202010.pdf, accessed on June 6, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-8
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted).
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
D. Impacts Discussion
1. Project Impacts
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
The Specific Plan proposes to implement the use of low-impact development (LID) to be employed on a project-by-project basis. The draft Specific Plan recommends several LID techniques including rain catchments, cisterns, rain
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-9
gardens, and permeable paving that would reduce erosion on- and off-site.
Additionally, for all future projects in the Plan Area before the approval of grading permits, the project applicant would be required to consult with the City, the SWRCB, and the Central Valley RWQCB to acquire the appropriate regulatory approvals that may be necessary to obtain Section 401 water quality certification, an SWRCB statewide NPDES stormwater permit for general construction activity, and any other necessary site-specific WDRs or waivers under the Porter-Cologne Act. As discussed in Chapter 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR, the draft Specific Plan would not violate waste discharge requirements. Through the use of LID and adherence to State and local regulations regarding water quality, implementation of the draft RAAP Specific Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact to water quality standards and water discharge requirements. b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted).
The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) (included in Appendix D) assumes that the existing on-site wells and associated water distribution system will be transferred to the Riverbank Local Redevelopment Authority (RLRA) and will continue to supply water to the existing and future uses in the Plan Area.
At some point in the future the RAAP water system could be connected to the City of Riverbank water system, so that City water would be available as an auxiliary or backup supply; however, the WSA did not assume the use of any City water after the Specific Plan has been implemented.11 Use of the on-sire wells was not evaluated in the UWMP, as discussed in Chapter 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR, but growth in the Plan Area was assumed in the evaluation of projected water demand with-
11 Weston Solutions, 2013, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment Final.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-10
in the City. The UWMP determined that sufficient groundwater supply is available to supply future growth within the City, including the Plan Area.
Since the on-site wells draw from the same aquifers as the City of Riverbank wells, it is assumed that the on-site wells will be able to adequately supply the RAAP development with water in normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years.12 Because development within the RAAP site will be able to utilize on-site wells, it can be determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.13 A less-than-significant impact would occur.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
The draft RAAP Specific Plan proposes significant changes to land uses that would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the RAAP site.
However, as previously noted, the draft Specific Plan would require implementation of low-impact development (LID) management practices to be employed on a project-by-project basis. The Specific Plan recommends several LID techniques including rain catchments, cisterns, rain gardens, and permeable paving that would reduce runoff volumes and erosion on- and off-site.
Additionally, for all future projects under the draft Specific Plan before the approval of grading permits the project applicant would be required to consult with the City, the SWRCB, and the Central Valley RWQCB to acquire the appropriate regulatory approvals that may be necessary to obtain Section 401 water quality certification, an SWRCB statewide NPDES stormwater permit for general construction activity, and any other necessary site-specific WDRs or waivers under the Porter-Cologne Act. Through this process, the implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan on- and off-site erosion and siltation would be considered a less-than-significant impact.
12 Weston Solutions, 2013, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment Final. 13 Weston Solutions, 2013, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment Final.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-11
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.
As discussed above in response to criteria c., the proposed RAAP Specific Plan proposes significant changes to land use that would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the RAAP site. Although there are no streams or rivers within or adjacent to the RAAP site, alteration of the existing drainage pattern could increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that could result in flooding on- or off-site. However, because future development would be required to comply with NPDES regulations regulating stormwater runoff volumes and implement the use of low-impact development (LID), surface runoff volumes would be contained on site in detention basins. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur. e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
A discussion of potential impacts to the existing and proposed stormwater drainage system is included in Chapter 4.17, Utilities and Services Systems.
The impact discussion states that upgrades are required in order to improve the existing facilities. However, the stromwater runoff generated within the Specific Plan area will be treated through the use of LID features, as described above in response criteria d. Additionally, as discussed above in response to criteria a., all future projects to be proposed under the RAAP Specific Plan would be subject to grading permits and required to consult with the City, SWRCB and the Central Valley RWQCB. As a result, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in substantial sources of polluted runoff, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Impacts to water quality have been described under a. and b. above. The draft Specific Plan proposes industrial, research and development, and retail uses on the site. As discussed above, future development under the draft Spe-
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-12
cific Plan would comply with applicable State and local regulations, and therefore would not substantially degrade water quality. Additionally, projects related to industrial activity would be subject to the permit requirements described in Section A.1 of this chapter. No other proposed features of the draft Specific Plan would substantially degrade water quality. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
No housing is proposed for the Plan Area nor is the RAAP site located within a 100-year flood hazard area. As a result, no impact would occur. h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
The RAAP site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Thus, no impact would occur.
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
As discussed above, the RAAP site is not located within the 100-year floodplain. A dam failure can occur as the result of an earthquake, as an isolated incident due to structural instability, or during heavy rains that exceeds design capacity. The failure of the New Melones Dam would result in the inundation of the City of Riverbank and the RAAP site. The Riverbank General Plan includes several policies that reduce impacts from dam failure.
These policies include Policy SAFE-1.1, SAFE-1.6, SAFE-1.7, SAFE-2.1, and SAFE-2.5. Although these policies provide for human health and safety, property damage could still result during a flood event caused by a catastrophic dam or levee failure. However, this risk is small because the risk of dam failure is small.14 Furthermore, the United States Bureau of Reclama-
14 City of Riverbank, General Plan Recirculated DEIR, page 4.10-20.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-13
tion continues to maintain the dam to withstand probable seismic activity. 15 As a result, development under the proposed RAAP Specific Plan is considered less than significant. j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
The RAAP site is not located adjacent to a large body of water that would result in a risk of tsunamis or seiche. Furthermore given the RAAP site’s flat topography, mudflows could not occur. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
2. Cumulative Impacts
This cumulative analysis considers the draft RAAP Specific Plan in the context of development in the City of Riverbank. Development of vacant lands in close proximity to the RAAP site would not be located within the 100-year flood hazard zone. Furthermore, compliance with local stormwater requirements would further address potential impacts resulting from other projects in the vicinity of the RAAP site. In the event of dam failure, the City and its surrounding area, including the Plan Area, could be inundated, but the draft Specific Plan would not exacerbate this condition. Projects under the Specific Plan and other nearby project would be addressed on a project-specific level, the cumulative impact to hydrology and water quality would be considered less than significant.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
There are no significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality as a result of the proposed RAAP Specific Plan. Therefore no mitigation measures are required.
15 City of Riverbank, General Plan Recirculated DEIR, page 4.10-20.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10-14
4.11 LAND USE
4.11-1
This chapter discusses existing land uses in the Plan Area and describes plans applicable to the Plan Area. It also provides an evaluation of potential land use and planning impacts associated with buildout of the Plan.
A. Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes federal, State, and local policies and regulations that apply to land use on the RAAP site.
1. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act
The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 established the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC), which made recommendations for closing a number of United States military bases in 2005, including the Riverbank Army Ammunitions Plant (RAAP). As part of the BRAC process, the federal government and the Department of Defense recognize a local redevelopment authority (LRA) as the entity responsible for creating a base reuse plan to determine future use, mitigate any constraints on the property, and transfer ownership to a local jurisdiction. Recognized as the LRA for the RAAP, the City of Riverbank adopted a base reuse plan in 2008.
2. RAAP Base Reuse Plan
The RAAP Base Reuse Plan establishes a strategy that involves redeveloping the RAAP Site as an industrial park focused on green industries and augmenting existing research and development activities and office uses on-site. The Plan also calls for new convenience retail development in the western portion of the RAAP site.
Another primary goal of the Base Reuse Plan is to create a framework for addressing pollution at the site, which is listed as a federal Superfund site due to groundwater contamination and other remnant pollutants from past industrial uses on-site.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
LAND USE
4.11-2
3. City of Riverbank General Plan
The Riverbank General Plan guides development in the city through 2025.
The General Plan Land Use Element addresses land use within the city limit, including the Plan Area, establishing specific land uses in order to express the desired development pattern in the city. General Plan policies seek to encourage a diverse balance of land uses, manage urban growth in a way that benefits the whole community, and revitalize and develop commercial and industrial uses that contribute to the health, welfare, and vitality of the community. Riverbank General Plan polices related to Land Use are shown in Table 4.11-1, and land uses as proposed by the General Plan are Industrial/Business Park and Medium-Density Residential, as shown in Figure 4.11-1.
4. City of Riverbank Municipal Code
Title XV of the Riverbank Municipal Code regulates land use in the city. It describes zones and contains the Zoning Map as well as development standards for the zones. Title XV is the mechanism used to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the existing General Plan and to regulate all land use within the city. The RAAP site is currently zoned Light Industrial (M-1).
B. Existing Conditions
The RAAP site contains a variety of uses, ranging from vacant, undeveloped land to intensively developed industrial uses. The RAAP site contains over 150 buildings and structures and about 920,000 square feet of roofed areas, and contains a rail spur providing freight access to the site. Table 4.11-2 provides a list of the site characteristics regarding the main physical characteristics of the built square footage, open space, and roads within the site, and the following provides an overview of uses within the site. ¨ Existing Industrial Area. The developed portion of the RAAP is located in the central area of the site. Buildings in this developed area generally have large setbacks from public rights-of-way. The area’s primary entries and parking lots are located adjacent to Claus Road, along the southern half of the site. The existing industrial area contains a wide City of Riverbank General Plan Recirculated DEIR EDAW
City of Riverbank 3-11 Project Information
Source: EDAW 2009
Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram Exhibit 3-1
FIGURE 4.11-1
RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN LAND USES
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
LAND USE
Source: City of Riverbank General Plan.
0 1,250 2,500 Feet NORTH
City of Riverbank General Plan Recirculated DEIR
City of Riverbank 3-11
Source: EDAW 2009
Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram
RAAP Site
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
LAND USE
4.11-4
TABLE 4.11-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELATED TO LAND USE
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Policy LAND-1.2
The City supports LAFCO policy to develop vacant and underutilized land within the City prior to entertaining any annexation if such land can meet the same need as the land proposed for annexation.
Policy LAND-2.1
Approved specific plans shall include a variety of land uses, including a variety of housing types, mixed in geographic proximity, in proportions and locations illustrated by the General Plan Land Use Diagram.
Policy LAND-3.3
The City will encourage “compact development,” which places origination and destination points closer together (residence, stores, schools, places of work, etc.), allowing for alternatives to vehicular travel.
Policy LAND-3.4
Gated projects are permissible only if connectivity with surrounding areas will not be significantly impaired. The City maintains the sole authority to approve a project that includes gates exclusively in cases where a property is located where through connections would not be possible to other existing developed or planned future developed areas. The City will not allow gates in unless fire access can be guaranteed according to Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District. This exception to the general preference for connectivity and access can be made where a project consists solely of unique and locally desired land uses, such senior housing. See also policies DESIGN-3-3 and DESIGN-3.6.
Goal LAND- 4 Commercial and industrial development contributes to the health, welfare, and vitality of the community.
Policy LAND- 4.1
The City and Redevelopment Agency will encourage, through incentives, streamlining, flexible standards, and other means, development of employment-generating uses.
Policy LAND- 4.2
The City will encourage the revitalization of existing commercial areas through flexible development standards, public investment, property assemblage, incentives, streamlined entitlement processes, catalyst projects, public-private partnerships, and other means.
Policy LAND- 4.3
The City will encourage and assist small, locally-owned businesses that wish to locate, expand, or simply continue to do business in Riverbank through flexible development standards, public investment, property assemblage, incentives, streamlined entitlement processes, public private partnerships, and other means.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE V ELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
LAND USE
TABLE 4.11-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELATED TO LAND
USE (CONTINUED)
4.11-5
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Policy LAND- 4.4
Industrial uses that create noise, air emissions, traffic, or other substantial incompatibilities with residential uses shall be buffered or otherwise designed to avoid such impacts to new and existing residential areas.
Policy LAND- 4.5
The City will review industrial development applications and apply appropriate conditions to ensure compatibility with nearby existing and planned land uses.
Policy LAND-5.5
Approved projects, plans, and subdivisions in new growth areas will set aside adequate land for, and shall otherwise accommodate public infrastructure and service needs consistent with General Plan policy.
Policy LAND-6.1
The City will review the Land Use Element at least every five years to ensure that it remains responsive to the community’s vision with respect to changing conditions.
Policy LAND-6.2 Development applications shall be reviewed and approved only if consistent with the Riverbank General Plan.
Goal ED-1 Continue to make economic development a priority in Riverbank.
Policy ED- 2.5
The City of Riverbank will take a targeted approach to business attraction that focuses on industry sectors that help the City address the following priorities:
¨ Attract businesses that tie into regional growth opportunities ¨ Attract businesses that address local-serving and regional retail market opportunities ¨ Attract uses that contribute towards a vibrant and revitalized downtown district.
Goal ED-6
Diversify Riverbank’s core industries by promoting the development of an industrial base that ties into regional opportunities.
Policy ED-6.1
Acknowledging the significant agricultural economy in Stanislaus County, the City will continue to accommodate industries that serve the agricultural trade and have supplier relationships with primary farming activity in Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties.
Policy ED-6.4
The City will explore business development opportunities with durable manufacturing industries. Even though this sector is projected to continue growing within Stanislaus County, the City should continue to be open to other sources of business growth such as global trade.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
LAND USE
TABLE 4.11-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELATED TO LAND
USE (CONTINUED)
4.11-6
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Policy ED-6.8
The City will maximize business development opportunities resulting from Riverbank’s proximity to active railroad spurs and short-line railroad operations, and opportunities from other activities tied to container shipping and regional port activities.
Policy ED-6.9
Business attraction activities by the City will continue to explore opportunities for developing transloading facilities and comparable activities along the existing railroad spurs, and identify any needs to relocate these spurs.
Policy ED-6.10
As part of its ongoing economic development programs, the City will actively pursue business development opportunities related to transportation and distribution activities as these activities continue to grow throughout Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties.
Policy ED-6.11 The City will explore opportunities for new medical offices to locate in Riverbank to serve the growing and aging population.
Source: City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025.
TABLE 4.11-2 EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site Components
Area
(Acres)
RAAP Production Area 99
Open Land 37
Roads, Rights-of-Way, and Easements 10
Total Acreage 146
Source: Riverbank Local Redevelopment Authority, Base Reuse Plan, 2008. variety of industrial uses and structures, including large buildings that were used to produce ammunition, storage structures, smaller manufacturing buildings, and outdoor storage. In addition to industrial facilities and storage areas, the existing industrial area contains parking areas, in-
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAA P SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
LAND USE
4.11-7
ternal roads, limited undeveloped areas, and a former landfill that is now capped.
¨ Vehicle Storage. A small vehicle storage lot is located along Claus Road, between its intersections with Minniear Avenue and Van Dusen Avenue.
Spaces in this area are currently being leased for storage of vehicles, primarily recreational vehicles. The lot operates independently of the existing industrial uses and is located outside the fences that contain most of these buildings.
¨ Undeveloped Land. A large portion of the RAAP site remains undeveloped. Undeveloped areas south of the existing industrial areas, along Claribel Road, are fenced off from the remainder of the RAAP site. The undeveloped areas in the northern portions of the site were historically used as pastures for livestock grazing.
¨ Stormwater Pond. As indicated in green on Figure 2-1, a stormwater pond is currently located between two easements in the northern portion of the site. This area serves as detention for stormwater runoff from the existing industrial areas.
¨ Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. The Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct conveys water underground and also serves as a right-of-way for the conveyance of electricity through large overhead power lines. The Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct right-of-way runs roughly east-west across the site and is approximately 100 feet wide. It is owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). ¨ Oakdale Irrigation District. The Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) canal is located near the northern portion of the site and runs from the northeast to the southwest. The canal’s right-of-way easement is approximately 60 feet wide, and the actual infrastructure for the canal is located underground.
¨ Rail Easement. An active rail line surrounded by a 50-foot easement enters the RAAP site at its northwest corner, near Townsend Avenue. The rail, which connects to the Burlington Northern Sante Fe rail line, runs across the undeveloped areas in the north and crosses both the Hetch
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
LAND USE
4.11-8
Hetchy Aqueduct and the Oakdale Irrigation District canal. Ultimately, the rail enters the existing industrial areas, splits and serves many of the existing buildings.
C. Standards of Significance
The Plan would have a significant land use-related impact if it would:
a. Physically divide an established community.
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. c. Create or exacerbate a conflict between land uses on the project site and in the surrounding area.
D. Impact Discussion
1. Project Impacts
a. Physically divide an established community.
The Plan would have a significant environmental impact if it would divide the physical arrangement of an established community. As described above, the Plan Area is surrounded largely by low density residential development and semi-agricultural lands. The proposed Plan would involve the redevelopment of the Plan Area entirely within its current boundaries. Therefore, buildout of the Plan would not divide an established community and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordi-
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAA P SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
LAND USE
4.11-9
nance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the RAAP Specific Plan includes adoption of amendments to the Riverbank General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, changing the current land use designations in the Plan Area, and establishing new development standards to replace some of the current zoning provisions applicable to the Plan Area. These amendments must be completed to ensure consistency between the Specific Plan, General Plan, and Zoning Ordinance.
The City would adopt these amendments as required by State law. i. General Plan Consistency
Currently, the General Plan designates the majority of the RAAP site as Industrial/Business Park, and a small area in the northeast corner as MediumDensity Residential. As shown in Figure 3-8, the RAAP Specific Plan would re-designate the RAAP site using existing designations already identified in the General Plan. While the Specific Plan would require General Plan Amendments to bring it into full compliance, the Specific Plan is consistent with the intent of the City’s General Plan. For example, the Economic Development Element of the Riverbank General Plan contains a specific set of goals and policies that have the goal of planning for a community where businesses can thrive and attract wealth, create jobs and income growth for local residents, generate revenue for local government, serve local market needs, and help revitalize older neighborhoods. Goal ED-3 is to strengthen existing industry concentrations in Riverbank and retain jobs in viable economic sectors. To achieve this goal, Policy ED-3.1 states that the City will continue to place a priority on local business retention, with a focus on retaining those businesses that are significant sources for jobs and/or tax revenue for the City. Policy ED-3.3 states that existing industries in Riverbank and Stanislaus County will be strengthened by exploring business attraction opportunities for comparable businesses that can create supplier relationships and clustered industry activity where businesses benefit from operating in close proximity to their clients.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
LAND USE
4.11-10
Furthermore, Goal ED-6 is to diversify Riverbank’s core industries by promoting the development of an industrial base that ties into regional opportunities. Because the RAAP site no longer serves as a production facility for the US military, existing infrastructure within the site can be utilized to promote the development of an industrial base that ties into regional opportunities.
As mentioned above, the General Plan designates a portion of the RAAP site as medium-density residential. The RAAP Specific Plan and Base Reuse Plan do not provide any residential uses for the RAAP site. As discussed in Chapter 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the site is currently a contaminated site and remediation is ongoing. Although site cleanup will be completed, in order for the site to be suitable for residential uses, intensive remediation would be required. Additionally, the placement of residential units on the same parcel as industrial uses could contribute to a conflict within the RAAP site.
Therefore, while the Specific Plan would require a General Plan Amendments to bring the General Plan and Specific Plan into complete conformance, the Specific Plan has been developed to implement the intent of the General Plan.
Therefore, the Specific Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact. ii. Zoning Consistency Analysis
The RAAP site is currently zoned Light Industrial. A zoning amendment will be required to ensure that the current uses at the RAAP are conforming.
Additionally, a zoning amendment will also be required to allow The Specific Plan contains a chapter identifying development standards for new projects within the Plan Area. The development standards will modify the allowable uses and development standards in the existing Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project includes a zoning overlay district that will be added to the existing Zoning Ordinance. The zoning overlay district boundaries will be consistent with the Specific Plan Area. For those provisions not modified by the Specific Plan, the similar zoning classifications in the City’s existing Zoning Ordinance will apply. Should conflicts exist between the
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAA P SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
LAND USE
4.11-11
Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the provisions in the Specific Plan will apply. Following modification, the RAAP Specific Plan will be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. As a result, the RAAP Specific Plan will not conflict with the Zoning Ordinance, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
iii. Base Reuse Plan compatibility
The Base Reuse Plan proposes that the RAAP site will continue to function primarily as an industrial park, along with some limited convenience retail uses. As stated above, this approach is generally consistent with the land use designations proposed in Riverbank’s General Plan with job creation and current tenant expansion being the top priorities for the community, no other significant land uses were considered viable in reaching the community goals. Although the Specific Plan differs in specific land use locations, the RAAP Specific Plan does not conflict with the intent of the Base Reuse Plan, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c. Create or exacerbate a conflict between land uses on the project site and in the surrounding area.
The Plan would result in a significant impact if it would create new conflicts or exacerbate existing conflicts between land uses in the Plan Area, and on surrounding properties.
The industrial uses currently on the RAAP site contrast markedly with the surrounding residential and semi-agricultural uses. While buildout of the Plan would generally represent a continuation of existing uses, the contrast of industrial activity with surrounding uses would remain. However, through the implementation of design features such as 20-foot planter strip at the outside edge that provides a landscape buffer and a 10-foot minimum wide sidewalk/bike path. Policy TRAN-2 requires that, on new public streets built in the Specific Plan Area, landscaped planting strip to buffer sidewalks from roadways to be implemented. Moreover, the addition of regional and local commercial and retail uses to the RAAP site would serve to better integrate the Plan Area into the surrounding community. Specifically, the areas of the
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
LAND USE
4.11-12
RAAP site designated as Community Commercial are anticipated to be developed for retail, employment, and/or commercial services, and are located along major roadways on the periphery of existing and planned neighborhoods. Overall, impacts related to land use conflicts would be less than significant.
2. Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative effects occur from development under the proposed Plan combined with effects of development on adjacent lands in Riverbank and Stanislaus County. The geographic scope of analysis is taken as the City of Riverbank sphere of influence (SOI). A cumulative effect would be significant if it would divide an established community, conflict with established plans, policies and regulations, or either create or exacerbate land use conflicts in the Plan Area or lands adjacent.
Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, development of the Plan Area would be consistent with applicable plans, goals, policies, and regulations of the Riverbank General Plan and Municipal Code. Buildout of the Plan Area under the Specific Plan would also be within the envelope for buildout of the City per the General Plan. Because the Specific Plan provides development concepts to enhance an existing industrial site, the Specific Plan would not create a conflict in land uses. Furthermore, any conflicts would be reduced through the implementation of Specific Plan policies.
Implementation of cumulative development in accordance with the City’s General Plan and the Specific Plan would not result in cumulatively considerable land use impacts, and as a result, there would therefore be no cumulative impact.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Since there are no significant impacts related to land use as a result of the Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
4.12 NOISE
4.12-1
This section describes the potential effects of the reuse of Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant (RAAP) on noise. Included in this chapter is background information on noise and vibration, a brief summary of the regulatory framework that pertains to the analysis of noise impacts attributable to the Specific Plan, and a summary of the noise monitoring survey made in the site vicinity.
A. Background Information on Noise and Vibration
This section provides background on noise and vibration in order to provide a clearer understanding of this chapter.
1. Noise and Vibration Concepts
a. Terminology
There are several noise measurement scales that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. Each 10-decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities.
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A-weighted sound level (dBA). All sound levels in described in this EIR are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive.
Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energyequivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but it can be of any duration.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-2
Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night -- because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiettime noise events. The Day/Night Average Sound Level, Ldn, is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.) noise levels. Technical terms are defined in Table 4.12-1. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels are shown in Table 4.12-2.
b. Effects of Noise
The thresholds for speech interference indoors are about 45 dBA if the noise is steady and about 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating. Outdoors the thresholds are about 15 dBA higher. Steady noise above 35 dBA and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA has been shown to affect sleep.
Causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. The threshold for annoyance from vehicle noise is about 55 dBA Ldn. At an Ldn of about 60 dBA, approximately 8 percent of the population is highly annoyed. When the Ldn increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to about 20-25 percent of the population. There is, therefore, an increase of about two percent per dBA between an Ldn of 60 to 70 dBA.
c. Ground-Borne Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several methods are typically used to quantify the amplitude of vibration including Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) and Root Mean Square (RMS) velocity. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-3
TABLE 4.12-1 DEFINITION OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS
Term Definitions
Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound.
Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure.
A-Weighted Sound Level,
dBA
Decibel level as measured using the A-weighting filter
network which de-emphasizes the very low and very
high frequency components of the sound in a manner
similar to the frequency response of the human ear and
correlating well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise.
L01, L10, L50, L90
The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%,
10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.
Equivalent Noise Level, Leq
The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour
day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels to sound
levels measured from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and 10 decibels to sound levels measured between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour
day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels
measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Lmax, Lmin
The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level
during the measurement period.
Ambient Noise Level
The composite of noise from all sources near and far.
The normal or existing level of environmental noise at
a given location.
Intrusive
Noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. Relative intrusiveness depends on amplitude, duration, frequency, time of
occurrence and tonal or informational content as well
as the prevailing ambient noise level.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-4
TABLE 4.12-2 TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS
Outdoor Sound dBA Indoor Sound Threshold
140
Civil Defense Siren
(100') 130
Jet Takeoff (200') 120 Pain Threshold
110
Diesel Pile Driver (100') 100 Rock Music Concert Very Loud 90 Boiler Room
Printing Press Plant
Freight Cars (50') 80
70 In Kitchen With Garbage
Disposal Running Moderately Loud
Freeway (100')
Vacuum Cleaner (10') 60 Data Processing Center
Light Traffic (100')
Large Transformer (200') 50 Department Store
40 Private Business Office
Soft Whisper (5') 30 Quiet Bedroom Quiet
20 Recording Studio
10 0 Threshold of
Hearing
Table 4.12-3 displays continuous vibration impacts on human annoyance and on buildings. As discussed previously, annoyance is a subjective measure and vibrations may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those shown, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual.
To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-5
TABLE 4.12-3 REACTION OF PEOPLE AND DAMAGE TO BUILDINGS FOR CONTINUOUS VIBRATION LEVELSa
Velocity Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.006 to 0.019 Threshold of perception:
Possibility of intrusion
Vibration unlikely to cause
damage of any type
0.08 Vibrations readily
perceptible
Recommended upper level of the
vibration to which ruins and
ancient monuments should be
subjected
0.10 Level at which
continuous vibrations
begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of
“architectural” damage to normal
buildings
0.20 Vibrations annoying to
people in buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk
of “architectural” damage to
normal dwellings such as plastered
walls or ceilings.
0.4 to 0.6
Vibrations considered
unpleasant by people
subjected to continuous
vibrations
Vibration at this level would
cause “architectural” damage and
possibly minor structural damage.
a
Caltrans, Technical Advisory, 2002. Transportation Related Earth-borne Vibrations, TAV-02- 01-R9601.
Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high noise environments, which are more prevalent where ground-borne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors and windows.
Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors. The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related ground-borne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the peak particle velocity descriptor (PPV) has been routinely used to measure
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-6
and assess ground-borne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and the degree of annoyance for humans.
The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life are evaluated against different vibration limits. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 mm/sec (0.008 to 0.012 inches/sec), PPV. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels such as people in an urban environment may tolerate a higher vibration level.
Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as minor cracking of building elements, or may threaten the integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher and there is no general consensus as to what amount of vibration may pose a threat for structural damage to the building. Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure.
Railroad operations are potential sources of substantial ground vibration depending on distance, the type and the speed of trains, and the type of railroad track. People’s response to ground vibration has been correlated best with the velocity of the ground. The velocity of the ground is expressed on the decibel scale. The reference velocity is 1 x 10-6 in./sec. RMS, which equals 0 VdB, and 1 in./sec. equals 120 VdB. Although not a universally accepted notation, the abbreviation “VdB” is used in this document for vibration decibels to reduce the potential for confusion with sound decibels.
One of the problems with developing suitable criteria for ground-borne vibration is the limited research into human response to vibration and more
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-7
importantly human annoyance inside buildings. The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration has developed rational vibration limits that can be used to evaluate human annoyance to ground-borne vibration. These criteria are primarily based on experience with passenger train operations, such as rapid transit and commuter rail systems. The main difference between passenger and freight operations is the time duration of individual events; a passenger train lasts few seconds whereas a long freight train may last several minutes, depending on speed and length.
B. Regulatory Framework
Regulatory criteria have been developed to minimize noise and vibration exposure at sensitive land uses. This section describes the regulatory framework related to noise and vibration in the Specific Plan area.
1. Federal
a. Federal Transit Administration
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has identified vibration impact criteria for sensitive buildings, residences, and institutional land uses near rail transit and railroads. The thresholds for residences and buildings where people normally sleep (e.g. nearby residences) are 72 VdB for frequent events (more than 70 events of the same source per day), 75 VdB for occasional events (30 to 70 vibration events of the same source per day), and 80 VdB for infrequent events (less than 30 vibration events of the same source per day).
Table 4.12-4 summarizes the FTA’s vibration impact criteria for sensitive buildings, residences, and institutional land uses near rail transit and railroads.
2. Local Regulations
a. City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025.
The City of Riverbank has established policies in the Noise Element of the General Plan to guide the development of new land uses. The following goals and policies are applicable in the assessment of impacts resulting from the proposed development:
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-8
TABLE 4.12-4 GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION IMPACT CRITERIA
Land Use Category
Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels
(VdB re 1 µinch/sec, RMS)
Frequent
Eventsa
Occasional
Eventsb
Infrequent
Eventsc
Category 1
Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations.65 VdB 65 VdB 65 VdB Category 2
Residences and buildings where people
normally sleep.
72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB
Category 3
Institutional land uses with primarily
daytime use.
75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB
a “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category.
b “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most commuter trunk lines have this many operations. c “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category includes most commuter rail branch lines.
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006, FTA-VA-90-1003-06.
Goal NOISE-1: Create Land Use Patterns and Transportation Networks that Minimize Noise Problems
Policy NOISE-1.1 Large-scale commercial land uses requiring frequent large truck deliveries shall not be developed within new or existing neighborhoods.
Policy NOISE-1.3 Industrial and other noise-generating land uses shall be located away from noise-sensitive land uses or shall enclose any substantial noise sources completely within buildings or structures.
Policy NOISE-1.5 Soundwalls are prohibited as a method for reducing noise exposure that could be addressed through other means.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-9
Goal NOISE-2: Minimize Noise Impacts Associated with Development Projects and other Land Use Change Policy NOISE-2.1 Development projects and roadway improvement projects that increase traffic noise levels shall be mitigated to achieve acceptable levels specified in Table N-1 (Table 4.12-5) as measured at outdoor activity areas and interior spaces of existing and planned noise sensitive land uses. If existing noise levels exceed allowable levels in Table N-1 (Table 4.12-5) at noise sensitive land uses, then:
¨ Where existing exterior noise levels are between 60 and 65 dB Ldn at outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, an increase of 3 dB Ldn or greater is considered significant and requires mitigation to achieve allowable levels. ¨ Where existing exterior noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, an increase of 1.5 dB Ldn or greater is considered significant and requires mitigation to achieve allowable levels. ¨ Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB Ldn or less using practical application of the best available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB Ldn may be allowed, provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with Table N-1 (Table 4.12-5).
Policy NOISE-2.2 Development projects that produce, or are affected by, non-transportation related noise shall be mitigated to achieve acceptable levels specified in Table N-2 (Table 4.12-6), as measured at outdoor activity areas of existing and planned noise-sensitive land uses. If existing noise levels exceed acceptable levels in Table N-2 (Table 4.12-6) as measured at outdoor activity areas of noise sensitive land uses:
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-10
TABLE 4.12-5 NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
Land Use
Outdoor
Activity Areas
(dB Ldn)
Interior Spaces
dB Ldn dB Leq
Residential 60 45 --
Transient Lodging 60 45 --
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 60 45 --
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls -- -- 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 60 -- 40
Office Buildings -- -- 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums 60 -- 45
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Plans 70 -- --
Notes: Noise-sensitive land uses include schools, hospitals, rest homes, long-term care, mental care facilities, residences, and other similar land uses. Outdoor activity areas are considered to be the portion of a noise-sensitive property where outdoor activities would normally be expected (i.e. patios of residences and outdoor instructional areas of schools). Outdoor activity areas for the purposes of this element do not include gathering spaces alongside transportation corridors or associated public rights-of-way. Where development projects or roadway improvement projects could potentially create noise impacts, an acoustical analysis shall be required as part of the environmental review process so that noise mitigation may be included in the project design. Such analysis shall be the financial responsibility of the applicant and be prepared by a qualified person experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics. Mitigation strategies shall include site planning and design over other types of mitigation.
Source: City of Riverbank, Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025, Page NOISE-5. ¨ Where existing exterior noise levels are between 60 and 65 dB at outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, an increase of 3 dB or greater is considered significant and requires mitigation to achieve acceptable levels. ¨ Where existing exterior noise levels are greater than 65 dB at outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, an increase of 1.5 dB or greater is considered significant and requires mitigation to achieve acceptable levels.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-11
TABLE 4.12-6 NON-TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCE CRITERIA
Noise Level Descriptor
Daytime
(7 a.m. – 10 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10 p.m. – 7 a.m.)
Hourly Leq 60 dB 45 dB
Lmax 75 dB 65 dB
Notes: Each of the noise levels specified shall be lowered by 5 dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech, or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g. caretaker dwellings). ¨ Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB or less using practical application of the best-available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB may be allowed, provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented.
Policy NOISE-2.3 The City shall require all feasible noise mitigation to reduce construction and other short-term noise and vibration impacts as a condition of approval for development projects by applying the performance standards outlined in TABLE N-3 (Table 4.12-7). The total noise level resulting from new sources and ambient noise shall not exceed the standards in Table N-3 (Table 4.12-7), as measured at outdoor activity areas of any affected noise sensitive land use except:
¨ If the ambient noise level exceeds the standard in Table N-3 (Table
4.12-7), the standard becomes the ambient level plus 5 dB(A). ¨ Reduce the applicable standards in Table N-3 (Table 4.12-7) by 5 decibels if they exceed the ambient level by 10 or more decibels. b. Riverbank Code of Ordinances
The City of Riverbank sets goals and polices in the Noise Chapter (93) of Title IX: General Regulations to protect noise-sensitive uses (residential areas,
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-12
TABLE 4.12-7 NON-TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCE CRITERIA
Cumulative Duration
of a Noise Eventa
(Minutes)
Maximum Exterior Noise
Level Standardsb
Daytimec,e Nighttimed,e
30-60 50 45
15-30 55 50
5-15 60 55
1-5 65 60
0-1 70 65
a
Cumulative duration refers to time within any one-hour period. b Noise level standards measured in dB.
c
Daytime = hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
d
Nighttime = hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
e
Each of the noise level standards shall be reduced by 5 dBA for tonal noise (i.e., a signal which has a particular and unusual pitch) or for noises consisting primarily of speech or for recurring impulsive noises (i.e. sounds of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay such as the discharge of firearms).
motels, hospitals, nursing homes, theatres, auditoriums, schools, playgrounds, offices, etc.) from excessive noise.
Exterior Noise Standards
(A) It is unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the city to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise, on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the exterior noise level when measured at any affected single- or multiple-family residence, school, church, hospital or public library situated in either the incorporated or unincorporated area to exceed the noise level standards as set forth in (Table
4.12-8).
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-13
TABLE 4.12-8 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS
Time Period
Allowable Equivalent
Hourly Sound Level
(Leq)
Allowable Maximum
Sound Level
(Lmax)
7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 50 dBA 70 dBA
10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 45 dBA 65 dBA
(B) In the event the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard, the applicable standard shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level.
(C) Each of the noise level standards specified above shall be reduced by five dB(A) for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music or for recurring impulsive noises.
D) If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or stopped for a time period so that the ambient noise level can be measured, the noise level measured while the source is in operation shall be compared to the noise level standards specified above.
C. Existing Conditions
The RAAP site is bordered by farmland to the north and east, Claribel Road the south, and Claus Road to the west. The primary sources of noise affecting the area are vehicular traffic along major roadways. A noise monitoring survey was conducted from July 16, 2009 to July 17, 2009 to quantify ambient noise levels in the Plan Area vicinity. The noise monitoring survey consisted of four long-term (24-hour) noise measurements (LT1, LT2, LT3, and LT4) and two short-term (10 to 20 minutes) noise measurements (ST1 and ST2) of the predominant noise sources affecting the Specific Plan area. Noise meas-
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-14
urement locations were chosen after visiting and observing the Plan Area.
These locations were selected to include the locations representative of noise sensitive uses. Figure 4.12-1 shows the locations of noise measurements made during the noise monitoring survey.
Sites LT1 and LT2 were chosen to monitor noise levels along Claus Road north of Van Dusen Avenue. Sites LT3 and LT4 were chosen to monitor noise levels along Claribel Road east of Claus Road, and Terminal Avenue and the Railroad spur, respectively. Sites ST1 and ST2 were selected to measure noise levels along Claus Road south of Van Dusen Avenue and Claribel Road west of Claus Road, respectively.
Long-term noise measurement LT1 was 45 feet from the center of the nearest lane of Claus Road between Van Dusen Avenue and Townsend Avenue. The primary noise source at location LT1 was traffic along Claus Road. Hourly average noise levels ranged from about 69 dBA Leq to 73 dBA Leq during the daytime and from about 65 dBA Leq to 69 dBA Leq at night. The calculated day-night average noise level at this location was 75 dBA Ldn. Figure 4.12-2 shows the daily trend in noise levels at LT1.
Measurement location LT2 was 92 feet from the center of the nearest lane of Claus Road, at the intersection with Kentucky Avenue. Ambient noise levels measured at this site were primarily the result of automobile traffic along Claus Road. Hourly average noise levels ranged from about 63 dBA Leq to 69 dBA Leq during the day and from about 56 dBA Leq to 62 dBA Leq at night.
The calculated day-night average noise level at this location was 68 dBA Ldn.
Figure 4.12-3 shows the daily trend in noise levels at LT2.
Long-term noise measurement LT3 was 46 feet from the center of the nearest lane of Claribel Road. The primary noise source at this location was traffic along Claribel Road. Hourly average noise levels ranged from about 60 dBA Leq to 66 dBA Leq during the day and from about 55 dBA Leq to 62 dBA Leq at night. The calculated day-night average noise level at this location was 67 dBA Ldn. Figure 4.12-4 shows the daily trend in noise levels at LT3.
NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
FIGURE 4.12-1
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
NOISE
LT-1
LT-2
LT-3
LT-4
ST-2
ST-1
LT-1
LT-2
ST-2
ST-1
LT-4
LT-3
FIGURE 4.12-2
NOISE LEVELS AT LT1
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
NOISE
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2012.
FIGURE 4.12-3
NOISE LEVELS AT LT2
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
NOISE
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2012.
FIGURE 4.12-4
NOISE LEVELS AT LT3
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
NOISE
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-19
Measurement location LT4 was 75 feet from the center of the nearest lane of Terminal Avenue and 167 feet from the nearest train tracks. Primary noise sources at location LT4 included automobile traffic along Terminal Avenue and train noise along the railroad. Hourly average noise levels ranged from about 63 dBA Leq to 78 dBA Leq during the day and from about 54 dBA Leq to 76 dBA Leq at night. The calculated day-night average noise level at this location was 75 dBA Ldn. Figure 4.12-5 shows the daily trend in noise levels at LT4.
Short-term noise measurements were made on the afternoon of July 17, 2007.
The short-term noise measurements were made at two locations as shown in Figure 4.12-1. Table 4.12-9 summarizes the short-term noise level data. Noise measurement ST1 was 52 feet from the centerline of Claribel Road. Noise levels measured at this location were primarily the result of traffic along Claribel Road. The average noise level was 65 dBA Leq. Maximum noise levels resulting from local traffic reached 81 dBA Lmax. Traffic that passed during a 10-minute portion of the measurement included 72 automobiles, four heavy trucks, and one medium sized truck. In addition, a freight train passed approximately 785 feet away.
TABLE 4.12-9 SHORT-TERM NOISE LEVEL DATA
Noise Measurement Location
Noise Level (dBA)
Lmax L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq Ldn*
ST-1 – 52 feet from the centerline of
Claribel Road 81 68 58 47 65 68
ST-2 – 15 feet from the near lane
center of 6th Street 77 66 55 46 63 69
* Ldn approximated based on concurrent long-term measurement data.
Noise measurement ST2 was west of the Specific Plan site near the intersection of Van Dusen Avenue and Claus Road. The primary noise source at this location was local traffic. Average noise levels were 63 dBA Leq at a position 5 feet above the ground. Maximum noise levels resulting from trucks were 77 FIGURE 4.12-5
NOISE LEVELS AT LT4
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
NOISE
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-21
dBA Lmax. During the measurement 79 automobiles, five medium trucks, and one heavy truck passed. A relatively distant freight train passed during the measurement and generated audible noise levels.
D. Standards of Significance
The Plan would have a significant impact related to noise if it would result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. 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, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
E. Impacts Discussion
1. Plan Impacts
a. Expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-22
The City of Riverbank Noise and Land Use Compatibility Standards contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan are used to evaluate the compatibility of future land uses with the existing and future noise environments.
The Specific Plan would develop business park, retail, and industrial/office/research & development (R&D) uses. Based on traffic noise sources in the vicinity, noise levels within Specific Plan buildings would not exceed maximum allowable noise exposures in General Plan Table NOISE-1 (Table
4.12-5), as described below.
In accordance with the City of Riverbank’s noise and land use compatibility guidelines, the maximum allowable interior noise exposure is 45 dBA Leq for office buildings. Outdoor activity areas proposed at land uses within the Specific Plan area would not be expected to be sensitive to environmental noise; however, interior noise levels could exceed acceptable levels if noise control is not considered during building design.
Retail and office buildings are proposed as near as approximately 60 feet from the center of Claus Road, where future noise levels at the western exteriors of buildings are estimated to be up to 72 dBA Leq. Standard office construction methods (assumes closed windows and forced-air mechanical ventilation systems) normally provides about 30 dBA of noise reduction when going from outside to inside. Interior hourly average noise levels would be about 42 dBA Leq and would not exceed the maximum allowable noise exposure standard of 45 dBA Leq. This is a less-than-significant impact.
The conceptual land use plan shows retail, office, and industrial uses throughout the project site. These land uses would be located adjacent to existing single-family uses to the south, west, and north. Noise sources at industrial sites could include truck movement, loading docks, outdoor mechanical equipment, use of public address systems, and operations (depending on the user). Noise sources such as loading docks would be expected to generate noise levels of about 50 to 60 dBA Leq at 150 feet depending on the number of
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-23
trucks accessing the loading dock and frequency of other extraneous noise sources associated with receiving areas (e.g. forklifts, etc.). Noise sources at commercial uses could include loading docks, outdoor mechanical equipment (e.g. heating and cooling equipment, etc.), and parking lots.
Noise associated with the use of parking lots would include vehicular circulation, loud engines, car alarms, squealing tires, door slams, and human voices.
The maximum sound (Lmax) of a passing car at 15 mph typically ranges from 43 dBA to 53 dBA at 150 feet. The noise generated during an engine start is similar. Door slams create lower noise levels. Hourly average noise level resulting from all of these noise-generating activities in a busy parking lot could range from 35 dBA to 45 dBA Leq at a distance of 150 feet from the parking area.
Heating, ventilation, and cooling equipment could generate noise levels in the range of 50 dBA to 70 dBA Leq at 150 feet depending on the number, type, and size of the proposed equipment. Trash compactors typically generate maximum noise levels of 40 to 50 dBA at 150 feet, depending on the power rating and enclosure characteristics.
The nearest residential land uses are 110 feet west of the plan area, across Claus Road. Noise levels resulting from on-site activities may exceed City standards for stationary noise sources, as described in General Plan Tables NOISE-2 and NOISE-3 (Tables 4.12-6 and 4.12-7), at nearby residential receivers if the noise generated by such uses are not regulated or adequately mitigated. This represents a significant impact. b. Expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g. jackhammers, hoe rams) are used.
Construction activities would include demolition of existing structures, excavation, site preparation work, foundation work, and new building framing
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-24
and finishing. The proposed project is not expected to require pile driving, which can cause excessive vibration.
For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation uses a vibration limit of 0.5 inches/second, peak particle velocity (in/sec, PPV) for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards,
0.3 in/sec, PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.08 in/sec, PPV for ancient buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened.
Table 4.12-10 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. Project construction activities such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.) may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity. Construction activities may extend over several construction seasons, but construction vibration would not be substantial for most of this time except during vibration generating activities (as discussed above). Jackhammers typically generate vibration levels of 0.035 in/sec PPV and drilling typically generates vibration levels of 0.09 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Vibration levels would be expected to be 0.2 in/sec PPV or less, below the 0.3 in/sec PPV significance threshold. Vibration generated by construction activities near the common property line would at times be perceptible, however, would not be expected to result in “architectural” damage to these buildings.
In areas where vibration would not be expected to cause structural damage, vibration levels may still be perceptible. However, as with any type of construction, this would be anticipated and it would not be considered significant given the intermittent and short duration of the phases that have the highest potential of producing vibration (demolition and use of jackhammers and other high power tools). By use of administrative controls such as notifying
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-25
TABLE 4.12-10 VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENTa
Equipment
PPV at 25 Feet
(in/sec)
Approximate
Lv at 25 Feet
(VdB)
Pile Driver (Impact)
upper range 1.158 112
typical 0.644 104
Pile Driver (Sonic)
upper range 0.734 105
typical 0.170 93
Clam Shovel Drop 0.202 94
Hydromill (slurry wall)
in soil 0.008 66
in rock 0.017 75
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
a Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, United States Department of Transportation, Office of Planning and Environment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006. adjacent commercial shops of scheduled construction activities and scheduling construction activities with the highest potential to produce perceptible vibration to hours with the least potential to affect these uses, perceptible vibration can be kept to a minimum and as such would not result in a significant impact with respect to perception. This is a less-than-significant impact.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-26
Vibration levels associated with the on-site railroad tracks would not exceed vibration criteria thresholds set by the Federal Transit Authority (FTA). Up to four non-passenger freight trains per day serve the RAAP via the Sierra Northern Railway (SERA) railroad branch. Typical train speeds are between 20 and 25 miles per hour at the Claus Road at Patterson Road crossing, and would likely be slower on-site. Travel speeds are anticipated to be relatively low and producing correspondingly low levels of vibration at nearby buildings proposed as part of the Specific Plan. Table 4.12-4 lists the FTA vibration impact criteria for institutional land uses (representative of land uses proposed as part of the Specific Plan) as 83 VdB for infrequent events. Assuming a maximum travel speed of 20 mph on site, groundborne vibration levels from freight trains would not be expected to exceed 83 VdB at distances greater than 20 feet from the tracks. Commercial and industrial land uses proposed as part of the Specific Plan that are located more than 20 feet from the on-site railroad tracks would not be impacted by groundborne vibration levels resulting from low-speed railroad train passbys. Therefore, this is a lessthan-significant impact. c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Traffic volumes in the project vicinity will increase with the development of the project area, and will generate an increase in traffic noise along the local roadway network. In some locations, there would be a substantial permanent increase in environmental noise at noise sensitive receptors. This is a significant impact.
The project vicinity contains a variety of land uses with varying sensitivities to noise. Residential land uses would be most affected by traffic noise level increases. Office and commercial uses are not typically affected by traffic noise increases along the local roadway network. Industrial land uses would not generally be affected by an increase in traffic noise. A noise impact would be identified at noise-sensitive land uses where the project would result in a noise level increase of 3 dBA Ldn or more in noise environments of 60 dBA Ldn
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-27
to 65 dBA Ldn; or, 1.5 dBA Ldn or more at outdoor activity areas of noisesensitive uses where existing noise environments are greater than 65 dBA Ldn.
Traffic data provided by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants was reviewed to calculate potential project-related traffic noise level increases along roadways representative of those serving the Specific Plan site that would be affected by the Specific Plan. These data included turning movement counts at 15 intersections for existing conditions and projections for existing plus– project, cumulative without lane configurations, and cumulative with lane configurations conditions at build-out of the Specific Plan estimated to occur in 2030. Peak hour traffic volumes on these roadway segments were calculated based on the turning movement data and compared to existing conditions to calculate the anticipated noise level increase and the Specific Plan’s relative contribution. Increases in traffic noise levels along the local streets are shown in Table 4.12-11. The traffic data indicates that the increase in traffic noise levels attributable to the Specific Plan would range from 0 to 2 dBA Ldn, with the largest noise increase expected along Claus Road between Townsend Avenue and Claribel Road. Existing noise environments at outdoor activity areas of residences along this segment of Claus Road are greater than 65 dBA Ldn, and would increase by more than 1.5 dBA as a result of transportation noise from the Specific Plan. This would represent a significant impact because the noise level increases would be greater than the City’s significance thresholds set in Policy NOISE-2.1, stated above.
d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Where noise from construction activities exceeds 60 dBA Leq and exceeds the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA at noise-sensitive uses in the project vicinity for a period of more than one construction season, the impact would be considered significant.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-28
TABLE 4.12-11 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Roadway
Existing
Noise Level
(Ldn) at 50
feet from
Center of
Road
Existing
Plus Project
Noise Level
(Ldn) at 50
feet from
Center of
Road
Noise
Level
Increase
(Ldn)
Claribel Road between Coffee
Road and Oakdale Road 69 69 0
Claribel Road between Oakdale
Road and Roselle Avenue
70 70 0
Claribel Road between Roselle
Avenue and Claus Road 68 69 1
Claribel Road between Claus Road
and Eleanor Road 67 67 0
Claus Road between Patterson
Road and Townsend Avenue 67 67 0
Claus Road between Townsend
Avenue and Claribel Road 67 69 2
Claus Road between Claribel Road
and Terminal Avenue
68 69 1
Patterson Road between Terminal
Avenue and Claus Road 66 66 0
Patterson Road between Claus
Road and Eleanor Road 67 67 0
Townsend Avenue between Terminal Avenue and Claus Road 53 53 0 Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially when heavy equipment is used. The highest maximum noise levels generated by construction activities would typically range from about 90 to 98 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. Typical hourly average construction-generated noise levels are about 79 dBA to 88 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of a site during busy construction periods. Construction-generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-29
of distance between the source and receptor. Shielding provided by buildings or terrain result in lower construction noise levels at distant receptors.
Construction projects of this type are typically built out over more than one construction season, and some construction methods generate higher noise levels and noise that would be considered impulsive. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noisesensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time. Limiting the hours when construction can occur to daytime hours is often a simple method to reduce the potential for noise impacts. In areas immediately adjacent to construction, controls such as constructing temporary noise barriers and utilizing “quiet” construction equipment can also reduce the potential for noise impacts.
It is likely that future development under the Specific Plan would occur in discrete phases over the 20-year build-out period of the Plan. However, the rate of development will be dependent on market conditions, which are unknown at this time. Future projects would be required to undergo environmental review to determine project-specific construction period noise impacts. It is reasonable to assume that a particular receiver or group of receivers would be subject to construction noise levels in excess of 60 dBA Leq and the ambient by 5 dBA, as a result, a significant impact would occur. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Retail, office, and industrial uses developed at the site would be intermittently exposed to noise levels from aircraft associated with the Peterson private airport located approximately 1.5 miles east of the Specific Plan area. Because of relative infrequent use of the airstrip and aircraft overflights, on-site noise levels would not substantially increased above those resulting from traffic along the local roadway network or on-site operations. The resulting noise
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-30
environment from aircraft would be considered compatible with the proposed land uses. This is a less-than-significant impact. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
As discussed above in response to criteria e.) noise from aircraft at the RAAP site would be considered compatible with the proposed land uses, and would be considered a less-than-significant impact.
2. Cumulative Impacts
Traffic volume increases in the Specific Plan vicinity will result with the development of the plan area and other planned developments in the southeast portion of the City of Riverbank. In some locations, these increases would be substantial, and the project would contribute to the overall cumulative impact. This is a significant impact.
Traffic noise levels along Claribel Road and Claus Road will be substantially increased over existing conditions assuming cumulative traffic projections.
Substantial cumulative noise level increases along affected roadway segments would be approximately 3 dBA Ldn above existing conditions. If the Specific Plan contributes at least 1 dBA Ldn to the significant cumulative noise level increase of 3 dBA Ldn of more, the noise increase would be “cumulatively considerable.” Table 4.12-12 presents noise level information under different traffic scenarios at 50 feet from the center of area roadways.
Table 4.12-13 summarizes the substantial cumulative noise level increases attributable to the project and cumulative noise level increases anticipated in the project vicinity. Cumulative traffic noise impacts would occur at sensitive receptors along Claribel Road, between Roselle Avenue and Claus Road, and Claus Road, between Van Dusen Avenue and Claribel Road.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-31
TABLE 4.12-12 NOISE LEVELS FOR MULTIPLE SCENARIOS AT 50 FEET FROM
ROADWAYS
Affected Roadway Segment
Noise Level (Ldn) at
50 feet from Center of Road
Existing
Existing
Plus
Project Cumulative
Claribel Road between Coffee
Road and Oakdale Road 69 69 73
Claribel Road between Oakdale
Road and Roselle Avenue
70 70 72
Claribel Road between Roselle
Avenue and Claus Road 68 69 71
Claribel Road between Claus
Road and Eleanor Road 67 67 71
Claus Road between Patterson
Road and Townsend Avenue 67 67 69
Claus Road between Van Dusen
Avenue and Claribel Road 67 68 70
Claus Road between Claribel
Road and Terminal Avenue
68 69 70
Patterson Road between Terminal
Avenue and Claus Road 66 66 67
Patterson Road between Claus
Road and Eleanor Road 67 67 68
Townsend Avenue between Terminal Avenue and Claus Road 53 53 54
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-32
TABLE 4.12-13 SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES TO TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS IN
THE PLAN AREA AND ITS VICINITY
Roadway Segment
Noise Level Increase
(dBA, Ldn)
Project Cumulative
Claribel Road
Coffee Road to Oakdale Road >1 3
Roselle Avenue to Claus Road 1 3
Claus Road to Eleanor Road >1 3
Claus Road Van Dusen Ave. to Claribel Road 1 3
F. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact NOISE-1: The nearest residential land uses are 110 feet west of the plan area, across Claus Road. Noise levels resulting from on-site activities may exceed City standards for stationary noise sources, as described in General Plan Tables NOISE-2 and NOISE-3 (Tables 4.12-6 and 4.12-7 in this EIR), at nearby residential receivers if the noise generated by such uses are not regulated or adequately mitigated.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: In order to reduce noise generated by activities occurring within the RAAP site, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
¨ Project level acoustical analyses shall be constructed for noisegenerating land uses proposed as part of the Specific Plan. Exterior noise levels at residential land uses interfacing active parks, commercial land uses, or industrial land uses shall be maintained in accordance with the standards presented in the General Plan and Municipal Code.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-33
¨ Parking lot cleaning activities in commercial and industrial areas shall be limited to daytime and evening hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). ¨ Trash compactors in commercial and industrial areas shall be located away from adjacent residential receivers or shielded with noise barriers. ¨ Loading dock hours of operation shall be limited to daytime and evening hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant. Traffic data provided by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants was reviewed to calculate potential project-related traffic noise level increases along roadways representative of those serving the Specific Plan site that would be affected by the Specific Plan. These data included turning movement counts at 15 intersections for existing conditions and projections for existing plus– project, cumulative without lane configurations, and cumulative with lane configurations conditions at build-out of the Specific Plan estimated to occur in 2030. Peak hour traffic volumes on these roadway segments were calculated based on the turning movement data and compared to existing conditions to calculate the anticipated noise level increase and the Specific Plan’s relative contribution. Increases in traffic noise levels along the local streets are shown in Table 4.12-11. The traffic data indicates that the increase in traffic noise levels attributable to the Specific Plan would range from 0 to 2 dBA Ldn, with the largest noise increase expected along Claus Road between Townsend Avenue and Claribel Road. Existing noise environments at outdoor activity areas of residences along this segment of Claus Road are greater than 65 dBA Ldn, and would increase by more than 1.5 dBA as a result of transportation noise from the Specific Plan. This would represent a significant impact because the noise level increases would be greater than the City’s significance thresholds set in Policy NOISE-2.1, stated above.
Impact NOISE-2: Existing noise environments at outdoor activity areas of residences along Claus Road are greater than 65 dBA Ldn, and would increase
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-34
by more than 1.5 dBA as a result of transportation noise following implementation of the Specific Plan.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Noise reduction methods shall be implemented to reduce generated by activities resulting from the Specific Plan.
These measures shall include, but are not limited to the following:
¨ Paving streets with "quieter" pavement types such as Open-Grade Rubberized Asphaltic Concrete would reduce noise levels by 2 to 3 dBA depending on the existing pavement type, traffic speed, traffic volumes, and other factors.
¨ New or larger noise barriers could reduce noise levels by 5 dBA Ldn.
Final design of such barriers, including an assessment of their feasibility and reasonableness, should be completed during project level review. ¨ Sound insulation treatments to affected buildings, such as sound rated windows and doors, could reduce noise levels in interior spaces. ¨ Installing traffic calming measures to slow traffic along Claus Road could provide qualitative improvement by smoothing out the rise and fall in noise levels caused by speeding vehicles.
Significance After Mitigation: Case studies have shown that the replacement of dense grade asphalt (standard type) with open-grade or rubberized asphalt can reduce traffic noise levels along residential-type streets by 2 to 3 dBA.1
A possible noise reduction of 2 dBA would be expected using conservative engineering assumptions. To be a permanent mitigation, subsequent repaving would also have to be “quieter” pavements.
Alternatively, new or larger noise barriers could be constructed to provide acoustical shielding at affected outdoor use areas, and sound insula-
1 Douglas D. Carlson, Han Zhu Ph.D., Can Xiao. Analysis of Traffic Noise Before and After Paving With Asphalt-Rubber, http://www.asphaltrubber.org/ ari/Noise/Analysis_of_Traffic_Noise_Before_and_after_Paving_with_Asphalt_Rubbe r_on_US60.pdf.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-35
tion could be installed to control noise levels in interior spaces to acceptable levels. Typically, increasing the height of an existing barrier results in about 1 dBA of attenuation per 1 foot of additional barrier height. The design of such noise barriers would require additional analysis. Treatments to the home may include the replacement of existing windows and doors with sound-rated windows and doors and the provision of a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation to allow the occupants the option of controlling noise to by closing the windows.
The specific treatments for each affected residential unit would be identified on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, traffic calming could be implemented to reduce the noise of vehicles. Each 5 mph reduction in average speed provides approximately 1 dBA of noise reduction on an average basis (Leq/Ldn). Traffic calming measures that regulate speed improve the noise environment by smoothing out noise levels.
Each of these mitigation measures involves other non-acoustical considerations. Other engineering issues may dictate continued use of dense grade asphalt. Noise barriers and sound insulation treatments must be done on private property necessitating agreements with each property owner. Therefore, it may not be reasonable or feasible to reduce projectgenerated traffic noise at all affected receivers. The impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.
Impact NOISE-3: While the duration and phasing of construction activities for the Specific Plan is unknown at this time, it is conceivable that a particular receiver or group of receivers would be subject to construction noise levels in excess of 60 dBA Leq and the ambient by 5 dBA for durations exceeding one construction season.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: To reduce noise levels generated by construction, the following standard construction noise control measures shall be included in all construction projects within the plan area:
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-36
¨ Limit construction to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no noise-generating construction on Sundays or holidays. ¨ Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. ¨ Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines should be strictly prohibited.
¨ Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors.
Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. Temporary noise barriers could reduce construction noise levels by 5 dBA. ¨ Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
¨ Route all construction traffic to and from the project site via designated truck routes where possible. Prohibit construction related heavy truck traffic in residential areas where feasible.
¨ Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. ¨ The contractor shall prepare and submit to the City for approval a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noisegenerating construction activities. ¨ Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-37
Significance After Mitigation: With implementation of these measures, the impact would be less-than-significant.
Impact NOISE-4: Traffic volume increases in the vicinity of the Specific Plan vicinity will result with the development of the plan area and other planned developments in the southeast portion of the City of Riverbank.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-4: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-2.
Significance After Mitigation: Similar to Impact NOISE-2, it may not be reasonable or feasible to reduce cumulative traffic noise levels at all affected receivers. The increase in development density would increase noise levels noticeably at receivers. Measures available to reduce the cumulative noise level increases would not likely be reasonable or feasible in all areas, therefore, the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
NOISE
4.12-38
4.13POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.13-1
This chapter discusses population, housing, and employment trends and conditions in Riverbank and Stanislaus County, and evaluates the potential impacts to population and housing associated with implementation of the draft RAAP Specific Plan. The following evaluation assesses the potential for growth inducement as well as for the displacement of current residents and existing housing units.
A. Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key State and local regulations, policies and programs pertaining to population and housing in the RAAP Plan Area.
1. Regional Planning
The Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization for Stanislaus County and the cities of Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Newman, Oakdale, Patterson, Riverbank, Turlock, and Waterford. The StanCOG Policy Board is comprised of county supervisors, mayors, and city council members who work together to enhance communication, cooperation, and comprehensive planning in dealing with regional issues. StanCOG is charged with overseeing the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process for member jurisdictions and with developing a RHNA Plan to allocate the fair share housing need for each jurisdiction within Stanislaus County in accordance with the requirements of Section 65584 of the California Government Code. StanCOG assigns jurisdictions an allocation of housing units to be built in that area during a specific planning period, usually five to seven years. The allocation is specific to the number of housing units to be built for very low-, low income, moderate, and above moderate income levels.
2. Local Planning
Under California Government Code Section 65580, local governments are responsible for facilitating improvements and development of housing to meet the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, while considering other fiscal, environmental, and community goals set forth in the
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
4.13-2
General Plan. The Housing Element, one of seven mandated elements of the General Plan, is the vehicle through which local governments carry out this responsibility. The Housing Element summarizes information on population and housing required for the evaluation of current and future housing needs, and the Element also contains policies and programs designed to address the identified needs.
The City of Riverbank 2009-2014 Housing Element represents a five-year program to conserve, improve, and develop housing in the community.
Goals, policies, and programs from the Riverbank Housing Element relevant to population and housing are summarized below in Table 4.13-1.
B. Existing Conditions
This section describes population, housing, and employment trends and conditions in Riverbank and Stanislaus County.
1. Population Trends and Growth Rate
According to US Census data, the population of Riverbank was 22678 in 2010.
1 Throughout the 1990s Riverbank was one of the fastest growing communities in California, experiencing an 84 percent rise in the number of residents and an average annual population growth rate of 7.6 percent.
Neighboring communities also experienced population growth in the same timeframe, although the rate of growth was not as dramatic as seen in Riverbank. Population grew by 14.6 percent in Modesto, 29.4 percent in Oakdale, 34.3 percent in Escalon, and 20.6 percent for Stanislaus County as a whole.2
It is estimated that while population growth throughout the County slowed between 2000 and 2005, growth in Riverbank continued at approximately 4.8 percent, twice the rate seen in Stanislaus County as a whole.
1 US Census, City of Riverbank.
2 City of Riverbank, 2005. General Plan Background Report: Economic Development, page 2.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
4.13-3
TABLE 4.13-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND
PROGRAMS RELATED TO POPULATION AND HOUSING
Goal/Policy/
Program
Number Goal, Policy, or Program Content
Goal 1 Identify adequate sites to provide for a sufficient number of dwelling units to meet the City's regional housing needs.
Policy 1.1 Ensure land use and zoning procedures accommodating to affordable housing.
Program 1.1a
Rezone sites listed in Table V-2 (65.2 acres) and adopt a general plan amendment (if necessary) to complete annexation and zoning of at least 15 acres of potential sites identified in Table V-3 to higher density residential (R-3 or equivalent zoning of at least 20 dwelling units per acre). The first areas to be targeted for rezoning by December 2011 will be Table V-2 sites within existing City limits. Owner and rental multifamily uses will be permitted byright in these areas, without a conditional use permit, planned unit development or other discretionary review or approval. In addition, a minimum of 20 units per acre will be required. By December 2012, the City will complete annexation and zoning (in consultation with property owners) of at least 15 acres of sites shown in Figure Table V-3.
The Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) has indicated to the City that it would look favorably on annexation requests for land adjacent to current City limits within Riverbank’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The City will: 1) identify areas with few environmental constraints that can be provided with public facilities and services meeting City standards; 2) meet with property owners to seek their agreement to initiate annexation; and 3) initiate specific planning and/or rezoning as part of the annexation process to expedite residential development opportunities. The City’s objective will be to increase the availability of adequate sites—properties without significant environmental or public facility constraints to ensure the properties can accommodate development by June 2013. The City will continue to provide a process whereby multi-family housing can be approved without a conditional use permit process (by right, as currently allowed in the R-3 zone).
To ensure that the City meets it obligation to identify additional sites, the City will commit to the actions and timeframes listed below. The City believes these timeframes are workable based on the history of annexations in Riverbank over the past several
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
TABLE 4.13-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND
PROGRAMS RELATED TO POPULATION AND HOUSING
(CONTINUED)
4.13-4
Goal/Policy/
Program
Number Goal, Policy, or Program Content
years.
The City will use the following criteria to identify the most appropriate sites for rezoning to permit 20 or more units per acre:
¨ Identify sites for residential development, suitable for highdensity residential development on or near major roads and transportation corridors;
¨ Identify sites that are least two acres or greater in size for efficient use as multi-family housing; ¨ Provide a financing plan and phasing schedule for the provision of public facilities and services (including water, sewer, and storm drainage) that ensure the sites can be developed between 2011 and 2014; and ¨ Concurrent with the annexations, adopt development standards similar to the City’s R-3 zone for high-density housing that will permit multi-family housing by right, without a conditional use permit (see Table D-1), and require that properties designated for high-density residential use are developed, on average, at 70 percent or greater of the maximum permitted density of 20 or more units per acre.
Policy 1.2 Maintain an inventory of vacant and underutilized residential lands.
Program 1.2a
Track changes in land availability and accomplishments in multifamily development in order to determine if further rezoning is necessary to better facilitate high-density developments.
Program 1.2b
Update Geographical Information Systems (GIS) as changes to the land inventory occur. Provide this information to those interested in infill projects through updated layers viewable from the internet.
Goal 2
Encourage and assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, low-, and very lowincome households.
Policy 2.1 Implement a proactive approach to encourage and gain support for multi-family developments.
Program 2.1a
Seek assistance from non-profit developers, including Self-Help Enterprises and Habitat for Humanity to develop homes for lower-income families. The City will meet with non-profit developers to discuss available sites for affordable housing projects, potential funding sources, and actions the City can take to assist
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
TABLE 4.13-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND
PROGRAMS RELATED TO POPULATION AND HOUSING
(CONTINUED)
4.13-5
Goal/Policy/
Program
Number Goal, Policy, or Program Content
housing providers in obtaining funding.
Program 2.1b
Continue to assist developers of extremely low-, low- and verylow income housing in the grant preparation process to help fund their developments. Funding will be prioritized for the development of housing affordable to extremely low-income households.
The City assists developers by expediting review and approval of development applications to meet funding deadlines and providing information needed to support funding requests.
Program 2.1c
Encourage developers to include second dwelling units in new subdivisions as well as a variety of higher density options. The City encourages developers to include second units by permitting such units without requiring additional lot area and allowing up to 50 percent lot coverage. The City permits such units by right in single-family subdivisions according to the requirements of State law.
Program 2.1d Continue to distribute information on second units at the permit counter and post information on the City’s website.
Program 2.1e
Adopt a density bonus ordinance in compliance with statutory amendments (Chapter 1928, Statutes 2004) to State density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915).
Program 2.1f
Assist in the development of housing for farmworkers. Actions will include assistance with site identification and support of applications for funding. The City will identify a partner and development opportunity by June 1010 and apply for grant funding through HCD.
Program 2.1g
The City will update the uses permitted in the R-3 zone (Section 153.061 (A)) to include emergency shelters. Emergency shelters will only be subject to those development and management standards that apply to other residential development within the same zone.
Policy 2.2 Adopt an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance
Program 2.2a
An Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance will propose to have the City of Riverbank establish a regulatory and incentive framework which provides opportunities for the development of a supply and mix of new housing to meet the future housing needs of all residents. Through this framework it is expected that new residential development will provide housing opportunities to households of all incomes and achieve a diverse and balanced
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
TABLE 4.13-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND
PROGRAMS RELATED TO POPULATION AND HOUSING
(CONTINUED)
4.13-6
Goal/Policy/
Program
Number Goal, Policy, or Program Content
community with housing available for households of all income levels.
Inclusionary unit regulations will apply to projects that propose (1) the creation of five or more dwelling units through new construction, or (2) the creation of ten or more dwelling units through adaptive reuse or conversion of a nonresidential use to residential use. The Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance will govern the percentage of inclusionary units, general requirements for inclusionary units, calculation of rents and selling prices, marketing of inclusionary units, requirements for continued affordability, and density bonuses. Projects that have entered into a development agreement with the City of Riverbank may be exempted from the provisions of this ordinance only if alternative methods of ensuring the construction of affordable dwelling units are included as part of said agreement.
Goal 3 Reduce or remove government constraints.
Policy 3.1 Promote efficient and creative alternatives to help reduce government constraints.
Program 3.1a
Continue to promote the use of Planned Development zones for developers who wish to deviate from setback, parking, or other standards which may limit their ability to develop at a desired density.
Program 3.1b
The City will waive fees for General Plan amendments intended solely to increase residential designations from low-to-medium density to medium-to-high density residential. The City will apply the fee waiver at the time of submittal of a complete application. The City will also defer fees for developments with units affordable to lower-income households until the time of first inspection or as established in a development agreement between the City and the project applicant. The City will promote its fee waiver program through distribution of a brochure at the permit counter, posting of information on the City’s website, and distribution of information to the local building industry association.
Program 3.1c Continue to utilize computer software to help fast-track building permits, saving both developer and staff time.
Program 3.1d
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate the development of housing for special needs groups. Amendments will address the following:
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
TABLE 4.13-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND
PROGRAMS RELATED TO POPULATION AND HOUSING
(CONTINUED)
4.13-7
Goal/Policy/
Program
Number Goal, Policy, or Program Content
¨ Parking requirements: The City will approve reduced parking requirements for developments containing senior, handicapped, single-adult, and/or small-family housing for which two parking spaces per unit are not needed to meet resident and guest parking demands.
Goal 4 Conserve and improve the condition of existing affordable housing stock.
Policy 4.1 Increase rehabilitation efforts.
Program 4.1a
Continue to actively seek State and federal funding for the rehabilitation of homes. The City will consider annual applications for State CDBG, HOME, and Multi-family Housing Program
funds depending on the need for additional funds and the City’s ability to expend funds in a timely manner.
Program 4.1b Maintain database of housing conditions and rehabilitation projects to track accomplishments and assist in future goals.
Policy 4.2 Preserve current multi-family sites.
Program 4.2a Discourage land division of sites currently zoned high-density residential.
Program 4.2b
Monitor any units which may be deemed at-risk for conversion into market-rate housing. Ensure that any loss to the housing stock for lower income households is properly mitigated.
Goal 5
Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
Policy 5.1 Make programs and information available to all persons.
Program 5.1a
The City will continue to promote equal housing opportunity for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, nation origin, or color by supporting efforts of community groups that provide counseling, investigatory, legal, or referral services to victims of discrimination. Specifically, the City will:
¨ Disseminate information in a variety of ways (including brochures, mailings, websites, newspaper ads, etc. in both English and Spanish) regarding rehabilitation and first-time homebuyer programs. ¨ Maintain information on State and federal fair housing laws at
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
TABLE 4.13-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND
PROGRAMS RELATED TO POPULATION AND HOUSING
(CONTINUED)
4.13-8
Goal/Policy/
Program
Number Goal, Policy, or Program Content
the Community Development Department and other public
places for public distribution (such as the Riverbank branch of the Stanislaus County Public Library, the Riverbank Community Center, and City Hall); ¨ Train City staff at the public counter to refer victims of housing discrimination to the appropriate agency (local legal services organization, the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office, the State Fair Employment and Housing Commission, or the US Department of Housing and Urban Development); ¨ Seek the cooperation of the local homebuilders association, Realtor association and lenders in disseminating fair housing information; and
¨ Identify an annual community event such as a fair housing day or as part of another community event at which fair housing information can be distributed.
Program 5.1b
The City will update the definition of “family” and “single-family residence” to comply with all federal and State fair housing laws.
The definition should not distinguish between related and unrelated persons and should not impose limitations on the number of persons that may constitute a family.
Source: City of Riverbank, 2005.
Riverbank has traditionally served as a bedroom community to Modesto; however, with the construction of new subdivisions between 1990 and 2000, Riverbank became home to an increasing number of white collar professionals who commute to jobs in the San Francisco Bay Area and other parts of the state.3
Over the course of the 1990s there was an 8 percent rise in the number of Riverbank residents with college degrees, a notable rise in educational attainment which was not matched in the neighboring communities of Escalon, Modesto, and Oakdale. In general, Stanislaus County has a high out-
3 City of Riverbank, 2005. General Plan Background Report: Economic Development, page 5.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
4.13-9
commute rate; however, Riverbank's out-commute rate is more pronounced than other communities in the county.
2. Employment Trends and Growth Rate
Residents who live and work in Riverbank are most likely to work in manufacturing, service, and retail occupations. The three largest employers in Riverbank are the Riverbank Unified School District with 340 employees, Silgan Containers with 219 employees, and Target Corporation with 200 employees. The closing of the MCI Call Center and Gangi Brothers has contributed to a high rate of unemployment in recent years. In 2008, the unemployment rate in Riverbank averaged 18.1 percent for the year, well above the 12 percent rate experience for Stanislaus County and 8.4 percent for the State as a whole.
The single most significant employment trend in Riverbank and Stanislaus County over the last decade has been the shift from manufacturing and agricultural occupations into retail and service jobs. Between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of Riverbank residents employed in retail jobs grew by 4 percent to 48 percent, while the proportion of residents working in manufacturing fell from 22 percent to 18 percent. According to the California Retail Survey, Riverbank is currently the third fastest retail growth area in the State. The newly completed Riverbank Crossroads Regional Center, anchored by Target, Koh's, Home Depot, and SaveMart, has positioned Riverbank as a competitive player in the regional retail market. Numerous small businesses have relocated tot the mall to capitalize on traffic brought in by the anchor clients.
3. Existing Housing Stock
According to the 2010 US Census, there were a total of 6,579 housing units in Riverbank. The overwhelming majority of housing units in Riverbank are single-family homes.4
Approximately 75 percent of the occupied homes in
the city are owner-occupied, with the remainder renter-occupied. Nearly 58 percent of the housing units in Riverbank were built in the last 20 years;
4 City of Riverbank, 2009. 2009-2014 Riverbank Housing Element, page iii-1.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPM ENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
4.13-10
however, a significant portion of the housing stock is older, as roughly 12 percent of units in the city were built before 1960. A housing conditions survey conducted in 2003 found approximately 55 percent of the housing units in the city to be in sound condition, 12 percent to be in need of minor repairs, 24 percent to be in need of moderate repairs, 4.6 percent in need of substantial repairs, and 1.2 percent to be dilapidated.
The population boom in Riverbank since 1990 has spurred housing construction. The number of housing units in the city grew at a faster pace than for Stanislaus County and for the State between 2000 and 2005. During that period, Riverbank housing growth was 4.5 percent, while the growth rate was
2.2 percent for the County and 1.2 percent for the State.5 Between 2000 and
2008, there was a 37 percent increase in the number of detached single-family units in the city, whereas during the same period the increase in multi-family units was only 1 percent.
In 2009, the StanCOG Draft RHNA estimated that Riverbank's fair share of the total additional housing units required in the county by 2014 was 3 percent, or 894 units.6
4. Jobs-Housing Balance
A relatively even ratio of jobs to housing in a community allows people to get to work without having to commute long distances. By reducing commute times, and by extension vehicle miles travelled, a healthy balance of jobs to housing can also bring environmental and social benefits such as improved air quality and increased leisure time.
The jobs-housing balance in a community is an indication of how adequately the local housing supply houses workers. Communities with a job to housing ratio higher than 1.5 are considered “jobs rich,” while communities with a
5 Riverbank Redevelopment Authority, 2009. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Riverbank Reinvestment Project, Amendment No. 1, page 37. 6 Riverbank Redevelopment Authority, 2009. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Riverbank Reinvestment Project, Amendment No. 1, page 37.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
4.13-11
ratio lower than 1.5 are considered “housing rich.” Between 1994 and 2002, the job-to-housing ratio in Riverbank improved from 0.45 to 0.6. Nevertheless, the city remains housing-rich and jobs-poor, and as a result, a very large portion of residents that commute to jobs outside of the community.
5. Projections
Projections for Riverbank population in 2030 are widely divergent, depending on the methodology used. US Census projections, based on the assumption of a constant annual population growth rate of 3.7 percent, the city's 2030 population would be 47,113. California Department of Finance projections assume an average annual growth in population of 4.1 percent and project a 2030 population of 52,664 for Riverbank. By contrast, StanCOG projections assume an 84 percent growth in the number of household in Riverbank between 2000 and 2030, which would result in 28,352 residents of the city in 2030.7
C. Standards of Significance
The draft RAAP Specific Plan would have a significant population or housing impact if it would:
a. Induce substantial unexpected population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
7 Riverbank Redevelopment Authority, 2009. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Riverbank Reinvestment Project, Amendment No. 1, page 35.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPM ENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
4.13-12
D. Impact Discussion
1. Project Impacts
a. Induce substantial unexpected population growth or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
For the purposes of this EIR, the Plan would be considered to result in a substantial and unplanned level of growth if estimated buildout under the Plan would exceed 2005-2025 Riverbank General Plan growth projections. The Plan does not propose the construction of housing units, and therefore implementation would not directly induce population growth. Redevelopment of the RAAP site, however, would cause indirect population growth through the creation of jobs both during construction and operational phases of the Plan.
Job generation projections done for the Riverbank Army Ammunitions Plan Base Reuse Plan indicated that infrastructure upgrades and facilities construction associated with base redevelopment could generate as much as 158 person-years of construction employment on the site over a period of approximately 15 years. In general, these jobs would be filled with workers from the local labor pool in Riverbank and the surrounding communities. As such, implementation of the Plan would not result in a substantial and unplanned level of growth.
Buildout of the Plan would entail the reuse of a variety of specialized facilities (such as the rail line and the propane storage facilities) as well as existing manufacturing and warehouse facilities in the Plan Area. Additionally, as shown on Table 3-1, the development of approximately 120,000 square feet of net new commercial/retail space, 735,000 square feet of net new industrial space, and 115,000 square feet of office research and development (R&D) space are forecast under the Plan. Overall, it is anticipated that buildout of the Plan would result in the creation of between 827 and 1,654 new jobs over the course of 15 years.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
4.13-13
The increase in industrial and commercial/office square footage anticipated with buildout of the Plan is generally consistent with growth projections assumed in the Riverbank General Plan for the same time horizon. The General Plan projects the construction of approximately 1,999,540 square feet of space in industrial business parks, which would be concentrated largely along the railroad lines and in the southeastern portion of the city, including in the Plan Area, as shown in Figure 4.11-1 in the Land Use chapter of this EIR.
The General Plan also projects construction of roughly 678,980 square feet of net new commercial/retail space on the northern portion of the Plan Area and along Claribel Road on either side of Oakdale Road, as shown in Figure
4.11-1. Additionally, growth under the proposed Plan would come incrementally over a period of 15 years and would be dependent on market conditions.
As such, the proposed Plan would not result in a substantial and unplanned level of growth and associated impacts would be less than significant. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
The RAAP site does not contain any housing units and the Plan does not propose the demolition or redevelopment of any housing units. As such, implementation of the Plan would not result in the displacement of housing units or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Consequently, there would be no impact with respect to displacement of housing units.
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
As described above, the RAAP site does not contain any housing units. As such, there are no residents of the site who could be displaced with implementation of the Plan, and therefore the construction of replacement housing elsewhere would not be required. Consequently, there would be no impact with respect to population displacement.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPM ENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
4.13-14
2. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to population and housing that could occur from a combination of the Plan with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as Stanislaus County. A cumulative impact would be considered significant if, taken together with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in Stanislaus County, it would result in substantial unplanned growth or the displacement of either people or housing units.
While the Plan does not involve the construction of housing and would therefore not result in direct population growth, the construction of new and redeveloped industrial, commercial, and office space in the Plan Area would result in new jobs, potentially leading to an indirect increase in population.
However, the type of job generated under the proposed Plan would cater to the existing labor pool of unemployed works, as discussed above in Section B.2, Employment Trends and Growth Rate. Additionally, StanCOG growth projections forecast strong population growth for the County through 2030, with approximately 6,000 new residents forecast for Riverbank by 2030.
Therefore, the incremental addition of between 827 and 1,654 new jobs in the Plan Area from 2010 to 2030, many of which would cater to the skills of current residents of the surrounding area is consistent with regional growth projections and would not represent a substantial increase in population. As such, cumulative impacts related to induced growth, unplanned growth in Stanislaus County and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Projections for Riverbank population in 2030 are widely divergent, depending on the methodology used. US Census projections, based on the assumption of a constant annual population growth rate of 3.7 percent, the city's 2030 population would be 47,113. California Department of Finance projections assume an average annual growth in population of 4.1 percent and project a 2030 population of 52,664 for Riverbank. By contrast, StanCOG projections assume an 84 percent growth in the number of household in Riverbank be-
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
4.13-15
tween 2000 and 2030, which would result in 28,352 residents of the city in 2030.8
Additionally, the Plan Area does not currently contain any housing and the Plan does not propose the demolition or redevelopment of any housing units.
Therefore, buildout of the Plan would not result in an associated cumulative impact. Overall, buildout of the Plan would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Since there are no significant impacts related to cultural resources as a result of the Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
8 Riverbank Redevelopment Authority, 2009. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Riverbank Reinvestment Project, Amendment No. 1, page 35.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPM ENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
POPULATION AND HOUSI N G
4.13-16
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-1
This chapter describes the existing public service conditions in Riverbank, including the Plan Area, and evaluates the potential impacts of the Plan on public services. Law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical response, and schools are each addressed in a separate section of this chapter.
In each section, a summary of the relevant regulatory setting and existing conditions is followed by a discussion of Plan-specific and cumulative impacts.
A. Law Enforcement
This section describes the regulatory framework, existing conditions, and potential environmental impacts from buildout of the Plan with regard to local law enforcement. The section considers the provision of law enforcement service to the Plan Area.
1. Regulatory Framework
There are no federal or State regulations related to law enforcement services in Riverbank; however, the City of Riverbank addresses law enforcement services in the General Plan. Applicable goals and policies from the General Plan are listed below in Table 4.14-1.
2. Existing Conditions
The City of Riverbank receives law enforcement services through the Riverbank Police Services (RPS), which is provided under contract to the Stanislaus County Sheriff (SCS), headquartered in Modesto.
Other cities served under contract with the SCS include Patterson, Waterford, and Hughson.1 Personnel assigned to Riverbank Police Services perform Patrol, General Investigations, Traffic Enforcement, Crime Prevention and Business Office functions. A wide array of ancillary services, such as the SWAT team, Dive team, Bomb team, and other administrative functions
1 City of Riverbank, 2009. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2005- 2025 General Plan Update, page 4.14-5.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VE LOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-2
TABLE 4.14-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Goal PUBLIC-1
Public service and infrastructure provision to meet or exceed level of service standards consistent with other community goals.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.1
The City will coordinate the planning and construction of capital improvements with the timing of urban development within the Planning Area.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.2
New development must pay for the public facilities, services, and infrastructure required to serve the needs of such development based on service standards applied by the City. The mechanisms for such funding will be part of the development approval, or as set forth in any applicable development agreement or specific plan, which, with the approval of the City Council, may provide for alternative financing mechanisms inlieu of City development fee programs and ordinances. The use of in-lieu fees or in-lieu financing will be reserved for communitywide facilities that serve areas beyond the proposed project or plan. Construction and dedication of facilities will be the method for providing facilities that serve the proposed project or plan area. The City may make exceptions on the basis of financial hardship or small projects or plans, allowing payment of an in-lieu fee.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.3
The City will require that new developments, depending on their size, either: 1) designate lands in appropriate locations, sizes, and free of constraints to accommodate public facilities and infrastructure needed to serve such development, or 2) pay a fee proportional to the development’s cost of acquiring such land at the time acquisition will be required.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.4
The City shall give priority to serving areas within the existing City limits as of the adoption of this General Plan based on current infrastructure and service capacity. New growth proposed outside existing City limits is responsible for providing, or paying a proportionate share of the cost of, public facilities and infrastructure adequate to serve the needs of such development according to the General Plan, a specific plan (if prepared for such development), and/or any infrastructure Master Plan that covers such development through the use of a Cityapproved development agreement. The use of in-lieu fees or in-lieu financing will be reserved for communitywide facilities
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHO RITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
TABLE 4.14-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT SERVICES (CONTINUED)
4.14-3
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
that serve areas beyond the proposed project or plan. Construction and dedication of facilities will be the method for providing facilities that serve the proposed project or plan area.
The City may make exceptions on the basis of financial hardship or small projects or plans, allowing payment of an in-lieu fee.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.5
The City will upgrade facilities and services that experience deterioration or obsolescence in existing developed areas of the City, as funding permits, to maintain levels of public service established by the City.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.6
The City will require that the methods, materials, and design of infrastructure and utilities achieve the City’s environmental, public health and safety, and community character goals and policies, in addition to the City’s level of service standards for public services, facilities, and infrastructure.
Goal PUBLIC-8
Police enforcement services, staffing and deployment adequate to serve the needs of existing and planned development.
Policy
PUBLIC-8.1
New developments shall fund and/or construct adequate law enforcement facilities to serve new growth areas, as required, in coordination with law enforcement service providers.
Policy
PUBLIC-8.2
The City’s goal is to provide 1.25 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. The City will plan and budget and coordinate with service providers with this service standard as a goal
Policy
PUBLIC-8.3
The City will coordinate with law enforcement service providers to ensure a four-minute average response time for emergency calls within the City.
Policy
PUBLIC-8.4
The City will require design of structures, streetscapes, pathways, project sites, and other elements of the urban environment to allow for surveillance of publicly accessible areas.
Policy
PUBLIC-8.5
The City will coordinate with applicable law enforcement service providers to ensure adequate funding, staffing, training, and direction to provide City residents with responsive and effective law enforcement services of all types, including investigative, patrol, and other non-emergency services.
Source: City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-4
are also provided by the Sheriff’s Operations Center, located on Hackett Road, in the City of Modesto.
Riverbank Police Services is comprised of 20 Sworn Deputies, including one chief, two sergeants, ten patrol officers, four investigators, and three traffic officers, who provide law enforcement services to the 22,201 plus residents of the city. This averages 0.90 deputies per thousand residents, which is below the goal of 1.25 deputies per thousand established in the General Plan. The time line for achieving this goal is 5 years, but RPS staff indicated that given the current economic climate, this time line should be extended. The Sworn Deputies are assisted by several reserve deputies, six civilian employees, and numerous civilian volunteers. Currently RPS does not have any plans for expansion or relocation of its facilities.2
RPS prioritizes calls for police services as follows: Priority 1 calls involve lifethreatening situations; Priority 2 calls are not life-threatening but necessitate immediate response; and Priority 3 includes all other calls. General Plan Policy PUBLIC-8.3 calls for a 4-minute average response time for emergency calls within the City. In 2011, RPS received a total of 17,600 calls for service, and response time for Priority 1 calls was 2:43 minutes on average, which meet the City’s 4-minute goal.
3 3. Standards of Significance
The Plan would have a significant impact on law enforcement services if it would result in the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.
2 Chief Bill Pooley, Police Service Commander, City of Riverbank Police Department. Email correspondence with The Planning Center | DC&E, June 4, 2012. 3 Chief Bill Pooley, Police Service Commander, City of Riverbank Police Department. Email correspondence with The Planning Center | DC&E, June 4, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELO PMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-5
4. Impact Discussion
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.
The Plan would have a significant environmental impact if buildout would exceed the ability of police responders to adequately serve the Plan Area, thereby requiring construction of new facilities or modification of existing facilities.
RPS is currently well above the response time goal established in the General Plan. General Plan Policies PUBLIC-8.1, 8.4, and 8.5 will ensure adequate police services, staffing, and funding to serve the needs of planned development. Although RPS is currently under the General Plan goal of providing
1.25 sworn officers per 1,000 residents, buildout of the Plan would not result in a substantial increase in population either directly or indirectly, as explained in Chapter 4.13 of this EIR, and therefore it would not substantially affect the target officer to resident ratio established in the General Plan.
Moreover, the increase in population and the growth of businesses in the Plan Area would occur incrementally over approximately 20 years. At this time, RPS has determined that buildout of the Specific Plan would not exceed the ability of police responders to adequately serve the Plan Area, thereby would not need additional equipment or staff or require construction of new facilities or modification of existing facilities.4 Consequently, the impact on law
enforcement services would be less than significant.
5. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential cumulative impacts to RPS that could occur from buildout of the Plan in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in Riverbank and the surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the City of Riverbank sphere of
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-6
influence (SOI), as defined in the Riverbank General Plan. Cumulative impacts would be significant if development associated with the Plan together with other projects in the Riverbank SOI would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered RPS facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered RPS facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.
By itself, buildout of the Plan would not result in substantial population growth in Riverbank or the surrounding area, and therefore would not substantially increase the service population in the RPS service area or necessitate the construction of new or expanded RPS facilities. Therefore, buildout of the Plan would not contribute to a cumulative impact to police services. Additionally, as noted above, the General Plan includes Policies PUBLIC-8.1 through PUBLIC-8.5, which seek to ensure that police service is adequate to serve existing and future growth in Riverbank. Policies PUBLIC-1.1 through PUBLIC-1.7 seek to ensure that funding will be available to support the construction and expansion of police facilities as required to support future growth in the Riverbank SOI.
Overall, cumulative impacts to police services from buildout of the Plan would be less than significant.
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Since there are no significant impacts related to police services as a result of the Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
4 Chief Bill Pooley, Police Service Commander, City of Riverbank Police Department. Email correspondence with The Planning Center | DC&E, June 4, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELO PMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-7
B. Fire Protection and Emergency Rescue Service
This section describes the regulatory framework, existing conditions, and potential environmental impacts from buildout of the Plan with regard to local emergency fire and rescue protection services. The section considers the provision of fire protection and emergency rescue service to the Plan Area.
1. Regulatory Framework
a. Riverbank General Plan
There are no federal or State regulations related to fire protection and emergency rescue services in Riverbank; however, the City of Riverbank addresses these services in the General Plan. Applicable goals and policies from the General Plan are listed below in Table 4.14-2.
2. Existing Conditions
Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District (SCFPD) provides emergency fire and rescue protection service to the City of Riverbank. One of SCFPD’s six stations, Station 36, is centrally located in downtown Riverbank at 3318 Topeka Street and is staffed 24-hours a day. SCFPD's administrative headquarters is also located in Riverbank at 3324 Topeka Street, next to Station 36.
Full-time staff at Station 36 include: a Captain, an Engineer, and a Firefighter on-duty daily. Intern firefighters, who number between 5 and 10 at any given time throughout the SCFPD service area, also serve at Station 36, and a typical fire response in Riverbank may include 1 or 2 intern(s). Current equipment at Station 36 includes two Type-1 engines with 24-foot ladders (one is a reserve unit), one water tender (a truck that hauls water to unincorporated areas that are not served by fire hydrants), one Type-3 brush engine (a small engine better suited for off-road use, primarily used for vegetation fires), a small rescue boat, and tow vehicle.
5 5 Mayotte, Stephen. Fire Chief, Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District. Email communication with The Planning Center | DC&E, May 7, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-8
TABLE 4.14-2 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO FIRE
PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY RESCUE SERVICES
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Goal PUBLIC-1
Public service and infrastructure provision to meet or exceed level of service standards consistent with other community goals.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.1
The City will coordinate the planning and construction of capital improvements with the timing of urban development within the Planning Area.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.2
New development must pay for the public facilities, services, and infrastructure required to serve the needs of such development based on service standards applied by the City. The mechanisms for such funding will be part of the development approval, or as set forth in any applicable development agreement or specific plan, which, with the approval of the City Council, may provide for alternative financing mechanisms inlieu of City development fee programs and ordinances. The use of in-lieu fees or in-lieu financing will be reserved for communitywide facilities that serve areas beyond the proposed project or plan. Construction and dedication of facilities will be the method for providing facilities that serve the proposed project or plan area. The City may make exceptions on the basis of financial hardship or small projects or plans, allowing payment of an in-lieu fee.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.3
The City will require that new developments, depending on their size, either: 1) designate lands in appropriate locations, sizes, and free of constraints to accommodate public facilities and infrastructure needed to serve such development, or 2) pay a fee proportional to the development’s cost of acquiring such land at the time acquisition will be required.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.4
The City shall give priority to serving areas within the existing City limits as of the adoption of this General Plan based on current infrastructure and service capacity. New growth proposed outside existing City limits is responsible for providing, or paying a proportionate share of the cost of, public facilities and infrastructure adequate to serve the needs of such development according to the General Plan, a specific plan (if prepared for such development), and/or any infrastructure Master Plan that covers such development through the use of a Cityapproved development agreement. The use of in-lieu fees or in-lieu financing will be reserved for communitywide facilities
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
TABLE 4.14-2 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO FIRE
PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY RESCUE SERVICES
(CONTINUED)
4.14-9
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
that serve areas beyond the proposed project or plan. Construction and dedication of facilities will be the method for providing facilities that serve the proposed project or plan area.
The City may make exceptions on the basis of financial hardship or small projects or plans, allowing payment of an in-lieu fee.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.5
The City will upgrade facilities and services that experience deterioration or obsolescence in existing developed areas of the City, as funding permits, to maintain levels of public service established by the City.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.6
The City will require that the methods, materials, and design of infrastructure and utilities achieve the City’s environmental, public health and safety, and community character goals and policies, in addition to the City’s level of service standards for public services, facilities, and infrastructure.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.7
New development projects shall provide compatible utility services in common trenching to minimize the land required and ongoing costs for underground services.
Goal PUBLIC-7 Fire protection services, staffing, and deployment adequate to serve the needs of existing and planned development.
Policy
PUBLIC-7.1
The City will ensure that adequate fire flow pressure is available in relation to structure size, design, requirements for construction, and/or built-in fire protection systems. Maintenance of adequate fire flows includes factors such as adequate storage, system gridding, hydrant spacing, and spacing and sizing of water mains, as specified in the City’s Water Master Plan.
Policy
PUBLIC-7.2
For new development, the City will require a minimum fire flow pressure of 1,500 GPM (sustainable for at least two hours) for residential use. For new development, the City will require a minimum fire flow pressure of approximately 3,600 GPM (sustainable for longer periods) for larger residences and for other building types, depending on the particular use and structure characteristics, and in coordination with the fire service provider.
Policy
PUBLIC-7.3
The City will require that fire stations be located to ensure the appropriate level of service (including adequate response time per Policy Public 7.5), community compatibility, and efficiency, including the location of such facilities relative existing and planned public parks, libraries, and other activity centers.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
TABLE 4.14-2 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO FIRE
PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY RESCUE SERVICES
(CONTINUED)
4.14-10
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Policy
PUBLIC-7.4
The City will coordinate with fire protection providers, including through reciprocity arrangements, to ensure equipment, staffing, and facilities for emergency medical services, urban search and rescue, hazardous materials emergency response, and other relevant needs, as appropriate. The City will ensure consistency with National Fire Protection Association and Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District response requirements.
Policy
PUBLIC-7.5
The City will coordinate with fire protection providers to an emergency response system capable of achieving the following standards in 95% of all cases: first fire emergency response unit within six minutes of dispatch; full alarm assignment within 10 minutes of dispatch; second alarm assignment within 15
minutes of dispatch; and an Insurance Service Office (ISO) rating of Class 2 for areas within the City.
Policy
PUBLIC-7.6
The City will work with property owners in existing developed portions of the City to achieve a minimum fire flow pressure of 1,500 GPM (sustainable for at least two hours) for residential use and approximately 3,600 GPM (sustainable for longer periods) for larger residences and for other building types, depending on the particular use and structure characteristics, and in coordination with the fire service provider.
Source: Riverbank General Plan, 2005-2025.
Fire and rescue emergency response in Riverbank is delivered by Station 36 for single engine responses. Larger incidents requiring more personnel and/or apparatus are handled by the addition of units from SCFPD Stations 31, 32, and 33, as well as automatic aid agreements with Oakdale City Fire Department and Oakdale Rural Fire Protection District.6 Mutual-aid agreements are also in place with all Stanislaus County fire protection agencies (17 total agencies), and with Escalon Fire Protection District is across the Stani-
6 The SCFPD has initiated a Merged Headquarters Contract with both Oakdale City Fire and Oakdale Fire Protection District. As a result, the second due unit is always coming from the City of Oakdale.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-11
slaus River from Riverbank in San Joaquin County. Additional units are dispatched according to incident type and location in the city.
The Riverbank General Plan establishes the following emergency response standards for fire protection in Riverbank:
¨ First fire emergency response unit within 6 minutes of dispatch (in 95 percent of all cases).
¨ Full alarm assignment within 10 minutes of dispatch (in 95 percent of all cases).
¨ Second alarm assignment within 15 minutes of dispatch (in 95 percent of all cases).
¨ An Insurance Service Office (ISO) rating of Class 2 for areas within the City.
Fire flow requirements established in the General Plan are discussed in Chapter 4.17 of this EIR.
In 2011, approximately 62 percent of SCFPD’s service calls were emergency medical response and rescues, 8 percent were fires and 30 percent were other types of calls (false alarms, good intent, service calls, hazardous condition, etc.). SCFPD responded to 3,732 incidents between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011. Fire Station 36 received 1,523 calls during the same period.7 The current Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating in the City is Class 4.
SCFPD staff indicated that to meet a Class 2 response SCFPD would need to triple SCFPD’s current daily staffing. The funding is severely lacking and the District needs some type of assistance from SCFPD’s constituents and/or the
7 Mayotte, Stephen, Fire Chief, Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District. Email communication with The Planning Center | DC&E, May 7, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOR ITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-12
Cities SCFPD serves to achieve the revenue needed. ISO will be out to start a review of the Oakdale City Fire Department in September 2012.8
SCFPD’s long range goal is to increase the number of paid staff at each station from two to three and also to place another fire station in Riverbank within the Crossroads Specific Plan Area, located approximated one mile west of the RAAP site. SCFPD anticipates the eventual need for a third fire station in the Bruinville planning area on the east side of Riverbank as growth occurs.
The formation of Community Services Districts and an improvement to SCFPD Development Fees will need to occur to be able to fund the anticipated staffing and capital assets for the two additional stations. With the current economic decline, construction of new fire stations is on indefinite hold until the economy turns around and there is significant improvement and growth in the SCFPD service area.
9 3. Standards of Significance
The Plan would have a significant impact with regard to fire protection services if it would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.
4. Impact Discussion
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
8 Mayotte, Stephen, Fire Chief, Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District. Email communication with The Planning Center | DC&E, May 7, 2012. 9 Mayotte, Stephen, Fire Chief, Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District. Email communication with The Planning Center | DC&E, May 7, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-13
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.
The Plan would have a significant environmental impact if buildout would exceed the ability of fire and emergency responders to adequately serve the Plan Area, thereby requiring construction of new facilities or modification of existing facilities.
SCFPD staff indicated that the current ISO ratings in the city and the current fire station are inadequate to maintain acceptable service ratios and response times. As noted above, SCFPD currently does not meet the ISO ratings and buildout of the Plan would require an increase in SCFPD’s daily staffing.
The targeted response time would need a station more closely located to the Plan Area. The addition of a new fire station on the east side of the City near the RAAP would be necessary as the proposed Plan builds out. 10 The new station would need at least nine personnel hired for staffing purposes (three per shift), and the station would need a new Type 1 Engine, Type 3 Engine, and a Water Tender for apparatus. The planned Bruinville station would alleviate the need, but as mentioned above, without sufficient funding it is not known when the planned Bruinville station would be built. Implementation of Policy PUB-3 of the Specific Plan would require the City to ensure that financing of the new station would occur commensurate with development within the RAAP site. As result, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
5. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential cumulative impacts to SCFPD that could occur from buildout of the Plan in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in Riverbank and the surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the City of Riverbank SOI, as defined in the Riverbank General Plan. Cumulative impacts would be significant if development associated with the Plan together with other projects in the Riverbank SOI would result in substantial adverse physical impacts asso-
10 Mayotte, Stephen, Fire Chief, Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District. Email communication with The Planning Center | DC&E, May 7, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOR ITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-14
ciated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.
As discussed above, SCFPD has a long range goal of constructing fire stations within the Crossroads Specific Plan Area and Bruinville planning area as growth occurs. Future development under the proposed Plan would require a Fire Station near the Plan Area at buildout. With Mitigation Measure PUB-1 in place, SCFPD would be able to fund the anticipated staffing and capitol assets for the additional station near the Plan Area. Consequently, buildout of the Plan would not contribute to a cumulative impact to fire protection facilities. Therefore, a less-than-significant cumulative impact would occur.
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impacts and mitigation measures have been identified with regard to fire protection services.
Impact PUB-1: In order to improve response times and ISO ratings, a new fire station is required either in the Bruinville planning area or in the RAAP Plan Area. The addition of a new Fire Station on the east side of the City near the RAAP would be necessary as the proposed Plan builds out. The new station would need at least nine personnel hired for staffing purposes (3 per shift), and the station would need a new Type 1 Engine, Type 3 Engine, and a Water Tender for apparatus. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure PUB-1: The additional personnel, station, and apparatus shall be incorporated into the RAAP Specific Plan and have benchmarks for when the staffing and facilities are added.
Significance after Mitigation: This impact would be less than significant after implementation of this mitigation measure.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-15
C. Schools
This section describes the regulatory framework, existing conditions, and potential environmental impacts from buildout of the Plan with regard to local public schools. The section considers the provision of school service to the Plan Area.
1. Regulatory Setting
a. State Law
Senate Bill 50 (SB50) [1998], which is funded by Proposition 1A, limits the power of Cities and Counties to require fiscal mitigation on home developers as a condition of approving new development and provides for a standardized developer fee. SB50 generally provides for a 50/50 State and local school facilities funding match, with a $9.2 billion bond authorized to fund the State portion. SB50 also provides for three levels of statutory impact fees. The application level depends on whether State funding is available, whether the school district is eligible for State funding and whether the school district meets certain additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year-round school and the percentage of moveable classrooms in use.
California Government Code Sections 65995-65998 sets forth provisions to implement SB 50. Specifically, according to Section 65995(h), the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization...on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code. b. Local Policies and Regulations
The City of Riverbank addresses the level of service in public schools in the General Plan. Applicable goals and policies from the General Plan are listed below in Table 4.14-3.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOR ITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-16
TABLE 4.14-3 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO SCHOOLS
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Goal PUBLIC-1
Public service and infrastructure provision to meet or exceed level of service standards consistent with other community goals.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.1
The City will coordinate the planning and construction of capital improvements with the timing of urban development within the Planning Area.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.2
New development must pay for the public facilities, services, and infrastructure required to serve the needs of such development based on service standards applied by the City. The mechanisms for such funding will be part of the development approval, or as set forth in any applicable development agreement or specific plan, which, with the approval of the City Council, may provide for alternative financing mechanisms in-lieu of City development fee programs and ordinances. The use of in-lieu fees or in-lieu financing will be reserved for communitywide facilities that serve areas beyond the proposed project or plan. Construction and dedication of facilities will be the method for providing facilities that serve the proposed project or plan area. The City may make exceptions on the basis of financial hardship or small projects or plans, allowing payment of an in-lieu fee.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.3
The City will require that new developments, depending on their size, either: 1) designate lands in appropriate locations, sizes, and free of constraints to accommodate public facilities and infrastructure needed to serve such development, or 2) pay a fee proportional to the development’s cost of acquiring such land at the time acquisition will be required.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.4
The City shall give priority to serving areas within the existing City limits as of the adoption of this General Plan based on current infrastructure and service capacity. New growth proposed outside existing City limits is responsible for providing, or paying a proportionate share of the cost of, public facilities and infrastructure adequate to serve the needs of such development according to the General Plan, a specific plan (if prepared for such development), and/or any infrastructure Master Plan that covers such development through the use of a City-approved development agreement. The use of in-lieu fees or in-lieu financing will be reserved for communitywide facilities that serve areas beyond the proposed project or plan. Construction and dedication of facilities
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-17
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
will be the method for providing facilities that serve the proposed project or plan area. The City may make exceptions on the basis of financial hardship or small projects or plans, allowing payment of an in-lieu fee.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.5
The City will upgrade facilities and services that experience deterioration or obsolescence in existing developed areas of the City, as funding permits, to maintain levels of public service established by the City.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.6
The City will require that the methods, materials, and design of infrastructure and utilities achieve the City’s environmental, public health and safety, and community character goals and policies, in addition to the City’s level of service standards for public services, facilities, and infrastructure.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.7
New development projects shall provide compatible utility services in common trenching to minimize the land required and ongoing costs for underground services.
Goal PUBLIC-9 School facilities that serve existing and future needs and complement our neighborhoods.
Policy
PUBLIC-9.1
New development projects shall provide impact fees, land dedication, school construction, special taxes, and/or other means to the satisfaction of affected school districts to ensure levels of service, in accordance with State law.
Policy
PUBLIC-9.2
The City will circulate development application materials to the appropriate school district representatives in association with CEQA and project review and incorporate school district comments into City actions on such development projects.
Policy
PUBLIC-9.3
The City will work with local school districts in long-range land use planning to allow planning for school facilities for servicing new growth.
Policy
PUBLIC-9.4
The City will work with local school districts to take advantage of joint-use opportunities that could benefit the City, especially for park and recreation facilities that could be used by schoolchildren during the school day and the community in the evening, on weekends, and during school breaks.
Policy
PUBLIC-9.5
The City will ensure that areas around school sites are designed to allow easy pedestrian and bicycle access from surrounding neighborhoods. New development project applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that there are safe routes to and from school sites from surrounding planned neighborhoods prior to approval.
Source: Riverbank General Plan, 2005-2025.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOR ITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-18
2. Existing Conditions
The City of Riverbank is served by three school districts: Riverbank Unified, Sylvan Union, and Modesto City Schools.
a. Riverbank Unified School District
Riverbank Unified School District (RUSD) is the main school district serving the City of Riverbank. RUSD offers kindergarten through twelfth grade education. The District is comprised of three elementary schools, one middle school, one school offering kindergarten through eighth grade, one high school, and one alternative high school.11 The following are schools in the RUSD:
¨ Adelante High School, Alternative High School, 6200 Claus Road, Riverbank.
¨ California Avenue Elementary, 3800 California Avenue, Riverbank. ¨ Cardozo Middle School, 3625 Santa Fe Avenue, Riverbank. ¨ Mesa Verde Elementary, 4850 Mesa Drive, Oakdale.
¨ Rio Altura Elementary, 2400 Stanislaus Street, Riverbank. ¨ Riverbank High School, 6200 Claus Road, Riverbank.
¨ Riverbank Language Academy, 2400 Stanislaus Street, Riverbank. b. Sylvan Union School District
Sylvan Union School District (SUSD) is comprised of ten elementary schools and three middle schools, and provides kindergarten through eighth grade instruction. SUSD’s Crossroads Elementary School is located in southwest Riverbank and serves the Crossroads Specific Plan area. However, the District primarily serves the north portion of the City of Modesto. Of the elementary school students from Riverbank who attend SUSD, most attend Crossroads Elementary located at 5800 Saxon Way in Riverbank, Stockard Coffee Elementary School located at 3400 Northview Drive in Modesto, and Sylvan Elementary School located at 2908 Coffee Road in Modesto. SUSD middle school students from Riverbank attend Elizabeth Ustach Middle School, located at 2701 Kodiak Drive in Modesto.
11 City of Riverbank, 2009. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2005- 2025 General Plan Update, page 4.14-5.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-19
c. Modesto City Schools
Modesto City Schools (MCS) provides kindergarten through twelfth grade instruction, primarily serving students from the City of Modesto. Students from Riverbank who graduate from schools in the Sylvan Union School District attend Modesto City Schools for high school. James Enochs High School, at 3201 Sylvan Avenue in Modesto, serves the entire section of Riverbank within MCS boundaries.
3. Standards of Significance
The Plan would have a significant impact with regard to schools if it would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.
4. Impact Discussion
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.
The Plan would have a significant environmental impact if buildout would substantially increase the population of Riverbank, thereby requiring construction of new school facilities or modification of existing facilities in order to accommodate growth in the student body.
The Riverbank General Plan includes Goal PUBLIC-9, which seeks to ensure school facilities that serve existing and future needs and complement neighborhoods. The General Plan does not establish a service ratio, which when exceeded, would require the construction of new facilities. However, buildout of the Plan would not result in a substantial population increase, either directly, through the construction of new housing, or indirectly, through the creation of new jobs that would attract new residents to the
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOR ITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-20
Riverbank area. Consequently, the incremental buildout of the Plan through 2035 would not substantially affect the size of the student body at schools in Riverbank area schools. As such, the Plan would not require the construction or expansion of school facilities and associated impacts would be less than significant.
5. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential cumulative impacts to public schools that could occur from buildout of the Plan in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in Riverbank and the surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the City of Riverbank SOI, as defined in the Riverbank General Plan. Cumulative impacts would be significant if development associated with the Plan together with other projects in the Riverbank SOI would result in a substantial increase in the size of the student population at Riverbank area schools, necessitating the construction or new or expanded school facilities.
By itself, buildout of the Plan would not result in substantial population growth in Riverbank or the surrounding area, and therefore would not substantially increase the student population at Riverbank area schools or necessitate the construction of new or expanded school facilities. Therefore, buildout of the Plan would not contribute to a cumulative impact to public schools. Additionally, as noted above, the General Plan includes Policies PUBLIC-9.1 through PUBLIC-9.5, which seek to ensure that public school service is coordinated with future growth in Riverbank. Policies PUBLIC-1.1 through PUBLIC-1.7 seek to ensure that funding will be available to support the construction and expansion of school facilities as required to support future growth in the Riverbank SOI.
Overall, cumulative impacts to public schools from buildout of the Plan would be less than significant.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-21
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Since there are no significant impacts related to public schools as a result of the Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
D. Library Service and Facilities
This section describes the regulatory framework, existing conditions, and potential environmental impacts from buildout of the Plan with regard to local libraries. The section considers the provision of library service to the Plan Area.
1. Regulatory Framework
There are no federal or State regulations related to library services in Riverbank; however, the City of Riverbank addresses library services in the General Plan. Applicable goals and policies from the General Plan are listed below in Table 4.14-4.
2. Existing Conditions
The Stanislaus County Library (SCL) system consists of a main library in Modesto and 12 other branches, one branch of which is located in Riverbank, at 3442 Santa Fe Street. The 3,594 square-foot Riverbank branch employs two full-time and two part-time staff.12 The branch is open 38 hours per week (closed Fridays and Sundays), and its catalogue contains approximately 26,000 books, videos, tapes, and other audio-visual items. There are eight public internet computers (one of which is reserved exclusively for use by children) and three computers that are used for accessing the library catalog. The Riverbank General Plan establishes a service ratio of 0.5 square feet of public library facilities per resident in the city. With a branch library of 3,594 square feet, Riverbank’s service level is now approximately 0.18 square feet per capita.
12 Charles Teval, Riverbank Library. Personal communication with Lisa Katz, The Planning Center | DC&E, February 25, 2010.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOR ITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-22
TABLE 4.14-4 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
LIBRARY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Goal PUBLIC-1
Public service and infrastructure provision to meet or exceed level of service standards consistent with other community goals.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.1
The City will coordinate the planning and construction of capital improvements with the timing of urban development within the Planning Area.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.2
New development must pay for the public facilities, services, and infrastructure required to serve the needs of such development based on service standards applied by the City. The mechanisms for such funding will be part of the development approval, or as set forth in any applicable development agreement or specific plan, which, with the approval of the City Council, may provide for alternative financing mechanisms inlieu of City development fee programs and ordinances. The use of in-lieu fees or in-lieu financing will be reserved for communitywide facilities that serve areas beyond the proposed project or plan. Construction and dedication of facilities will be the method for providing facilities that serve the proposed project or plan area. The City may make exceptions on the basis of financial hardship or small projects or plans, allowing payment of an inlieu fee.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.3
The City will require that new developments, depending on their size, either: 1) designate lands in appropriate locations, sizes, and free of constraints to accommodate public facilities and infrastructure needed to serve such development, or 2) pay a fee proportional to the development’s cost of acquiring such land at the time acquisition will be required.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.4
The City shall give priority to serving areas within the existing City limits as of the adoption of this General Plan based on current infrastructure and service capacity. New growth proposed outside existing City limits is responsible for providing, or paying a proportionate share of the cost of, public facilities and infrastructure adequate to serve the needs of such development according to the General Plan, a specific plan (if prepared for such development), and/or any infrastructure Master Plan that covers such development through the use of a Cityapproved development agreement. The use of in-lieu fees or inlieu financing will be reserved for communitywide facilities that
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-23
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
serve areas beyond the proposed project or plan. Construction and dedication of facilities will be the method for providing facilities that serve the proposed project or plan area. The City may make exceptions on the basis of financial hardship or small projects or plans, allowing payment of an in-lieu fee.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.5
The City will upgrade facilities and services that experience deterioration or obsolescence in existing developed areas of the City, as funding permits, to maintain levels of public service established by the City.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.6
The City will require that the methods, materials, and design of infrastructure and utilities achieve the City’s environmental, public health and safety, and community character goals and policies, in addition to the City’s level of service standards for public services, facilities, and infrastructure.
Goal PUBLIC-10 Public library facilities adequate to accommodate existing and future needs.
Policy
PUBLIC-10.1
The City will develop additional library facilities, whether through expansion of existing facilities or new facilities, as feasible, and assist the library administration to secure State and federal funds for facilities and services.
Policy
PUBLIC-10.2
The City will coordinate with applicable library service providers to accommodate the development of new library facilities in conjunction with new development areas.
Policy
PUBLIC-10.3
The City’s goal is to have 0.5 square feet of public library facilities per capita within the City. The City will plan and budget and coordinate with service providers with this service standard as a goal.
Source: Riverbank General Plan, 2005-2025.
3. Standards of Significance
The Plan would have a significant impact with regard to library services if it would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered library facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered library facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-24
4. Impact Discussion
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered library facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered library facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.
The Plan would have a significant environmental impact if buildout would exceed service ratios established in the Riverbank General Plan, thereby requiring construction of new facilities or modification of existing facilities. As described above, Policy PUBLIC-10.3 of the General Plan establishes a target of 0.5 square feet of library facilities per resident, and there are currently about 0.18 square feet per capita available to residents. Buildout of the Plan would not result in a substantial population increase, either directly, through the construction of new housing, or indirectly, through the creation of new jobs that would attract new residents to the Riverbank area. Consequently, the incremental buildout of the Plan through 2035 would not substantially affect the ratio of library facilities to residents in Riverbank, and associated impacts would be less than significant.
5. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential cumulative impacts to library facilities that could occur from buildout of the Plan in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in Riverbank and the surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the City of Riverbank SOI, as defined in the Riverbank General Plan. Cumulative impacts would be significant if development associated with the Plan together with other projects in the Riverbank SOI would result in a substantial increase in the use of existing library facilities necessitating the construction or new or expanded facilities.
By itself, buildout of the Plan would not result in substantial population growth in Riverbank or the surrounding area, and therefore would not substantially increase the use of library facilities or cause the square foot to resi-
RIVERBANK L OCAL REDEVELOPMENT A UTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-25
dent ratio established in the General Plan to be exceeded. Therefore, buildout of the Plan would not contribute to a cumulative impact to library facilities.
Additionally, as noted above, the General Plan includes policies, including Policy PUBLIC-10.2, which ensures that the adequate provision of library services will be considered as development occurs. Consequently, cumulative impacts to library facilities from buildout of the Plan would be less than significant.
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Since there are no significant impacts related to library facilities as a result of the Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14-26
4.15 RECREATION
4.15-1
This chapter describes existing parks and recreational facilities conditions in Riverbank and the potential impacts of the Plan on these facilities.
A. Regulatory Setting
This section describes State and local regulations pertaining to recreational facilities in Riverbank.
1. The Quimby Act
Since the passage of the 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477), cities and counties have been authorized to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. Revenues generated through the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities.1 A 1982 amendment (AB 1600) requires agencies to clearly show a reasonable relationship between the public need for the recreation facility or park land and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed. Jurisdictions with a high ratio of park space to inhabitants can set a standard of up to 5 acres per 1,000 persons for new development. Jurisdictions with a lower ratio can only require the provision of up to 3 acres of park space per 1,000 residents. The calculation of a jurisdiction’s park space to population ratio is based on a comparison of the population count of the last US Census to the amount of publicly owned parkland. In the City of Riverbank, the Recreation Department uses level of service ratio of 5 acres of usable park land per 1,000 residents.2
1 Westrup, Laura, 2002. Quimby Act 101: An Abbreviated Overview, Sacramento: California Department of Parks and Recreation, available at http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/quimby101.pdf.
2 Fitzpatrick, Sue, Director, City of Riverbank Recreation Department. Personal communication with Lisa Katz, The Planning Center | DC&E, March 3, 2010.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
RECREATION
4.15-2
2. City of Riverbank General Plan
The Riverbank General Plan includes several goals and policies that relate to recreation. Table 4.15-1 lists these goals and policies.
B. Existing Conditions
The City of Riverbank owns and maintains over 114 acres of developed and undeveloped parkland for the use and enjoyment of residents and visitors.
Approximately 62 of the total 114 acres in the City are developed parklands.
Jacob Meyers Park, the largest city-owned park, has 8 acres of developed parkland, and includes playground equipment, a barbecue area, picnic tables, restrooms, a boat ramp, fishing, and a picnic gazebo. Table 4.15-2 lists the 16 parks in the City of Riverbank, and provides details about each park including park size, address, and facilities located at the park site.
In addition to parks, the City owns and maintains other community facilities.
These facilities include a community center, a Teen Center, a scout lodge, and a swimming pool. The City and the Riverbank Unified School District have a joint-use agreement that permits public use of the school gymnasium. The City’s Parks and Recreation Department coordinates a variety of programs and events, and hosts clubs and other community organizations that utilize these facilities.
The City also has plans for future recreational facilities. The development of Silva Park was initiated in two phases, Phase I is complete and Phase II will incorporate a shade structure, picnic area, restrooms, and water play equipment.3 The City’s Sports Complex was also developed in two phases; Phase II will include the development of 5 acres into a bicycle motocross (BMX)
3 City of Riverbank Parks and Recreation Department, Fall/Winter 2009-2010 Activity Guide, http://www.riverbank.org/Depts/Recreation/Shared%20Docu ments/Riverbank_Activity_Guide_2009-2010.pdf, accessed on April 5, 2010.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
RECREATION
4.15-3
TABLE 4.15-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELATED TO
RECREATION
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Goal PUBLIC-1
Public service and infrastructure provision to meet or
exceed level of service standards consistent with other community goals.
Policy
PUBLIC- 1.3
The City will require that new developments, depending on their size, either: 1) designate lands in appropriate locations, sizes, and free of constraints to accommodate public facilities and infrastructure needed to serve such development, or 2) pay a fee proportional to the development’s cost of acquiring such land at the time acquisition will be required.
Goal PUBLIC-11 Develop a diversified park system in a variety of scales and environments to meet existing and future needs.
New developments shall set aside land and dedicate improved parkland according to City standards at a minimum rate of five acres per 1,000 residents. Landscaped areas along streets or other rights-of-way without trails, or other park and
recreational facilities do not count toward this standard. Other open spaces without park facilities do not count toward the five-acre parkland minimum, although this land may be
required to meet open space or landscaping requirements of the City’s applicable development codes. For small projects, in cases of financial hardship, or where the required facility would serve areas outside the proposed project or plan, the City may allow participation in an in-lieu fee program to provide improved parkland. The distribution of parkland shall be as follows:
¨ Community Parks: Minimum of 1.5 acres per 1,000
residents. Minimum of 15 acres in size. Specific design and facilities are as directed by the City based on population density, demographic structure, community preferences,
use levels, and other criteria.
¨ Neighborhood Parks: Minimum of 1.5 acres per thousand residents. Minimum of 5 acres in size. Maximum of ½
mile from all proposed residences. Specific design and
facilities are as directed by the City based on population density, demographic structure, community preferences,
use levels, and other criteria.
¨ Playgrounds, plazas, tot lots, linear parks, recreation trails,
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
RECREATION
TABLE 4.15-1 RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELATED TO
RECREATION (CONTINUED)
4.15-4
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
and other similar parklands may count for up to 1.5 acre per thousand of the 5-acre standard. Maximum of ¼ mile
from all proposed residences. There is no minimum size.
Specific design and facilities are as directed by the City based on population density, demographic structure,
community preferences, use levels, and other criteria.
Policy
PUBLIC-11.2
The City of Riverbank will maintain park in-lieu fees at a level adequate to provide parks in a ratio of acres to population, as established by this element.
Policy
PUBLIC-11.3
The City will maintain and improve existing parks and
develop new parks to serve existing developed portions of the City, as feasible.
Policy
PUBLIC-11.4
The City will encourage the use of greenways and natural open space areas for certain compatible recreational opportunities, such as pedestrian pathways, while preserving important ecological habitats.
Source: City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025.
park.4 Phase III of Jacob Meyers Park will include an outdoor amphitheater, a gazebo, bird watching areas, and a parking lot.5
New parks in the City are funded through grants or park development funds.
Park development funds are replenished from development fees, such as fees from the Quimby Act, allow the City to acquire more parkland, pay for park amenities, and thereby maintain its park service standards. The City’s stated policy is to provide a service ratio of 5 acres of park land per 1,000 people.6
4 Fitzpatrick, Sue, Director, City of Riverbank Recreation Department. Personal communication with Lisa Katz, The Planning Center | DC&E, March 3, 2010. 5 Fitzpatrick, Sue, Director, City of Riverbank Recreation Department. Personal communication with Lisa Katz, The Planning Center | DC&E, March 3, 2010. 6 Fitzpatrick, Sue, Director, City of Riverbank Recreation Department. Personal communication with Lisa Katz, The Planning Center | DC&E, March 3, 2010.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
RECREATION
4.15-5
TABLE 4.15-2 PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN RIVERBANK Park Name Acres Address Facilities
Castleberg Park 12 5854 8th Street
Playground equipment,
barbecue area, picnic tables,
restrooms, picnic gazebo,
baseball/softball fields,
walking trail, basketball
court
Community
Center
(Veteran’s Park)
5 3600 Santa Fe
Playground equipment,
picnic tables, picnic gazebo,
swimming pool, meeting hall
to rent
Harless Park 2.8 5600 Litt Road Playground equipment,
basketball court
Hutcheson Park 1 3411 High
Street Picnic tables
Jacob Myers Park 55 23653 S. Santa
Fe
Playground equipment,
barbecue area, picnic tables,
restrooms, walking trail,
camping, picnic gazebo,
horseshoe pits, boat ramp,
fishing
Pioneer Park 3 3017 High
Street
Playground equipment,
barbecue area, picnic tables,
restrooms, baseball/softball
fields, basketball court
Plaza Del Rio Park 0.5 Third and Santa
Fe Streets Stage area, water feature
Rotary Centennial
Park 3
5656
Prospectors
Parkway
Playground equipment
Sanfreno Park 5 2308 McAllister
Lane
Playground equipment,
soccer field
Silva Park 8 5800 Antique
Rose Way
Playground equipment,
basketball court
Sorenson Park 2.3 2522 Donner
Trail
Playground equipment,
barbecue area, picnic tables
Sports Complex 6 dev.
5 undev.
2119 Morrill
Road
Football, soccer field, snack
bar
Staley Park-Skate
Park 0.5 3036 Santa Fe Street
Picnic tables, restrooms,
skate park
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
RECREATION
TABLE 4.15-2 PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN RIVERBANK (CONTINUED)
4.15-6
Park Name Acres Address Facilities
Whorton Park 1 6100 Memphis
Street
Playground equipment,
barbecue area, basketball
court
Zerillo Park 5 2800 Briarcliff
Drive
Playground equipment,
barbecue area, picnic tables,
restrooms, volleyball court,
tennis courts, basketball
court
Unnamed open
space land 5 Eleanor Street N/A
Source: City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025; Sue Fitzpatrick, City of Riverbank Recreation Department, Director, personal email communication with Lisa Katz, DC&E, March 3, 2010.
With a population of approximately 16,000 people and a total of 114 acres of parkland, the City is currently meeting this standard.
The closest regional recreational open space facilities to the Plan Area are Woodward Reservoir Regional Park and Stanislaus County Park, located approximately 8.5 miles to the northeast.
C. Standards of Significance
The Draft RAAP Site Specific Plan would have a significant recreation impact if it would:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
RECREATION
4.15-7
D. Impact Discussion
1. Project Impacts
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?
The Plan would have a significant environmental impact if it would accelerate physical deterioration of neighborhood and regional parks. Such impacts could result from a substantial increase in resident or employment population.
As described in Chapter 4.14 of this EIR, the Plan would not directly increase the population of Riverbank because it does not propose the construction of housing, and substantial indirect population growth is not anticipated because new jobs created with implementation of the Plan would largely be filled by residents of Riverbank and neighboring communities. Therefore, buildout of the Plan would not result in increased use of park and recreational facilities due to a substantial increase in the number of users. Additionally, proposed design guidelines included in the Plan stipulate that plazas, green spaces, and pedestrian areas should be incorporated into site design, and that employees should be provided with break areas and gathering spaces. As such, with implementation of these guidelines, buildout of the Plan would result in the construction of new recreational space for the use of future employees and patrons of businesses on the redeveloped in the Plan Area. Consequently, overall, impacts associated with the increased use of existing parks resulting from buildout of the Plan would be less than significant. b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The Plan would have a significant environmental impact if it would require the provision of new or altered parks and recreational facilities. Pursuant to the Quimby Act, construction or expansion of facilities would be required if buildout of the Plan would cause the parks to resident ratio in Riverbank to exceed the established standard of 5 acres per thousand residents.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
RECREATION
4.15-8
As explained above, however, buildout of the Plan would not result in a substantial population increase, either directly, through the construction of new housing, or indirectly, through the creation of new jobs that would attract new residents to the Riverbank area. Consequently, the incremental buildout of the Plan through 2035 would not substantially affect the parks to resident ratio in Riverbank. Therefore, overall, impacts associated with the construction or expansion of recreational facilities from buildout of the Plan would be less than significant.
2. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential cumulative impacts to parks and recreational facilities that could occur from buildout of the Plan in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in Riverbank and the surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the City of Riverbank sphere of influence (SOI), as defined in the Riverbank General Plan. Cumulative impacts would be significant if development associated with the Plan together with other projects in the Riverbank SOI would result in a substantial increase in the use of existing parks and facilities, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
By itself, buildout of the Plan would not result in substantial population growth in Riverbank or the surrounding area, and therefore would not substantially increase the use of parks and facilities or cause the established Quimby Act parks to resident ratio to be exceeded. Therefore, buildout of the Plan would not contribute to a cumulative impact to parks and recreational facilities. Additionally, as noted above, the Plan includes design standards which would require the provision of plazas, green spaces, and gathering places as buildout occurs. Consequently, cumulative impacts to parks and recreational facilities from buildout of the Plan would be less than significant.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Since there are no significant impacts related to parks and recreational facilities as a result of the Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
4.16TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.16-1
This chapter discusses transportation and traffic in the Plan Area and evaluates the potential impacts associated with the draft RAAP Site Specific Plan.
This chapter is based primarily on a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the project by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants in September, 2012. The TIA estimates the increase in traffic in the Plan Area that would result from implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan, in both the near and long term, and describes the resulting impacts on the roadway system. Further, transportation and traffic impacts which may result during the construction of the RAAP Specific Plan are identified and analyzed. The TIA, including all technical appendices, is included as Appendix E of this Draft EIR.
A. Regulatory Framework
This section describes federal, State, and local environmental laws and policies that are relevant to the CEQA review process for transportation and circulation.
1. State and Regional Regulations
a. California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for the maintenance and operation of state routes and highways. In Riverbank, Caltrans’ facilities include State Route 108. Caltrans maintains a volume monitoring program and reviews local agencies’ planning documents (such as this EIR) to assist in its forecasting of future volumes and congestion points.
Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impacts Studies (December 2002) published by Caltrans is intended to provide a consistent basis for evaluating traffic impacts to State facilities. The City recognizes that “Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target level of service (LOS) at the transition between LOS ‘C’ and LOS ‘D’… on State highway facilities;” however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult
RIVERBANK LOCAL R EDEVELOPMENT AUTHORI TY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-2
with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target level of service. 1 In addition, Caltrans states that for existing State highway facilities operating at less than the target level of service, the existing level of service should be maintained. b. Stanislaus Council of Governments
The Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Stanislaus Region as designated by the Federal government, and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) as designated by the State of California.
StanCOG is a council of city and county governments comprised of the cities of Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Newman, Oakdale, Patterson, Riverbank, Turlock and Waterford, and the County of Stanislaus, that was established in 1971 by a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to address regional transportation issues. The organization is responsible for developing and updating a variety of transportation plans and for allocating the federal and state funds to implement them.
StanCOG is responsible for the preparation the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which identifies transportation network improvements and investments that are needed to accommodate existing populations and planned growth. Other adopted documents include the regional Expressway Study, Sustainable Communities Strategies, and the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan.
2. City of Riverbank General Plan
The City of Riverbank General Plan identifies policies related to transportation standards. Project consistency with the General Plan is analyzed below in Table 4.16-1. While this Draft EIR analyzes the consistency of the proposed RAAP Specific Plan with the City of Riverbank General Plan pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section
1 California Department of Transportation, Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, December 2002.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-3
15125(d), the City of Riverbank would ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with the General Plan. Environmental impacts associated with inconsistency with General Plan goals and policies are addressed under the appropriate impact discussion sections of this Draft EIR.
B. Existing Conditions
This section describes transportation facilities in the project study area, including the surrounding roadway network, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in the project site vicinity. Rail facilities are also discussed as well as existing traffic operations.
1. Roadway Network
The project site is located at the northeast corner of the Claus Road/Claribel Road intersection in Riverbank, a city in Northern Stanislaus County. Adjacent land uses are primarily agricultural and industrial, with some residential uses. The roadways in the study area are described below and their locations in relation to the site are shown on Figure 4.16-1.
a. Claribel Road is an east-west arterial roadway that forms the southern boundary of the project site. One travel lane per direction is provided on Claribel Road in the study area. West of McHenry Avenue (State Route 108), the roadway continues as Kiernan Avenue (State Route 219), to State Route 99. No bicycle or pedestrian facilities are provided on Claribel Road and no on-street parking is permitted in the study area. The posted speed limit on Claribel Road is 45 miles per hour (mph) in the study area.
b. Claus Road is a north-south two-lane arterial that forms the western boundary of the project site. It connects State Route 108 in the north to State Route 132 (Yosemite Avenue) in the south in Modesto. No onstreet parking is permitted along the project frontage. Bike lanes and sidewalks are provided on Claus Road between California Street and Patterson Road. A two-way left-turn lane is provided along a portion of the project frontage in addition to approximately 6-foot shoulders on both Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Lang
worth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Claribel Rd
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
S Yosemite Ave
Callander
Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Lang
worth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
S Yosemite Ave
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
1 3 4
6 7
9 10
15 14
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA 219
CALIFORNIA
Riverbank Army
Ammunition Plant
1 Study Intersection
Project Site Key
North End Cap
Existing Industrial Area
South End Cap
Source: Fehr & Peers
ST U D Y I N T E R SE C TIO N L O C A TIO N S
RIVERBAN K ARM Y AMMUNITIO N PLAN T
NAM E O F PUBLIC A TIO N
5 13
2 11 12
Atchison St
Callander
Ave
1st St
Eleanor Ave
Riverbank City Limit
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
STUDY INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
FIGURE 4.16-1
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC
NORTH
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELO PMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-5
TABLE 4.16-1 PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH CITY OF RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES: TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC General Plan Policy
Consistency
with
General Plan Analysis
Policy CIRC-1.1 Approved plans, projects, and subdivision requests in new growth areas shall include the construction or pro-rata funding of transportation infrastructure that includes a connected and integrated system of bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities, designed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Yes Roadways along the project site and primary internal roadways will be improved to provide bicycle, pedestrian and transit accommodations. All new facilities will be
designed to meet ADA standards in place at the time of
construction.
Policy CIRC-1.2 Approved plans, projects, and subdivision requests in new growth areas shall provide a fully connected network of smaller roadways that provide many alternative routes between each point of origin and destination.
No No internal connections are provided between the three areas of the site due to the existing development conditions on the site and security concerns for existing site users.
Policy CIRC-1.3 Approved projects, plans, and subdivision requests in new growth areas shall arrange streets in an interconnected block pattern, so that pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers are not forced onto arterial streets for inter- or intraneighborhood travel. This approach will also ensure safe and efficient movement of emergency responders.
No No internal connections are provided between the three areas of the site due to the existing development conditions on the site and security concerns for existing site users. Emergency vehicle connections will be provided.
Policy CIRC-1.4 Approved projects, plans, and subdivision requests with an internal street network shall provide an internal connectivity index of 1.4 or higher. The connectivity index is calculated by dividing the total number of road segments the number of nodes. Nodes are intersections plus cul-de-sacs. Roadway segments are between intersections. Cul-de-sacs are prohibited except where physical constraints make any other roadway solution impossible. The City may require higher levels of connectivity, beyond this standard, and will review plans and projects to take advantage of opportunities to provide more connectivity.
No Limited ability to provide internal connections between the three areas of the site due to the existing development conditions on the site and security concerns of existing site users.
Policy CIRC-1.5 Approved projects, plans, and subdivision requests shall connect with adjacent roadways and stubbed roads and shall provide frequent stubbed roadways in coordination with future planned development areas. Plans and projects shall connect to adjacent planned development areas and adjacent roadways at a minimum of 600-foot intervals. This minimum interval does not apply to development areas that are adjacent to existing or planned future limited-access highways, freeways, or expressways.
Yes Roadway connections to Claus and Claribel Roads are proposed at approximately 600-foot intervals. A new
east-west roadway is planned to connect with parcels to the east of the site.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
TABLE 4.16-1 PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH CITY OF RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES: TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC (CONTINUED)
4.16-6
General Plan Policy
Consistency
with
General Plan Analysis
Policy CIRC-1.9 In new and existing developed areas, the City will invest in a convenient, well-maintained, and safe system of pedestrian and bicycle paths that connect residences with shopping centers, public buildings, parks, places of employment, and schools.
Yes Project will provide pedestrian and bicycle system, connecting to planned transit stops.
Policy CIRC-1.12 The City will use Level of Service D as the goal for roadway segments, as measured on a daily basis. The City’s goal for peak hour intersection level of service is LOS D. The City may elect to exceed of these standards in favor of other community planning and environmental goals and policies.
Short-term, yes, with
Mitigation; long-term
potentially significant
and unavoidable
LOS D or better can be provided at study intersections in the Exiting Plus Project condition with the implementation of Mitigation; in the Cumulative Condition, intersections may degrade beyond the planned level of service standard as the implementation of regional improvements to mitigate traffic conditions cannot be assured.
Policy CIRC-1.14 The City will ensure provision of signage and secure storage facilities in appropriate locations for bicycles.
Yes, with
Mitigation
Bicycle parking shall be incorporated into the development.
Policy CIRC-1.15 The City will ensure that the pedestrian network is safe, accessible, attractive and efficient, running largely along public spaces (including streets and open spaces) fronted by houses, and avoids uses that generate major breaks in surveillance on routes to and from public transport and other routes used at night.
Yes Pedestrian facilities will be constructed along the project frontage and on internal roadways. Pedestrian pathways
will be constructed connecting parking areas to main
building entrances. Buildings will be oriented towards
pedestrian connections.
Policy CIRC-2.2 The City will not allow large, unbroken surface parking lots, which unnecessarily inhibit travel on foot and by bicycle. Please refer also to Community Character and Design Element policies that address the location and nature of surface parking.
Yes Small parking areas are proposed to serve each building area.
Policy CIRC-2.3 Approved projects, plans, and subdivisions shall provide shade trees in parking areas at a ratio of at least one tree for every four parking spaces. These trees shall be dispersed throughout the parking area.
Yes Trees will be incorporated into parking areas.
Policy CIRC-2.4 The City will ensure that redevelopment and revitalization efforts in the existing City are designed to accommodate and encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel, as well as public transit options, as such options become more widely available.
Yes The existing developed area of the site will be connected to new bicycle and pedestrian facilities, which will connect to new transit stops to facilitate transit use once that option become available in the site vicinity.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
TABLE 4.16-1 PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH CITY OF RIVERBANK GENERAL PLAN POLICIES: TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC (CONTINUED)
4.16-7
General Plan Policy
Consistency
with
General Plan Analysis
Policy CIRC-2.5 The City will be flexible in parking requirements or eliminate offstreet parking requirements for redevelopment, infill, and multifamily projects by allowing cooperative shared use of parking between properties with different parking demand peaking periods, utilization of on-street parking spaces to meet parking requirements, allowing parking reductions for projects located in walkable areas with improvements that accommodate alternative forms of travel, and allowing parking reductions for multi-family development to reflect the trip generation characteristics of this type of development.
Yes Flexible parking standards have been identified in the Specific Plan that allow for parking demand studies to be complete to determine the parking supply needed to accommodate future development.
Policy CIRC-2.6 The City will pursue in the existing developed area, and require in new growth areas pedestrian amenities, such as street furniture, shade trees, pedestrian lighting, water fountains, and pedestrian oriented signage.
Yes Pedestrian facilities will be constructed along the project frontage and on internal roadways. Pedestrian pathways
will be constructed connecting parking areas to main
building entrances. Buildings will be oriented towards
pedestrian connections. Appropriate pedestrian scale
lighting shall be incorporated in to the overall design, in addition to landscaping.
Policy CIRC-3.1 The City will coordinate planning efforts and project entitlements with the Riverbank Oakdale Transit Agency, the Stanislaus Area Regional Transit District (START), and any future providers serving Riverbank to enhance and expand transit services throughout the City and surrounding region.
Yes Transit agencies will be consulted in the final placement of transit amenities on the site.
Policy CIRC-3.3 Approved plans, projects, and subdivision requests will accommodate transit facilities consistent with transit agency planning.
Yes Potential transit stops have been identified along the project frontage; the final placement and supporting facility needs will be determined in consultation with the transit agencies.
Policy CIRC-4.1 The City will work with relevant public agencies and the railroad to appropriately regulate the movement of truck traffic and hazardous materials throughout the City.
Yes A truck routing plan will be developed for the site identifying truck connections to the regional roadway network.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-8
sides of the street. The posted speed limit on Claus Road varies from 35 to 45 mph. Full access is provided to the site from two driveways on Claus Road. Two other driveway connections are provided, but are currently not in use. c. Coffee Road is a north-south arterial roadway located approximately 3 miles west of the site. This facility connects State Route 108 (Patterson Road) in the north to Modesto in the south. In the study area, Coffee Road is a two-lane facility with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. No pedestrian or bicycle facilities are provided on the roadway, which primarily serves agricultural uses. d. Oakdale Road is a north-south arterial roadway located approximately 2 miles west of the site. This facility connects State Route 108 (Patterson Road) in the north to Modesto in the south. In the study area, Oakdale Road is a four-lane facility north of Claribel Road and a two-lane facility are provided north of Claribel Road, where residential and retail uses have been developed. No pedestrian or bicycle facilities are provided to the south of Claribel Road, were agricultural uses are primarily served. e. Roselle Avenue is a north-south arterial roadway located approximately 1 mile west of the site. This facility connects State Route 108 (Patterson Road) in the north to Modesto in the south. In the study area, Roselle Avenue is a two-lane facility with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. This roadway is being widened as land is developed along the corridor to provide additional capacity at intersections and pedestrian facilities. No pedestrian or bicycle facilities are provided to the south of Claribel Road. f. Patterson Road (State Route 108) is an east-west arterial roadway. Between McHenry Avenue and Callander Avenue, Patterson Road is designated as State Route 108. West of the City of Riverbank, Patterson Road generally provides two travel lanes with no pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Within Riverbank, the roadway expands to provide two travel lanes in each direction in addition to turn pockets and sidewalks. East of Callander Avenue, Patterson Road provides one travel lane per direction, with some pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The speed limit on Patterson varies from 50 mph in the undeveloped areas to 25 to 35 mph through
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-9
Riverbank. The City of Riverbank has requested Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Terminal Access designation from Caltrans for State Route 108. However, several intersections along the route do not meet turn radius requirements and improvements may be needed. g. Atchison Street (State Route 108) is an east-west arterial that connects Riverbank to Oakdale. It is designated as State Route 108 and generally forms the northern boundary of Riverbank. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks are generally provided with one travel lane per direction. On-street parking is also permitted. h. Townsend Avenue is a two-lane east-west local street that connects Claus Road to Terminal Avenue. Residential uses front the south side of the street and a railroad runs parallel to the northern side of the street. The rail facility enters the RAAP site where it terminates. On-street parking is permitted along the roadway and sidewalks are provided on the south side of the street.
i. Van Dusen Avenue is a two-lane east-west local street that connects Claus Road to Terminal Avenue. Residential uses front both sides of the side of the street, with some large lot residential homes. The eastern portion of the roadway is generally unimproved with no on-street parking permitted. On-street parking is permitted on the western portion of the roadway where small-lot residential homes have been developed. A new entrance to the RAAP is proposed to form the fourth leg of the intersection of Van Dusen Avenue with Claus Road. j. Minniear and Davis Avenues are two-lane east-west local streets that connect Claus Road to Terminal Avenue. Large lot residential uses front both sides of the side of the street, which is generally unimproved with no on-street parking or pedestrian facilities. These streets intersect with Claus Road in the vicinity of the RAAP main entrance.
2. Plan Area Study Intersections
Project impacts on the study area roadway facilities were determined by measuring the effect project traffic would have on intersections in the vicinity of the site during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and evening (4:00 to 6:00
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-10
p.m.) peak periods. The following intersections, as shown previously on Figure 4.16-1, were selected in consultation with City of Riverbank staff, based on the amount of traffic the project could add to each intersection, and in response to comments received on the notice of preparation (NOP) for the project.
1. Atchison Street (State Route 108)/1st Street
2. State Route 108/Claus Road
3. State Route 108/Patterson Road
4. Patterson Road/Claus Road
5. Townsend Avenue/Claus Road
6. Van Dusen Avenue/Claus Road
7. Minniear Avenue/Claus Road
8. RAAP Main Entrance/Claus Road
9. Davis Avenue/Claus Road
10. Claribel Road/Coffee Road
11. Claribel Road/Oakdale Road
12. Claribel Road/Roselle Avenue
13. Claribel Road/Claus Road
14. Claribel Road/McGee Avenue/Eleanor Avenue
15. Terminal Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue/Claus Road
3. Existing Rail Service
Amtrak and freight service is provided on rail facilities in the study area, with many at-grade railroad crossings in Riverbank. The intersections listed below and shown in Figure 4.16-2 are in the immediate study area.
1. Claus Road, north of Patterson Road
2. Claus Road, north of Townsend Avenue
3. Claus Road, south of Terminal Avenue
4. Claribel Road, west of Terminal Avenue
Accident data at the above crossings was obtained from the Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. The accident experience at each crossing is discussed below, with a general description of the crossing,
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-11
including the number of vehicular travel lanes, the range of train speeds over the crossing, and the typical number of trains per day. ¨ Claus Road, north of Patterson Road – The Claus Road at Patterson Road crossing of the Sierra Northern Railway (SERA) railroad spur is a three-lane at-grade crossing, less than 75 feet north of the signalized Claus Road/Patterson Road intersection, as shown in Figure 4.16-2a. There are up to two trains per day with a typical train speed between 8 and 10 mph over the crossing. No passenger service is provided on this line. Gate arms, pavement markings, and warning bells are provided in addition to a median to prevent gate-arm run around. No incidents have been reported at this crossing. The stop bar for southbound vehicles at the intersection is located 35 feet north of the gate arms. ¨ Claus Road, north of Townsend Avenue – The Claus Road at Townsend Avenue crossing of the SERA railroad branch is a three-lane at-grade crossing, less than 75 feet north of the unsignalized Claus Road/ Townsend Avenue intersection, as shown in Figure 4.16-2b. There are up to four trains per day with a typical train speed between 20 and 25 mph over the crossing. No passenger service is provided on this line; the rail facility serves the RAAP. Gate arms, pavement markings, and warning bells are provided in addition to a partial median to discourage gatearm run around. No incidents have been reported at this crossing. ¨ Claus Road, south of Terminal Avenue – The Claus Road crossing of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad track is a two-lane atgrade crossing, as shown in Figure 4.16-2c. There are up to 46 trains per day with speeds from 1 to 79 mph. Gate arms, pavement markings, and warning bells are provided at the crossing. Amtrak service is provided on this rail track in addition to freight service. Two incidents have been reported at this crossing, one in 2002, and one in 2004. In the 2002 incident, a train collided with a vehicle stalled on the tracks. No injuries were reported. In the 2004 incident, a train collided with a vehicle traveling across the tracks. Three people were injured in this incident.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
RAILROAD CROSSINGS
A B
C
D
FIGURE 4.16-2
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-13
¨ Claribel Road, west of Terminal Avenue – The Claribel Road crossing of the BNSF railroad track is a two-lane at-grade crossing, as shown in Figure 4.16-2d. There are up to 46 trains per day with speeds ranging from 1 to 79 mph. Gate arms, pavement markings, and warning bells are provided. Amtrak service is provided in addition to freight service. Six incidents have been reported at this crossing between 1989 and 2007.
Most incidents involved a train striking a vehicle stalled on the track with limited injuries reported. The 2007 incident involved a passenger train striking a vehicle attempting to cross the tracks ahead of the train, killing 6 people inside the vehicle. Safety improvements were recently installed at this crossing including a pre-manufactured raised median with tubular delineators, new traffic signs, and pavement markings.
4. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
a. Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals.
Sidewalks are provided in the developed areas of Riverbank, although none are currently provided along the project frontage. At signalized intersections in the developed area, pedestrian signals are also provided. b. Bicycle Facilities
Typical bicycle facilities include the following:
¨ Bike paths (Class I) – Paved trails that are separated from roadways. ¨ Bike lanes (Class II) – Lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles through striping, pavement legends, and signs.
¨ Bike routes (Class III) – Designated roadways for bicycle use by signs only; may or may not include additional pavement width for cyclists.
No bicycle facilities are currently provided in the vicinity of the RAAP site.
5. Existing Transit Service
Transit service in the area is provided by Riverbank Oakdale Transit Authority (ROTA) that arranges dial-a-ride service in Riverbank. Connections are provided to the regional transit system via Stanislaus Regional Transit
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-14
(StaRT) that connects Riverbank with Downtown Modesto and Oakdale.
No scheduled service is currently provided to the site.
6. Existing Traffic Counts
Weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) peak period intersection turning movement counts were conducted at the study intersections and primary driveways that serve the site, including counts of pedestrians, bicyclists and trucks. 48-hour vehicle classification counts were also conducted on Claus Road adjacent to the site. For the study intersections and driveways, the single hour with the highest traffic volumes during the count periods was identified. The peak hour volumes are presented on Figure
4.16-3 along with the existing lane configuration and traffic control.
7. Intersection Levels of Service
The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term “level of service.” Level of service is a qualitative description of traffic flow from a vehicle driver’s perspective based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service are defined ranging from LOS A (best operating conditions) to LOS F (worst operating conditions). LOS E corresponds to operations “at capacity.” When volumes exceed capacity, stop-and-go conditions result and operations are designated as LOS F. a. Signalized Intersections
Traffic conditions at signalized intersections were evaluated using the method developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), as documented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM method calculates control delay at an intersection based on inputs such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, signal phasing and timing, pedestrian crossing times, and peak hour factors. Control delay is defined as the delay directly associated with the traffic control device (i.e., a stop sign or a traffic signal) and specifically includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. These delay estimates are considered meaningful indicators of driver discomfort and frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. The relationship between average control delay and level of service for signalized intersections is summarized in Table 4.16-2.
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Claribel Rd
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 9
10 11 12 13
15 14
8 108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA 219
CALIFORNIA
O
TH[ 0 (2)
O
285 (381)
R
1 (2) K1 (2)
TH U 0 (2)
Davis Ave
K
260 (380)
20 (2)
1 (0)
RAAP Main Dwy
Claus Rd
8 22 (11)
9 2 (1)
364 (344)
[GJ V]
Claus Rd
345 (332)40 (2)
\20 (12)
290 (379)
Minniear Ave
0 (2)
Claus Rd
7 3 (4)387 (335)
V]
R TW
157 (96)
1 140 (156)93 (175)
20 (29)
134 (246)
371 (684)
173 (156)
V]
Patterson Rd
TH[637 (545)
8 (26)
SR 108
3 45 (39)
120 (185)
132 (147)
V]
Claus Rd
TWTH[602 (412)
173 (188)
SR 108
2 337 (582)
[VJ]
[VJ] 12 (23)
470 (357)
42 (48)
154 (162)
27 (21)
THW
106 (234) ]TU[ 313 (532)
11 (17)
141 (201)
1st St
SR 108
O
Z] 1 (3) 289 (371)
20 (15)376 (315)
DG[
THW 11 (16) K
30 (12)
O
178 (131)
58 (38)
223 (215)
93 (51)
84 (40)
]DI[
29 (25) K
TH[ 10 (23) 288 (374)
Townsend Ave Van Dusen Ave
Patterson Rd
[VJ]
Claus Rd
L151 (132)
Claus Rd
38 (20)
381 (338)
6 V] 73 (63)
6 (5)
5 (2) 5 (7)
Claus Rd
4 17 (23)279 (240)76 (30)
5 106 (215) THW 30 (45)
183 (379) N
O R
DGJ
80 (63)
101 (245)
96 (197)
180 (362)
O
41 (58)
L 44 (58)
Claribel Rd
Oakdale Rd
138 (135)485 (357)
Coffee Rd
DGJ L 2 (5)
397 (323)
R 85 (69)
Claribel Rd
THW
230 (231) 281 (436) 136 (284)
33 (39)
304 (255)
21 (67)
9 (9)29 (28)
11 N
10 139 (69)243 (149)
R
]TU[ 26 (28) 115 (161) 344 (475)
119 (101) N
0 (0)
0 (0)
O
Terminal Ave
Santa Fe Ave
[VJ]
Claus Rd
L27 (32)
14 (13)
1 (0)
15 0 (1)445 (390)20 (27)
L R
R
44 (86)
12 28 (44)303 (258)
3 (2)
2 (2)
6 (9)
214 (284) N
3 (3)1 (8)
McGee Ave
Eleanor Ave
L 3 (3)
221 (289)
1 (2)
Claribel Rd
14 13 (4)
8 (16)
230 (310)
96 (137)
13 (18)
1 (6)5 (3)
N O
DGJ
29 (38) THW Claus Rd THW20 (18)
138 (150)
101 (117)
Claribel Rd
13 56 (76)300 (270)
117 (192)
12 (18)
DGJ
[N
N 31 (37)
284 (271)
91 (118)
222 (243)
21 (24)
L
L R 27 (31)
171 (282)
145 (91)
O
66 (60)
Roselle Ave
Claribel Rd
Not to Scale
MAP KEY
AM (PM) Peak
Hour Traffic
Volumes
XX (YY)
Stop Sign
Signalized
Intersection
VOLUMES KEY
1 Study Intersection
Project Site Key
North End Cap
Existing Industrial Area
South End Cap
Source: Fehr & Peers
E X I S T I N G (2011) L A N E CO N FI G U R AT I O N S , T R A FFI C CO N T R O L A N D PE A K H O U R VO LU M E S FIGURE 4.16-2
RIVERBANK ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
NAME OF PUBLICATION
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
EXISTING (2011) LANE CONFIGURATIONS, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FIGURE 4.16-3
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Claribel Rd
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
S Yosemite Ave
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
S Yosemite Ave
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
1 3 4
6 7
9 10
15 14
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA 219
CALIFORNIA
Riverbank Army
Ammunition Plant
1 Study Intersection
Project Site Key
North End Cap
Existing Industrial Area
South End Cap
e: Fehr & Peers
ST U D Y I N T E R SE C TIO N L O C A TIO N S
RIVERBAN K ARM Y AMMUNITIO N PLAN T
NAM E O F PUBLIC A TIO N
5 13
2 11 12
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Eleanor Ave
Riverbank City Limit
NORTH
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-16
TABLE 4.16-2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Level of
Service Description
Average
Control Delay
(Seconds)
A
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable traffic signal progression and/or short cycle lengths.
< 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. > 10.0 to 20.0 C
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual
cycle failures begin to appear.
> 20.0 to 35.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high
V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle
failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to 55.0
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. > 55.0 to 80.0
F
Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or
very long cycle lengths.
> 80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. b. Unsignalized Intersections
For unsignalized (all-way stop-controlled and side-street stop-controlled) intersections, the Transportation Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method for unsignalized intersections was used. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds). The control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in queue. Table 4.16-3 summarizes the relationship between delay and level of service for unsignalized intersections. At side-street stop-controlled intersections, the delay is calculated for each stop-controlled movement and for the left-turn movement
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-17
TABLE 4.16-3 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Level of
Service Description
Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
A Little or no delays < 10.0
B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays with
intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). from the major street. The intersection average delay and highest movement/approach delay are reported for side-street stop-controlled intersections.
8. Intersection Level of Service Standards
In Riverbank, acceptable operations at signalized intersections are defined as LOS D. Some intersections are located within unincorporated Stanislaus County, where LOS C is the threshold, unless that intersection is within the Sphere of Influence of a City. In these instances, the level of service standard of that jurisdiction may be considered. All study intersections except for Claribel Road/Coffee Road and Terminal Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue/Claus Road are either located within the City of Riverbank or its sphere of influence.
9. Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Existing intersection operations were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours at the study intersections and driveways, as summarized in Table
4.16-4. The analysis is based on the volumes, lane configurations, and traffic
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-18
TABLE 4.16-4 EXISTING (2011) PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Location Controla
Peak
Hour
Delay
(Seconds)b LOSc
1. Atchison St. (SR 108)/1st St. Signal AM
PM
39 46
D
D
2. SR 108/Claus Rd. SSSC AM
PM
3 (15)
4 (18)
A (B)
A (C)
3. SR 108/Patterson Rd. Signal AM
PM
15 16
B
B
4. Patterson Rd./Claus Rd.4 Signal AM
PM
38 28
D
C
5. Townsend Ave./Claus Rd.4 SSSC AM
PM
1 (15)
1 (13)
A (B)
A (B)
6. Van Dusen Ave./Claus Rd. SSSC AM
PM
0 (13)
0 (14)
A (B)
A (B)
7. Minniear Ave./Claus Rd. SSSC AM
PM
0 (11)
0 (11)
A (B)
A (B)
8. RAAP Main Entrance/
Claus Rd. SSSC AM
PM
1 (11)
1 (12)
A (B)
A (B)
9. Davis Ave./Claus Rd. SSSC AM
PM
0 (11)
0 (11)
A (B)
A (B)
10. Claribel Rd./Coffee Rd. AWSC AM
PM
94 118
F
F
11. Claribel Rd./Oakdale Rd. Signal AM
PM
39 41
D
D
12. Claribel Rd./Roselle Ave. AWSC AM
PM
97 108
F
F
13. Claribel Rd./Claus Rd. Signal AM
PM
24 28
C
C
14. Claribel Rd./
McGee Ave./Eleanor Ave. SSSC AM
PM
1 (12)
1 (14)
A (B)
A (B)
15. Terminal Ave./
Santa Fe Ave./Claus Rd.d SSSC AM
PM
5 (28)
6 (44)
A (D)
A (E) a
Signal = signalized intersection, SSSC = side street stop controlled intersection. b Delay presented in seconds per vehicle; for side-street stop-controlled intersections, Delay presented in Intersection average (worst approach). c LOS = Level of Service. d Level of service is worse than shown here when a train is at the adjacent crossing.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-19
control shown on Figure 4.16-3. Observed peak hour factors2 were used at all intersections for the existing analysis, in addition to the heavy vehicle percentages described below.
As shown, study intersections generally operate at acceptable service levels, except for the unsignalized intersections of Claribel Road/Coffee Road and Claribel Road/Roselle Avenue. Field observations confirmed the calculated levels of service. It should also be noted that the levels of service at intersections adjacent to rail crossings may be worse than shown during rail crossing activities.
10. Signal Warrants
To assess the need for signalization of stop-controlled intersections, the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control (MUTCD) (Federal Highway Administration 2009) presents eight signal warrants. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant and the Peak Hour Delay Warrant is used in this study as a supplemental analysis tool to assess operations at unsignalized intersections.3 Based on this analysis,
2 The relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume is given by the peak-hour factor (PHF) as shown in the following equation:
PHF=Hourly volume/(4* volume during the peak 15 minutes of flow). The analysis of level of service is based on peak rates of flow occurring within the peak hour because substantial short-term fluctuations typically occur during an hour. Where the existing PHF is below 0.88, 0.88 was used.
3 Unsignalized intersection warrant analysis is intended to examine the general correlation between existing conditions and the need to install new traffic signals.
Existing peak-hour volumes are compared against a subset of the standard traffic signal warrants recommended in the MUTCD and associated State guidelines. This analysis should not serve as the only basis for deciding whether and when to install a signal. To reach such a decision, the full set of warrants should be investigated based on fieldmeasured traffic data and a thorough study of traffic and roadway conditions by an experienced engineer. Furthermore, the decision to install a signal should not be based solely on the warrants because the installation of signals can lead to certain types of collisions. The responsible State or local agency should undertake regular monitoring of actual traffic conditions and accident data and conduct a timely re-evaluation of the full set of warrants in order to prioritize and program intersections for signalization.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-20
the unsignalized intersections of Claribel Road/Coffee Road and Claribel Road/Roselle Avenue currently meet signal warrants in both the morning and afternoon peak hours. Traffic signals are planned to be constructed at the Claribel Road/Coffee Road intersection in 2012 and at the Claribel Road/Roselle Avenue intersection in 2015/2016.
11. Rail Crossing Operations
Observations of the Claus Road rail crossings at Townsend Avenue and Terminal Avenue indicate minimal activity of the Townsend crossing and regular use of the Terminal Avenue crossing. Observations conducted on May 24th and May 26th between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., show that usage of the Townsend crossing is sporadic, with no rail activity observed on May 24th and two crossings on May 26th. Both crossings were of freight trains and the crossing devices (i.e. gate arms) were activated between 2 and 3 minutes. One crossing occurred during the AM peak hour, resulting in vehicle queues to form at the Claus Road/Townsend Avenue intersection, with 14 vehicles queued in the southbound direction, three vehicles queued in the northbound direction, and one vehicle in the eastbound direction.
Significantly more activity was noted at the Terminal Avenue crossing, with approximately 20 crossings each day between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on both days of observation. Scheduled passenger service occurs with 7 to 8 passenger trains per day during the observation period. The remaining crossings are from freight trains. Passenger trains resulted in the gate arms being activated between 30 seconds and 1 minute. Freight trains took longer to traverse the crossing, with the gate arms being activated between 44 seconds and almost 4 minutes. Observations of vehicle queues during the morning and evening peak hours are summarized in Table 4.16-5.
Longer vehicle queues form during the crossing of a freight train given that the train may be 100 cars long and travel at lower speeds than passenger trains. It is uncertain whether these operations would continue into the future, as rail freight operators do not release information regarding current or
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-21
TABLE 4.16-5 CLAUS ROAD AT TERMINAL AVENUE PEAK PERIOD RAILROAD CROSSING VEHICLE QUEUES Day
Time of
Arrival
Train
Type
Length of Gate
Operation
Maximum
Observed
Vehicle Queue
May 24, 2011 7:18 AM Freight 2 minutes,
10 Seconds
13 Northbound
32 Southbound
May 24, 2011 8:29 AM Passenger 52 Seconds 8 Northbound
5 Southbound
May 24, 2011 4:01 PM Freight 1 minute,
48 Seconds
26 Northbound
25 Southbound
May 24, 2011 4:59 PM Passenger 45 Seconds 19 Northbound 10 Southbound
May 26, 2011 7:59 AM Passenger 35 Seconds 6 Northbound
3 Southbound
May 26, 2011 8:12 AM Freight 1 minute,
35 Seconds
17 Northbound
14 Southbound
May 26, 2011 8:30 AM Passenger 46 Seconds 5 Northbound
13 Southbound
May 26, 2011 5:10 PM Passenger 49 Seconds 12 Northbound 23 Southbound
May 26, 2011 5:36 PM Freight 3 minutes,
40 Seconds
25 Northbound
50 Southbound
Source: Quality Counts, May 2011.
future track usage, and the Amtrak schedule/service could be changed in the future.
C. Impact Analysis Methodology
The Project Description and Land Use Chapters of the DEIR present a detailed description of the Specific Plan as a whole, including land uses. This
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-22
section describes key transportation elements relevant to the transportation and traffic impact analysis.
1. Scenarios
For this study, the following scenarios were evaluated:
¨ Existing – Existing (2011) conditions based on recent traffic counts. ¨ Existing Plus Project – Existing (2011) conditions plus project-related traffic ¨ Cumulative Without Project – Future forecast conditions, which considers local and regional traffic growth. Roadway improvements consistent with the Tier 1 funded projects from the Stanislaus Council of Governments StanCOG RTP were assumed. ¨ Cumulative With Project – Future forecast conditions plus project-related traffic.
2. Trip Generation
Project trip generation estimates were developed using trip generation rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 8th Edition for the research and development, and retail portions of the project. Based on guidance from the ITE which recommends the use of locally collected trip generation, when available, the maximum trip generation rates from a survey of the existing RAAP uses and over 4.5 million square feet of industrial uses in the San Joaquin Valley were used to estimate the trip generating potential of RAAP development, as they are specific to the area and represent the trip generating potential from the variety of uses that could occupy the site. These rates have also been used in other environmental documents prepared for similar uses in the San Joaquin Valley. Additional details are provided in the TIA.
Peak hour and daily trip generation was calculated based on the method described above for the industrial land uses and based on ITE rates for the research/development, and retail portions of the project, as presented in Table
4.16-6. It is expected that the RAAP project would generate approximately
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-23
TABLE 4.16-6 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Land Use ITE Code
Units
(SqFt)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Industrial Passenger
Vehicle Tripsa 1,411,542 127 57 184 70 170 240 3,900
Industrial Truck Tripsa 1,411,542 28 42 70 42 28 70 930 Total Industrial 155 99 254 112 198 310 4,830
R&D 760b 116,366 118 24 142 19 106 125 940
Retail 820c 119,058 73 46 119 218 226 444 5,110
Pass-By Tripsd 0 0 0 -34 -34 -68 -770
Total Trips 346 169 515 315 496 811 10,110
Less Existing Uses5 -27 -8 -35 -8 -36 -44 -720
Potential Net New Trip Generation 319 161 480 307 460 767 9,390 a Trip generation based on documented trip generation rates for similar industrial facilities :
AM: T = 0.18 (X); Enter = 61%, Exit=39% (25% Trucks)
PM: T = 0.22(X); Enter = 36%, Exit = 64% (22% Trucks)
Daily: 3.42 (X) (19 % Trucks)
Where: T = trips generated, X = 1,000 square feet
b Trip generation based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, (8th Edition) average rate for Research and Development Center (Land Use Code 760) :
AM: 1.22 (X); Enter = 83%, Exit=17%
PM: 1.07 (X); Enter = 15%, Exit = 85%
Daily: 8.11 (X)
Where: T = trips generated, X = 1,000 square feet
c Trip generation based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, (8th Edition) average rate for Shopping Center (Land Use Code 820) :
AM: 1.0 (X); Enter = 61%, Exit=39%
PM: 3.73 (X); Enter = 49%, Exit = 51%
Daily: 42.92 (X)
Where: T = trips generated, X = 1,000 square feet
d Trip pass-by rate based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Handbook average pass-by for Shopping Center (Land Use Code 820). Average Weekday pass-by rate: 15% during the PM peak hour. No passby rate assumed during the AM peak hour, a 15% pass-by rate assumed for daily trip total. e Based on driveway counts conducted at the existing RAAP driveways.
Source: Trip Generation (8th Edition), ITE, 2008; Trip Generation Manual, ITE, 2004, and Fehr & Peers, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-24
515 AM peak hour trips, 810 PM peak hour trips, and 10,110 daily trips. Not all of these trips would be new to the roadway system, as there are existing active uses on the site. Accounting for the actual trip generation of the existing uses on-site, approximately 480 new AM peak hour, 767 new PM peak hour and 9,390 new daily trips are expected to be generated by the site.
Separate trip generation estimates were calculated for vehicles and trucks, as trucks operate differently on the roadway system and need to be accounted for in the analysis. Based on the existing driveway counts at the RAAP and the Stockton data, peak hour driveway volumes are expected to consist of about 75 percent passenger vehicles and 25 percent trucks during the AM peak hour and 78 percent passenger vehicles and 22 percent trucks during the PM peak hour. To reflect the operational characteristics of large trucks, the appropriate heavy vehicle percentages were used in the intersection operations analysis.
3. Trip Distribution and Assignment
Based on the location of the site and surrounding land uses, existing and future levels of service, roadway volumes and intersection volumes (as documented in the General Plan EIR), and a select zone analysis using the StanCOG travel demand model (as modified for the North County Corridor [NCC] analysis), trip distribution percentages were developed as depicted on Figure 4.16-4. Due to the significant amount of growth and roadway network changes expected, separate trip distribution percentages were developed for the existing and far-term condition. The resulting Project Trip Assignment is shown on Figure 4.16-5 for the near-term and Figure 4.16-6 for the Cumulative condition.
D. Standards of Significance
Based on standards of significance used in recently prepared environmental documents within Riverbank and CEQA guidelines, a significant trafficrelated project impact would occur if:
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Lang
worth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Claribel Rd
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
S Yosemite Ave
Callander
Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Lang
worth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
S Yosemite Ave
Callander
Ave
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
2% (2%)
12% (15%)
14% (13%)
13% (11%)
5% (8%)
11% (8%)
8%
(7%)
4% (4%)
2% (2%) 1% (1%)
4% (5%)
19% (20%)
5% (4%)
2%
12% (15%)
13% (11%)
5% (8%)
11% (8%)
8%
(7%)
19% (20%)
5% (4%)
14% (13%)
4% (4%)
2% (2%) 1% (1%)
4% (5%)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 9
10 15
14 108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA 219
CALIFORNIA
Riverbank Army
Ammunition Plant
LEGEND
1 Study Intersection
Near-term (Far-term)
Trip Distribution Percentage
XX% (YY%)
Not to Scale
North End Cap
Existing Industrial Area
South End Cap
Source: Fehr & Peers
P R O J E C T T R I P D I S T R I B U T IO N P E R C E N T A G E S
RIVERBAN K ARM Y AMMUNITIO N PLAN T
NAM E O F PUBLIC A TIO N
Riverbank City Limit
11 12 13 1st St
Atchison St
Eleanor Ave
(2%)
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
NORTH
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
FIGURE 4.16-4
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
NEAR-TERM PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
FIGURE 4.16-5
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Claribel Rd
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 9
10 11 12 13
15 14
8 108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA 219
CALIFORNIA
HW169 (151) 12 (17)H HW Davis Ave 164 (161) 13 (18)
T[W
13 (42)
21 (28)
RAAP Main Dwy New Driveway #3
Claus Rd
8 6 (18) 9 (28)
9 83 (227)
[GJ [GJ
Claus Rd
96 (232)10 (14)
T[W
7 (23)
170 (179)
Minniear Ave
Claus Rd
7 107 (246)
G]
T
13 (37)
1 3 (3) D
2 (5)
Patterson Rd
SR 108
3 16 (46)18 (51)
33 (30) D
Claus Rd
T[W
T
35 (34)
SR 108
2 J
W
26 (25)
1st St
SR 108
[H]W] 88 (90) 82 (89)
New Driveway #2
111 (107)
G[
THW 5 (16) 39 (112) 8 (23)
10 (11)
]D
H[56 (160)
Townsend Ave Van Dusen Ave
Patterson Rd
G
Claus Rd
T
Claus Rd
65 (120)43 (47)
42 (126)
6 [G]J] 16 (15)
22 (66)
Claus Rd
]T[W
4 78 (75)
5 W 45 (43) G
G
6 (6)
54 (52)
W
Claribel Rd
Oakdale Rd
Coffee Rd
J
THW2 (5)
23 (64)
3 (9)
Claribel Rd
THW
6 (18)13 (12)
3 (9)
3 (3)6 (6)
27 (78)
11 J
10 H77 (74)
Terminal Ave
Santa Fe Ave
G
Claus Rd
15 39 (110)
2 (6)
12 21 (60) G
McGee Ave
Eleanor Ave
H
41 (40)
Claribel Rd
14 0 (0)
75 (71)
0 (0)
DGJ
2 (2)
85 (80) THW Claus Rd THW34 (29)
5 (15)
1 (3)
Claribel Rd
13 41 (115)38 (108)
5 (7)
17 (46)
DGJ
G J 6 (18)
37 (106) 13 (12)
THW
W 73 (70) 4 (3) Roselle Ave
Claribel Rd
Not to Scale
MAP KEY
AM (PM) Peak
Hour Traffic
Volumes
XX (YY)
Stop Sign
Signalized
Intersection
VOLUMES KEY
1 Study Intersection
Project Site Key
North End Cap
Existing Industrial Area
South End Cap
Source: Fehr & Peers
NEAR-TERM PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
FIGURE 4.16-4
RIVERBANK ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
NAME OF PUBLICATION
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Claribel Rd
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
S Yosemite Ave
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
S Yosemite Ave
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
1 3 4
6 7
9 10
15 14
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA 219
CALIFORNIA
Riverbank Army
Ammunition Plant
1 Study Intersection
Project Site Key
North End Cap
Existing Industrial Area
South End Cap
e: Fehr & Peers
ST U D Y I N T E R SE C TIO N L O C A TIO N S
RIVERBAN K ARM Y AMMUNITIO N PLAN T
NAM E O F PUBLIC A TIO N
5 13
2 11 12
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Eleanor Ave
Riverbank City Limit
NORTH
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
CUMULATIVE PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
FIGURE 4.16-6
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Claribel Rd
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 9
10 11 12 13
15 14
8 108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA 219
CALIFORNIA
HW166 (149) 12 (16)H HW Davis Ave 162 (160) 13 (17)
T[W
13 (43)
22 (29)
RAAP Main Dwy New Driveway #3
Claus Rd
8 6 (19) 9 (29)
9 81 (222)
GJ GJ
Claus Rd
96 (229)11 (15)
T[W
7 (22)
167 (179)
Minniear Ave
Claus Rd
7 107 (244)
G]
T
11 (32)
1 3 (3)
2 (5)
D
Patterson Rd
SR 108
3 16 (44)13 (37)
31 (29) D
Claus Rd
T
26 (25)
SR 108
2 J
W
22 (21)
1st St
SR 108
HW87 (91) 81 (88)
New Driveway #2
115 (112)
G]
THW 6 (19) 35 (100) 13 (37)
12 (13) D
H58 (167)
Townsend Ave Van Dusen Ave
Patterson Rd
G
Claus Rd
]T
Claus Rd
65 (120)
45 (48)
41 (124)
6 GJ] 26 (25)
23 (68)
Claus Rd
T[W
4 70 (66)
5 W 41 (40) G
G
6 (6)
51 (49)
W
Claribel Rd
Oakdale Rd
Coffee Rd
J]
THW2 (5)
21 (60)
3 (9)
Claribel Rd
THW
6 (18)13 (12)
4 (10)
3 (3)
7 (7)
26 (74)
11 J
10 3 (7)
12 18 (51) G
McGee Ave
Eleanor Ave
H
35 (34)
Claribel Rd
14 0 (0)
75 (71)
0 (0)
DGJ
2 (2)
87 (82) THW Claus Rd THW28 (25)
4 (14)
1 (3)
Claribel Rd
13 42 (118)
38 (107)
4 (6)
14 (39)
DGJ
G J] 8 (23)
36 (102) 16 (15)
THW
W 71 (68) 5 (4) Roselle Ave
Claribel Rd
H77 (74)
Terminal Ave
Santa Fe Ave
G
Claus Rd
15 39 (110)
T[W
Not to Scale
MAP KEY
AM (PM) Peak
Hour Traffic
Volumes
XX (YY)
Stop Sign
Signalized
Intersection
VOLUMES KEY
1 Study Intersection
Project Site Key
North End Cap
Existing Industrial Area
South End Cap
Source: Fehr & Peers
CUMULATIVE PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
FIGURE 4.16-5
RIVERBANK ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
NAME OF PUBLICATION
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Claribel Rd
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
S Yosemite Ave
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
S Yosemite Ave
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
1 3 4
6 7
9 10
15 14
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA 219
CALIFORNIA
Riverbank Army
Ammunition Plant
1 Study Intersection
Project Site Key
North End Cap
Existing Industrial Area
South End Cap
e: Fehr & Peers
ST U D Y I N T E R SE C TIO N L O C A TIO N S
RIVERBAN K ARM Y AMMUNITIO N PLAN T
NAM E O F PUBLIC A TIO N
5 13
2 11 12
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Eleanor Ave
Riverbank City Limit
NORTH
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-28
¨ The addition of project traffic causes a signalized intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable level to an unacceptable level ¨ The addition of project traffic causes the level of service at an unsignalized intersection to degrade from an acceptable to an unacceptable service level or causes an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour traffic signal warrants ¨ The project would increase traffic volumes at an intersection operating at an unacceptable level without the project
¨ The project substantially increases hazards or congestion due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) ¨ The project results in inadequate emergency access.
¨ The project conflicts with adopted transportation policies, plans, or programs.
E. Impacts Discussion
1. Project Impacts
This section evaluates potential off-site traffic impacts under Existing Plus Project conditions.
a. Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes and Roadway Improvements The project traffic volumes (Figure 4.16-5) were added to the existing peak hour traffic volumes (Figure 4.16-3) to estimate the Existing Plus Project peak hour traffic volumes, as shown on Figure 4.16-7. No roadway improvements were assumed over existing conditions, expect for new driveway connections to Claus and Claribel Roads that would be constructed as part of the project. b. Analysis of Existing Plus Project Conditions
i. Intersection Levels of Service
The Existing Plus Project analysis results are presented in Table 4.16-7. The addition of project traffic would worsen already deficient operations at the
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT LANE CONFIGURATIONS, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FIGURE 4.16-7
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Claribel Rd
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 9
10 11 12 13
15 14
8 108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA 219
CALIFORNIA
l
zqrx 0 (2) 454 (532) 12 (17)
l
o
1 (2) h1 (2)
qe r 0 (2)
Davis Ave
k
424 (541)
33 (37)
0 (0)
1 (0)
i13 (42)
21 (28)
o
RAAP Main Dwy New Driveway #3
Claus Rd
8 28 (45) 9 (28)
0 (0)
9 2 (1)447 (571)
xdg xsgz
Claus Rd
441 (564)50 (33)
y27 (53)
460 (558)
Minniear Ave
0 (2)
Claus Rd
7 3 (4)494 (581)
sz
o qt
170 (133)
1 140 (156)93 (175)
20 (29)
137 (249)
371 (684)
175 (161)
sz
Patterson Rd
qex637 (545)
8 (26)
SR 108
3 61 (85)
138 (236)
165 (177)
sz
Claus Rd
qtqex602 (412)
208 (222)
SR 108
2 337 (582)
xsgz
xsgz 12 (23)
470 (357)
42 (48)
154 (162)
27 (21)
qet
106 (234) zqrx 313 (532)
11 (17)
167 (226)
1st St
SR 108
l
xwtz 1 (3) 377 (457) 82 (93)
New Driveway #2
o
20 (15)487 (422)
adx
qet 11 (16) h
30 (12)
l
178 (131)
63 (54)
262 (327)
101 (74)
94 (51)
zafx
29 (25) k
qex 10 (23) 344 (534)
Townsend Ave Van Dusen Ave
Patterson Rd
xsgz
Claus Rd
i151 (132) 0 (0) Claus Rd
38 (20)
446 (455)
43 (50)
42 (129)
6 xsgz 89 (78)
6 (5)
5 (2)
0 (0)
22 (70)
5 (7)
Claus Rd
zqrx
4 17 (23)357 (315)76 (30)
5 106 (215) qet 30 (45)
228 (422) k
l o
adg
80 (63)
101 (245)102 (203)
234 (414)
l
41 (58)
i 44 (58)
Claribel Rd
Oakdale Rd
138 (135)485 (357)
Coffee Rd
adg i 4 (10)
420 (387)
o 88 (78)
Claribel Rd
qet
236 (249) 281 (436) 149 (296)
36 (48)
331 (333)
21 (67)
12 (12)
35 (34)
11 k
10 139 (69)243 (149)
o
zqrx 26 (28) 115 (161) 421 (549)
119 (101) k
0 (0)
0 (0)
l
Terminal Ave
Santa Fe Ave
xsgz
Claus Rd
i27 (32)
14 (13)
1 (0)
15 0 (1)484 (500)20 (27)
i o l
o
46 (92)
12 28 (44)303 (258)
3 (2)
2 (2)
6 (9)
235 (344) k
3 (3)1 (8)
McGee Ave
Eleanor Ave
i 3 (3)
262 (329)
1 (2)
Claribel Rd
14 13 (4)
8 (16)
305 (381)
98 (139)
13 (18)
1 (6)
5 (3)
k l
adg
114 (118) qet Claus Rd qet54 (47)
143 (165)
102 (120)
Claribel Rd
13 97 (191)338 (378)
122 (199)
29 (64)
adg
k
k 37 (55)
321 (377)
91 (118)
222 (243)
34 (36)
i
i o 27 (31)
244 (352)
145 (91)
l
70 (62)
Roselle Ave
Claribel Rd
Not to Scale
MAP KEY
AM (PM) Peak
Hour Traffic
Volumes
XX (YY)
Stop Sign
Signalized
Intersection
VOLUMES KEY
1 Study Intersection
Project Site Key
North End Cap
Existing Industrial Area
South End Cap
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 8 EIR_Chapter\WC09-2656_4.16-6_ExPPVol
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant
Source: Fehr & Peers
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT LANE CONFIGURATIONS, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FIGURE 4.16-6
RIVERBANK ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
NAME OF PUBLICATION
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Claribel Rd
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
S Yosemite Ave
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
S Yosemite Ave
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
1 3 4
6 7
9 10
15 14
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA 219
CALIFORNIA
Riverbank Army
Ammunition Plant
1 Study Intersection
Project Site Key
North End Cap
Existing Industrial Area
South End Cap
e: Fehr & Peers
ST U D Y I N T E R SE C TIO N L O C A TIO N S
RIVERBAN K ARM Y AMMUNITIO N PLAN T
NAM E O F PUBLIC A TIO N
5 13
2 11 12
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Eleanor Ave
Riverbank City Limit
NORTH
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-30
TABLE 4.16-7 EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS
OF SERVICE
Intersection Control
a
Peak
Hour
Existing
Existing Plus
Project
Delayb LOSc Delayb LOSc
1. Atchison Street (SR 108)/
1st Street Signal AM
PM
39 46
D
D
40 46
D
D
2. SR 108/Claus Road SSSC AM
PM
3 (15)
4 (18)
A (B)
A (C)
4 (17)
6 (23)
A (C)
A (C)
3. SR 108/Patterson Road Signal AM
PM
15 16
B
B
15 16
B
B
4. Patterson Road/
Claus Roadd Signal AMPM
38 28
D
C
41 31
D
C
5. Townsend Avenue/
Claus Roadd SSSC AM
PM
1 (15)
1 (13)
A (B)
A (B)
1 (18)
1 (16)
A (C)
A (C)
1. Van Dusen Avenue/
Claus Road SSSC AM
PM
0 (13)
0 (14)
A (B)
A (B)
2 (21)
9 (55)
A (C)
A (F)
2. Minniear Avenue/
Claus Road SSSC AM
PM
0 (11)
0 (11)
A (B)
A (B)
0 (12)
0 (13)
A (B)
A (B)
3. RAAP Main Entrance/
Claus Road SSSC AMPM
1 (11)
1 (12)
A (B)
A (B)
1 (13)
1 (16)
A (B)
A (C)
4. Davis Avenue/Claus Road SSSC AM
PM
0 (11)
0 (11)
A (B)
A (B)
1 (13)
1 (16)
A (B)
A (C)
5. Claribel Road/Coffee Road AWSC AM
PM
94 118
F
F
116
151
F
F
6. Claribel Road/
Oakdale Road Signal AMPM
39 41
D
D
42 45
D
D
7. Claribel Road/
Roselle Avenue
AWSC AM
PM
97 108
F
F
131
176
F
F
8. Claribel Road/Claus Road Signal AM
PM
24 28
C
C
38 33
C
D
9. Claribel Road/McGee
Avenue/Eleanor Avenue SSSC AMPM
1 (12)
1 (14)
A (B)
A (B)
1 (13)
1 (16)
A (B)
A (C)
10. Terminal Avenue/Santa Fe
Avenue/Claus Roadd SSSC AMPM
5 (28)
6 (44)
A (D)
A (E)
5 (35)
7 (68)
A (E)
A (F) a
Signal = signalized intersection, SSSC = side street stop controlled, AWSC = all way stop controlled b
Delay presented in seconds per vehicle; for side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay is presented as Intersection average (worst approach). c LOS = Level of Service; bold indicates deficient service level. For intersections in italics, the standard is LOS C, for all other intersections the standard is LOS D. d
Level of service is worse than shown here when a train is at the adjacent crossing.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-31
Claribel Road/Coffee Road and Claribel Road/Roselle Avenue intersections, resulting in a significant impact. [MM TRANS-1 and MM TRANS-2] No other intersections would degrade beyond their level of service standard, which is LOS C for the intersections of Claribel Road/Coffee Road and Terminal Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue/Claus Road, and LOS D for the remaining intersections.
The project would increase traffic on State Route 108, where Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) terminal access designation is desired to facilitate the movement of large trucks throughout the area. This would result in a significant impact. [MM TRANS-3] ii. Signal Warrants
In the Existing Plus Project condition, the unsignalized intersections of Claribel Road/Coffee Road and Claribel Road/Roselle Avenue would continue to meet signal warrants in both the morning and afternoon peak hours. Signal warrants would not be satisfied at any other study intersections with the addition of project traffic. iii. Railroad Crossing Operations
As discussed in the previous section, future train operations on the tracks in the study area of the project site are unknown. Assuming train operations continue as they are today, the increased traffic generated by the project could lengthen the level of vehicle queues, especially at the Claus Road/Terminal Avenue crossing. The project is expected to add approximately 116 morning peak hour trips and 184 evening peak hour trips to the Claus Road rail crossing at Terminal Avenue. Approximately 167 morning peak hour trips and 269 evening peak hour trips would be added over the Claus Road crossing at Townsend Avenue. With these volume increases, vehicle queues during railcar crossings are expected to increase. However, vehicle queues are anticipated to disperse quickly and sufficient distance is provided between intersections on Claus Road that vehicle queues would not affect the operation of upstream or downstream intersections. Additionally, the crossings are equipped with warning devices and other deterrents to keep drivers from
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-32
driving around the gate arms. Therefore, the project impact to rail crossings is expected to be less-than-significant.
iv. Construction Period
Construction of the proposed project could potentially result in disruption of traffic flows, blocking lanes in area roadways, and contributing to decreased level of traffic in fewer lanes. Traffic impacts during project construction can also include disruption of alternative modes of transportation, such as blocking bicycle or pedestrian pathways or public transit lanes on area roadways.
Additional impacts may result during the construction phase of the proposed project, when there are heavy-duty construction vehicles sharing the roadway with normal vehicle traffic. This can create impacts due to incompatible uses and hazards. Impacts resulting to transportation and traffic due to project construction would be considered a significant impact. [MM TRANS-4]
2. Cumulative Impacts
This section discusses Cumulative traffic conditions both without and with the project. The future traffic conditions analysis considers the build out of the project as well as new development and roadway improvements in the surrounding areas.
a. Cumulative Roadway Assumptions
There are a number of roadway improvements that have been identified for construction in northern Stanislaus County to support the transportation needs of existing and planned development. Roadway network improvements consistent with Tier 1 projects identified in the StanCOG Regional Transportation Plan were assumed to be in place for the analysis of cumulative conditions. Tier 1 projects are those where funding sources have been identified. Major roadway improvements assumed in the study area include Phase 1 of the NCC project, which would construct an expressway between McHenry Avenue east to State Route 120 east of Oakdale. Phase 2 of the NCC project would connect McHenry Avenue to State Route 99. The facility is planned to improve regional circulation, relieve existing traffic congestion, reduce traffic delay, and accommodate future traffic. It is anticipated
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-33
that the facility would be a multi-lane, access-controlled expressway/freeway, with interchanges. At-grade intersections would be limited and gradeseparation would be provided of railroad crossings, irrigation district canals, frontage roads, and local streets.
The NCC alignment considered in this analysis is consistent with the alignment identified in the State Route 108 East Route Adoption project as of the time this analysis was conducted. However, the ultimate alignment is still under evaluation and a preferred route has not yet been adopted. One alignment currently under consideration would construct the NCC along Claribel Avenue, which could have site access and circulation implications from Claus and Claribel Roads. Once the preferred alignment is selected, the Specific Plan and associated technical documents may need to be modified to reflect site access and circulation changes necessary to accommodate the roadway construction.
The City of Riverbank General Plan identifies additional roadway network improvements to be constructed with planned land use development, including widening of Coffee Road, Oakdale Road, Roselle Avenue, Claus Road, and Claribel Road to provide two travel lanes in each direction. Traffic signals are planned to be constructed at the following intersections:
¨ State Route 108/Claus Road
¨ Claribel Road/Coffee Road
¨ Claribel Road/Roselle Avenue
¨ Claribel Road/McGee Avenue/Eleanor Avenue
¨ Terminal Avenue/Santa Fe Avenue/Claus Road
The lane configuration assumptions for the study intersections are shown on Figure 4.16-8.
b. Cumulative Traffic Forecasts
The 2011 StanCOG RTP Model (StanCOG Model) was selected as the modeling tool for this project. The StanCOG Model was developed in the Cube/TP+ software platform. An extensive sub-area calibration/validation
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT LANE CONFIGURATIONS, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FIGURE 4.16-8
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Claribel Rd
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 9
10 11 12 13
15 14
8 108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA 219
CALIFORNIA
O
]TH( 10 (10)
O
340 (510)
R
10 (10) K10 (10)
THH[ [HHW 10 (10)
Davis Ave
+
330 (510)
20 (10)
10 (10)
RAAP Main Dwy
Claus Rd
8 30 (20)
9 10 (10)480 (430)
[GGJ [VG
Claus Rd
470 (420)40 (10)
\20 (20)
350 (520)
Minniear Ave
10 (10)
Claus Rd
7 10 (10)
500 (420)
VG]
TW
250 (140)
1 150 (160)180 (180)
30 (40)
200 (420)
380 (690)
230 (300)
V]
Patterson Rd
TH[640 (550)
20 (30)
SR 108
3 130 (60)
130 (190)
140 (250)
VG]
Claus Rd
TWTHH[610 (420)
180 (190)
SR 108
2 340 (590)
[VJ]
DGJ 20 (30)
480 (360)
50 (50)
280 (300)
30 (30)
THW
110 (240) ]TU[ 320 (540)
20 (20)
160 (210)
1st St
SR 108
O
]TH( 10 (10) 350 (520)
30 (20)490 (410)
VG]
]THU[ 20 (20) K
40 (20)
O
220 (220)
90 (60)
230 (220)
100 (60)
90 (70)
[VGJ]
30 (30) +
THH[ 20 (30) 340 (500)
Townsend Ave Van Dusen Ave
Patterson Rd
[VGJ]
Claus Rd
]THU[ 240 (220)
Claus Rd
40 (30)
500 (420)
6 [VG 80 (70)
10 (10)
10 (10) 10 (10)
Claus Rd
4 20 (30)280 (250)80 (40)
5 140 (400) ]THU[ 440 (330)
[VGJ]
590 (920)
[VGJ]
180 (90)
230 (390)230 (430)
590 (820)
180 (180)
]THU[ 230 (350)
Claribel Rd
Oakdale Rd
240 (160)490 (430)
Coffee Rd
[VGJ]
]THU[10 (30)
1,300 (780)
140 (200)
Claribel Rd
]THU[ 240 (240) 290 (440) 140 (290)
60 (100)
810 (510)
150 (520)
20 (30)70 (120)
11 [VGJ]
10 530 (360)530 (400)
]TU[
150 (210)
12 30 (50)360 (330)
10 (10)
10 (10)
10 (10)
620 (840)
[VGJ]
McGee Ave
10 (10)10 (10)
Eleanor Ave
]THU[280 (190)
830 (740)
10 (10)
Claribel Rd
14 20 (10)
10 (20)
240 (320)
100 (140)
20 (50)
10 (10)
120 (360)
[VJ]
[VGJ]
70 (160) ]THU[ Claus Rd ]THU[40 (40)
710 (610)
110 (120)
Claribel Rd
13 150 (110)310 (280)
520 (700)
30 (50)
[VGJ]
[VGJ]
[VGJ] 40 (40)
790 (500)
100 (160)280 (330)
30 (30)
]THU[
30 (40) ]THU[ 580 (840)
190 (130)
200 (160)
Roselle Ave
Claribel Rd
]TU[ 40 (40) 120 (170) 350 (480) 10 (10)
120 (110) N
10 (10)
Terminal Ave
Santa Fe Ave
[VJ]
Claus Rd
L40 (60)
30 (30)
10 (10)
15 10 (10)450 (400)30 (40)
Not to Scale
MAP KEY
AM (PM) Peak
Hour Traffic
Volumes
XX (YY)
Stop Sign
Signalized
Intersection
VOLUMES KEY
1 Study Intersection
Project Site Key
North End Cap
Existing Industrial Area
South End Cap
Source: Fehr & Peers
CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT LANE CONFIGURATIONS, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FIGURE 4.16-7
RIVERBANK ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
NAME OF PUBLICATION
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Claribel Rd
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
S Yosemite Ave
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
S Yosemite Ave
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
1 3 4
6 7
9 10
15 14
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA 219
CALIFORNIA
Riverbank Army
Ammunition Plant
1 Study Intersection
Project Site Key
North End Cap
Existing Industrial Area
South End Cap
e: Fehr & Peers
ST U D Y I N T E R SE C TIO N L O C A TIO N S
RIVERBAN K ARM Y AMMUNITIO N PLAN T
NAM E O F PUBLIC A TIO N
5 13
2 11 12
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Eleanor Ave
Riverbank City Limit
NORTH
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-35
exercise was undertaken before using the model to predict future volumes.
The detailed results of this process are presented in the memorandum entitled Final Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model Calibration and Validation for the North County Corridor PA/ED (March 16, 2011). Buildout of the land uses identified in City of Riverbank General Plan is reflected in the resulting traffic forecasts.
The process of developing forecasts is described in detail in the TIA. The Cumulative Without Project Forecasts are presented on Figure 4.16-8. The peak hour project volumes from Figure 4.16-6 were added to the Cumulative Without Project traffic volumes to determine cumulative traffic volumes with the proposed project, as presented on Figure 4.16-9.
c. Analysis of Cumulative Conditions
i. Intersection Levels of Service
The Cumulative Without and With Project conditions analysis results are presented in Table 4.16-8. In the Cumulative Without Project condition, the Claribel Road/Coffee Road and Claribel Road/Oakdale Road intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable service levels during both peak hours.
The addition of project traffic would potentially increase delay at these intersections, resulting in a significant impact at each intersection. [MM TRANS-5 and MM TRANS-6]
It should be noted that the timing of the conditions shown in Table 4.16-9 is uncertain, as it is dependent on the level of local and regional development that could occur over the next 20 years.
ii. Signal Warrants
A number of intersections that are currently unsignalized are planned to be signalized by 2030. Peak hour signal warrants would not be satisfied at any unsignalized study intersection in the Cumulative condition, even with the addition of project traffic.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT LANE CONFIGURATIONS, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FIGURE 4.16-9
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Claribel Rd
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 9
10 11 12 13
15 14
8 108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA 219
CALIFORNIA
O
]THU[ 10 (10) 506 (659) 12 (16)
O
R
10 (10) K10 (10)
THH[ [HHW 10 (10)
Davis Ave
N
492 (670)
33 (27)
0 (0)
10 (10)
L13 (43)
22 (29)
R
RAAP Main Dwy New Driveway #3
Claus Rd
8 36 (39) 9 (29)
0 (0)
9 10 (10)
561 (652)
[GGJ [VGJ]
Claus Rd
566 (649)
51 (25)
\27 (42)
517 (699)
Minniear Ave
10 (10)
Claus Rd
7 10 (10)607 (664)
VG]
TW
261 (172)
1 150 (160)180 (180)
30 (40)
203 (423)
380 (690)
232 (305)
V]
Patterson Rd
TH[640 (550)
20 (30)
SR 108
3 146 (104)143 (227)
171 (279)
VG]
Claus Rd
TWTHH[610 (420)
206 (215)
SR 108
2 340 (590)
[VJ]
DGJ 20 (30)
480 (360)
50 (50)
280 (300)
30 (30)
THW
110 (240) ]TU[ 320 (540)
20 (20)
182 (231)
1st St
SR 108
O
]THU[ 10 (10) 437 (607) 81 (92)
New Driveway #2
R
30 (20)605 (522)
VG]
]THU[ 20 (20) K
40 (20)
O
220 (220)
96 (79)
265 (320)
113 (97)
102 (83)
[VGJ]
30 (30) N
THH[ 20 (30) 398 (667)
Townsend Ave Van Dusen Ave
Patterson Rd
[VGJ]
Claus Rd
]THU[ 240 (220) 0 (0) Claus Rd
40 (30)
565 (537)45 (51)
41 (127)
6 [VGJ] 106 (95)
10 (10)
10 (10)
0 (0)
23 (72)
10 (10)
Claus Rd
]TU[
4 20 (30)350 (316)80 (40)
5 140 (400) ]THU[ 440 (330)
[VGJ]
631 (960)
[VGJ]
180 (90)
230 (390)
236 (436)
641 (869)
180 (180)
]THU[ 230 (350)
Claribel Rd
Oakdale Rd
240 (160)
490 (430)
Coffee Rd
[VGJ]
]THU[12 (35)
1,321 (840)
143 (209)
Claribel Rd
]THU[ 246 (258) 290 (440) 153 (302)
64 (110)
836 (584)
150 (520)
23 (33)77 (127)
11 [VGJ]
10 530 (360)530 (400)
]TU[
153 (217)
12 30 (50)360 (330)
10 (10)
10 (10)
10 (10)
638 (891)
[VGJ]
McGee Ave
10 (10)
10 (10)
Eleanor Ave
]THU[280 (190)
865 (774)
10 (10)
Claribel Rd
14 20 (10)
10 (20)
315 (391)
102 (142)
20 (50)
10 (10)
120 (360)
[VJ]
[VGJ]
157 (242) ]THU[ Claus Rd ]THU[68 (65)
714 (624)
111 (123)
Claribel Rd
13 192 (228)
348 (387)
524 (706)
44 (89)
[VGJ]
[VGJ]
[VGJ] 48 (63)
826 (602)
100 (160)280 (330)
46 (45)
]THU[
30 (40) ]THU[ 651 (908)
190 (130)
205 (164)
Roselle Ave
Claribel Rd
]TU[ 40 (40) 120 (170) 427 (554) 10 (10)
120 (110) N
10 (10)
Terminal Ave
Santa Fe Ave
[VJ]
Claus Rd
L40 (60)
30 (30)
10 (10)
15 10 (10)489 (510)30 (40)
Not to Scale
MAP KEY
AM (PM) Peak
Hour Traffic
Volumes
XX (YY)
Stop Sign
Signalized
Intersection
VOLUMES KEY
1 Study Intersection
Project Site Key
North End Cap
Existing Industrial Area
South End Cap
Source: Fehr & Peers
CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT PROJECT LANE CONFIGURATIONS, TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FIGURE 4.16-8
RIVERBANK ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
NAME OF PUBLICATION
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Claribel Rd
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
Atchison St
S Yosemite Ave
Callander Ave
1st St
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Eleanor Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
River Rd
Claus Rd
Albers Rd
Patterson Rd
Roselle Ave
Langworth Rd
Bentley Rd
Tully Rd
Oakdale Rd
W F St
E Briggsmore Ave
Ladd Rd
Kiernan Ave
Pelandale Ave
Sylvan Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Santa Fe Rd
W Briggsmore Ave
Claratina Ave
S Yosemite Ave
Tully Rd
Albers Rd
Standiford Ave
Mc Henry Ave
Patterson Rd
Milnes Rd
Claribel Rd
1 3 4
6 7
9 10
15 14
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA
108
CALIFORNIA 219
CALIFORNIA
Riverbank Army
Ammunition Plant
1 Study Intersection
Project Site Key
North End Cap
Existing Industrial Area
South End Cap
e: Fehr & Peers
ST U D Y I N T E R SE C TIO N L O C A TIO N S
RIVERBAN K ARM Y AMMUNITIO N PLAN T
NAM E O F PUBLIC A TIO N
5 13
2 11 12
Atchison St
Callander Ave
1st St
Eleanor Ave
Riverbank City Limit
NORTH
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-37
TABLE 4.16-8 CUMULATIVE WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION
LEVELS OF SERVICE
Intersection Controla
Peak
Hour
Without Project With Project
Delayb LOSc Delayb LOSc
1. Atchison Street (SR 108)
/1st Street Signal AMPM
43 48
D
D
44 50
D
D
2. SR 108/Claus Road Signal AM
PM
11 12
B
B
11 14
B
B
3. SR 108/Patterson Road Signal AM
PM
18 34
B
C
18 36
B
D
4. Patterson Road/
Claus Roadd Signal AMPM
27 24
C
C
28 26
C
C
5. Townsend Avenue/
Claus Roadd SSSC AMPM
1 (16)
1 (14)
A (C)
A (B)
1 (18)
1 (17)
A (B)
A (B)
6. Van Dusen Avenue/
Claus Road SSSC AMPM
0 (15)
0 (15)
A (B)
A (B)
2 (21)
11 (74)
A (C)
B (F)
7. Minniear Avenue/
Claus Road SSSC AMPM
0 (11)
0 (11)
A (B)
A (B)
0 (12)
0 (13)
A (B)
A (B)
8. RAAP Main Entrance/
Claus Road SSSC AMPM
1 (11)
1 (12)
A (B)
A (B)
1 (12)
1 (14)
A (B)
A (B)
9. Davis Avenue/Claus Road SSSC AM
PM
0 (11)
0 (11)
A (B)
A (B)
1 (12)
1 (14)
A (B)
A (B)
10. Claribel Road/
Coffee Road Signal AMPM
87 65
F
E
89 73
F
E
11. Claribel Road/
Oakdale Road Signal AMPM
99 91
F
F
110
99 F
F
12. Claribel Road/
Roselle Avenue Signal AMPM
33 32
C
C
34 33
C
C
13. Claribel Road/Claus Road Signal AM
PM
28 34
C
C
33 40
C
D
14. Claribel Road/McGee
Avenue/Eleanor Avenue Signal AMPM
20 28
B
C
20 28
B
C
15. Terminal Avenue/Santa Fe
Avenue/Claus Roadd Signal AMPM
29 29
C
C
29 33
C
C a
Signal = signalized intersection, SSSC = side street stop controlled intersection b Delay presented in seconds per vehicle; for side-street stop-controlled intersections, Delay presented in Intersection average (worst approach). c
LOS = Level of Service; bold indicates deficient service level. For intersections in italics, the standard is LOS C, for all other intersections the standard is LOS D. d
Level of service is worse than shown here when a train is at the adjacent crossing.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-38
iii. Railroad Crossing Operations
The potential project impact to rail crossings was considered less-thansignificant in the near-term condition. In the Cumulative condition, there are a number of roadway improvements planned in the area to accommodate existing and projected levels of vehicle traffic. Rail traffic patterns may change as well. For example, Tuolumne County approved a quarry project (currently the subject of litigation), that could increase rail activity on the Claus Road, north of Patterson Road crossing by up to 20 trains per week, more than doubling the number of trains over the crossing each week. It is expected that as roadways are improved and widened, grade separated crossings may be constructed at existing at-grade crossings, including with the NCC project. As the RAAP is developed, it is expected that through the payment of regional and local traffic impact fees, the project would contribute to future rail crossing improvements.
F. Impacts And Mitigation Measures
1. Project Impacts
Based on the level of service results, impacts could potentially occur at two study intersections. Mitigations to address these impacts are discussed below.
Impact TRANS-1: The Claribel Road/Coffee Road intersection operates at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours and signal warrants are met during both peak hours in the Existing Condition. The addition of project traffic would worsen operations and increase delay.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Future developers within the RAAP area shall contribute their fair share, through the payment of local and regional fees, towards the construction of left-turn pockets on all approaches with appropriate storage and deceleration length, and signalization of the intersection. This improvement would improve the service level to LOS C or better (the level of service standard for this intersection) in both peak hours, as shown on Table 4.16-9. Stanislaus County plans to signalize this intersection as part of the Claribel Road widening project. Fund-
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-39
ing for signalization is provided from Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Federal funding. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2013.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact TRANS-2: The Claribel Road/Roselle Avenue intersection operates at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours and signal warrants are met during both peak hours in the Existing Condition. The addition of project traffic would worsen operations and increase delay.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-2: Future developers within the RAAP area shall contribute their fair share, through the payment of local and regional fees, towards the construction of left-turn pockets on all approaches with appropriate storage and deceleration length, and signalization of the intersection. This improvement would improve the service level to LOS D or better (the level of service standard for this intersection) in both peak hours, as shown on Table 4.16-9. Signalization of this intersection is programmed in the Stanislaus County 2011-2012 budget using CMAQ funding and is scheduled for construction in 2015/2016.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact TRANS-3: Future development within the RAAP area would add truck traffic to intersections on State Route 108, specifically at the intersections of Atchison Street (State Route 108)/1st Street, State Route 108/Claus Road and State Route 108/Patterson Road. As these intersections do not currently accommodate the turning movements of large trucks, this is considered a potentially significant impact based on the significance criteria.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-40
TABLE 4.16-9 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT WITH MITIGATION PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Existing
Existing
Plus Project
Existing Plus
Project Plus
Mitigation
Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb
10. Claribel Road/
Coffee Road
AM
PM
94 118
F
F
120
151
F
F
35 15
C
B
12. Claribel Road/
Roselle Avenue
AM
PM
88 108
F
F
131
176
F
F
33 36
C
D a Delay presented in seconds per vehicle. b
LOS = Level of Service.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-3: Future developers within the RAAP area shall contribute their fair share towards improvements at the intersections identified above, though the payment of local and regional traffic fees, that improve turning radii for large trucks. No improvements have been identified for these intersections.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
Impact TRANS-4: Future Development in the RAAP Specific Plan area could substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-4: Although construction impacts are expected to be temporary and less-than-significant, for all future development in the plan area, the following is recommended to minimize the effects of construction related activity:
¨ Prepare a construction management plan, including:
Ÿ Project staging plan to maximize on-site storage of materials and equipment.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-41
Ÿ A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak hours; lane closure proceedings; signs, cones, and other warning devices for drivers; and designation of construction access routes.
Ÿ Permitted construction hours.
Ÿ Location of construction staging.
Ÿ Provision of on-site parking for all construction employees, site visitors, and inspectors.
Ÿ Provisions for street sweeping to remove construction related debris on public streets.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
2. Cumulative Impacts
Based on the level of service results, impacts could potentially occur at two study intersections. Mitigations to address these impacts are discussed below.
It should be noted that the future project developers would be required to pay all applicable local and regional transportation impact fees in place at the time of development to fund construction of local and regional roadway improvements.
Impact TRANS-5: The Claribel Road/Coffee Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and LOS E during the PM peak hours.
The addition of project traffic would worsen deficient operations in both peak hours. This is considered significant based on the significance criteria, as LOS C is the standard for this intersection.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-5: Construction of Phase 2 of the North County Corridor Project, which would connect the Phase 1 project, which is planned to terminate at McHenry Avenue, to State Route 99, is expected to shift sufficient traffic from this intersection that LOS C would be achieved. Alternatively, intersection improvements beyond the cross-section identified in the General Plan could be provided to improve
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-42
peak hour operations, such as dual left-turn lanes and right-turn only lanes on all approaches. This improvement would improve the service level to LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour, as shown on Table 4.16-10. These service levels are considered deficient for this intersection. Given the uncertainly of constructing parallel capacity or the feasibility of additional improvements beyond the planned General Plan cross section, this impact is expected to remain significant and unavoidable.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
Impact TRANS-6: The Claribel Road/Oakdale Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The addition of project traffic would worsen LOS F operations. This is considered significant based on the significance criteria, as LOS D is the standard for this intersection.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-6: Construction of Phase 2 of the North County Corridor Project, which would connect the Phase 1 project, which is planned to terminate at McHenry Avenue, to State Route 99, is expected to shift sufficient traffic from this intersection that LOS D would be achieved. Alternatively, construction of additional improvements at this intersection that would result in acceptable service levels, including dual left-turn pockets on the northbound, westbound, and eastbound approaches could be constructed. This improvement would improve the service level to LOS D or better (the level of service standard for this intersection) in both peak hours, as shown in Table 10 of the TIA, reducing this impact to a less-than-significant level. However, given the uncertainly of constructing parallel capacity or the feasibility of additional improvements beyond the planned General Plan cross section, this impact is expected to remain significant and unavoidable.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-43
TABLE 4.16-10 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT WITH MITIGATION PEAK
HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Cumulative
Without
Project
Cumulative
With Project
Cumulative
With Project
With
Mitigation
Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSc
Claribel Road/
Coffee Road
AM
PM
87 65
F
E
89 73
F
E
66 38
E
D
Claribel Road/
Oakdale Road
AM
PM
99 91
F
F
110
99 F
F
53 51
D
D a Delay presented in seconds per vehicle; for side-street stop-controlled intersections, Delay presented in Intersection average (worst approach). b LOS = Level of Service.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND T RAFFIC
4.16-44
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.17-1
This chapter describes the existing utilities and services systems on the RAAP site and evaluates the potential impacts of the Plan on those services and facilities. Wastewater, water supply, stormwater, and solid waste are each addressed in a separate section of this chapter. In each section, a summary of the relevant regulatory setting and existing conditions is followed by a discussion of project-specific and cumulative impacts.
A. Wastewater
1. Regulatory Framework
a. Federal Regulations
The federal government has some regulations regarding wastewater treatment and planning. The federal regulation relevant to the RAAP is described below. i. Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. Under the CWA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implements pollution control programs and sets wastewater standards.
ii. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established in the Clean Water Act to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source stormwater runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-2
Wastewater discharge is regulated under the NPDES permit program for direct discharges into receiving waters and by the National Pretreatment Program for indirect discharges to a sewage treatment plant. b. State Regulations and Agencies
Wastewater treatment and planning is regulated at the State level. Specific regulations relevant to the proposed Plan are described below. i. State Water Resources Control Board
On May 2, 2006 the SWRCB adopted a General Waste Discharge Requirement (Order No. 2006-0003) for all publicly owned sanitary sewer collection systems in California with more than 1 mile of sewer pipe. The order provides a consistent statewide approach to reducing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) by requiring public sewer system operators to take all feasible steps to control the volume of waste discharged into the system, to prevent sanitary sewer waste from entering the storm sewer system, and to develop a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). The General Waste Discharge Requirement also requires that storm sewer overflows be reported to the SWRCB using an online reporting system.
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) is the local division of the SWRCB. The CVRWQCB issues NPDES permits in Riverbank. NPDES permits allow the RWQCB to collect information on where the waste is disposed, what type of waste is being disposed, and what entity is depositing the wastes. The RWQCB is also charged with conducting inspections of permitted discharges and monitoring permit compliance. The current California RWQCB requirements for the Riverbank WWTP state that the monthly average influent flow of the City of Riverbank Waste Water Treatment Plant (City WWTP) must not exceed 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd) during the three-month tomato-processing season and 1.8 mgd during the remainder of the year.1
1 City of Riverbank, General Plan Background Report, 2005, Public Services and Facilities, page PS&F-29.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E S YSTEMS
4.17-3
c. Local Regulations
Locally, wastewater treatment and planning is regulated at the city level, as described below.
i. City of Riverbank 2007 Sewer Collection System Master Plan The City has projected wastewater flows for future development in Riverbank based on land uses projected in its General Plan and has identified facility improvements required to maintain service at or above the required level in the 2007 Sewer Collection System Master Plan (Sewer Master Plan).
The wastewater generation factors vary ranging from 400 gpd per acre to 2,500 gpd per acre based on land uses, as shown in Table 4.17-1. According to the Sewer Master Plan, the existing sewer flows within the City limits are 1,861,000 gpd, but the future sewer flows within the City limits and the General Plan area would increase up to 6,635,000 gpd at buildout. Improvements are prioritized and phased in the Capital Improvement Plan, which is part of the Sewer Master Plan.
ii. City of Riverbank General Plan
Goals and policies from the Riverbank General Plan that are relevant to wastewater are listed in Table 4.17-2.
iii. Industrial Discharge Permits
Industrial dischargers to the City treatment plant operate under individual industrial discharge permits issued annually by the City. The industrial discharge permits specify flow and quality limits for wastewater discharge to the City treatment plant. The existing RAAP industrial permit required an optimization study for an ion exchange unit, the results of which reflected their ability to reduce total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations discharged to the City treatment plant. Decreases to TDS loading were subsequently agreed upon between the City and RAAP and reflected in new permit limits. 2 2 Weston Solutions, Environmental Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Riverbank Army Ammunitions Plant Riverbank, California, November 2009. See Appendix F of this Draft EIR.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-4
TABLE 4.17-1 FUTURE SEWER FLOW PROJECTIONS FOR THE GENERAL
PLAN AREAS AND THE CITY SERVICE AREAS
Land Use
Gross
Area
(Acres)
Generation
Factor
(gpd/Acre)
Average
Dry Weather
Flow
(gpd)
Within City Service Areas
Medium Density Residential 1,558 2,500 2,501,000
Low Density Residential 148 1,500 178,000
Commercial 219 1,200 198,000
Industrial 244 1,500 227,000
Government 80 425 29,000
Parks 69 400 22,000
Total 3,155,000
Sewer Flow for General Plan Areas including the City
Total 6,635,000
Source: City of Riverbank, 2007 Sewer Collection System Master Plan, page 4-5. iv. System Development Fees
The City of Riverbank established public facility impact fees (also known as System Development Fees) by Resolution in order to make reasonable provisions for new facilities. As required by the City’s General Plan, new development should provide for adequate public facilities and new development would bear the fair share of providing such facilities. Such fees may include charges for drainage improvements, traffic and roadway improvements, and other capital improvements such as parks and public buildings. The City Council approved increases to the City’s development impact fees in 2008.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E S YSTEMS
4.17-5
TABLE 4.17-2 GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO
WASTEWATER
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Goal PUBLIC-1
Public service and infrastructure provision to meet or exceed level of service standards consistent with other community goals.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.2
New development must pay for the public facilities, services, and infrastructure required to serve the needs of such development based on service standards applied by the City. The mechanisms for such funding will be part of the development approval, or as set forth in any applicable development agreement or specific plan, which, with the approval of the City Council, may provide for alternative financing mechanisms inlieu of City development fee programs and ordinances. The use of in-lieu fees or in-lieu financing will be reserved for communitywide facilities that serve areas beyond the proposed project or plan. Construction and dedication of facilities will be the method for providing facilities that serve the proposed project or plan area. The City may make exceptions on the basis of financial hardship or small projects or plans, allowing payment of an in-lieu fee.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.3
The City will require that new developments, depending on their size, either: 1) designate lands in appropriate locations, sizes, and free of constraints to accommodate public facilities and infrastructure needed to serve such development, or 2) pay a fee proportional to the development’s cost of acquiring such land at the time acquisition will be required.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.4
The City shall give priority to serving areas within the existing City limits as of the adoption of this General Plan based on current infrastructure and service capacity. New growth proposed outside existing City limits is responsible for providing, or paying a proportionate share of the cost of, public facilities and infrastructure adequate to serve the needs of such development according to the General Plan, a specific plan (if prepared for such development), and/or any infrastructure Master Plan that covers such development through the use of a Cityapproved development agreement. The use of in-lieu fees or inlieu financing will be reserved for communitywide facilities that serve areas beyond the proposed project or plan.
Construction and dedication of facilities will be the method for providing facilities that serve the proposed project or plan area.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
TABLE 4.17-2 GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO
WASTEWATER (CONTINUED)
4.17-6
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
The City may make exceptions on the basis of financial hardship or small projects or plans, allowing payment of an in-lieu fee.
Goal PUBLIC-3 Adequate wastewater service to meet existing and future projected development determined in the general plan.
Policy
PUBLIC-3.1
The City will require that wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment facilities meet or exceed local, State, and federal standards, as addressed in the City’s Sewer Collection System Master Plan.
Source: City of Riverbank, 2006, General Plan 2005-2025. v. Sewer Service Charge
The major source of revenue for the Sewer fund is Sewer Service Charges.
These are the charges made to residential and commercial customers on a bimonthly basis. These charges are used to maintain the City’s sewer lines and to fund the operations of the City WWTP.
2. Existing Conditions
Prior to 1975, sanitary sewer waste was collected and treated on the RAAP site. The effluent and sewage beds remain intact, but were closed in 1975 when connection with the City of Riverbank’s system was made. The Public Work Sewer Division of the City operates and maintains the City’s sewer collection system including sewer mains, laterals, lift stations, and the City WWTP.
a. Wastewater (Sewer) Collection
As mentioned above, the Public Work Sewer Division maintains the wastewater collection system in Riverbank, including the RAAP site. The City sewer system consists of 6-inch to 36-inch diameter collection piping, nine lift/pump stations, and the City WWTP, located on the north side of the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County. All wastewater is conveyed from the
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-7
collection system to the City WWTP through a 27-inch gravity line located on a trestle over the Stanislaus River.3
The sanitary sewer system on the RAAP site conveys waste to the City of Riverbank. The sanitary sewer collection system begins as a series of 6-inch pipes in the Production Area. These pipes drain to the north by gravity feed and become progressively larger as waste from Buildings 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, and the 120 area are added. Ultimately, one 12-inch diameter pipe conveys waste to the lift station north of Building 9 and across the railroad tracks from the propane storage area. From the lift station, waste is transferred by a 4-inch diameter force main before transitioning back to gravity flow and connecting to the City of Riverbank collection system. There is an additional lift station near the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP). The total length of the gravity sanitary sewer system on the RAAP site is approximately 6,078 linear feet.4
The sanitary sewer system on the RAAP site is built mostly of reinforced concrete pipe with some small sections of cement asbestos and corrugated metal pipe. There are over 55 manholes and clean-out locations. Due to the age of the concrete pipe, there are many areas with vertical and/or horizontal pipe cracks. Based on a camera assessment performed by Weston Solutions during the week of September 20, 2009, the severity of the cracks range from minor superficial cracking to at least one section of collapsed pipe.5 Additionally, there are pipe segments of both vertical crowns and valleys, meaning the gravity system cannot function properly, as material will settle in these
3 City of Riverbank, 2007 Sewer Collection System Master Plan. 4 Weston Solutions, 2010, Operations and Infrastructure Assessment – Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, July 1. See Appendix F of this Draft EIR. 5 Weston Solutions, 2009, Environmental Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Riverbank Army Ammunitions Plant Riverbank, November. See Appendix F of this Draft EIR.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-8
areas. Many instances of cracked or offset joints were also noted during the camera inspection of the sewer lines.6
b. Wastewater (Sewer) Treatment and Disposal
There are three main generators of wastewater on the RAAP site: a Groundwater Treatment System (GWTS), an IWTP, and domestic wastewater. The GWTP is the remediation project that pumps out water, treats it, and sends it to the IWTP where it is pumped to the Stanislaus River. The IWTP handles all the wastewater from metal production. It treats the waste with two types of chemicals. This process creates a brine water from the treatment facility much like a water softener. Both that water and the treated effluent are discharged into the City system. Consequently, there are two types of discharge water coming from the IWTP and going into the City system: the ion exchange brine water and the treated effluent. The domestic wastewater is comingled with the IWTP wastewater and then goes into a single pipe to be discharged to the City sewer system.
All RAAP wastewater except the effluence from the GWTP is discharged to the City of Riverbank collection system and treated at the City WWTP.
Treated wastewater is discharged, under a NPDES Direct Discharge permit, into the Stanislaus River. The City WWTP went through a five-year upgrade program from 2002 to 2007 that allowed an increase in industrial treatment capacity. The City WWTP has a peak capacity of 7.9 million gallons per day (mgd).
7 The existing average dry-weather flows within the City limits are 1,861,000 gpd (or 1.86 mgd).8
The treated industrial discharge from the RAAP site was permitted for discharge to the Stanislaus River through the waste discharge requirements (WDRs) issued by the State Water Resources Board (SWRB) and the
6 Weston Solutions, 2009, Environmental Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Riverbank Army Ammunitions Plant Riverbank, November. See Appendix F of this Draft EIR.
7 City of Riverbank, General Plan Draft EIR, page 4.16-10, adopted in 2009. 8 City of Riverbank, 2007, 2007 Sewer Collection System Master Plan.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-9
CVRWQCB.9 The industrial discharge used to be permitted for discharge to the City sewer treatment system through an industrial wastewater permit held by Norris Industries (NI) until 2010.
10 3. Standards of Significance
The Plan would have a significant impact related to wastewater if it would:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
b. Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
4. Impacts Discussion
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
As described in Section A.1 of this chapter, sanitary wastewater treatment requirements are established in the NPDES Permit issued by the RWQCB.
The permit also sets out a framework for compliance and enforcement.
Currently the discharger named in the WDR is NI, but the WDRs are transferable if there is a name change only and the timing is not nearing the normal re-permitting time. When the WDR is transferred to the City of Riverbank, the City will implement and enforce a pretreatment program for effluent discharged from the GWTS and the IWTS on the RAAP site.
9 State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. 5-01-200, 2001.
10 City of Riverbank Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit 08-001, 2008.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-10
Additionally, the City of Riverbank has a permit for discharge from the City WWTP to the Stanislaus River. The City proposed wastewater treatment system upgrade through the 2007 Sewer Collection System Master Plan, and the upgrade is expected to comply with RWQCB requirements as well as State standards. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.c below, the projected wastewater generated from build-out of the draft Specific Plan would not exceed the City WWTP’s capacity. Therefore there would be a less-thansignificant impact to exceeding the wastewater treatment requirements from the proposed Plan.
b. Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Based on the General Plan projection, the City has already accounted for future development in Riverbank, including the Plan Area.11 As described in Section A.1 of this chapter, the Sewer Collection System Master Plan recommended several improvements to the sewer collection systems to ensure that the City would have the capacity to meet its wastewater demands according to the projected buildout of the proposed General Plan. Future development from the Plan would be subject to permits as well as associated fees and charges levied on all new development at the time of connection as described above.
The Plan would not require any off-site expansions or new construction of wastewater treatment facilities because the anticipated wastewater generation would be within the capacity of the existing City WWTP. See the response to criteria c) below for additional information on project wastewater volumes versus capacity.
However, as described in Section A.2 of this chapter, the existing sewer pipes on the RAAP site are old and have areas where there are improperly functioning gravity systems, cracked or offset joins, or vertical and/or horizontal
11 City of Riverbank, 2006, General Plan 2005-2025. City of Riverbank, 2007, Sewer Collection System Master Plan.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-11
pipe cracks. Consequently, buildout of the Plan would require improvements to existing wastewater collection facilities. The Plan includes Policy PUB-2 that ensures that adequate infrastructure is provided as necessary to support new development. The implementation of this policy will reduce impacts to wastewater collection to a less-than-significant level. c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
As described in Chapter 4.13, Population and Housing, buildout of the Plan would result in growth for Riverbank that is in line with the anticipated growth under the General Plan and the Sewer Master Plan. Buildout of the Plan could result in construction of as much as 119,058 square feet of commercial/retail and 1,411,542 square feet of industrial space. Using demand factors of 1,200 gpd per acre (or 43,560 square feet) of commercial space and 1,500 gpd per acre of industrial space, as much as 51,887 gpd of wastewater would be generated.12 Added to existing average demand of 1.82 mgd13, this demand would not exceed the WWTP’s existing peak capacity of 7.9 mgd. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
5. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to sanitary wastewater that could occur from the Plan in combination with reasonably foreseeable growth in Riverbank.
As discussed above, development associated with the Plan would comply with RWQCB treatment standards for wastewater. Buildout of the Plan would increase the volume of wastewater for treatment at the City WWTP; however, as this increase represents only approximately 0.6 percent of the existing peak treatment capacity, and as it would occur incrementally over a period of
12 Demand factors are the same used in the 2007 Sewer Collection System Master Plan, 2007. 13 City of Riverbank, 2007, 2007 Sewer Collection System Master Plan.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-12
20 years, it would not be cumulatively considerable, and would result in a lessthan-significant cumulative impact.
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Plan would not result in any significant impacts to wastewater; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.
B. Water Supply
1. Regulatory Framework
a. Federal Regulations
The following is federal regulations that affect water service in the Plan Area. i. Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), passed in 1974, is the initial federal legislation passed to ensure the quality of drinking water. The law was amended in 1986 and 1996, and requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources, such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and ground water wells.
14 Under SDWA, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the water suppliers that implement those standards. Regulatory standards established by the SDWA include maximum allowable levels of chemicals and other substances in drinking water, protocols for monitoring drinking water quality and methods for treating drinking water.
In 1976, California enacted its own Safe Drinking Water Act (Health and Safety Code Section 116270 et seq.), granting the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) primary enforcement responsibility. In 1989, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 21 (Sher, Chapter 823, Statutes of
14 United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/, accessed on May 7, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-13
1989), which amended California’s Safe Drinking Water Act.15 The law requires the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to regulate drinking water by:
¨ Setting and enforcing federal and State drinking water standards; ¨ Administering water quality testing programs; and
¨ Administering permits for public water system operations.
The standards established by the CDPH are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22.
b. State Regulations
The following are State regulations that affect water service in the Plan Area. i. Senate Bill 610 and Assembly Bill 901
Senate Bills (SB) 610 and Assembly Bill (AB) 901, Water Supply Planning, amend the Public Resources and Water Codes as they pertain to consultation with water supply agencies, urban water management plans, and State funding restrictions for agencies who do not prepare urban management plans and water supply assessments. SB 610 requires water supply assessments (WSAs) for "projects" (as defined by Water Code § 10912 and of which the Specific Plan is one such "project"), that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The basic requirement of WSAs is that they include a discussion of whether projected water supplies available during normal, single dry and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected demand of existing and planned future uses, plus the demand of the proposed project. If water demand is accounted for in an adopted Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the WSA may incorporate UWMP information. If the UWMP does not account for the project’s projected demand, the WSA must be based
15 California Senate Office of Research, http://www.sor.govoffice3.com/ vertical/Sites/%7b3bdd1595-792b-4d20-8d44-626ef05648c7%7d/uploads/%7bebdeb6f2- dbd7-4728-b2d3-c627be99185a%7d.pdf, accessed on May 7, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-14
on the available evidentiary record. If a project’s water supply includes groundwater, the WSA must include a review of UWMP information, a description of the relevant groundwater basin(s), a detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, a detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater projected to be pumped by the public water system and an analysis of whether groundwater is sufficient to supply projected water demand. Weston Solutions prepared a WSA for the RAAP site in 2011 and updated it in February 2013 (see Appendix D of this Draft EIR). The WSA is schedule to be approved by the City Council prior to adoption of this Draft EIR.16
ii. California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), which was passed in California in 1969, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has the ultimate authority over State water rights and water quality policy. Porter-Cologne also establishes nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional level. RWQCBs engage in a number of water quality functions in their respective regions. RWQCBs regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater. 17 Riverbank is overseen by the Central Valley RWQCB.
iii. California Urban Water Management Planning Act
Through the Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983, the California Water Code requires all urban water suppliers within California to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and update it every five years. This requirement applies to all suppliers providing water to more
16 Pam Carder, Riverbank Local Redevelopment Authority, email conversation with The Planning Center | DC&E, February 12, 2013.
17 California Wetlands Information System, Summary of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/permitting/Porter_ summary.html, accessed on May 7, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-15
than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet18 of water annually. The Act is intended to support conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies at the local level. The Act requires that total projected water use be compared to water supply sources over the next 20 years in five-year increments, that planning occur for single and multiple dry water years, and that plans include a water recycling analysis that incorporates a description of the wastewater collection and treatment system within the agency’s service area along with current and potential recycled water uses.19 The City of Riverbank has developed a UWMP and included the Plan Area in their future developments, as described below in detail.
iv. California Groundwater Management Act
The Groundwater Management Act of the California Water Code (AB 3030) provides guidance for applicable local agencies to develop voluntary Groundwater Management Plans (GMP) in State-designated groundwater basins. GMPs can allow agencies to raise revenue to pay for measures influencing the management of the basin, including extraction, recharge, conveyance, facilities’ maintenance, and water quality.20 Some groundwater basins in California are managed through adjudication, and groundwater rights of all the overliers and appropriators are determined by the court. The RAAP site is located within the Modesto Groundwater Subbasin, which has not been adjudicated. The groundwater aquifers serving the RAAP site are recharged by percolating groundwater. The RAAP wells will be owned by the City of Riverbank, and their use will be overseen by the
18 1 acre-foot is the amount of water required to cover 1 acre of ground (43,560 square feet) to a depth of 1-foot.
19 Department of Water Resources, About Urban Water Management, http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/, accessed on May 7, 2012. 20 Department of Water Resources Planning and Local Assistance Central District, Groundwater, Groundwater Management, http://www.cd.water.ca.gov/ groundwater/gwab3030.cfm, accessed on May 7, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-16
City of Riverbank and the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association, which includes the City of Riverbank.21 v. The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill x7-7) 22 Senate Bill x7-7 (SBx7-7) requires all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency. SBx7-7 mandates the reduction of per capita water use and agricultural water use throughout the state by 20 percent by 2020. vi. The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 1881)23 Assembly Bill 1881 requires cities and counties (including charter cities and counties) to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances by January 31, 2010 or to adopt a different ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water as the California Updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that went into effect in October 2009. 24 Until such time as the City's amendments are complete, the provisions of the Updated Model Landscape Ordinance are in effect.25 According to the California Department of Water Resources, the City of Riverbank has not adopted a landscape water conservation ordinance; therefore, the standards set forth in the Updated Model Landscape Ordinance would apply.26
21 Weston Solutions, 2013, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment for the Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant.
22 California Department of Water Resources, http://www.water.ca.gov/ wateruseefficiency/sb7/, accessed May 7, 2012.
23 California Department of Water Resources, http://www.water.ca.gov/ wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/, accessed May 7, 2012. 24 Division 2, Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 2.7, Sections 490 through 495.
25 AquaSave, AB 1881, http://aquasave.us/ab1881.html, accessed on May 7, 2012.
26 ftp://ftp.water.ca.gov/Model-Water-Efficient-Landscape-Ordinance/LocalOrdinances/, accessed on May 7, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-17
c. Local Regulations
Locally, wastewater treatment and planning is regulated at the city level, as described below.
i. City of Riverbank Urban Water Management Plan
The City of Riverbank adopted the 2007 UWMP in accordance with State of California Assembly Bill 797 and the Urban Water Management Planning Act, outlined in Section 10610 of Division 6 of the California Water Code.
The 2007 UWMP includes an assessment of groundwater supply for the General Plan Area, including the RAAP site. The UWMP development assumptions differ slightly from the draft Specific Plan, however the overall water demand assumptions are similar. The UWMP assumes that the majority of the RAAP site would be used for Industrial/Business Park development, with a small portion planned for Medium-Density Residential. The UWMP determines that there is adequate groundwater to supply existing development in the City of Riverbank as well as the planned development subareas. ii. City of Riverbank Water Supply Study and Water Master Plan (2007) The City of Riverbank prepared the Water Supply Study and Water Master Plan (Water Master Plan) in November 2007 to ensure that the City system can adequately meet the demands of development goals adopted in the General Plan. The Water Master Plan addresses four major issues: a) projected water demands based on land uses from the General Plan; b) the future supply and distribution system to accommodate expanded service areas; c) the capacity and condition of the existing distribution system; and d) a phased Capital Improvements Program (CIP) that provides appropriate infrastructure to support growth while remedying existing system deficiencies. iii. City of Riverbank General Plan
Goals and policies from the Riverbank General Plan that are relevant to water are listed in Table 4.17-3.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-18
TABLE 4.17-3 GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO
WATER SUPPLY
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Goal PUBLIC-1
Public service and infrastructure provision to meet or exceed level of service standards consistent with other community goals.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.2
New development must pay for the public facilities, services, and infrastructure required to serve the needs of such development based on service standards applied by the City. The mechanisms for such funding will be part of the development approval, or as set forth in any applicable development agreement or specific plan, which, with the approval of the City Council, may provide for alternative financing mechanisms in-lieu of City development fee programs and ordinances. The use of in-lieu fees or in-lieu financing will be reserved for communitywide facilities that serve areas beyond the proposed project or plan. Construction and dedication of facilities will be the method for providing facilities that serve the proposed project or plan area. The City may make exceptions on the basis of financial hardship or small projects or plans, allowing payment of an in-lieu fee.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.3
The City will require that new developments, depending on their size, either: 1) designate lands in appropriate locations, sizes, and free of constraints to accommodate public facilities and infrastructure needed to serve such development, or 2) pay a fee proportional to the development’s cost of acquiring such land at the time acquisition will be required.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.6
The City will require that the methods, materials, and design of infrastructure and utilities achieve the City’s environmental, public health and safety, and community character goals and policies, in addition to the City’s level of service standards for public services, facilities, and infrastructure.
Policy
PUBLIC-1.7
New development projects shall provide compatible utility services in common trenching to minimize the land required and ongoing costs for underground services.
Goal PUBLIC-2 Adequate supply of quality water to serve existing and future projected development needs.
Policy
PUBLIC-2.1
The City will require that water supply, treatment, and delivery meet or exceed local, State, and federal standards.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-19
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Policy
PUBLIC-2.2
The City will manage and enhance the City’s water supply and facilities to accommodate existing and planned development, as identified in the City’s Water Master Plan, Urban Water Management Plan, and Groundwater Source Efficiency Report.
Policy
PUBLIC-2.3
New developments shall incorporate water conservation techniques to reduce water demand in new growth areas, including the use of reclaimed water for landscaping and irrigation.
Policy
PUBLIC-2.4
The City will condition approval of new developments on demonstrating the availability of adequate water supply and infrastructure, including multiple dry years, as addressed in the City’s Water Master Plan, Urban Water Management Plan, and Groundwater Source Efficiency Report.
Source: City of Riverbank, 2006, General Plan 2005-2025.
2. Existing Conditions
Currently, the RAAP operates a water system that serves the entire facility, including 26 service connections at points throughout the RAAP site. There are a total of six wells on the site, identified as Wells 1 through 6; only Wells 1, 5, and 6 are operational. Treatment of the water supply is accomplished at the well head by gas chlorination. It is assumed that the wells and the water system in the Plan Area will be managed by the Riverbank Local Redevelopment Authority (RLRA) when the Plan is adopted. a. Existing Water Supply
The RAAP site is located within the Modesto Groundwater Subbasin. The subbasin is bounded to the north by the Stanislaus River, to the south by the Tuolumne River, to the east by the bedrock of the foothills, and to the west by the San Joaquin River. The Stanislaus River is a significant source of groundwater recharge to the subbasin.
Within the Modesto Groundwater Subbasin, groundwater is found in a total of four aquifers. However, only two of the four aquifers underlie the RAAP site: 1) deep confined aquifers within consolidated sediments of the Mehrten,
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-20
Valley Springs, and Ione formations; and 2) the shallow unconfined Forebay aquifers consisting of the Laguna, Turlock Lake, and Riverbank formations.27 The existing RAAP groundwater supply system consists of three production wells, Wells 1, 5, and 6. Two additional wells, Wells No. 2 and 3 are not currently permitted for potable use. Well No. 4 was abandoned immediately after its construction due to high nitrate concentrations. The capacity of the each well is shown in Table 4.17-4.
TABLE 4.17-4 WATER WELL INFORMATION
Source
Capacity
(gpm)
Depth
(Feet) Status
Well 1 765 gpm 430 Standby
Well 2 715 gpm 372 Standby – Not approved for Potable Use Well 3 710 gpm 185 Standby – Not approved for Potable Use Well 5 1100 gpm 710 Active
Well 6 1500 gpm 605 Active
Source: Weston Solutions, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment for the Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, 2013.
The RAAP site has one existing water storage tank. The tank has a 100,000- gallon capacity but is presently operated over a range of 0 to 40,000 gallons.
Seismic analysis led to the tank being restricted to 40,000 gallons. The low waterline on the tank is 106 feet above grade, resulting in a static pressure of 46 per square inch (psi) at grade. At the maximum water level, the static pressure is at 50 psi at grade. The two primary wells are used to supply the pota-
27 Weston Solutions, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment for the Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, 2013.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-21
ble distribution system via this elevated tank. Much of the distribution system on the RAAP site varies from 60 to 80 years old.28 b. Water Demand
Based on historical pumping data, the average day demand between 1992 and 2003 ranged between 18,208 gallons per day (gpd) and 64,473 gpd.29 The WSA has estimated the water demands for the development proposed by the draft Specific Plan based on the assumptions used in the 2007 UWMP and the 2007 Water Master Plan, as shown in Table 4.17-5. The estimated demands for the RAAP site in the WSA are slightly lower than the ones in the 2007 UWMP30 because the proposed Plan does not include residential development, while the 2007 UWMP assumed residential development on the RAAP site.
TABLE 4.17-5 WSA ESTIMATED DEMAND
Parcel
Gross
Acreage
Demand
Factor
(gpd/acre)
Average
Daily
Demand
(gpd)
Maximum
Daily
Demand
(gpd)
Peak
Hour
Demand
(gpm)
Yearly
Demand
(acre-ft/
year)
Main Plant 75.6 2,000 105,840 243,432 257 119
Other parcels
within the Plan
Area
53 2,000 74,200 170,660 181 83
Total 128.6 180,040 414,092 438 202
Source: Weston Solutions, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment Final, 2013.
28 Weston Solutions, Operations and Infrastructure Assessment – Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, July 2010.
29 Weston Solutions, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment Final, 2013. Data between 2004 and present is not available.
30 The 2007 UWMP estimated a total average daily demand of 185,656 gpd for the RAAP site.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-22
c. Future Water Supply Needs
The 2007 UWMP analyzed the projected water supply during hydrologic normal, single dry, and multiple dry years for the General Plan. The 2007 UWMP found that the groundwater pumping rates would fall within the safe yield of the groundwater basin, and future groundwater extraction within the General Plan area would fall within the recharge capacity of the basin, as shown in Table 4.17-6.
TABLE 4.17-6 UWMP SUPPLY AND DEMAND (ACRE-FT/YEAR)
2005
Pre-Plan
Implementation
2012
Buildout
2016
Single
Dry
Year
2022
Normal
2030
MultiDry Years
Supply Capacity 88,956 78,982 63,180 78,982 47,419
Projected Demand 26,843 21,091 18,982 21,091 17,927
Groundwater
Supply Reserve 62,113 57,891 44,198 57,891 28,492
Source: City of Riverbank, 2007 UWMP, 2007.
The 2007 UWMP proposes to install six new wells in the eastern area of Riverbank, each sized at 1,500 gpm, to service development in Planning Subarea 2 and Planning Subarea 3. The RAAP site is part of Planning Subarea 3.
Four of the wells would be used to supply average and maximum daily demand, and the remaining two wells would be used as emergency standby.
The 2007 UWMP does not plan to use the existing RAAP on-site wells. d. Water Quality
The RAAP water supply system currently operates under the following permits issued by the California Department of Health Services, Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management Branch:
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-23
¨ Original Permit No. 03-10-03P-005 issued 5/14/2003 – Approves Wells 1, 5, and 6 for potable water supply.
¨ Permit Amendment No. 03-10-05PA-004 issued 04/15/2005 – Changes status of Well 1 from “Active” to “Standby.”
3. Standards of Significance
The Plan would have a significant impact related to water supply if it would:
a. Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.
4. Impacts Discussion
a. Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
The WSA for the Plan Area has calculated the water demands from the Plan development, as shown in Table 4.17-5, and concludes that the two active onsite wells and the storage tank within the Plan Area have enough capacity to serve the RAAP redevelopment for the next 20 years.
While the WSA concludes the existing water treatment facilities are sufficient for development under the proposed Plan, the Plan recommends adding storage tanks to the RAAP site or connecting to the City system on Claus Road via a minimum 4-inch pipe and the looped distribution system near Building 9.
Moreover, the 2007 UWMP has included a consideration of development in the Plan Area over the next 20 years even though the WSA does not assume connecting to the City’s water supply systems. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Plan would not include any improvements that are not already included in the 2007 UWMP or in the 2007 Water Master Plan. Additionally,
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-24
future development from the Plan would be subject to associated fees and charges levied on all new development as described in Section A.1.c.iv.
As a result, the impact of the proposed Plan on water treatment facilities would be less than significant.
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.
The WSA prepared for the Plan concludes that the two active on-site wells, which have the total capacity of approximately 2,600 gpm, would exceed the estimated peak hour demand of 438 gpm and the yearly demand of 202 afy for the proposed Plan. Moreover, because the on-site wells are screened within the same aquifers as the City’s portable wells and the City has adequate groundwater supply reserve to supply the RAAP site, as shown in Table
4.17-6, the WSA concludes that the on-site wells have sufficient capacity to meet the future demands for the proposed Plan. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact from having an insufficient water supply.
5. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential cumulative impacts to water supply that could occur from buildout of the Plan in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in Riverbank and the surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the City of Riverbank sphere of influence (SOI), as defined in the Riverbank General Plan. Cumulative impacts would be significant if development associated with the Plan together with other projects in the Riverbank SOI would result in insufficient water supply, construction of new water treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities.
In the 2007 UWMP and the 2007 Water Master Plan, the City assessed future water demand for its service area, which includes the City of Riverbank SOI.
The 2007 UWMP determined that the groundwater supply reserve of 29,492 afy under multiple dry years will be sufficient to accommodate future demand in the service area through 2030. The 2007 Water Master Plan also identified
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-25
existing deficiencies in water treatment capacity in the service area and taken action to correct them through the CIP Program. Therefore, all reasonably foreseeable projects have been considered in the 2007 UWMP and the 2007 Water Master Plan assessments. Consequently, the proposed Plan would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact on water supply.
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Plan would not result in any significant impacts to water supply; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.
C. Stormwater
1. Regulatory Framework
There are several laws and policy documents that affect the requirements and infrastructure needs for water quality and stormwater discharge in the Specific Plan Area, as well as flood protection. The most important of these are described below.
a. Federal Regulations
i. Federal Water Pollution Control Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to develop lists of water bodies that would not attain water quality objectives after implementation of required levels of treatment by pointsource dischargers (municipalities and industries). Section 303(d) requires the State to develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for each of the pollutants impacting the listed water bodies. The TMDL is the amount of loading that the water body can receive and still be in compliance with water quality objectives. The TMDL can also act as a plan to reduce loading of a specific pollutant from various sources to achieve compliance with water quality objectives. After implementation of the TMDL, it is anticipated that the problems that led to placement of a given water body on the Section 303(d) list would be remediated.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-26
Section 402(p) of the CWA establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. 31 Section 402(p) requires that stormwater associated with industrial activity that discharges either directly to surface waters or indirectly through municipal separate storm sewers must be regulated by a NPDES permit. On December 8, 1999, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) circulated Phase II regulations for non-point sources requiring permits for stormwater. Permits will be required for discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4s) operators.32 In California, the NPDES program is administered by the State (see below).
b. State Regulations and Agencies
i. State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is responsible for implementing the CWA and does so through issuing NPDES permits to cities and counties through regional water quality control boards. Federal regulations allow two permitting options for stormwater discharges – individual permits and general permits. The SWRCB elected to adopt a statewide general permit (Water Quality Order No. 2003-0004-DWQ) for MS4s covered under the CWA to efficiently regulate numerous stormwater discharges under a single permit. Permitees must meet the requirements in Provision D of
31 Authorized by the CWA, the permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources (discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches) that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. In most cases, the NPDES permit program is administered by authorized states with oversight from the EPA. Summarized from the EPA website, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/, accessed on July 21, 2009.
32 Small MS4s are publicly owned conveyances or conveyance systems of ditches, curbs, or underground pipes that divert stormwater into the surface waters of the State. Summarized from the EPA website, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/ stormwater/munic.cfm, accessed on July 21, 2009.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-27
the General Permit, which require development and implementation of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. A SWMP for the RAAP site was prepared by Weston Solutions in 2011.
The RAAP holds a NPDES General Permit for discharges of stormwater associated with industrial activities. Stormwater permits are general State permits where dischargers need to comply with permit and plan requirements (i.e. maintain a program that meets permit conditions and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that details how the facility will meet the requirements). Compliance with the general permit requires inspections, control of runoff from industrial areas and sampling of discharges. The permit states that when the operator changes a new Notice of Intent, site map, and fee should be submitted by the new operator.33
ii. Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act outlines the specific responsibilities of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB), and the procedures for coordinating with the SWQCB to meet federal CWA standards. Stanislaus County falls within the Central Valley Region, which is the largest in the State, stretching from the Oregon border south to Los Angeles County. It encompasses 60,000 square miles, or about 40 percent of the State’s total area, and includes 38 of the State’s 58 counties. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) headquarters are in Sacramento with branch offices in Redding and Fresno.
The CVRWQCB’s mission is to “preserve and enhance the quality of California’s water resources for the benefit of present and future generations.” This duty is carried out by formulating and adopting water quality control plans for specific ground and surface water basins and by prescribing and enforcing requirements on waste discharges. As mentioned above, jurisdictions
33 State Water Resources Control Board, NPDES General Permit to discharge of stormwater associated with industrial activity, WDID ID No. 5S50I015886, 2000.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-28
submit various water quality and stormwater plans to the regional and State boards for approvals.34
c. Local Regulations and Agencies
i. City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
Goals, policies, and programs from the Riverbank General Plan that are relevant to stormwater are listed in Table 4.17-7.
2. Existing Conditions
In general, stormwater runoff is collected in numerous inlets located around the site that connect to a main storm drain line. The main storm drain line carries flows towards the north, opposite the surface grade. At Gate 10, flow is directed through a diversion structure. A valve located at the discharge of the diversion structure remains open allowing stormwater runoff to travel through the diversion structure and down a 36-inch pipe towards a lift station, located adjacent to the north stormwater reservoir. Pumps 1 and 2 of the lift station convey flow into the north reservoir. This reservoir is designed as a detention basin that allows for temporary stormwater runoff to facilitate settling of suspended sediment. Two outlets, with approximately one foot of elevation difference, are provided in the reservoir to discharge water into the Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) 30-inch diameter line that runs parallel to the north side of the reservoir. Between rain events, some water remains in the reservoir, below the outlets, and either evaporates, infiltrates into the ground, or is used by the vegetation that grows in the basin.
The lift station located near the reservoir has a third smaller pump that conveys stormwater from the lift station directly to the OID pipe during periods of excessive rain.
Rodents, mainly squirrels, have dug a large hole completely through the south bank of the reservoir. The hole is located a short distance above the normal level of standing water in the reservoir; therefore, the holding capacity of the reservoir is greatly reduced. The lower elevation outlet is normally
34 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/about_us/water_boards_structure/ mission.shtml, accessed on May 9, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-29
TABLE 4.17-7 GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO
STORMWATER
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Goal PUBLIC-4 Storm drainage systems that protect public safety, preserve natural resources, and prevent erosion and flood potential.
Policy
PUBLIC-4.1
The City will maintain and improve, as necessary, existing public storm basins and flood control facilities, as identified in the Stormwater Master Plan.
Policy
PUBLIC-4.2
The City will coordinate with County and Regional agencies, as well as the railroad, in the maintenance and improvement of storm drainage facilities to protect the City’s residents, property, and structures from flood hazards.
Policy
PUBLIC-4.3
The City will consider a variety of means for floodplain management, depending on the context, which may include development, improvement, and maintenance of structural flood control facilities; land use policy and zoning to prohibit incompatible urban development within the floodplain; erosion control techniques; setbacks from flood-prone areas; and other measures, as circumstances dictate.
Policy
PUBLIC-4.5
New development shall be designed to control surface runoff discharges to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and the receiving water limitations assigned by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Policy
PUBLIC-4.6
The City will establish and new development shall implement nonpoint source pollution control measures and programs designed to reduce and control the discharge of pollutants into the City's storm drains and river.
Policy
PUBLIC-4.7
The City will require minimization of the amount of new impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment and, where feasible, maximize on-site infiltration of stormwater runoff.
Source: City of Riverbank, 2006, General Plan 2005-2025. closed allowing the reservoir to fill to the higher inlet level prior to discharge, but since the squirrel hole was discovered, the valve for the lower elevation outlet has been left in the open position.35
35 Weston Solutions, Stormwater Master Plan Final Report for the Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, February 25, 2011.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-30
The north reservoir has a design capacity of approximately 3.0 million gallons (MGAL). More specifically, the capacity includes 1.5 MGAL in the west side, which typically has approximately 2 feet of ponding water, and 1.5 MGAL in the east side, or overflow side, which is typically dry.
A small portion of the site drains to the south stormwater reservoir, located near the southeast corner of the site. A lift station adjacent to the south stormwater reservoir pumps runoff from the reservoir to the south end, or high side, of the above-mentioned main storm drain.
Generally, the system is operating properly but has some deficiencies. The deficiencies include cracked or offset joints, horizontal or vertical cracking in the concrete pipe, and low areas in pipes where waste is settling. According to the Stormwater Master Plan, prepared by Weston Solutions, the existing storm drain main line piping is considerably undersized when compared with current standards. The current system is capable of conveying stormwater runoff from storm events with roughly a two-year return period or less, while the County Standards require a capacity of 10-year return period or larger for new systems. Additionally, the 10-year storm would require approximately
1.0 acre-feet of storage volume, which is greater than the storage volume provided by the existing lift station, and thus the excess runoff would be stored as ponding water around various inlets and low points, which results in flooding.
3. Standards of Significance
The Plan would have a significant impact related to stormwater if it would:
a. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-31
4. Impacts Discussion
a. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Development under the proposed Plan would have the potential to cause significant impacts by increasing stormwater runoff associated with construction activities and increasing impermeable surfaces, thereby placing greater demands on the stormwater handling system. Runoff from developed surfaces, building roofs, parking lots, and roads also contain impurities and has the potential to increase flooding.
The General Plan goals and policies call for the provision of an adequate drainage infrastructure, in order to protect public safety, preserve natural resources, and prevent erosion and flood potential, as described in Section C.1 of this chapter. Goal PUB-1 of the draft Specific Plan requires that adequate facilities are provided that serve the needs of new development. Policy PUB-1 specifies that investment is made in new “backbone” infrastructure on the North and South End Cap properties to attract new development at the RAAP. Additionally, Policy PUB-2 ensures that adequate infrastructure is provided as necessary to support new development. Furthermore the draft Specific Plan includes Goal PUB-2 and Policy PUB-3 that call for sustainable infrastructure that exhibits principles of low-impact development (LID) and “green” infrastructure, such as on-site stormwater management, water reclamation, permeable surfaces, solar, and clean energy. With these goals and policies in place, buildout of the proposed Plan would not increase demands on the stormwater handling system, and stormwater facilities would be upgraded and expanded, as necessary to facilitate development within the project site. As a result, a less-than-signficant impact would occur on stormwater treatment facilities.
5. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to stormwater systems that could occur from the proposed Plan in combination with other reasonably foreseeable
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-32
projects in the surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the City of Riverbank SOI, as defined in the Riverbank General Plan.
As described above, all the stormwater from the Plan Area would be treated on site. Development under the proposed Plan would comply with draft Specific Plan Goal PUB-2 and Policy PUB-3 and includes low impact development and sustainable design approaches for stormwater management.
With Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 in place, cumulative impacts to stormwater systems would therefore be less than significant.
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impacts and mitigation measures have been identified with regard to stormwater.
Impact UTIL-1: Buildout of the Plan would require improvements to existing stormwater facilities. The existing stormwater pipes have areas where there are improperly functioning gravity systems, cracked or offset joins, or vertical and/or horizontal pipe cracks. Other deficiencies in the existing stormwater system include the squirrel hole in the reservoir and the undersized main line piping. With the existing deficiencies, the proposed Plan would have the potential to increase flooding. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: The Stormwater Master Plan for the proposed Plan recommends the following measures:
¨ Manholes should be repaired to ensure the lids seal properly to prevent inflow and infiltration of storm water during rain events. ¨ In order to mitigate the possible contamination of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) within the storm drain, one of the following options could be implemented:
Ÿ Clean and apply a lining or coating to all affected storm drain pipes;
Ÿ Replace affected storm drain pipes with larger pipes;
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-33
Ÿ A combination of lining a portion of the storm drain pipes and replacing other storm drain pipes: this involves adding a second pipe between the north reservoir lift station and the diversion structure located near Gate 10. Also includes replacing storm drain piping, with larger pipe size, from the diversion structure to the Building Group.
¨ Current County Standards require new systems to have a capacity to convey storm events equal to the 10-year return period or larger. Lining the interior of affected piping is a cost effective way to mitigate potential contamination of pipes while providing approximately the same (slightly improved) level of service in relation to stormwater conveyance.
¨ If there are opportunities to upgrade the lift station pumping capacity in the future, the LRA should use that opportunity to significantly increase lift station capacity. Increasing size (i.e. conveyance capacity) of storm drain piping upstream from the north lift station will not be effective unless the lift station capacity is increased. ¨ Improvements to the existing north reservoir should be completed at the LRA’s earliest opportunity. The squirrel hole(s) in the reservoir bank should be repaired and the lower outlet valve returned to the normal operating position (i.e. closed). This would allow more storage capacity of the reservoir prior to discharge, which would allow more time for suspended soils to settle out in stormwater traveling through the reservoir during rainfall events. Currently, the exterior bank slope is approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The slopes may be reduced as much possible within the constraints of space allotted to the reservoir (i.e. approximately 3:1) to reduce the possibility of the rodent holes extending through the bank. Additionally, the repaired slopes may be hardened with rock or crushed brick to make it more difficult for rodents to penetrate the surface.
¨ To determine the performance of the reservoir outlets, a detailed hydraulic analysis of the OID piping would need to be accomplished.
The 10-year and 50-year storm events produce approximately 4.0
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-34
MGAL and 4.2 MGAL, respectively. Therefore, the combined outlet piping would need to discharge approximately 1.0 to 1.2 MGAL to prevent the reservoir from becoming full and having water overtopping the banks during these types of storm events. In order to discharge 1.2 MGAL, the outlet piping would need to discharge at an average rate of 3.2 cubic feet per second (cfs) over a 24-hour period.
This is a relatively small flow rate and most likely the discharge piping connected to the OID piping and overflow piping would prevent the reservoir from reaching maximum capacity during these types of storms events (i.e. approximately 3.2 cfs is the minimum required and unrestricted gravity flow to OID piping would be approximately 10 cfs, if the OID piping was empty and able to accept full gravity flow). ¨ If the properties around the reservoir are developed, additional analysis to determine the OID piping hydraulic capacity should be conducted and, if needed, the north reservoir should be increased in size to prevent potential flooding of the newly developed sites. By removing the earthen divider and extending the basin to the northeast by approximately 120 feet, the reservoir capacity could be increased to approximately 4.5 MGAL. This would provide the additional capacity necessary to ensure the basin can adequately store stormwater runoff from larger events even if the OID has little or no capacity to receive water from the reservoir outlets. ¨ Based on the results of percolation testing, the soils within the site appear to have adequate capacity to infiltrate stormwater directed into basins, swales, or rain gardens. Final design for these areas of the site should include additional percolation testing in order to estimate infiltration rates at the locations and depths of final design basins and other LID components proposed within these areas. ¨ Future development should include LID features to the maximum extent practical, and at a minimum LID components (in additional to large infiltration basins) should cover 15 percent of the total site area.
This minimum percentage is based on the example site layout conducted as part of this study that incorporates LID features into a prac-
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-35
tical commercial site layout. The LID components may include, but not be limited to the following:
Ÿ Shallow infiltration basins
Ÿ Bioretention basin / rain gardens
Ÿ Porous concrete within parking stalls
Ÿ Rainwater harvesting system (cisterns and/or rain barrels) ¨ In addition to structural LID components, sites should be designed to minimize continuous impervious surfaces where possible. This includes providing landscaping around buildings and breaks between roadways and sidewalks. This also includes generally reducing the amount of impervious surfaces around sites.
Significance After Mitigation: This impact would be less than significant after implementation of this mitigation measure.
D. Solid Waste
This section describes existing conditions and potential impacts of the Plan with regard to solid waste services.
1. Regulatory Framework
a. State Regulations
Solid waste handling and disposal is regulated at the State level. Specific regulations relevant to the proposed Plan are described below. i. California Integrated Waste Management Act
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939 or Public Resources Code Section 40050 et seq.)36 set a requirement for cities and counties throughout the State to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000, though source reduction, recycling and composting. To help achieve this, the Act requires that each city and county prepare and submit a Source Reduction and Recycling Element. AB 939 also established the goal
36 Public Resources Code Section 40050-40063, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov /cgi-bin/displaycode?section=prc&group=40001-41000&file=40050-40063, accessed on May 4, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-36
for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of on-going landfill capacity.
In 2007, SB 1016 amended AB 939 to establish a per capita disposal measurement system. The per capita disposal measurement system is based on two factors: a jurisdiction’s reported total disposal of solid waste divided by a jurisdiction’s population. CIWMB, now known as the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), sets a target per capita disposal rate for each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction must submit an annual report to CIWMB with an update of its progress in implementing diversion programs and its current per capital disposal rate.37
Stanislaus County and the cities of Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Newman, Oakdale, Patterson, Riverbank, Turlock and Waterford developed a Countywide lntegrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) that identified strategies for meeting the 50 percent diversion goal. The CIWMP consists of: Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRRE), Household Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWE), and Non-Disposal Facility Elements (NDFE) for each individual jurisdiction, plus a countywide Siting Element and Summary Plan.
The State of California Public Resources Code (PRC) requires each jurisdiction or agency to review its CIWMP at least once every five years. The CIWMP Five-Year Review Report for the County of Stanislaus was approved by the CalRecycle in June 2011.
ii. California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (Public Resources Code Sections 42900 et seq.)38 requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The Act required the CIWMB to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local
37 California Integrated Waste Management Board, http://www.calrecycle. ca.gov/LGCentral/Basics/PerCapitaDsp.htm#Jurisdiction, accessed on May 7, 2012. 38 Public Resources Code Section 42900-42901, http://www.leginfo.ca. gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=47078826743+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve, accessed on May 7, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-37
agency relating to adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model, or an ordinance of their own, governing adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials in development projects. b. Local Regulations and Agencies
i. City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
Goals, policies, and programs from the Riverbank General Plan that are relevant to solid waste services are listed in Table 4.17-8.
TABLE 4.17-8 GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO SOLID WASTE
Goal/Policy
Number Goal/Policy Content
Goal PUBLIC-5 Adequate capacity for solid waste disposal.
Policy
PUBLIC-5.1
The City will approve new development projects only if adequate capacity exists to accommodate solid waste demand, including processing, recycling, transportation, and disposal.
Policy
PUBLIC-5.2
The City will encourage provision of recycling and conservation service and public education to reduce the amount of solid waste at the landfill.
Source: City of Riverbank, 2006, General Plan 2005-2025.
2. Existing Conditions
Gilton Solid Waste (GSW) collects solid waste from residences and businesses from Riverbank, including the Plan Area. GSW serves approximately 6,600 residences in the City. Annually, GSW hauls approximately 11,600 tons of waste from Riverbank residential customers, or about 1.76 tons per household. GSW hauls approximately 3,000 tons of waste from commercial sources and approximately 2,300 tons of waste from industrial and construction sources annually in the City.39
39 Dennis Shuler, Environmental Affairs Manager, Gilton Solid Waste Management, Inc. Email communication with The Planning Center | DC&E, on May 10, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-38
As the franchise waste hauler, GSW is contractually obligated to accommodate any increase in the need for residential and commercial waste management services. Solid waste hauled by GSW from Riverbank is taken to the Gilton Resource Recovery/Transfer Facility. At the Gilton Resource Recovery/Transfer Facility, much of the recyclable and compostable materials are removed. Residual waste requiring disposal is deposited in two landfills and a waste-to-energy facility: the Forward, Inc. landfill in San Joaquin County, the Fink Road Landfill administered by the County of Stanislaus Public Works Department, and the Covanta Stanislaus administered by the County of Stanislaus Department of Environmental Resources in Stanislaus County. 40 Covanta Stanislaus is an Energy-from-Waste facility that converts municipal solid waste (MSW) into clean, renewable energy. The facility operates two MSW-fired combustors capable of processing approximately 400 tons per day.
41 The Waste-to-Energy Facility was developed via a public-private partnership among Covanta Stanislaus, Inc., Stanislaus County, and the City of Modesto. Contractually, Covanta Stanislaus is obligated to process at least 243,300 tons of waste annually and the contracting communities, including Stanislaus County and the City of Modesto, are obligated to deliver at least this same amount annually. The facility has processed an average of 253,710 tons per calendar year in the last five years (2007 through 2011).42 This facility has a permitted capacity of 1,700 tons per day.43
40 Dennis Shuler, Environmental Affairs Manager, Gilton Solid Waste Management, Inc. Email communication with The Planning Center | DC&E, on May 10, 2012.
41Covanta Stanislaus website, http://www.covantaenergy.com/en/facilities/ facility-by-location/stanislaus/about.aspx, accessed on May 7, 2012. 42 Jami Aggers, Assistant Director, Stanislaus County, Department of Environmental Resources. Email communication with The Planning Center | DC&E, on May 3, 2012.
43 CalRecycle, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/, accessed on May 7, 2012.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-39
Under the current permit issued in 2007, the Fink Road Landfill is permitted to receive 2,400 tons per day and estimated to close by 2023.44 However, according to the Department of Environmental Resources, the Fink Road Landfill has remaining capacity that is estimated to extend to 2029 at the average disposal rate of approximately 400 tons per day.45 Currently, the facility is pursuing an interior expansion that will add an estimated 10 to 15 years of additional disposal capacity if approved. CEQA for this project was certified by the Board of Supervisors in February 2010, and the development of the application for a revised Solid Waste Facility Permit is underway.46 Under the permit issued in 2012, the Forward Landfill has a permitted capacity of 8,668 tons per day, and its estimated closure date is in 2012.47 In 2010, the Stanislaus County Regional Solid Waste Planning Agency, which the City of Riverbank is included, disposed 299,257 tons of solid waste and achieved a disposal rate of 3.9 pounds per person per day (ppd), which is better than the AB939 goal of 6.3 ppd. 48 3. Standards of Significance
The Plan would have a significant impact related to solid waste if it would:
a. Not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
44 CalRecycle, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/, accessed on May 7, 2012. 45 Jami Aggers, Assistant Director, Stanislaus County, Department of Environmental Resources. Email communication with The Planning Center | DC&E, on May 3, 2012.
46 Jami Aggers, Assistant Director, Stanislaus County, Department of Environmental Resources. Email communication with The Planning Center | DC&E, on May 3, 2012.
47 CalRecycle, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/39-AA0015/Detail/, accessed on May 7, 2012. 48 CalRecycle, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/Diversion Program/JurisdictionDiversionDetail.aspx?JurisdictionID=616&Year=2010, accessed on May 4, 2012. Data for individual cities is not available.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-40
b. Not comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
4. Impacts Discussion
a. Insufficient Landfill Capacity
Solid waste from the proposed Plan site would be transferred to the Forward, Inc. landfill in San Joaquin County, the Fink Road Landfill, and the Covanta Waste-to-Energy Facility in Stanislaus County. As described above, the Covanta is permitted to receive up to 1,700 tons of waste per day, and the Fink Road Landfill is expected to receive approximately 400 tons per day by 2029 and will add an estimated 10 to 15 years of additional disposal capacity if approved.
As mentioned above, the California Integrated Waste Management Act requires that jurisdictions maintain a 50 percent or better diversion rate for solid waste. The Stanislaus County Regional Solid Waste Planning Agency has achieved this goal from 2006 to 2010, the latest available data.49 The CIWMB jurisdictional profile for the Stanislaus County Regional Solid Waste Planning Agency indicates that 3.9 pounds of solid waste per resident and 16 pounds per job is generated daily in 2010. Buildout of the Plan would be expected to create as many as 1,654 new jobs in Riverbank,50 which would result in an additional 13.2 tons of solid waste per day or 4,818 tons annually. Maximum total solid waste generated from the Plan would therefore be approximately
13.2 per day, which is 0.8 percent of the permitted daily capacity of the Covanta, 3.3 percent of the daily capacity of the Fink Road Landfill, or 0.2 percent of the daily capacity of the Forward Landfill. Even through the Forward Landfill would close in 2012; the other two facilities would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the Plan's solid waste disposal needs.
Moreover, the City has set an agreement with the franchised trash disposal companies, such as GSW, to ensure that each franchises is responsible for
49 Department of Environmental Resources, Stanislaus County Five-Year CIWMP Review Report, June 2011.
50 See Chapter 4.13, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-41
meeting the minimum recycling diversion rate of 50 percent on a quarterly basis. Future development in the Plan Area would comply with the GSW’s recycling system, and thus, would meet the City’s and California’s solid waste diversion regulations. Additionally, implementation of goals and policies contained in the Riverbank General Plan would ensure that sufficient landfill capacity is provided and would accommodate the buildout of the proposed Plan. Development under the draft Specific Plan would have a less-thansignificant impact on solid waste disposal and landfill capacity. b. Compliance with Solid Waste Statues and Regulations
As part of the City of Riverbank, the Plan Area would be subject to existing Municipal Code and General Plan policies that govern compliance with existing federal, state, and local statutes and regulations pertaining to solid waste.
Additionally, as discussed above, the County of Stanislaus has adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), a Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE), and a Non-Disposal Facility Element (NDFE) in compliance with AB939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Implementation of strategies and programs from these plans allowed the County to meet the State mandated waste diversion goal of 50 percent from 2006 to 2010. These programs are sufficient to ensure that future development in the Plan Area would not compromise the ability to meet or perform better than State the mandated target. Therefore, development under the proposed Plan would comply with applicable statutes and regulations and the impact would be less than significant.
5. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to solid waste services that could occur from a combination of the proposed Plan with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the GSW service area. A cumulative impact would be considered significant if, taken together with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the GSW service area, it would result in an insufficient landfill capacity or conflict with solid waste statutes and regulations.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
UTILITIES AND SERVIC E SYSTEMS
4.17-42
The proposed Plan would not make a significant contribution to cumulative impacts relating to solid waste management or disposal. The General Plan policies will ensure that sufficient landfill capacity is provided throughout Riverbank, including the GSW service area. As described above, future development in the GSW service area would comply with the GSW’s recycling system, and thus, would meet the City’s and California’s 50-percent solid waste diversion regulations. Additionally, GSW future plans include improving and updating the equipment and operating capabilities of GSW facility.51 According to the CIWMP Five-Year Review Report, there would be sufficient landfill capacity until 2025. For the years beyond 2025, goals established by AB 939 will continue to ensure that all California counties provide at least 15 years of on-going landfill capacity. Therefore, cumulative impacts from the proposed Plan would be less than significant.
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Plan would not result in any significant impacts to solid waste; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.
51 Dennis Shuler, Environmental Affairs Manager, Gilton Solid Waste Management, Inc. Email communication with The Planning Center | DC&E, on May 10, 2012.
5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-1
The RAAP Specific Plan was described and analyzed in the previous chapters with an emphasis on potentially significant impacts and recommended mitigation measures to avoid those impacts. The State CEQA Guidelines require the description and comparative analysis of a range of alternatives to the Specific Plan or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects. The Guidelines also require that an EIR evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives, focusing on alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives, or would be more costly (CEQA Guideline Section 15126.6(a), (b)). “There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed [in an EIR] other than the rule of reason” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). Under the rule of reason, an EIR need discuss only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). An EIR need only contain a “range of reasonable alternatives to the project” which would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant [impacts] of the project” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)).
The following discussion is intended to inform the public and decision makers of the feasible alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project.
A. Alternatives Evaluated
CEQA requires that an EIR analyze a "no project" alternative (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)). Where, as here, this alternative means a proposed project would not proceed, the discussion "[sh]ould compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project is approved” (Id. at (e)(3)(B)).
RI VERBANK LOCAL REDEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
ALTERNATIVES
5-2
CEQA Guidelines also require that the environmentally superior alternative be designated. If the alternative with the least environmental impact is the No Project Alternative, then the EIR must also designate the next most environmentally superior alternative.
The three alternatives are as follows:
¨ No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, the RAAP site would retain its existing zoning designations and land uses. Since the existing structures could be leased in its current condition, without any further discretionary approval from the City, this alternative assumes reoccupancy of the existing buildings in their current condition. ¨ Reduced Density Alternative. This alternative would reduce the intensity of proposed land uses in order to reduce impacts to air quality, cultural resources, noise, and traffic. This alternative would also prohibit demolition of the existing structures, which contribute to the eligibility of a historic district, to avoid impacts to cultural resources. ¨ Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative. This alternative would reconfigure the site in order to reduce impacts to biological resources and cultural resources. Specifically, the existing structures would not be demolished, and new buildings would have smaller footprints and heights compared to the proposed project.
B. Comparison of Alternatives
Table 5-1 presents a comparative summary of the alternatives considered in this analysis. Each alternative is analyzed against the impact factors considered for the Specific Plan, according to whether it would have a mitigating or adverse effect. The basis for the determinations presented in Table 5-1 is presented in the next section of this chapter, where each of the topics listed is evaluated for each alternative.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
ALTERNATIVES
5-3
TABLE 5-1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Topic
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
Density
Alternative
Reconfigured
Site Plan
Alternative
Aesthetics - 0 0
Agriculture and Forestry
Resources + 0 0
Air Quality ++ + 0
Biological Resources + + +
Cultural Resources ++ ++ ++
Geology and Soils - - 0 0
Greenhouse Gas Emissions + + 0
Mineral Resources 0 0 0
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials 0 + +
Hydrology and Water
Quality - + +
Land Use and Planning - 0 0
Noise ++ + 0
Population, Housing, and
Employment 0 0 0
Public Services + + 0
Recreation 0 0 0
Transportation and Traffic ++ + +
Utilities and Service Systems + 0 0
Project Objectives -- ++ ++
++
+
0 –
– –
Substantial improvement compared to the Specific Plan.
Insubstantial improvement compared to the Specific Plan.
Similar to the Specific Plan.
Insubstantial deterioration compared to the Specific Plan.
Substantial deterioration compared to the Specific Plan.
RI VERBANK LOCAL REDEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
ALTERNATIVES
5-4
C. No Project Alternative
1. Principal Characteristics
Consistent with Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, under the No Project Alternative, the RAAP site would retain its existing zoning designations and land uses. Since the existing structures (673,625 square feet of industrial uses) could be leased in its current condition, without any further discretionary approval from the City, this alternative assumes re-occupancy of the existing buildings in their current condition. Additionally, remediation activities are planned for the future, and these will continue.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in changes to the visual character of the RAAP site that would be considered less than significant through the implementation of Specific Plan policies and reliance on policies in the Riverbank General Plan. The No Project Alternative would not result in any significant visual changes to the project site and the site would maintain the buffers of fallow grass fields, security fencing, and industrial warehouse character. Future development of the site under the Specific Plan would improve the visual characteristics of the RAAP site through landscaping and gateway features. As a result, the No Project Alternative would result in an insubstantial deterioration when compared to the Specific Plan. b. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The RAAP site does not contain any forestry resources, therefore changes under the Specific Plan and the No Project Alternative would be considered the same. The conversion of on-site farmland under the Specific Plan is considered to be less-than-significant given the location of the site and other factors such as water availability and surrounding uses. The No Project Alternative proposes no changes to the existing site that would change the land uses and would therefore be considered an insubstantial improvement.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
ALTERNATIVES
5-5
c. Air Quality
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the construction and operation of future projects, including project-generated increases in traffic. The No Project Alternative would result in continued use of the RAAP site, including new employees traveling to the site and emissions associated with allowable uses on the site.
Since future conditions would not change to the extent as they would under Specific Plan, the No Project Alternative would be a substantial improvement when compared to the Specific Plan.
d. Biological Resources
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a potential impact to biological resources in the Specific Plan Area. These impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through existing General Plan policies and federal and State regulations and a limited number of new policies proposed in the Specific Plan. Additionally, the mitigation measures are included to reduce the impacts to animal species during construction and demolition activities. The No Project Alternative may result in disturbances within the project site, but the overall area within the project site would not be substantially altered. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would be considered an insubstantial improvement when compared to the Specific Plan. e. Cultural Resources
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impact to cultural resources because individual structures that could contribute to the eligibility of a historic district would be removed as projects are constructed. The No Project Alternative would not result in changes to the RAAP site that would require demolition of existing structures and, therefore, the No Project Alternative would be considered a substantial improvement when compared to the Specific Plan. f. Geology and Soils
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in potential impacts related to construction on expansive soils that would be reduced to a less-than-
RI VERBANK LOCAL REDEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
ALTERNATIVES
5-6
significant level through policies contained in the Specific Plan and existing policies and regulations. If the existing buildings were not constructed to accommodate the conditions, they would be susceptible to damage from the expansive soils. New structures under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with building code regulations to avoid the impact. Therefore, this alternative is considered a substantial deterioration compared to the Specific Plan.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an increase in GHG emissions resulting from the development and operation of projects under the Specific Plan. The utilization of the RAAP site under the No Project Alternative would result in an increase in GHG emissions, but the intensity of use would not match that of the implementation of the Specific Plan. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would be an insubstantial improvement when compared to the Specific Plan.
h. Mineral Resources
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in construction of new facilities on portions of the RAAP site that are not currently developed. However, because no mineral resources are known to exist within the RAAP site, and the surrounding land uses are not compatible for the extraction of mineral resources, the Specific Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact on mineral resources. The No Project Alternative would not result in construction on undeveloped portions of the site. However, as mentioned above, due to no known mineral resources within the RAAP site and conflicting land uses, the No Project Alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan.
i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in an increase in the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials and activities associated with safety hazards and hazardous materials sites. The potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced to a less-than-
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
ALTERNATIVES
5-7
significant level through compliance with existing General Plan policies and federal and State regulations. Planned remediation activities would continue under the No Project Alternative. However, as discussed in the Chapter 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, there are several locations within the RAAP site that require evaluation and possible remediation. Because implementation of the Specific Plan would require remediation activities to continue, and additional areas would need to be remediated, overall, the No Project Alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan j. Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in increased impervious surfaces, and consequently increase surface runoff, but all surface runoff from the site would be captured and treated onsite, complying with applicable State and local regulations. As a result, the Specific Plan would not substantially increase off-site surface runoff and degrade water quality. In comparison, under the No Project Alternative, untreated stormwater would continue to flow off site, if not at a higher rate, resulting in degrading water quality conditions. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would be considered an insubstantial deterioration in relation to the Specific Plan. k. Land Use and Planning
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would create new office and industrial uses but would not result in land use conflicts or exacerbate existing conflicts between land uses in the Plan Area and on surrounding properties.
The No Project Alternative would also not create land use conflicts. However, this alternative would not meet some of the goals of the Economic Development Element of the General Plan, which call for creating jobs and income growth for local residents. Additionally, continuing operation of the existing industrial use without providing landscaped buffers, which are proposed under the Specific Plan, may increase conflicts with surrounding residential properties. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would be an insubstantial deterioration compared to the Specific Plan.
RI VERBANK LOCAL REDEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
ALTERNATIVES
5-8
l. Noise
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would increase noise levels due to construction activities, noise-generating land uses, and increased volumes of traffic. While the noise impacts related to construction activities and noisegenerating land uses could be reduced to less-than-significant levels after mitigation, traffic-related noise impacts would be unavoidable. In comparison, the No Project Alternative would not introduce any uses or traffic that could increase existing noise level to the extent as they would under the Specific Plan. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would be a substantial improvement over the Specific Plan. m. Population, Housing and Employment
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would not directly induce population growth because the Plan would not include residential development.
The Specific Plan would cause indirect population growth through the creation of jobs both during the construction and operational phases of the Plan.
However, this would not cause a substantial and unplanned level of growth, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. The No Project Alternative would not result in a substantial change to population or housing, and therefore would not cause a substantial and unplanned level of growth. Because neither the Specific Plan nor the No Project Alternative would result in significant impacts to population or housing, the No Project Alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan. n. Public Services
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in an indirect increase in population, a direct increase in service population, and an increased demand for public services. Project impacts associated with fire protection services would be potentially significant but mitigable. Impacts to other public services would be less than significant. Conversely, the No Project Alternative would not increase population or result in an increase in demand for public services. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would be considered an insubstantial improvement over the Specific Plan.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
ALTERNATIVES
5-9
o. Recreation
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in an indirect increase in population and an increased demand for parks and recreational facilities. However, the increased demand would not be substantial enough to require construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Additionally, the Specific Plan would incorporate plazas, green spaces, and pedestrian areas into site design to mitigate any potential impacts. The No Project Alternative would not increase population or result in an increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities. Overall, because neither the Specific Plan nor the No Project Alternative would result in significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities, the No Project Alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan.
p. Transportation and Traffic
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would increase the number of vehicle trips in the area and result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to increased truck traffic and level of service (LOS) standards. In comparison, the No Project Alternative would not increase the number of vehicle trips in the area to the extent that would result in significant traffic impacts.
Overall, because the No Project Alternative would avoid the significant impacts of the Specific Plan, the No Project Alternative would be considered a substantial improvement.
q. Utilities and Service Systems
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would increase demand for utilities and service systems, particularly requiring improvements of stormwater facilities. The impacts to stormwater facilities would be less-than-significant after mitigation. The No Project Alternative would not result in an increase in employment population to the extent that would occur under the Specific Plan, and therefore would not have the same effect on water supply, wastewater services, and solid waste disposal. Because the No Project Alternative would not have the same utility and service system demands as buildout of the Specific Plan, the No Project Alternative would be considered an insubstantial improvement when compared to the Specific Plan.
RI VERBANK LOCAL REDEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
ALTERNATIVES
5-10
D. Reduced Density Alternative
1. Principal Characteristics
This alternative would lessen the intensity of the proposed land uses in the Specific Plan roughly by 30 percent. Under this alternative, development of 83,300 square feet of commercial/retail, 988,000 square feet of industrial, and 81,600 square feet of R&D/office uses would be allowed on the project site, creating new jobs in an amount ranging between 579 and 1,158. Less intense uses onsite would be attributed to a combination of smaller building footprints and lower building heights than under the Specific Plan. The reduction of development intensity would potentially reduce impacts related to air quality, noise, and traffic. This alternative would also prohibit demolition of the existing structures, which contribute to the eligibility of a historic district, to avoid impacts to cultural resources.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in changes to the visual character of the RAAP site that would be considered less than significant through the implementation of Specific Plan policies and reliance on Riverbank General Plan policies. The Reduced Density Alternative would result in lower building heights than under the Specific Plan. However, the reduced height would not result in a substantial difference in regard to visual impact. The General Plan policies and the policies proposed by the Specific Plan that seek to improve the visual quality of the Plan Area would also be in effect under this alternative. Future development of the site under both the Specific Plan and this alternative would improve the visual characteristics of the RAAP site through landscaping and gateway features. Overall, this alternative would have the same potential impact. b. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The RAAP site does not contain any forestry resources, therefore changes under the Specific Plan and the Reduced Density Alternative would be considered the same. The conversion of on-site farmland under both the Specific Plan and this alternative is considered to be less-than-significant given the lo-
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
ALTERNATIVES
5-11
cation of the site and other factors such as water availability and surrounding uses. Overall, this alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan.
c. Air Quality
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction and operation of future projects.
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in less development on the site, consequently fewer employees traveling to the site and emissions associated with allowable uses, and therefore fewer air quality impacts would occur.
As a result, the Reduced Density Alternative would be an insubstantial improvement when compared to the Specific Plan. d. Biological Resources
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in potential impacts to biological resources in the Plan Area. These impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through conformance with existing General Plan policies and federal and State regulations and a limited number of new policies proposed in the Specific Plan. Additionally, mitigation measures are included to reduce the impacts to animal species, such as special-species bats, during construction and demolition activities. The Reduced Density Alternative may result in disturbances within the project site, but would not allow demolition of the existing structures where the maternity roosts of specialspecies bats are potentially present. Additionally, similar to the Specific Plan, compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, new policies proposed in the Specific Plan, as well as mitigation measures would reduce the other potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would be considered an insubstantial improvement when compared to the Specific Plan. e. Cultural Resources
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to cultural resources because individual structures that could contribute to the eligibility of a historic district would be removed as projects
RI VERBANK LOCAL REDEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
ALTERNATIVES
5-12
are constructed. The Reduced Density Alternative would not involve demolition of existing structures and therefore, would not result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Overall, the Reduced Density Alternative would be considered a substantial improvement.
f. Geology and Soils
Implementation of the Specific Plan would have potential impacts related to expansive soils that would be reduced to less than significant level through policies contained in the Specific Plan and existing policies and regulations.
Although the Reduced Density Alternative would result in less development onsite, this alternative would have the same potential impact due to the underlying geologic conditions. g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an increase in GHG emissions resulting from the development and operation of projects under the Specific Plan. The Reduced Density Alternative would result in less development, and therefore less GHG emissions associated with the development and operation of projects would occur. Overall, the Reduced Density Alternative would be an insubstantial improvement when compared to the Specific Plan.
h. Mineral Resources
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the construction of new facilities on portions of the project site that are not currently developed.
However, given that no mineral resources are known to exist within the project site, and that the surrounding land uses are not compatible for the extraction of mineral resources, the Specific Plan would result in a less-thansignificant impact on mineral resources. The Reduced Density Alternative would also result in construction on undeveloped portions of the site although with lower intensity compared to the Specific Plan. However, as mentioned above, due to no known mineral resources within the RAAP site and conflicting land uses, the Reduced Density Alternative would have the same potential impact.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
ALTERNATIVES
5-13
i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in an increase in the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials and activities associated with safety hazards and hazardous materials sites. These potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level through existing General Plan policies and federal and State regulations. In comparison, under the Reduced Density Alternative, the hazardous materials sites would not be redeveloped or demolished and therefore would not pose the risk of releasing hazardous materials. Overall, the Reduced Density Alternative would be an insubstantial improvement when compared to the Specific Plan.
j. Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in an increase in impervious surfaces and, consequently, stormwater runoff, but all surface runoff from the site would be captured and treated onsite, complying with applicable State and local regulations. As a result, the Specific Plan would not substantially increase off-site surface runoff or degrade water quality. The Reduced Density Alternative would increase surface runoff rates but not to the extent as they would under the Specific Plan because of smaller building footprints. Similar to the Specific Plan, all surface runoff from the site would be captured and treated onsite through compliance with applicable State and local regulations. Overall, because the Reduced Density Alternative would result in less amount of stormwater runoff that would be captured and treated onsite, this alternative would be considered an insubstantial improvement in relation to the Specific Plan.
k. Land Use and Planning
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would create new office and industrial uses but would not result in land use conflicts or exacerbate existing conflicts between land uses in the Plan Area and on surrounding properties.
Similarly, the Reduced Density Alternative would neither create land use conflicts nor exacerbate existing conflicts. Both the Specific Plan and this alternative would meet the Economic Development Element of the General
RI VERBANK LOCAL REDEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
ALTERNATIVES
5-14
Plan goals, which call for creating jobs and income growth for local residents although this alternative would bring fewer jobs than the Specific Plan.
Overall, the Reduced Density Alternative would have the same potential impact with regard to land use and planning. l. Noise
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would increase noise levels due to construction activities, noise-generating land uses, and increased volumes of traffic. While the noise impacts related to construction activities and noisegenerating land uses could be reduced to less-than-significant levels after mitigation, traffic-related noise impacts would be unavoidable. In comparison, the Reduced Density Alternative would introduce less intense uses and therefore less traffic that could increase the existing noise level to the extent as they would under the Specific Plan. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would be an insubstantial improvement over the Specific Plan. m. Population, Housing and Employment
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would not directly induce population growth but would cause indirect population growth through the creation of jobs. Nevertheless, the Specific Plan would not result in a significant impact because the Plan would not cause a substantial and unplanned level of growth. Similar to the Specific Plan, the Reduced Density Alternative would cause indirect population growth through the creation of jobs, which although would be fewer than under the Specific Plan due to less development.
Because neither the Specific Plan nor the Reduced Density Alternative would result in significant impacts to population or housing, the Reduced Density Alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan. n. Public Services
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in an indirect increase in population, a direct increase in service population, and therefore an increased demand for public services. Project impacts associated with fire protection services would be potentially significant but mitigable. Impacts to
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
ALTERNATIVES
5-15
other public services would be less than significant. The Reduced Density Alternative would bring less service population than under the Specific Plan, and therefore less demand for public services would occur. Overall, the Reduced Density Alternative would be considered an insubstantial improvement over the Specific Plan.
o. Recreation
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in an indirect increase in population and an increased demand for parks and recreational facilities. However, the increased demand would not be substantial enough to require construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The Reduced Density Alternative would bring less service population than under the Specific Plan, and therefore less demand for parks and recreational facilities would occur. Overall, because neither the Specific Plan nor the Reduced Density Alternative would result in significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities, the Reduced Density Alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan. p. Transportation and Traffic
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would increase the number of vehicle trips in the area and result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to increased truck traffic and level of service (LOS) standards. The Reduced Density Alternative would also increase the number of vehicle trips in the area up to but not to the extent that would occur under the Specific Plan due to less intense development. Overall, because the Reduced Density Alternative could potentially avoid some of the significant impacts of the Specific Plan, this alternative would be considered an insubstantial improvement. q. Utilities and Service Systems
The Specific Plan would increase demand for utilities and service systems, particularly requiring improvements of stormwater facilities. The impacts to stormwater facilities would be less than significant after mitigation. The Reduced Density Alternative would also increase demand for utilities and service systems in the area but not to the extent that would occur under the Spe-
RI VERBANK LOCAL REDEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
ALTERNATIVES
5-16
cific Plan due to less intense development. Although the Reduced Density Alternative would generate less demand for utilities and service systems than the Specific Plan, the increased demand would still necessitate improvements to stormwater facilities. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan.
E. Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative
1. Principal Characteristics
This alternative would reconfigure the site plan in order to avoid the significant impacts associated with biological resources and cultural resources. Under this alternative, no development would occur in the northern part of the Plan Area, including the North End Cap, wetland areas, and the existing detention pond. The proposed uses in the northern part would be distributed throughout the Plan Area, except for the area with existing structures. Because of site constraints, especially for industrial uses, the overall development intensity would be marginally reduced, and slightly less industrial and somewhat increased R&D development than the Specific Plan would be allowed:
119,000 square feet of commercial/retail; 1,199,800 square feet of industrial; and 120,000 square feet of R&D/office uses. Nevertheless, this alternative is expected to create a similar amount of jobs ranging between 827 and 1,654 as under the Specific Plan. Demolition of existing structures would be prohibited under this alternative to reduce potential impacts on animal species, hazardous materials, and historic resources.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in changes to the visual character of the RAAP site that would be considered less than significant through the implementation of Specific Plan policies and reliance on Riverbank General Plan policies. The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative may result in higher building heights in the western and southern parts than under the Specific Plan. However, the increased height would not result in significant visual impacts because development under this alternative would
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
ALTERNATIVES
5-17
also comply with the General Plan policies and the policies proposed by the Specific Plan that seek to improve the visual quality of the Plan. Future development of the site under both the Specific Plan and this alternative would improve the visual characteristics of the RAAP site through landscaping and gateway features. Overall, this alternative would have the same potential impact. b. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The RAAP site does not contain any forestry resources, therefore changes under the Specific Plan and the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would be considered the same. The conversion of on-site farmland under both the Specific Plan and this alternative is considered to be less-than-significant given the location of the site and other factors such as water availability and surrounding uses. Overall, this alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan.
c. Air Quality
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the construction and operation of future projects, including project-generated increases in traffic. The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would result in a similar level of development on the site, and therefore similar levels of impacts to air quality would occur. Overall, this alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan. d. Biological Resources
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a potential impact to biological resources in the Specific Plan Area. These impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through existing General Plan policies and federal and State regulations and a limited number of new policies proposed in the Specific Plan. Additionally, the mitigation measures are included to reduce the impacts to animal species during construction and demolition activities. The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would not disturb the northern portion of the site where wetlands and potential species may reside. In addition, this alternative would not involve demolition of the existing structures
RI VERBANK LOCAL REDEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
ALTERNATIVES
5-18
where the maternity roosts of special-species bats are potentially present. As a result, the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would avoid potential impacts that may occur under the Specific Plan and would be considered an insubstantial improvement when compared to the Specific Plan. e. Cultural Resources
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to cultural resources because individual structures that could contribute to the eligibility of a historic district would be removed as projects are constructed. The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would avoid demolition of existing structures and therefore would not result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to the eligibility of a historic district. In addition, new construction would occur outside of the area that could contribute to the eligibility of a historic district. Overall, the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would be considered a substantial improvement. f. Geology and Soils
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in potential impacts related to expansive soils that would be reduced to less than significant level through General Plan policies and existing State and local regulations. Similar to the Specific Plan, the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would result in intensified development onsite and the potential impacts related to expansive soils would be reduced to less than significant level through applicable policies and regulations. Therefore, this alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an increase in GHG emissions resulting from the development and operation of projects under the Specific Plan. The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would result in a similar level of development in the Plan Area, and therefore similar amount of GHG emissions associated with the development and operation of projects would occur. Therefore, this alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
ALTERNATIVES
5-19
h. Mineral Resources
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in construction of new facilities on portions of the project site that are not currently developed. However, because no mineral resources are known to exist within the project site, and the surrounding land uses are not compatible for the extraction of mineral resources, the Specific Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact on mineral resources. The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would also result in construction on undeveloped portions of the site except for the northern portion of the site. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, due to no known mineral resources within the RAAP site and conflicting land uses, the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would have the same potential impact. i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in an increase in the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials and activities associated with safety hazards and hazardous materials sites. The potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level through existing General Plan policies and federal and State regulations. In comparison, under the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative, the hazardous materials sites would not be redeveloped or demolished and therefore would not pose the risk of releasing hazardous materials. Overall, the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would be an insubstantial improvement when compared to the Specific Plan.
j. Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in an increase in impervious surfaces and, consequently, stormwater runoff, but all surface runoff from the site would be captured and treated onsite, complying with applicable State and local regulations. As a result, the Specific Plan would not substantially increase off-site surface runoff or degrade water quality. In comparison, because the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would remain the northern portion of the site undeveloped, this alternative would result in less impervious surfaces than the Specific Plan. Consequently, this alternative would not increase surface runoff rates to the extent as they would under the
RI VERBANK LOCAL REDEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
ALTERNATIVES
5-20
Specific Plan. Overall, because of less stormwater runoff generated under the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative, this alternative would be considered an insubstantial improvement in relation to the Specific Plan. k. Land Use and Planning
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would create new office and industrial uses but would not result in land use conflicts or exacerbate existing conflicts between land uses in the Plan Area and on surrounding properties.
Similarly, the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would neither create land use conflicts nor exacerbate existing conflicts. Both the Specific Plan and this alternative would meet the Economic Development Element of the General Plan goals, which call for creating jobs and income growth for local residents.
Therefore, this alternative would have the same potential impact with regard to land use and planning.
l. Noise
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would increase noise levels due to construction activities, noise-generating land uses, and increased volumes of traffic. While the noise impacts related to construction activities and noisegenerating land uses could be reduced to less-than-significant levels after mitigation, traffic-related noise impacts would be unavoidable. The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would also increase overall noise levels in the area although impacts to the southern portion of the site would be greater than the northern portion due to different development intensities. The traffic-related noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, this alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan.
m. Population, Housing and Employment
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would not directly induce population growth but would cause indirect population growth through the creation of jobs. Nevertheless, the Specific Plan would not result in a significant impact because the Specific Plan would not cause a substantial and unplanned level of growth. The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would cause indirect
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
ALTERNATIVES
5-21
population growth through the creation of jobs at the same level as the Specific Plan. Because neither the Specific Plan nor the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would result in significant impacts to population or housing, the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan.
n. Public Services
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in an indirect increase in population, a direct increase in service population, and therefore an increased demand for public services. Project impacts associated with fire protection services would be potentially significant but mitigable. Impacts to other public services would be less than significant. The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would result in a similar increase of service population as the Specific Plan, and therefore a similar demand for public services would occur.
Overall, the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan.
o. Recreation
Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would result in an indirect increase in population and an increased demand for parks and recreational facilities. However, the increased demand would not be substantial enough to require construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would bring a similar increase in population but would result in less demand for parks and open space than the Specific Plan due to the undeveloped lands in the northern portion of the site. Overall, because neither the Specific Plan nor the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would result in significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities, the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan. p. Transportation and Traffic
The Specific Plan would increase the number of vehicle trips in the area and result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to increased truck traffic and level of service (LOS) standards. The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative
RI VERBANK LOCAL REDEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
ALTERNATIVES
5-22
would generate a similar number of vehicle trips in the area, although, because of the reconfigured development patterns, its traffic flows would be different from those under the Specific Plan. Consequently, the locations of impacted areas would differ from the proposed project. Less industrial development under this alternative would generate slightly fewer truck trips than under the Specific Plan. Because this alternative could lessen some of the significant impacts related to truck traffic, the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would be considered an insubstantial improvement when compared to the Specific Plan.
q. Utilities and Service Systems
Implementation of the Specific Plan would increase demand for utilities and service systems, particularly requiring improvements of stormwater facilities.
The impacts to stormwater facilities would be less than significant after mitigation. The Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would increase demand for utilities and service systems at a similar level as the Specific Plan. Therefore, the Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative would have the same potential impact when compared to the Specific Plan.
F. Ability to Meet Project Objectives
This section describes how each alternative would meet the Specific Plan objectives, described in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR, and repeated below for reference:
The stated objectives of the Specific Plan are to:
¨ Define the vision for the future of the Specific Plan Area. (The Specific Plan envisions the Plan Area to be a thriving industrial park that is occupied by a variety of manufacturing businesses.) ¨ Create goals and policies intended to facilitate achievement of the vision. ¨ Designate land for uses that implement the vision.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECIFIC P LAN EIR
ALTERNATIVES
5-23
¨ Create development standards for the form and physical design of new development within the Specific Plan Area.
¨ Provide recommendations for circulation and infrastructure improvements required to support future buildout of the Specific Plan Area. ¨ Provide an implementation strategy for achieving the goals in the Specific Plan and putting the policies in the Specific Plan into action. a. No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Specific Plan would not be implemented, and therefore this alternative does not meet any of the objectives. b. Reduced Density Alternative
Under this alternative, less development and fewer jobs than under the Specific Plan would occur. However, this would still satisfy the Specific Plan’s vision, which calls for a thriving industrial park that is occupied by a variety of manufacturing businesses. This alternative would incorporate applicable goals, policies, development standards, improvement strategies, and land use designations of the Specific Plan. Therefore, this alternative would meet all of the objectives.
c. Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative
This alternative would provide slightly less amount of development and jobs as envisioned in the Specific Plan. This alternative would also incorporate applicable goals, policies, development standards, improvement strategies, and land use designations of the Specific Plan. Therefore, this alternative would meet all of the objectives.
G. Environmentally Superior Alternative
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the Specific Plan and the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection be disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alter-
RI VERBANK LOCAL REDEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
ALTERNATIVES
5-24
native is the alternative that would be expected to generate the least environmental impact. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets Specific Plan objectives.
As shown in Table 5-1, the Reduced Density Alternative would have the fewest environmental impacts as compared to the other two alternatives, and would therefore be considered the environmentally superior alternative.
The City notes, that where, as is the case here, an EIR determines that the potential adverse impacts of a project can be avoided or substantially lessened by mitigation measures, the Lead Agency is not required to make any findings regarding the feasibility of proposed alternatives. (Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351, 379.) 6 CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
6-1
This chapter provides an overview of the impacts of the RAAP Specific Plan (the Plan) based on the analyses presented in Chapters 4 and 5 of this Draft EIR. The topics covered in this Chapter include growth inducement, unavoidable significant impacts, and significant irreversible changes. A more detailed analysis of the effects the Plan would have on the environment and proposed mitigation measures to minimize significant impacts is provided in Chapters 4.1 through 4.17.
A. Growth Inducement
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Typical growth-inducing factors might be the extension of urban services or transportation infrastructure to a previously unserved or under-served area, or the removal of major barriers to development. This section evaluates the Plan’s potential to create such growth inducements. Not all aspects of growth inducement are negative; rather, negative impacts associated with growth inducement occur only where the Plan growth would cause adverse environmental impacts.
Implementation of the Plan is not expected to directly induce growth because it is not building any housing, although it will provide substantial employment opportunities compared to those currently available in the Plan Area.
However, some employment growth for the area is anticipated by the Riverbank General Plan.
While development of the Plan would not add any housing, it would add industrial, commercial, and office uses which could indirectly increase the demand for housing not only within the Plan Area but throughout Riverbank by increasing the number of employees in the area that may want to live near work. However, it is unknown whether future employees of the Plan Area would already be Riverbank residents, whether they would relocate to Riverbank from other places, or whether they would already be people who
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
CEQA REQUIRED ASSESS MENT
6-2
live elsewhere and commute to the site. Although buildout of the Plan would result in the extension of infrastructure, this expansion is to replace existing infrastructure currently serving the site, and this growth, including the additional infrastructure, was planned for and envisioned under the Riverbank General Plan.
Development of the Plan would involve construction activities that could generate temporary employment opportunities; it is unlikely that construction workers would relocate to Riverbank as a result implementation of the Plan. Thus, development of the Plan would not be considered growthinducing from an employment perspective.
B. Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. This section lists the impacts for the proposed project that were found to be significant and unavoidable. More information on these impacts is found in Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR.
Impact AQ-1: Construction of the Specific Plan could emit significant levels of criteria pollutants, potentially contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation. Because of the project size and the uncertainty of the construction schedule, construction period emissions would be considered to remain significant with mitigation.
Impact AQ-2: Operation of the Specific Plan could emit significant levels of criteria pollutants, potentially contributing to existing or projected air quality violations. This would be considered a significant impact.
Impact CUL-1: Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan would alter the significance of an historic resource. By removing individual structures that contribute to the eligibility of an historic district, the RAAP’s ability to convey its importance to local and national history is significantly altered, the
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECI FIC PLAN EIR
CEQA REQUIRED ASSESS MENT
6-3
resource may not be eligible for inclusion on the CRHR. This would be considered a significant impact.
Impact NOISE-2: Existing noise environments at outdoor activity areas of residences along Claus Road are greater than 65 dBA Ldn, and would increase by more than 1.5 dBA as a result of transportation noise following implementation of the Specific Plan. This would be considered a significant impact.
Impact NOISE-4: Traffic volume increases in the vicinity of the Specific Plan vicinity will result with the development of the plan area and other planned developments in the southeast portion of the City of Riverbank.
This would be considered a significant impact.
Impact TRANS-3: Future development within the RAAP area would add truck traffic to intersections on State Route 108, specifically at the intersections of Atchison Street (State Route 108)/1st Street, State Route 108/Claus Road and State Route 108/Patterson Road. As these intersections do not currently accommodate the turning movements of large trucks, this is considered a potentially significant impact based on the significance criteria.
Impact TRANS-5: The Claribel Road/Coffee Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and LOS E during the PM peak hours.
The addition of Project traffic would worsen deficient operations in both peak hours. This is considered significant based on the significance criteria, as LOS C is the standard for this intersection.
Impact TRANS-6: The Claribel Road/Oakdale Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The addition of Project traffic would worsen LOS F operations. This is considered significant based on the significance criteria, as LOS D is the standard for this intersection.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
CEQA REQUIRED ASSESS MENT
6-4
C. Significant Irreversible Changes
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the extent to which implementation of the Plan would commit nonrenewable resources to uses that future generations would probably be unable to reverse.
The three CEQA-required categories of irreversible changes are discussed below.
1. Changes in Land Use that Commit Future Generations
Buildout of the Plan would result in the conversion of some agricultural land currently used for growing crops to developed area for business, commercial, and industrial uses. However, as the Plan Area has already been planned for future growth and is adjacent to a developed area, implementation of the Plan is not expected to result in any land use changes that would commit future generations to uses that are not already prevalent and/or planned for in the Plan Area and its immediate vicinity.
2. Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents
Potential environmental accidents of concern include those that would have adverse effects on the environment or public health due to the nature or quantity of material released during an accident and the receptors exposed to that release. Demolition and construction activities associated with development of the Plan would involve some risk for environmental accidents.
However, these activities would be monitored by City of Riverbank, State, and federal agencies, and would follow professional industry standards for safety and construction. Additionally, although the land uses proposed by the Plan may include some uses or activities that could contribute to or be the cause of significant environmental accident, existing regulations at the City, State, and federal levels would limit the potential for accidents and the effects.
As a result, the Plan would not pose a substantial risk of environmental accidents.
3. Large Commitment of Nonrenewable Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources involves issues related to increased energy consumption, conservation of agricultural lands, and lost access to
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SITE SPECI FIC PLAN EIR
CEQA REQUIRED ASSESS MENT
6-5
mining reserves. Development of the Plan would require water, electric, and gas service, and resources for construction, and the ongoing operation of the Plan would involve the use of nonrenewable resources. Construction and ongoing maintenance of the Plan would irreversibly commit some materials and nonrenewable energy resources. Materials and resources used would include, but are not limited to, nonrenewable and limited resources such as oil, gasoline, sand and gravel, asphalt, and steel. These materials and energy resources would be used for infrastructure development, transportation of people and goods, and utilities. During the operational phase of the Plan (postconstruction), energy sources including oil and gasoline would be used for lighting, heating, and cooling of businesses, and transportation of people to and from the Plan Area.
Implementation of the Plan, however, would include several features that would offset or reduce the need for nonrenewable resources. The Plan would be required to comply with all applicable building and design requirements, including those set forth in Title 24 relating to energy conservation. In compliance with CALGreen, the State’s Green Building Standards Code, the Plan would be required to reduce water consumption by 20 percent, divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting materials.
Although the construction and ongoing operation of the Plan would involve the use of nonrenewable resources, through the inclusion of energyconserving Plan features, compliance with applicable standards and regulations, and implementation of mitigation measures, the Plan would not represent a large commitment of nonrenewable resources.
The Plan Area contains agricultural land, but its proposed future nonagricultural use represents a commitment of non-renewable resources. The Plan Area does not provide access to a mining reserve, so it would not affect those natural resources.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
CEQA REQUIRED ASSESS MENT
6-6
7 LIST OF PREPARERS
7-1
A. Report Preparers
1. Lead Consultant
The Planning Center | DC&E
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94709 510-848-3815
Bruce Brubaker, Principal-in-Charge
Steven Noack, Principal-in Charge
Melissa Erikson, Project Manager
Kyle Simpson, Associate
Andrew Hill, Associate
Seung Yen Hong, Planner
2. Subconsultants
Fehr & Peers
Kathrin Tellez, Associate
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Michael Beritzhoff, Director of Port Development
K. Patrick Casey, Senior Project Manager – Rail
Illingworth & Rodkin
Richard Rodkin, Principal
James Reyff, Project Scientist
Michael Thill, Staff Scientist
Knapp Architects
Frederic Knapp, Principal
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Sarah Bolenbaugh, Senior Project Engineer
Anthony Cotts, Project Engineer
Greg Behr, Project Manager
WRA Environmental Consultants
Geoff Smick, Associate Principal Ecologist
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
LIST OF PREPARERS
7-2
NOVEMBER 2013 | FINAL EIR
CITY OF RIVERBANK
RIVERBANK ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
State Clearinghouse Number: 2011022015
ATTACHMENT 2
(Final EIR)
Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles / Downtown • Los Angeles / West • Inland Empire • San Diego 1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300 | Berkeley, California 94709 | 510 848 3815 | 510 848 4315 (f) www.planningcenter.com NOVEMBER 2013 | FINAL EIR
CITY OF RIVERBANK
RIVERBANK ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
State Clearinghouse Number: 2011022015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1-1
2. REPORT SUMMARY................................................................................................ 2-1
3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR............................................................................. 3-1
4. LIST OF COMMENTORS......................................................................................... 4-1
5. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES.............................................................................. 5-1
APPENDICES
Appendix B – Air Quality
Appendix H – Comments Received on the Draft EIR
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II
Figures
Figure 4.3-2 Project Site, Development Areas, On-Site Truck Routes, and Daily Truck Traffic........................................................................ 3-3 Figure 4.3-3 Project Site, On-Site Truck Routes for Dispersion Modeling, and Nearby Receptor Locations...................................... 3-4 Tables
Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................ 2-5 Table 5-1 Comments and Responses Matrix...................................................... 5-2 1 INTRODUCTION
1-1
A. Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report
This document provides responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the proposed RAAP Specific Plan (the Project), and it includes revisions to the text and analysis in the Draft EIR made in response to comments. The Draft EIR identified significant impacts associated with the proposed Project, and examined alternatives and recommended mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce potential impacts.
This document, together with the Draft EIR and all Appendices, will constitute the Final EIR if the City of Riverbank Planning Commission certifies it as complete and adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. Environmental Review Process
The City of Riverbank is the lead agency for this EIR.
According to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project, and to provide the general public and project applicant with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. This Final EIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft EIR and to clarify any errors, omissions, or misinterpretations of discussions of findings in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was made available for public review on March 27, 2013. The Draft EIR was distributed to local and State responsible and trustee agencies and the general public was advised of the availability of the Draft EIR through public notice published in the local newspaper and on the City website.
The 45-day public comment period ended on May 20, 2013. Copies of all written comments received on the Draft EIR are contained in this document. These comments and responses to these comments are set out in Chapter 5, Comments and Responses, of this Final EIR.
C. Document Organization
This document is organized into the following chapters:
♦ Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter discusses the use and organization of this Final EIR.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
INTRODUCTION
1-2
♦ Chapter 2: Report Summary. This chapter is a summary of the findings of the Draft and the Final EIR. It has been reprinted from the Draft EIR with necessary changes made in this Final EIR.
♦ Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR. Additional corrections to the text and graphics of the Draft EIR are contained in this chapter. Underline text represents language that has been added to the EIR; text with strikethrough has been deleted from the EIR.
♦ Chapter 4: List of Commenters. Names of organizations and individuals who commented on the Draft EIR are included in this chapter. ♦ Chapter 5: Comments and Responses. This chapter contains reproductions of the letters received from agencies and the public on the Draft EIR. The chapter also contains responses keyed to the comments which precede them.
2 REPORT SUMMARY
2-1
This summary presents an overview of the analysis contained in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Evaluation. CEQA requires that this chapter summarize the following:
1) areas of controversy; 2) significant impacts; 3) unavoidable significant impacts; 4) implementation of mitigation measures; and 5) alternatives to the project.
A. Project under Review
This Draft EIR provides an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of adoption and implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan (the Plan).
This includes development of the site according to adopted land use policies, and development of supporting transportation and utilities infrastructure.
B. Areas of Controversy
The following is a discussion of issues that are likely to be of particular concern to agencies and interested members of the public during the environmental review process. This list does not necessarily identify all areas of concern, but attempts to capture those that are likely to generate greatest interest based on the input received during the scoping process.
♦ Air Quality. The Plan Area is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). As such, this Draft EIR will need to examine existing and post-project emissions of criteria, nuisance odors, and potential health impacts associated with toxic air contaminants. This Draft EIR must also discuss the methodology, model assumptions, inputs and results relating to air quality impacts; emission projections of Plan components, and Plan design elements, mitigation measures, and whether the Plan would cumulatively contribute to a net increase of criteria pollutants or precursor for which the area is in non-attainment. Further, the Plan itself would be subject to a variety of SJVAPCD rules and regulations. ♦ Biological Resources. The Plan Area includes riparian habitats and wetlands that could be impacted by buildout under the Specific Plan. There are also several special-status animals on the RAAP site, such as Swainson’s hawks and the western burrowing owl. Potential impacts to these species should be addressed.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-2
♦ Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Plan Area has industrial sites that have been contaminated by past activities. Impact to humans from the redevelopment of these parcels should be addressed. ♦ Hydrology and Water Quality. The Plan Area includes Oakdale Irrigation District lateral, which eventually drains into the Modesto Irrigation District main canal. Runoff impacts and impacts to drainage facilities are concerns that have been requested to be addressed in the EIR.
♦ Transportation and Traffic. Implementation of the Plan would result in new vehicle and truck trips to and from the RAAP site, which have the potential to impact operations at intersections and along roadway segments in the surrounding area, including the State Highway System. In addition, the Plan would increase vehicular traffic volumes at at-grade highway-rail crossings.
The Draft EIR will need to consider mitigation measures to reduce impacts on traffic safety, particularly at railroad crossings.
C. Alternatives to the Project
According to CEQA, an EIR must evaluate a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would achieve most of the basic project objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project. Chapter 5 compares the impacts of three alternatives to those of the project, the No Project Alternative, the Reduced Density Alternative, and the Mixed Use Alternative. The Reduced Density Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative.
♦ Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative. Under this alternative, which is required to be analyzed under CEQA, the RAAP site would retain its existing zoning designations and land uses. Since the existing structures could be leased in their current condition, without any further discretionary approval from the City, this alternative assumes re-occupancy of the existing buildings in their current condition.
♦ Alternative 2 – Reduced Density Alternative. This alternative would reduce the intensity of proposed land uses in order to reduce impacts to air quality, cultural resources, noise, and traffic. This alternative would also prohibit demolition of the existing structures, which contribute to the eligibility of a historic district, to avoid impacts to cultural resources.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-3
♦ Alternative 3 – Reconfigured Site Plan Alternative. This alternative would reconfigure the site in order to reduce impacts to biological resources and cultural resources. Specifically, the existing structures would not be demolished, and new buildings would have smaller footprints and heights compared to the proposed project.
D. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Under CEQA, a significant impact on the environment is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by a project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance.
The proposed Plan has the potential to generate environmental impacts in a number of areas that could be significant:
♦ Air Quality
♦ Biological Resources
♦ Cultural Resources
♦ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
♦ Noise
♦ Public Services
♦ Transportation and Traffic
In Sections 4.1 through 4.17, significant impacts that have been identified for the Plan are numbered. Each numbered impact is considered significant prior to mitigation, unless it is specifically identified as less than significant. Mitigation measures have been suggested to reduce the effects of significant impacts. As shown in Table 2-1, most of the significant impacts would be reduced to a lessthan-significant level if the mitigation measures recommended in this report were implemented. However, in some instances the mitigation measure that is recommended would not be sufficient to reduce a significant impact to a less-thansignificant level (for example, Impact AIR-1); these impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
CEQA allows environmental issues for which there is no likelihood of a significant impact to be “scoped out” during the EIR scoping process, and not analyzed further in the EIR. However, all issues have been analyzed in this Draft EIR.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-4
Table 2-1 presents a summary of impacts and mitigation measures identified in this report. It is organized to correspond with the environmental issues discussed in Chapter 4.
The table is arranged in four columns: 1) environmental impacts, 2) significance prior to mitigation, 3) mitigation measures, and 4) significance after mitigation. A series of mitigation measures is noted where more than one measure may be required to achieve a less-than-significant impact. For a complete description of potential impacts and suggested mitigation measures, please refer to the specific discussions in Chapter 4. Additionally, this summary does not detail the timing of mitigation measures. Timing will be further detailed in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 2-5
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
Aesthetics
Since there are no significant impacts related to aesthetics as a result of the RAAP Site Specific Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Since there are no significant impacts related to agricultural and forest resources as a result of the Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
Air Quality
AQ-1: Construction of the Specific Plan could emit
significant levels of criteria pollutants, potentially contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Because of the project size and the uncertainty of the
construction schedule, construction period emissions
would be considered to remain significant with mitigation.
S AQ-1a: Each individual project component of the Specific Plan, including those projects allowed by right, shall be analyzed for significant construction period air quality impacts. For each project-level analysis, a construction emissions estimate will be made by SJVAPCD using the latest SJVAPCD accepted methodology and will be compared to accepted thresholds of significance. Means of mitigating construction period impacts to a less-than-significant level include, but are not limited to, Mitigation Measures AQ-1a through AQ-1d.
Since approval of the RAAP Specific Plan may constitute the final discretionary approval by the City of Riverbank, each individual project component, including those projects allowed by right, shall be required to demonstrate to the SJVAPCD compliance with construction period requirements of Rule 9510 prior to issuance of the first building and/or grading permits as a condition of project approval. The applicant shall document, to the City’s reasonable satisfaction, its compliance with this mitigation measure.
SU
AQ-1b: SJVAPCD Regulation VIII Control Measures. Prior to initiation of construction activities, the applicant for an individual, site-specific development under the RAAP Specific PlanThe following controls shall be required to be implemented at all construction sites the following controls:
♦ All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover;
♦ All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant;
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 2-6
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AQ-1 continued ♦ All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking;
♦ With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the building shall be wetted during demolition;
♦ When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inched of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained;
♦ All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden); ♦ Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant; ♦ Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday; and ♦ Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout.
AQ-1c: Enhanced Control Measures. Prior to initiation of construction activities, the applicant for an individual, site-specific development under the Specific Plan, Tthe following measures shallshould be implemented at construction sites when required to mitigate significant PM10 impacts (note, these measures are to be implemented in addition to Regulation VIII requirements):
♦ Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; and
♦ Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 2-7
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AQ-1 continued AQ-1d: Additional Control Measures. The following control measures are strongly encouraged by the SJVAPCD at construction sites that are large in area, located near sensitive receptors, or which for any other reason warrant additional emissions reductions:
♦ Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site;
♦ Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas; ♦ Suspend excavation and grading activity when wind exceeds 20 mph (Regardless of wind speed, and owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation.); and ♦ Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.
AQ-1e: The following measures may be implemented to mitigate emissions from construction equipment exhaust:
♦ Use of alternative-fueled or catalyst-equipped diesel construction equipment; ♦ Minimize idling time (e.g. 5-minute maximum);
♦ Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use;
♦ Replace fossil-fueled equipment with electrically-driven equivalents (provided they are not run via a portable generator set);
♦ Curtail construction during periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations; this may include ceasing of construction activity during the peak-hour of vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways; and ♦ Implement activity management (e.g. rescheduling activities to reduce short-term impacts).
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 2-8
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AQ-2: Operation of the Specific Plan could emit significant levels of criteria pollutants, potentially contributing to existing or projected air quality violations.
S AQ-2: Each individual project component of the Specific Plan, including those projects allowed by right, shall be analyzed for significant construction period air quality impacts. For each project-level analysis, an operational emissions estimate will be made by SJVAPCD using the latest SJVAPCD accepted methodology and will be compared to accepted thresholds of significance. Means of mitigating operational period impacts to a less-than-significant level include, but are not limited to, improving transportation and transit design (e.g., improved bikeways, transit infrastructure, and pedestrian enhancements); contributing a project’s fair share to the Air Quality Mitigation Fee Fund; and contributing a project’s fair share towards Transportation Control Measures implementation programs. For each individual project, the applicant shall document, to the City’s reasonable satisfaction, its compliance with this mitigation measure.
Since approval of the RAAP Specific Plan may constitute the final discretionary approval by the City of Riverbank, each individual project component, including those projects allowed by right, shall be required to demonstrate to the SJVAPCD compliance with operational period requirements of Rule 9510 prior to issuance of the first building and/or grading permits as a condition of project approval. For each individual project, the applicant shall document, to the City’s reasonable satisfaction, its compliance with this mitigation measure.
Each individual project, including those projects allowed by right, that introduce significant sources of air pollutant emissions or stationary sources of TACs shall complete separate ambient air quality analysis and health risks assessments to ensure that violations of ambient air quality standards do not occur, including an analysis of cumulative emissions from the RAAP Specific Plan. For each individual project, the applicant shall document, to the City’s reasonable satisfaction, its compliance with this mitigation measure.
SU
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Buildout of the Plan would involve the demolition or redevelopment of buildings on the RAAP site where the maternity roosts of Townsend's big-eared
bats are potentially present. This could result in the
destruction, disturbance, or interference with the maternity roots of a special-species bat.
S BIO-1: Implementation of the Plan shall avoid disturbance to the maternity roosts of special-status bats during the breeding season in accordance with the following procedures for Pre-Construction Special-Status Bat Surveys and Subsequent Actions. No more than two weeks in advance of any demolition or construction activity involving concrete breaking or similarly noisy or intrusive activities, that would commence during the pup-rearing season (April 15 through August 31), or winter hibernacula season LTS
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 2-9
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
BIO-1 continued (October 15 through March 1, depending on weather conditions) a qualified bat biologist, acceptable to the CDFG, shall conduct pre-demolition surveys of all potential special-status bat breeding habitat in the vicinity of the planned activity. Depending on the survey findings, the following actions shall be taken to avoid potential adverse effects on breeding special-status bats:
1. If active roosts are identified during pre-construction surveys, a no disturbance buffer will be created by the qualified bat biologist, in consultation with the CDFG, around active roosts during the breeding season. The size of the buffer will take into account factors such as the following:
♦ Noise and human disturbance levels at the project site and the roost site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity; ♦ Distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the project site and the roost; and
♦ Sensitivity of individual nesting species and the behaviors of the bats.
2. If pre-construction surveys indicate that no roosts of special-status bats are present, or that roosts are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied, no further mitigation is required.
3. Pre-construction surveys are not required for demolition or construction activities scheduled to occur during the non-breeding and winter hibernacula season (September 1 through October 15, and March 1 through April 15).
4. Noisy demolition or construction activities as described above (or activities producing similar substantial increases in noise and activity levels in the vicinity) commencing during the non-breeding season and continuing into the breeding season do not require surveys (as it is assumed that any bats taking up roosts would be acclimated to project-related activities already under way). However, if trees are to be removed during the breeding season, the trees would be surveyed for roosts prior to their removal, according to the survey and protective action guidelines 1a through 1c, above.
5. Bat roosts initiated during demolition or construction activities are presumed to be unaffected by the activity, and a buffer is not necessary.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 2-10
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
BIO-1 continued 6. Destruction of roosts of special-status bats and overt interference with roosting activities of special-status bats shall be prohibited.
7. The noise control procedures for maximum noise, equipment, and operations identified in Chapter 4.12, Noise, of this EIR shall be implemented.
Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan
would alter the significance of an historic resource. By removing individual structures that contribute to the
eligibility of an historic district, the RAAP’s ability to convey its importance to local and national history is
significantly altered, the resource may not be eligible for inclusion on the CRHR.
S CUL-1: Prior to the demolition of buildings and structures comprising the eligible district, an Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) recordation shall be conducted for the affected structures.
HABS/HAER recordation could include archiving of original plans, undertaking archival research for preparation of a report, making measured drawings, and completing a photographic study of the structures.
SU
Geology and Soils
Since there are no significant impacts related to land use as a result of the Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1: Development and operation of the Specific
Plan could generate GHG emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment.
S GHG-1: Each individual project component of the Specific Plan shall be analyzed for significant GHG impacts. For each project-level analysis, appropriate BPS will be implemented or a 29 percent GHG emission reduction compared to BAU will be demonstrated. Means of mitigating GHG impacts to a less-than-significant level include, but are not limited to, technological controls for stationary sources (such as for boilers, generators, and process heaters) and the GHG emission reduction measures (such as energy efficiency, transportation, and site design measures) for development projects listed in the SJVAPCD CCAP. For each individual project, the applicant shall document, to the City’s reasonable satisfaction, its compliance with this mitigation measure.
LTS
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 2-11
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
Mineral Resources
There are no significant impacts related to agricultural resources as a result of the proposed Plan. Therefore no mitigation measures are required.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Since there are no significant impacts related to hazardous materials as a result of the Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
There are no significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality as a result of the proposed Plan. Therefore no mitigation measures are required.
Land Use and Planning
Since there are no significant impacts related to land use as a result of the Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
Noise
NOISE-1: The nearest residential land uses are 110
feet west of the plan area, across Claus Road. Noise
levels resulting from on-site activities may exceed City standards for stationary noise sources, as described in General Plan Tables NOISE-2 and NOISE-3 (Tables
4.12-6 and 4.12-7 in this EIR), at nearby residential
receivers if the noise generated by such uses are not
regulated or adequately mitigated.
S NOISE-1: In order to reduce noise generated by activities occurring within the RAAP site, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
♦ Project level acoustical analyses shall be constructed for noise-generating land uses proposed as part of the Specific Plan. Exterior noise levels at residential land uses interfacing active parks, commercial land uses, or industrial land uses shall be maintained in accordance with the standards presented in the General Plan and Municipal Code. ♦ Parking lot cleaning activities in commercial and industrial areas shall be limited to daytime and evening hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
♦ Trash compactors in commercial and industrial areas shall be located away from adjacent residential receivers or shielded with noise barriers. ♦ Loading dock hours of operation shall be limited to daytime and evening hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
LTS
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 2-12
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
NOISE-2: Existing noise environments at outdoor
activity areas of residences along Claus Road are greater than 65 dBA Ldn, and would increase by more than 1.5
dBA as a result of transportation noise following implementation of the Specific Plan.
S NOISE-2: Noise reduction methods shall be implemented to reduce generated by activities resulting from the Specific Plan. These measures shall include, but are not limited to the following:
♦ Paving streets with "quieter" pavement types such as Open-Grade Rubberized Asphaltic Concrete would reduce noise levels by 2 to 3 dBA depending on the existing pavement type, traffic speed, traffic volumes, and other factors. ♦ New or larger noise barriers could reduce noise levels by 5 dBA Ldn. Final design of such barriers, including an assessment of their feasibility and reasonableness, should be completed during project level review.
♦ Sound insulation treatments to affected buildings, such as sound rated windows and doors, could reduce noise levels in interior spaces. ♦ Installing traffic calming measures to slow traffic along Claus Road could provide qualitative improvement by smoothing out the rise and fall in noise levels caused by speeding vehicles.
SU
NOISE-3: While the duration and phasing of construction activities for the Specific Plan is unknown at this time, it is conceivable that a particular receiver or group of receivers would be subject to construction
noise levels in excess of 60 dBA Leq and the ambient by 5 dBA for durations exceeding one construction season.
S NOISE-3: To reduce noise levels generated by construction, the following standard construction noise control measures shall be included in all construction projects within the plan area:
♦ Limit construction to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no noise-generating construction on Sundays or holidays.
♦ Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
♦ Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines should be strictly prohibited. ♦ Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. Temporary noise barriers could reduce construction noise levels by 5 dBA.
♦ Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
♦ Route all construction traffic to and from the project site via designated truck routes where possible. Prohibit construction related heavy truck traffic in residential areas where feasible.
LTS
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 2-13
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
NOISE-3 continued ♦ Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
♦ The contractor shall prepare and submit to the City for approval a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. ♦ Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
NOISE-4: Traffic volume increases in the vicinity of
the Specific Plan vicinity will result with the development of the plan area and other planned developments in the southeast portion of the City of Riverbank.
S NOISE-4: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-2. SU
Population and Housing
Since there are no significant impacts related to cultural resources as a result of the Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
Public Services
PUB-1: In order to improve response times and ISO
ratings, a new fire station is required either in the Bruinville planning area or in the RAAP Plan Area. The addition of a new Fire Station on the east side of the
City near the RAAP would be necessary as the proposed Plan builds out. The new station would need at least nine personnel hired for staffing purposes (3 per shift), and the station would need a new Type 1 Engine, Type 3 Engine, and a Water Tender for apparatus. This
would be a significant impact.
S PUB-1: The City shall coordinate with Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District to ensure fair share development fees for future development resulting from the implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan to ensure equipment, staffing, and facilities for emergency medical services, urban search and rescue, hazardous materials emergency response, and other relevant needs, as appropriateThe additional personnel, station, and apparatus shall be incorporated into the RAAP Specific Plan and have benchmarks for when the staffing and facilities are added.
LTS
Recreation
Since there are no significant impacts related to parks and recreational facilities as a result of the Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 2-14
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Traffic
TRANS-1: The Claribel Road/Coffee Road intersection operates at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours and signal warrants are met during both
peak hours in the Existing Condition. The addition of
project traffic would worsen operations and increase
delay.
S TRANS-1: Future developers within the RAAP area shall contribute their fair share, through the payment of local and regional fees, towards the construction of left-turn pockets on all approaches to the Claribel Road/Coffee Road intersection with appropriate storage and deceleration length, and signalization of the intersection. This improvement would improve the service level at the Claribel Road/Coffee Road intersection to LOS C or better (the level of service standard for this intersection) in both peak hours, as shown on Table 4.16-9. Stanislaus County plans to signalize this intersection as part of the Claribel Road widening project. Funding for signalization is provided from Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Federal funding. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2013.
LTS
TRANS-2: The Claribel Road/Roselle Avenue intersection operates at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours and signal warrants are met during both
peak hours in the Existing Condition. The addition of
project traffic would worsen operations and increase
delay.
S TRANS-2: Future developers within the RAAP area shall contribute their fair share, through the payment of local and regional fees, towards the construction of left-turn pockets on all approaches to the Claribel Road/Roselle Avenue intersection with appropriate storage and deceleration length, and signalization of the intersection. This improvement would improve the service level at the Claribel Road/Roselle Avenue intersection to LOS D or better (the level of service standard for this intersection) in both peak hours, as shown on Table 4.16-9. Signalization of this intersection is programmed in the Stanislaus County 2011-2012 budget using CMAQ funding and is scheduled for construction in 2015/2016.
LTS
TRANS-3: Future development within the RAAP area
would add truck traffic to intersections on State Route 108, specifically at the intersections of Atchison Street (State Route 108)/1st Street, State Route 108/Claus
Road and State Route 108/
Patterson Road. As these intersections do not currently accommodate the turning movements of large trucks,
this is considered a potentially significant impact based on the significance criteria.
S TRANS-3: Future developers within the RAAP area shall contribute their fair share towards improvements at the intersections identified above, though the payment of local and regional traffic fees, that improve turning radii for large trucksto provide adequate turning radii in conformance with STAA requirements at intersections on State Route 108, specifically at the intersections of Atchison Street (State Route 108)/1st Street, State Route 108/Claus Road and State Route 108/Patterson Road, though the payment of local and regional traffic fees. No other improvements have been identified for are needed to mitigate project impacts at these intersections.
SU
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 2-15
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
TRANS-4: Future Development in the RAAP Specific
Plan area could substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
S TRANS-4: Although construction impacts are expected to be temporary and lessthan-significant, for all future development in the plan area, the following is recommended to minimize the effects of construction related activity:
♦ Prepare a construction management plan, including:
Project staging plan to maximize on-site storage of materials and equipment. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak hours; lane closure proceedings; signs, cones, and other warning devices for drivers; and designation of construction access routes.
Permitted construction hours.
Location of construction staging.
Provision of on-site parking for all construction employees, site visitors, and inspectors.
Provisions for street sweeping to remove construction related debris on public streets.
LTS
TRANS-5: The Claribel Road/Coffee Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and LOS E during the PM peak hours. The addition of
project traffic would worsen deficient operations in
both peak hours. This is considered significant based
on the significance criteria, as LOS C is the standard for this intersection.
S TRANS-5: Construction of Phase 2 of the North County Corridor Project, which would connect the Phase 1 project, which is planned to terminate at McHenry Avenue, to State Route 99, is expected to shift sufficient traffic from this intersection that LOS C would be achieved. Alternatively, intersection improvements beyond the crosssection identified in the General Plan could be provided to improve peak hour operations, such as dual left-turn lanes and right-turn only lanes on all approaches. This improvement would improve the service level to LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour, as shown on Table 4.16-10. These service levels are considered deficient for this intersection. Given the uncertainly of constructing parallel capacity or the feasibility of additional improvements beyond the planned General Plan cross section, this impact is expected to remain significant and unavoidable.
SU
TRANS-6: The Claribel Road/Oakdale Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The addition of project traffic
would worsen LOS F operations. This is considered
significant based on the significance criteria, as LOS D is the standard for this intersection.
S TRANS-6: Construction of Phase 2 of the North County Corridor Project, which would connect the Phase 1 project, which is planned to terminate at McHenry Avenue, to State Route 99, is expected to shift sufficient traffic from this intersection that LOS D would be achieved. Alternatively, construction of additional improvements at this intersection that would result in acceptable service levels, including dual left-turn pockets on the northbound, westbound, and eastbound approaches could be constructed.
This improvement would improve the service level to LOS D or better (the level of service standard for this intersection) in both peak hours, as shown in Table 10 of the TIA, reducing this impact to a less-than-significant level. However, given the uncerSU
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 2-16
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
tainly of constructing parallel capacity or the feasibility of additional improvements beyond the planned General Plan cross section, this impact is expected to remain significant and unavoidable.
Utilities and Service Systems
Since there are no significant impacts related to utilities and service systems as a result of the Plan, no mitigation measures are required.
UTIL-1: Buildout of the Plan would require improvements to existing stormwater facilities. The existing stormwater pipes have areas where there are improperly
functioning gravity systems, cracked or offset joins, or vertical and/or horizontal pipe cracks. Other deficiencies in the existing stormwater system include the squirrel hole in the reservoir and the undersized main line piping. With the existing deficiencies, the proposed
Plan would have the potential to increase flooding.
This would be a significant impact.
S UTIL-1: The Stormwater Master Plan for the proposed Plan recommends the following measures:
♦ Manholes should be repaired to ensure the lids seal properly to prevent inflow and infiltration of storm water during rain events.
♦ In order to mitigate the possible contamination of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) within the storm drain, one of the following options could be implemented:
Clean and apply a lining or coating to all affected storm drain pipes; Replace affected storm drain pipes with larger pipes; LTS
UTIL-1 continued S A combination of lining a portion of the storm drain pipes and replacing other storm drain pipes: this involves adding a second pipe between the north reservoir lift station and the diversion structure located near Gate 10. Also includes replacing storm drain piping, with larger pipe size, from the diversion structure to the Building Group.
♦ Current County Standards require new systems to have a capacity to convey storm events equal to the 10-year return period or larger. Lining the interior of affected piping is a cost effective way to mitigate potential contamination of pipes while providing approximately the same (slightly improved) level of service in relation to stormwater conveyance.
♦ If there are opportunities to upgrade the lift station pumping capacity in the future, the LRA should use that opportunity to significantly increase lift station capacity.
Increasing size (i.e. conveyance capacity) of storm drain piping upstream from the north lift station will not be effective unless the lift station capacity is increased. ♦ Improvements to the existing north reservoir should be completed at the LRA’s earliest opportunity. The squirrel hole(s) in the reservoir bank should be repaired and the lower outlet valve returned to the normal operating position (i.e. closed).
This would allow more storage capacity of the reservoir prior to discharge, which LTS
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 2-17
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
would allow more time for suspended soils to settle out in stormwater traveling through the reservoir during rainfall events. Currently, the exterior bank slope is approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The slopes may be reduced as much possible within the constraints of space allotted to the reservoir (i.e. approximately 3:1) to reduce the possibility of the rodent holes extending through the bank. Additionally, the repaired slopes may be hardened with rock or crushed brick to make it more difficult for rodents to penetrate the surface. ♦ To determine the performance of the reservoir outlets, a detailed hydraulic analysis of the OID piping would need to be accomplished. The 10-year and 50-year storm events produce approximately 4.0 MGAL and 4.2 MGAL, respectively. Therefore, the combined outlet piping would need to discharge approximately 1.0 to 1.2 MGAL to prevent the reservoir from becoming full and having water overtopping the banks during these types of storm events. In order to discharge 1.2 MGAL, the outlet piping would need to discharge at an average rate of 3.2 cubic feet per second (cfs) over a 24-hour period. This is a relatively small flow rate and most likely UTIL-1 continued the discharge piping connected to the OID piping and overflow piping would prevent the reservoir from reaching maximum capacity during these types of storms events (i.e. approximately 3.2 cfs is the minimum required and unrestricted gravity flow to OID piping would be approximately 10 cfs, if the OID piping was empty and able to accept full gravity flow).
♦ If the properties around the reservoir are developed, additional analysis to determine the OID piping hydraulic capacity should be conducted and, if needed, the north reservoir should be increased in size to prevent potential flooding of the newly developed sites. By removing the earthen divider and extending the basin to the northeast by approximately 120 feet, the reservoir capacity could be increased to approximately 4.5 MGAL. This would provide the additional capacity necessary to ensure the basin can adequately store stormwater runoff from larger events even if the OID has little or no capacity to receive water from the reservoir outlets. ♦ Based on the results of percolation testing, the soils within the site appear to have adequate capacity to infiltrate stormwater directed into basins, swales, or rain gardens. Final design for these areas of the site should include additional percolation testing in order to estimate infiltration rates at the locations and depths of final design basins and other LID components proposed within these areas. ♦ Future development should include LID features to the maximum extent practical,
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN E IR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact 2-18
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
and at a minimum LID components (in additional to large infiltration basins) should cover 15 percent of the total site area. This minimum percentage is based on the example site layout conducted as part of this study that incorporates LID features into a practical commercial site layout. The LID components may include, but not be limited to the following:
Shallow infiltration basins
Bioretention basin / rain gardens
Porous concrete within parking stalls
Rainwater harvesting system (cisterns and/or rain barrels) ♦ In addition to structural LID components, sites should be designed to minimize continuous impervious surfaces where possible. This includes providing landscaping around buildings and breaks between roadways and sidewalks. This also includes generally reducing the amount of impervious surfaces around sites. 3 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-1
This chapter presents specific changes to the Draft EIR that are being made in response to comments made by the public. In each case, the revised page and location on the page is presented, followed by the textual or tabular, revision. Doubleunderline text represents language that has been added to the EIR; text with strikethrough has been deleted from the EIR.
The revisions contained herein merely clarify and amplify the information in the Draft EIR, and none of the revisions constitutes significant changes to the analysis contained in the Draft EIR.
All changes to Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR, including changes to Table 2-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, are included in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR.
Chapter 4.3 Air Quality
Section E.1.d. beginning on page 4.3-32 of the Draft EIR is hereby added as included below. As a part of the text edits below, Figure 4.3-2 and Figure
4.3-3, have been added to the Draft EIR and are also include below. In addition, Appendix B (attached to this Final EIR) has been modified to include additional information pertaining to the Health Risk Assessment. a. Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations (LTS) The health risk evaluation for the Specific Plan involved the calculation of future diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions and associated health risks for on-site vehicle traffic at the project sitefor traffic on Claus Road, which is the main road adjacent to the project site. It was assumed that the primary contributor to potential health risks from on-site traffic would be from DPM emissions from dieselfueled trucks. Emissions were calculated using the latest version of the CARB EMFAC2011 emissions model. Potential cancer risks for residents in the vicinity of the project site along Claus Road were calculated using health risk assessment methods recommended by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment1 (OEHHA) and the SJVAPCD.
1. The health risk assessment method
includes calculation of ambient DPM concentrations at residential receptor loca-
10 OEHHA 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. August 2003. 11 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling, Draft 01/07 Rev 2.0.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTH ORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-2
tions using an air quality dispersion model, and then calculating cancer risks using the modeled concentrations along with appropriate DPM-specific risk factors.
Roadway and receptor coordinates, meteorological data, traffic volumes, and the emission factors were used with the AERMOD air quality dispersion model to predict annual DPM concentrations from roadway traffic which were then used to calculate lifetime cancer risks at the residential receptor locations. i. Traffic Emissions
The project would include areas for research and development (R&D) and industrial uses at the northern and southern portions of the site, retail development adjacent to Claus road near the central and southern portions of the site, and realignment of existing parking areas in the central portion of the site near Claus road. These areas are identified in Figures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3. Also shown on the figures are potential truck routes within each area that were used for modeling.
DPM emissions for traffic on Claus Roadon-site truck travel and idling were calculated using emission factors from the CARB EMFAC2011 emissions model with default information for Stanislaus County along with future traffic volumes and vehicle mixes on Claus Road. EMFAC2011 is the most recent version of the CARB motor vehicle emission factor model. Emission factors were developed for the year 2020 assuming that all trucks are heavy-duty diesel-fueled trucks and would be traveling at 15 miles per hour. For truck idle emissions, each truck was assumed to idle for 10 minutes while at the project site (5 minutes per truck trip).
Based on traffic data for the project, as described in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, there would be about 465 trucks accessing the site daily, or 930 daily truck trips. These truck trips were distributed among the different development areas of the project and associated truck routes based on the projected size and type of new land use. Figure 4.3-1 includes the estimated number of daily trucks traveling in each project area. Emissions from these trucks were then used in the air quality dispersion modeling of on-site truck travel to predict DPM concentrations at residences in the vicinity of the project and along the Claus Roadusing the projected mix of cars and trucks traveling on Claus Road north and south of the project site. Based on traffic data for the project there would be more traffic on Claus Road north of the site than south of the site. The average daily traffic volumes were estimated as 4,957 passenger vehicles and 428 trucks, or 54 percent of the total traffic, traveling north of the project site on Claus Road, and 4,223 passenger vehicles and 428 trucks, or 46 percent of the total traffic, traveling on Claus 4 RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
AIR QUALITY
P R O J E C T S I T E , D E V E L O P M E N T A R E A S , O N - S I T E T R U C K R O U T E S , A N D
DAILY TRUCK TRAFFIC
FIGURE 4.3-2
Source: Illingworth_&_Rodkin, 2013.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
AIR QUALITY
P R O J E C T S I T E , O N - S I T E T R U C K R O U T E S F O R D I S P E R S I O N M O D E L I N G , A N D
NEARBY RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
FIGURE 4.3-3
Source: Illingworth_&_Rodkin, 2012.
5 RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-5
Road south of the site. In calculating emissions it was assumed that all trucks would be heavy duty trucks and the passenger vehicles would be comprised of light duty autos and trucks. An average travel speed of 45 mph (the posted speed limit on Claus Road) was assumed for all vehicles and used with the EMFAC2011 model in calculating DPM emission factors. These emissions were then used in the air quality dispersion modeling of vehicles traveling on Claus Road to predict DPM concentrations at residences along the roadway. The DPM emission factor calculations are shown in Appendix B.
ii. Roadway Dispersion Modeling
Dispersion modeling of roadway DPM emissions was conducted using the EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model. This model is recommended by the SJVAPCD for this type of analysis. The AERMOD model predicts pollutant concentrations at receptors located in areas of flat or complex terrain from a variety of emission source types including point, area, volume, and line sources. Emissions from these source types can be continuous or vary by hour, day of the week, month, or season.
For this analysis the model was run using regulatory default dispersion options and rural dispersion coefficients due to the rural nature of the project area. AlthoughSince there is little variation in terrain elevations in the project area, the model was run in flat terrain modeusing USGS digital terrain data for the project area.
A 5-year set of hourly meteorological data (2005 - 2009) from the Modesto Airport, located about 6.25 miles south-southwest of the project site, was used in the modeling., These meteorological data were prepared by the SJVAPCD.,12 from the Modesto Airport, located about 6.25 miles south-southwest of the project site, was used in the modeling. Other inputs to the model included road geometry, receptor locations, and hourly emission rates. The truckVehicle emissions were modeled as line sources (a series of volume sources along a path) along Claus Roadthe on-site truck travel routes shown in Figure 4.3-2. In the vicinity of the project site, Claus Road is a two-lane road and was modeled using one line source per travel direction.
Since the traffic volumes and associated emissions on Claus Road are different north and south of the project site, two roadway segments were used in the modeling. One road segment represents traffic from the project site north on Claus Road to Kentucky Avenue and the other segment represents Claus Road from of the project site south to just beyond Plainview Road. Emission source parameters used in modeling these line sources were consistent with SJVAPCD Air Quality Modeling Guidance. 12 The trucks were modeled as traveling at 15 mph with an emission
12 http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/AirQualityMonitoring.htm.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTH ORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-6
release height of 6 feet and the road widths were model at 12 feet. Since the actual locations where trucks may be idling at the site are unknown, the truck idle emissions were included in the emissions for modeling truck travel.
Locations of residential receptors in the project area and along Claus Road were identified from aerial images and included in the modeling as locations for the model to calculate annual average DPM concentrations. Sixty-fiveSeventy-two residential receptors were identified and included in the modeling. A receptor height of 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) was used for all receptors modeled. An aerial view showing the project site, roadway segments modeled, and the locations of the residential receptors is provided in Figure 4.3-1. The maximum-modeled DPM concentration occurred along the road segment south of the project site, north of Plainview Road,of 0.0103 µg/m3 occurred west of the northern portion of the project site along Claus Road at UTM coordinates 683,228.5 meters east, 4,175260.6 meters north and is shown in Figure 4.3-1. This is the maximum exposed individual (MEI) location. Inputs used for the modeling are included in Appendix B. iii. Cancer Risk Prediction
Cancer risk to residents near Claus Road from roadwayto off-site residents from on-site truck DPM emissions were assessed following the SJVAPCD recommended methods and their significance evaluated based on the SJVAPCD threshold of an incremental cancer risk of ten excess cases per million at the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI). Exceeding this threshold would result in a significant impact.
The ten-in-one-million risk level is also used by the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” (AB 2588) program and California’s Proposition 65 as the public notification level for air toxic emissions from existing sources.
Potential cancer risks from inhalation of toxic air contaminants are calculated based on the annual average concentration, an inhalation dose, and the cancer potency of the toxic air contaminant. The inhalation dose depends on a person’s breathing rate, exposure time and frequency of exposure, and the exposure duration over a 70-year lifetime period. These parameters vary depending on whether the exposure is considered to occur for a residential location, at a workplace, or at a school. For this analysis, potential exposures to DPM concentrations from on-site truck traffic on Claus Road to residents along the roadway were evaluated. For residential exposures, the SJVAPCD recommends using a breathing rate of 393 liters per day per
13 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling, Draft 01/07 Rev 2.0.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-7
kilogram of body weight (L/kg-day). Residential receptors are assumed to be exposed for 24 hours per day for 350 days per year over a 70-year lifetime.
Potential health risks to nearby residents from on-site truckresidents along Claus Road from roadway DPM emissions were evaluated assuming constant exposure to DPM concentrations based on emissions during 2020 for an entire 70-year lifetime exposure period (SJVAPCD recommended method) based on emissions during 2020. The maximum increased MEI cancer risk for a 70-year exposure was 4.36.5 in onea million. Details on the cancer risk calculations are included in Appendix B.
Under the SJVAPCD CEQA GuidelinesGAMAQI, an incremental risk of greater than ten cases per million at the MEI would be considered a significant impact.
The increased cancer risk associated with on-site truck traffic along Claus Road is less than 10 in a million, and therefore would be a less-than-significant impact.
Section E.2. beginning on page 4.3-37 of the Draft EIR is hereby added as follows:
2. Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Plan would not contribute to a regional impact by increasing the rate of vehicle use at a greater rate than population growth. However, build out of the Specific Plan with mitigation may have NOx emissions that could exceed the GAMAQI thresholds. That would mean the project could have a cumulatively considerable increase in air pollutant emissions that may contribute to future violations of ozone ambient air quality standards. As a result, this cumulative impact would be considered significant.
In addition to assessing potential health risks from the project’s on-site DPM emissions from truck travel, potential risks from project trucks traveling off-site were evaluated and the combined cancer risk from on-site and off-site truck DPM emissions identified.
As discussed in the DEIR, cancer risks from project truck travel along Claus Road was evaluated. The maximum cancer risk from truck travel on Claus Road occurred south of the project site at a residence on the east side of Claus Road, north of Plainview Road. The maximum cancer risk at this location was 6.5 in one million.
In order to assess the combined cancer risks from both on-site and off-site project truck traffic, the on-site emission sources, discussed above, and the off-site emis-
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTH ORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-8
sion sources, discussed in the DEIR, were modeled with the AERMOD model to identify the location and magnitude of the maximum DPM concentration and associated maximum cancer risk at a residential receptor. The modeling was conducted using the same methodology as described above. The maximum combined impact from on-site and off-site truck traffic occurred at the same location, discussed above, where the maximum impact from the on-site truck travel occurred.
The total cancer risk from on-site and off-site truck DPM emissions was 9.0 in one million. Cumulative cancer risk at this level is considered to be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1a on page 4.3-38 of the Draft EIR, is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1a: Each individual project component of the Specific Plan, including those projects allowed by right, shall be analyzed for significant construction period air quality impacts. For each project-level analysis, a construction emissions estimate will be made by SJVAPCD using the latest SJVAPCD accepted methodology and will be compared to accepted thresholds of significance.
Means of mitigating construction period impacts to a less-than-significant level include, but are not limited to, Mitigation Measures AQ-1a through AQ-1d.
Since approval of the RAAP Specific Plan may constitute the final discretionary approval by the City of Riverbank, each individual project component, including those projects allowed by right, shall be required to demonstrate to the SJVAPCD compliance with construction period requirements of Rule 9510 prior to issuance of the first building and/or grading permits as a condition of project approval. The applicant shall document, to the City’s reasonable satisfaction, its compliance with this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1b on page 4.3-38 of the Draft EIR, is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1b: SJVAPCD Regulation VIII Control Measures. Prior to initiation of construction activities, the applicant for an individual, site-specific development under the RAAP Specific PlanThe following controls shall be required to be implemented at all construction sites the following controls:
♦ All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover;
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-9
♦ All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant; ♦ All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking; ♦ With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the building shall be wetted during demolition; ♦ When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inched of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained; ♦ All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden); ♦ Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant; ♦ Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday; and ♦ Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1c on page 4.3-39 of the Draft EIR, is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1c: Enhanced Control Measures. Prior to initiation of construction activities, the applicant for an individual, site-specific development under the Specific Plan, Tthe following measures shallshould be implemented at construction sites when required to mitigate significant PM10 impacts (note, these measures are to be implemented in addition to Regulation VIII requirements):
♦ Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; and
♦ Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 on page 4.3-41 of the Draft EIR, is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Each individual project component of the Specific Plan, including those projects allowed by right, shall be analyzed for significant construction period air quality impacts. For each project-level analysis, an operational emissions estimate will be made by SJVAPCD using the latest SJVAPCD accepted
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTH ORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-10
methodology and will be compared to accepted thresholds of significance. Means of mitigating operational period impacts to a less-than-significant level include, but are not limited to, improving transportation and transit design (e.g., improved bikeways, transit infrastructure, and pedestrian enhancements); contributing a project’s fair share to the Air Quality Mitigation Fee Fund; and contributing a project’s fair share towards Transportation Control Measures implementation programs. For each individual project, the applicant shall document, to the City’s reasonable satisfaction, its compliance with this mitigation measure.
Since approval of the RAAP Specific Plan may constitute the final discretionary approval by the City of Riverbank, each individual project component, including those projects allowed by right, shall be required to demonstrate to the SJVAPCD compliance with operational period requirements of Rule 9510 prior to issuance of the first building and/or grading permits as a condition of project approval. For each individual project, the applicant shall document, to the City’s reasonable satisfaction, its compliance with this mitigation measure.
Each individual project, including those projects allowed by right, that introduce significant sources of air pollutant emissions or stationary sources of TACs shall complete separate ambient air quality analysis and health risks assessments to ensure that violations of ambient air quality standards do not occur, including an analysis of cumulative emissions from the RAAP Specific Plan. For each individual project, the applicant shall document, to the City’s reasonable satisfaction, its compliance with this mitigation measure.
Section B.3.a.iii. on page 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR is hereby added as follows:
iii. Rule 9410 – Employer Based Trip Reduction
The purpose of this rule is reduce vehicle miles traveled from private vehicles used by employees to commute to and from their worksites to reduce emissions of NOx, ROG and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The rule applies to employers with at least 100 employees. Employers are required to implement an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP) for each worksite with 100 or more Eligible Employees to meet applicable targets specified in the rule. Employers are required to facilitate the participation of in the development of ETRIPs by providing information to its employees explaining the requirements and applicability of this rule. Employers are required to prepare and submit an ETRIP for each worksite to the District. The ETRIP must be updated annually. Under this rule, employers shall collect information on the modes of transportation used for each Eligible Employee’s commutes both to and from work for every day of the Com-
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-11
mute Verification Period, as defined in using either the Mandatory Commute Verification Method or a Representative Survey Method. Annual reporting includes the results of the Commute Verification for the previous calendar year along with the measures implemented as outlined in the ETRIP and, if necessary, any updates to the ETRIP.
Table 4.3-2 on page 4.3-13 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standards National Standards
Concentration Method Primary Secondary Method
…
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
24 Hour -- -- 35 µg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation
and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3
Gravimetric
or Beta
Attenuation
15 µg/m3
12 µg/m3
Section Cb.i. beginning on page 4.3-20 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
The SJVAPCD adopted the 2008 PM2.5 Plan on April 30, 2008. The plan was approved by CARB on May 22, 2008 and US EPA on November 9, 2011. This plan will assure that the Valley will attain the 1997 PM2.5 standard and make progress toward attaining the new 2006 standards as well as the state standard. The plan uses control measures to reduce NOx, which also leads to fine particulate formation in the atmosphere. The plan incorporates measures to reduce direct emissions of PM2.5, including a strengthening of the wood-burning rules. Recent and proposed action by CARB to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions from onand off-road mobiles sources is contained in the plan. Attainment plans for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are not required until December 2012.The District approved the 2012 PM2.5 Plan on December 20, 2012. The plan was then approved by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) on January 24, 2013. This plan assures the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin will comply with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2006 PM2.5 standard by the 2019 deadline.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTH ORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-12
Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mitigation Measure GHG-1 on page 4.7-17 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Each individual project component of the Specific Plan shall be analyzed for significant GHG impacts. For each project-level analysis, appropriate Best Performance Standards will be implemented or a 29 percent GHG emission reduction compared to BAU will be demonstrated. Means of mitigating GHG impacts to a less-than-significant level include, but are not limited to, technological controls for stationary sources (such as for boilers, generators, and process heaters) and the GHG emission reduction measures (such as energy efficiency, transportation, and site design measures) for development projects listed in the SJVAPCD CCAP. For each individual project, the applicant shall document, to the City’s reasonable satisfaction, its compliance with this mitigation measure.
Chapter 4.14 Public Services
Mitigation Measure PUB-1 on page 4.16-14 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure PUB-1: The City shall coordinate with Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District to ensure fair share development fees for future development resulting from the implementation of the RAAP Specific Plan to ensure equipment, staffing, and facilities for emergency medical services, urban search and rescue, hazardous materials emergency response, and other relevant needs, as appropriateThe additional personnel, station, and apparatus shall be incorporated into the RAAP Specific Plan and have benchmarks for when the staffing and facilities are added.
Chapter 4.16 Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 beginning on page 4.16-38 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Future developers within the RAAP area shall contribute their fair share, through the payment of local and regional fees, towards the construction of left-turn pockets on all approaches to the Claribel Road/Coffee Road intersection with appropriate storage and deceleration length, and signalization of the intersection. This improvement would improve the service level at the Claribel Road/Coffee Road intersection to LOS C or better (the level of service standard for this intersection) in both peak hours, as shown on Table 4.16-9. Stan-
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-13
islaus County plans to signalize this intersection as part of the Claribel Road widening project. Funding for signalization is provided from Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Federal funding. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2013.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 on page 4.16-39 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure TRANS-2: Future developers within the RAAP area shall contribute their fair share, through the payment of local and regional fees, towards the construction of left-turn pockets on all approaches to the Claribel Road/Roselle Avenue intersection with appropriate storage and deceleration length, and signalization of the intersection. This improvement would improve the service level at the Claribel Road/Roselle Avenue intersection to LOS D or better (the level of service standard for this intersection) in both peak hours, as shown on Table 4.16-9. Signalization of this intersection is programmed in the Stanislaus County 2011-2012 budget using CMAQ funding and is scheduled for construction in 2015/2016.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-3 on page 4.16-40 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
Mitigation Measure TRANS-3: Future developers within the RAAP area shall contribute their fair share towards improvements at the intersections identified above, though the payment of local and regional traffic fees, that improve turning radii for large trucksto provide adequate turning radii in conformance with STAA requirements at intersections on State Route 108, specifically at the intersections of Atchison Street (State Route 108)/1st Street, State Route 108/Claus Road and State Route 108/Patterson Road, though the payment of local and regional traffic fees.
No other improvements have been identified for are needed to mitigate project impacts at these intersections.
Chapter 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Section C.2. beginning on page 4.17-28 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
In general, under existing conditions, stormwater runoff is collected in numerous inlets located around the site that connect to a main storm drain line. The main storm drain line carries flows towards the north, opposite the surface grade. At Gate 10, flow is directed through a diversion structure. A valve located at the discharge of the diversion structure remains open allowing stormwater runoff to travel
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTH ORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-14
through the diversion structure and down a 36-inch pipe towards a lift station, located adjacent to the north stormwater reservoir. Pumps 1 and 2 of the lift station convey flow into the north reservoir. This reservoir is designed as a detention basin that allows for temporary stormwater runoff to facilitate settling of suspended sediment. Two outlets, with approximately one foot of elevation difference, are provided in the reservoir to discharge water into the Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) 30-inch diameter line that runs parallel to the north side of the reservoir.
Between rain events, some water remains in the reservoir, below the outlets, and either evaporates, infiltrates into the ground, or is used by the vegetation that grows in the basin. The lift station located near the reservoir has a third smaller pump that conveys stormwater from the lift station directly to the OID pipe during periods of excessive rain.
The discussion of cumulative stormwater impacts on pages 4.17-31 and 4.17- 32 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: 5. Cumulative Impacts This section analyzes potential impacts to stormwater systems that could occur from the proposed Plan in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the City of Riverbank SOI, as defined in the Riverbank General Plan.
As described above, all the stormwater from the Plan Area would be treated onsite. Development under the proposed Plan would comply with draft Specific Plan Goal PUB-2 and Policy PUB-3 and includes low impact development and sustainable design approaches for stormwater management. Any new development occurring within the RAAP site would be required to comply with the RAAP Specific Plan as well as the Stormwater Plan prepared for the site. Future conditions within the RAAP site would be evaluated on a project-by-project bases an new development applications are submitted to the City in order to address any project-specific impacts. Because stormwater would be treated on-site and future stormwater would be mitigated as projects come forward, cumulative impacts on stormwater facilities would be considered less than significantWith Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 in place, cumulative impacts to stormwater systems would therefore be less than significant.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-15
The discussion of stormwater impacts and mitigation measures beginning on page 4.17-32 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Specific Plan would not result in any significant impacts to stormwater; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessaryThe following impacts and mitigation measures have been identified with regard to stormwater.
Impact UTIL-1: Buildout of the Plan would require improvements to existing stormwater facilities. The existing stormwater pipes have areas where there are improperly functioning gravity systems, cracked or offset joins, or vertical and/or horizontal pipe cracks. Other deficiencies in the existing stormwater system include the squirrel hole in the reservoir and the undersized main line piping. With the existing deficiencies, the proposed Plan would have the potential to increase flooding. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: The Stormwater Master Plan for the proposed Plan recommends the following measures:
♦ Manholes should be repaired to ensure the lids seal properly to prevent inflow and infiltration of storm water during rain events. ♦ In order to mitigate the possible contamination of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) within the storm drain, one of the following options could be implemented:
Clean and apply a lining or coating to all affected storm drain pipes; Replace affected storm drain pipes with larger pipes; A combination of lining a portion of the storm drain pipes and replacing other storm drain pipes: this involves adding a second pipe between the north reservoir lift station and the diversion structure located near Gate 10. Also includes replacing storm drain piping, with larger pipe size, from the diversion structure to the Building Group. ♦ Current County Standards require new systems to have a capacity to convey storm events equal to the 10-year return period or larger. Lining the interior of affected piping is a cost effective way to mitigate potential contamination of pipes while providing approximately the same (slightly improved) level of service in relation to stormwater conveyance. ♦ If there are opportunities to upgrade the lift station pumping capacity in the future, the LRA should use that opportunity to significantly increase lift station capacity. Increasing size (i.e. conveyance capacity) of storm drain
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTH ORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-16
piping upstream from the north lift station will not be effective unless the lift station capacity is increased.
♦ Improvements to the existing north reservoir should be completed at the LRA’s earliest opportunity. The squirrel hole(s) in the reservoir bank should be repaired and the lower outlet valve returned to the normal operating position (i.e. closed). This would allow more storage capacity of the reservoir prior to discharge, which would allow more time for suspended soils to settle out in stormwater traveling through the reservoir during rainfall events. Currently, the exterior bank slope is approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The slopes may be reduced as much possible within the constraints of space allotted to the reservoir (i.e. approximately 3:1) to reduce the possibility of the rodent holes extending through the bank. Additionally, the repaired slopes may be hardened with rock or crushed brick to make it more difficult for rodents to penetrate the surface. ♦ To determine the performance of the reservoir outlets, a detailed hydraulic analysis of the OID piping would need to be accomplished. The 10-year and 50-year storm events produce approximately 4.0 MGAL and 4.2 MGAL, respectively. Therefore, the combined outlet piping would need to discharge approximately 1.0 to 1.2 MGAL to prevent the reservoir from becoming full and having water overtopping the banks during these types of storm events. In order to discharge 1.2 MGAL, the outlet piping would need to discharge at an average rate of 3.2 cubic feet per second (cfs) over a 24-hour period. This is a relatively small flow rate and most likely the discharge piping connected to the OID piping and overflow piping would prevent the reservoir from reaching maximum capacity during these types of storms events (i.e. approximately 3.2 cfs is the minimum required and unrestricted gravity flow to OID piping would be approximately 10 cfs, if the OID piping was empty and able to accept full gravity flow). ♦ If the properties around the reservoir are developed, additional analysis to determine the OID piping hydraulic capacity should be conducted and, if needed, the north reservoir should be increased in size to prevent potential flooding of the newly developed sites. By removing the earthen divider and extending the basin to the northeast by approximately 120 feet, the reservoir capacity could be increased to approximately 4.5 MGAL. This would provide the additional capacity necessary to ensure the basin can adequately store stormwater runoff from larger events even if the OID has little or no capacity to receive water from the reservoir outlets.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-17
♦ Based on the results of percolation testing, the soils within the site appear to have adequate capacity to infiltrate stormwater directed into basins, swales, or rain gardens. Final design for these areas of the site should include additional percolation testing in order to estimate infiltration rates at the locations and depths of final design basins and other LID components proposed within these areas.
♦ Future development should include LID features to the maximum extent practical, and at a minimum LID components (in additional to large infiltration basins) should cover 15 percent of the total site area. This minimum percentage is based on the example site layout conducted as part of this study that incorporates LID features into a practical commercial site layout. The LID components may include, but not be limited to the following:
Shallow infiltration basins
Bioretention basin / rain gardens
Porous concrete within parking stalls
Rainwater harvesting system (cisterns and/or rain barrels) ♦ In addition to structural LID components, sites should be designed to minimize continuous impervious surfaces where possible. This includes providing landscaping around buildings and breaks between roadways and sidewalks. This also includes generally reducing the amount of impervious surfaces around sites.
Significance After Mitigation: This impact would be less than significant after implementation of this mitigation measure.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTH ORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3-18
4 LIST OF COMMENTORS
4-1
A. Written Comments
Written comments were received from the following agencies, organizations, and individuals. Letters are arranged by category, and then by date received. Letters received after the close of the comment period are listed at the end of their respective categories, in the order received. Each letter listed below has been reproduced and is included in Appendix H.
State Agencies
SA1. Dave Singleton, Program Analyst, State of California, Native American Heritage Commission. March 29, 2013.
SA2. Trevor Cleak, Environmental Scientist, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. May 6, 2013.
SA3. Tom Dumas, Chief, Office of Metropolitan Planning, State of California, Department of Transportation. May 10, 2013.
SA4. Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse, State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. May 13, 2013.
Regional Agencies
RA1. Celia Aceves, Risk & Property Analyst, Modesto Irrigation District.
May 2, 2013.
RA2. John B. Davids, District Engineer, Oakdale Irrigation District. May 9, 2013.
RA3. Irena Torrey, Bureau Manager, Bureau of Environmental Management, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. May 13, 2013.
RA4. Shirley Koelmas, Fire Inspector, Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District. May 17, 2013.
RA5. Mark Loeser, Management Consultant, Environmental Review Committee, Stanislaus County. May 20, 2013.
RA6. Dave Warner, Director of Permit Services, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. May 20, 2013.
Local Agencies
LA1. Brad Wall, Principal Planner, City of Modesto. May 17, 2013.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
LIST OF COMMENTORS
4-2
5 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-1
This chapter includes a reproduction of, and responses to, comments received during the Draft EIR public review period. Comments are presented in their original format in Appendix H, along with annotations that identify each comment letter.
Responses to those individual comments are provided in this chapter alongside the text of each corresponding comments. Comment letters in this chapter follow the same order as listed in Chapter 4 of this Final EIR and are categorized by:
♦ Written Comments:
State Agencies
Regional Agencies
Local Agencies
Where the same comment has been made more than once, a response may direct the reader to another numbered comment and response. Where a response requires revisions to the Draft EIR, the revisions are explained and shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR.
RIVERBANK LOCAL REDE VELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RAAP SPECIFIC PLAN F INAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONS ES
5-2
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MATRIX
Comment
Number Comment Response
Native American Heritage Commission
SA1-1 The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the CEQA Notice regarding the above referenced project. In the 1985 Appellate Court decision (170 Cal App 3rd 604), the court held that the NAHC has jurisdiction and special expertise, as a state agency, over affected Native American resources impacted by proposed projects, including archaeological places of religious significance to Native Americans, and to Native American burial sites.
This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter, and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the EIR.
SA1-2 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resources, which includes archeological resources, is a significant effect requiring the preparation of an EIR (CEQA guidelines 15064(b)). To adequately comply with this provision and mitigate project-related impacts on archaeological resources, the Commission recommends the following actions be required:
Contact the appropriate Information Center for a record search to determine :If a part or all of the area of project effect (APE) has been previously surveyed for cultural resources, which we know that it has.
The NAHC recommends that known cultural resources recorded on or adjacent to the APE be listed in the draft Environmental Impact Report.
If an additional archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. We suggest that this be coordinated with the NAHC, if possible. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure pursuant to California Government Code Section 6254.10. Contact has been made to the Native American Heritage Commission for a Sacred Lands File Check, and cultural resources have not been identified to your agency.