Planning
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
April 23, 2015
LEAD AGENCY:
City of San Pablo
13831 San Pablo Avenue
San Pablo, CA 94806
CONTACT PERSON:
Rod Simpson
Assistant Planner
(510) 215-3036
RodS@sanpabloca.gov
PROJECT TITLE:
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located at 2876 El Portal Drive in San Pablo,
California, and consists of one parcel totaling approximately 1.80 acres with
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 416-041-018-1. The project site is located west of
Interstate 80 (I-80) and at the intersection of El Portal Drive and the I-80 on-ramp.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would update and expand the existing Shell
gas station (a gas station canopy with pumps, convenience store, retail building,
and car wash). The site is currently occupied by a gas station, convenience store,
and car wash. The new fuel area canopy would be approximately 2,464 square
feet (sq. ft.) and would be located in a similar area to the existing canopy. The car
wash would be located on the west side of the project site and would be
approximately 1,167 sq. ft. and would include a storage space and an equipment
area. The proposed convenience store would be separated from the fuel canopy
area, where fueling would occur at four pumps, and would be located near the
car wash with 3,200 sq. ft. of space. The new retail building, about 4,513 sq. ft. in
size, would be located on the west side of the project site. A total of 26 parking
spaces would be provided along with bicycle parking and pedestrian access.
Entrance and exit ways would be maintained off El Portal Drive. Construction
would take place over two phases. During Phase I, demolition of existing structures
and installation of the new fuel tanks, canopy, convenience store, and car wash
would take place. Phase II would entail the site preparation and construction of
the retail building located at the project area’s west end.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of San Pablo has prepared a draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Initial Study to assess the potential project impacts on
13831 San Pablo Avenue, Building 3 ● San Pablo, CA 94806
Main: 510-215-3030 ● Fax: 510-215-3014
www.SanPabloCA.gov/Planning
the environment and the community, pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for the above described project. The
project site and adjacent properties are not listed as hazardous materials release
sites and the project site is not listed on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites
List as set forth in Government Code Section 65962.5.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: Notice is hereby further given that a 20 day public review
period for the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration will begin on April 23, 2015
and end on May 13, 2015 for interested individuals and public agencies to submit
written comments on the document. A copy of the document is also available for
public review at the following location:
City of San Pablo
Development Services Department
13831 San Pablo Avenue, Bldg. 3
San Pablo, CA 94806
Interested parties may submit their comments to:
City of San Pablo
Development Services Department
Attention: Rod Simpson
Assistant Planner
13831 San Pablo Avenue, Bldg. 3
San Pablo, CA 94806
RodS@sanpabloca.gov
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study, written comments received
during the public review period, and responses to environmental issues in public
comments will be considered by the City of San Pablo Planning Commission for
approval. Any written comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
should be received at the above address within the public review period.
Comments can also be made during the public hearing. Copies of the draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are available for review at the
City of San Pablo at the above address and on the website at
http://www.sanpabloca.gov/.
PUBLIC HEARING: This matter has been set for public hearing before the Planning
Commission on May 19, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council chambers located at
13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo CA 94806. Please note that if you challenge
this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Rod Simpson
Assistant Planner
S HELL G AS S TATION
E XPANSION P ROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared for:
CITY OF SAN PABLO
13831 SAN PABLO AVENUE
SAN PABLO, CA 94806
Prepared by:
APRIL 2015
CITY
OF
SAN PABLO
SHELL GAS STATION EXPANSION PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared for:
CITY OF SAN PABLO
13831 SAN PABLO AVENUE
SAN PABLO, CA 94806
Prepared by:
PMC
500 12 STREET, SUITE 250
OAKLAND, CA 94607
TH
APRIL 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Introduction and Regulatory Guidance .................................................................................. 1.0-1
Lead Agency ............................................................................................................................... 1.0-1
Purpose and Document Organization .................................................................................... 1.0-2
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...................................................................................... 1.0-2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Project Location .......................................................................................................................... 3.0-1
Existing and Surrounding Land Uses ......................................................................................... 3.0-1
Project Overview ....................................................................................................................... 3.0-13
Project Approvals ...................................................................................................................... 3.0-19
Relationship of Project to Other Plans .................................................................................... 3.0-19
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................................... 4.0-1
Agriculture Resources. .............................................................................................................. 4.0-13
Air Quality ................................................................................................................................... 4.0-15
Biological Resources ................................................................................................................. 4.0-22
Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................... 4.0-29
Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................... 4.0-32
Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................................... 4.0-39
Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................... 4.0-42
Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 4.0-50
Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................ 4.0-55
Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................... 4.0-56
Noise ............................................................................................................................................ 4.0-57
Population and Housing ........................................................................................................... 4.0-61
Public Services ........................................................................................................................... 4.0-62
Recreation .................................................................................................................................. 4.0-64
Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................ 4.0-65
Utilities And Service Systems .................................................................................................... 4.0-78
Mandatory Findings Of Significance. ..................................................................................... 4.0-81
5.0 REFERENCES
5.1
Documents Referenced in Initial Study and/ or Incorporated by Reference .............. 5.0-1
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
TABLES
Table 3.1 Project Features: Existing and Proposed ........................................................................... 3.0-13
Table 4.3-1 Project Construction Emissions (Maximum) Pounds per Day – Unmitigated ........... 4.0-17
Table 4.3-2 Estimated Operational Emissions (Maximum) Pounds per Day ................................. 4.0-17
Table 4.3-3 Toxic Air Contaminant Concentrations at Nearest Sensitive Receptors
from the Existing Gas Station ............................................................................................................... 4.0-20
Table 4.7-1 Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................................................... 4.0-39
Table 4.7-2 Operational GHG Emissions – Metric Tons per Year.................................................... 4.0-41
Table 4.12-2 Predicted Increases in Traffic Noise Levels Existing Plus Project Conditions ........... 4.0-59
Table 4.16-1 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service – Existing Conditions .................................. 4.0-66
Table 4.16-2 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service – Existing Plus Project Conditions............. 4.0-69
Table 4.16-3 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative Conditions .......................... 4.0-70
Table 4.16-4 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative Plus Project
Conditions ............................................................................................................................................... 4.0-70
FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Regional Vicinity .................................................................................................................... 3.0-3
Figure 3.2a Project Site............................................................................................................................ 3.0-5
Figure 3.2b Project Site............................................................................................................................ 3.0-7
Figure 3.2c Project Site ............................................................................................................................ 3.0-9
Figure 3.2d Project Site.......................................................................................................................... 3.0-11
Figure 3.3 Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................................... 3.0-15
Figure 3.4 Landscape Plan ................................................................................................................... 3.0-17
Figure 4.1-1a Proposed Project ............................................................................................................. 4.0-3
Figure 4.1-1b Proposed Project ............................................................................................................. 4.0-5
Figure 4.1-1c Proposed Project.............................................................................................................. 4.0-7
Figure 4.1-1d Proposed Project ............................................................................................................. 4.0-9
Figure 4.1-2 Lighting Plan ...................................................................................................................... 4.0-11
Figure 4.4 CNDDB Occurances of Special-Status Species Within 1 Mile of Project
Study Area .............................................................................................................................................. 4.0-27
Figure 4.6-1 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone Location .................................................................................. 4.0-37
Figure 4.16-1 Existing Traffic Conditions .............................................................................................. 4.0-67
Figure 4.16-2 Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions ......................................................................... 4.0-71
Figure 4.16-3 Cumulative 2040 Traffic Conditions ............................................................................. 4.0-73
Figure 4.16-4 Cumulative Plus Project 2040 Traffic Conditions........................................................ 4.0-75
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Air Quality Calculations
Appendix B - Biological Assessment
Appendix C – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations
Appendix D – Phase I Environmental Assessment
Appendix E – Traffic Impact Study
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1
INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE
This document contains an initial study, with supporting environmental studies, which concludes
that a mitigated negative declaration is the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) document for the Shell Gas Station Expansion Project (proposed project). This Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code Section
21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.
An initial study is conducted by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a
significant effect on the environment. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an
environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if an initial study indicates that the
proposed project under review may have a potentially significant impact on the environment
that cannot be initially avoided or mitigated to a level that is less than significant. A negative
declaration may be prepared if the lead agency also prepares a written statement describing
the reasons why the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment
and, therefore, why it does not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a negative declaration shall be prepared
for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a) The initial study shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record
before the agency, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment, or
b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant
before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review would
avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant
effects would occur; and
(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency,
that the proposed project as revised may have a significant effect on the
environment.
If revisions are adopted in the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15070(b), including the adoption of mitigation measures included in this document, a mitigated
negative declaration can be prepared.
1.2
LEAD AGENCY
The lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over a proposed project. Where
two or more public agencies will be involved with a project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15051
provides criteria for identifying the lead agency. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15051(b) (1), “the lead agency will normally be the agency with general governmental powers,
such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose.” Based on the
criteria above, the City of San Pablo (City) is the lead agency for the proposed Shell Gas Station
Expansion Project.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
1.0-1
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.3
PURPOSE AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The purpose of this Initial Study is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed Shell Gas Station Expansion Project. This document is divided into the following
sections:
1.0 Introduction – This section provides an introduction and describes the purpose and
organization of the document.
2.0 Project Information – This section provides general information regarding the project,
including the project title, lead agency and address, contact person, brief description of the
project location, General Plan land use designation and zoning district, identification of
surrounding land uses, and identification of other public agencies whose review, approval,
and/or permits may be required. Also listed in this section is a checklist of the environmental
factors that are potentially affected by the project.
3.0 Project Description – This section provides a detailed description of the proposed project.
4.0 Environmental Checklist – This section describes the environmental setting and overview for
each of the environmental subject areas, and evaluates a range of impacts classified as “no
impact,” “less than significant impact,” “less than significant impact with mitigation
incorporated,” and “potentially significant impact” in response to the environmental checklist.
5.0 References – This section identifies documents, websites, people, and other sources
consulted during the preparation of this Initial Study.
1.4
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Section 4.0, Environmental Checklist, is the analysis portion of this Initial Study. The section
provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the project. Section 4.0
includes 18 environmental issue subsections, including CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance.
The environmental issue subsections, numbered 1 through 18, consist of the following:
1. Aesthetics
10. Land Use and Planning
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
11. Mineral Resources
3. Air Quality
12. Noise
4. Biological Resources
13. Population and Housing
5. Cultural Resources
14. Public Services
6. Geology and Soils
15. Recreation
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
16. Transportation/Traffic
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
17. Utilities and Service Systems
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Each environmental issue subsection is organized in the following manner:
The Setting summarizes the existing conditions at the regional, subregional, and local levels, as
appropriate, and identifies applicable plans and technical information for the particular issue
area.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1.0-2
City of San Pablo
April 2015
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Discussion of Impacts provides a detailed discussion of each environmental issue checklist
question. The level of significance for each topic is determined by considering the predicted
magnitude of the impact. Four levels of impact significance are evaluated in this Initial Study:
No Impact: No project-related impact on the environment would occur with project
development.
Less Than Significant Impact: The impact would not result in a substantial adverse
change in the environment. This impact level does not require mitigation measures.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that may have a
“substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions
within the area affected by the project” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). However, the
incorporation of mitigation measures that are specified after analysis would reduce the
project-related impact to a less than significant level.
Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that is “potentially significant” but for which
mitigation measures cannot be immediately suggested or the effectiveness of potential
mitigation measures cannot be determined with certainty, because more in-depth
analysis of the issue and potential impact is needed. In such cases, an EIR is required.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
1.0-3
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1.0-4
City of San Pablo
April 2015
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project title:
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of San Pablo
13831 San Pablo Avenue
San Pablo, CA 94806
3. Contact person and phone number:
Rod Simpson, Development Services
Assistant Planner
(510) 215-3036
4. Project location:
The project site is located at 2876 El Portal Drive
in San Pablo, California, and consists of one
parcel totaling approximately 1.80 acres with
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 416-041-018-1.
The project site is located west of Interstate 80 (I80) and at the intersection of El Portal Drive and
the I-80 on-ramp.
5. Project sponsor’s name and address:
Vintners Shell
221 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
(925) 287 1174
Attn: Muthana Ibrahim
6. General Plan designation:
Service Commercial
7. Zoning:
C-1 Light Commercial
8. Project Description:
The project would update and expand the
existing Shell Oil buildings and site to a gas
station, convenience store, retail building, and
car wash. The current site is approximately 1.80
acres and is occupied by a gas station,
convenience store, and car wash. The new fuel
area canopy would be approximately 2,464
square feet (sq ft) and would be located in a
similar area to the existing canopy. The car wash
would be located on the west side of the project
site and would be approximately 1,167 and
would include a storage space and an
equipment area. The proposed convenience
store would be separated from the fuel canopy
area, where fueling would occur at four pumps,
and would be located near the car wash for a
total of 3,200 sq ft. The new retail building would
be located on the west side of the project site for
a total of 4,513 sq ft. A total of 26 parking spaces
would be provided along with bicycle parking
and pedestrian access. Entrance and exit ways
would be maintained off El Portal Drive.
Construction would take place over two phases.
During Phase I, demolition of existing structures
and installation of the new fuel tanks, canopy,
City of San Pablo
April 2015
2.0-1
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
convenience store, and car wash would take
place. Phase II would entail the site preparation
and construction of the retail building located at
the project area’s west end.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
The project site is currently developed and
contains a Shell Oil gas station, car wash, and
convenience store (food mart). The project site
contains 10 parking stalls and 1 handicap
parking stall, for a total of 11. The car wash
consists of a one-story building approximately
952 sq ft. The food mart located between the
gas fueling pumps is approximately 10.4 feet tall
and 919 sq ft. The project site is currently zoned
as C-I-Light Commercial. Adjacent land uses
include single-family residences to the north, San
Pablo Creek and a cemetery to the south, I-80 to
the east, and San Pablo Creek continuing to the
east.
10. Environmental factors potentially affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “potentially significant impact” as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gases
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Mineral Resources
Noise
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Land Use and
Planning
Population and
Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.0-2
City of San Pablo
April 2015
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
12. Determination: (To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or
“potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one
effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
_________
Signature
Date
Rod Simpson
Printed Name
City of San Pablo
Lead Agency
Assistant Planner
Title
City of San Pablo
April 2015
2.0-3
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.0-4
City of San Pablo
April 2015
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1
PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located at 2876 El Portal Drive in San Pablo, California, and consists of one
parcel totaling approximately 1.80 acres on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 416-041-018-1. The
project site is located west of Interstate 80 (I-80) and at the intersection of El Portal Drive and the
I-80 on-ramp (Figure 3.1).
3.2
EXISTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
The project site is currently developed and contains a Shell Oil gas station, car wash, and
convenience store (food mart). The project site contains 10 parking stalls and 1 handicap
parking stall, for a total of 11 stalls. The car wash consists of a one-story building approximately
952 square feet (sq ft) attached to the fuel canopy. The food mart located between the gas
fueling pumps is approximately 10.4 feet tall, totaling 919 sq ft (Figure 3.2). The project site
currently contains two double-walled fiber tanks located on the southeast side portion of the
project site, approximately 17 to 19 feet deep (Bureau Veritas 2010). The existing tanks can
accommodate approximately 22,000 gallons of fuel.
The project site is accessible from El Portal Drive with both the entrance and exit located on El
Portal Drive. The east perimeter of the project site is delineated by a 6-foot-high wood fence,
while the south perimeter is delineated by a concrete wall with various heights and a chain link
fence attached to it. Various trees and shrubbery line the east, west, and south perimeters, with
parking located on the west perimeter adjacent to a chain link fence. A trash enclosure is
situated on the project site’s south side, while an air dispenser is located on the west side. San
Pablo Creek runs just south and east of the project site. Due to the station’s proximity to the
creek, a flood protection easement is located at the south end of the project site. The project
area is located in Zone X, FIRM map panel number 06013C-0229-F; it is not located in a special
flood hazard zone.
The project site is currently zoned as C-I-Light Commercial. Adjacent land uses include singlefamily residences to the north, San Pablo Creek and a cemetery to the south, I-80 to the east,
and San Pablo Creek continuing to the east.
PROJECT SITE HISTORY
The project site contained a rural residence in 1939, but was further developed with an apparent
undocumented gasoline station with two fuel dispensers by 1959. This gas station appears to
have been present until about 1973; however, project site use during the period from 1959 to
1973 was not clearly established. Uses of the other structures present on the project site during
that period are unknown. In 1973, a gas station was constructed in the current location with
three underground storage tanks (USTs) also in the current location. Those USTs were removed in
1987 and replaced with the two current double-walled, fiberglass USTs (Bureau Veritas 2010).
An oil tank pad is identified in records from that period as being just west of the current gas
station west fence, on the vacant portion of the property. Around 1990, the car wash facility and
wastewater clarifier were added at the east end of the canopy (Bureau Veritas 2010).
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.0-1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
3.0-2
T:\_GIS\Contra_Costa_County\MXDs\San Pablo\Shell_Gas_Station\Regional Vicinity.mxd (4/8/2015)
Contra Costa
County
$
c
"
!
Map Detail
Hercules
Pinole
Project Study Area
San
Pablo
Richmond
(
n
&
%
$
c
"
!
Legend
Project Study Area (PSA)
San Pablo City Limits
Source: City of San Pablo (2014); ESRI.
´
0
1
MILES
2
$
c
"
!
Berkeley
Figure 3.1
Regional Vicinity
T:\_CS\Work\San Pablo, City of\Shell Gas Station\Figures
Existing Structures
Existing Car Wash
Figure 3.2a
Site Photos
T:\_CS\Work\San Pablo, City of\Shell Gas Station\Figures
Existing Food Mart
Existing Fueling Station and Canopy
Figure 3.2b
Site Photos
East Side
South Border
Figure 3.2c
Site Photos
T:\_CS\Work\San Pablo, City of\Shell Gas Station\Figures
Residential North
West Side
Figure 3.2d
Site Photos
T:\_CS\Work\San Pablo, City of\Shell Gas Station\Figures
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.3
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project would update and expand the existing Shell Gas station buildings and site to a gas
station, convenience store, retail building, and car wash. The current site is approximately 1.80
acres and is occupied by a gas station, convenience store, and car wash. Table 3-1 presents the
existing and proposed project elements.
TABLE 3.1 PROJECT FEATURES: EXISTING AND PROPOSED
Project Feature
Existing (square feet)
Proposed (square feet)
Fuel Area Canopy
N/A
2,464
Convenience Store
919
3,200
Retail Building
N/A
4,513
Car Wash
Underground Tanks
952
1,167
2 tanks totaling 22,000 gallons
2 tanks totaling 20,000 gallons
The car wash would be located on the east side of the parcel and would include a 160 sq ft
storage space and a 276 sq ft equipment area. The car wash would include vacuum equipment
located on the south side and cars would enter from the south side perimeter. The proposed
convenience store would be separated from the fuel canopy area, where fueling would occur
at four pumps, and would be located near the car wash. It would include a pedestrian access
zone and bicycle parking. Parking stalls would be located on the west side of the new
convenience store building, alongside planters and where the building entrance and exit would
be located.
The new fuel canopy and fuel stations would be located west of the convenience store. The
new USTs would be located south of the fuel canopy. The new retail building, along with parking
and bike racks, would be located on the west side of the project site, with parking and the
entrance and exit located on the east side of the building.
The project would entail the construction of a new concrete retaining wall on the southeast and
southwest sides of the project site, while the rest of the existing concrete retaining wall would be
maintained. A new driveway to serve as a point of exit and entrance would be built while
maintaining the existing entrance and exit configuration. The new driveway would be smaller
than the existing west entrance and would accommodate two cars as opposed to four. All
sidewalks and pedestrian facilities would be returned to pre-project conditions.
The project site would be landscaped in accordance with City standards. Figures 3.3 and 3.4
illustrate the proposed site plan and proposed landscaping plan, respectively.
CONSTRUCTION
Project construction would take place in two phases. Phase I would include the demolition of
existing structures; removal of existing underground fuel tanks; construction of the new fuel
canopy, convenience store, and car wash; and installation of new fuel USTs. The gas station
would be closed to customers for the entire construction duration, so only construction crews
would enter and exit the site. Phase I construction would take place over approximately six
months starting in May 2015.
Phase II would entail site preparation, like vegetation removal and grading, and construction of
the retail building that would be located on the west side of the project site. Phase II would take
place over approximately four months and would commence as soon as a tenant is identified
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
3.0-13
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
for the retail space. Until such time, the portion of the project area slotted for Phase II
construction would remain undisturbed, to eliminate potential for fugitive dust emissions.
Grading and building permits would be obtained from the City of San Pablo prior to beginning
phase I.
Construction vehicles would access the site via I-80 and El Portal Road. Roads would not be
closed during construction and all road access would be maintained during construction.
Signage would be used during construction to warn motorists approaching on El Portal Road of
construction traffic, as needed.
Construction equipment would include an excavator, one backhoe, a bobcat, a forklift, and an
electrical lift.
FUEL TANK REMOVAL PROCEDURE
The two existing USTs would be removed and replaced with two new 20,000 gallon tanks. The
removal and installation of the new tanks would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and
local regulations regarding USTs, including inspection before and after installation by state and
local regulators and specific permit requirements.
The existing UST removal sequence would begin with a HazMat contractor removing the
concrete slab on top of the tanks, followed by the pea gravel above the tanks. The tank trims
and all the pea gravel in the tank hole would be removed next. The contractor would remove
the USTs and haul them to an approved site. After UST removal an environmental consultant
would test the soils surrounding the UST area for potential contamination. A soils report would be
prepared by the applicant and approved by the City as part of its construction permit process. If
no contamination is found, the contractor would cover the tank hole with an engineering fill
compacted as per the soils report requirements. If soil contamination is detected, steps would
be taken to clean the soil as determined by appropriate regulatory agencies.
To install the new USTs, the contractor would excavate the new tank hole and install filter fabric
around the tank hole. Anchors would be installed on each side of the new tanks. The anchors,
also known as deadmen, would prevent the installed fiberglass USTs from floating out of the
ground when the tank installation is subject to groundwater around the tank. Once the tanks
have been installed the tank hole would be filled with pea gravel and a new tank slab would be
installed on top. Whenever possible, the pea gravel from the existing UST would be reused as fill
material for the new UST, while the fill removed to construct the new UST holes would be reused
to fill in the void left by the removal of the existing USTs.
PREVIOUS SITE CONTAMINATION
According to GeoTracker, the site is a former Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup
site (BP T0601300188) (SWRCB 2015). The leak was detected and remediated in November 1987
during the removal of three steel USTs that were replaced with the current tanks. Groundwater
monitoring wells were installed and monitoring was conducted between 1989 and 1996 in up to
nine wells. According to the case closure summary, the final set of groundwater samples
collected in 1996 prior to case closure contained total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline
(TPH-g) up to 68,000 micrograms per liter (ug/L) and benzene up to 43 ug/L (Bureau Veritas
2010). Therefore, it was found that the contamination was lessened while moving downgradient
from the site due to natural dilution. When the leakage was resolved the case was closed and
the groundwater monitoring wells were destroyed. The case is considered closed and no further
action is needed to remediate the site.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
3.0-14
Source: MI Architects, Inc.
0
40
FEET
80
Figure 3.3
Proposed Site Plan
T:\_CS\Work\San Pablo, City of\Shell Gas Station\Figures
Source: MI Architects, Inc.
0
40
FEET
80
Figure 3.4
Landscape Plan
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.4
PROJECT APPROVALS
As the lead agency, the City of San Pablo has the ultimate authority for project approval or
denial. The proposed project may require the following discretionary approvals by the City for
actions proposed as part of the project:
3.5

Adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Approve Design Review
RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECT TO OTHER PLANS
CITY OF SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN
The proposed project would be located entirely within incorporated San Pablo. The project has
been reviewed for consistency with the 2030 San Pablo General Plan, which was adopted by
the City Council in April 2011. The San Pablo General Plan is the fundamental document
governing land use development in the city. The General Plan includes numerous goals and
policies pertaining to land use and design, growth management, circulation, community
facilities and utilities, open space and conservation, health, safety, and noise. The proposed
project would be required to abide by all applicable goals and policies included in the adopted
General Plan.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
3.0-19
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
3.0-20
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
4.1
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b)
Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c)
Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d)
Create a new source of substantial light or glare
that would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
SETTING
The project site is currently developed as a gas station with associated convenience store and
car wash, along with mature trees and vegetation. The site is relatively flat with elevations
ranging from approximately 55 to 85 feet above mean sea level. There is a concrete block
retaining wall along the site’s southern boundary with a steep bank along San Pablo Creek. The
site’s frontage on El Portal Drive is improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, street lights, and
minimal landscaping. The site currently features two stand-alone signs and additional building
signage visible from the roadway.
Adjacent land uses include detached, single-story houses immediately north of El Portal Drive.
Views of the site from the residential neighborhood are partially blocked by a sound wall and
landscaping. Immediately east of the site is Interstate 80 (I-80) and associated on/off ramps.
Views of the site from I-80 are currently blocked by two large eucalyptus trees and other trees
and vegetation. Immediately west of the site are two small retail buildings with limited views of
the site, blocked by existing eucalyptus trees. South of the site is the St. Joseph Cemetery. Views
from the south are blocked by the existing riparian vegetation along San Pablo Creek.
Photographs of the existing site conditions are provided as Figure 3.2 in Section 3.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) No Impact. The site is located in a developed area along El Portal Drive and I-80. Although
San Pablo Creek is located immediately south of the site, the creek corridor is highly
disturbed passing under the freeway to the east. Further, views of the creek from the north
are completely obscured by existing development on the site. The project proposes to
update the existing building with a similar commercial use featuring similar building heights.
Therefore, project implementation would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista and there would be no impact.
b) No Impact. There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site (Caltrans, 2013b).
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would update the project site as a gas station, car
wash, convenience store, and an additional retail building, similar to the existing
development. Therefore, the overall character of the site as a commercial use would remain
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
unchanged. However, the proposed site plan would have a greater footprint requiring the
removal of multiple trees and vegetation in the western and eastern portions of the site.
These portions of the site are heavily disturbed, immediately adjacent to roadways and/or
buildings, and generally lack aesthetic value. Therefore, the expansion of the building
footprint would be compatible with the site’s commercial character and would not degrade
the existing visual character of the project site.
The project would add two buildings totaling 1,871 square feet in addition to the fueling
station canopy and car wash. Therefore, the project would intensify the existing project site
usage. However, the proposed buildings would be of similar height and shape to the existing
buildings and would increase visibility from surrounding uses. In addition, the proposed
structures would feature updated architectural styling and a more muted color palette and
signage. The City’s design review process, as outlined in San Pablo Municipal Code Chapter
17.62, Design Review, would ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s
design guidelines and General Plan. The design review process involves consideration of the
location and design of the project including privacy, views, and sunlight on adjoining
properties as well as the architectural design, colors, and building materials to ensure that
the project is visually harmonious with surrounding development, landforms, and vegetation
(San Pablo 2014a).
Further, consistent with the City’s landscaping standards (San Pablo Municipal Code
Chapter 17.40), the project would provide landscaping along the site’s frontage, along
parking area perimeters, and adjacent to the proposed structures (Figure 4.1-1 a, b, c and
d). The two large eucalyptus trees at the northeast corner as well as a tree along the site’s
frontage would be retained and incorporated into the proposed landscaping plan. The site’s
frontage would also be improved with decorative pavement and a single monument sign.
Therefore, with project implementation, the overall visual quality of the site would be
improved compared to existing conditions. The project would not substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings and this impact would be less
than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with a commercial use
which generates nighttime light. Existing lighting fixtures include pole-mounted street lighting
and parking lot lighting, building-mounted security lighting, and interior building lighting that
is visible through windows and doors. Some of these lighting fixtures are not directed
downward and are not adequately shielded.
The project would update the site with similar uses as the current development and proposes
to limit lighting so as not to create glare or excessive light spillage onto adjacent properties
or the public right-of-way (Figure 4.1-2). Further, the proposed development would be
subject to the City’s design review process which would ensure the project’s consistency with
the City’s design guidelines. These guidelines specify that project lighting should provide
illumination for security and safety, but should not be overly bright, and must be shielded to
confine light spread to project boundaries and avoid light intrusion into off-site areas.
Compliance with existing lighting standards would minimize light impacts on adjacent
properties and would reduce potential effects on the night sky. Therefore, this impact would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-2
Source: MI Architects, Inc.
Figure 4.1-1a
Architectural Rendering
Source: MI Architects, Inc.
Figure 4.1-1b
Architectural Rendering
Source: MI Architects, Inc.
Figure 4.1-1c
Architectural Rendering
Source: MI Architects, Inc.
Figure 4.1-1d
Architectural Rendering
Source: CREE
0
40
FEET
80
Figure 4.1-2
Lighting Plan
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
4.2
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would
the project:
a)
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the
California
Resources
Agency,
to
nonagricultural use?
b)
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c)
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to nonagricultural use?
d) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g), timberland
(as defined in Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 51104(g))?
e)
Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forestland to non-forest use?
SETTING
According to the 2012 Important Farmland map for Contra Costa County (DOC,2014)), the
project site and all adjacent properties have been designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. This
designation is defined as land that is occupied by structures with a density of at least 1 unit to 1.5
acres, with common examples including residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional uses.
The project site is developed as a commercial use, is not currently used for any type of
agricultural or forestry use, and is not zoned for agricultural or forestry use. The project site is not
subject to a Williamson Act contract. The project site does not meet the definition of forestland
provided in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) due to its location in an intensely
developed area, which would preclude the management of any forest resources.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) No Impact. The project site is designated Urban and Built-Up Land (DOC 2014). Therefore,
project implementation would not result in the conversion of any Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses and the project
would have no impact.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-13
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b) No Impact. The project site is currently zoned C1 (Light Commercial), which does not include
agricultural operations as an allowable use (San Pablo 2014a). Further, the project site is not
subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, project implementation would not result in
any conflicts with zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and would have no
impact.
c) No Impact. The project site is currently zoned C1 (Light Commercial), which does not include
forestry or timber production as allowable uses (San Pablo 2014a). Therefore, project
implementation would not result in any conflicts with zoning for forestland or timberland
production and would have no impact.
d) No Impact. As described previously, the project site does not contain any forestland.
Therefore, project implementation would not result in the loss or conversion of any forestland
and would have no impact on forestland.
e) No Impact. As described previously, the project site and adjacent properties are not
designated as Important Farmland and do not meet the definition of forestland. Therefore,
project implementation would not result in conversion of either Important Farmland or
forestland and would have no impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-14
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
4.3
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d)
Expose sensitive receptors
pollutant concentrations?
e)
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
to
substantial
SETTING
The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) which is
managed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The project site is
located in the Contra Costa County portion of the air basin.
Both the US Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have
established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. The ambient air quality
standards represent levels of contaminants that are considered at safe levels which avoid
specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality
standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because health and other effects of each
pollutant are described in criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are
classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as
nonattainment areas. The SFBAAB is currently designated as nonattainment for the state and
federal ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) as well as the state standards for coarse particulate matter (PM10).
On June 2, 2010, the BAAQMD’s Board of Directors unanimously adopted thresholds of
significance to assist local jurisdictions during the review of projects that are subject to CEQA.
These thresholds of significance were designed to establish the level at which the BAAQMD
believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. The
BAAQMD’s justification for the adopted thresholds of significance was incorporated into
Appendix D of the BAAQMD’s updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2011a).
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-15
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
BAAQMD prepared the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan to address the air basin’s nonattainment
status with the national 1-hour ozone standard and the California ambient air quality standards.
BAAQMD also prepared ozone attainment plans for the national ozone standard and clean air
plans for the California standard, both in coordination with the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would update and expand the existing Shell gas
station buildings and site. While the project would increase the intensity of building square
footage, it would not represent a new type of land use or an air emissions generation source,
as it is the modernization of an existing facility. No population growth would occur as a result
of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in vehicle
miles traveled beyond that anticipated in the Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. BAAQMD has developed project-level thresholds of
significance to provide a conservative indication of whether a proposed project could result
in potentially significant air quality impacts. To meet the project-level threshold of
significance for construction- and/or operational-related criteria air pollutant and precursor
impacts, the proposed project must emit no more than 54 pounds per day (lbs/day) of
reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and/or PM2.5 and no more than 82
lbs/day of PM10.
Construction Emissions
Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as
long as construction activities occur, but have the potential to represent a significant air
quality impact. The proposed project would result in the temporary generation of emissions
resulting from site grading and excavations, paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with
construction equipment and worker trips (including trucks hauling fill off-site), the movement
of construction equipment, and architectural coatings.
Fugitive dust, the dominant source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, is generated when wheels or
blades disturb surface materials. The proposed project would require the removal and
transport off-site of two buildings totaling 1,871 square feet in size. Uncontrolled dust from
construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and
working nearby. Off-road construction equipment is often diesel-powered and can be a
substantial source of NOx emissions, in addition to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Worker
commute trips and architectural coatings are dominant sources of ROG emissions.
The predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and
PM2.5 associated with project construction are compared with the BAAQMD significance
criteria in Table 4.3-1.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-16
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TABLE 4.3-1
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM) POUNDS PER DAY – UNMITIGATED
Construction Phase
ROG
NOx
PM10
PM2.5
CO
5.71
27.13
2.08
1.75
19.38
BAAQMD Significance Criteria
54
54
82
54
None
Significant?
No
No
No
No
N/A
Construction Activities
Source: Emissions modeled by PMC using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2013.2.2 computer
program. Notes: CO = carbon monoxide. Building construction, site paving, and painting activities assumed to occur
concurrently. Refer to Appendix A for model data outputs.
As shown in Table 4.3-1, maximum daily emissions would total approximately 5.71 lbs/day of
ROG, 27.13 lbs/day of NOx, 2.08 lbs/day of PM10, 1.75 lbs/day of PM2.5, and 19.38 lbs/day of
CO. Therefore, emissions generated during project construction would not surpass BAAQMD
significance thresholds and would be a less than significant impact.
Operational Impacts
Increases in operational air impacts with project implementation would generally consist of
stationary and mobile sources and would result in regional emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, as
well as ROG, NOx, and CO, due to increased use of motor vehicles (see Section 4.16),
thereby increasing potential operational air quality impacts.
PMC estimated criteria pollutant emissions generated during a typical year of project
operation. In addition to projected stationary emissions, mobile emissions have been
quantified and compared to BAAQMD significance thresholds in Table 4.3-2.
TABLE 4.3-2
ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM) POUNDS PER DAY
Total Emissions
Emission Source
Pounds per Day
ROG
NOx
PM10
PM2.5
CO
4.55
1.29
44.62
Summer
Operational Emissions
7.58
8.56
Winter
Operational Emissions
7.70
9.53
4.55
1.29
57.90
BAAQMD Significance
Thresholds (lbs/day)
54
54
82
54
–
Significant?
No
No
No
No
N/A
Source: CalEEMod version 2013.2.2. Trip generation rates projected for the proposed project are derived from TJKM Transportation
Consultants (2014). Refer to Appendix A for model data outputs. Refer to Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gases, for a discussion of carbon
dioxide emissions.
As shown in Table 4.3-2, the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for air
pollutant emissions. Therefore, the long-term operational air quality impacts would be less
than significant.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-17
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to
the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution
is largely a cumulative impact. According to the BAAQMD, no single project is sufficient in
size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s
individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts.
In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the BAAQMD considered the
emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable.
According to the BAAQMD, if a project exceeds its identified significance thresholds, the
project would be cumulatively considerable. As demonstrated under Issue 4.3(b), the
proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for air pollutant emissions during
construction or operations (see Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2). Therefore, since the project does not
exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, it would result in less than significant cumulative
impacts.
d) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors are generally
defined as uses that house or attract groups of children, the elderly, people with illnesses,
and others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Schools, hospitals,
residential areas, and convalescent facilities are examples of sensitive receptors.
Short-Term Construction Toxics
Construction activities would emit pollutants that could negatively affect sensitive receptors
in the project area. However, the duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from
construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Further, as identified under Issue 4.3(b), project
construction would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for particulate matter. However,
sensitive receptors could still be exposed to nuisance levels of fugitive dust and this would be
a significant impact. Therefore, mitigation measure MM 4.3.1, which includes standard
BAAQMD dust control measures, would be required. With implementation of mitigation
measure MM 4.3.1, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial diesel exhaust
particulate matter or fugitive dust particulate matter emissions, and temporary impacts from
construction-generated air toxics would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Localized Carbon Monoxide
Localized CO concentrations near roadway intersections are a function of traffic volume,
speed, and delay. Transport of CO is extremely limited because carbon monoxide disperses
rapidly with distance from the source.
Based on BAAQMD guidance, projects meeting all of the following screening criteria would
be considered to have a less than significant impact on localized CO concentrations:
1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways, regional transportation plans, and local congestion management agency
plans.
2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially
limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon,
below-grade roadway).
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-18
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The project would not increase traffic volumes at any intersection to more than 44,000
vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is
substantially limited, as determined by the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the proposed
project (TJKM 2014), which estimates an average of 2,245 trips per day generated as a result
of the project. As such, the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance
thresholds for CO.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The proposed project would be a source of gasoline vapors that would include toxic air
contaminants (TACs) such as benzene, methyl tertiary-butyl ether, toluene, and xylene.
Benzene is the primary TAC associated with gas stations. Gasoline vapors are released during
the filling of the stationary USTs and during the transfer from those underground tanks to
individual vehicles.
BAAQMD has stringent requirements for the control of gasoline vapor emissions from
gasoline-dispensing facilities. BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities,
limits emissions of organic compounds from gasoline-dispensing facilities. Regulation 8 Rule 7
prohibits the transfer or allowance of the transfer of gasoline into stationary tanks at a
gasoline-dispensing facility unless a CARB-certified Phase I vapor recovery system is used;
and further prohibits the transfer or allowance of the transfer of gasoline from stationary tanks
into motor vehicle fuel tanks at a gasoline-dispensing facility unless a CARB-certified Phase II
vapor recovery system is used during each transfer. Vapor recovery systems collect gasoline
vapors that would otherwise escape into the air during bulk fuel delivery (Phase I) or fuel
storage and vehicle refueling (Phase II). Phase I vapor recovery system components include
the couplers that connect tanker trucks to the underground tanks, spill containment drain
valves, overfill prevention devices, and vent pressure/vacuum valves.
Phase II vapor recovery system components include gasoline dispensers, nozzles, piping,
break away, hoses, face plates, vapor processors, and system monitors. Regulation 8 Rule 7
also requires fuel storage tanks to be equipped with a permanent submerged fill pipe and
the storage tank which prevents the escape of gasoline vapors. BAAQMD’s permitting
procedures require substantial control of emissions, and permits are not issued unless TAC risk
screening or TAC risk assessment can show that risks are not significant. BAAQMD may
impose limits on annual throughput to ensure that risks are within acceptable limits. In
addition, California has statewide limits on the benzene content in gasoline, which greatly
reduces the toxic potential of gasoline emissions.
Gasoline-dispensing facilities are also regulated by BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, New
Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants, which provides for the review of TAC emissions in
order to evaluate potential public exposure and health risk, to mitigate potentially significant
health risks resulting from these exposures, and to provide net health risk benefits by
improving the level of control when existing sources are modified or replaced. Pursuant to
BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, stationary sources having the potential to emit TACs, including
gas stations, are required to obtain permits from BAAQMD. Permits may be granted to these
operations provided they are operated in accordance with applicable BAAQMD rules and
regulations. Since the project contains an existing gas station, it is currently operating with
BAAQMD-issued permits and the BAAQMD has identified its current TAC concentrations and
associated estimated cancer risk and hazard impacts based on health risk screening
assessments conducted by the district (BAAQMD 2012a).
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-19
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The identified TAC concentrations were refined to account for the specific distance
between the closest sensitive receptors to the existing gas station, 150 feet to the north, with
the BAAQMD Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool (2012b). As shown in Table 4.3-3, the
cancer risk and non-cancer hazard index associated with the existing gas station are below
BAAQMD thresholds. The project is not proposing to increase the amount of fuel-dispensing
pumps and therefore could be expected to emit the same intensity of less than significant
concentrations of air toxics. Further, the proposed project would be required to continue
compliance with applicable standards and regulations that are required as part of the
normal permit procedure. TAC emissions from the project would not be anticipated to result
in a risk to future sensitive receptors of the proposed project.
TABLE 4.3-3
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS FROM THE EXISTING GAS STATION
Sources/Thresholds
Concentration at Residential Land Uses 150 feet to the North
Cancer Risk
3.31
(BAAQMD Threshold = 10)
Non-Cancer Chronic Hazard Index
0.001
(BAAQMD Threshold = 1)
Significant?
No
Source: BAAQMD 2012a; 2012b
Notes: Identified TAC concentrations were refined to account for specific distance between future sensitive receptors and TAC sources
with the BAAQMD Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool (http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQAGUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx).
For the reasons described, impacts associated with substantial concentrations of air toxics
would be less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. Offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm; however, they
still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public, and often
generate citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. Major sources of
odor-related complaints by the general public commonly include wastewater treatment
facilities, landfill disposal facilities, food processing facilities, agricultural activities, and various
industrial activities (e.g., petroleum refineries, chemical and fiberglass manufacturing,
painting/ coating operations, landfills, and transfer stations). The project site could be
considered a source of unpleasant odors by some given its current and continuing use;
however, as previously stated, BAAQMD has stringent requirements for the control of
gasoline vapor emissions from gasoline-dispensing facilities as articulated in BAAQMD
Regulation 8 Rule 7. Additionally, BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, states that no
person shall discharge any odorous substance which causes the ambient air at or beyond
the property line of such person to be odorous and to remain odorous after dilution with four
parts of odor-free air. Therefore, odor impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.3.1
To adequately control dust, the project applicant shall ensure construction
contracts contain requirements for implementing the BAAQMD’s basic
construction mitigation measures from Table 8-1 of the BAAQMD’s CEQA
Guidelines.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-20
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded
areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall
be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be
removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.
The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed
as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not
in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by
the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of
California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided
for construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be
checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone
number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
Construction measures shall include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Use late-model heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment during
construction to the extent that it is readily available in the San Francisco
Bay Area.
Use diesel-powered equipment that has been retrofitted with aftertreatment products (e.g., engine catalysts) to the extent that it is readily
available in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Use low-emission diesel fuel for all heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment
operating and refueling at construction sites to the extent that it is readily
available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay Area. (This
requirement does not apply to diesel-powered trucks traveling to and
from the site.)
Use alternative-fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas,
liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) to the extent that the
equipment is readily available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay
Area.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-21
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
4.4
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands,
etc.),
through
direct
removal,
filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
EXISTING SETTING
A PMC biologist conducted a reconnaissance-level survey on April 7, 2015. The objective of the
visit was to characterize the existing biological resources conditions on the site and evaluate
potential presence of special-status species, wetlands, or other sensitive resources. The project
site has relatively flat topography and is approximately 80 feet above mean sea level. The
project site is generally surrounded on all sides by urban land uses. San Pablo Creek occurs south
of the project site and I-80 occurs east of the site. Commercial and residential land uses occur
on the north and west sides of the site.
The project site consists of developed land associated with the existing gas station, as well as
undeveloped areas in the western and eastern portions of the site. These undeveloped areas
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-22
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
are characterized by nonnative vegetation and trees. On-site tree species include blue gum
(Eucalyptus spp.), blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), American elm (Ulmus americanus),
tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), pine (Pinus sp.), and ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba). In addition,
several species of shrubby, herbaceous, and vining plants occur in the understory. The plants are
primarily nonnative and include sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), Himalayan blackberry
(Rubus armeniacus), ivy (Hedera sp.), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), English plantain
(Plantago lanceolata), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), wild oat (Avena sp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), filaree (Erodium sp.), cut-leaf geranium (Geranium dissectum),
and bedstraw (Galium sp.). Although the site is dominated by exotic species, some native plants
are scattered throughout the site and include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), California
blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and California man-root (Marah fabacea).
A PMC biologist conducted an evaluation to characterize the biological baseline on and
adjacent to the project site. The evaluation involved a reconnaissance-level survey as well as a
query of available data and literature from local, state, federal, and non-governmental
agencies.
Database queries were performed on the following websites:

US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Sacramento Office’s Species Lists (USFWS 2015a).

USFWS’s Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2015b).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB; CDFW 2015).

California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered
Plants of California (CNPS 2015).
A search of the USFWS’s Critical Habitat Portal and Sacramento Office Species List’s system was
performed for the Richmond, California USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle (quad) to identify federally
protected species and their habitats that may be affected by the proposed project. In addition,
a query of the CNDDB database was conducted to identify known processed and unprocessed
occurrences for special-status species within the Richmond, California quad. Lastly, the CNPS
database was queried to identify special-status plant species with the potential to occur within
the aforementioned quad. Raw data from the database queries can be found in Appendix B.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Candidate, sensitive, or special-status species are commonly characterized as species that are
at potential risk or actual risk to their persistence in a given area or across their range. These
species have been identified and assigned a status ranking by governmental agencies such as
CDFW, USFWS, and nongovernmental organizations such as CNPS. The degree to which a
species is at risk of extinction is the determining factor in the assignment of a status ranking.
Some common threats to a species or population’s persistence include habitat loss,
degradation, and fragmentation, as well as human conflict and intrusion. For the purposes of this
biological review, special-status species are defined by the following codes:

Listed, proposed, or candidates for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (50
Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.11 – listed; 61 Federal Register [FR] 7591, February
28, 1996 candidates).
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-23
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Listed or proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and
Game Code [FGC] 1992 §2050 et seq.; 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] §670.1 et
seq.).

Designated as Species of Special Concern by the CDFW.

Designated as Fully Protected by the CDFW (FGC §3511, §4700, §5050, §5515).

Species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA (14 CCR §15380)
including CNPS List Rank 1B and 2.
The query of the USFWS, CNPS, and CNDDB databases revealed several special-status species
with the potential to occur in the project vicinity. Appendix B summarizes each species identified
in the database results, a description of the habitat requirements for each species, and
conclusions regarding the potential for each species to be impacted by the proposed project.
Figure 4.4-1 depicts the locations of special-status species recorded within a 1-mile radius of the
project site.
Locally occurring wildlife presence on the site is expected to be negligible. Due to the active
urban use, constant human traffic through the existing gas station, and the urban development
surrounding the site, including the site’s proximity to I-80, and the generally disturbed nature of the
site, most of the species discussed in Appendix B would not be expected to utilize the site regularly
or for extended periods. Common rodents, reptiles, and other animals commonly found in urban
areas could, however, be found on the site. In addition, the large trees on and around the project
site may provide suitable nesting and roosting habitat for birds and bats.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the results of database queries
and historic records, as well as known regional occurrences, special-status bats, including
pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhynus townsendii), are
the only special-status species with the potential to occur on the project site.
The project site provides suitable roosting habitat for special-status bats in the form of trees
and existing structures. The proposed project has the potential to adversely impact bats,
including direct mortalities due to tree and building removal. In addition, indirect impacts
such as loss/modification of suitable roosting and foraging habitat may occur as a result of
project-related activities.
Figure 4.4-1 depicts the locations of special-status species recorded within a 1-mile radius of
the project site, including Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) and San
Pablo song sparrow (Melospiza melodia samuelis). Although these species have been
recorded in the project vicinity, suitable habitat for these species is not present on or
adjacent to the planning area (see Appendix B).
Given the heavily disturbed nature of the site, no special-status plants or other special-status
animals were determined to have the potential to occur in the project site. However,
habitats on and adjacent to the project site may provide suitable nesting habitat for birds
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and
Game Code. The removal of trees/vegetation during construction activities could result in
noise, dust, human disturbance, and other direct/indirect impacts on nesting birds on or in
the project vicinity. Potential nest abandonment and mortality to individuals would be a
significant impact on protected species.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-24
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
No sign of special-status species was encountered during the site visit. Though no sign of bats
or nesting birds was found, project implementation may adversely affect special-status bats
and nesting birds. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4.1 and MM 4.4.2 would
reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
b,c) No Impact. Sensitive habitats include (a) areas of special concern to resource agencies; (b)
areas protected under CEQA; (c) areas designated as sensitive natural communities by the
CDFW; (d) areas outlined in Section 1600 of the FGC; (e) areas regulated under Section 404
of the federal Clean Water Act; and (f) areas protected under local regulations and
policies.
No sensitive natural communities, wetlands, or other jurisdictional waters occur on-site. The
entire project site is composed of nonnative vegetation typical of landscaped and
disturbed areas. San Pablo Creek runs south of the project site and supports valley foothill
riparian habitat; however, no riparian vegetation occurs on-site. Further, the project site is
situated above the bank of the creek and all work on the south side of the property would
stay within the existing footprint of the gas station. Thus, no sensitive natural communities or
federally protected waters occur within the site and no impact would occur as a result of
the project.
d) Less Than Significant. Wildlife corridors refer to established migration routes commonly used
by resident and migratory species for passage from one geographic location to another.
Movement corridors may provide favorable locations for wildlife to travel between different
habitat areas, such as foraging sites, breeding sites, cover areas, and preferred summer and
winter range locations. They may also function as dispersal corridors allowing animals to
move between various locations within their range. San Pablo Creek, adjacent to the
project site, may support local wildlife movement; however, no impacts on the creek or
associated riparian area would occur as a result of project construction. Due to its
developed and disturbed nature, it is unlikely the project site facilitates any wildlife
movement. In addition, most of the site is surrounded by chain link fence, likely impairing
most wildlife movement. Therefore, impacts on wildlife habitat and movement would be less
than significant.
e) No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the San Pablo Municipal Code, nor
would it conflict with any of the policies described in the San Pablo General Plan. Policies
OSC-8 and OSC-9 in the Open Space and Conservation chapter of the San Pablo General
Plan require bird surveys prior to vegetation clearing and bat surveys prior to the removal of
trees or structures. Previously mentioned mitigation measures MM 4.4.1 and MM 4.4.2 would
help the project maintain consistency with the General Plan. The project would not conflict
with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. As such, no conflict
would occur, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.
f)
No Impact. There are currently no other adopted or proposed habitat conservation plans,
natural community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plans that affect the proposed project. Therefore, no conflict would occur.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-25
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.4.1
Prior to the removal of any trees or structures, a bat survey shall be performed by
a qualified biologist between March 1 and July 31. If the survey does not identify
the presence of occupied roosts, no additional mitigation measures are required.
If non-breeding roosts occupied by special-status bat species are documented
within disturbance areas, the bats shall be safely flushed from the sites where
roosting habitat is planned to be removed prior to May and prior to the onset of
disturbance activities. The removal of the roosting sites shall occur during the time
of day when the roost is unoccupied.
If a maternity colony is detected, then a 100-foot no-activity setback shall be
established around the roost site and remain in place until it has been
determined by a qualified biologist that the nursery is no longer active. Removal
of maternity roosts shall be restricted to between March 1 and April 15 or August
15 and October 15 to avoid interfering with an active nursery.
MM 4.4.2
If clearing and/or construction activities occur during the raptor or migratory bird
nesting season (February 15–August 15), then preconstruction surveys for nesting
birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, up to 14 days before the start of
construction activities. The qualified biologist shall survey the construction zone
and a 500-foot buffer surrounding the construction zone to determine whether
the activities taking place have the potential to disturb or otherwise harm nesting
birds. Surveys shall be repeated if construction is suspended or delayed for more
than 15 days, during nesting season.
If active nest(s) are identified during the preconstruction survey, a 100-foot noactivity setback for migratory bird nests and a 250-foot setback for raptor nests
should be established by a qualified biologist. No ground disturbance should
occur within the no-activity setback until the nest is deemed inactive by the
qualified biologist.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-26
T:\_GIS\Contra_Costa_County\MXDs\San Pablo\Shell_Gas_Station\CNDDB.mxd (4/10/2015)
Map ID
1
2
3
Scientific Name
Danaus plexippus pop. 1
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
Melospiza melodia samuelis
Common Name
monarch - California overwintering population
Alameda whipsnake
San Pablo song sparrow
Federal Listing
None
Threatened
None
State Listing Rare Plant Rank
None
Threatened
None
$
c
"
!
3
3
1, 2
Legend
Project Study Area (PSA)
$
c
"
!
1-mile Buffer of PSA
CNDDB Occurrence Type
Bird
Invertebrate, Reptile
Source: CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife (2015); City of San Pablo (2014); ESRI.
´
0
1,000
Feet
2,000
Figure 4.4-1
CNDDB Occurrences of Special-Status Species
Within 1 mile of Project Study Area
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
4.5
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in Section 15064.5?
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
d)
Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
SETTING
According to the San Pablo General Plan, cultural resources are defined as historic,
archaeological, or Native American sites and structures protected under local, state, or federal
law. These resources are protected because of their contribution to understanding and
appreciating the past (San Pablo 2011).
HISTORIC RESOURCES
Historic resources are defined as structures of historic or aesthetic significance. According to an
inventory of historic resources in the San Pablo General Plan, 49 historic buildings and structures
are listed by the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Property Directory. The project area
consists of developed gas station and car wash and none of those resources are on the project
site (San Pablo 2011).
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Archaeological resources are places where human activity has measurably altered the earth or
left deposits of physical remains. Archaeological resources may be either prehistoric (before the
introduction of writing in a particular area) or historic (after the introduction of writing).
According to the San Pablo General Plan, San Pablo is located in the historic territory of the
Huchiun Indians, speakers of the Costanoan/Ohlone language. The Huchiun lived high in the
western hills of western Contra Costa County. Native American cultural resources in this part of
the region have been found near sources of water including perennial and intermittent streams
and springs, on midslope terraces, and elevated knolls above the floodplain, and near ecotones
and other productive environments. The General Plan Planning Area contains seven recorded
Native American cultural resources. The presence of San Pablo Creek on the project site’s south
border, coupled with the number of recorded habitation sites in the city, suggest that
unrecorded Native American cultural sites could be present near the project site.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-29
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Paleontological resources are fossilized remains of vertebrate and invertebrate organisms, fossil
tracks and trackways, and plant fossils. A unique paleontological site would include a known
area of fossil-bearing rock strata.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) No Impact. As described previously, there are no known historic structures on the project site.
The site’s structures were constructed around 1973 with the car wash added in 1990. The
project would not impact historic resources because there are no resources on the site.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the project site location and the presence of recorded
Native American cultural resources in the city, there is potential for additional unrecorded
Native American cultural resources to be discovered in the project area. Project
construction would require soil disturbance and digging. The project area has been
disturbed previously for the installation of the USTs (1980s) and the car wash (1990s).
Nonetheless, where soil disturbance is proposed, there is a risk that undiscovered subsurface
archaeological resources could be encountered during project construction. The project
would be subject to San Pablo General Plan 2030 Policy OSC-I-15, which states the following:
“In the event that historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are
accidentally discovered during construction, grading activity in the immediate area shall
cease and materials and their surroundings shall not be altered or collected. A qualified
archaeologist or paleontologist must make an immediate evaluation and avoidance
measures or appropriate mitigation should be completed, according to CEQA
Guidelines. The State Office of Historic Preservation has issued recommendations for the
preparation of Archaeological Resource Management Reports that may be used as
guidelines.”
Compliance with General Plan Policy OSC-I-15 would ensure that any recorded,
unrecorded, or previously unknown historic and/or archaeological resources encountered
on the project site would be managed appropriately. Therefore, the project would have a
less than significant impact on archeological resources.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Given the nature of the project and the fact the disturbance
would be conducted in areas that have been previously disturbed by urbanization, no
impact on paleontological resources would occur. However, significant fossil discoveries can
be made even in areas designated as having low potential, and may result from the
excavation activities. However, the project would be subject to San Pablo General Plan 2030
Policy OSC-I-15, which would ensure that any paleontological resources encountered during
construction would be managed appropriately. Therefore, the project would have a less
than significant impact on paleontological resources.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction would involve ground-disturbing activities
that could result in the unanticipated or accidental discovery of human remains. Pursuant to
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5, if human remains are discovered during the course of project construction,
all work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery, the City of San Pablo
Development Services Department shall be immediately notified, and the county coroner
must be notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify
the Native American Heritage Commission, and the procedures outlined in California Code
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-30
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
of Regulations Section 15064.5(d) and (e) shall be followed. Therefore, the project would
have a less than significant impact on human remains.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-31
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
4.6
a)
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death, involving:
i)
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d)
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
SETTING
REGIONAL AND SITE GEOLOGY
The topography of the Bay Area consists of north- to northwest-trending mountain ranges and
intervening valleys that are characteristic of the Coast Range geomorphic province. The
underlying geology is composed primarily of the Franciscan complex rock bounded on the east
by the Hayward fault and on the west by the San Andreas Fault.
The City of San Pablo sits on top of this geologic system. The lowland portion of the city is located
on a broad plain and has a typical elevation of about 50 feet. Most of the lowland area is
underlain by alluvial soils deposited on bedrock during the Quaternary period (the past 1.6
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-32
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
million years). The alluvium material consists of interbedded clay, silt, sand, gravel, and coarse
debris deposited by streams and weathering of the hills to the east. Local deposits of artificial fill
can also be found scattered over the city. These are typically loosely compacted soil and
organic materials that were laid over former lowlands and marshlands over the last two
centuries.
SITE TOPOGRAPHY
Project site elevations range from approximately 55 to 85 feet above mean sea level (Bureau
Veritas 2010). The site is relatively flat while the area immediately south, beyond the existing
concrete retaining wall, drops steeply as it approaches San Pablo Creek.
SEISMICITY
The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active regions of the US. Approximately
30 known faults in the region are considered capable of generating earthquakes. The principal
faults near San Pablo are the San Andreas Fault and the North Hayward Fault. The San Andreas
Fault zone is the predominant fault system in California and has generated some of the largest
and most destructive earthquakes in history. The nearest location of the San Andreas Fault is
about 15 miles west of San Pablo.
The North Hayward Fault zone passes directly underneath the eastern portion of the city and is
considered a high earthquake hazard (San Pablo 2011). The project site is located within
approximately 200 feet of the North Hayward Fault, and within a Special Study Zone per the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone map (Figure 4.6-1) (CGS, 2015).
The region has historically experienced strong ground shaking from large earthquakes and will
continue to do so in the future. In addition, permanent ground displacement, liquefaction, land
sliding, lurching, and other types of ground movement can occur as a result of an earthquake.
The project area is subject to strong shaking (Mercalli scale 7) based on a 7.2 magnitude
earthquake on the North Hayward Fault (ABAG 2015). In addition, according to the ABAG
Earthquake and Hazards Program the project area is not susceptible to landslides due to strong
earth shaking (ABAG 2015).
SOILS AND SOIL EROSION
Project Site Soils
According to the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDANRCS 2015a), project site soils are almost entirely Conejo clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. The
soils extend to a depth of at least 5 feet (Bureau Veritas 2010).
EXPANSIVE SOILS
Expansive soils possess a “shrink-swell” characteristic. Project site soils have a moderate shrinkswell potential with a linear extensibility percent of 4.5 percent1 (USDA-NRCS 2015a).
1 Linear extensibility percent (LEP) is the linear expression of the volume difference of natural soil fabric at
1/3-bar or 1/10-bar water content and over dryness. The volume change is reported as percent change for
City of San Pablo
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
April 2015
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-33
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Soil Erosion
Soil erosion is a process whereby soil materials are worn away and transported to another area,
either by wind or water. Rates of erosion can vary depending on the soil material and structure,
placement, and human activity.
Soil erosion potential or susceptibility is partially defined by a soil’s “K Factor,” which provides an
indication of a soil’s inherent susceptibility to erosion, without accounting for slope and
groundcover factors. Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. The higher the value, the more
susceptible the soil is to sheet erosion by water (Michigan State University 2015). Project site soils
have a low erosion potential with a K factor or 0.20 (USDA-NRCS 2015a).
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a)
i.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As described previously, the
project site is located within approximately 200 feet of the North Hayward fault and is
within a Special Study Zone per the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Figure 4.6-1)
(CGS 2015). Therefore, this impact would be significant. However, implementation of
mitigation measure MM 4.6.1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant with
mitigation incorporated level.
ii.
Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, the project site is located in one of
the most seismically active regions in the United States and has a strong shaking hazard
potential (ABAG 2015). However, the proposed project would be subject to the
California Building Code seismic design force standards for the San Pablo area.
Compliance with these standards would ensure that the structure and associated
improvements are designed and constructed to withstand expected seismic activity and
associated potential hazards, including strong seismic ground shaking and seismicinduced ground failure (i.e., liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslide, subsidence, and
collapse), thereby minimizing risk to the public and property. Therefore, this impact would
be less than significant.
iii. Less Than Significant Impact. See Item 4.6(a)(ii).
iv. Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, the project site is essentially flat. An
existing concrete retaining wall supports the project site along its south boundary beyond
which the topography drops steeply along the bank of San Pablo Creek. This retaining
wall would be maintained with project implementation and would be extended to the
west and east ends of the project area. Therefore, the potential for landslide is minimal
and this impact would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Project site soils have a low erosion potential. However, project
implementation would include land clearing, grading, excavating, and other soil-disturbing
activities which would expose site soils to wind and water erosion.
the whole soil. A soil with a LEP of 3 to 6 is considered to have moderate shrink-swell potential
(USDA-NRCS 2015b).
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-34
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
All construction activities would be subject to California Building Code Chapter 70 standards,
which would ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to
reduce soil erosion. In accordance with Chapter 8.4, Stormwater Management and
Discharge Control, of the San Pablo Municipal Code, the project applicant would also be
required to submit to the City a Stormwater Control Plan describing proposed permanent
and operational source control measures to be implemented as part of the project (see Item
4.9(c) in this Initial Study). Municipal Code Chapter 8.470 further requires all construction
activities conform to the requirements of the California Stormwater Quality Association’s
Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New
Development and Redevelopment, the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and
Sediment Control Measures, the City’s grading and erosion control requirements, and other
generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control. These measures may include
hydroseeding, straw mulch, earth dikes and drainage swales, and slope drains, as necessary.
Because the project would disturb more than 1 acre of land, the project applicant would be
required to prepare and comply with a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). A
SWPPP provides a schedule for the implementation and maintenance of erosion control
measures and a description of the erosion control practices, including appropriate design
details and a time schedule. The SWPPP would consider the full range of erosion control best
management practices (BMPs), including any additional site-specific and seasonal
conditions. As further discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a Construction General Permit (CGP) (Order No.
2009-0009DWQ) and associated amendment that provides additional standards and
requirements to avoid soil erosion.
Compliance with these existing regulatory requirements would minimize the potential for soil
erosion during project construction and operation. This impact would be less than significant.
c,d)Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, based on regional soils data provided
by the NRCS, project site soils have a moderate shrink-swell potential (USDA-NRCS 2015a).
Shrinking and swelling of soils can cause damage to building foundations, roads,
underground utilities, and other structures. A site-specific soil analysis will be required for the
proposed project as part of the City’s building permit process. The soil analysis will more
precisely determine the soil characteristics of the site and provide the necessary
recommendations for site preparation, fill materials, foundation work, and construction to
mitigate for unstable and/or expansive soils. City inspection of site preparation and
construction activities would ensure proper implementation of these recommendations.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The proposed project would be served by a public sewer system. Therefore, no
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be associated with the
project. The project would have no impact.
Mitigation Measure
MM 4.6.1 The project applicant shall submit a geologic investigation produced by a California
registered civil engineer or geotechnical engineer to determine if any active faults cross the
project site. If an active fault is identified, the geologic investigation shall establish necessary
setbacks (generally 50-foot minimums) and other design parameters for proposed structures
as required by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-35
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-36
T:\_GIS\Contra_Costa_County\MXDs\San Pablo\Shell_Gas_Station\Fault Zones.mxd (4/8/2015)
$
c
"
!
Project Study Area
Legend
Alquist Priolo Zone
Project Study Area (PSA)
$
c
"
!
San Pablo City Limits
Source: CA Geological Survey (2006); City of San Pablo (2014); ESRI.
´
0
1,000 2,000
FEET
Figure 4.6-1
Alquist Priolo Fracture Zone
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
4.7
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
GREENHOUSE GASES. Would the project:
a)
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b)
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gasses?
SETTING
Since the early 1990s, scientific consensus holds that the world’s population is releasing
greenhouse gases (GHG) faster than the earth’s natural systems can absorb them. These gases
are released as byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, waste disposal, energy use, land use
changes, and other human activities. This release of gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons, creates a blanket around the
earth that allows light to pass through but traps heat at the surface preventing its escape into
space. While this is a naturally occurring process known as the greenhouse effect, human
activities have accelerated the generation of GHGs beyond natural levels. The overabundance
of GHGs in the atmosphere has led to an unexpected warming of the earth and has the
potential to severely impact the earth’s climate system.
Table 4.7-1 provides descriptions of the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change,
including a description of their physical properties, primary sources, and contribution to the
greenhouse effect.
TABLE 4.7-1
GREENHOUSE GASES
Greenhouse Gas
Description
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas and is emitted in a number of ways, both naturally and
through human activities. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the
combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles,
industrial facilities, and other sources. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable
because it is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere.1
Methane (CH4)
CH4 is a colorless, odorless gas that is not flammable under most circumstances. CH4 is
the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. It is also formed and
released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic
environments. CH4 is emitted from both human-related and natural sources. Methane‘s
atmospheric lifetime is about 12 years.2
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
N2O is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. N2O is produced by natural and
human-related sources. Primary human-related sources are agricultural soil
management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary
combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. The
atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years.3
Sources: 1EPA 2011a, 2EPA 2011b, 3EPA 2010
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-39
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or
persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. CH4 traps over 21 times more heat per
molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs 310 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Often,
estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weight
each gas by its global warming potential. Expressing GHG emissions in CO2e takes the
contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit
equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact. GHG emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the
significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change. No single project could
generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature.
The combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future projects contributes
substantially to the phenomenon of global climate change and its associated environmental
impacts and as such is addressed only as a cumulative impact.
The project’s GHG emissions would occur over the short construction duration, and would
consist primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. There would also be long-term
regional emissions associated with project-related new vehicular trips and indirect source
emissions, such as electricity usage for lighting.
Construction Emissions
BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG
emissions. However, BAAQMD recommends quantification and disclosure of GHG emissions
that would occur during construction, in addition to making a determination on the
significance of these construction-generated GHG emissions impacts in relation to meeting
AB 32 GHG reduction goals. AB 32 is the California Global Warming Solutions Act, enacted
by the California legislature in September 2006. AB 32 requires the reduction of statewide
GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Project construction would result in a maximum of 138 metric tons per year of constructiongenerated CO2e2. In addition to quantifying construction-generated GHG emissions,
BAAQMD recommends that all construction projects incorporate BMPs minimizing GHG
emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would be required to implement mitigation
measure MM 4.3.1, which further reduces the emissions of heavy-duty diesel-powered
equipment during construction. Implementation of this measure would minimize constructionrelated GHG emissions to the extent feasible, consistent with AB 32 GHG reduction goals, and
would therefore result in a less than significant impact.
Operational Emissions
For operational GHG emissions, the applicable BAAQMD threshold of significance is whether
the project would exceed 1,100 metric tons per year of CO2e. The projected annual GHG
emissions resulting from project operation are summarized in Table 4.7-2.
2
Source: Emissions modeled by PMC using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2013.2.2 computer program.
Notes: Building construction, site paving, and painting activities assumed to occur concurrently. Refer to Appendix C for model data
outputs.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-40
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TABLE 4.7-2
OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS – METRIC TONS PER YEAR
Source
CO2e
Area
0
Energy
91
Mobile
922
Solid Waste
26
Water
4
Total
1,043
BAAQMD Threshold
1,100
Significant?
No
Source: CalEEMod version 2013.2.2. Trip generation rates projected for the proposed project are derived from TJKM Transportation
Consultants (2014). Emissions account for PG&E’s most current (2012) CO2 emission intensity factor of 445 pounds of CO2 per
megawatt of energy generated (PG&E 2014). Refer to Appendix C for model data outputs.
As shown in Table 4.7-2, the proposed project would be below BAAQMD significance
thresholds for operational GHG emissions and would result in less than significant GHG
impacts.
b) No Impact. California has adopted several policies and regulations for the purpose of
reducing GHG emissions. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the AB 32 Scoping Plan to
achieve the goals of AB 32 that establishes an overall framework for the measures that will
be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The proposed project is subject to
compliance with AB 32, which is designed to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by
2020. As identified above, the project-generated GHG emissions would not surpass BAAQMD
significance thresholds, which were prepared with the purpose of complying with the
requirements of and achieving the goals of AB 32. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
the state goals listed in AB 32 or in any preceding state policies adopted to reduce GHG
emissions.
In addition, in 2012 the City of San Pablo adopted its Climate Action Plan and associated
targets to reduce GHG emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 (San Pablo 2012).
Some of the primary provisions of the Climate Action Plan are to promote greater density
and infill development, water conservation, energy efficiency, and waste reduction
strategies. The proposed project would conflict with these goals.
The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG emissions.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-41
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
4.8
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through 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 area or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a
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?
SETTING
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGULATION
A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a
federal, state, or local agency or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an
agency.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-42
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Most hazardous material regulation and enforcement in Contra Costa County is managed by
the Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Hazardous Materials Division, which refers
large cases of hazardous materials contamination or violations to the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and/or the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC). The County’s Health Services Department implements a variety of
programs including incidence response and underground storage tanks (Contra Costa County
2014).
Under Government Code Section 65962.5, both the SWRCB and the DTSC are required to
maintain databases of sites known to have hazardous substances present in the environment.
Both agencies maintain such databases on their websites known as GeoTracker and Envirostor,
respectively.
PROJECT SITE CONTAMINATION
According to GeoTracker, the project site is a former Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
cleanup site (BP T0601300188) (SWRCB 2015). The leak was detected and remediated in
November 1987 during the removal of three original steel USTs, installed in 1973, that were
replaced with the current tanks. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed and monitoring
was conducted between 1989 and 1996 in up to nine wells. According to the case closure
summary, the final set of groundwater samples collected in 1996 prior to case closure contained
total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g) up to 68,000 micrograms per liter (ug/L) and
benzene up to 43 ug/L (Bureau Veritas 2010). Therefore, it was found that the contamination was
lessened while moving downgradient from the site due to natural dilution. After the leakage was
resolved the case was closed and the groundwater monitoring wells were destroyed. The case is
considered closed and no further action is needed to remediate the site.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
There project site is located within an urban, developed area; there are 27 sites identified on
GeoTracker within 1 mile of the project site. Most of the sites are completed LUST cases as seen
in Table 4.8-1 below.
Table 4.8-1 GeoTracker Sites within 1 mile of the Project Site
Site Name
Global Id
Status
Address
City
Arco #2030
T0601300016
Completed- Case
Closed
2550 Mission Bell Dr
San Pablo
Bp (Project Site)
T0601300188
Completed- Case
Closed
2876 El Portal Dr
San Pablo
Campus Auto Sales
T0601300625
Completed- Case
Closed
14630 San Pablo Ave
San Pablo
Chevron
T0601300083
Completed- Case
Closed
2025 23rd St
San Pablo
Chevron
T0601300050
Completed- Case
Closed
3548 San Pablo Dam Rd
El Sobrante
Chevron #9-4334
T0601300392
Completed- Case
Closed
13052 San Pablo Ave
San Pablo
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-43
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Site Name
Global Id
Status
Address
City
Contra Costa College
T0601300096
Completed- Case
Closed
2600 Mission Bell Dr
San Pablo
Craig Property
T0601316740
Completed- Case
Closed
2600 Rumrill Blvd
San Pablo
Davis Lumber Sales
T0601300364
Completed - Case
Closed
13685 San Pablo Ave
San Pablo
Dwb Partners Property
T10000001749
Open - Assessment
& Interim
Remedial Action
14205 San Pablo Ave
San Pablo
Egbert Hilltop Service
T0601300113
Completed - Case
Closed
3144 Shane Rd
Richmond
El Portal Shopping Center
Sl601392701
Completed - Case
Closed
San Pablo Avenue And
Mission Bell Drive
San Pablo
Former Bp Station #11152
T0601346109
Open - Site
Assessment
2500 San Pablo Dam
Road
San Pablo
Former Petro-Plus/Former
Shell Service Station
T0601362353
Completed - Case
Closed - Land Use
Restrictions
14290 San Pablo Ave
San Pablo
Former Shell Service Station
T0601300280
Completed - Case
Closed
13139 San Pablo Ave
San Pablo
Hunter Hall U.S. Army
Reserve Center
Sl0601394009
Completed - Case
Closed
2600 Castro Road
San Pablo
Richmond School District
T0601300238
Completed - Case
Closed
2550 Moraga Rd
San Pablo
Salesian High School
T0601300699
Completed - Case
Closed
2851 Salesian Ave
Richmond
San Pablo Gas & Mini Mart
T0601300687
Completed - Case
Closed
3363 San Pablo Dam Rd
San Pablo
San Pablo Health Club
T0601300585
Completed - Case
Closed
13760 San Pablo Ave
San Pablo
San Pablo Redevelopment
T0601300511
Completed - Case
Closed
2509 San Pablo Dam Rd
San Pablo
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-44
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Site Name
Global Id
Status
Address
City
Shell
T0601300498
Completed - Case
Closed
13352 San Pablo Ave
San Pablo
Shell
T0601300268
Completed - Case
Closed
14290 San Pablo Ave
San Pablo
Shell
T0601300579
Open - Site
Assessment
3621 San Pablo Dam Rd
El Sobrante
Tosco - Facility #3906
T0601300332
Completed - Case
Closed
3753 San Pablo Dam Rd
El Sobrante
Usa Petroleum Station #20
T0601300345
Completed - Case
Closed
2601 Road 20
San Pablo
World Oil #24
T0601300702
Completed - Case
Closed
13013 San Pablo Ave
San Pablo
PHASE I REPORT
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report was prepared for the project site in 2010 by
Bureau Veritas and was recertified in 2015 (Appendix D). The report described the project site’s
history, as described in Section 3.0 Project Description, and makes findings regarding
Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs) and Potential Environmental Concerns (PECs). The
environmental concerns are potential issues that would be taken into consideration during
project construction and operation, and would be mitigated as necessary.
The following RECs were identified in the Phase I report:

Project site historic usage indicates that the project area was used as a gas station and
vehicle repair business from 1959 through 1965. No documentation has been found to
confirm the historic use of the western portion of the subject property or to indicate that
the area has been investigated. Based on the apparent gas station features observed,
this finding is a REC.

The project site is a historic LUST site. Three steel USTs were found to have leaked during
the removal and replacement of the 1973 tanks. Soil and groundwater investigations
were conducted starting in 1987, with nine monitoring wells installed along with a sparge
well. The site received case closure in 1997 and the wells were closed. Concentrations of
TPH-g and BTEX in groundwater at the time of closure significantly exceed the current
RWQCB ESLs. The case closure summary also indicated residual soil contamination
remained at the time closure. There is no record of soil vapor sampling being conducted
to assess potential migration to indoor air for a health risk assessment. Groundwater
samples were not collected during the 2008 investigation. The potential presence of
petroleum hydrocarbon concentration exceeding the ESLs is a REC
The Phase I report identified the following PECs:

Soil investigation in the vicinity of the USTs in 2008 identified about 30 feet of fill material
near the southeast corner of the gas station lot. No record was found during the Phase I
assessment regarding placement of fill; however, it was assumed this occurred prior to
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-45
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1973, when the current gas station configuration was developed. Fill of unknown origin
may contain hazardous substances. However, the investigation did not identify a
concern in the fill area related to the analyzed constituents. Therefore, this finding is a
PEC.

The subject property is an active gas station with two USTs ranging from 10,000 to 12,000
gallons. The current USTs were installed in 1987 and are of double-wall fiberglass
construction, located southeast of the car wash structure. Product lines are of doublewall fiberglass construction. The tanks and lines are equipped with automatic leak
detection. Based on the age and construction of the USTs, this finding is a PEC.
AIRPORTS
There are no public or private airports or airstrips within 2 miles of the project site (San Pablo
2014a; Google 2015).
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
The City has prepared a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (2012b) which provides
guidance for the City’s response to large-scale emergencies and disasters associated with
natural, man-made, and technological disasters, including public health emergencies, wildland
fires, earthquakes, civil unrest, and floods. In the event of such an emergency, the plan
designates the location of the City’s Emergency Operations Center as the San Pablo Police
Department and the alternative location as Walter T. Helms Middle School. These locations are
over 1.5 miles south of the project site. Specific evacuation routes are not identified as part of
the plan; however, San Pablo Dam Road is a large roadway with access to I-80 and would likely
be utilized by emergency responders and as an evacuation route, and is located near the
project site.
WILDLAND FIRE
According to the City’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (2012b), dry seasons and
flammable brush contribute to the threat of wildfires. Drought throughout the state increases
concern for fire agencies, particularly between the months of June and October. Dense tree
and vegetative cover along freeways and in local regional parks is susceptible to igniting during
dry summers. Based on weather conditions, fire may affect San Pablo’s urbanized areas.
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (2007) Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in LRA map, the project site is identified as a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) NonVHFHSZ (Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone). Further, Figure 9-2 of the San Pablo General Plan
identifies the project site as Little or No Fire Threat.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a b)Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
These two significance thresholds focus on the exposure of people to hazards either existing
or created by the project; therefore they are discussed together. The project would update
and expand an existing gas station and would involve the routine transport, storage, usage,
and disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-46
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Construction
Project construction would require the demolition of an existing gas station and car wash
facilities and the removal of two existing USTs. Further, during project construction, small
quantities of hazardous materials such as construction equipment fuels, lubricants, and
hydraulic fluid would be used for construction vehicles. The storage and handling of these
materials would be managed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, which
include developing project-specific hazardous materials management and spill control
plans, storing incompatible hazardous materials separately, using secondary containment for
hazardous materials storage, requiring the contractor to use trained personnel for hazardous
materials handling, keeping spill clean-up kits available on-site, and designating appropriate
sites within the construction area as refueling stations for construction vehicles.
Routine transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction would
not create substantial hazards to the public or the environment, and impacts would be less
than significant.
As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, UST removal would take place in a precise
sequence that would follow federal, state, and local regulation. After UST removal an
environmental consultant would test the soils surrounding the UST area for potential
contamination. The soils report would be prepared by the applicant and approved by the
City as part of its construction permit process. If no contamination is found, the contractor
would cover the tank hole with an engineering fill compacted as per the soils report
requirements. If soil contamination is detected, steps would be taken to clean the soil as
determined by appropriate regulatory agencies and as outlined in MM 4.7.1 below. With
implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.7.1 this impact would be less than significant.
Because of the age of the existing structures, there is a possibility that potentially hazardous
buildings materials such as asbestos‐containing materials, lead‐based paint, polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCBs), or mercury may be encountered during demolition. If present, removal of
these materials would be conducted by contractors licensed and permitted to handle these
materials in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. However,
given the site’s history, the potential to encounter hazardous materials would be potentially
significant and mitigation measure MM 4.7.2 would be required. Therefore, with the
implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.7.2, short‐term construction impacts associated
with the handling of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Because the project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local standards, and
would implement mitigation measures MM 4.7.1 and MM 4.7.2, project impacts would be less
than significant.
Unknown and Undocumented Contamination
Due to the presence of USTs on the project site and the previous site contamination, there
would be a possibility of encountering unknown and undocumented hazardous materials in
the soils or groundwater. The potential effects of excavating contaminated soils, if
encountered, would be minimized in part by legally required safety and hazardous waste
handling, storage, and transportation precautions. If stained or odorous soils are
encountered during excavation of the entry or exit pits, they would be stockpiled separately;
samples would be collected and analyzed; and the soils would be characterized to
determine proper reuse or disposal requirements. Given the site’s history, the potential to
encounter unknown contamination would be potentially significant. Therefore, if unknown
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-47
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
contaminated soils were encountered, the application of regulatory cleanup standards and
implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.7.1 would be required. These standards and
mitigation measures would protect human health and the environment during site
excavation/remediation, thus minimizing excavation/remediation impacts to less than
significant.
Work near San Pablo Creek
San Pablo Creek lines the southern border of the project site. Project construction would
entail demolition, UST removal, grading, concrete removal, and replacement with updated
facilities. Project construction would also include vegetation removal on the east and west
project site areas, which would be replaced with a car wash and retail building. To prevent
excessive fugitive dust and increase amounts of sedimentation entering San Pablo Creek,
the west portion would be left in present condition until a tenant is identified for the retail
building. Therefore, the project site’s west portion would be graded and built up during
Phase II. Project implementation would require the preparation of a SWPPP and compliance
with state and local regulations, which would implement BMPs that would prevent sediment
from entering San Pablo Creek. Therefore, this impact would less than significant.
Project Operation
Project operation would involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
The project area is currently used as a gas station that includes car refueling and car
washing. Since the proposed project includes a gas station, the two USTs would store gas
and diesel fuel on the project site. The USTs would consist of double‐walled, fiberglass fuel
storage tanks with leak detection sensors. Because of the nature of the proposed project,
and in particular the gas station, the project would be subject to routine inspection by
federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over fuel-dispensing facilities.
To be operational after construction, the proposed project, including the USTs and all
associated fuel delivery infrastructure (i.e., gas pumps), would be required to comply with all
applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including but not limited to those provisions
established by Section 2540.7, Gasoline Dispensing and Service Stations, of the California
Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) Regulations; Chapter 38, Liquefied Petroleum
Gases, of the California Fire Code; RCRA; and the Contra Costa Fire
Department. Collectively, the routine inspection of the gas station, the USTs, and all
associated fuel delivery infrastructure, along with the continued mandated compliance with
all federal, state, and local regulations, would ensure that the proposed project is operated
in a non‐hazardous manner. Therefore, long‐term impacts associated with handling, storing,
and dispensing of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of a public school. The nearest
such school is Helms Middle School, approximately 0.5 mile west of the site. Therefore, the
project would have no impact on schools due to release of hazardous materials.
d)
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the DTSC EnviroStor
database and the SWRCB GeoTracker database (2015) the project site is a former LUST
hazardous materials release site. Nonetheless, the case is considered closed and no further
action is needed to remediate the site. Further, the project site is not included on the list of
hazardous waste sites (Cortese List) compiled by the DTSC pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5. Due to the project site’s history there is the potential for unknown
contamination to be discovered during project construction which would be a potentially
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-48
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
significant impact. As such, mitigation measure MM 4.7.1 would be required. Implementation
of mitigation measure MM 4.7.1 and application of federal, state, and local regulations
would reduce impacts to less than significant.
e)
No Impact. The project site is more than 2 miles from any public or private airport, and
would have no impact.
f)
No Impact. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, and would have
no impact.
g)
No Impact. The project would not require any road closures. Therefore, the proposed
project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s adopted
emergency response plan.
h) No Impact. As described previously, the project site is not located within an area designated
by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as a VHFHSZ and is located
within an area identified as having Little or No Fire Threat. The project site is located in an
urbanized area and would have no impact due to wildfires.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.7.1 If hazardous materials are encountered during construction or accidentally released as
a result of construction activities, the following procedures shall be implemented:

The contractor shall stop all work within 100 feet of any discovered contamination or
release.

A certified hazardous materials manager shall determine the scope and immediacy of
the problem and recommend remediation measures.

The certified hazardous materials manager and the contractor shall coordinate with the
responsible agencies (for instance, Department of Toxic Substances Control, the San
Francisco Bay RWQCB, and/or the US Environmental Protection Agency) within 10 days
of the determination.

The contractor shall commence the necessary investigation and remediation activities to
resolve the situation before continuing construction work.
MM 4.7.2 Prior to the demolition of the existing structures, the structures shall be evaluated for the
presence of asbestos‐containing material (ACM), lead‐based paint, PCBs, or mercury
prior to their demolition. The evaluation shall be conducted by a Cal/OSHA-certified
ACM and lead‐based paint contractor. Any ACM or lead identified shall be removed by
a Cal/OSHA-certified ACM and lead‐based paint contractor and shall be transported
and disposed of off-site in accordance with regulatory requirements.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-49
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
4.9
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
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 preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation onor 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 that would result in flooding on- or offsite?
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 that 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 a failure of a levee or dam?
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-50
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
SETTING
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES AND QUALITY
San Pablo Creek is a year-round watercourse, and its headwaters are in the hills east of San
Pablo. Its draining area is approximately 10 square miles, and it borders the project’s south side. It
is regulated in the upper watershed by two dams: Briones Dam and Reservoir, and San Pablo
Dam and Reservoir. The project site is located approximately 3 miles east of where San Pablo
Creek enters San Pablo Bay (Bureau Veritas 2010).
Surface water quality is poor in San Pablo Creek due to its location in an urban environment. In a
2006 study, the California Coastal Commission found large amounts of dissolved pollutants and
suspended materials in San Pablo Creek. According to the commission, the creek contains a
high concentration of diazinon, pathogens, and sediment (San Pablo 2011).
The California Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list identifies water bodies with impaired water
quality. According to this list, San Pablo Creek is designated as an impaired water body for
diazinon and trash. However, a Total Maximum Daily Load has been prepared and approved by
the US Environmental Protection Agency for diazinon (SWRCB 2010).
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES AND QUALITY
Groundwater monitoring took place on the project site beginning in 1989 with quarterly
reporting between 1993 and 1996. The depth to groundwater was reported in a Site Summary
Form report issued by the RWQCB on November 20, 1997, as ranging between 25 and 34 feet
below ground surface, which corresponds with a July 3, 1996, Potentiometric groundwater
Elevation Contour Map prepared by Alisto Engineering Group (Bureau Veritas 2011).
DRAINAGE AND FLOODING
Stormwater runoff in San Pablo is discharged through a combination of natural and man-made
drainage structures including creeks and drains. Rainwater is generally directed to storm drains
located along major roadways as well as to San Pablo Creek. The creek is prone to flooding due
to its shallow beds and high water table. The City is unable to control its flows or capacities
because portions of the creeks are located on private property (San Pablo 2011). A flood control
easement separates the project site from San Pablo Creek to accommodate intermittent flood
flows and protect adjacent development. Further, a concrete flood wall lines the project site’s
south perimeter and would be extended to encompass the whole project site.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) No. 06013C0229F, the project site is located in Zone X, indicating that there is
minimal risk of flooding (FEMA 2009).
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities would include grading, excavation, and
vegetation removal, which would disturb and expose soils to water erosion, potentially
increasing the amount of silt and debris entering San Pablo Creek and other downstream
waterways. In addition, refueling and parking construction equipment and other vehicles onsite could result in oil, grease, and other related pollutant leaks and spills that could enter
runoff. However, the project applicant would be required to prepare and comply with a
SWPPP that would include pollution prevention measures (erosion and sediment control
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-51
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
measures and measures to control non-stormwater discharges and hazardous spills),
demonstrate compliance with all applicable local and regional erosion and sediment
control standards, identify responsible parties, and include a detailed construction timeline.
The SWPPP must also include BMPs to reduce construction effects on receiving water quality
by implementing erosion control measures and reducing or eliminating non-stormwater
discharges.
Examples of typical construction BMPs include, but are not limited to, using temporary
mulching, seeding, or other suitable stabilization measures to protect uncovered soils; storing
materials and equipment to ensure that spills or leaks cannot enter the storm drain system or
surface water; developing and implementing a spill prevention and cleanup plan; and
installing sediment control devices such as gravel bags, inlet filters, fiber rolls, or silt fences to
reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants from discharging to the drainage system
or receiving waters. BMPs are recognized as effective methods to prevent or minimize the
potential releases of pollutants into drainages, surface water, or groundwater. Strict SWPPP
compliance, coupled with the use of appropriate BMPs, would reduce potential water
quality impacts during construction activities to less than significant.
Project operation could also contribute pollutants, such as oil, grease, and debris, to
stormwater drainage flowing over the parking areas and entering the City’s stormwater
system, San Pablo Creek, and other downstream waterways. In addition to construction
BMPs, the required SWPPP would also include post-construction BMPs to treat stormwater
prior to entering storm drains. Examples of post-construction BMPs may include the use of
infiltration basins and vegetated swales. In accordance with Chapter 8.40 of the San Pablo
Municipal Code, the proposed post-construction BMPs would be inspected annually to
ensure proper maintenance and operation. In addition, as required by Chapter 8.40,
Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, of the San Pablo Municipal Code, the
project applicant would be required to submit a Stormwater Control Plan describing the
proposed permanent and operational source control measures to be implemented as part
of the project (see Item 4.6(b) in this Initial Study) to prevent introduction of pollutants into
site runoff.
The project would also include the update of the existing car wash facilities. Prior to entering
the public sewer system, the used car wash water would run though two types of treatment
tanks. The first tank would be a sand and oil separator, which includes two compartments.
The sand oil separators intercept the sand in the first compartment, while the oil is captured
in the second compartment. The used car wash water would then move to the clarifier tank.
The clarifier tank consists of three compartments to clear water for the reuse by the car wash
equipment. The process of reuse and treatment would minimize impacts from car wash
operations on the public sewer system and water quality.
Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be conveyed to the West County
Wastewater District’s wastewater treatment plant located in North Richmond. The plant
currently meets all applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.
With implementation of existing regulations and BMPs the project would have a less than
significant impact on water quality standards.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Domestic water service would be provided by the East Bay
Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). Although the project would create new impervious surfaces
on the site, it would not impact the riparian area or adjacent flood control easement south
of the site which could offer recharge potential. Therefore, the proposed project would not
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-52
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
contribute to the depletion of any groundwater supplies and would not substantially interfere
with groundwater recharge and would have a less than significant impact.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Runoff from the project site currently drains to San Pablo Creek
and into the city’s stormwater system. Project implementation would improve drainage on
the site to minimize runoff into San Pablo Creek. The project proposes a series of landscaping
planters that would serve to treat and detain drainage prior to it being discharged (see
Figure 4.1-2). Because the site is currently developed and almost entirely paved, erosion from
runoff flowing over the site is minimal. The proposed project would further minimize potential
erosion by expanding pavement over the entire parcel and detaining drainage in
landscape planters prior to discharge.
Further, in compliance with existing water quality regulations, the project would be required
to implement construction and post-construction BMPs to minimize erosion and
sedimentation. Post-construction BMPs would be described in the project’s Stormwater
Control Plan and could include posting signs at drainage inlets to discourage dumping;
posting signs at trash enclosures to discourage disposal of hazardous materials; secondary
containment rooftop equipment which may produce pollutants; and regular cleaning and
maintenance of sidewalks, driveways, and parking lots to prevent accumulation of litter and
debris. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or otherwise result in substantial erosion or siltation and this impact would
be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. See Item 4.9(c). The project site is currently developed and
draining south to San Pablo Creek. Project implementation would not substantially alter this
existing drainage pattern, nor would it substantially increase runoff. Runoff would be directed
to proposed landscape planters which would detain and treat flows prior to discharge.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in on- or off-site flooding and this impact
would be less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. See Items 4.9(a) and 4.9(d). Project site runoff would be
collected and conveyed to the City’s storm drainage system via a proposed on-site
drainage system. The project would be required to comply with the development runoff
requirements of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, including
the management of any increases in runoff volume and flows. Therefore, the project would
not increase drainage flows entering the City’s drainage system and would not exceed its
capacity and would have a less than significant impact.
f)
Less Than Significant Impact. See Item 4.9(a).
g) No Impact. As described previously, the project site is designated by FEMA as Zone X,
indicating minimal risk of flooding. In addition, the project does not propose the construction
of housing. Therefore, there would be no impact.
h) No Impact. See Item 4.9(g). The proposed project would not place any structures within a
100-year flood hazard area.
i)
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no levees in the project vicinity. However, the project
site is located within the inundation area of both Briones Dam and San Pablo Dam. Briones
Dam is a 286-foot-high compacted earthfill embankment with a sloping, upstream clay core
that holds the 67,520 acre-foot Briones Reservoir (Geomatrix 2005). San Pablo Dam is a 170foot-high compacted earthfill embankment that holds the 43,193 acre-foot San Pablo
Reservoir (DSD 2015b). Both dams are owned and operated by EBMUD. EMBUD has a
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-53
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
comprehensive dam safety program which involves monitoring of dams using instruments,
monthly visual inspections, and periodic dam safety reviews to ensure dam stability and
prevent failure. The safety of each dam is also reevaluated with advances in geotechnical,
structural, and earthquake engineering and also if there is evidence of seepage or ongoing
ground movement (DSD 2015 a).
EBMUD completed a seismic upgrade project at San Pablo Dam in 2010. Briones Dam and
San Pablo Dam are also under the jurisdiction of the California Division of Safety of Dams
which routinely inspects dams to ensure they are operating properly and being maintained
in a safe manner (DSD 2015a). Further, the City’s Comprehensive Emergency Management
Plan (see Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) contains detailed plans for first
responders and other City staff in the event of a dam failure. Therefore, there is minimal risk of
inundation due to dam failure, and safety procedures are in place to protect the public if
the dam should fail. This impact would be less than significant.
j)
No Impact. The project is not located within the tsunami inundations or seiche inundation
areas (ABAG 2015). The project site itself is essentially flat and is supported at its southern
boundary by an existing concrete block retaining wall beyond which the topography begins
to slope steeply. As such, the site is not subject to mudflow. The project would have no
impact due to tsunami, seiche or mudflow.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-54
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
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)
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
SETTING
The basis for land use and planning in the city is the San Pablo 2030 General Plan, adopted in
April 2011. The 2030 General Plan Land Use & Physical Design Element provides the primary
guidance on issues related to land use, land use intensity, and design. In concert with the
General Plan, Title 17 of the San Pablo Municipal Code establishes zoning districts in the city and
specifies allowable uses and development standards for each district.
The City updated its Zoning Ordinance in 2014. As shown on the San Pablo General Plan Land
Use Map, the project site is designated Service Commercial. Under the current Zoning
Ordinance, the site is zoned C1 (Light Commercial). Pursuant to Section 17.12 of the San Pablo
Municipal Code, automobile service stations are permitted with a use permit while general retail
uses are permitted by right in the C1 zoning district. The project currently holds a use permit for
operating a service station.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) No Impact. The project site is currently developed as a gas station, convenience store, and
car wash and is surrounded by urban uses including a commercial building, single-family
residential, and the I-80 corridor. The proposed project would be a continuation of existing
conditions and would not divide the community. There would be no impact.
b) No Impact. As noted above, the project site is currently designated Service Commercial and
zoned C1 (Light Commercial). The proposed project would be consistent with the current
designations. The project would not change the current use of the site; therefore the project
would have no impact on the City’s applicable land use plans and applicable polices.
c) No Impact. See Item 4.4(f). No habitat conservation or natural community conservation
plans are applicable to the project site. There would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-55
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b)
Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan?
SETTING
According to the San Pablo General Plan 2030 there are no mineral resources located within the
city. Further, there are no regulated mine facilities and no known mineral resources in the city
(San Pablo 2011).
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) No Impact. The project does not involve the loss of an available known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and would have no impact.
b) No Impact. There are no locally important mineral resources delineated in the San Pablo
General Plan within or adjacent to the project site and the project would have no impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-56
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
4.12 NOISE. Would the project result in:
a)
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance or of
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 area or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
SETTING
The major sources of noise in San Pablo are related to vehicular traffic, including automobile
and truck traffic on arterial roads and I-80, and rail operations along Giant Road. Schools,
industrial areas, and construction sites may also generate noises during the day. The project site
major noise sources are vehicular traffic along El Portal Drive and I-80.
NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is generally defined as sound that is loud, disagreeable, or unexpected. The selection of a
proper noise descriptor for a specific source is dependent on the spatial and temporal
distribution, duration, and fluctuation of the noise. The noise descriptors most often encountered
when dealing with traffic, community, and environmental noise include an overall frequencyweighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear
(A-weighted decibels or dBA).
Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources, such as
automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources, such as construction sites, machinery,
and industrial operations. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-57
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
objects between the noise source and the receiver. Mobile transportation sources, such as
highways, and hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of
3.0 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an
attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source. Noise generated by
stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate of approximately 6.0 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of
distance from the source (EPA 1971).
Sound levels can be reduced by placing barriers between the noise source and the receiver. In
general, barriers contribute to decreasing noise levels only when the structure breaks the “line of
sight” between the source and the receiver. Buildings, concrete walls, and berms can all act as
effective noise barriers. Wooden fences or broad areas of dense foliage can also reduce noise,
but are less effective than solid barriers.
Criteria for Acceptable Noise Exposure
The City of San Pablo Noise Element outlines criteria and guiding policies for establishing
acceptable noise levels (San Pablo Guiding Policy SN-G-9 and Implementing Policy SN-I-37). As
noted in San Pablo General Plan Table 9.6-1, the noise environment considered acceptable for
commercial land uses is 70 dB day night average sound level (Ldn)3 while for residential uses is 60
dB Ldn. The project site is located approximately 150 feet south of the nearest residential land use
and is adjacent to I-80.
Traffic Noise Prediction Methodology
The Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108)
was used to predict traffic noise levels at the project site. The model calculates the average
noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry,
and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) utilized in the
FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California
by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans, 2013a). The Caltrans data show that
California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and
heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Short Term
Short-term noise levels related to project construction would temporarily increase noise levels
in the project vicinity. Site preparation activities, which include excavation and grading,
tend to generate the highest noise levels because earth-moving equipment is the noisiest
construction equipment. Earth-moving equipment includes excavating machinery such as
backhoes, bulldozers, draglines, front loaders, and earth-moving and compacting
equipment, which includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for
The Ldn is the average equivalent sound level over a 24-hour period, with a penalty added for noise during
the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. During the nighttime period 10 dB is added to reflect the
impact of the noise.
3
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-58
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power
operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings.
During project construction, noise levels could affect the nearest existing sensitive receivers in
the project vicinity. However, this would be a temporary impact and would cease
completely when construction is complete. The project would be subject to the restrictions of
Chapter 9.12, Noise Control, of the San Pablo Municipal Code, which prohibits the operation
or use of loud construction equipment between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Compliance
with this existing regulation would minimize disturbance of persons in the project vicinity.
However, due to residential uses on the north side of El Portal Drive, significant noise impacts
could occur between 7 p.m. and 10 pm. Therefore, mitigation measure MM 4.12.1 is required
to further minimize potential noise disturbances. With implementation of MM 4.12.1, project
construction noise would have a less than significant impact.
Long Term
The City of San Pablo Noise Element standard of 60 dBA Ldn for residential uses is used as the
threshold for project impacts to the residences in the project vicinity, and the Noise Element
standard of 70 dBA Ldn for commercial uses is used as the threshold for project impacts on
the existing commercial use on the site itself. The analysis takes into account the increases in
noise levels over the pre-project noise conditions.
While the project would increase the intensity of building square footage on the site, it would
not represent a new type of land use on the site. The proposed project would result in an
increase in traffic-related noise due to more cars driving to the site. An Existing Plus project
scenario is included for informational purposes to compare noise levels that would result from
more cars to existing noise levels. Existing and Existing Plus project traffic noise levels are
provided in Table 4.12-2. The primary areas that would be affected include outdoor activity
at several residences fronting El Portal Drive as well as the proposed commercial use on the
project site itself.
TABLE 4.12-2
PREDICTED INCREASES IN TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Ldn at 30 Feet from NearTravel-Lane Centerline1
Roadway Segment
El Portal Drive – Segment
Directly Fronting Project Site
Without
Project (dBA)
With
Project
(dBA)
65.2
65.7
Increase
(dBA)
0.5
Residential Commercial
Threshold Threshold
(dBA)
(dB)
1.5
5.0
Impact
Affected Land
Use
No
Residential
Front Yards &
Commercial
Project Site
Notes:
1. Traffic noise levels were calculated using the FHWA roadway noise prediction model based on data obtained from the traffic analysis
prepared for this project (TJKM 2014).
2. For purposes of this analysis, a substantial increase in noise levels is defined as an increase of 5.0 dB, or greater, where the noise
levels, without project implementation, are less than the City’s “normally acceptable” noise standard. Where the noise level, without
project implementation, equals applicable noise standards, an increase of 3.0 dB, or greater, would be considered a substantial
increase. Where the noise level, without project implementation, exceeds applicable noise standards, an increase of 1.5 dB, or
greater, would be considered a substantial increase.
dBA = A-weighted decibels
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-59
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
As shown in Table 4.12-2, project implementation would not result in roadway noise level
increases beyond acceptable noise level thresholds. Therefore, operational impacts would
be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. During grading and construction, the project may generate
limited groundborne vibration as a result of heavy equipment operations. However, this
would be a temporary impact and would cease completely when construction ends. The
project would be subject to the restrictions of Chapter 9.12, Noise Control, of the San Pablo
Municipal Code, which prohibits the operation or use of any pile driver, steam shovel,
pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist, power-driven saw, or any other similar
tool or apparatus that could result in groundborne vibration between the hours of 10 p.m.
and 7 a.m. Compliance with this regulation would minimize the exposure of persons to
excessive groundborne vibration. However, because there are residences close by,
significant noise impacts could occur between 7 p.m. and 10 pm. Therefore, mitigation
measure MM 4.12.1 would further minimize potential groundborne vibration disturbances
and the impact would be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response 4.12(a) Long Term Noise .
d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. See Response 4.12(a).
e) No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area (see Item
4.8(e)) and would have no impact.
f)
No Impact. The project site is not located near a private airport (see Item 4.8(e)) and would
have no impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM 4.12.1
Construction activities and equipment maintenance shall occur only between 7
a.m. and 7 p.m.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-60
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a)
Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b)
Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c)
Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
SETTING
According to the California Department of Finance (2014), the population of San Pablo was
29,465 in 2014.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction of any
new homes. Employment opportunities would be limited to construction workers during the
construction period and an estimated 14 full-time employees five days a week and 12 parttime employees two days a week. There are currently eight full-time employees at the
project site. As such, the project would not add a substantial number of employees who
would require additional housing or extension of roads or infrastructure. The project would
not result in population growth and this impact would be less than significant.
b) No Impact. The project site is currently developed for commercial use. Therefore, project
implementation would not displace any housing or people.
c) No Impact. See Item 4.13(b).
Mitigation Measures
None required.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-61
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the following public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
SETTING
FIRE PROTECTION
Fire protection services are provided to the City of San Pablo by the Contra Costa County Fire
Protection District. The nearest fire station is Station #70 located at 13928 San Pablo Avenue,
approximately 1 mile west of the project site. The station is actively manned 24 hours per day, 7
days per week, with two engine companies. Currently, the fire protection district has an
Insurance Service Office rating of 3, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the highest (San Pablo
2011).
POLICE PROTECTION
Police protection services are provided to the City by the San Pablo Police Department (SPPD),
which is located at 13880 San Pablo Avenue, approximately 1 mile west of the project site. The
SPPD consists of 53 sworn police officers, 19 full-time civilian employees, one reserve officer, and
four part-time civilian employees (SPPD 2014).
SCHOOLS
San Pablo is within the service boundaries of the West Contra Costa Unified School District. The
school district operates five elementary schools and one middle school in the city. In addition,
two other elementary schools and a high school located outside of the city have attendance
areas that include portions of San Pablo (San Pablo 2011).
RECREATION
The San Pablo Recreation Division currently maintains seven community and neighborhood
parks totaling 22 acres. These parks range in size from the 0.1-acre 14th Street Park to the 11.6acre Davis Park. The City’s current parkland ratio is 0.7 acres per 1,000 residents, below the City’s
goal of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. However, the City’s adopted 2030 General Plan allocates an
additional 24.4 acres for new parks that, once constructed, would increase the parkland ratio to
1.3 acres per 1,000 residents (San Pablo 2011).
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-62
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
FIRE, POLICE, SCHOOLS, PARK AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in the construction of any
new homes, would be a continuation of the current site use, and would provide limited new
employment opportunities. Therefore, it would not affect the provision of fire protection, police
services, parks, or other public facilities, and no new or expanded facilities would be required.
Regardless, in accordance with Senate Bill 50, the project applicant would be required to pay
school impact fees to help fund the construction of new public school facilities. The payment of
these fees would fully mitigate the project’s potential impact on schools.
This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-63
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
4.15 RECREATION.
a)
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b)
Does the project include recreational facilities, or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
SETTING
The San Pablo Recreation Division currently maintains seven community and neighborhood
parks totaling 22 acres. These parks range in size from the 0.1-acre 14th Street Park to the 11.6acre Davis Park. The project site is currently used as a gas station and car wash. Fairmead Park is
located approximately 1 mile north of the project site. There are no parks adjacent to the
project site, and the site’s undeveloped portions do not include any recreational facilities or
opportunities.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a,b) No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the construction of any new homes,
would be a continuation of the existing use of the site, and would provide limited new
employment opportunities. Therefore, the use of existing parks and other recreational
facilities would not be substantially increased, and no new or expanded facilities would be
required. The project would have no impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-64
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a)
Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-tocapacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b)
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
f)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
SETTING
This section is based on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TJKM Transportation
Consultants in December 2014. This study is provided as Appendix E and is summarized below.
El Portal Drive and I-80 are the two major roadway facilities that provide access to the project
site. El Portal Drive is a two- to four-lane roadway that fronts commercial and residential uses
between San Pablo Dam Road to the east and San Pablo Avenue to the west. Near the project
site, El Portal Drive is a four-lane roadway with continuous sidewalks on each side. I-80 is an eightlane freeway that runs east and west across California, Nevada, and Utah. In the project vicinity,
I-80 is an eight-lane freeway with no pedestrian or bicycle facilities.
There are no bicycle lanes located in the project area along El Portal Drive. The nearest bus
routes are 76 and 72 which stop at the intersection of El Portal Drive and Church Lane,
approximately 0.5 mile east of the project site. Pedestrian facilities are present in the project
area in the form of continuous sidewalks. There are no crosswalks that would connect the
project site with the adjacent residential uses.
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The TIA provided an evaluation of traffic conditions at one study intersection: El Portal Drive and
I-80 westbound on-ramp. This intersection was selected based on the project location. The peak
periods observed were between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-65
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The TIA used the following scenarios to determine the project’s impacts on the study intersection.
Existing Conditions – This scenario evaluates existing (2014) traffic volumes and roadway
conditions based on existing peak hour turning movement counts.
1. Existing Plus Project Conditions – This scenario is identical to Existing Conditions, but with
the addition of trips expected to be generated by the proposed project.
2. Cumulative Conditions – This scenario evaluates traffic volumes as projected for the year
2040 applying an assumed 1 percent annual growth factor to the Existing Conditions
volumes. This scenario does not include the proposed project trips.
3. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions – This scenario is identical to Cumulative Conditions,
but with the addition of trips expected to be generated by the proposed project.
TJKM collected existing traffic counts at the study intersection on Wednesday, December 3,
2014, and Thursday, December 4, 2014. Peak hour intersection turning movement counts of
vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians were collected during the a.m. peak period (7:00 a.m.–9:00
a.m.) and p.m. peak period (4:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m.). These peak hours were chosen based on the
location of the project site and knowledge of the study area.
Traffic impacts on the study intersection were quantified through the determination of level of
service (LOS), a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream.
There are six levels of service defined for each type of facility (i.e., roadway or intersection) that
is analyzed. LOS has letter designations ranging from A to F, with LOS A representing free-flowing
traffic with little or no delay and LOS F representing jammed conditions with excessive delay and
long backups. Procedures for analyzing each type of facility are based on the Highway
Capacity Manual 2000. The LOS methodology is described in greater detail in Appendix E.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA
According to the San Pablo General Plan 2030, there are no current significant impact criteria
for unsignalized intersections. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that LOS E is the
significant impact criteria (TJKM 2014).
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Figure 4.16-1 shows existing turning movement volumes, lane geometry, and traffic controls at
the study intersection. Table 4.16-1 summarizes peak hour LOS at the study intersection under
Existing Conditions. Under Existing Conditions, the study intersection operates at LOS A during
both peak hours, which is within the assumed acceptable standard of LOS E for unsignalized
intersections.
TABLE 4.16-1
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing Conditions
Intersection
El Portal Drive/I-80 WB On-Ramp
Control
Unsignalized
A.M. Peak Hour
P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
7.4
A
7.7
A
Source: TJKM 2014
Notes:
LOS = Level of Service
Delay = Minor movement worst approach delay in seconds per vehicle.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-66
T:\_CS\Work\San Pablo, City of\Shell Gas Station\Figures
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants
Figure 4.16-1
Existing Traffic Conditions
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a-b)
Less Than Significant Impact.
PROJECT TRAFFIC
The anticipated magnitude of traffic produced by the proposed project and the locations
where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation,
(2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude
of traffic entering and exiting the site was estimated for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
As shown in Table 2 of Appendix E, the project would generate a total of 2,245 daily trips with
105 occurring in the a.m. peak hour and 74 in the p.m. peak hour. As part of the project trip
distribution step, an estimate was made of the directions to and from where the trips would
travel. In the project trip assignment step, the project trips were assigned to specific streets and
intersection in the study area.
Existing Plus Project Conditions
Table 4.16-2 summarizes peak hour LOS at the study intersection under Existing Plus Project
Conditions. Figure 4.16-2 shows turning movement volumes at the study intersection for Existing
Plus Project Conditions. Under Existing Plus Project Conditions, the study intersection would
operate at an acceptable LOS A during both peak hours.
TABLE 4.16-2
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Existing Plus Project Conditions
Intersection
El Portal Drive/I-80 WB On-Ramp
Control
Unsignalized
A.M. Peak Hour
P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
7.4
A
7.7
A
Source: TJKM 2014
Notes:
LOS = Level of Service
Delay = Minor movement worst approach delay in seconds per vehicle.
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC
Traffic volumes under Cumulative Conditions for the year 2040 were projected based on an
assumed annual growth rate of 1 percent per year. The projected future volumes were then
analyzed in Synchro to understand growth-related impacts at the study intersection. Figure 4.163 shows turning movement volumes at the study intersections for Cumulative Conditions.
One (1) percent growth rate per year was assumed for projecting the future traffic demands to
analyze the worst-case scenario. The growth rate assumption is assumed to include all the
growth in the project vicinity under Cumulative Conditions.
Table 4.16-3 summarizes peak hour LOS at the study intersections under Cumulative Conditions.
Under Cumulative Conditions, the study intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable
LOS A during both peak hours.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-69
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TABLE 4.16-3
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS
Cumulative Conditions
Intersection
El Portal Drive/I-80 WB On-Ramp
Control
A.M. Peak Hour
Unsignalized
P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
7.5
A
7.8
A
Source: TJKM 2014
Notes:
LOS = Level of Service
Delay = Minor movement worst approach delay in seconds per vehicle.
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Table 4.16-4 summarizes peak hour LOS at the study intersections under Cumulative Plus Project
Conditions. Figure 4.16-4 shows the turning movement volumes for Cumulative Plus Project
Conditions. Under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, the study intersection would operate at
an acceptable LOS A during both peak hours.
TABLE 4.16-4
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Intersection
El Portal Drive/I-80 WB On-Ramp
Control
A.M. Peak Hour
Unsignalized
P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
7.5
A
7.9
A
Source: TJKM 2014
Notes:
LOS = Level of Service
Delay = Minor movement worst approach delay in seconds per vehicle.
The addition of project traffic would not result in unacceptable operations at the study
intersection under either the Existing Plus Project or the Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The project would have no effect on air traffic patterns. There would be no
impact.
d,e)
Less Than Significant Impact. Queuing analysis was performed on the project driveways
to determine if addition of the trips generated from the proposed project would result in
impacts on traffic along El Portal Drive. Based on the analysis the addition of project traffic
would not result in any impacts to the traffic operations along El Portal Drive. Consistent with
the recommendation of the TIA, the proposed site plan (see Figure 3.3) provides a minimum
of 50 feet at the driveways for storage of outbound vehicles from the project site. This would
ensure that queued vehicles do not block site access or internal circulation.
Further, the project proposes to maintain the site’s three existing driveways relocating the
westernmost access point further east. These improvements would be designed and
constructed in accordance with City standards to ensure adequate site distance and
emergency access. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-70
T:\_CS\Work\San Pablo, City of\Shell Gas Station\Figures
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants
Figure 4.16-2
Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
T:\_CS\Work\San Pablo, City of\Shell Gas Station\Figures
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants
Figure 4.16-3
Cumulative 2040 Traffic Conditions
T:\_CS\Work\San Pablo, City of\Shell Gas Station\Figures
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants
Figure 4.16-4
Cumulative plus Project 2040 Traffic Conditions
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
f) Less Than Significant Impact. Accommodations for pedestrians are provided within the
study area and no bicycle facilities are located along El Portal Drive. The sidewalks near the
project site are all continuous and the project vicinity experiences low volumes of
pedestrians and bicyclists. No transit lines run along El Portal Drive in the project vicinity.
The project would update the site as a gas station, car wash, convenience store, and an
additional retail building, similar to the existing conditions. During construction, the sidewalk
bordering the project site would be closed to allow for entrance realignment and to provide
for pedestrian safety. The sidewalk closure would be clearly marked and pedestrians would
be made aware of closures at the nearest pedestrian crossing. The sidewalk would be
improved post-construction and pedestrian flow would be uninterrupted. Further, the project
would provide pedestrian access to the retail and convenience store, which is not available
in the current configuration. The designated access would make it safer for pedestrians to
access the project site without competing with cars for access. This would be an
improvement to the current configuration.
The project would maintain the sidewalk along its El Portal Drive frontage and would not
preclude the future development of bicycle and/or transit facilities. Therefore, the project
would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation and this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-77
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b)
Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c)
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?
d)
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e)
Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that 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?
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
SETTING
WASTEWATER
Wastewater treatment and disposal services in San Pablo are provided by the West County
Wastewater District (WCWD). The WCWD’s wastewater treatment plant is located in North
Richmond and has a capacity of 12.5 million gallons per day (mgd).
WATER
Water supply to San Pablo is provided by EBMUD, which has adequate supply to meet water
demand in a normal, non-drought year. However, in a one-year drought, EBMUD expects a
demand-to-supply shortfall of 3 percent. The expected shortfall becomes greater the longer the
drought lasts. As a consequence, the water supply is insufficient to meet customer needs even if
aggressive water conservation and recycled programs are put in place in a multi-year drought
(EBMUD 2011).
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-78
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
DRAINAGE
Stormwater runoff in San Pablo is discharged through a combination of natural and man-made
drainage structures including creeks and drains. Rainwater in the city is generally directed to
storm drains located along major roadways as well as to San Pablo Creek. Project site naturally
drains toward El Portal Drive and to the city’s stormwater system.
SOLID WASTE
Solid waste disposal for San Pablo is managed by the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste
Management Authority (West County WMA). Solid waste collection and recycling service is
provided by Richmond Sanitary Services, an affiliate of Republic Services, Inc. Currently, 90
percent of West County WMA’s waste is taken to the Keller Canyon Landfill in Pittsburg; the other
10 percent is taken to a transfer station in Richmond before being redirected by trailer to the
Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County. The Keller Canyon facility has a maximum capacity of 75
million cubic yards and has about 20 years of additional capacity. The Potrero Hills facility has a
maximum capacity of 21 million cubic yards and has an additional 8 to 10 years of permitted
capacity. Permit applications to expand the Potrero Hills facility are pending. If approved, the
landfill’s capacity would be quadrupled (San Pablo 2011).
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be
conveyed to the WCWD’s wastewater treatment plant. The plant currently meets all
applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in an exceedance of any wastewater treatment
requirements and would have a less than significant impact on wastewater.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would update the project site with a new gas
station, convenience store, and car wash. In addition, the project proposes construction of a
new 4,513 square foot retail building. The proposed convenience store would be
approximately 2,300 square feet larger than the existing food mart. While the proposed car
wash would be approximately 250 square feet larger than the existing car wash, the number
of car washes is not expected to increase substantially. Therefore, the project’s net increase
in water demand would be limited to the additional convenience store space and the
newly proposed retail building. Based on a water demand factor of 2.48 acre-feet per acre
per year (CCWD 2015), the proposed 0.16 acre of additional retail development would have
an annual water demand of approximately 0.40 acre-feet4.
The project would be subject to San Pablo Municipal Code Chapter 17.40, Landscaping,
which requires implementation of various water-conserving measures and submittal of an
irrigation plan detailing the irrigation equipment, water demand, and monthly irrigation
schedule. Further, the project would recycle and reuse water on-site from the car wash.
Compliance with these requirements and project design features would reduce the project’s
overall water demand (San Pablo 2014a).
The project would be provided water supply by EBMUD, which has adequate supplies to
meet existing and projected demands during a normal, non-drought year. Further, the
4
Calculation: 2.48 acre-feet per acre per year times 0.16 acres = 0.40 acre-feet per year
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-79
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
project would result in a negligible increase in water demand. Therefore, no new or
expanded water treatment facilities would be required.
As described previously, wastewater treatment services would be provided at the WCWD’s
wastewater treatment plant. The plant’s 2009 average influent flow was about 8.9 mgd.
Based on a general wastewater generation rate of 80 percent of water demand, the
proposed project would generate an additional approximate 0.000286 mgd of wastewater,
or 0.002 percent of plant capacity. The project would result in a negligible increase in
wastewater, and no new or expanded treatment facilities would be required.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. See Item 4.9(e). The proposed project would update and
expand the existing buildings on-site. Although the project would increase the square
footage of retail buildings, the increase would not require the construction of any new
stormwater facilities. Further, a drainage system consisting of inlets and underground pipes
and water treatment landscaping planters would be constructed. As such, the project
would have a less than significant impact on storm water facilities.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. See Item 4.17(b).
e) Less Than Significant Impact. See Item 4.17(b).
f)
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would update and expand the usage of existing
structures on the site. According to CalRecycle’s (2013) estimated solid waste generation
and disposal rates for the commercial sector, commercial retail uses generate an average
of approximately 0.02 pounds of solid waste per square foot per day. Based on this
assumption, the additional approximately 6,813 square feet of retail space would generate
approximately 136 pounds of solid waste per day or 24.8 tons of solid waste per year.
During project construction, material would be hauled off-site and would be handled in
accordance with state and local regulations as they relate to building material waste. Any fill
material would be used on-site as possible to minimize waste. Further, the removed USTs
would be disposed of in accordance with federal and state regulations.
Solid waste generated by the project operations would be hauled by Richmond Sanitary
Services and would be disposed of at either the Keller Canyon Landfill or the Potrero Hills
Landfill. Richmond Sanitary Services would expand services to meet the project’s future
demand, funded by the increase in service fees collected. As described previously, both the
Keller Canyon and Potrero Hills landfills have remaining capacity to serve the project. This
impact would be less than significant.
g) No Impact. The project would comply with all applicable solid waste regulations including
standards for the location and screening of waste container enclosures provided in the
City’s commercial design guidelines (Appendix B of the San Pablo Municipal Code). The
project proposes to construct a masonry trash enclosure in the southwestern corner of the
site adjacent the proposed car wash consistent with City standards (Figure 3.3). Therefore,
there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-80
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants
or animals, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually
limited,
but
cumulatively
considerable?
“Cumulatively
considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. None of the potential impacts
identified for the proposed project have the potential to degrade habitat or wetlands.
Mitigation measures MM 4.4.1 and MM 4.4.2 would reduce impacts on protected or listed
plant and animal species to less than significant levels. Compliance with General Plan
policies related to cultural resources would minimize impacts on California history or
prehistory. Additionally, implementation of mitigation measures would reduce potential
impacts to less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in any potentially
significant impacts; therefore the potential for project cumulative effects in combination with
other planned or anticipated improvements is low. In general, individual GHG emissions do
not have a large impact on climate change. However, once added with all other GHG
emissions in the past and present, they combine to create a perceptible change to climate.
Because of the extended amount of time that GHGs remain in the atmosphere, any amount
of GHG emissions can be reasonably expected to contribute to future climate change
impacts. The amount of CO2 emissions from the proposed project, although measurable,
would be minor. On a global scale, the proposed project would contribute a negligible
amount to global cumulative effects to climate change due to its temporary nature and its
urban location. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to GHG emissions would not
be cumulatively considerable, and this would be a less than significant impact.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the findings of this Initial Study, the project would not
have a substantial impact on human beings.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0-81
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
4.0-82
5. REFERENCES
5.0 REFERENCES
5.1
DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN INITIAL STUDY AND/OR INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
The following documents were used to support the preparation of this Initial Study. Compliance
with federal, state, and local laws is assumed in all projects.
ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2015. Earthquake and Hazards Program.
Accessed April 3. http://quake.abag.ca.gov/tsunamis/.
BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.
———. 2011a. Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines.
———. 2012a. Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-andMethodology.aspx.
———. 2012b. Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-andMethodology.aspx
Bureau Veritas. 2010. Phase I Environmental Assessment.
California Department of Conservation (CGS). Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning. Accessed
April 8, 2015. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/pages/index.aspx
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
in LRA.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013a. 2013 All Traffic Volumes on California
State Highway System. http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2013all/
———. 2013b. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Accessed April 2, 2015.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm.
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2013. Waste
Characterization Commercial Sector: Estimated Solid Waste Generation and Disposal
Rates. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Commercial.htm
CCWD (Contra Costa Water District). 2015. Treated Water Master Plan.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015. California Natural Diversity Database
QuickView Tool in BIOS 5. Sacramento: CDFW Biogeographic Data Branch.
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online
edition,
v8-01a).
California
Native
Plant
Society;
Sacramento,
CA.
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/
Contra Costa County. 2014. Accessed April 10, 2015. http://cchealth.org/hazmat/ust/
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
5.0-1
5.0 REFERENCES
DOC (California Department of Conservation) 1982. Division of Mines and Geology. State of
California Special Studies Zone: Richmond Revised Official Map Effective: January 1,
1982.
———. 2014. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2012.
DOF (California Department of Finance). 2014. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and
the State with Annual Percent Change – January 1, 2013 and 2014.
DSD (California Division of Safety of Dams). 2015a. Division of Safety of Dams. Accessed April 3.
http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/aboutdamsafety/index.cfm.
———. 2015b. Dams Within the Jurisdiction of the State of California. Accessed April 7.
http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/docs/Juris(N-S)2014.pdf.
DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2015. EnviroStor. Accessed April 7.
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
EBMUD (East Bay Municipal Utility District). 2011. Urban Water Management Plan 2010.
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and
Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances.
———. 2010. Nitrous Oxide. http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/scientific.html.
———.
2011a. Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html.
Carbon
Dioxide.
———. 2011b. Methane. http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html.
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). 2000. FAA Aviation Noise Abatement Policy. Federal
Register Vol. 65, No 136.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel
06013C0229F (Effective June 16, 2009).
FICON (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected
Airport Noise Analysis Issues.
Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 2005. Safety Review of Briones Dam, Contra Costa County,
California.
Google. 2015. Google Maps. Accessed April 2 and 3. https://www.google.com/maps.
Michigan State University. 2015. Institute of Water Research. K Factor. Accessed April 3.
http://www.iwr.msu.edu/rusle/kfactor.htm.
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric). 2014. Website: New Numbers Confirm PG&E’s Energy Among
the Cleanest in Nation. http://www.pgecurrents.com/2014/02/06/new-numbers-confirmpge%E2%80%99s-energy-among-the-cleanest-in-nation/
Shell Gas Station Extension Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
5.0-2
5.0 REFERENCES
San Pablo, City of. 2011. San Pablo General Plan 2030.
———. 2012. San Pablo Climate Action Plan.
———. 2012b. City of San Pablo Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan.
———. 2014a. San Pablo Municipal Code. http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/sanpablo/.
———. 2014b. Emergency and Fire Services. http://sanpabloca.gov/index.aspx?nid=196.
SPPD
(San
Pablo
Police
Department).
2014.
http://sanpabloca.gov/index.aspx?NID=990.
San
Pablo
Police
Department.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2010. 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act
Section
303(d)
List/305(b)
Report)
–
Statewide.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml.
———. 2015. GeoTracker. Accessed April 7. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
TJKM Transportation Consultants. 2014. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis: Proposed Development at
2876 El Portal Drive
USDA-NRCS (US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2015a.
Web Soil Survey. Accessed April 3. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app
/WebSoilSurvey.aspx .
———. 2015b. National Soil Survey Handbook, Title 430-VI. Available online. Accessed April 3,
2015. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app /WebSoilSurvey.aspx .
USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015a. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office’s Species Lists.
USFWS;
Sacramento,
CA.
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists-form.cfm
———. 2015b. Critical Habitat Portal (online edition). http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab.
City of San Pablo
April 2015
Shell Gas Station Expansion Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
5.0-3
5.0 REFERENCES
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Shell Gas Station Extension Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of San Pablo
April 2015
5.0-4