HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 (Attchment 3DraftEIR)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRAFT
Environmental Impact Statement
& Environmental Impact Report
JUVENILE JUSTICE FACILITY
AND
EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE
Alameda County, California
January 2003
County of Alameda
Board of Supervisors
1221 Oak Street
Oakland, CA 94612
State of California
Board of Corrections
600 Bercut Dri ve
Sacramento, CA 95814
The U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs/Bureau of Justice Assistance
810 Seventh Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20531
AT
(1....(CO~Ð't w/
.'~"'.".''''"'''~~~~"~
,""
'f
I
I
I
·1
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Draft Environmental Impact Statement I Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice
NEPA Lead AlZencv: The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice ProgramslBureau of Justice Assistance
(OJP/BJA), 810 Seventh Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20531. Contact: Paul DeLameter, Program Manager
202-514-7903; assisted by the State of California Board of Corrections (BOC), 600 Bercut Drive, Sacramento,
California 95814. Contact: Mr. Michael Houghtby, Field Representative. Telephone: 916-322-7085.
CEOA Lead AlZencv and Document PreDaTer: Alameda County Board of Supervisors, 1221 Oak Street, Oakland,
California, 94612. Contact: Mr. James Sorensen, Planning Director. Telephone: 510-670-5400.
Proiect Locations: Alameda County, California, including sites in the City of Dublin, City of Oakland, and
unincorporated area of San Leandro.
Abstract: This document constitutes a joint Draft Environmental Impact StatementlEnvironmental Impact Report
(EIS/EIR) prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) of 1969 as amended and the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 as amended. Upon completion of the NEPA and CEQA
processes, the County of Alameda would be responsible for implementing all aspects of the Proposed Action,
including design and construction. The Proposed Action includes two distinct Projects: Juvenile Justice Facility,
and East County Hall of Justice. The Juvenile Justice Facility would accommodate 420 to 540 youth in a
detention center that could include probation administration and juvenile courts. The East County Hall of Justice
would include 13 civil, criminal and traffic courts with all associated support functions. The two projects are
being evaluated in one EIS/EIR because, although each Project could be implemented independently, the County
first proposed developing them on the East County Government Center Site in Dublin, which would require
coordinated site planning and inrrastructure. Potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures have been
identified and evaluated for the following alternatives (a preferred alternative has not been identified at this time):
No Project / No Action Alternative
The Lead Agencies are required to consider the No Project / No Action alternative. In this scenario, the
existing Juvenile Hall would continue in operation in San Leandro, and the Dublin-Pleasanton courts would
continue to operate in leased space in Pleasanton.
Juvenile Justice Facility
Existing San Leandro Property Site: Development of a portion of the County's existing juvenile hall
property uphill rrom the main existing facility, in an unincorporated area of San Leandro, located at 2200
Fairmont Drive.
Glenn Dyer Detention Center Site: Conversion and expansion of the existing eight-story Glenn Dyer
detention facility rrom an adult jail to a juvenile detention facility, located at 550 Sixth Street in downtown
Oakland.
Pardee/Swan Site: Development of a 34-acre Port of Oakland-owned property at Pardee Drive and Swan
Way in Oakland as a Juvenile Justice Facility and airport parking garage.
East County Government Center Site: Development of a portion of a vacant 40-acre County-owned
property in the City of Dublin near the Santa Rita Jail as part of an East County Government Center.
East County Hall of Justice
East County Government Center Site: Development of a portion of a vacant 40-acre County-owned
property in Dublin near the Santa Rita Jail as part of an East County Government Center.
Dublin Site 15A: Development ofa vacant 12.5-acre County-owned site known as Site 15A in the City
of Dublin, near the Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station.
Comments on this Draft EISIEIR must be received by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 10, 2003. Please
address written comments to: Mr. Michael Houghtby, Field Representative, State of California Board of
Corrections, 600 Bercut Drive, Sacramento, CA 95814.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
Table of Contents
Sum mary .... ...... II....... ......... "l1li II...................... .11,.................... ..11111.......... ..... l1li III.............. ... ~ili1
1. I ntraduction .............. .... .... 11111...." ................. .1111.. II.......... .1111111...11111l1li l1li._.......... iI.. III................ ....111.1·1
2. Pu rpose and Need .......................................................................... .................2-1
2.1 Introduction................. .............. ....... ........... .............. ........ .......... ........... .............. 2-1
2.2 Juvenile Justice Facility......... ............... .............. .............. ....... ...... .... ......... ......... 2-1
2.3 East County Hall of Justice .................... ............. ..................... ............................ 2-5
2.4 Funding .... .......................... ........... ..... ........... ................. ..... ....... .......... ........... ..... 2-9
2.5 Schedule ..... ............... ......... ............. .... ......... ............ ........ .................... .............. 2-11
3. Proposed Action and Alternatives .................................................................3-1
3.1 Proposed Action...............................................................................................·..· 3-1
3.2 Alternative Sites Considered and Rejected........................................................ 3-32
4. land Use and Planning ...................................................................................4-1
4.1 Affected Environment.......................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures ...................................4-37
5. Visual Qualityl Aesthetics ..... ..... ...... ..... ........... ........... ............ .........................5-1
5.1 Affected Environment............ ............... ................... ........ .................... ................ 5-1
5.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures................................... 5-41
6. Geology, Soils and Seismicity ........................................................................6-1
6.1 Affected Environment. ....................... .... ........ .......... ........ .................. ...... ............ 6-1
6.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures................................... 6-26
7. Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Affected Environment.......................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures ..................................... 7-4
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacilitylEast County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
TOC-1
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
TOC-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I'
I
Table of Contents
8. Biological Resou rces ..... ............. ............. ............................ ..................... ......8-1
8.1 Affected Environment............ ............. ......................... ....... ....... .......... ......... ....... 8-1
8.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures................................... 8-25
9. Trans portation.. ... 111111111".11 III I......... ................ ................ _._....... ..... ......... ..I I..III.... ................9-1
9.1 Affected Environment.......................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures ...................................9-35
1 o. Noise ..Ii II l1li_ ..... ........... ........... .._........ .... ...... I III ...... .11111...." "III.. _._..... ...... ... ...... ....... 111..111 .....1.0",,1
1 0.1 Affected Environment......... ........... ........... ......... ............ ........ ................ ............ 10-1
10.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures................................. 10-21
11. Ai r Quality.. ......... .......... ..... iI.. ..... 111.11.... Ii 111111. ......................... ...... .....111........ Ii. III II.II.."......I 111!11
11.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................ 11-1
11.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures ................................. 11-12
12. Public Health and Safety ...........111...111111...11111..111.....111.11.....................IIIlIIiI..II......III.......II....12·1
12.1 Affected Environment............. ...... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...... ....... ................. 12-1
12.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures................................. 12-19
13. Public Services .."It".It."...................................................11111111111...111111...""..............111.111....13-1
13.1 Affected Environment. ......... ......................... .......... ......... ......... ........... ........ ...... 13-1
13.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures................................. 13-17
14. Util ¡ties .........11........ ....11.... ..... ...... ........11. III.... .................. ....... ...... .... .11. ....iI. ... ......... 14-1
14.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................ 14-1
14.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures................................. 14-16
15. Historic/Archaeological Resources..............................................................15-1
15.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................ 15-1
15.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures................................. 15-27
16. Envi ronmental Justice...... ................................ ................. ........ ................... 16-1
16.1 Affected Environment........................................................................................ 16-1
16.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures................................... 16-8
17. Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts ..................................................17-1
17 .1 Growth-Inducing Impacts .......................................... .................................. ...... 17-1
17.2 Cumulative Impacts ........................... ......................................................... ....... 17-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
18. Report Preparation ........................................................................................18·1
18.1 EIS/EIR Preparers................... ........................................................................... 18-1
18.2 Other Persons and Organizations....................................................................... 18-4
18.3 Persons Contacted.............................................................................................. 18-5
18.4 Bibliography...................................................................................................... 18-6
19. Glossary/Index III... III.. ..111111.. ..................... ........111..". ...i tll I.... ...... III... ...... ....... ..I I... ... ......19-1
20. Consultation and Distribution List ...............................................................20·1
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
TOC-3
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
TOC-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,~
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
List of Figures
S.1 Alternative Site Locations ....................... ...... ......... ............. ........... ................. ..... ......... S-2
3.1 San Leandro Site - Vicinity.. ................. ............................. .......... ................... .............. 3-5
3.2 San Leandro Site - Detai1...................... .............................. ................................. ......... 3-6
3.3 San Leandro Site ~ Conceptual Site Plan for Juvenile Justice Facility......................... 3-7
3.4 Glenn Dyer Site ~ Vicinity ............................................................................................ 3-9
3.5 Glenn Dyer Site - Detail...... ........ .................'............ .............. ...... .................. .... ........ 3-1 0
3.6 Glenn Dyer Site ~ Existing and Proposed Site Plan.................................................... 3-11
3.7 Glenn Dyer Site ~ Existing Building Elevation as Viewed from 7th Street ................ 3-12
3.8 Glenn Dyer Site ~ Proposed Building Elevation as Viewed from th Street............... 3-13
3.9 Pardee / Swan Site - Vicinity ......................................................................................3-16
3.10 Pardee / Swan Site - Detail.........................................................................................3-17
3.11 Pardee / Swan Site ~ Conceptual Site Plan for Juvenile Justice Facility.................... 3-18
3.12 East County Government Center Site - Vicinity......................................................... 3-20
3.13 East County Government Center Site - Detail............................................................ 3-21
3.14 East County Government Center Site - Conceptual Site Plan for Juvenile
Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice .........................................................3-22
3.15 Juvenile Justice Facility Elevations .... ............ .......... ............ ......... ................ ............. 3-24
3.16 Juvenile Justice Facility Elevation Details .................................................................3-25
3.17 Juvenile Justice Facility Typical Details .................................................................... 3-26
3.18 Juvenile Justice Facility Sections .................................... ........... .......... ........ .............. 3-27
3.19 Conceptual Rendering of East County Hall of Justice ................................................ 3-28
3.20 Site 15A - Vicinity....................... .......... ........ ............ ......... ......... ........................ ....... 3-29
3.21 Site 15A ~ Detail......................................................................................................... 3-30
3.22 Site 15A ~ Conceptual Site Plan for East County Hall of Justice ............................... 3-31
4.1 San Leandro Site - Land Uses in the Vicinity............................................................... 4-2
4.2 Glenn Dyer Site ~ Land Uses in the Vicinity................................................................ 4-4
4.3 Pardee / Swan Site ~ Land Uses in the Vicinity............................................................ 4-6
4.4 East County Government Center Site ~ Land Uses in the Vicinity............................... 4-8
4.5 Site 15A - Land Uses in the Vicinity.......................................................................... 4-10
4.6 San Leandro Site - General Plan Designations........................................................... 4-13
4.7 San Leandro Site - Zoning Designations .................................................................... 4-15
4.8 Glenn Dyer Site - General Plan Designations ............................................................ 4-17
4.9 Glenn Dyer Site ~ Zoning Designations...................................................................... 4-19
4.10 Pardee / Swan Site - General Plan Designations ........................................................4-25
4.11 Pardee / Swan Site - Zoning Designations.................................................................. 4-27
4.12 East County Government Center and Site 15A - Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Land Use Map and General Plan Map ........................................................................ 4-29
4.13 East County Government Center Site / Site 15A - Emerald Park Study Area
and New Residential Development in the Study Area and in West Dublin................ 4-49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
List of Figures (continued)
5.1 San Leandro Site ~ Photo Locations .............................................................................5-3
5.2 San Leandro Site - Site Photos ~ Neighboring Residential Area.................................. 5-4
5.3 San Leandro Site ~ Site Photos - Camp Area ...............................................................5-5
5.4 San Leandro Site ~ Site Photos - Camp Buildings ....................................................... 5-6
5.5 San Leandro Site ~ Site Photos - Administration Building .......................................... 5-7
5.6 San Leandro Site - Site Photos - Support Areas ..........................................................5-8
5.7 San Leandro Site - Site Photos - Girl's Wing and Maintenance.................................. 5-9
5.8 San Leandro Site - Site Photos - Adjacent County Facilities..................................... 5-10
5.9 Glenn Dyer Site ~ Photo Locations ..............:.............................................................. 5-12
5.10 Glenn Dyer Site ~ Site Photos - Freeway Views ........................................................5-13
5.11 Glenn Dyer Site - Site Photos ~ Ninth Street Views .................................................. 5-14
5.12 Glenn Dyer Site - Site Photos - Clay Street Views .................................................... 5-15
5.13 Glenn Dyer Site - Site Photos _7th Street Views ....................................................... 5-16
5.14 Glenn Dyer Site - Site Photos - Panorama ................................................................. 5-17
5.15 Pardee / Swan Site - Photo Locations......................................................................... 5-20
5.16 Pardee / Swan Site - Site Photos - Site Overview...................................................... 5-21
5.17 Pardee / Swan Site - Site Photos - UPS Facility........................................................ 5-22
5.18 Pardee / Swan Site - Site Photos - Business Park ...................................................... 5-23
5.19 Pardee / Swan Site - Site Photos - Shoreline Park .....................................................5-24
5.20 Pardee / Swan Site ~ Site Photos ~ Wetlands Areas ...................................................5-25
5.21 Pardee / Swan Site - Site Photos - San Leandro Channel.......................................... 5-26
5.22 East County Government Center Site - Photo Locations ........................................... 5-29
5.23 East County Govenunent Center Site - Nearby Residential Uses ..............................5-30
5.24 East County Government Center Site - Ha~ienda Drive ............................................5-31
5.25 East County Government Center Site - Gleason Drive .............................................. 5-32
5.26 East County Government Center Site - Other County Facilities ................................ 5-33
5.27 East County Govenunent Center Site - Santa Rita Jail .............................................. 5-34
5.28 East County Government Center Site ~ Federal Facilities .......................................... 5-35
5.29 East County Government Center Site - Development Along Gleason Drive............. 5-36
5.30 Site 15A ~ Photo Locations ................................. ........ .......................... ..... ................. 5-38
5.31 Site 15A - Site Photos - Adjacent Office Buildings................................................... 5-39
5.32 Site 15A - Site Photos - Views of Site .......................................................................5-40
6.1 Regional Fault Map....................................................................................................... 6-2
6.2 San Leandro Site - Seismic Hazards ............................................................................. 6-5
6.3 San Leandro Site - Boring Locations............................................................................ 6-7
6.4 San Leandro Site - Geologic Hazards........................................................................... 6-9
6.5 Glenn Dyer Site - Boring Locations ........................................................................... 6-13
6.6 Pardee/Swan Site - Boring Locations .........................................................................6-15
6.7 East County Govenunent Center Site - Boring/Sample Location Map...................... 6-18
6.8 Site 15A ~ Surface Soil Sample Locations.................................................................. 6-24
6.9 Site 15A - Exploration Test Pit Locations .................................................................. 6-25
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
TOC-5
Table of Contents
List of Figures (continued)
8.1 San Leandro Site - Wetlands ........................................................................................ 8-9
8.2 Pardee/Swan Site - Wetlands on the Site.................................................................... 8-13
8.3 East County Govenunent Center Site - Rare Plant Locàtions .................................... 8-15
8.4 East County Govenunent Center Site - Wetlands ...................................................... 8-20
8.5 Site 15A - Distribution of Congdon's Tarplant ..........................................................8-23
8.6 Site 15A - Wetlands... ....... .................... ............. ....... ........ ............. ........... ..... ............. 8-24
9.1 San Leandro Site - Study Intersections......................................................................... 9-6
9.2 San Leandro Site - Existing Turning Movement Volumes...........................................' 9-7
9.3 Glenn Dyer Site - Study Intersections ........................................................................ 9-11
9.4 Glenn Dyer Site - Existing Turning Movement Volumes .......................................... 9-13
9.5 Pardee / Swan Site - Study Intersections .................................................................... 9-18
9.6 Pardee / Swan Site - Base Line (Year 2005) PM Peak Turning
Movement Volumes ..... ...... ... ................... ............. ... ......... ......... ............... ....... ........... 9-20
9.7 East County Govenunent Center Site / Site 15A - Study Intersections...................... 9-26
9.8 East County Government Center Site / Site 15A - Existing Peak Hour
Turning Movement Volumes .......... ......... ....................................... ......... ..... ........ ...... 9-27
9.9 East County Government Center Site / Site 15A - Baseline Conditions Peak
Hour Turning Movement Volumes. ............................................................................ 9-33
9.10 San Leandro Site - Trip Distribution .......................................................................... 9-40
9.11 San Leandro Site - Existing + Project Turning Movement Volumes (420 beds) ....... 9-41
9.12 San Leandro Site - Existing + Project Turning Movement Volumes (540 beds) ....... 9-42
9.13 Glelll1 Dyer Site - 420-Bed Project Trip Assigmnent .................................................9-46
9.14 Glenn Dyer Site - Existing + 420-Beds Turning Movement Volumes....................... 9-48
9.15 Pardee / Swan Site - 420-Bed Project PM Peak Hour Trip Assigmnent ....................9-52
9.16 Pardee / Swan Site - Base Line + 420-Bed Project PM Peak Turning
Movement Volumes .............. ............................ .............................. .......... .................. 9-53
9.17 Pardee / Swan Site - 540-Bed Project PM Peak Trip Assignment ............................. 9-55
9.18 Pardee / Swan Site - Base Line + 540-Beds PM Peak Turning
Movelnent Volumes ......................... .............. ............. ................... .................. ........... 9-56
9.19 East County Government Center Site / Site 15A - Baseline + Scenario Al -
Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes.................................................................... 9-59
9.20 East County Government Center Site / Site 15A - Baseline + Scenario A2-
Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes. ...................................................................9-63
9.21 East County Government Center Site / Site 15A - Baseline + Scenario B-
Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes. ................................................................... 9-67
9.22 East County Government Center Site / Site 15A - Baseline + Scenario C1 -
Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ....................................................................9-70
9.23 East County Govenunent Center Site / Site 15A - Baseline + Scenario C2-
Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ................................................................... 9-74
9.24 East County Government Center Site / Site 15A - Baseline + ScenarioD-
Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ................................................................... 9-78
9.25 San Leandro Site - Proposed Site Plan ....................................................................... 9-81
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
TOC-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
List of Figures (continued)
9.26
9.27
9.28
9.29
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.10
10.11
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
12.5
12.6
12.7
15.1
15.2
15.3
15.4
17.1
17.2
9.35
17.4
Glenn Dyer Site - Parking Supply in Vicinity............................................................ 9-83
Pardee / Swan Site - Parking and Access ...................................................................9-85
East County Government Center - Parking and Access ............................................. 9-86
Site 15A - Parking Layout .......................................................................................... 9-88
State of California Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines............................. 10-6
San Leandro Site - Noise Measurement Locations..................................................... 10-7
San Leandro Site - Hourly Noise Levels at Site L T -1 ................................................ 10-9
Glenn Dyer Site - Noise Measurement Locations ....................................................10-10
Pardee/Swan Site - Noise Measurement Locations .................................................. 10-12
Pardee/Swan Site - Hourly Noise Levels at 24-Hour Measurement Site ................. 10-13
Pardee/Swan Site - Airport Noise Contours ............................................................. 10-14
East County Government Center Site ~ Noise Measurement Locations................... 10-15
East County Government Center Site - Hourly Noise Levels at Site LT-I............. 10-16
East County Government Center Site - Hourly Noise Levels at Site LT-2.............. 10-17
Site 15A - Noise Measurement Location.................................................................. 10-20
San Leandro Site - Hazardous Materials Sites....................~....................................... 12-4
San Leandro Site - Hazardous Materials Locations.................................................... 12-6
Glenn Dyer Site - Hazardous Materials Locations ..................................................... 12-8
Pardee/Swan Site - Hazardous Materials Locations ................................................. 12-10
Pardee/Swan Site - Sites on Regulatory Lists within One-Half Mile of Site ........... 12-12
East County Govenunent Center Site - Hazardous Materials Locations.................. 12-15
Site 15A - Hazardous Materials Locations ............................................................... 12-20
San Leandro Site - Historic Structures ..................................................................... 15-14
Glenn Dyer Site - Historic Districts and Buildings in Vicinity................................ 15-16
East County Government Center Site - Historic Building Layout ........................... 15-23
Site 15A - Historic Building Layout......................................................................... 15-25
East County Government Center Site/Site 15A - Cumulative Year 2025 -
Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes - No Project ............................................. 17-29
East County Government Center Site/Site 15A - Cumulative Year 2025 +
Scenario Al + 225,000 sf County Office - Peak Hour Turning Movement
Volumes .................................................................................................................... 17-34
East County Government Center Site/Site 15A - Cumulative Year 2025 +
Scenario A2 + 225,000 sf County Office - Peak Hour Turning Movement
Volumes ............................................................... ..................................................... 17-38
East County Government Center Site/Site 15A - Cumulative Year 2025 +
Scenario B + 685,000 sf County Office - Peak Hour Turning Movement
Volumes .................................................................................................................... 17-42
TOC·]
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Table of Contents
List of Figures (continued)
9.36 East County Govenunent Center Site/Site 15A - Cumulative Year 2025 +
Scenario C1 + 420,000 sf County Office - Peak Hour Turning Movement
Volumes ................................................................................. ................................... 17-46
9.3 7 East County Govenunent Center Site/Site 15A - Cumulative Year 2025 +
Scenario C2 + 420,000 sf County Office - Peak Hour Turning Movement
Volumes .. ...... ............................................................................. .............. ............ ..... 17-50
9.38 East County Govenunent Center Site/Site 15A - Cumulative Year 2025 +
Scenario D + 880,000 sf County Office - Peak Hour Turning Movement
Volumes ... ........... ....... ........... ............ ........ ...:....... ......... ...................... ....... ............... 17-54
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
TOC-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
List of Tables
S.l Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts.............................................................. S-9
2.1 Architectural Program for the Juvenile Justice Facility............................................... 2-4
2.2 Architectural Program for East County Hall of Justice................................................. 2-8
3.1 Comparison Of Alternatives for the Juvenile Justice Facility....................................... 3-2
3.2 Comparison Of Alternatives for the East County Hall of Justice .................................' 3-3
3.3 Percent Of The Total Space Needs Met For The Juvenile Detention
Center Component Of The Juvenile Justice Facility After The Proposed
Conversion And Expansion Of The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility.......................... 3-14
3.4 Percent Of Total Space Needs Met For The Juvenile Justice Facility Program
After Proposed Conversion And Expansion Of Glenn Dyer Detention Facility......... 3-15
3.5 Results of an Investigation to Find an Appropriate Site for a New Juvenile
Justice Facility in Alameda County, Alameda County Review Team 2002........... .3-34
4.1 Land Use Development Potential- "County Center" Property.................................. 4-32
4.2 Comparison of Median Sales Price of Single-Family Homes Between
the Emerald Park Study Area, the Rest of Dublin, and Other Local Areas................. 4-50
4.3 Comparison of the Median Size and Price Per Square Foot of New Homes
in the Emerald Park Study Area and the Rest of Dublin............................................. 4-51
4.4 Comparison of the Monthly Sales of New Residential Development
in the Emerald Park Study Area with a Selected Area in West Dublin ...................... 4-52
8.1 Special-Status Animal Species, Potential Occurrence on Alternative Sites................ 8-17
9.1 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Conditions-
Existing San Leandro Property...... .... ...................... .......... .......... ......... ....... .................. 9-8
9.2 Capacity and Ridership at Bayfair BART during Peak Hours ..................................... 9-9
9.3 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Conditions-
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility....... ............................................................................. 9-14
9.4 Headways and Hours of Operation for AC Transit Lines 42,58, 72, 73,
82 and 88 ..................................................... ..................... ....... ........................... ......... 9-15
9.5 BART Capacity and Ridership at the 1zth S1. Station during the A.M. and
P.M. Peak Hours........................................... ................ ............................................... 9-15
9.6 PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service;- Baseline Conditions -
Pardee/Swan Site.. ... ....... ...... ................................... ............................. ............ ........... 9-21
9.7 Capacity and Riders at Coliseum BART during the AM Peak Hour .......................... 9-22
9.8 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Conditions-
East County Government Center and Site 15A .......................................................... 9-28
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacilitylEast County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
TOC-9
Table of Contents
List of Tables (continued)
9.9 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Baseline Conditions ~
East County Government Center and Site 15A ..........................................................9-34
9.10 Existing San Leandro Property Site - Trip Generation - Existing
Facility and Proposed Juvenile Justice Facility Scenarios .......................................... 9-38
9.11 Existing San Leandro Property - Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service -
420-Bed and 540- Bed Scenarios ................... .............................................. ............... 9-43
9.12 Glenn Dyer Detention Facility - Trip Generation ~ Juvenile Justice
Proj ect Only................................................................................................................. 9-45
9.13 Glenn Dyer Detention Facility - Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service-
Existing Plus Project Conditions (420 Beds) .............................................................. 9-47
9.14 Pardee/Swan Site - Trip Generation - Juvenile Justice Project Only......................... 9-50
9.15 Pardee/Swan Site ~ PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Baseline Plus Project (420-Bed and 540-Bed Scenarios) ........................................... 9-51
9.16 East County Government Center Site - Trip Generation ~ Scenario AI.................... 9-58
9.17 East County Government Center Site - Peak Hour Intersection Level
of Service Baseline Plus Scenario AI......................................................................... 9-60
9.18 East County Government Center Site - Trip Generation - Scenario A2 .................... 9-62
9.19 East County Government Center Site - Peak Hour Intersection Levels
of Service Baseline Plus Scenario A2 ......................................................................... 9-64
9.20 East County Government Center Site - Trip Generation - Scenario B...................... 9-66
9.21 East County Government Center Site - Peak Hour Intersection Levels
of Service - Baseline Plus Scenario B ........................................................................ 9-68
9.22 East County Government Center Site and Site 15A - Trip Generation-
Scenario C 1 ................................................................................................................. 9-69
9.23 East County Government Center Site and Site 15A - Peak Hour
Intersection Levels of Service Baseline Plus Scenario C1.......................................... 9-71
9.24 East County Government Center Site and Site 15A - Trip Generation-
Scenario C2.......................................................... ....................................................... 9-73
9.25 East County Government Center and Site 15A - Peak Hour Intersection
Levels of Service - Baseline Plus Scenario C2 .......................................................... 9-75
9.26 Site 15A - Trip Generation - Scenario D - East County Hall of
Justice Only................................................................................................................. 9-77
9.27 Site 15A - Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Baseline Plus
Scenario D...... ..... ................................................................ ........ .... ......... ....... ............ 9-79
9.28 CMA Roadway Analysis - Existing San Leandro Property-
420-bed Scenario......................................................................................................... 9-94
9.29 CMA Roadway Analysis - Existing San Leandro Property-
540-bed Scenario......................................................................................................... 9-95
9.30 CMA Roadway Analysis - Glenn Dyer Detention Facility-
420-bed Scenario......................................................................................................... 9-97
9.31 CMA Roadway Analysis - Pardee /Swan Site - 420-bed Scenario............................ 9-99
9.32 CMA Roadway Analysis - Pardee/Swan Site - 540-bed Scenario.......................... 9-100
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
TOC-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
List of Tables (continued)
9.33 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site-
Scenario A I ............................................................................................................... 9-102
9.34 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site-
Scenario A2 ............................................................................................................... 9-103
9.35 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site-
Scenario B ................................................................................................................. 9-104
9.36 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site-
and Site 15A - Scenario C 1... .................................................... ............. ................... 9-105
9.37 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site-
and Site 15A - Scenario C2 ...................................................................................... 9-106
9.38 CMA Roadway Analysis -Site 15A - Scenario D.................................................... 9-107
10.1 Definitions of Acoustical Tenns .. ............. ....... ................. ......... ............. ............. ....... 10-2
10.2 Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry ............................ 10-3
10.3 East County Government Center Site - Summary of Short-tenn Noise
Measurements........................................................................................................... 10-19
10.4 Significant Traffic Noise Increases Near the East County Government
Center (in dBA) ......................................................................................................... 10-28
10.5 Typical Ranges of Energy Equivalent Noise Levels at 50 Feet, Leq in dBA, at
Construction Sites..................................................................................................... 10-30
10.6 Construction Equipment Noise Level Range ............................................................ 10-31
11.1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ............................................... 11-4
11.2 Measured Criteria Air Pollutant Concentrations in Alameda County........................ 11-8
11.3 Ambient Air Toxics Data - Gases ....................................... ............ .......................... 11-10
11.4 Evaluation Criteria with Point of Significance.......................................................... 11-13
11.5 Construction Diesel Exhaust (Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions) .......................... .11-15
11.6 Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions at Existing Juvenile Hall and
Courthouse................................................................................................................ 11-18
11.7 Estimated Air Pollutant Emissions for the Juvenile Justice Facility
at the Existing San Leandro Property........................................................................ 11-20
11.8 Estimated Air Pollutant Emissions for the Juvenile Justice Facility
at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility. ....................................................................... 11-23
11.9 Estimated Air Pollutant Emissions for the Juvenile Justice Facility
at the Pardee/Swan Site.... ....................................................................................... 11-24
11.10 Estimated Air Pollutant Emissions for the Juvenile Justice Facility
at the East County Government Center Site.... ....................................................... 11-26
11.11 Estimated Air Pollutant Emissions for the East County Hall of Justice
at East County Government Center or Site 15A. ...................................................... 11-27
11.12 Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions for Operation of the
Juvenile Justice Facility at East County Hall of Justice at the East
County Government Center Site. ..............................................................................11-27
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
TOC-11
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
TOC-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
List of Tables (continued)
15.1 Historic Districts in the Vicinity of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility.................... 15-17
15.2 Individual Historic Resources in the Vicinity ofthe Glenn Dyer
Detention Facility Site.............................................................................................·· 15-20
16.1 Comparison of State, County and Juvenile Detainee Population Characteristics .......16-4
16.2 Comparison of Population and Economic Characteristics of Alameda County
and the Vicinity of Alternative Sites ...........................................................................16-6
16.3 Population / Juvenile Arrest Comparison.................................................................... 16-9
17 .1 Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - Existing San Leandro Property -
420-bed Scenario .......................... ..................... ............. .................. ........... ................ 17-5
17 .2 Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - Existing San Leandro Property
- 540-bed Scenari'o ......... ........ ...................... .......... ........ ................... ........ ...... ........... 17-6
17 .3 Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - Glenn Dyer Detention Facility -
420-bed Scenario...... .......... ...... ........................ ..... .............. ......... ...................... ....... 17-10
17.4 Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - Pardee/Swan Site ~ 420-bed Scenario......... 17-13
17.5 Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - Pardee/Swan Site - 540-bed Scenario......... 17-14
17 .6 Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government
Center Site - Scenario Al - 420-bed Scenario and 13-Court Hall of Justice............ 17-18
17.7 Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site -
Scenario A2 - 540-bed Scenario and 13-Court Hall of Justice .................................17-19
17.8 Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site-
Scenario B - 13-Court Hall of Justice Only............................................................... 17-20
17 .9 Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site
and Site 15A - Scenario Cl - 420-bed JJF at East County Government Center
and East County Hall of Justice at Site 15A.............................................................. 17-21
17.1 0 Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site
and Site 15A - Scenario C2 - 540-bed JJF at East County Government Center
and East County Hall of Justice at Site 15A.............................................................. 17-22
17 .11 Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - Site 15A - Scenario D - Only the East
County Hall of Justice at Site 15A ............................................................................ 17-23
17.12 East County Government Center Site and Site 15A - Cumulative Development
Scenarios ... ... ...... .... ...... ......... ..... .... .......... ............................................. ................... 17-24
17.13 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 -
No Proj ect ................................................................................................................ 17-30
17.14 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 +
Scenario Al + 225,000 sf County Office at the East County
Government Center Site......... .............................. ................................ ............. ........ 17-35
17.15 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 +
Scenario A2 + 225,000 sf County Office at the East County
Govennnent Center Site.. .......... .................. ..... ................ .............. ........................... 17-39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
List of Tables (continued)
17.16 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 +
Scenario B + 685,000 sf County Office at the East County
Government Center Site............... .......... ............. .... ..... ............ ..... ........... .......... ....... 17-43
17.17 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 +
Scenario Cl + 420,000 sf County Office at the East County
Government Center Site..... .......... ............ ....... .............. .................... ......... ............... 17-47
17.18 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 +
Scenario C2 + 420,000 sf County Office at the East County
Government Center Site.................... ...........:.. ................... ....... ........ ........................ 17-51
17.19 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 +
Scenario D + 880,000 sf County Office at the East County
Govennnent Center Site... ....... .................... .............. ....... ....... ..... ................... .......... 17-55
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
TOC-13
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
TOC-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
This Draft EIS/EIR was prepared in confonnance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEP A) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice PrograrnsIBureau of Justice Assistance (OJP/BJA) is the Lead Agency for the
preparation of the EIS under NEPA for the proposed project. The State of California Board of
Corrections (BOC) will assist OJPIBJA in the preparation of the EIS. The County of Alameda is
the CEQA Lead Agency.
The document evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed
development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility and an East County Hall of Justice in Alameda
County, California. These two projects, which comprise the Proposed Action, could be
constructed at one or two of five alternative sites, shown in Figure S.l. A summary of the
Purpose and Need for the projects, and the Proposed Action and Alternatives, is provided below.
Additional detail is provided in Chapter 2, Purpose and Need, and in Chapter 3, Proposed
Action and Alternatives.
PURPOSE AND NEED
Juvenile Justice Facility
The existing Juvenile Hall is located in the hills of San Leandro, in an unincorporated area within
Alameda County, California. Juvenile Hall was constructed in various phases with most
structures dating from the 1950s. In addition to the existing Juvenile Hall, which provides secure
detention for 299 detainees, there are camps for low security detention and the Chabot
Community Day Center, which provides day school services.
The County of Alameda has detennined that the existing facility should be replaced with a single
consolidated center. The existing Juvenile Hall is constructed on a steep hillside in close
proximity to the Hayward fault, an active earthquake fault with a potential for causing severe
ground shaking with an estimated 32% chance of a major seismic event during the next 30 years
(USGS, 1999). In addition, all of the existing facilities have or will soon exceed their useful
economic life and most cannot be economically renovated, based on operational and
architectural/engineering evaluations. These facilities also have been frequently overcrowded
over the past several years. The County's Board of Supervisors and the State Board of
Corrections detennined that the existing Juvenile Hall does not meet the current Board of
Corrections guidelines for juvenile detention facilities, nor does it meet current or future needs of
the County of Alameda.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EI8 / EIR
Page 8-1
~
iñ
~~
5:E
u~
t;~
~g
W,
\ .......
\. .....________~...-------..........-1
·,,/i'·,o,
f·'·
~
....
t3
i:f
15
).;
Q
~
LLj
....
t::I
~
iñ
:t
~
~
~
~
::I
~
IU
;::!
ãj
:::.
:;)
"')
~
~
R
IIj
+-
o
CI:J
:=
.s
....
10
U
o
....J
.2:1
ü5
~ ~
CJ'):¡:
Q.I 10
... :=
~2
.... .....
~<
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
The County prepared a "needs assessment" and master plan in 1998 for the County-wide juvenile
justice system, with the assistance of a consulting team headed by Rosser International. The
assessment and plan included revisions to the County's mission statement, objectives, and
philosophy that would guide County decisions about the overall juvenile justice system. The
assessment also provided data rrom recent years and population projections, which led to a
caseload, workload and staffing projection, and a detennination of bed needs for each population
category (male/female and age range divisions for detention and assessment, and for post-
adjudication in-custody).
The master plan detennined that the County needed to construct a new juvenile detention facility
with 540 beds would meet the County's needs. The facility would respond to the approximately
10,000 referrals for intake, of which 6,000 are admitted for detention in a given year. The
County has since revisited the needs assessment and detennined that the County may properly
use a lower forecast. This decision is based on the trends evidenced since the first study was
conducted in 1998, the cost ofthe facility, and other factors. Therefore, the County is proposing
to initially construct a detention facility of 450 beds, of which 420 would be available for
occupancy upon opening. There is no established timerrame for when the additional beds would
become available. The total building floor area is estimated to be about 425,000 square feet for
420 to 450 beds; five juvenile courts; offices for the probation, district attorney, and public
defender departments; and related services. Provision will be made for future expansion to 540
beds and six juvenile courts, requiring a total of about 465,000 square feet of building floor area.
The County may detennine at some later date that expansion to 540 beds and six courts is
warranted, so this EIS/EIR evaluates both scenarios.
East County Hall of Justice
The Hall of Justice component of the Proposed Action is intended to replace the Court's existing
leased space in Pleasanton, which has five departments, as well as provide long-tenn expansion
space to support the Superior Court, District Attorney, Public Defender, Probation, and Sheriff
operations.
A detailed programming study was completed in 2000 by a consulting team headed by Hellmuth,
Obata + Kassabaum (HOK), Inc., in association with The Omni Group and County and Court
persOlmel. Based on an on-going County-wide Court Needs Assessment, including an analysis
of current case10ads and projections, a total of 15 courts were detennined to be necessary for
operations in the year 2010, with future expansion to 19 courtrooms in 2020. The first phase
project (2010) would have required construction of approximately 190,000 gross square feet of
building floor area. Future expansion to meet the County's needs in 2020 would have resulted in
a total building area of approximately 220,000 gross square feet. Projections beyond 2020 were
not made due to the possible changes in legislation, court operations, and other factors that are
not reasonable to forecast at this time.
The County has since conducted a second programming study in association with HLM Design
and Muller & Caulfield Architects to verifY the County needs and reconcile budget constraints
for the project. As a result, the County has detennined that 13 courts could meet the East County
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EI8 I EIR
Page 8-3
Executive Summary
needs through 2020, requiring the development of approximately 195,000 square feet of building
floor area. This EIS/EIR evaluates the 13-court scenario as the proposed project.
The proposed East County Hall of Justice would accommodate all of the necessary services to
hear civil, family, traffic, criminal misdemeanor and criminal felony cases. This includes
judicial functions of the courtrooms and related spaces, court administration, clerk of the court,
jury services, probate examiners, family and children's services, information technology, district
attorney, public defender, probation, court security, in-custody holding, children's waiting,
volunteer services, and ancillary support.
PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
This EIS/EIR evaluates two projects that could be constructed at one (combined siting) or two
(separate siting) of five alternative sites to achieve the County's Purpose and Need for the
subject projects. Each project has independent utility and is being addressed in one EIS/EIR
because of the potential for both projects to be located on the same site. A detailed description
of the projects and alternative sites is found in Chapter 3, Proposed Action and Alternatives.
The County of Alameda has not yet selected a preferred alternative site or development concept
for either of the projects. The two projects that comprise the Proposed Action are being
considered together in one combined EIS/EIR because, although they have some independent
utility, the County first proposed developing both projects on the East County Government
Center Site in Dublin. This would have linked the Project components as cumulative
developments that relied on each other for proper site planning, infrastructure and development,
and would have been implemented in approximately the same time frame. However, one project
could go fOlWard without the other, so long as the implications for the other Project are
considered if developed at the East County Government Center site.
Since the initial planning process, the County has expanded the range of alternative sites being
considered for the Juvenile Justice Facility, as well as for the East County Hall of Justice. This
has led to a potential geographic separation of the proposed projects, such that one could be
developed independently of the other. Only the Juvenile Justice Facility would receive federal
assistance, so only that component of the Proposed Action is subject to NEPA. However, as a
potential cumulative development at the East County Government Center site, the East County
Hall of Justice is also considered under NEP A and CEQA in this report.
As part of the initial site planning effort for the East County Government Center Site, the County
of Alameda also initially considered the long-term possibility of developing office space to
house various County functions to serve the Tri-Valley area. However, the demand for such
offices is presently low and no budget or design has been fonnulated for developing those
facilities, so the timerrame for implementing any such development is uncertain. Therefore, the
conceptual development of County offices at the site has been removed from the Proposed
Action. However, the eventual development of additional services at the East County
Government Center is considered in this EIS/EIR as part of the cumulative impact scenarios (see
Chapter 17).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page SA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
Juvenile Justice Facility
For the Juvenile Justice Facility component of the Proposed Action, the EIS/EIR considers
development of a new facility at four alternative sites:
Existing San Leandro Property
This alternative would involve development of a new facility uphill from the existing Juvenile
Hall facility in San Leandro. This approximately 60-acre site is located at 2200 Fairmont Drive
in an unincorporated area of San Leandro, California. The existing Juvenile Hall, a day facility,
and two detention camps are presently located in various areas of the Juvenile Hall campus. A
new Juvenile Justice Facility including all of the programmed detention, courts, administration,
and other functions could be developed in an area that is currently occupied by one of the
juvenile camps that is not presently in operation. The site conditions, including hillside slopes
and earthquake faults, present certain constraints that limit the location and design ofthe facility.
The new proj ect would require the demolition of the existing camp buildings, and construction of
a two-story building, recreation yards, and substantial retaining walls to create a stepped building
pad area. Parking would be provided in surface lots developed in the vicinity ofthe new facility.
The existing Juvenile Justice-related office and court uses located throughout the County would
be relocated to the new facility, other uses would reoccupy that vacated space in Oakland and
Hayward, and the existing Juvenile Hall would be demolished under this alternative.
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
This alternative would require conversion of the existing Glenn Dyer Detention Facility in
downtown Oakland from an adult jail to ajuvenile detention facility. This site is a one-block
area in downtown Oakland, located at 550 Sixth Street. It is currently occupied by the County's
North County Jail for adults (also known as the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility). This facility
was closed by the Alameda County Sheriff in mid-2002. Therefore, the County is exploring the
possibility of converting the eight-story facility into a juvenile detention center. The facility
would not accommodate all of the planned court and office support functions, so some of the
existing juvenile justice functions in downtown Oakland and Hayward would remain at their
current locations. The required outdoor recreation functions at this site would be provided in a
new structure located adjacent to the existing eight-story building. A new floor of residential
uses would be constructed on the roof of the existing building, and a total often stories of
intake/release and recreation areas would be built to the west of the existing building. Parking
would be provided in the County's existing eight-story parking garage on the west end of the
site, at other public parking lots, and in a new lot developed beneath the elevated section of
freeway in the area. The existing functions in San Leandro would be relocated to downtown
Oakland and that existing facility would be demolished.
Pardee/Swan Site
This alternative would involve the development of a Port of Oakland-owned property at Pardee
Drive and Swan Way as a Juvenile Justice Facility, together with an airport parking garage. The
Port of Oakland owns a vacant 34-acre property at the northern terminus of Pardee Drive at
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page S-5
Executive Summary
Swan Way in Oakland, California. The Port began construction of a new parking lot at the site
in late 2002 to meet the Port's need for interim airport parking during the Oakland International
Airport expansion project and to mitigate for parking spaces lost as a result of increased security
measures in the wake of the September 11,2001 terrorist attacks in New York City and
Washington, D.C. If the County acquired this site, it could develop a comprehensive Juvenile
Justice Facility that would meet all ofthe program needs for the project. The two-story structure
would be located on the northeastern and central portion of the site, with the public entry near the
intersection of Swan Way and Pardee Drive. Existing juvenile justice facilities in Oakland and
Hayward would be vacated, the existing facility in San Leandro would be demolished, and all of
the County's juvenile justice functions would be consolidated to this location. Parking for the
Juvenile Justice Facility would be provided in a surface lot along Swan Way and underground at
the juvenile court and office portion of the building. A four-story parking garage could also be
developed on the western portion ofthe site adjacent to the Juvenile Justice Facility to replace
the Port's parking lot use at the site.
East County Government Center
This alternative would involve development of County-owned property in the City of Dublin
near the Santa Rita Jail as part of an East County Government Center. The County of Alameda
owns a vacant 40-acre site, known as the East County Government Center site, located at the
northern terminus of Hacienda Drive at Gleason Drive in the City of Dublin, California. This
site is sufficient to accornmodate the proposed Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility project
on the western half of the site, and the new East County Hall of Justice project in the central and
eastern portion of the site (described below). The two-story structure would extend to the
perimeter ofthe site along Gleason Drive and Broder Boulevard, with a landscaped berm along
Gleason Drive to partially screen the wall from view. The juvenile courts would be located at
the western end with views to the south and west. The public entrance would be at the
northwestern comer. Service access would be from Broder Boulevard. Parking would be
provided in a surface lot on the western end of the site and at the existing public lots serving the
County's existing Santa Rita Jail.
East County Hall of Justice
For the East County Hall of Justice component of the Proposed Action, the EIS/EIR considers
two alternative sites. This project could be developed independently of the Juvenile Justice
Facility described above.
East County Government Center
This alternative would involve the development of a portion ofthe County-owned property in
Dublin near the Santa Rita Jail as part of an East County Government Center, as described
above. The three- and four-story building would be located in the central portion of the site, set
back from Gleason Drive with direct access :fÌ'om Hacienda Drive at the intersection with
Gleason Drive. The project would include a surface parking lot on the central and eastern
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 8-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
portion ofthe site with approximately 850 spaces, and the possibility of shared parking on the
Santa Rita Jail public parking lots to the north of Broder Boulevard.
Site 15A Site
This alternative would develop a 12.5-acre County-owned property known as Site 15A, near
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) and the Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station. The site
is part of Alameda County's surplus property in the Santa Rita area in the eastern portion of the
City of Dublin, California. It is located adjacent to the new Sybase office development, along
Arnold Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. The site would serve only the
East County Hall of Justice, and could be developed independently of any of the Juvenile Justice
Facility alternatives. The design would be similar to the concept for the East County
Govenunent Center, with the addition of a three-story parking garage to provide parking for 850
vehicles due to the site's limited size.
No Action/No Project Alternative
The County is required to consider the No ActionINo Project alternative. In this scenario, the
existing Juvenile Hall would continue in operation in San Leandro, the Dublin-Pleasanton courts
would continue to operate in leased space without any expansion, and the East County
Govenunent Center Site would remain undeveloped. Ultimately, however, other development is
likely to be proposed for the East County Govenunent Center site, in keeping with the City of
Dublin's adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which allocates substantial development
potential to that site. Site 15A would eventually be developed, such as with the office complex
that was previously proposed by Cisco Systems. The County would likely lease the Glenn Dyer
Detention Facility to other public agencies such as the City of Oakland, State or federal
govenunents. The Port of Oakland would also presumably proceed with its proposed
development of a parking lot at the Pardee/Swan Site, and could ultimately redevelop the site for
other office or sirnilar uses when the parking lot is no longer needed. The feasibility of the No
ActionINo Project alternative for meeting the needs of the Juvenile Justice Facility and East
County Hall of Justice projects is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, Proposed Action and
Alternatives. This chapter includes a matrix describing the project components as they would
be developed at each site (see also Table 3.1).
ALTERNATIVES NOT CARRIED FORWARD
The County has conducted several suitability studies over the past decade in its planning for the
eventual development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility. As discussed more fully in Chapter 3,
Proposed Action and Alternatives, in 1992 the County considered 22 sites for the Juvenile
Justice Facility, mainly in Oakland. More recently, the County considered 17 potential sites in
various communities including San Leandro, Oakland, Alameda, Fremont, Newark, and
Livermore in 2002. The potential pros and cons of each potential site were assessed using a
number of criteria including: parcel size; presence or absence of buildings; access (including
access to BART, freeways, and bus routes); suitability of the terrain for building (including soils,
slope); and absence of known hazards (including hazardous materials and earthquakes).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EI8 I EIR
Page 8-7
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EI8 / EIR
Page 8-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
As a result of these studies, four sites for the Juvenile Justice Facility (San Leandro, Glenn Dyer,
Pardee/Swan, East County Government Center) and two sites for the East County Hall of Justice
(East County Government Center, Site 1SA) have been carried forward in this environmental
analysis.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table S.l provides a brief summary of the Project impacts at each alternative site (i.e., no
impact, less than significant impact, potentially significant and mitigable, and significant
unavoidable impacts). This summary is based on the detailed discussions of the impacts as
provided in the respective chapters of this EIS/EIR.
No Impact means that the environmental impact category is inapplicable at a particular site, or
that the Project characteristics mean that there is no potential for impacts within that
environmental category. Less Than Significant means that, although the environmental impact
category could apply to the site, and the Project could have an adverse effect in that area of
concern, the Project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. This
EIS/EIR recommends mitigation measures that are intended to reduce significant effects to a less
than significant level, by avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating over time, or
compensating for the significant impact. The analysis has concluded that sorne impacts could
remain significant even after mitigation is applied, and are therefore identified as Significant
Unavoidable Impacts.
Please refer to the individual chapters for a discussion of the environmental setting, potential
impacts, and recommended mitigation measures for each of the Project alternatives.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The CEQA Guidelines require that an alternative that is environmentally superior to the proposed
project be identified in the EIR. If the alternative with the least environmental impact is the "no
project" alternative, then one ofthe other remaining alternatives must be designated as the
environmentally superior alternative. Based on the analysis contained in this EIS/EIR, the
environmentally superior alternative for each component ofthe Proposed Action (Juvenile
Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice) has been identified. This detennination is based
on a comparison ofthe significant and significant unavoidable impacts identified in Chapters 4
through 17 and summarized in Table S.l.
For the Juvenile Justice Facility, the Pardee/Swan Site is considered the environmentally
superior alternative.
For the East County Hall of Justice, Site ISA is considered the environmentally superior
alternative.
I
I~
ctI
E
I~
Q)
I:§
~
w
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U)
l-
f..)
<C
D..
~
..J
<C
I-
Z
w
:E
z
o
0::
~-
cn~
CÞW
:ä..J
~:$
I-
z
W
I-
o
D..
La.
o
~
<C
:E
:E
;:)
U)
<C
10
'f""
Q)
==
U)
>.....
... c:
c: Q) ...
:s E Q)
0c:'"
o ... c:
... Q) Q)
UI>O
CIS 0
We"
Q)
- ...
Q) .-
Q)U)
'E c:
ftI ftI
D..~
...
Q) c:
>..O~
C .- ...
... .-
c:c:=
c: Q) CJ
Q)';CIS
-eLL
C)
o >..
c:-6t::
CIS c: Q)
U\ CIS c..
.." Q) e
..JD..
o
zt)
- Q)
o 5'~
z._ 0
... ...
CJD..
«
t)
CIS
c..
E
-
ts
ctI
a.
E
-
o
Z
ts
ctI
a.
E
-
o
Z
ts
ctI
a.
E
-
o
z
ts
ctI
a.
E
o
z
ts
ctI
a.
E
o
z
ts
ro
a.
E
o
z
C)
c:
'2
c:
ca
õ:
Q)
UI
::J
"CJ
c:
CIS
..J
c::
ro
-
o
c::
.9 ~
(/) .-
.- c::
.2: :::J
o E
- E
~ 0
.¡¡; 0
>-en
.c:: c::
a..:;::;
(/)
""': 'x
"<:tW
ts
ro
a.
E
o
z
ts
ro
a.
E
o
z
ts
ro
a.
E
o
z
ts
ro
a.
E
o
z
ts
ro
0.
E
o
z
ts
ro
0.
E
o
z
Q)
:õ
.~
ëi
~
} (J)
ts c::
._ ro
¡¡:::-
c::a..
0-
oS
N:g
"'¡'I
ts
ro
0.
E
o
z
ts
ro
0.
E
-
o
Z
ts
ro
0.
E
-
o
Z
ts
ro
c.
E
-
o
z
ts
ro
c.
E
-
o
Z
ts
ro
c.
E
-
o
Z
Q)
.Q
S ~
= 'õ
0. ._
0.-
«~
}ëã
tsë
.- Q)
¡¡::: E
c: e
o 0
o ....
C") 'S;
.c::
"<:tW
c::-
ro c::
.c:: ro
I-~
(J) 'E
(J) c>
Q) .-
..Jcn
c::-
ro c::
.c:: r3
I-~
(/) 'E
(J) en
Q) .-
..Jcn
e-
ro c::
.c:: ~
I-~
(/) '2
(J) en
Q) .-
..Jcn
c::-
ro c::
..c: r3
I-~
(/) 'E
(J) c>
Q) .-
..Jcn
c:-
ro c::
.c:: r3
-~
(/) .-
(J) c::
Q) .~
..J(/)
ts
ro
0.
E
o
z
cD
(J)
=> (/)
"en
c:: .5
ro"C
..J c::
c:: :::J
.- 0
(J) t::
Q) :::J
en(/)
e c::
~ 0
Ots
"<:t~
..,¡.«
ts
ro
0.
E
o
z
ts
ro
0.
E
-
o
Z
ts
ro
0.
E
-
o
Z
ts
ro
c.
E
o
z
ts
ro
0.
E
o
z
ts
ro
c.
E
-
o
Z
õ
~ (/)
.- Q)
a::+:;
"C :2:
Q)ts
~«
Q)-
.... ctI
o c::
c:: .-
- E
10 .1::
-.:to
c::-
ro c::
..c: r3
I-~
(/) '2
(J) en
Q) .-
..J(/)
c::-
ro c::
..c: r3
I-~
(/) 'ë
(J) c>
Q) .-
..Jcn
e-
ro c::
.c:: ro
I-~
(/) '2
(J) en
Q) .-
..J(/)
c::-
ro c::
.c:: r3
I-~
(/) ï::
(J) en
Q) .-
..Jen
c::-
ro c::
.c:: r3
I-¡,¡:::
(J) '2
(J)en
Q) .-
...J(/)
e-
ro c::
..c: r3
I-~
(/) 'E
(J) c>
Q) .-
..Jcn
...
.e
"0
c:: (/)
~ B
Q) .-
o ~
.5 en
Q)"C
(/) c:
ro ctI
~ en
o c:
e .-
- ~
(D 0
"'¡'I
ts
ro
c.
E
en
en
Q)
C)
8?
-
o
Z
ts
ro
c.
E
-
o
Z
>- 'Ê Q)
ro -
.- S .Q
ë¡;:::ro
Q) ._ en
c::;::;
- eno-
~cn:a:
ts
ro
c.
E
-
o
Z
ts
ro
0.
E
a:::
w
en
W
~
!!!
o
I
Q)
u
T;;
::s
--;I
-
o
(t
:r:
>.
ë
::s
o
()
1;)
co
w
-
o
Z
ts
ro
c.
E
-
o
Z
(J)
Q)
(J)
(/)
Q)
e
ïi)
:::J
m
Õ
e
o
~
o
ã)
a::
t--
...t
-
~
'0
(t
LL.
Q)
u
~
::s
--;I
Q)
·2
~
::s
--;I
Þ
c::
::s
o
()
(t
"'C
Q)
E
(t
<ë
~
ro
E
E
:::::¡
UJ
.~
"5
(.J
~
w
~
.....
Q)
-
ëi5
~~
C Q) ...
::I E Q)
o C ..
O...C
- Q) Q)
en>CJ
CIS 0
wo
Q)
- -
iëi5
'E C
CIS CIS
D..~
...
Q) C
>'0>'
0,- -
- .-
cc=
cSg
Q)C )u.
(30
o >.
c-St::
ns c Q)
enClSQ.
Q) 2
..JD..
'0
z-
_ u
O c Q)
o ..,..
Z._ 0
- ...
UD..
oCt
õ
CIS
Q.
E
-
e-
ro e
.c ~
I-(¡::
(/J '2
tJ) 0)
Q) .-
....JOO
e-
ro e
..c:: ~
I-¡¡:::
(/J '2
tJ) 0)
Q) .-
....JC/)
e-
ro e
..c: ~
I-(¡::
(/J '2
tJ) 0)
Q) .-
....JOO
e-
ro e
.c ~
I- .-
-
(/J '2
tJ) 0)
Q) .-
....JC/)
e-
ro C
.c ~
I-(¡::
tJ) '2
(/J 0)
Q) .-
....JC/)
õ
co
c.
E
o
2
~
'iã
::I
o
'iã
::I
en
:;:
C
o
:¡::;
ro
"0
ro
...
0)
Q) ....
o~
(ij ro
.- ....
- ro
e.c
Sü
(/J
.c-
:J ro
00 ~
.....>
'C
LO ._
Õ
ro
c.
E
o
2
Õ
ro
c.
E
o
2
_Æ
c.c
~.g¡
(¡:: .-
.- 0
c >
0) co
.- e
C/)=>
Õ
ro
c.
E
-
o
2
Õ
ro
c.
E
o
z
Õ
ro
c.
E
-
o
Z
Q)
~
Q)S
> tJ)
"0 .-
«>
_ u
ro .-
._ c
ë ~
Soo
tJ) c:
.g 0
C/)õ
C'!:ê
LOW
>.~ Q)
CO co-
._ (.) .c
ë .- co
Q) :!:: 0)
e .-
- O):!::
o .- :E
Q.C/)
>. 'Ê Q)
roco-
._ (.) .c
ë¡¡:::co
Q) ._ 0)
c:¡::;
Õ 0).-
Q..ëi5:E
e-
ro c
..c: ~
I- .-
-
(/J .-
tJ) §,
Q) .-
....JOO
e-
ro c
..c: ~
I-(¡::
tJ) '2
(/J 0)
Q) .-
....JC/)
e-
ro c:
..c: ~
I-¡¡:::
(/J '2
tJ) 0)
Q) .-
....JC/)
Õ
ro
a.
E
o
Z
~
....
::J
o
C/)
3:_
Q)..c:
ZO)
-::::¡
0_
c: ro
o:¡::;
.- e
10S
~ (/J
ü.g
MOO
.-
LO 0
Õ
ro
c.
E
-
o
Z
Õ
ro
c.
E
-
o
Z
õ
CO
c.
E
o
z
Õ
ro
c.
E
o
z
~'ÊQ)
coro-
._ (.) .c
c:(¡::ro
Q) ._ 0)
e:¡::;
- 0)'-
~ëi5:E
_Æ
e.c
~.g¡
(¡:: .-
.- 0
c: >
O)ro
.- e
C/)=>
~
1j
1§
en
ã;
en
't:J
c
ns
tñ
'õ
en
>;
en
o
Õ
Q)
<:)
~
::J
ã.
::J
ex:
-
'5
ro
u.
...-
CD
>. 'Ê Q)
ro -
._ ~ .c
ë(¡::CO
Q) ._ 0)
e .-
- O):!::
~ëi5:E
>....Q)
roe-
.- B .c
ë¡¡:::ro
Q) ._ 0)
e .-
- O):!::
o .- :E
Q..C/)
>'"Ê Q)
ro -
._ ~ .c
ë(¡::ro
Q) ._ 0)
e:¡::;
- 0)'-
~ëi5:E
>'"Ê Q)
CO CO-
._ (.) .c
ë¡¡:::ro
Q) ._ 0)
c::¡::;
- 0).-
o .- :E
Q..en
>. 'Ê Q)
ro -
._ ~ .c
ë¡¡::ro
Q) ._ 0)
c: .-
- O):!::
~ëi5:E
-~
c:.c
~.g¡
!E 'õ
c: >
.2> ro
en C
=>
0)
c:
~
ro
..c:
en
"0
e
::J
e
(!)
C'!
CD
e-
ro c:
.r::. ro
I-~
(/J '2
tJ) 0)
Q) .-
....Jen
o
..-
I
en
Q)
C)
ro
a..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e-
ro e
..c:: ro
I-~
(/J .¡;:
tJ) C)
Q) .-
....Jen
>'"Ê Q)
roro~
.- u.....
ë¡¡:::ro
Q) ._ C)
c: .-
- C>:!::
~ëi5:E
C-
ro e
.c ~
I-(¡::
(/J '2
(/J c>
Q) .-
....JOO
c:-
co e
..c:: ~
I-¡¡:::
(/J .-
(/J ~
Q) .-
....JC/)
a:::
W
-
en
W
~
C
I
Q)
.~
1;)
:::I
-,
-
o
ro
:I:
b'
I::
:::I
o
()
1â
w
c:-
ro c:
..c:: ~
I-¡¡:::
(/J .-
tJ) §,
Q) .-
....Jen
-
c:
o
~
~
Q)
::J
0"
::::¡
~
CD
~
'0
ro
IJ..
~
1Ë
::J
-,
J!!
ï::
~
:::I
-,
:>.
'E
5
()
to
~
E
ro
«
I
I~
co
E
I~
~
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<c
an
-
CD
-
ëñ
~'E
c CD ...
= E .!
o c c
o ... ...
_ CD -
~~o
wC)
CD
- -
CD .-
CD en
'C c
... &'IS
&'IS ==
Q,en
...
CD C
>-0>-
C~=
c C'õ
c .! &'IS
CDCDLL
(SC
o >-
...t:=
C 'C CD
RISe.
ena;e
...JQ,
o
z-
_ 0
O C G)
0'-
Z._ 0
t) ...
<ca..
t)
&'IS
e.
E
-
1:5
ro
a.
E
a
Z
1:5
ro
a.
E
-
a
Z
...
u
ro
a.
E
-
a
Z
Õ
ro
a.
E
a
z
>''ÊQ)
roror:
.- u.....
ë .- ro
Q) :!;;; C)
C .-
... C)~
a .- :2:
o..C/)
... Q)
c:.c
~~
!E 'õ
c >
O>ro
.- c
m::J
(f)
Q)
:g
-¡¡j
~
c
.5
~
co
>. 'Ê Q)
ro -
._ ~ .c
ë¡¡::ro
Q) ._ C)
c::.¡:;
Õ 0>'-
o..ëñ~
>. 'Ê Q)
roro-
._ (,} .c
ë¡,¡:::ro
Q) ._ C)
c::.¡:;
... 0)'-
ð:ëñ~
>''ÊQ)
roror:
.- u.....
ë¡¡::ro
Q) ._ C)
c .-
Õ O>:!;;:
a..ëñ~
>''ÊQ)
ro -
._ ~ .c
ë¡¡::ro
Q) ._ 0)
c: .-
- -
a 0>'-
a..ëñ:2
>'..:'Q)
=1::_
.!2 ~ .c
ë¡,¡:::ro
Q) ._ 0)
c:.¡:;
Õ 0)'-
a..ëñ~
Õ
ro
a.
E
a
Z
c
a
<i)
e
w
'õ
m
LO
cO
>...:' Q)
=c_
.!2 ~ .c
ë¡¡::ro
Q) ._ 0>
C .-
- O>:!;;:
a._ ~
a..m
c-
ro c
..c: ~
I-¡¡::
(f) .-
(f) §¡
Q) .-
...Jm
>. 'Ê Q)
roro-
._ (,} .c
ë¡¡::ro
Q) ._ 0>
C:.¡:;
- 0)'-
a._ ~
a..C/)
c-
ro c
..c: ro
I-~
(f) .-
(f) §¡
Q) .-
...Jm
>. 'Ê Q)
roror:
.- u.....
"E¡¡::ro
Q) ._ 0>
.....c::+:i
a 0>'-
a..ëñ~
Õ
ro
a.
E
-
a
Z
~
:ë
.s
(f)
.£
'õ
C/)
CD
CD
>. 'Ê Q)
ro -
:.¡:;~-9
c ¡¡:: ....
Q) ._ 0)
c:.¡:;
Õ 0)'-
a..ëñ:E
>. 'Ê Q)
.!2 ~ :ë
c:¡,¡:::ro
Q) ._ 0)
c .-
... O>:!;;:
ð:ëñ~
>. 'Ê Q)
ro ro .c-
.- u
ë¡,¡:::ro
Q) ._ C'.I
C .-
- C'.I:!;;:
~ëñ::
c-
ro c
..c ~
I-¡¡::
(f) '2
(f) 0>
Q) .-
...Jm
>''ÊQ)
roro-
._ (,} .c
"E¡¡::ro
Q) ._ 0)
c:.¡:;
- 0>'-
ð:ëñ::E
1:5
ro
a.
E
a
Z
!!l
'õ
m
Q)
>
<i)
c
ro
a.
x
W
"-:
CD
>. 'Ê Q)
ro -
._ ~ .c
C:!Ero
Q)'c g
- 0)'-
~ëñ:E
>...:' Q)
=c_
.!2 ~ .c
c:r,¡:::CtI
Q) ._ C'.I
C .-
Õ C'.I:!;;:
a..ëi):2:
>''ÊQ)
CtI ro .c-
.- u
"Er,¡:::ro
Q) ._ C'.I
C .-
- C'.I:!;;:
ð:ëñ::E
Õ
ro
a.
E
-
a
Z
~'ÊQ)
.!2 ~ .c
c:¡¡::CtI
Q) ._ 0>
C::.¡:;
Õ 0>'-
a..ëñ~
Õ
ro
a.
E
-
a
Z
~
:=
ftš
=
o
...
CD
ñi
3:
'C
C
CIS
~
tn
o
e
'C
>-
:J:
>.
:!:::
ro
:::J
o
....
2
~
Õ
c
a
:.¡:; (f)
~'E
>~
c
.....S
I"-m
õ
CtI
a.
E
o
Z
Õ
ro
0-
E
o
z
Õ
ro
a.
E
o
Z
1:5
CtI
a.
E
o
Z
Õ
ro
a.
E
o
Z
Õ
ro
a.
E
o
Z
(f)
ê
:::J
a
(f)
õæ
c ....
02
~ CtI
- ~
0.-0
Q) C
Q :::J
N e
,....:ø
Õ
ro
a.
E
.....
.....
en
Q)
C)
ro
a..
-
o
Z
õ
CtI
a.
E
-
o
z
õ
CtI
a.
E
o
Z
Õ
ro
a.
E
o
Z
Õ
ro
a.
E
o
Z
c:::
w
-
en
w
~
C
I
Q)
(,,)
~
:::J
""':I
Õ
15
::r:
b'
¡::
:::J
o
o
1;)
ro
w
õ
CtI
a.
E
-
o
Z
Q)
C'.I
ro
c
.~
Q
Õ
c
o
~
2 ~
<2
C"')-
.m
1"-0..
~
ë3
ro
LL
8
;¡;
:::J
""':I
~
.~
~
:::J
""':I
b'
¡::
::J
o
U
ro
"0
Q)
E
co
<ë
~
m
E
E
:J
en
Q)
>
;¡;;¡
:J
U
~
W
~
.....
.s
ü)
~'E
s:: Cþ ...
5E.s
(J E c
-Q)Q)
en>(,)
ftI 0
we"
Cþ
- -
Q) .-
Cþ0
"C c:
... ftI
CIS ~
11.0
...
Q) s::
>'0>'
0,- -
- .-
cc=
C Cþ (.)
_ CIS
CþCþLL
-0
C)
c~ i
;JfäQ.
Cþ e
-111.
o
21:)
O C CU
0'-
2._ 0
- ...
(.)11.
oct
1:)
CIS
Q.
.5
~"ÊQ)
.~ ~ ::c
ë¡¡::ctI
Q) ._ 0>
c;
- 0)'-
~i:ñ::E
>-"Ê Q)
ro ro -.c
.- U
ë¡¡::m
Q) ._ C)
c;
- 0>'-
&i:ñ::E
>-"Ê Q)
.~ ~ ::c
ë¡¡::ctI
a> .- 0>
C .-
- o>:t::
&i:ñ~
Õ
ro
a.
E
o
z
>-"Êa>
ro ro -.c
.- U
ë .- ro
a> :t:: 0>
C .-
- o>:t::
&i:ñ~
õ
(t
a.
E
o
Z
~
Õ ='
~Õ
.- ='
uJ::;
(t (f
c..(t
ro,:::
ü£
~$
~ (t
~ ~
~.9
r--(j)
Õ
ro
c..
E
o
z
õ
(t
a.
E
o
z
Õ
ro
a.
E
-
o
z
õ
ctI
a.
E
o
Z
õ
(t
a.
E
o
Z
õ
ctI
a.
E
o
Z
'E
m
N
ro
I
'C
o
o
u::
....
ro
Q)
>-
o
o
..... ro
10 ~
~<!
õ
(t
a.
E
o
Z
õ
(t
a.
E
o
Z
õ
(t
a.
E
-
o
Z
Õ
m
a.
E
-
o
Z
õ
(t
c..
E
-
o
Z
õ
(t
c..
E
o
z
~
='
(f
o
a.
x
W
'E
m
N
ro
I
'C
o
o
ü:
co
~
>-"Ê a>
ro -
._ ~ .0
c:¡¡::(t
a> .- 0)
e:¡::¡
Õ 0>--
D..i:ñ:2
>-"Ê a>
ro ro _.0
.- u
ë¡¡::ro
Q) ._ 0>
c;
- 0>'-
&00::E
c-
ctI c
.c ~
I-¡¡::
(f '2
(f 0>
Q) .-
.-JC/)
Õ
ro
a.
E
-
o
Z
>- 'É Q)
ro -
__ ~ .c
ë¡¡::(t
a> .- C)
c:¡::¡
- 0>'-
&00:2
Õ
ro
a.
E
o
z
en
Q)
E
:::I
o
en
~
(.)
'c,
o
Õ
iñ
(f
a>
13
Q)
Co
(j)
(f
='
19
(j)
16
13
a>
Co
en
.....
cO
õ
(t
Co
E
o
z
Õ
ro
a.
E
o
Z
Õ
ro
Co
E
o
z
Õ
ro
c..
E
-
o
Z
Õ
ro
Co
E
-
o
Z
Õ
ro
c..
E
o
z
16
....
:::J
-
(t
Z
Q)
>
:¡::¡
'w
e
a>
(j) (f
- a>
0;
(f '2
(f :::J
o E
...J E
N 0
cOü
>-"Êa>
ro -
._ ~ .c
ë¡¡::(t
Q) ._ C)
c .-
- C):t::
o .- :2
D..(j)
>-"ÊQ)
(t ro-
.- 0 .0
ë¡¡::(t
Q) ._ C)
c .-
- C):t::
&Ci):2
e-
ro c
..c; ~
I-¡¡;:
(f 'c
(f C)
Q) .-
...J(j)
õ
(t
a.
E
o
Z
>-"Êa>
roca-
._ (.) .0
ë¡¡::ro
Q) ._ C)
c .-
- C):t::
~i:ñ::E
õ
(t
c..
E
o
z
o
-
rJ)
c
o
;
co
o
¡¡::
:g
:2
....
o
rJ) rJ)
rJ)'C
o e
...J ro
;::;
C") Q)
cri:5:
c-
ro c
..c; ~
I-¡¡:::
rJ) '2
rJ) C)
Q) .-
...J(j)
N
.....
en
Q)
~
a.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c-
ro c
.L: ro
I-~
rJ) .-
rJ) 5>
a> .-
...Jen
>-"ÊQ)
caca-
.- 0 .0
ë¡¡::ca
a> .- C)
c .-
- C):t::
~i:ñ~
õ
(t
Co
E
o
z
a::
W
c-
(t C
..c; co
I-~
rJ) --
rJ) 5>
a> .-
...J(j)
--
(I)
w
=
(!!
CI
I
~
:=
en
:::I
"""'>
Õ
(6
:I:
-E
:::I
8
1iS
ca
w
--
õ
(t
c..
E
o
z
-
(t
-
:.õ
(t
I
~
::!2
~
'ª'
'0
ca
LL.
~
:=
en
:::I
"""'>
~
'2
~
:::I
"""'>
>.
'E
:::I
o
()
ca
"0
Q)
E
ca
<ë
-
o
rJ)
rJ)
o
...J
~
ex)
I
I~
m
E
I~
( )
>
I]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
'01""
oS
êñ
~'E
s::: G) ...
5 E G)
oE'E
_G)CU
f/ > 0
ns 0
We!)
CU
- -
( ) .-
( )en
"C s:::
... ns
ns 3:
D..en
...
( ) s:::
>'0>'
o;:¡æ:
s::: S:::'y
s::: oS ns
C )cuu..
-0
e!)
o >.
s:::-6~
ns s::: 8-
en m e
-JQ.
o
zt)
o C cu
z O'õ'
~Q:
-
u
ns
c.
E
>''ÈQ) Õ
cu cu -.c cu
.- 0 c.
ë~ro E
Q)'c ~ -
..... 0>'- 0
ð:i:ñ:E z
>''ÈQ) Õ
ro ro -.c ro
.- 0 c.
ë ~ ro E
Q)'c g -
..... 0>'- 0
ð:ëi5~ z
>. 'È Q)
ro -
._ ~ .c
ë~ro
... ._ 0>
..... C .-
..... O>;!;;;:
o .- :2
c..(J)
.....
o
ro
c.
E
-
o
z
~'ÈQ)
.~ ~ :c
ëlt:=ro
... ._ 0>
..... C '-
- O>;!;;;:
ð:ë:n:E
Õ
ro
c.
E
o
z
~
o
...J
.r:
.....
~
Õ
¡;
C (J)
o Q)
Ü'13
LO=
.0
roc..
t5
ro
c.
E
o
z
-
o
ro
c.
E
o
z
õ
cu
c.
E
o
z
Õ
ro
c.
E
-
o
Z
-
.æ
:is
ro
I
>.
e
« C
.r: ro
..... -
.- a.
s: c
..... 0
o ._
.- .....
c ro
c c:
o Q)
Ü I/)
<C 6
còü
-~
e.c
~{g
I;:::: .-
.- 0
e >
O>ro
.- c
oo=>
-~
c.c
~{g
I;:::: .-
.- 0
c >
O>ro
.- c
oo=>
c"'"
cu e
.r: ro
I-.g
I/) .-
I/) ~
( ) .-
...JOO
e-
m e
.r: ~
1-1;::::
I/) 'c
I/) 0>
Q) .-
...JOO
>''ÈQ)
ro -
._ ~ .c
ë¡,¡;:ro
'" ._ 0>
..... C .-
..... O>;!;;;:
ð:ë:n~
Õ
ro
c.
E
o
z
.5
u
!E>.
~;!;;:
I- ~
'Oc.
Q) ro
(J)ü
ro_
S ~ ~
._- e I/)
ns - ~
~ "": x
o 0> W
Q,
f/
s:::
f.!
....
e-
ro c
.r:: ro
I-.g
I/) 'c
I/) 0)
Q) .-
...JOO
>'"Ë Q)
rocu-
.- u .c
ë¡,¡;:ro
'" ._ 0>
..... C .-
..... O>;!;;;:
ð:ë:n~
>. 'Ê Q)
CUCU-
"- u .c
ë¡,¡;:cu
'" ._ 0>
..... e .-
- C>;!;;:
ð:i:ñ:E
>''Ë( )
ro ro -.c
.- 0
ë~ro
Q) ._ C>
e;¡:;¡
..... 0)'-
ð:i:ñ:2;
e"'"
CU e
.r: ~
....¡¡:::
I/) 'c
I/) 0>
Q) .-
...JOO
Õ
ro
c.
E
o
z
0>
e
:g
CU
a.
Q)
-
ro
::J
0-
Q)
'0
ro >.
e-
- c.
C\lc.
.::J
0>00
e-
ro e
.J:: ~
1-1;::::
I/) 'c
1/)0>
Q) .-
...J(f)
e-
ro e
.J:: ~
I-~
(J) -E
1/)0)
Q) .-
...JOO
c"'"
CU c
.r::. ro
I-~
(J) 'E
I/) 0>
Q) .-
...J(f)
e-
ro c
.r::. ~
1-1;::::
I/) -E
I/) 0>
Q) .-
...J(f)
>. 'Ë Q)
ro -
._ ~ .c
ë~ro
Q)'_ 0>
C .-
- O>;!;;:
ð:ë:n:2
Õ
ro
c.
E
o
z
....
J2
'0
C
ro
E
Q)
CI
'0 ~
Q) .-
I/) è:
ro Q)
~(f)
0.....
c .-
- I/)
c
C"'.! ~
0>1-
Q)
ë::c
ro ro
0'0
~ .-
"E ~
O>ro
.- c
(f)=:!
Q)
ë::c
~{g
!E ·õ
c >
O>ro
.- c
(f)=:!
Q)
ë:c
~{g
!ê.~
o>ro
.- c
en=:!
e-
ro c
.r::. ~
I-~
I/) 'c
I/) 0>
~ü5
Q)
ë::c
B{g
!ê .~
.2" co
(f)§
Õ
ro
a.
E
o
Z
"E
co
16'0
C C
o co
'cr, êi5
& ~
~.~
.- Q)
'"ßen
~ ~
atí~
co
"<:2: 0
0>0:::
-
o
ro
c.
E
C")
....
I
en
( )
0>
m
a..
-
o
z
õ
CU
Q,
E
o
z
Õ
ro
c.
E
o
z
Õ
ro
c.
E
o
z
Õ
ro
c.
E
a:::
w
-
en
W
~
(:)
I
~
;¡:;¡
(J)
:;I
-,
-
o
-æ
::J:
z¡.
c::;
:;I
o
ü
1ã
w
-
o
Z
Õ
ro
c.
E
o
z
-
o
!E
~
I-
'ª'
.~
u..
~
:=
II)
::I
-,
J!l
ï::
~
:;I
-,
>.
ë
:;I
o
Ü
en
"U
Q)
E
ro
«
....
«
.5
Q)
0>
C
ro
.J:: c
Ü ....
.æ
LO-
.ro
o>c..
~
co
E
E
::)
en
.~
"5
(J
Q)
><
w
~
't"'"
S
o
~ë
C CI) ...
::s E S
o C C
(,) ... CI)
'1ii~(,)
ns 0
wo
s
10
"E C
CIS ca
D..ð;
...
Q) C
~O:>.
O .- ...-
- .-
CC=
cs~
Cl)Q)u.
-0
o
e~
C'CQ)
~¡a.
Q) e
...JD..
o
~1J
o C Q)
Z O'õ'
:= ...
:lD..
1J
CIS
a.
.§
c:-
rn c:
.ern
I-~
m'ë
(/)en
0).-
...JUJ
e-
rn e
.crn
I-~
m'ë
men
0).-
...JUJ
e-
rn e
..c:r3
I-¡¡::
m'ë
(/)en
0).-
...JUJ
e-
rn e
.ern
I-~
m'ë
men
0).-
...JUJ
e-
rn e
.er3
I-¡¡::;:
(/)'ë
men
0).-
...JUJ
e-
rn e
.cr3
I-¡¡::;:
m'ë
(/)en
0).-
...JUJ
0)
='
o
m
'E
rn
N
rn
:r:
.~
0)
(/)
rn
§ ~
.5 lß
(DO
0'>.9
Õ
rn
0-
E
-
o
Z
Õ
rn
a.
E
o
Z
Õ
ro
a.
E
o
Z
Õ
rn
a.
E
o
Z
e-
rn e
.e rn
I-~
(/) .-
(/) ~
0) .-
-JUJ
e-
rn e
.e r3
I-¡¡::::
(/) .-
m~
0) .-
...JUJ
~
e
0)
~
0)
E
w
~
='
c-
O)
"C
rn m
c: m
- S
~:i
e-
rn e
.c r3
I-¡¡::
m 'E
m en
0) .-
...JUJ
e-
rn e
.c r3
I-¡¡::
m 'E
m en
0) .-
...JUJ
e-
rn e
.c rn
I-~
m 'E
m en
0) .-
...JUJ
e-
ro e
.c rn
I-~
(/) 'E
m en
0) .-
...JUJ
e-
ro e
.e r3
I-¡¡::
m 'E
m en
0) .-
...JUJ
e-
rn e
.e r3
I-¡¡::
(/) 'E
m en
0) .-
...JUJ
0)
>
:0=:
rn
c m
.... 0)
0) .-
- 0
« 'õ
.cQ..
-
.- c
3: 0
- .-
C)-
._ ro
¡¡::'t:
e 0
o a.
Ü (/)
e
~ ~
0'>1-
e-
rn C
.e r3
I-¡¡::;:
(/) 'E
m en
0) .-
...JUJ
e-
ro C
.e r3
I-¡¡::
(/) .-
m ~
0) .-
...JUJ
1::-
rn e
.c r3
I-¡¡::
(/) .-
m ~
0) .-
...JUJ
-~
e.Q
rn ro
C)"O
!E 'õ
e >
enro
.- e
UJ~
Õ
rn
a.
E
-
o
Z
Õ
rn
a.
E
-
o
Z
0)
(/)
~
'C
c:
ro
...J
'C
e
ro~
0)=
m .-
.- .Q
0:0=:
Z ro
a.
~ E
'0
~ü
CI)
/I)
'õ
z
e-
rn c:
.c rn
I-~
m ï::
(/)0>
0) .-
...JUJ
-~
CoO
r3~
¡¡::;: .-
.- 0
e >
O>ro
.- e
UJ~
æ'E
.c rn
I-~
(/) 'E
ID .21
...JUJ
e-
rn I::
.c r3
-¡¡::
/I) .-
(/) c:
0) .21
...J(f)
e-
e
rn B
~¡¡::;:
I/) .-
r.n ~
Q) .-
...J(f)
Õ
ro
a.
E
-
o
Z
0)
I/)
'õ
z
C)
IE
rn
....
I-
....
rn
"3
C)
:E
0) 0)
> ~
N ~
'0
~.s
Õ
rn
0-
E
o
z
0)
"E15
~~
'E g
.2> ro
UJ e
~
1::-
rn e
.c r3
I-¡¡::
m .-
(/) c
0) .2>
...JUJ
-~
C.Q
rn rn
~:9
.- 0
c: >
.21 rn
UJ C
~
-~
e.Q
r3~
¡¡:: .-
.- 0
e >
.21 rn
UJ e
::J
Õ
rn
a.
E
o
Z
Q)
r.n
'õ
Z
e
o
~
::)
....
-
m
c:
o
Ü
('t')
o
~
0)
"E15
r3~
~ ·õ
en>
._ ro
UJ:§
0)
"E15
r3~
~ 'õ
O>~
.- C
U)~
Q)
"E15
r3 rn
¡¡::"O
'- 'õ
e >
Q)rn
.- c:
U)::>
Q)
"E15
r3 rn
!E:9
e g
Q)ro
.- e
U)~
0)
1::15
r3 rn
!E:2
c g
.2> ro
U):§
-
o
rn
a.
E
o
Z
~
ëã
::s
a
...
;.¡
't:J
.æ
JS! VJ
0)-
œ: æ
I c
§ "Ë
~.s
=' e
.þ 0
I/)ü
e ....
8:.a:
o
:: '§
~I-
e-
rn C
.c rn
I- .2
-
m 'E
VJ en
0) .-
...JUJ
...,.
..--
ch
(\)
C)
ctI
a..
I
I
I
e-
rn C
.c r3
I-¡¡::
r.n 'E
m Q)
0) .-
...JU)
I
I
c:-
rn C
.c (t
I-~
(/) 'c
VJ en
0) .-
...JUJ
I
I
I
e-
rn c:
.e r3
I-¡¡::
VJ 'E
~ .21
...JU)
I
I
C-
ro C
.c r3
I-¡¡::
VJ 'E
(/) Q)
0) .-
...JU)
c::::
w
en
iIi
~
C
I
B
;:
en
::I
.,
Õ
(ij
::I:
-E
::I
8
¡
w
I
I
I
I
C-
ro c:
.c r3
I-¡¡::
(/) -E
m Q)
0) .-
...JU)
-
.9 VJ
-
~ e
=' ê
r.n ._
o E
ft.s
w C
~8
:J ....
~<
o
N 'x
~ 0
~I-
:?;
'0
ctI
LL
B
~
::I
.,
(\)
'2
~
::I
.,
.2:-
c
::I
8
ctI
~
E
ctI
<
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
(t
E
I~
Q)
.~
I)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
"f""
S
ëñ
>.-
_ c
c CI) ...
:::I E CI)
°c-
o...c
_ CI) CI)
en>U
CG 0
WC)
_s
CI) .-
Cl)en
"C c
... CG
ell 3:
a..rn
...
CI) c
>.O~
O .- ..-
- .-
cc=
c CI) CJ
CI) ã) CG
-eLL
o
e >.
c-ci
CG Ii 0-
U) CI) e
..Ja..
o
;g:t)
o 5 .!,
Z._ 0
- ...
~a..
t)
CG
0-
E
>- 'Ê Q)
(t -
._ ~ ..c
ë¡¡::ro
Q) ._ 0>
C .-
... O>;!;;:
~ëñ::2
>-"Ë Q)
co -
._ ~ ..0
ë¡¡:::ro
Q) ._ C>
c:=
... 0)'-
0._ ~
a..(/')
>-"É Q)
co co-
.- u ..c
ë¡¡::CO
Q) ._ 0)
c:=
... 0)'-
~ëñ:2:
>-"Ë Q)
co co-
.- U ..0
ë¡¡::CO
Q) ._ 0)
C .-
... O>;!;;:
0._ ~
a..(/')
>- 'Ê Q)
co co _..0
.- U
ë¡¡::CO
Q) ._ C)
c:=
... C)'-
¡£ëñ:2:
C'"
co C
.c co
I-~
en ï::
en 0)
Q) .-
....JC/)
~
o
~
='
u
~
a..
Q)
c
o
N
o
(1')
..--
..--
C'"
ctI C
.c ~
I-¡¡::
VJ .-
VJ C
Q) .Q)
....JC/)
C-
ro C
.c ~
I-¡¡:::
VJ .-
VJ 5>
Q) .-
....JC/)
C'"
ro C
.c co
I-~
VJ .-
VJ 5>
Q) .-
....JC/)
C-
co c
.c co
I-~
VJ .-
VJ Õ>
Q) .-
....J(/')
>'"É Q)
ro -
._ ~ ..c
ë¡¡:::CO
Q) ._ 0)
C .-
... O>;!;;:
~ëñ:2
õ
co
e..
E
-
o
Z
Q)
"C
'x
o
C
o
::2
C
o
..c
ro VJ
üÕ
e..
oq-J!l
'0
:::I
C-
co C
.c co
I- .~
-
en .-
VJ §¡
Q) .-
....J(/')
C'"
co c
.c co
I-~
VJ '2
VJ 0)
Q) .-
....JC/)
C-
co C
.c co
I-.g
VJ '2
VJ 0)
Q) .-
....JC/)
C'"
ro C
.c ~
I-r.;:::
VJ '2
VJ 0)
Q) .-
....JC/)
C-
co c
.c ~
I-¡¡:::
VJ '2
en 0)
Q) .-
....JC/)
õ
co
e..
E
o
z
'-
o
"C
o
Lt)
..--
..--
>-'ÊQ)
co -
._ ~ ..c
ër.;:::ro
Q) ._ 0)
c .-
Õ C>;!;;:
a..ëñ::1:
>'"Ë Q)
co co-
.- U ..0
ër.;:::co
Q) ._ 0)
_C:=
o 0)'-
a..ëñ::2
>- 'Ê Q)
ro -
._ ~ ..c
'E¡¡:::co
Q) ._ 0)
_c:¡:¡
o 0)'-
a..cn::2
õ
co
e..
E
o
z
>-'ÊQ)
COctl-
.- 0 ..c
ër.¡::co
Q) ._ C>
C .-
Õ C>;!;;:
a..cn::2
õ
co
c..
E
o
z
>.
-
.æ
CG.
en
-c
c:
CG
.c
-
Ci
CI)
:I:
.~
1.i
:::I
a..
16
en
~ R
.¡:: VJ
$0
~-g
VJ co
=' Q)
o VJ
"E=>
co _
Nt::
ro 0
Ie..
VJ
..-- c
N ~
..--1-
õ
co
e..
E
o
z
Õ
ro
e..
E
-
o
Z
õ
co
c..
E
-
o
Z
õ
co
e..
E
o
z
õ
ctI
e..
E
o
z
Õ
ro
e..
E
o
z
en
='
o
"E
~
co
I Q)
_ VJ
co co
ë..!Y
Q) Q)
"Co::
'S Æ
<1'; .m
....
C'\IJB
'CO
~:E
õ
co
e..
E
-
o
Z
Õ
ro
e..
E
o
z
Õ
ro
e..
E
o
z
õ
co
c..
E
o
z
õ
co
c..
E
-
o
Z
õ
co
e..
E
o
z
VJ
16
.¡:: Õ
Q) 0
....c
co u
::2C/)
VJ_
=' 0
o Q)
"C -
.... .-
co::2
N "of
co .. "-
I c:
~;S
C'\I .-
..--~
õ
co
e..
E
o
z
I()
..--
en
Q)
~
a.
õ
co
a.
E
o
z
õ
co
e..
E
o
z
õ
co
e..
E
-
o
Z
õ
co
e..
E
o
z
a:::
¡¡¡
CJ')
w
~
c
8
~
::;,
--:>
-
o
"ffi
::J:
.::-
c:
~
o
()
û)
CI:!
W
,ª,.
'0
CI:!
LL
.~
û)
~
--:>
Q)
ï::
~
::;,
--:>
:>.
1:
::;,
o
()
CI:!
~
E
CI:!
<
õ
co
c..
E
o
z
"C
JB
VJ
:;:¡ Q)
;!;;:
co(/')
C VJ
0-
C .m
o ....
.- Q)
õ10
2::2
...
VJ VJ
c: ='
o 0
ü"E
oq- co
.N
C'\I co
..--I
~
ro
E
E
:J
(f)
Q)
.Õ:::
-
:J
t.'I
~
W
:;
.....
S
ü)
l:'1:
c CI) ...
=Ss
8 E c
_ CI) Q)
U»u
ca 0
We!)
Q)
læ
" c
... ca
ca ~
Q.cn
...
Q) C
~:8=ª'
C C u
cSca
Q)Q)LL
ac
e~
C " Q)
ca c c.
cnme
...JQ.
o
z-
_ u
o C Q)
z .2 .õ'
~Q:
ü
ca
c.
S
Õ
rn
a.
E
o
Z
Ü
rn
0..
E
o
z
e-
rn c
.c rn
I- .~
-
(J) '2
(J) 0>
Q) .-
....Jm
Ü
rn
0..
E
-
o
Z
Ü
rn
a.
E
-
o
Z
-
u
rn
a.
E
o
Z
....
rn
Q)
Z
'E
rn
N
rn
It:
>'0
ã>2-
- .-
rn«
m u
Lt)=
..0
N ::I
.....a..
Ü
rn
0..
E
o
z
Ü
eo
a.
E
o
Z
Ü
eo
a.
E
o
z
Ü
rn
a.
E
-
o
Z
-
u
eo
0..
E
o
z
-
u
eo
0..
E
o
z
....
rn
Q)
Z
'E
~
eo
Ia.
.¡:
~~
m<
m Q)
-
(0 eo
>
N .¡:
.....a...
Ü
eo
a.
E
o
z
Ü
eo
a.
E
o
z
Ü
eo
a.
E
o
z
Ü
rn
a.
E
-
o
Z
-
u
eo
a.
E
o
Z
-
u
eo
a.
E
o
Z
..c Q)
_ (f)
'§ §
_0..
C (f)
Q) Q)
EO:;
.: >.
eo ()
a.c
E g},
....
...... Q)
'E
~w
Ü
eo
Co
E
o
z
Ü
eo
0..
E
o
z
Ü
eo
a.
E
o
z
Ü
eo
0..
E
-
o
Z
Õ
eo
0..
E
o
z
Õ
eo
a.
E
o
Z
(f)
..':tt:. ~
(f) .-
.- LL
0::"
o C
- eo
Q)-
...."
::1=
(f)3:
o
0.0>
x C
w'S;:
roo
.>
N c
..... -
e-
rn C
..c ~
I-¡,¡::
(f) '2
(f) 0>
Q) --
....Jm
e-
rn C
..c ~
1-1;::::
(f) '2
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Jm
c-
eo c
..c ~
I-¡,¡::
(f) .¡::
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Jm
e-
rn C
.c ~
1-1;::::
(f) .¡::
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Je/)
c-
eo C
..c eo
I-g
(f) '2
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Je/)
c-
eo c:::
..c ~
I- .-
-
(f) .¡::
(f)o>
Q) .-
....Jm
en
Q)
u
.~
Q)
tI)
.~
:ã
;:,
Q.
C
o
(f)
Õ
Q)
~ (f)
w ~
Ü ._
~ è:
.- Q)
-gm
.~
.....:c
C"".Ì ::I
.....0..
c-
eo C
.c ~
1-1;::::
(f) '2
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Jm
c-
eo C
..c ~
1-1;::::
(f) ·2
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Je/)
c-
eo C
.c ~
I-¡,¡::
(f) .-
(f) §¡
Q) .-
....Jm
e-
rn C
..c ~
I- .-
-
(J) '2
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Jm
c-
eo c
.c ~
I-¡,¡::
(f) '2
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Je/)
Õ
rn
a.
E
o
Z
(f)
>.rn
u .¡:
C Q)
(ijQ)"tO
C 0>
.9 a> :::E
:!::: E (f)
"W::l
" 0
« ."'0
.... ~ (¡;
o .- N
-LLeo
'á1 I I
Q)!ß....:
Z ._ eo
:!::: u
N=:a
. U Q)
~~:::E
c-
eo C
.c ~
I-¡,¡::
(J) 'r::
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Jm
c-
eo c:::
..c ~
1-1;::::
(f) ·2
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Jm
e-
rn C
.c ~
I-¡,¡::
(f) .¡::
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Jm
c-
eo e
..c ~
I-¡,¡::
(f) '2
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Jm
c-
eo e
.c ~
I-¡,¡::
(f) '2
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Jm
Õ
rn
a.
E
o
Z
ñ1
c
o
E
"
Jl ~
L..=
o 0
-a..
"1
Q) (f)
Q) Q)
Z .-
:E:
~ 'õ
C"') eo
..... LL
I
c-
eo c
..c ~
I-¡,¡::
(f) .-
(f) §,
Q) .-
....Jm
<.D
......
I
en
( )
OJ
(t
a.
I
I
c-
eo c:::
..c ~
I-¡¡:::
(f) ·2
(f)o>
Q) .-
....Jm
I
I
e-
rn c:
..c ~
I-¡,¡::
(f) .¡::
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Jm
I
I
e-
rn e
..c rn
I- .~
-
(f) '2
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Jm
I
I
I
c-
eo c:::
.s:::. ~
I-¡,¡::
(f) .¡::
(f) 0>
Q) .-
....Je/)
a::
ü:i
--
en
ü:i
~
o
I
Q)
u
~
::3
""')
-
o
ëii
:I:
b
c;
::3
o
Ü
ûj
(t
w
I
I
Ü
rn
a.
E
I
I
-
o
Z
--
ñ1
c
o
:2
,,!!1
-c 0
« 0
...."5
.Ern
"1
Q) (f)
Q) Q)
Z .-
:!:::
~ 'õ
C"') eo
.....u..
'ª'
'õ
co
LL
B
:=
U)
::3
""')
JI!
'2
~
::3
""')
-E
::3
o
Ü
(t
'C
( )
E
(t
<ë
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
co
E
.
Q)
.<:::
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<C
&n
~
S
ëñ
~1:
r::: cu ..
:I E cu
0r:::-
(J .. r:::
_cucu
~~(J
We)
cu
- -
mëñ
'E r:::
ns ns
D..~
..
cu r:::
>'0>'
c:w:t::
r::: r::: '(j
r::: oS ca
CUQ)LL
-C
e)
e~
r::: '0 Q)
,~ æ Q.
'''cue
..JD..
o
~õ
O C Q)
0'-
Z:e£
<C
Õ
ns
Q.
E
c-
ctI e
.c B
I-~
~ .~
~i:i5
e-
ro c
.c: ctI
I-,g
(/J '2
(/J 0)
Q) .-
....J(/)
e-
ctI e
.c: ~
I-~
(/J ï::
(/J 0)
Q) .-
....J(/)
-
u
ro
a.
E
o
Z
e-
ctI e
.c ~
I-~
(/J '2
(/J 0)
Q) .-
....J(/)
Õ
ro
a.
E
o
Z
ro
e
o
;;"'0
:t;; e
"'0 ctI
«~
~ ~
s'li:.
"Ole
Q) (/J .Q
~Q)ro
:e ~
u
~
U".! '0
(") ro
..... LL
ro
§"*
:e ctI
:g~
«"0
1-=
o 0
-(/)
"01
Q) (/J
Q) Q)
Z .-
:!;;:
~ '0
(") ctI
.....LL
e-
ctI e
.c: m
I-,g
(/J '2:
(/J 0)
Q) .-
....J(/)
>- 'Ê Q)
ro -
.- B .0
ë~ctI
Q) ._ 0)
e .-
Õ C'J:!;;:
a.i:i5~
>- 'Ê Q)
ctI -
.- B .0
ë~ctI
Q) ._ C'J
....,;c:+==
o C'J'-
a.i:i5~
>- 'Ê Q)
ctI -
.- B .0
ë~ctI
Q) ._ C'J
~t:;
o 0)'-
a.i:i5~
>- 'Ê Q)
ro -
.- B .0
ë~ro
Q) ._ C'J
....c:¡:::¡
o 0)'-
a.i:i5~
Õ
ro
Co
E
o
z
e
o
tš
:J
~
-
(/J
e
o
Ü
>- 'Ê Q)
m -
._ ~ .0
ë~ro
Q) ._ C'J
e;;
Õ C'J'-
a..i:i5~
>- 'Ê Q)
roctl-
.- 0 .0
ë .- m
Q) :t: C'J
_e;;
o 0)'-
a.i:i5~
>- 'Ê Q)
ctlm-
.- 0 .0
ë~ro
Q) ._ C'J
_e:;:::;
o 0)'-
a.i:i5::2:
>- 'Ê Q)
ctI -
.- B .0
ë .- m
Q) :t: C'J
e;;
Õ C'J'-
a.i:i5::2:
>''ÊQ)
ctlctI-
.- 0 .0
ë -- ctI
Q) :t: C'J
e .-
- C'J:!;;:
o .- ::2:
a.(/)
õ
ctI
a.
E
-
o
Z
(/J
e
o
;;
~
Q)
a.
o
e-
m e
.c. B
t-¡,¡:;
(/J '2:
(/J C'J
Q) .-
...J(/)
e-
ro e
.c. B
t-¡,¡:;
(/J '2:
(/J C'J
Q) .-
...Jm
e-
m e
.c. ~
t-¡,¡:;
(/J ï::
(/J C'J
Q) .-
...Jm
e-
m e
.c. ~
t-~
(/J '2:
(/J 0>
Q) .-
...Jm
e-
ctI e
.c. ~
I--~
(/J '2
(/J 0>
Q) .-
....Jm
Õ
m
a.
E
o
Z
ro
e
o
E
:g~
« ~
C5=º
-....J
~I
Q) (/J
Z.92
:!:::
"'": '0
(") m
.....LL
e-
ctI e
.cB
t-¡,¡:;
(/J 'ë
(/J C'J
Q) .-
....J(/)
e-
ro e
.c. ro
I--,g
(/J '2
(/J C'J
Q) .-
....Jm
e-
ro e
.c. ro
I-- .~
-
(/J '2
(/JC'J
Q) .-
....J(/)
e-
ro e
.c: ro
I--,g
(/J '2
(/J C'J
Q) .-
....Jm
e-
ro e
.c:ro
I--,g
(/J .-
(/J §¡
Q) .-
....Jen
õ
ctI
a.
E
-
o
Z
II)
cu
E
:ø
::::)
~
Q)
~
'õ
~
:õ
,!!:!
ïû
~>-
a.
.....a.
..¿. :J
.....en
e-
ro e
.c. ro
I-,g
(/J '2
(/J C'J
Q) .-
....Jen
r--
.....
en
Q)
I:n
ca
0..
e-
ctI e
.c. B
t-~
(/J '2
(/J 0>
Q) .-
....J(/)
e-
ctI e
.c B
t-~
(/J '2
(/J C'J
Q) .-
....Jen
15
ro
Co
E
o
z
Õ
ro
Co
E
a:::
iIi
en
iIi
~
f!
CI
I
~
:¡:I
rJ)
:I
"J
Õ
1U
:I:
.2:-
c:
:I
o
ü
1n
ca
w
-
o
Z
Õ
ro
a.
E
-
o
z
(/J
"0 E
Q) Q)
"'Ow
e >-
ro(/)
a.e
x 0
W._
~'5
s,.o
"OE
Q) .!!2
Q)O
Z ~
C\I.æ
-ct!
~3:
--
~
.~
LL.
~
:¡::o
rJ)
:I
"J
J!2
'2
Q)
:>
:I
"J
.2:-
c:
:I
8
ca
"C
Q)
E
ca
«
~
co
E
E
:::J
en
~
:;::::
:::J
I'.)
Q)
><
w
~
-
CÞ
-
ëñ
~ë
C CÞ I-
= ë S
o C C
(,) I- cþ
_ CÞ ....
en>-
CG 0
wC)
_s
g:ëñ
"C C
I- CG
CG :I:
0.0
I-
cþ c
~:8~
ê s'U
CÞCÞ:'
(5C
o
I-
C"C
CG C
tJ) CG
CÞ
..J
o
z
-
o c
z .2
Ü
<C
ü
CG
Q.
ë
c-
ro c:
..c: ~
r-I;
en ï::
m .2>
....Jen
c:-
ro c:
..c: ro
r-~
en ï::
en 0>
(I.) .-
....Jen
c:-
ro c:
..c: ~
r-I;
en '2
en 0)
(I.) .-
....JCI)
c-
ro c
..c: ro
r-.g
en -2
en 0>
(I.) --
....Jen
~
CÞ
Q.
o
l-
e..
c:-
m c:
..c: ~
r-I;
en '2
en 0)
(I.) .-
....JCI)
ü
CÞ
.-
e
e..
Ü
ro
0.
E
o
z
'0
(I.)
'Oc:
c: (I.)
m E
0._
X m
W (I.)
.... ....
.gl-
'0
Cl>
Cl>
Z
....
(I.)
~
-
C"') en
·ro
:t~
c-
ro c
~~
~ .§,
.3i:ñ
e-
m e
..c: ~
1-1;
(f) '2
en 0)
Cl> .-
....JCI)
>-...; ."
roæ~
.- u .Q
1::l;ro
," ._ 0)
"" c: .-
- O):t:::
o .- :2
a..CI)
Ü
ro
0.
E
o
z
>-'ÈCD
mro-
.- u .0
1::-.=ro
.., ._ 0>
""c::o:::
- 0>'-
~i:ñ:2
-
u
(t
0.
E
-
o
Z
"'0
(I.)
'0 C
C 0
ro:;:::;
a.u
x (I.)
w=
.... 0
oU
- ....
'0,$
CD ro
~ ~
"<tOO
·ro
:t3:
c-
ro e
..c: ~
1-1;
en .-
(f) §.,
CD .-
....JCI)
>-'ÊCD
ro -
.- ~ .Q
'E-.=ro
.., ._ 0)
~c::;:::;
o 0)'-
a..i:ñ:2
c-
ro c
..c: ~
1-1;
(f) .-
en §.,
CD .-
....JCI)
-
u
ro
0.
E
-
o
Z
>- 'Ë CD
rom-
.- 0 .Q
1::l;ro
.., ._ 0>
""c:;:::;
Õ 0>'-
a..i:ñ::E
Õ
ro
0.
E
o
z
- I/)
m CD
c u
o .-
:;:::; è:
.- Cl>
:gCl)
<t: CD
.... 0>
.g ro
c
'0 .-
CD ~
CDO
Z E
LO ....
'0
"<t-
.....CI)
c-
ro c
..c: ~
I--¡¡:::
(f) '2
I/) 0>
(I.) .-
....JCI)
Õ
ro
0.
E
-
o
Z
e-
ro c:
..c: m
r-~
en '2
(f)o>
CD .-
....Jen
-
o
ro
a.
E
o
Z
>- 'È (I.)
rom-;=;
.- 0.....
'El;ctI
.., ._ 0>
"" C .-
- o>:t:::
~i:ñ::2:
Õ
ro
0.
E
o
z
(f)
CD
o
.~
CD
CI)
(f)
c
o
:;:::;
'0 ~ro
.., (f) 0
"" (t .-
~ ø §
~-:E
ornE
e u
-:58
co 0 CD
. CD -
-.;t'-CD
.....wr-
....
J2
"0
C
ro
E
CD
o
>- 'Ë CD
roro-
.- 0 .Q
'El;ctI
.., ._ 0>
"" C .-
- o>:t:::
~i:i)::2:
>-'ËCD
ro ro _.0
.- U
'El;ro
.., ._ 0)
"" c .-
- en~
~i:i):2
-
o
ro
0.
E
o
z
>- 'Ê CD
ctI -
.- B .Q
'El;ro
.., ._ 0>
~c:;:::;
o 0>'-
a..i:i)::2:
>-'Ê(I.)
roro-
.- 0 ..c
'E1;(t
.., ._ 0>
~c:;:::;
o 0>'-
Q..i:i)::2:
Õ
ro
a.
E
o
Z
en
CÞ
f:!
=
o
en
&
'ii
.!:!
C)
o
Õ
~
.t:
f:!
~
.¡:
.s
.!!!
:z:::
"'0
CD
'õ"E(f)
~ 8 ~
I:: ~ 5
(t c: 0
-E:::>(f)
.a ~~
(f) (f)
.- ::::J-
o 0 ~
..... .;; .a
. CD 'S
~à:u
I
Ü
ro
0.
E
o
Z
co
..-
en
Q)
C)
ro
a..
I
I
-~
e.o
~~
I; .-
.- 0
c: >
O)(t
.- c
CI):::>
I
I
(I.)
'E::c
(t ro
0"0
!E 'õ
c: >
O>ro
.- c:
en::>
I
I
-~
c:.o
~~
I; .-
.- 0
c: >
O)ro
.- c:
en;:)
I
I
I
-~
e.o
~-{g
I; .-
.- 0
e >
.2> ro
CI) c
::>
c::::
w
-
rJ)
ü:i
~
o
I
~
:¡:::¡
I/)
::::I
""')
-
o
ro
:J:
.2:-
c:::
:::s
8
1;)
ro
w
-
~
'õ
ro
LL
8
;¡:::I
I/)
:::s
""')
Q)
ï:
~
:::s
""')
.2:-
c:::
::::I
8
ro
"C
Q)
E
ro
<ë
I
I
I
I
Ü
ro
0.
E
o
z
I
I
'õ
c
o
0:8=
.~ Õ IctI
.,9 E
.5Q(I.)~
I 0"2
õl~
(f) (f) ::::J
(f)~""')
o .... en
....J ::::J C
NO;
(f) .~
an (I.) x
.....a::W
I
I
I
I
I~
(t
E
I~
.~
I)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
..-
Q)
-
ëñ
~ê:
I: Q) ...
::I E Q)
ol:ë
(.) ... Q)
- Q) ,..
11»....
CIS 0
We)
Q)
- -
Q) .-
Q)en
'E I:
CIS !:
0.. ~
en
...
Q) C
>'0::>'
C·- '¡"'"
- .-
cc=
C Q) 0
_ CIS
Q)Q)u..
-0
e)
2 >-
c"Ct:
CIS c Q)
,^ CIS D.
v, Q) 2
...JD..
o
Z1:)
- Q)
o S.-
Z._ 0
- ...
00..
0(
õ
CIS
D.
E
t5
ctI
a.
E
o
z
t5
ctI
a.
E
o
z
t5
ctI
a.
E
o
z
c::-
ctI c::
.t::. ~
~¡¡::
VJ '2
VJ 0)
.3U5
t5
ctI
a.
E
-
o
Z
t5
ctI
a.
E
o
z
¡:;.
'2
ë3
0>
.¡::
,gt5
.~ Q)
J:'e
en..
o c::
Õ VJ
~ ê
w ;:]
CO) ~
U? Q)
..--0::
t5
ctI
a.
E
o
z
0)
..-
,
(I)
Q)
C)
ro
c..
>- 'Ê Q)
ctlctI-
.- 0 .D
'E¡¡::ctI
Q) ._ 0)
c .-
- O)~
~U5:E
õ
ctI
a.
E
o
z
Q)
'E:c
ctI ctI
0'0
¡¡:: .-
'2 ~
O)ctI
.- C
C/J=>
>-'ÊQ)
ctI -
._ ~ .D
ë¡¡::ctI
Q) ._ 0)
c:::¡:¡
- 0)'-
d:ëñ:E
c::::
jjj
(I)
iIi
~
~
o
I
~
:=
(J)
::I
"""'>
-
o
"'ffi
:I:
E
::I
o
u
'tiS
ro
w
-
Q)
'E:c
ctI ctI
0'0
!E 'õ
c:: >
O)ctI
.- C
(f)::J
Q)
o
..
11)
::I
~
1i
-
c
Q)
E
I:
2
'S:
c
W
Q)
o
:¡:¡
VJ
::J
"""'>
ë6
-
c::
Q)
E
c
e
'S;
c
W
'ª'
.~
LL.
~
:=
(J)
::I
"""'>
.!!
'2
~
::I
"""'>
>.
E
::I
o
U
ro
"C
Q)
E
ro
«
..--
CD
..--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Development under any of the project scenarios evaluated in the EIS/EIR would be expected to
contribute to environmental effects that occur as a result of area-wide development and
operations activity, including housing, commercial, industrial, transportation and other
governmental uses. For example, the project would contribute to the air pollution generated
within the region. Depending on the level of construction activity taking place concurrently in
the vicinity of each site evaluated, this contribution would be cumulatively considerable during
demolition, site preparation and construction unless measures to effectively control dust and
construction vehicle emissions are implemented. Project-related noise effects during
construction would also be considered cumulatively considerable on a temporary basis,
depending on the level of construction activity nearby and the extent to which noise reduction
measures can be effectively implemented. Following construction, facility operation could be
expected to result in cumulatively considerable project-related contributions to vehicle traffic on
roadways in the vicinity, which in turn could result in cumulatively considerable project-related
contributions to air pollution within the region. At those sites where biological resources have
been identified (particularly at the East County Government Center site and Site 15A in Dublin),
the project-related loss of habitat for special status species and wetlands would be a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the loss of these resources generally within the region. Although
development at any of the sites evaluated in the EIS/EIR would be expected to result in an
incremental increase in the demand for public services and utilities, each site is located within an
urban area where these services and utilities can be provided without the need for new facilities
or inrrastructure. The Project's increase in demand thus would not be a cumulatively
considerable environmental effect. See Chapter 17 of this EISÆIR for the site-specific
discussions of Project-related cumulative effects.
GRO~HINDUCEMENT
The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice projects are intended to
address documented needs for improved facilities, and would not induce substantial population
growth in the vicinity at any of the alternative sites considered in this EIS/EIR. Development at
the sites evaluated would be consistent with overall land use plans for the areas. Each site is
located in an urban area with adequate infrastructure to meet project-related demands for
services, so no substantial infrastructure improvements would be required which could induce
growth in neighboring areas. Employment at any of the sites would be relatively small in
comparison to the overall level of activity in the vicinity. Many of the employees (approximately
450 to 550 staff at the Juvenile Justice Facility, and approximately 300 staff at the East County
Hall of Justice) would be drawn primarily from the existing labor supply serving these County
functions, and limited new housing would be required to serve new employees. Considered in
the context of Alameda County and the individual communities in which the projects could be
located, the projects do not represent the introduction oflarge employment or economic
generators. However, the overall trend in the region is toward increased traffic congestion, a
lack of affordable housing, and increased service demands that could outstrip the ability of cities
and other agencies to provide for all of the long-term growth within and beyond the nine-County
San Francisco Bay Area. Therefore, there is the potential for significant cumulative growth-
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 8-21
Executive Summary
inducing impacts. See Chapter 17 of this EIS/EIR for the site-specific discussions of Project-
related effects related to growth inducement.
UNAVOIDABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS
As shown in Table S.1 and discussed in the topical sections of this EIS/EIR, the project
alternatives would have unavoidable impacts in the following areas.
No Action/No Project
6.1: Fault Rupture
6.2: Ground Shaking
6.4: Landslides
16.1: Environmental Justice
San Leandro Property
9.4: Exceeding Regional Roadway Service Standard
10.3: Construction Noise
15.2: Loss of Historic Resources - Demolition of Existing Juvenile Hall
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
10.1: Noise and Land Use Compatibility
10.3: Construction Noise
15.2: Loss of Historic Resources - Demolition of Existing Juvenile Hall
16.1: Environmental Justice
Pardee/Swan Site
5.2: Substantial Adverse Effect on Scenic Vista
9.4: Exceeding Regional Roadway Standard
15.2: Loss of Historic Resources - Dernolition of Existing Juvenile Hall
East County Government Center
9.1: Increased Traffic in Excess of Capacity
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 8-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
9.4: Exceeding Regional Roadway Standard
10.2: Vehicular Traffic Noise Increase
10.3: Construction Noise
15.2: Loss of Historic Resources - Demolition of Existing Juvenile Hall
Site 15A
9.1: Increased Traffic in Excess of Capacity
9.4: Exceeding Regional Roadway Standard
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Controversy expressed during the initial planning activity and scoping process for the projects
focused on the selection of an appropriate size for the Juvenile Justice Facility, and appropriate
location for both the Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice.
The Final EIS/EIR will include an indication by OJP/BJA regarding the preferred alternative for
the purpose ofNEPA. Upon completion of the Final EIS/EIR, the County BOS will review and
certify the Final EIS/EIR under CEQA, and OJP/BJA will approve the Final EIS/EIR under
NEP A and provide notice in the Federal Register that the Final EIS/EIR is available, as discussed
above.
After the Final EIS/EIR is certified and adopted and a plan to monitor and implement the
mitigation measures has been adopted, the County BOS will select one ofthe assessed
alternatives. This selection will be based on the environmental analysis in the Final EIS/EIR and
the environmental findings, as well as on the program and budget constraints at the time of
certification and adoption.
After an alternative is selected, more detailed decision-making regarding the projects' design and
construction can occur. The Interim Final Rule issued by OJP/BJA regarding compliance with
NEP A states that grantees (BOC) and subgrantees (County of Alameda) may not start
construction before the completion of the environmental analysis process, nor may they make
further decisions or commitments of resources that would have an affect on the environment or
limit the choice of reasonable alternative sites. Therefore, the County has been limited in its
ability to complete design concepts for the various alternatives being considered. Sufficient
infonnation has been generated to facilitate the environmental analysis, but final design and
specifications cannot be generated until the environmental analysis is complete.
This EIS/EIR provides infonnation about the various sites that were carried forward for analysis,
which will be used by the decision-makers in determining an appropriate course of action. Other
factors that may influence those decisions include such things as total cost, whether program
objectives are fully met, ability to implement the alternative in a timely manner, and others. The
selection will be fonnalized by OJP/BJA preparing and issuing a ROD prior to any implementing
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EI8 / EIR
Page 8·23
Executive Summary
action occurring, and by the County BOS through preparing Findings, a Statement of Overriding
Consideration, and issuing a Notice ofDetennination.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 8-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
Introduction
PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I REPORT
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) evaluates
the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed developrnent of a Juvenile
Justice Facility and an East County Hall of Justice in Alameda County, California.
National Environmental Policy Act
According to Title 42 of the United States Code (USC), Section 4321, the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) are: To declare a national policy which will
encourage productive and enjoyable hannony between man and his environment; to promote
efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate
the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural
resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
Section 1502.1 of the NEP A implementing regulations states: "The primary purpose of an
environmental impact statement is to serve as an action-forcing device to insure that the policies
and goals defined in the National Environmental Policy Act are infused into the ongoing
programs and actions of the Federal Government. It shall provide full and fair discussion of
significant environmental impacts and shall infonn decision-makers and the public of the
reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of
the human environment. Agencies shall focus on significant environmental issues and
alternatives and shall reduce paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous background data.
Statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that the
agency has made the necessary environmental analyses. An environmental impact statement is
more than a disclosure document. It shall be used by Federal officials in conjunction with other
relevant rnaterial to plan actions and make decisions."
Section 1502.3 of the NEPA implementing regulations states that "environmental impact
statements are to be included in every recommendation on proposals for legislation and other
major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."
Section 102 [42 USC Section 4332] (2) (C) requires "...a detailed statement by the responsible
official on:
. The environmental impact of the proposed action,
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 1-1
Chapter 1: Introduction
· Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented,
· Alternatives to the proposed action,
· The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement oflong-term productivity, and
· Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in
the proposed action should it be implemented."
Section 1502.14 of the NEPA implementing regulations requires agencies to perform the
following analysis:
· "Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for
alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for
their having been eliminated.
· Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the
proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.
· Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
· Include the alternative of no action.
· Identify the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the
draft staternent and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another law
prohibits the expression of such a preference.
· Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or
alternatives."
California Environmental Quality Act
The basic purposes of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), are very simi1ar to purposes of the EIS under NEP A:
·
Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential environmental
effects of proposed activities,
Involve the public in the decision-making process,
Identify ways that significant impacts to the environment can be avoided or significantly
reduced,
·
·
·
Identify and assess alternatives to the proposed project,
Prevent environmental damage by requiring changes in the Project through the use of
alternatives or mitigation measures [CEQA Guidelines, Section 150029(a)]
·
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 1: Introduction
With respect to analyzing alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an
EIR:
· Discuss alternatives that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant
effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the
attairunent ofthe project objectives, or would be more costly;
· Include a range of reasonable alternatives and publicly disclose the reasoning for
selecting those alternatives;
· Include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, ,
analysis, and comparison with the proposed project;
· Include a "no project" alternative.
In addition, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably
ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.
Because of the similarities of the NEPA and CEQA, Section 1506.2 of the NEPA regulations
requires Federal agencies to cooperate with state and local agencies "to the fullest extent possible
to reduce duplication between NEP A and comparable state and local requirements." Such
cooperation "shall to the fullest extent possible include joint envirorunental impact statements."
CEQA provides that in the event that a project requires both an EIR pursuant to CEQA and an
EIS pursuant to NEP A, the lead agency should, whenever possible, use the EIS as the EIR.
SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT
The process of determining the focus and content of an EIS/EIR is known as scoping. Scoping
helps identifY the range of actions, alternatives, envirorunental effects and mitigation measures to
be analyzed in depth and eliminates from detailed study issues that are not pertinent to the final
decision on the proposed Project. Scoping is also an effective way to bring together and address
the concerns of the public, affected agencies and other interested parties. Significant issues may
be identified through public and agency comments.
Scoping is not conducted to resolve differences concerning the merits of a Project or to anticipate
the ultimate decision or proposal. The purpose of scoping is to help ensure that a comprehensive
EIS/EIR will be prepared that provides a firm basis for the decision making process.
The intent of the EIS/EIR scoping process for the proposed Project was to:
· Inform agencies and interested members of the public about the proposed project and
Lead Agency actions related to it, including compliance with NEP A and CEQA
requirements.
· IdentifY the range of concerns that form the basis for identification of significant
envirorunental issues to be addressed in the EIS/EIR.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility J East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS J EIR
Page 1-3
Chapter 1: Introduction
· Identify suggested mitigation measures, strategies or ideas and approaches to mitigation
that may be useful and explored further in the EIS/EIR.
· Develop a mailing list of agencies and individuals interested in future actions relative to
the EIS/EIR.
The Lead Agencies have provided two scoping periods for the Projects. The first scoping
process was begun when OJP/BJA published a Notice ofIntent (NOI) in the Federal Register on
January 15, 2002, which began the federal notification process under NEP A (see FR Vol. 67, No.
10, p. 1990). A combined NOI / Notice of Preparation (NOP) was mailed to local, regional and
state agencies, neighboring property owners and residents, and the State Clearinghouse on '
January 23, 2002. The NOI, the NOP, and the published notices provided a general description
of the project and alternatives, discussed the purpose of the EIS/EIR, listed the environmental
topic areas to be discussed in the EIS/EIR, and requested comments on the scope of the
environmental analysis. The Notices also were published in local newspapers on January 23 and
30,2002. The published notices announced the date, time and location of the scoping meetings
and briefly summarizing the purpose of the meetings. Contact information was provided for the
Lead Agencies, and an e-mail address was established at the County. The County website was
updated to include information about the Project and scoping process. Public comments were
accepted until February 22,2002.
Two public meetings were held during this scoping period on Thursday, February 7, 2002. An
afternoon meeting was held at 2:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the Alameda County Public
Works Operations Building at 4825 Gleason Drive in Dublin. This meeting included a brief
introduction of the Lead Agencies and independent environmental consultants, the Project, and
the environmental review process. The focus was on obtaining public agency comments; other
public comments also were welcomed. An evening meeting took place between 7:00 p.m. and
10:00 p.m. in the Assembly Hall of the Alameda County Office of Emergency Services at 4985
Broder Boulevard in Dublin. This meeting was conducted in an "open house" fonnat in which
guests were provided numerous opportunities to gather information, ask questions, and offer
comments at information stations around the room. Written and verbal comments ftom these
meetings are included and summarized in a Scoping Report, and are available under separate
cover.
At both meetings, display boards and handouts describing the proposed Project and the scoping
process were available for public review. Independent environmental consultants and Lead
Agency representatives were available to answer questions raised by the public about the
proposed Project and the EIS/EIR process. Meeting attendees were offered the opportunity to
write their contact information on mailing lists in order to receive future infonnation about the
EIS/EIR process. All comments received prior to the deadline of February 22,2002 were
considered and are included in the Scoping Report. Some late comments were received and are
also included, as of March 15,2002.
In response to the comments received at the first set of scoping meetings in Dublin, additional
alternative sites were added for consideration as part ofthe environmental analysis, including
Glenn Dyer and Pardee/Swan in Oakland and Site 15A in Dublin. A second set ofscoping
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 1-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 1: Introduction
meetings to discuss these alternative sites was held. Because the first set of meetings had been
held in Dublin and because two of the three additional sites were in Oakland, Oakland was
selected for the second set ofscoping meetings. A second NOI was published in the Federal
Register on June 19,2002, and circulated to area residents, property owners, public agencies, and
interest groups. A second NOP was filed with the County Clerk-Recorder and State
Clearinghouse on June 25, 2002. The second set of scoping meetings was held on July 10, 2002
at the Asian Cultural Center (9th and Webster Streets) in Oakland. The fonnat ofthese meetings
was similar to the first set of meetings. In addition, because of the cultural mix of the area's
residents, interpreters and translated material were provided. Comments were received at the
scoping meetings and in writing and bye-mail during the 30-day comment period, which closed
on July 25,2002. A summary of the issues raised and verbatim copies of the comments are
provided in the second Scoping Report for the proj ect.
Sources of Information
The infonnation in this Draft EIS/EIR has been compiled from a variety of sources, including
published studies, maps, aerial photographs and independent field investigations. A complete
list of references is included in Chapter 18. Background documents are incorporated into this
EIS/EIR by reference, and are available for inspection at the Alameda County Planning
Department offices by appointment. To arrange an appointment, contact:
Mr. James Sorensen, Planning Director
Alameda County Planning Department
399 Elmhurst Street, Room 136
Hayward, CA 94544
Phone: (510) 670-5400
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
Agency NEPA Responsibilities
The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs/Bureau of Justice Assistance
(OJP/BJA) is the Lead Agency under NEPA for the Project EIS component of the combined
EIS/EIR. The State of California Board of Corrections (BOC) assisted OJP/BJA with the
preparation ofthe EIS.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs I Bureau of Justice
Assistance
OJP/BJA is the federal agency sponsoring the major federal action (partial funding for the
construction of the Juvenile Justice Facility) that triggers the requirement for review under
NEP A. Because OJP/BJA provides substantial guidance and oversight in the use of the federal
funds (including providing advice to States on the proper use of funds, critiquing the applications
for funding, and providing oversight of the construction ofprojects), OJP/BJA has issued an
interim final rule for compliance with NEP A. This EIS/EIR for the proposed Juvenile Justice
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 1-5
Chapter 1: Introduction
Facility component of the project will confonn to that rule and other applicable laws and
regulations.
The OJP/BJA provides federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to prevent and
control crime, improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems, increase knowledge about
crime and related issues, and assist crime victims. Through the programs developed and funded
by its bureaus and offices, OJP/BJA works to fonn partnerships and programs among federal,
state, and local government officials in the areas of law enforcernent, prevention, juvenile justice,
substance abuse treatment, victims services, and corrections.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) recently took over the responsibilities of the fonner
Corrections Programs Office of CPO within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to implement
the correctional grant programs established by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994. This includes the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing
(VOl/TIS) Grant Program, which provides federal assistance to state and local units of
government to build and/or expand correctional facilities in an effort to increase bed space
capacity for the confinement of violent offenders.
It is the policy of OJP/BJA to ensure that its federal grant programs both protect and mitigate
harm to the environment. Through the implementation ofNEP A, any federal project, decision, or
action, including grant-funding assistance, such as VIO/TIS, that may have a significant impact
on quality of life and/or the environment is subject to an environmental review and subsequent
compliance with NEP A.
The role of OJP/BJA in the NEP A review process is to issue guidance on the preparation of
environmental documents and the environmental review, fully participate in the notification and
implementation of public hearings, prepare written assessments of environmental impacts,
monitor mitigation measures implemented by states, review and approve all draft and final
environmental documents, and prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) regarding the final
disposition of the process and selection of the Proposed Action or No Project Alternative.
California Board of Corrections
As an entity with State-wide authority and responsibility for the action, the California Board of
Corrections (BOC) assisted OJP/BJA in the preparation of the EIS under NEPA, subject to the
oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice. The BOC will also participate in the final design
and conduct certain inspections of the Juvenile Justice Facility to verify compliance with State
standards and audit the use of the grant funds. The BOC:
·
Obtains a contractor to prepare NEPA-required documents;
Coordinates and consults with OJP/BJA throughout the EIS preparation process on the
content ofthe draft and final EIS;
·
·
Oversees the issuance of the required public notifications, publications, and arrangements
for public hearings;
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 1-6
I
I
I
I
'I-
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
,I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
;1
I
,
I
I,
I
I
I I
1
I
i I
I
I
I
i I
Chapter 1: Introduction
· Provides a point of contact for the EIS that can answer questions not only about the
proposed action but also the EIS;
· Assures that a distribution list for the EIS is established and maintained;
· Provides the OJP/BJA with copies of the draft E1S report to be sent to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EP A);
· Sets the review period (not less than 45 days) for the draft E1S;
· Ensures that notification of the draft EIS is announced locally and in the Federal Register;
· Makes the draft EIS available for public review;
· Ensures that the draft EIS will be availability at public repositories and sent to all
interested parties who have requested a copy;
· Helps arrange for a public infonnation meeting on the draft EIS;
· Provides OJP/BJA with a copy of all comments received on the draft EIS;
· Ensures that all comments received, including a summary and transcript of the public
infonnation meeting, are included in the final EIS and that all comments received in
accordance with Section 1503.4 of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations receive a response;
· Announces availability of the final EIS locally and in the Federal Register;
· Ensures that the final EIS will be available at public repositories and sent to all interested
parties who have requested a copy; and
· Ensures that mitigation measures (if any) or other conditions established in either the
final EIS or during its review are implemented by the county, and reports to OJP/BJA
regarding those measures or conditions.
Agency CEQA Responsibilities
The County of Alameda is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) for the preparation of the Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice EIR
component ofthe combined EIS/EIR.
County of Alameda
Under CEQA, the County of Alameda is the project sponsor and lead agency for the preparation
of the EIR. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors (BOS) is responsible for accepting grant
funds, hiring design and construction consultants, approving the development concepts,
certifying the EIR, and authorizing construction ofprojects. The Alameda County General
Services Agency (GSA) is the project manager for planning, design and construction of the
Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice projects. The Alameda County
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 1-7
Chapter 1: Introduction
Community Development Agency, Planning Department is supervising the preparation of the
EIS/EIR for the projects, in close coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice and
California Board of Corrections regarding the EIS portion of the analysis. Specifically, the
County of Alameda:
· Hires and supervises a contractor to prepare CEQA-related documents;
· Consults with Responsible and Trustee Agencies, BOC and OJP/BJA;
· Oversees the issuance of the required public notifications, publications, and arrangements
for public meetings;
· Provides a point of contact for the EIR who can answer questions about the proposed
action and the EIR;
· Assures that a distribution list for the EIR is established and maintained;
· Sets the review period (not less than 45 days) for the draft EIR;
. Ensures that the draft EIR is made available and that notice of that fact is announced
locally;
· Arranges for a public infonnation meeting on the draft EIR;
· Ensures that all comments received including a summary of the public infonnation
meetings are included in the final ErR and that all substantive enviromnental comments
are responded to in the final EIR;
· Announces the availability of the final EIR;
· Certifies that the final EIR is complete and makes findings regarding each significant
impact, mitigation measure and alternative;
· Selects a preferred alternative and approves final development plans; and
· Ensures that mitigation measures (if any) or other conditions established in the Final EIR
or during its review are implemented.
Responsible, Trustee and Other Interested Agencies
Responsible, Trustee, and other interested agencies that may rely on the certified ElS/EIR in
reviewing the project include:
· City of Dublin
· City of Oakland
· City of Pleasant on
· City of San Leandro
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 1-8
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
,-
-..
I
I
t
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 1: Introduction
· Port of Oakland
· Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
· Oro Loma Sanitary District (OLSD)
· East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
· Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
· Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7)
· Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA)
· Alameda County Public Works Agency (for flood control outside Zone 7)
· Livennore ~ Amador Valley Transportation Agency (LA VTA)
· Alameda ~ Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit)
· Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
· Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
· San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
· California Department ofFish and Game (DFG)
· California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
· California Highway Patrol (CHP)
· California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
· California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
· California State Lands Commission
· San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
· U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
· U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
· U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
· U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
· U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
· United States Army Reserve
· Federal Bureau of Prisons
· Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
This Draft EIS/EIR is being circulated for a 45-day public review period. Public notices have
been published according to the CEQA and NEP A guidance documents and establish the specific
start and closing dates oftht't review period. During the review period, government agencies,
organizations and individuals may submit comments on the adequacy of this Draft EIS/EIR in
identifying the potential environmental effects associated with Project implementation, and in
recommending appropriate mitigation measures or alternatives to avoid or lessen such potential
effects. The State Clearinghouse will circulate this Draft EIS/EIR to State agencies with
jurisdiction over various aspects of the Project. At the federal level, the EP A publishes a notice
of availability of the Draft EIS/EIR in the Federal Register.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 1 ~9
Chapter 1: Introduction
All comments on this Draft EISÆIR must be submitted prior to the deadline to:
Mr. Michael Houghtby, Field Representative
State of California Board of Corrections
600 Bercut Drive, Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: (916) 445-5796
Two public hearings have been scheduled during the review period. Written and oral comments
will be received at the hearings, and written comments may be submitted at any time until the.
close of the comment period. Responses to all written and oral comments will be prepared and
published in a Final EISÆIR after the close of the 45-day review period.
In accordance with Section 15080 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIS/EIR (incorporating the
Draft EISÆIR) will be reviewed and certified by the Alameda County BOS. In accordance with
Section 1502.19 of the NEPA regulations, OJPIBJA will also circulate the Final EISÆIR.
Under CEQA, certification of the Pinal EISÆIR by the Alameda County BOS would not
constitute approval of the Project, but is necessary prior to approval of a project. To approve a
project, in addition to certification of the Final EISÆIR, the lead agency must adopt
environmental findings and a mitigation monitoring program (CEQA Guidelines, Sections
15091). If the project has significant environmental effects that cannot be reduced to a less than
significant level, the environmental findings must include a "statement of overriding
considerations" (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15092). This requires the lead agency to balance, as
applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental risks. If the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable"
[CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 (a)]. The statement of overriding considerations shall be
supported by substantial evidence in the record [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 (b)].
A mitigation monitoring program shall include detailed infonnation about who is responsible for
implementing and monitoring a given mitigation, the standard which must be met to be in
compliance, enforcement procedures for non-compliance, and other requirements as per the
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15097.
A similar process is required for federal review and approval of the environmental document and
the Proposed Action. The California BOC and OJPIBJA will review and circulate the Final
EIS/EIR and OJPIBJA will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) stating its decision regarding
the alternatives. This process is the NEP A equivalent to certifying an EIR, preparing Findings
and a Statement of Overriding Consideration and then issuing a Notice ofDetennination under
CEQA. In general, the ROD must state what the government's decision was, what alternatives
were considered and what the environmentally preferred alternative was, what factors led to the
decision, whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental hann have been
adopted, and if not why. For mitigation measures established in the ROD, a monitoring and
enforcement program must also be adopted and implemented. The ROD may not be issued less
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 1-10
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,í
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 1: Introduction
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register that the Final EIS/EIR is complete and
available.
OJPIBJA procedures include the requirement that the ROD shall detennine the allowable uses of
the grantee's VOl/TIS fund with respect to the proposed action or its alternatives [28 CFR, Part
91.63(i) ].
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND DECISIONS To BE MADE
Controversy expressed during the initial plamling activity and scoping process for the projects
focused on the selection of an appropriate size for the Juvenile Justice Facility, and appropriate
location for both the Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice.
Upon completion of the Final EIS/EIR, the County BOS will review and certifY the EIS/EIR
under CEQA, and OJPIBJA will approve the Final EIS/EIR under NEP A and provide notice in
the Federal Register that the Final EIS/EIR is available, as discussed above.
After the Final EIS/EIR is certified and adopted and a plan to monitor and implement the
mitigation measures has been adopted, the County BOS will select one of the assessed
alternatives. This selection will be based on the environmental analysis in the Final EIS/EIR and
the environmental findings, as well as on the program and budget constraints at the time of
certification and adoption.
After an alternative is selected, more detailed decision-making regarding the projects' design and
construction can occur. The Interim Final Rule issued by OJP/BJA regarding compliance with
NEPA states that grantees (BOC) and subgrantees (County of Alameda) may not start
construction before the completion of the environmental analysis process, nor may they rnake
further decisions or commitments of resources that would have an affect on the environment or
limit the choice of reasonable alternative sites. Therefore, the County has been limited in its
ability to complete design concepts for the various alternatives being considered. Sufficient
infonnation has been generated to facilitate the environmental analysis, but final design and
specifications cannot be generated until the environmental analysis is complete.
This EIS/EIR provides infonnation about the various sites that were carried forward for analysis,
which will be used by the decision-makers in detennining an appropriate course of action. Other
factors that may influence those decisions include such things as total cost, whether program
objectives are fully met, ability to implement the alternative in a timely manner, and others. The
selection will be fonnalized by OJP/BJA preparing and issuing a ROD prior to any implementing
action occurring, and by the County BOS through preparing Findings, a Statement of Overriding
Consideration, and issuing a Notice of Detennination.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Draft Environmental Impact StatementlEnvironmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) consists of
the following chapters:
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 1-11
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1: Introduction - Outlines the purposes ofthe EIS/EIR and general background
infomlation.
Chapter 2: Purpose and Need - Briefly specifies the purpose and need to which the agency
is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action.
Chapter 3: Proposed Action and Alternatives - Provides detailed infomlation about the
Department of Justice, Board of Corrections, and County of Alameda planning and decision-
making processes, alternatives that were considered and not carried forward, and those
alternatives that are considered potentially feasible and therefore analyzed for environmental.
consequences.
Chapters 4 through 16: Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences,
and Mitigation Measures - Addresses each aspect of the environment that may potentially be
significantly affected by Project implementation. These chapters include:
4. Land Use and Planning
5. Visual Quality/Aesthetics
6. Geology, Soils and Seismicity
7. Hydrology and Water Quality
8. Biologic Resources
9. Transportation
10. Noise
11. Air Quality
12. Public Health and Safety
13. Public Services
14. Utilities
15 . Historic/Archaeological Resources
16. Environmental Justice
Within each chapter, the following infomlation is provided:
· A description of the environmental setting or conditions which may affect or be affected
by the proposed projects,
· The potential significant environmental effects likely to result from individual project
implementation, and
· Recommended mitigation measures that may be implemented to eliminate or
substantially reduce any significant project-related environmental effects.
Chapter 17: Growth Inducement and Cumulative Impacts - Addresses other general
Project impacts as required by CEQA and NEP A, including a description of growth-inducing
impacts associated with the Project, and cumulative impacts.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 1-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 18: Report Preparation - Provides a listing of the persons involved in the
preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR, persons contacted, and materials used in the preparation of the
Draft EIS/EIR.
Chapter 19: Glossary/Index - Provides a listing of acronyms and abbreviations used
throughout the Draft EIS/EIR, as well as an index to assist the reader in locating specific material
within the document.
Chapter 20: Consultation and Distribution List - Provides a list of public agencies and
elected officials who were consulted during preparation ofthis EIS/EIR, and to whom the Draft
EIS/EIR is being distributed for review and comment. Additional distribution of the report
and/or a notice of availability will occur for individuals who are potentially affected by or have
expressed an interest in the Project.
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
As part of the scoping process for the Project, the following impact areas were considered and
found to have less than significant or no impact potential.
Farmland Protection
Each of the project sites considered in this EIS/EIR are vacant or developed parcels ofland
surrounded by urban developrnent. The sites are not listed in a State or federal fannland
program, and have marginal or urban soils. The sites have been highly disturbed and do not
currently provide any agricultural production.
The federal Fannland Protection Policy Act is intended to minimize the extent to which federal
programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of fannland to non-
agricultural uses, and to maintain consistency with state, local and private programs to protect
fannland. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) administers the program, and has issued a rule to establish criteria for land evaluation and
site assessment. The U.S. EPA has adopted related guidance through its Policy to Protect
Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands. EPA's policy addresses three types of
environmentally significant agricultural lands for protection. The project sites and vicinity do
not confonn to any ofthose categories and therefore do not warrant protection.
The project sites are not suitable for agriculture, and development ofthe properties will not
adversely affect other agricultura1land or activities in the vicinity, which are generally limited to
urban or grazing uses. Therefore, the impact to fannland and agricultural activity is found to be
less than significant and does not warrant mitigation.
Coastal Barriers
Each of the project sites evaluated in this EIS/EIR are located on upland sites in urban areas
approximately 10 to 20 miles rrom the Pacific Ocean. There is no coastal barrier in the vicinity
of the alternative sites, so there would be no impact on them.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 1-13
Chapter 1: Introduction
Coastal Zone Management
Each of the project sites evaluated in this EIS/EIR are located on upland sites in urban areas
approximately 10 to 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean. There is no coastal zone management area
in the vicinity, so there would be no impact. A portion of the Pardee/Swan site is subject to the
jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), which implements
coastal regulations and policy for the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. The Project would be
developed outside of the BCDC jurisdictional area, so no impact would occur.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Each of the project sites evaluated in this EIS/EIR are located on upland sites in urban areas.
There are no wild and scenic rivers in the vicinity, so there would be no impact.
Floodplain Management
Each of the project sites evaluated in this EIS/EIR are outside of mapped floodplains, according
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Mineral Resources
Economic mineral resources, particularly sand and gravel aggregate used in the construction
industry, are available in the Livennore-Amador Valley south ofInterstate 580, about 2 miles
from the East County Govenunent Center Site and Site 15A. The California Department of
Conservation maps the aggregate resources of the State according to Production-Consumption
regions. The Livennore-Amador Valley contained some of the largest resource areas and has
been a large producer of aggregates for several decades. Sorne of the aggregate mining areas are
being closed, as deposits become depleted or less economical to mine. Other production
methods have extended the life of these operations, however, such as the use of recycled
concrete and glass material to supplement the naturally occurring aggregate.
Natural gas is located in some isolated pockets in the eastern portion of the Livennore-Amador
Valley. No economically important natural resources are located on or under any of the project
sites, so no impacts would occur. No other economically valuable natural resources are present
at or near the other alternative sites.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 1-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
Purpose and Need
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The County of Alameda provides mandated and discretionary juvenile justice services through
the efforts of the Probation, Sheriff, Courts, Health Care Services and other departments, in
cooperation with other government and private agencies. The County also provides all trial
court-related services to the community through its unified Court system, with branches in
Alameda, Berkeley, Fremont, Hayward, Pleasanton and San Leandro. Other general government
services include health care, social services, housing, agriculture, planning, tax assessment and
collection, fire protection, public safety and public works such as roadways and flood control.
Alameda County is located on the east side of San Francisco Bay, occupies an area of 743 square
miles and is the sixth most populous county in California and second in the Bay Area. The
population is highly diverse, both economically and etlmically. The County is divided into two
major geographical units by series of northwest/southeast trending hills; the 32-mile long coastal
plain and the Livermore-Amador Valley. The most heavily urbanized areas are the cities of
Oakland and Berkeley to the north, with a continuous pattern of urban and suburban
development extending southward to Hayward and Fremont. The Livermore-Amador Valley,
although still agriculturally productive, is experiencing considerable urbanization.
2.2 JUVENILE JUSTICE FACILITY
The existing Juvenile Hall is located in the hills of San Leandro, in an unincorporated area within
Alameda County. The existing Juvenile Hall was constructed in various phases with most
structures dating from the 1950s. In addition to the existing Juvenile Hall, which provides secure
detention for 299 detainees, there are camps for low security detention and the Chabot
Community Day Center, which provides day school services. The existing Juvenile Hall is
constructed on a steep hillside in close proximity to the Hayward fault, an active earthquake fault
with a potential for causing severe ground shaking with an estimated 32% chance of a major
seismic event during the next 30 years (USGS, 1999). In addition, all ofthe existing facilities
have or will soon exceed their useful economic life and need replacing, based on operational and
architectural/engineering evaluations. These facilities have been frequently overcrowded over the
past several years. The County's Board of Supervisors and the State Board of Corrections
determined that the existing Juvenile Hall does not meet the current Board of Corrections
guidelines for juvenile detention facilities, nor does it meet current or future needs of the County
of Alameda, and therefore should be replaced.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 2-1
Chapter 2: Purpose and Need
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Alameda County has prepared a series of studies to detennine its needs and engineering
requirements for this facility (Rosser International, 1998a; Cornerstone Facilities Consulting,
2000). In 1998, with the assistance of a consulting team headed by Rosser International, the
County prepared a needs assessment and master plan (Rosser International, 1998b). The
assessment and plan included revisions to the County's mission statement, objectives and
philosophy that would guide County decisions about the overall juvenile justice system. The
stated mission is:
· A strong commitment to the goals of protecting children; preventing juvenile crime;
providing for public safety; and rehabilitating juvenile offenders.
Several general objectives for the juvenile justice system were identified, as well as specific
objectives for the Juvenile Justice Facility. The report noted that the facilities that accommodate
juveniles, judicial functions, services and programs will be designed and constructed to:
· assure community protection;
· enhance rehabilitative efforts;
· reflect professional standards;
· provide ready access for juveniles, their families and professionals working within the
juvenile justice system; and
· rneet all national standards and local and state requirements.
For the juvenile courts component of the Juvenile Justice Facility, more detailed objectives
included to:
·
provide a high standard, but family-friendly, juvenile courts environment for court clients
and staff;
·
foster efficiencies, convenience of services and open communication among related agencies
by collocating and centralizing juvenile courts, related agencies and ancillary services;
·
help ensure the delivery of prompt and efficient services to clients, witnesses and victims;
·
create a secure environment for court clients and staff that also honors the confidentiality of
the proceedings;
·
provide spaces and facilities to create a nonnative environment for siblings and parents;
·
provide a courts facility that can accommodate future changes in growth and teclmology
advances;
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 2: Purpose and Need
· provide a facility that reflects a high priority on families and judicial case processing;
· provide an environment that encourages a commitment from all juvenile-related agencies to
work cooperatively for system-wide improvements;
· create a climate that will enhance morale and attract even more committed and qualified
practitioners; and
· convey a serious and official image that encourages proper juvenile court decorum and
respect for the proceedings (Rosser, 1998a).
The needs assessrnent and master plan also provided data from recent years and population
projections, which led to caseload, workload and staffing projections and a detennination of bed
needs for each population category (male/female and age range divisions for detention and
assessment, and for post-adjudication in-custody).
The master plan detennined that the County needed to construct a new Juvenile Justice Facility
that would include 540 beds to meet the County's needs, as described above. The facility would
respond to the approximately 10,000 annual referrals for intake, of which 6,000 are admitted for
detention in a given year. The average length of stay in detention steadily increased during the
five-year period studied in the needs assessment, to about 18 days for males and 12 days for
females. The average daily population in detention increased at an average annual rate of 3.5
percent, from 277 in 1992 to 326 (male and female) in 1997.
Projections in the Rosser study indicated that average daily populations could continue to
increase at a rate between I and 5 percent, leading to an average daily population of between 380
and 460 (male and female) in 2007. The estimated total number of beds required for a new
detention facility was based on these historical trends and projections (multiplied by a factor of
1.2 to account for peaking and classification and operational needs). The County's classification
and operational needs were to accommodate youth in a facility that reflects the detainees'
gender, age and security risk; to avoid crowding; and to provide for long-tenn planning.
Based on increased use of alternatives to detention implemented by the Probation Department in
recent years, the bed needs for Juvenile Hall are now lower than what was projected in the 1999
Needs Assessment. Analysis of more recent average daily population data indicates that
approximately 100 fewer beds will be needed, for a total of 440. Since the facility is planned for
modular units accommodating up to 30 youth, however, the project design has been rounded to
the nearest multiple of 30, or 450 beds. This decline in bed needs resulted :ttom a series of
refonns undertaken by the Probation Department, including implementation of a detention risk
assessment. This result indicates that 450 beds could remain adequate for the future and might be
achieved through additional policy refonns and a recognized need for treatment and placement
options in the community.
Members of the Juvenile Justice Facility Executive Steering Committee, including the Presiding
Judge of the Juvenile Court, District Attorney, Undersheriff, Chief Probation Officer, Public
Defender, Director ofthe Health Care Services Agency, and Director of the General Services
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 2-3
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 2: Purpose and Need
Agency concurred with the assessment that a facility of 450 beds could meet the needs of the
County when the new facility is completed. However, the Committee cautioned that future bed
needs over the lifecycle of the facility will be subject to factors in addition to population trends,
such as changes in law, economic conditions, judicial decisions, and availability of detention
alternatives and treatment.
Based on this recommendation, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in July of2001
reduced to 420 the number of beds proposed for initial occupation in the new detention center
component ofthe Project. Ninety beds would be maximum security, 240 would be medium
security and 90 beds would be for special populations such as mentally ill, learning disabled, etc.
Space for an additional 30 beds would be constructed in the project, but would not be occupied
unless and until the Board of Supervisors authorizes their use. The Juvenile Justice Facility
would also include five juvenile courtrooms and probation offices. Support facilities for the
detainees include recreation and classroom space, and space for staff includes offices, kitchens
and laundry.
The Board of Supervisors also decided to oversee a comprehensive review of the juvenile justice
system in Alameda County. A goal of this review is to develop options for minimizing the
detention of youth in Juvenile Hall. Outcomes are expected to include development of a
comprehensive continuum of care plan for at-risk youth and creating new treatment options
outside of this facility. The study includes the involvement of the Juvenile Court, District
Attorney, Chief Probation Officer, Sheriff, Public Defender, and Director ofthe Health Care
Services Agency, as well as local police agencies, the Social Services Agency, the Juvenile
Justice Commission, community-based organizations, and Alameda County youth organizations.
A consultant has been selc.~cted, a scope of work has been defined, and the study is commencing
in 2002/2003. It is expected that the study will take approximately 18 months to complete.
As shown in Table 2.1, the total building floor area for the Juvenile Justice Facility (including
the juvenile detention center, the juvenile courts and the probation offices) is estimated to be
approximately 425,000 square feet.
Table 2.1: Architectural Program for the Juvenile Justice Facility
Project Component
Juvenile Justice Facility Program Goal
(Building Gross Square Footage)
316,030
81,312
27,515
424,857
Juvenile Detention Center
Juvenile Courts
Juvenile Probation Administration
TOTAL
Source:
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center Bridging Documents, Vol. 1. May 1, 2002 (MVE & Partners/Rosser
International, Inc.).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 2: Purpose and Need
The Juvenile Justice Facility would be built with sufficient infrastructure and land area to allow
for future expansion to meet the long-tenn projections for 540 beds at all sites, except the Glenn
Dyer Detention Facility, where space constraints restrict the building to 420 beds and no new
juvenile courts or probation offices would be built. Although the infrastructure to accommodate
the additional 90 beds (such as kitchen, classroom space, mechanical systems and outdoor
recreation space) and one additional courtroom shell would be constructed, it would not be used
unless the Board of Supervisors authorized its development.
Assuming 420 beds and five courts, employment at this Project would be approximately 457
persons. This total includes 145 detention staff (working over three daily shifts), 120 probation
administration staff, 110 court staff and 82 other personnel related to the operations of the
facility. Possible future expansion to 540 beds and six courts would increase employment to
approximately 550 persons.
2.3 EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE
The East County Hall of Justice is intended to replace the Court's existing leased space in
Pleasanton, as well as provide long-tenn expansion space to support the Superior Court, District
Attorney, Public Defender, Probation, and Sheriff operations through the year 2020. The Project
objectives, which include meeting court operations, customer service, economic and aesthetic
considerations, are discussed below.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The design and development of the East County Hall of Justice will address the individual
operational and facility needs of the Superior Court ofthe County of Alameda as well as the
court-related functions accommodated within the Project. In support of, and complementary to
this mission, the East County Hall of Justice is being planned and would be designed in a marmer
consistent with presently defined Trial Court Facilities Guidelines proposed by the State of
California Task Force on Court Facilities. The program goals include constructing 13 courts by
2006, which would be occupied immediately and serve the needs of the court through 2020.
Strategic:
· Create a new court facility that symbolizes the role and importance of the judicial system as a
co-equal branch of state government charged with the administration of justice.
· Create a new court facility that reinforces community perception of fairness and trust which
the judicial system represents.
· Create a new court facility that supports a highly efficient judicial process, which is
responsive to the needs of the public in a user-friendly enviromnent.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 2-5
Chapter 2: Purpose and Need
Functional:
· Provide an appropriate quantity and organization of space to support 13 courts through the
year 2020.
· Provide a fully secure environment for judicial proceedings and court operations and assure
the essential separation of public, staff and in-custody individuals.
· Provide adequate courtroom and judicial support space to facilitate efficient case disposition
in a manner conducive to the proper administration of justice.
· Provide infrastructure for evolving infonnation and communication technology to support
enhanced court operations and cost-effective delivery of court services.
· Provide adequate, well-configured space to support high-volume customer services in an
expedited manner.
· Provide adequate staff workspace and proper furnishings to support a high level of employee
productivity.
· Provide adequate ancillary space to facilitate building operations as well as common staff
support functions.
Behavioral:
· Provide a public environment within the new facility that promotes respect for the judicial
process while moderating the anxiety and stress generally associated with court appearances.
· Provide a work environment within the new facility for all court staff that instills pride,
supports productivity and fosters dignified and polite interaction with the public and fellow
employees.
· Provide a secure environment within the new facility to accommodate in-custody defendants
that supports a cooperative pattern of behavior by these individuals.
Economic:
· Develop a facility solution that fully meets the needs of the court within established capital
budgetary parameters for the Project.
· Develop a facility solution that recognizes the need to minimize long-tenn, recurring costs
associated with building maintenance and operation.
The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda court system is composed of branches in
Alameda, Berkeley, Fremont, Hayward, Oakland and Pleasanton. The Courts are unified under
the provisions of California voters' approval in 1998 of Proposition 220. The unified California
Superior Court in Alameda County is now comprised of 69 Superior Court Judges, 16 Court
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 2: Purpose and Need
Commissioners and 926 regular and contract court employees, operating in 16 court facilities.
The Court has jurisdiction in all trial court matters, including: criminal felonies and
misderneanors, general civil, small claims, juvenile dependency and delinquency, family law,
probate, mental health, traffic and appeals of limited civil and criminal misdemeanor cases.
The existing Dublin-Pleasanton courts include six calendar assignments in civil, probate, family,
traffic, misdemeanor and criminal cases. The projected caseload includes growth in each of these
calendars and criminal arraignments, motions and trials. General jurisdiction (criminal, family
and probate) case filings are expected to grow from 3,800 cases per year to approximately 4,700
in 2010, and 5,600 in 2020. Limited jurisdiction (criminal, nontraffic and traffic misdemeanors,
and civil) case filings in the East County area are projected to increase from approximately
47,000 in 1998 to 65,000 in 2010 and 76,000 in 2020.
The proposed East County Hall of Justice court would accommodate all ofthe necessary services
to hear civil, family, traffic, criminal misdemeanor and criminal felony cases. These include
judicial functions of the courtrooms and related spaces, court administration, clerk of the court,
jury services, probate examiners, family and children's services, information technology, district
attorney, public defender, probation, court security, in-custody holding, children's waiting,
volunteer services and ancillary support.
In 2000, a detailed programming study was completed by a consulting team headed by HOK, in
association with The Ornni Group and County and Court personnel (HOK and Omni, 2000).
Based on an ongoing C01Ulty-wide Court Needs Assessment, including an analysis of current
caseloads and projections, a total of 15 courts were determined to be necessary for operations in
the year 2010, with future expansion to 19 courtrooms in 2020. The first phase Project (2010)
would have required construction of approximately 190,000 gross square feet of building floor
area. Future expansion to meet the County's needs in 2020 would have resulted in a total
building area of approximately 220,000 gross square feet.
In 2002, the County conducted additional programming and site planning studies and determined
that a courthouse facility with 13 courts could meet the needs of the East County area through
the year 2020 and stay within the allocated budget of $80,000,000. The studies, conducted by an
architectural team of HLM Design and Muller & Caulfield Architects, verified the assumptions
and adjusted the outcome of the space needs assessment to reflect budgetary constraints, while
maintaining the Project's overall suitability for serving the needs of the East County area (HLM
Design and Muller & Caulfield, 2002a).
As shown in Table 2.2, the Project as currently envisioned encompasses a program of
approximately 195,000 square feet of floor area. Of this, just over 140,000 square feet is
assignable to specific users; the remainder is assumed to be needed for general circulation,
support facilities, emergency egress corridors and mechanical and structural systems. Additional
exterior space requirements include a vehicle sally port, service yard and parking for ernployees,
jurors, the general public and persons with disabilities; operational needs; and public plazas and
related outdoor space.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 2-7
Chapter 2: Purpose and Need
Table 2.2: Architectural Program for East County Hall of Justice
Function Space Need
(Building Net Square Footage)
Judicial and Courtroom Functions 55,317
Court Administration 2,303
Clerk of the Court 16.254
Jury Services 5.190
Probate Examiners 0
Family and Children Services 5.374
Information Technology 1.564
District Attorney 13,496
Public Defender 9,099
Probation 7,688
Court Security 3,517
In-Custody Holding 3.917
Children's Waiting Area 820
Volunteer Services 240
Ancillary Services 15.013
TOTAL NET SQUARE FOOTAGE 140,368
Efficiency Factor at .72 54.588
TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE 194.956
Source:
HLM Design and Muller & Caulfield, 2002b
The configuration of the East County Hall of Justice and the planning of its interior space would
be detennined by the aggregate resolution of a wide array of factors influencing the building
design. While a number of these factors would be external in nature (i.e., related to site, land use
and aesthetic issues), a variety of important facility planning considerations pertain specifically
to the essential functional requirements of the court and its internal operational relationships.
These considerations would address issues of building access and spatial organization, court
security and technological systems, regulatory requirements and building perfonnance criteria.
Entry to and exit from the East County Hall of Justice would occur at a limited number of
separate and distinct access points, ensuring the safe and secure passage of various types of East
County Hall of Justice users. The physical organization of space within the East County Hall of
Justice would be guided by the recognition of a number of interior "spatial" zones comprised of
functional groupings of the program components planned for occupancy within the new court
facility. A fundamental requirement of a properly planned and designed court facility is the
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 2-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 2: Purpose and Need
creation of a setting within which justice can be served without fear of disorderly behavior,
disruption or hann. The use of computer and infonnation technology throughout the East County
Hall of Justice would be pervasive, and would reflect an evolution and expansion of present
applications. Beyond the quantitative space needs of the East County Hall of Justice, a variety of
more qualitative criteria would be carefully addressed in the design and engineering ofthe new
facility. These criteria pertain to issues ranging from the useful life span of the building, to the
nature of the interior environment, to building systems perfonnance. -
In total, 316 personnel are estimated as required to support court and court-related operations for
the 13 courtrooms developed in this Proj ect.
2.4 FUNDING SOURCES AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS
JUVENILE JUSTICE FACILITY
The Juvenile Justice Facility is funded in part by an allocation of federal grant monies approved
by the California Board of Corrections in May 2001. These funds ($33,165,000) are part of the
State's allocation rrorn the Violent Offenders Incarceration/Truth in Sentencing Act (VOl/TIS),
passed as part of the 1994 Crime Bill. The purpose ofthe VOl/TIS is to provide funds to the
states to (1) build or expand correctional facilities to increase the bed capacity for the
confinement of persons convicted of Part I violent crimes or adjudicated delinquents for an act
which, if committed as an adult, would be a Part I violent crime; (2) build or expand temporary
or pennanent correctional facilities for the confinement of convicted nonviolent offenders and
criminal aliens for the purpose of freeing suitable existing prison space for the confinement of
persons convicted of a Part I violent crirne; and (3) build or expand jails. In addition, because the
State has certified that exigent circumstances (such as increased prosecutions, overcrowded
conditions, etc.) exist that require the State to expend funds to build or expand facilities to
confine juvenile offenders other than those listed above, the grant funds may be used to build or
expand local juvenile correctional facilities to increase capacity for the confinement of such
nonviolent juvenile offenders.
Additional funding would be provided by the County, most likely from its general fund. The
County may also issue bonds and/or certificates of participation to finance its contribution to the
Project. The total budget for the Juvenile Justice Facility component of the Project is
approximately $177,000,000. The actual cost of construction will vary depending on which site
is selected. Total estimated project costs for each site (including construction, "soft costs" such
as design and administration, and furnishings) are discussed below.
Existing San Leandro Site
Development at the San Leandro property would include all of the project features, i.e. the
detention areas, support services, juvenile courts, and administration offices. Total cost was
estimated by the Beverly Prior Architects design team, in consultation with Cornerstone
Facilities Consulting and Saylor Consulting Group as $172,887,779. This estimate assumes a
construction start in mid-2002 with completion by September 2005.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 2-9
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 2-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 2: Purpose and Need
Glenn Dyer Facility
Conversion of the existing Glenn Dyer Detention Center for use as ajuvenile detention center
would not include all of the programmed Project features due to space constraints of the existing
building. Developing the primary functions related to a 420-bed juvenile detention center at this
site has been estimated by Vanir Construction Management to cost $121,789,884. Juvenile
courts and administration functions would have to be located elsewhere, at an estimated cost of
$40,829,925, for a total cost of$162,533,809. This cost would provide for the project to meet
minimum code requirements, but would not meet the County's program goals for the project at
this site.
Pardee I Swan Site
Development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at the Port of Oakland's property at Pardee Drive
and Swan Way has been estimated by Vanir Construction Management to cost approximately
$310,050,185. This cost includes an allowance of about $142,000,000 for site acquisition and
construction of a 4,000-space parking garage to replace the Port's surface parking lot. This site
would provide for the full Juvenile Justice Facility program with a cost of about $168,000,000
for the County portion of the development. However, the total cost of development would far
exceed the Project budget unless the Port parking garage and land cost was eliminated or
financed separately.
East County Government Center
A new Juvenile Justice Facility at the East County Government Center is estimated to cost
$172,729,908, according to Vanir Construction Management. This site would develop a facility
that would achieve all of the County's program objectives for the Project.
EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE
The East County Hall of Justice project has a budget of approximately $80,000,000. This Project
would be funded by the County through the courthouse construction and criminal justice
facilities trust funds, which are funded by fines and forfeitures collected by the Courts.
Additional funding would be provided by the County, most likely from its general fund. The
County may also issue bonds and/or certificates of participation to finance its contribution to the
Project.
East County Government Center
The total cost of development for a new Hall of Justice at the East County Government Center
would be approximately $80,000,000.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 2: Purpose and Need
Dublin Site 15A
The cost of developing a new Hall of Justice at Site 15A is estimated at $95,000,000. This cost
is higher than at the East County Government Center due to the requirement that a parking
garage be constructed.
2.5 SCHEDULE
JUVENILE JUSTICE FACILITY
The Juvenile Justice Facility is scheduled to be completed in 2006. Because ofthe potential
savings in cost and increased efficiency in scheduling, the County will use the designlbuild
method of contracting for construction, in which a contractor and architectural team are selected
to provide final design details, obtain all necessary approvals and construct the facility. To
facilitate this process, the County has prepared "bridging documents" that presents Project
requirements, but also provides flexibility during the next stage of design. The County intends to
solicit bids for the designlbuild contract upon completion of the environmental review process.
Bidding, final design and construction could take three years or rnore from that start date.
EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE
The East County Hall of Justice is scheduled to be completed in 2006. The actual date of
completion is subject to final design and financing. The County intends to use the designlbuild
method of construction described above to build the East County Hall of Justice.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 2-11
Chapter 2: Purpose and Need
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 2-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3
Proposed Action and Alternatives
3.1 PROPOSED ACTION
This Environmental Impact Statement / Report (EIS/EIR) evaluates two projects, the proposed
Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice. The planning process and
development program for each of these projects is discussed in detail in Chapter 2: Purpose
and Need. Each project has independent utility and is being addressed in one EIS/EIR because
of the potential for more than one project to be located on the same site. The potential project
sites include the existing San Leandro property, the GleIU1 Dyer Detention Facility in Oakland,
the Pardee/Swan site near the Oakland Airport, the East County Government Center site in
Dublin, and Site 15A, which is near the East County Government Center site in Dublin. See
Figure S.l for a map of the alternative site locations.
The County of Alameda has not yet selected a preferred alternative site and development concept
for either of the projects. The projects that make up the Proposed Action are being considered
together in one combined EIS/EIR because the County first proposed developing the projects on
the East County Government Center Site in Dublin. That proposal would have linked the Project
components as cumulative developments that relied on each other for proper site planning,
infrastructure, and development, and would have been implemented in approximately the same
time frame. However, one project could go forward without the other, so long as the implications
for the other Project are considered in the development of the East County Government Center
site.
Since the initial planning process, the County has expanded the range of alternative sites being
considered for the Juvenile Justice Facility, as well as for the East County Hall of Justice. This
has led to a separation of the proposed projects, such that one could be developed independently
of the others. The Juvenile Justice Facility would receive federal funding assistance and some
oversight from the U.S. Department of Justice. Therefore, that project must be assessed under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A), as well as the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). However, because the East County Hall of Justice may built on the same site as the
Juvenile Justice Facility (at the East County Government Center site), the East County Hall of
Justice is also considered under NEP A and CEQA in this report.
Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 (below) provide an overview of the Juvenile Justice Facility and the
East County Hall of Justice at each site for which it is being considered in this EIS/EIR. Both
tables also include a "No Action/No Project" alternative as required by NEPA and CEQA.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 3-1
en
w
>
~
z
a:::
w
~
CI
z
«
z
o
~
CI
w
en
o
a.
o
a:::
a..
¿.;
a:::
w
I-
a.
~
Ü
...
.!
~¡
1:(.)
::s-
O I:
UQ)
_E
en E
CI:I Q)
w>
o
C)
>.
==
·u
ca
u.
CD
u
:¡:;
UJ
::::I
""")
.!
c
CD
>
::::I
""")
CD
.c
-
...
.E
UJ
CD
>
:¡:;
ca
c
...
S
<ë
-
o
c
o
.~
ca
c.
E
o
u
Q)
-
ëi.i
I:
CI:I
~
~
Q)
Q)
'E
CI:I
Q.
>0
==
... .-
Q) Co)
>oCI:I
el.L
I: I:
1:.2
Q)-
-I:
C).!
Q)
e
~
;8-
eno
0)'"
I:Q.
;:;2
.!! 'a
~;
Q)
...I
~
. .
o
z
..-:
CO')
CD
:g
ca
I-
--
I: Co)
o.!!!.
;:;0
Co) ...
c(Q.
o
Z
-
I:
Q)
I:
o
Q.
E
8
-
Co)
Q)
'ë
Q.
0)
J5
12
- "(ij
:!:: >
:::I (t
..c>-
0=
LO .!!ò!
'<t"~
.E
o
N
"""
a>
:c
1!;!
- '(ij
=>
':; as
..c>-
fð~
<::t~
.E
:::
'3 .
..cO)
Ë:g
:::1=
E (t
.- >
x (t
m"
E I::
om
N
<::t
a>
:c
12
- "(ij
:!:: >
:::I m
..c>-
fð~
"""::::
.E
o
N
<::t
o
o
('I')
Q)
OJ
I::
m
..c:::
u
o
Z
-0
I::
m
0.
x
0)0
0"""
-LO
roo
:'¡=+-'
I::
Q)
Õ
c..
o
N
<::t
"
I::
m
0.
x
0) .
o
O<::t
-LO
12.9
-
I::
~
c..
"
I::
ro
-ê a.
x
:::I 0)
0 0(0
u - 0
~ 12-
0) "E
I::
LO 0)
Õ
c..
"
I::
(t
iii 0.
t:: ~
:::I
S .9cci
-0
;: .!!ò!-
0) "E
I:: Q)
lO Õ
c..
"
0)
10
>
o
I::
~
-
OJ
c::
;;;;
IIJ
'x
0)
LO
...
0)" 0 m
=c=occ:
(/ (t I: IIJ'-
·--mt::... .
~"@":J ~""ê
-0 ffi SOl!!
ml::;: ~
".- >.;: § m
O)(/ m 0) 0)0
:2t::J:I::;ñ
>:J ".....
eS""ê=
a.. (t ß
"
I:
m
a.
x
0) .
o
O<::t
-LO
roo
:.¡:::::.......
I::
0)
Õ
c..
iii
t::
:J
o
U
~
I:
LO
"
I:
m
a.
x
0)
occi
::::0
.!!I-
"E
0)
Õ
a..
I: I::
0)'- m
=Nl:cn
I:: -.- .
~ 0) I::N.!::Ô
I: ~"(ij"ÓT"""-c
ro '~E I:: -I::
'5 O)~m'Em
° ~(/ ~~~
Z 'x"§O ~
W S J:
I: íiì
0 ~
;:; "
I: Q)
Q) .c ::s
1i - 0
'a 0 Co)
Q) ... Q)
Q)
.- ... .c I:
I: Q) E Q)
Q)- >
> I: ::s :::I
::s Q) E.. ..,
..,Co)
"
1:$ I:
o (t 12 I::
;;;;"~m
Jg:gmcnó
OIlJOúu
C.§Effi¡;ij
O)ue;:Q)
I:: (/ ..... >-...J
;;;;O)O)ro
.~ Ë 'i!i J:
WOI::
o
,,-0
c: 0) I:
o-roc:
;;;;.{g32as
Jg:=ro(l)ó
000 -...
c.~S E~~
0) e~O)
I: ..... >'...J
;;;;:ßO)ro
.~ u:¡¡¡ J:
wlE'
o 5
I:: _
c: I:: .;;; 'E £
.Q.- c:: (t Q)
rn.Eg ~ö
..croEcom...
oUr"
c.~.Q _15
~(/ ~""ê~
.- ~ ... ro
êi)¡¡: 0)::2 I::
;Bo~8~
(/
,,-0
I:: 0) c::
o-col::
;;;;.{g::2(t
Jg=(t (I)ó
000 -...
C.§E~§
~ u £ ~~
;;;;:ßO)ro
.~ ~:¡¡¡ J:
W~c:
o
c:: _
.- "
5.!:: ~ ffi .
:.;;¡ c:: 0 :;: e
Q) m._;;;; s;.."'O
C) .oas~ml:
c: eEoJ:m
..ê o.~_ -,3
U ~(/ ~-g c:
o .- ~ ... m m
Z ~ ¡¡: =ª! 32 (I)
.lj°B8
(/
c
o
:;:;
ell
J:J
o .
... Co)
0.._
Q) Q)
=0
C Q)
Q) CJ
>.-
:::1=
..,0
..c::: -u.
u
.- ...,
..c::: ...,
;: Q)
õ:E
...
000
'<t" N....
x~
e"
0.-
a.:J
~~
<::t
('I')
N
I
+-
o
(0
~
Z
Q)
OJ
C'CI
!
~
.!2
~
'"
o
o
q
LO
N
'<t"
.æ
,;;¡
.....
.ß¡
.1::
-(I)
(l)ü
~-
~ ~
(t E
5-e:
'" (I)
I:: ;,.
o 0
~C!>
'È~
""'"5
"":0
::.,Ü
:æ1;5
~¡1J
.- (I)
><:.t::
2-
§:Ctí
ca~
. (I) ::;¡
.!!1.,Q.,Q
~:;:;:(I)
-3¡:.,Q
"'_ 0
'-~ CI)
:SC1iëa
.5; :¡;¡ Ìâ'
1:II:::E
(I) 11:1
"g3¡:~
13(1)'£3
.5; Q3 ::;¡
-(I)""")
g~'õ
.~ Cl. 15
:\::(I)J:
",:S
::;¡-~
.t::1I:I1::
--::;¡
~:'::; 0
'Si:ü
.- -
o (I) '"
,c,o .,Q (t
"'oUJ
(1)-(1)
.!;! 1:1 .t::
-(1)-
II) _ _
~ ~e
(I) :1;2 13
~ 1:: ,c,o
(I)(t -
;,. 0 Q)
::;¡ ",.!;!
""")--¡¡¡
Q) 11:1 ::;¡
:5.~ """)
.2 ~,g¡ ãS
,º!!!á3~
~ ~~ ~
~ 01""") §
.- I::: 1:1 ~
11)'- Q)
I::~ '"
OIl:lOQ
uQ.Çl.Q
.~5 ~~-
~ .§- Q) ~
ê5'«:S~
1:::1:1.8
.~ ~ 1::.8
3ë .!;2 1:1
~(t :!::Q)
¡n....O:g:3
OQ)Q)II:IQ.
õ:!::~l::e
Z ....C/}'" ",- Q.
""
o
o
o
I()
N
'<t"
o
o
o
'<t"
N
('I')
o
o
o
I()
~
~
Z
Q)
1:71
S
o
o
I.L
!
ell
::s
C"
en
I
N
M
CD
C)
(t
a..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a::::
w
-
C/)
W
~
C
I
CD
u
't5
:;:I
-;0
Õ
m
:I:
-E
:::I
8
I
I
I
I
'tiS
co
W
I
-
~
'0
(t
LL
~
~
:;:I
-:>
~
'2
§2
:::J
-:>
Þ
c:;
:::J
o
()
m
'C
CD
E
m
«
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 3: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
Table 3.2: Comparison of Alternatives for the East County Hall Of Justice1
Project Component No Action/No Project East County Site 15A
Government Center
Number of new 0 13 13
courtrooms
Status of existing six Continue to use. Vacated. Vacated.
courts in leased
Pleasanton office
Acreage N/A 40 12.5
Square Footage N/A 195,0002 195,000
Notes:
1 The Existing San Leandro Property, Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, and Pardee/Swan sites are not being considered
for the East County Hall of Justice, thus they are not included in this table.
21n addition to the proposed East County Hall of Justice, the Juvenile Justice Facility may also be built at the East
County Government Center site. It is approximately 425,000 square feet.
As shown in Table 3.1 and discussed in Chapter 2: Purpose and Need, the Juvenile Justice
Facility would be built to house up to 420 detainees, although room for 450 beds would be built
and infrastructure for an additional 90 beds (to bring the total to 540) would be provided.
Similarly, five courtrooms would be built and the shell of a sixth would be built for future use.
The first phase development would enclose approximately 425,000 square feet of floor area.
As shown in Table 3.1 (above), the Juvenile Justice Facility is proposed for the Existing San
Leandro Property, the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, the Pardee/Swan Site, and the East County
Government Center. Expansion of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility is proposed at all the
sites except the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, where space constraints limit the number of beds
to a maximum of 420, and where no new courtrooms would be built. Instead, the existing
juvenile courtrooms in Oakland and Hayward would be renovated and/or new juvenile
courtrooms adjacent to the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility may be built. The proposed facility at
this site is 324,000 square feet, which includes renovation of approximately 278,000 square feet
of the existing structure and 46,000 square feet of expansion.
As shown in Table 3.2 (above), the East County Hall of Justice (approximately 195,000 square
feet) is proposed for either the East County Government Center site or Site 15A. More detail for
each project at each ofthe sites on which it is proposed is provided below.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 3-3
Chapter 3: Proposed Action and Alternatives
JUVENILE JUSTICE FACILITY
For the Juvenile Justice component of the Proposed Action, the EIS/EIR considers development
of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at four different/alternative sites: the site of the existing
Juvenile Hall in San Leandro, the site of the existing Glenn Dyer Detention Facility in downtown
Oakland, the Port of Oakland's Pardee/Swan Site, and the East County Government Center site
in Dublin.
Existing San Leandro Property
This alternative would involve the development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at the existing
Juvenile Hall site in San Leandro. This approximately 60-acre site is located at 2200 Fainnont
Drive in unincorporated San Leandro, California. The existing Juvenile Hall, a day facility, and
two detention camps presently occupy this site. A new Juvenile Justice Facility including
detention facilities, courts, administration, and other functions could be developed in an area that
is currently occupied by one of the juvenile camps. The development concept includes a new
split-level building, outdoor recreation areas, parking lots, and related improvements uphill from
the existing Juvenile Hall facility (see Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2). The site conditions, including
hillside slopes and earthquake faults, present certain constraints that limit the location of the
facility. The scattered office and court uses would be relocated to the new facility, and the
existing Juvenile Hall would be demolished under this alternative.
The proposed grading scheme has a split-level pad with a top elevation of308 feet and a lower
elevation of 288 feet. This would call for a cut of approximately 200,000 cubic yards and a fill of
approximately 190,000 cubic yards. Grade differences ftom the top to the bottom of the cuts
would vary :trom approximately 5 feet to 70 feet. Several retaining walls will be required at
specific locations, and in some instances they would be stepped to limit retaining wall heights to
a maximum of 40 feet, with a horizontal separation of20 to 30 feet. To limit the length of
tiebacks and to reduce the amount of lateral loading on the retaining walls, they will be inclined
to a maximum 5: 1 slope. The upper and lower walls would extend along the back of the site for
approximately 500 feet and 1,250 feet, respectively (see Figure 3.3). Some additional walls
approximately 10 feet to 15 feet in height will be required, some to provide a level surface to
accommodate parking areas.
For employees and visitors, access to the site would be via the main entrance road, which is a
continuation of the existing entrance road. Deliveries would be made via the main entrance road,
with vehicles going to dedicated bays on the lower level. Parking would be located on the lower
level of the site to minimize the steepness of the access road, with a total of 444 parking spaces
accommodated. For security reasons, visitor and employee parking would be physically
separated.
An additional single-direction entrance road would be used by police vehicles bound for either
the court or detention facilities, and as an emergency access route. This road would be elevated
to approximately the level of the building roof along the rear of the proposed building. Police
vehicles using this entrance road would exit via the main road after having left detainees at the
facility.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 3-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
i:;-'"
o ~
:¡,o~
.. '"
C)tI1
t]
;E ..
~~
..'"
..,¡ '0
~"e
u ..
ê5~
~~
,,"
~
OJ
.....
.....
en
o
I-<
~"t:I
. c::
tf') ttS =>-
CiI OJ ......
I-< ~ ·2
&=c c:: ·d
..... ttS .....
~en>
Figure 3.2
San Leandro Site
Detail
lc__[§il
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
Aerial Photo: Pacific Aerial Surveys
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 8
In
I
+- ã:í
I '"
"-
I 0
I
I
I .#
..-
..-
I /
"
.-
.-
"
I ,',
I
I ,/
I /'
..-
"
". ;,/ /
;9 I'
;¡ "
I I' /
I I
/
- - -
I
I
I /'
.-
,
.-
..
,
/
I
J!J
u
~
:.§
<
.9
¡j:;
'"
~
'"
¡c
tJ
!§
5S
þ
.....
......
.....
u
co
~
QJ
U
',p
fJJ
:;j
-.
QJ
......
'E
[!:
:;j
-.
I-<
..9
s::
co
p::
2
..... 2
Cf) .....
oC/)
1-<......
(f) ""0 co
tf5g,8
Q,I QJ P..
I-< , QJ
g,_ U
.... g §
~Cf)U
Chapter 3: Proposed Action and Alternatives
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
This alternative would involve the conversion of the existing Glenn Dyer Detention Facility in
downtown Oakland from an adult jail to ajuvenile detention facility. This site is a half-block
area in downtown Oakland, located at 550 Sixth Street (see Figure 3.4). It is currently occupied
by the County's North County Jail for adults (also known as the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility).
This facility has recently closed, and the County is exploring the possibility of converting the
eight-story facility into a juvenile detention center. No juvenile courts or juvenile probation
offices are proposed at this site.
The proposed conversion and expansion of the Glenn'Dyer Detention Facility would include'
adding a new ninth floor above the existing high-rise portion of the facility and adding a new
second floor, seven floors of recreation yards and a tenth floor gymnasium above the existing
ground floor adjacent to the existing building (see Figure 3.5, Figure 3.6, Figure 3.7, Figure
3.8, and Figure 3.9). As noted in Table 3.3, the conversion and expansion of the Glenn Dyer
Detention Facility would result in a facility of approximately 324,000 square feet (278,000
square feet of building and 46,000 square feet of outdoor recreation yards).
The proposed layout at this site would accommodate a maximum of 420 beds. Although the
number of beds meets the basic program objectives, the amount of space allocated to housing is
approximately halfthe optimal size (see Table 3.3). Bedroom size and other spaces with
minimum standards would meet BOC requirements, but associated common rooms and other
space would be reduced from the programmed spaces desired by the County. The space
constraints would not allow for future expansion to the program goal of 540 beds.
In addition, because this site is in a highly urbanized area, there is very limited outdoor
recreation space. To compensate for this lack of existing outdoor facilities, this project includes
approximately 86,000 square feet of semi-enclosed recreation yards, to be built on seven levels
adjacent to each of the housing floors. A new gymnasium is proposed for the rooftop, but is less
than half the desirable size, as detennined by the architectural program (see Table 3.3).
The conversion and expansion of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility would provide less than
two-thirds of the space needs identified for the juvenile detention facility component of the
Juvenile Justice Facility (see Table 3.4). Because it would not accommodate all of the planned
court and office support functions (see Table 3.4), some of the existing juvenile justice functions
in downtown Oakland would remain at their current locations. The existing functions in San
Leandro would be relocated to downtown Oakland and the existing San Leandro facility would
be demolished.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 3-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~
~¡:
lJ~
, -
~ .~
;a /¡j
E~
j~
~~
id ,.
~B
oi
cJ'JP-.
.~
~
~
.....
CIJ
....
~ Q)
.>.
~O Þ
.... § os
SSe Q) °d
~G>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
.....
CJ)
~~ I
tf)O
Q,lr;:::-
... r;::: .....
.~ ~ -æ I
~c..?O
I
~~
~~
ü<J'J
~3
"~ ..
...c: Q
:>.<
e u
~.:z::
"'" '0
.. '"
~I>o
U ..
ê3~
@f
';;;
"J::
<
I
I
I
.LS NO.LÐNIHS'v'M
I
I
I
I
I
c
z
C(
..J
~
C(
o
I
I--
ø
I
I--
I'-
I
ë
ë GI
GI E
E GI
GI III
III III
III It!
It!ë+
Ci+~1ß
zIßO'C
~'Ca..O
~.s oèñ
>< en a: 0
WN a......
I
I
I
I
I
UCJ~
Z::::l
-~
~O
a:::::I
C(a::
a.. I-
en
I
I
I
.LS NOSI::I3::1::13r
I
"
.~
>-
~
l!
'"
E
~
.:;:
"
-~
~
þ
~
¡:c
~
U
~
o
<JJ
I--
ø
I
I--
ID
I;:
o
;;:¡
m
~
a::
a.
o
I-
g
a:
+
) ë
III I
III III
It! ë It!
"+W+
~lenlß
__ 0_
I-...a.....
en.s O,g
)( en a:: en
W II) a.. GI
+-z
c::
ta
......
~
2
.....
Cf)
"'0
~
o
0..
aJ 0
..... I-<
..... ~
Cf)"'O
I-< c::
~ ~ ta
rt) Q 00
Q, c::
... ê :;:J
g, aJ .~
..... ......C) x
~ ~
"<'~~
J <..:.\'
~ ~, "~
,'j" ..,"'"....: .\ < ~"
'.' ,,'. ~ .~~
I
...
"§
>
~
...
.E
I
I
t!
$
i
I
~
æ
-2
g:'
~
ö
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
¡:; I
0 .....
:+:i OJ
ca .ê
~Cf) I
~.£j
COr-..
$.S S
..... '"0 0 I
Cf)"J::
~ S "0
t-: :>. ¡:Q OJ
tf') o co ~
Q § .s OJ I
"" ..... .....
6b OJ .~ >-
- >< CTJ
~l?~ca
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'"'
"S
<II
;>
:z
~
'"'
-£
t
~
:§
.:;:
i5
æ
-2
w
;.
w
¡<:>
µ¡
u
8
[J)
~
o
..... ......
~ æ
~ b
-U)
~..£
~~
ClJ;.e S
:;:::= 0
U):;jJ::
~~"C
~ >. "C ClJ
tf'10ClJi3:
(f) t¡¡
~ § &>
oo~ e (f)
~Cjp..(O
Chapter 3: Proposed Action and Alternatives
Table 3.3
Percent Of the Total Space Needs Met For the Juvenile Detention Center Component of The
Juvenile Justice Facility After The Proposed Conversion And Expansion Of The Glenn Dyer
Detention Facility
Juvenile Detention Center Juvenile Detention Proposed Conversion Program Goals
Building Center and Expansion of Achieved
Architectural Program Glenn Dyer Detention
Goals1 Facility2 (Percent of
(Building Gross Tota/ Space
(Building Gross Square Footage) Needs Met)
Square Footage)
Housing 229,217 113,540 50
Lobby 2783 2700 97
Visitation 4813 14,504" 301
Intake & Release 13,602 16,608 122
Facility Administration & Staff Support 8,438 8,848 105
Security Administration 2,599 2,000 77
Indoor Recreation 21,525 9,320 43
Education Administration/Guidance 5,265 4,624 87
Clinic
Food Preparation 6,058 6,252 103
Laundry 855 792 92
Medical/Mental Health 8,453 9,844 116
Maintenance and Custodial Services 9,285 2,446 26
Loading Dock/Warehouse 3,139 1,550 49
TOTAL 316,030 193,028b 61
Sources:
1 Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center Bridging Documents, Vol. 11 May 1, 2002.
2 Vanir Construction Management Inc. Letter to Aki N. Nakao, Alameda County General Service Agency, July 26,
2002.
Notes:
a The Vanir Construction Management letter does not provide individual figures for the amount of space proposed for
visitation and for classrooms.
b Excludes the unassigned floor area and outdoor recreation yards that are proposed for the Glenn Dyer site. The
other proposed sites have existing outdoor recreation space whereas Glenn Dyer does not.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 3-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 3: Proposed Action and Alternatives
Table 3.4
Percent Of Total Space Needs Met For the Juvenile Justice Facility Program After Proposed
Conversion and Expansion Of Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
Building
Juvenile Justice Proposed Program
Facility Conversion and Goals
Architectural Expansion of Achieved
Program Goals 1 Glenn Dyer {Percent of
Detention Facility2 Total Space
(Building Gross (Building Gross Needs Met)
Square Footage) Square Footage)
316,030 193,0288 61
81,312 0 0
27,515 0 0
424,857 193,0288 45
Juvenile Detention Center
Juvenile Courts
Juvenile Probation
Administration
TOTAL
Sources:
1 Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center Bridging Documents, Vol. 11 May 1, 2002. See also Table 3.3.
2 Vanir Construction Management Inc. Letter to Aki N. Nakao, Alameda County General Service Agency,
July 26,2002.
Note:
a Excludes the approximately 86,000 square feet of outdoor recreation yards that are proposed for the
Glenn Dyer site. The proposed alternative sftes have existing outdoor recreation space whereas Glenn
Dyer does not.
Pardee/Swan Site
This alternative would involve the development of a Port of Oakland-owned property at Pardee
Drive and Swan Way as a Juvenile Justice Facility with an adjacent airport parking garage. The
Port of Oakland owns a 34-acre property at the northern tenninus of Pardee Drive at Swan Way
in Oakland, California (see Figures 3.9 and 3.10). If the County were to acquire this site, it could
develop a Juvenile Justice Facility that would meet all of the program requirements of the
County. It would be comprised of 420 to 540 beds and 5 to 6 juvenile courts (see Figure 3.11).
Existing juvenile justice facilities in Oakland would be vacated, the existing facility in San
Leandro would be demolished, and all of the County's juvenile justice functions would be
consolidated to this location. A four-level airport parking garage would also be built at this site
to accommodate parking space that would otherwise be lost to the Port of Oakland.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 3-15
~~
~i::
ðcË
~;;
;E "¡:;
p,.:!
~ .~
-'11
~~
~ ö
B]
<JjP-.
'"
'¡:;
~
OJ
.....
.....
Cf)
¡:;
co
0'1 ~
. Cf)
tf') _
Q, OJ >-
¡.. OJ ~.
= '"0 .....
OJ:) I-< U
..... co·....
~~>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figue 3.10
Pardee / Swan Site
Detail
~c~)
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory
Aerial photo: Pacific Aerial Surveys
-'
\!!
,~
.,1
it
U
"^ ele
"W~ ~
'~"! ~ ø &~~
55, Ie
<c'{:t ð ~ r,!
~,I.Ö >«
td E..;: ~ x
i 0
It i
~
~
"J ~
6:: ., ~ {'i
~¡;¡ ~ «
:¡;'" "
t~ ~ ,. \!? ". GI
i.iJ W w S~;
~\Jj I -~
01)1- ~ ;f:~;¡;
;Sö '" ì5 ..,~
..:
':J¡E ü ¡g Ê3 ~::
«
z~ .';¡! ~ ~~~
~~~ö '"
'"":I ~_ ,~... n,
rr-:
S:J)
. ~§
~ ~! ;~
, h d:
"f\' i. .. \.....l..~...N.....NVH::JQHONV'!lN\f'6
~ . .......'\\ i. ....
$:¡ .: ".; ~"?~ .',',.,.,'.
i~ .' """,,,'\.'
m~
¡~
;
;,
~
! ~
~/ !j
?
ê
;/ )
~/
~
Of)
q)
n.
:::>
,/
",-
~
1
t
. '" !II
¡" ¡
u: ~ 2 ~
p ~ i,'.·~.
~¿r:.~$~
"'{ () 2. rn i.j ,.¡
j'
~
~'
i
~~
!it
"it
1/:"
~:j¡
~
~
~
!
'"
«
)
æJOIdVd
.~,
I
Ii'
~
;¡
"
J 2i
~"' ::..
'" "
t §
f"
& E
oIj~
~.s
01 '"
'" ~
E '"
~~
t¡j'
~
~
-g'
~
'"
-<
~
ô
a
~
w
If
þ
.....
-
'0
(tI
~
OJ
U
:p
rJ)
~
-.
OJ
]
~
~
-.
I-<
..8
¡:;
(tI
OJ-
.¡..¡P-1
..... OJ
C/).¡..¡
¡:; .....
(tiC/)
~~íã
~C/).E
('f') - 0...
Q, OJ OJ
I-< OJ U
= "'0 ¡:;
OJ:) I-< 0
.... (tI U
~P-1
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 3: Proposed Action and Alternatives
East County Government Center
The County of Alameda owns a vacant 40-acre site near the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center,
known as the East County Government Center site in Dublin, California (see Figures 3.12 and
3.13). The East County Government Center Site also is referred to as the County Government
Property or County Center in various agreements and City of Dublin documents. For purposes of
this EIS/EIR all references to the East County Government Center Site shall incorporate those
references to the site. This site is sufficient to accommodate the proposed Alameda County
Juvenile Justice Facility project and the new East County Hall of Justice project.
The proposed Projects evaluated in this EIS/EIR include the development of a new Juvenile
Justice Facility and a new East County Hall of Justice (see Figure 3.14). As noted in the
introduction to this Chapter, the projects that make up the Proposed Action are being considered
together in one combined EIS/EIR because the County first proposed developing the projects on
the East County Government Center Site in Dublin. That proposal would have linked the Project
components as cumulative developments that relied on each other for proper site planning,
infrastructure, and development, and would have been implemented in approximately the same
time frame. However, one project could go forward without the other, so long as the implications
for the other Project is considered in the development of the East County Government Center
site.
The East County Government Center Site property is located along Gleason Drive at the northern
tenninus of Hacienda Drive, also bordered by Arnold Road, Broder Blvd., and Madigan Avenue.
A benn varying between 20 to 30 feet in height presently occupies the northern third of the
property, with eucalyptus trees scattered along the northern side. A 1.S-acre detention basin is in
the southwest comer of the site. The remainder of the property is covered in weeds and bare dirt.
The property is part of approximately 340 acres of County-owned land presently developed with
the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center and Fireanns Training Facility (occupying the property to
the north), Heavy Equipment Maintenance Building, Sheriffs Office of Emergency Services,
California Highway Patrol, Animal Control Services, and other similar uses to the east.
The Juvenile Justice Facility would be located on the western portion of the site, occupying
about 18 acres. The Juvenile Justice Facility would consist of 420 to 540 beds at this site. The
site would be graded to accommodate the structures on flat terraces, with a lower level on the
western half and a slightly higher level to the east. The existing benn would be removed so that
the site has direct access to Broder Boulevard for loading dock, sallyport, and intake/release
functions. Support facilities such as dining, medical, recreation, and maintenance/janitorial will
be included. Five non-jury juvenile courtrooms, district attorney, public defender, and probation
staff would also be accommodated at the project. There would be a total of about 425,000 to
465,000 square feet of building floor area, within a two-story structure. Outdoor recreation areas
would be provided internal to the project structures such that minimal to no fencing would be
required. The frontage along Gleason Drive would be developed with a landscaped benn that
would partially conceal the exterior walls of the housing units and recreation areas. Between 700
and 750 parking spaces would be required for the Juvenile Justice Facility functions, which
could be provided in combination with the existing parking at the County's Santa Rita
Rehabilitation Center. Surface parking lots may be developed on the project site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 3-19
~~
~j
t~
.:E w
1>.«
~~
.... ,j
~~
u ..
ê§.9
~~
..
'I::
OJ
«
~
.....
Cf)
I-<
Q)
.....
~
Q)
u
1
I-<
Q)
;;:.
o
Cj
NÞ
,.-.4 ~
rf)6þ
~ U '2
:s ..... .....
þþCfJu
.... ca .....
~~>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t>~
g,i':
1: "
'f~
.... '"
'" --
¡~
E u
",¡;::
,...J 'ü
~~
u __
~~
~t
3
~
Q)
*""
ëñ
I-<
Q)
.....
~
Q)
u
t=
Q)
S
E
~
o
Ü
tf)f
"'1 ::::I
tf) 0
~U=
Ëb *"" ItS
00.....
ro Q)
~~Q
l·nn_])··I::S~-[Ifo~J~···
,
¡...J
;--1 -~
: Ii""\ m/
: V c:
: I :;=
I' j"'-;!
¡ L.:><.....
I GJ'
¡í'\ - '\
¡l; :: . )
: I' co /
! I ~"
D!.I~
i¡~
[]D ')
hl-~---~
IJ
I
;¡
~
( Ü': ~ !.<{.:
r :." ~~. "¡ 1: ~.
-,¡r>-_~
ID '
I "'''-
olD j)
0', ! -'_."'"
t "
---=-=:::::.-:::>
'IJY~'~~ ('!."!(,WjJ'»'
~
~~~
( ~ ~D
~
..' ~~.,~^,nu ·W
_................__........................n.........._........~_~.~~~~~,~..~
¡
d
~
m""
8
Ii)
+-æ
o
,I
u." I
,sõJ
'i~ .
~ "
,gu
~~ \11
¡::='
-:2:
~¡
o .~
~ð I
~,~ .
~
~ I
Ê
¡ I
>
.,,'
~ I
~ '
ô
a I
I
I
I
Þ I
.....
-
.....
~ I
u
.....
$t)
..... ;:I I
tJ') __
I-< ( ,
( , ~ ( ,
-::: ¡;;¡ u
Q) ( , ..¡:i
u ~ ~ 'I"
-:::----
I-< 1-<......
~i~ I
( , ;::¡,:I:
:> - :;..,
o ( , +,.'
l? .-::: r::
tJ') ;:I
~ þ- ° I
~§.E~
('f'j 0 0.. OCI
Q, u( , ~
"'" u ~ I',
6'0 t) r:: "0
.... ~ Uo r::
~~ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 3: Proposed Action and Alternatives
EAST COUNTY HALL OF JUSTICE
For the East County Hall of Justice component of the Proposed Action, the EIS/EIR considers
two alternative sites: the East County Government Center in Dublin and the County's surplus
property known as Site 15A in Dublin. A description of the project's parameters and objectives
are discussed in detail in Chapter 2: Purpose and Need.
East County Government Center
Development of an East County Hall of Justice could occur on a portion of the County-owned
property in Dublin near the Santa Rita Rehabilitatiori Center, which would fonn part of an East
County Govemment Center. Such a center could also include the Juvenile Justice Facility (see
Figures 3.15 to 3.19). For more details concerning the Juvenile Justice Facility at this site, see
above.
The East County Hall of Justice is proposed for the central and eastern portion of the East
County Government Center site and would include courtrooms, administration, jury services,
district attorney, public defender, probation, and other court-related services. As noted above, the
East County Hall of Justice program calls for construction of 13 courtrooms in a building of
approximately 195,000 square feet within a three and four-story building. Parking demand for
about 850 vehicles is projected for the East County Hall of Justice project. As with the Juvenile
Justice Facility, some parking may be shared, depending on the peak demand periods of the
various uses in the immediate vicinity. Surface parking lots and underground parking within the
building would be developed on the project site.
Site 15A
Development of the East County Hall of Justice could occur on a 12.5-acre County-owned site
known as Site 15A, near the Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station. The site is part of Alameda
County's surplus property in the Santa Rita area in eastern Dublin. It is located adjacent to the
new Sybase office development, along Arnold Road between Dublin Blvd. and Central Parkway.
The site would serve only the East County Hall of Justice, and could be developed independently
of any of the Juvenile Justice Facility alternatives (see Figures 3.20 to 3.22). This alternative
location is being considered in order to cornpare the proposal of developing the East County Hall
of Justice at the East County Government Center site, as discussed above.
The architectural plans for the East County Hall of Justice at Site 15A are the mirror image of the
plans proposed for the East County Government Center site; otherwise, the architectural plans
are the same (see Figures 3.14 and 3.22). The only other major difference with respect to the
proposed East County Hall of Justice is that a parking garage is proposed at Site 15A, but not at
the East County Government Center site. To accommodate the proposed development of the East
County Hall of Justice at Site 15A, a parking garage similar in size and scale to earlier parking
garage proposals at this site (i.e. the Cisco Systems office park) would be required.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 3-23
J
i
i
. ."wi
, r¡.....t
········.1..··..·.·
: rrm
f...'...·.<.·...·.'...".'...·...µnt..........................
1···:nLF·.:m·
!.¡¡:r;:¡w:j
t.I¡II
.: ,..
~fili ;,
.,1..
¡Iilll!
¡mn'
;¡.---
<::
o
~
Q)
ill
.r.
1::
o
Z
<::
o
~
>
Q)
W
.r.
1::
o
Z
...
Q¡
¡¡;
o
i:>::
~
¡:
~
<::
o
1ã
>
Q)
w
¡¡¡
~
<J)
§
.~
ra
>
I'JJ
......
~
þ
.....
'8
ra
~
I'JJ
U
.....
......
iI'1 <J)
~~
rr) I'JJ
~]
šb~
.,..¡ ;:J
'--.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Partial West Elevation
..~¿~... ',>;;',:~, ~.'-~'~~ ":,~'"
,.~.~,,=, ,~,^,:X:,:¡ :~ ,;~"::,,:',,, ::~~~:
::""':;-'~.~':.~","':,-,"':
~,""".:: wT "'~cc, -, ,:w".
:===4=--~:-o:=~===:..:~~::::::..:..:..:===}
,k
, : :
, ,
::,,~. ~"".".m= ............",,:..::.::..::..:=1:
; . ; ~.
, , ,
, , ,
. . . : ~
, , ,
+;~;;,=~::::,"~>~~w~~:::,:o:~~
, , ,
:..:j:::::..:
------.
North Elevation at Lobby
Figure 3.16 :.~I
Juvenile Justice Facility Elevation Details
~(~~)
,...'..,.,'.""'.'.,........."","'.... ' ..:.::::......;..~....,..""".""',"'.."....
---~~--.................~...~.._-~._-~..~.-.....-........................_---
'"
.,~)
....
..........;£i:
'\:<;;<:.:,)~: ',",:,'. ~:);: ,,:x:.-;>;~ >,';:'
.:-:";.~:;:;:,.>\o.-, "':...:" "·r·,,;'r·~
SOURCE: MVE/Rosser I
..~~:y '.x.:,:,', ~"",~,~':', ....
"""'··'^,"i'
V.".: ~~, :)r', ~",¡ "',",:" ',:':'..:.'<
^,^ ·:1"\i:"I:: t' ~":1:):,': i¡~..
g,,,...
f}....
.::~., '~-:"~¡ ';¡'~':'>;'~,
: :,;¡.; ';¡¡.~,":'.,.r.;~ ~:,.:':"
North Elevation Detail at Imate Release
)"\"".~:;',:; ~.~~,;;,~':<, ,<.'..
¡,....".:;x~:r *^.<;. ',~\<':<. ~., "<~'.\ ~.:.,.~ it
~J}
...... =i..~'
North Elevation Detail at Probation
Figure 3.17
Juvenile Justice Facility Typical Details
t"'" I
"::~~v.,.
SOURCE: MVE/Rosser I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
;: o!
œ: ~ ~ !
Ii <:e!
;1 ¡ ~ c:: r; )
0; 0 ~
¡::i ~ f!? 0
",: Q) ',.¡:j
¡¡ ¡ <V: CI) .0
"': Q) E «I
{',>: >
: i ~ lB! " ø
hL Xl E ,¡::. ,!:¡
'51 U ~
c:: VI
0 Q) þ
i :1 II ...., ['::ciJ ..J C)
"
C) ;:J ......
c:: ., ......
ï¡¡ ......
-g u
;:J «I
0 ø f.I.¡
I ð: ~: E 5!
z. ~ ~! e ;:J ~
.¡: ª: 0
;:J ,¡::. ......
~: 0 I 1:: 1:: .....
Ù Q) ;:J ;:J ct,) r; )
~;, CI) 0 0 ::s
,- ..: ë ,~: E c;> U t""'I -.
\iI" ~]~ ;;:: . c:: ¿, rt5
:¿~ ~i~ î ;:J i U 0 Q)
~5. '6 0 ......
-~- .. -$ Q) is ~ Q, '2
:e Q) ...
CI) r; ) ~ Q)
.... ~
r,¡.¡
~
;1
1
,1':- 1 ~~~' ~ ~;:;~I
\ \ U -¿~,"' - -g~,,:
\ ':'::"::~:1 '-I
\ . . ~'=-r
\J
}~
II
;1 ·
I
h
'"
æ
o
¡<:
~
::1:
Ô
¡<:
@
i if¡
I
'" I
0;
<C
ª
U
o\j
J;¡ I
'3
~
.êo
ð I
~
:r:
~
u
§ I
'"
I
I
I
' .
I
I
I
I'J.)
u
",p I
rJJ
~
......
0
...... I
......
to
:r:
.b
~ I
;j
0
U
......
rJJ
to I
~
......
0
gp
..... I
¡..,
I'J.)
'"0
~
~ I
0'1......
1""1 to
'.8
ff) 0..
4.1 Q)
... u I
g,~
.... 0
~U
I
I
I ~f
~ ::>
l)U'J
~(;
.~ .¡::
I oJ: Oi
p,.<t
E ...
"<!;
..¡ .-
...
~~
U "
I ê3~
~f
';;¡
.¡::
~
I
I
I
I
,
I (~.--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Q
N
rf5<þ
~ Ll') .....
...~ ~
I 6b2 .f:)
.....
....... ."""", :>
~Cf)
I
g
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~< I
QJlt')_
"'" ~.....
.~.~ ~ I
~C/)o
I
i:;>'"
5h~
w ~
ü~
...-
1'~
~w
e-:;
" .-
--'11
Ô~
ê3.9
@f
';¡j
.¡::
~
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
+-z
/__~______~_~~ a "1/ aN 3 I J 'tj H
( -~"'----'""'------
~'-...........---...............
ì
¡
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
f
I
¡
,
I
I
I
,
¡
--,
,
l~Ath
\1'.?
~~
~
r.:'=
.'^
d
fJVI
~z:;;~ ~
all/1/ ~ ¡II iill
" :: I,' : '
I" ' I ,¡:
J i ,',' " '" · Ii,:
,/,//: ~ ;Çfl ¡:
/~i!J;, Ih ~ jJr; !, i¡ I
.__lL, >1./ I ~tw ¡ , ,
i;:¡r-.r : ~ ::
TI1 f:! '~~\ ----~\, , 1/ i
i!)1 V:xX~~~ ~~)~~~l, ¡ : i ¡
: .: ! I' f'X.)<"Yx Y ':0 Ë:': \ g¡æ", 1 , ' ,
" , r\(' "',,/ ).:).: co , §B~ 14 :¡ "
,11' ~ .~>~i '\f I j, ¡:
¡ ~fí 8 i ;~~~J~J~: ~ ,--- y -d='~ -~ ¡ \ ! :
~ I ~ ø « >. ~..?' -_./ u lß~~ xftl"'S2'</"''x v I,: " )
0:.1 I ~_...A.> U . - - ¡¡; \/:....
,j, ij' we> 0 ~.- i ~ x~' '" !i:; !.
',i. ~ i 'x"x~~:ß k."'.:.,,:, '.~.:.~.' ~I..,.I ~. ~ ~ ~ ~~~Xx)<~ ¡~:p.1 ¡'
, j ¡:..; I I)<)<,x '0 f- <)< t"u '9j )()( "" 0).:)< ')( '::
! I ~ ¡ )( Xx'~ Y~>~g~ ¡ '''' .x x """" x..J>< 'xx '&:, ì ¡
: ~'..~ x,',f.' , ~ 'Ii? x~» I ~ ¡~ :
; :: ......."...'.l/'~~\..X; >;..ß$.::~~ ~. ¡ n ____.. ..2,.<te. "" ¡' :
:: ¡,t>< )< x.; ~:>~,. 8· lIt)< i .
11 ¡ ¡ I ¡ ¡ ~~........,....,~..':/'......xv«~::a~¡ Q þ~~ r;?.: ·<"0W 11 ¡
.Jc "'i"7~=---------;'f-~-\-~ c::.r.qT' fry '-~~~ ¡i: ::
'( ... ---... ,L_ " --~ .~/ " ,¡¡
I --.--w"-_m!:ti'¡i-¡'¡'~w~t1-1--0-N-H-V___h__~:o_:~~ah__ . ,
_______ ··---------w.__w
__~ ~____w~_____. _ ~
~
lh
¡~
r=ffD'1 ., ,I
j' I" t
l ~ I
I [ ~ .
. . ! . .
'"
u
,&
:s
.;:
."
'"oj
0:::
11
u
.\j
'"'
..!!
~
6b
.¡¡;
Q¡
p
~
tJ
a
ô
.....
.....
(/)
;::J
--
......
o
..-.
..-.
(\3
:r::
.b
¡:;
;::J
o
U
.....
OJ]
(\3
~
I-<
o
......
¡:;
(\3
p:;
Q)
.....
.....
Cf)
N ..-.
r"! (\3
tf"J<:.8
Q.I U') 0..
I-< ...... Q)
ËbQ)~
."", .-::: 0
~Cf)U
Chapter 3: Proposed Action and Alternatives
Table 3.5: Results of an Investigation to Find an Appropriate Site for a New Juvenile Justice Facility
in Alameda County, Alameda County Review Team 2002
Site Investigated Site Suitability
San Leandro
Hudson Pencil Factory, San Leandro Site too small (15 acres), access unsafe due to active railroad tracks on
Boulevard at Hudson Lane Hudson Lane.
Davis Street Recycling Center, 2500 Poor soil conditions, heavy truck traffic on Davis Street, odors and noise from
Davis Street adjacent dumpsite.
Neptune Street Too far from BART (2.9 miles) and site is too small (6 acres).
Oakland
240 Hegenberger Road Site is too small (12 acres).
Edgewater and Oakport Site is too small (16 acres).
Edgewater and Pardee Site is too small (2 acres).
Pardee/Swan Site suitable. Port of Oakland (owner) allowing temporary parking for Oakland
Airport expansion.
Pardee across from the Post Office Site too small (14 acres).
CB Ellis Site, Hegenberger Road Site too small (less than 20 acres).
98th Avenue and Bancroft Site too small (less than 1 acre) and is too far from the nearest BART station
(2.5 miles).
Maitland Site, Oakland Airport Site is located between two runways and is not considered suitable for
housing children in custody.
Alameda
Old Alameda Naval Air Station, Site is too far from BART (4.2 miles).
Alameda Point
Fremont
44960 Warm Springs Boulevard Site is too far from BART (4 miles).
Warm Springs and South Grimmer Site is too far from BART (4 miles).
Boulevards
Highway 84 and Paseo Padre Site is too far from BART (4 miles).
Livermore
Jack London at Isabel Extension Site is too far from BART (6 miles).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 3-34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4
land Use and Planning
4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
PHYSICAL SETTING
No Action I No Project
Juvenile Justice Facility
The existing San Leandro Juvenile Hall facility is located in unincorporated Alameda County.
The site of the existing San Leandro Juvenile Hall facility is bounded on the west, north and east
by Fainnont Drive and by the County of Alameda John George Psychiatric Pavilion, Fairmont
Hospital and related uses to the south. The site vicinity consists of rolling, generally open hilly
terrain with heavily wooded areas upon which exist various land uses as shown in Figure 4.1,
including the following:
·
A residential area on V an Avenue and other local streets in the Hillcrest Knolls
neighborhood is located parallel to Fairmont Drive and across the street from the
existing Juvenile Hall Facility. This residential area is visible from the Juvenile Hall
Facility and residents in the area can see the facility from their homes.
Hillcrest Knolls Park is located north of Fairmont Drive. The park is equipped with a
children's play area and a small landscaped open space.
The John George Psychiatric Pavilion and Fairmont Hospital campus are located
adjacent to the south of the site, comprising a complex of many large to smaller
scaled medical buildings spread around a sprawling campus, with substantial open
land nearby.
The Alameda County Animal Control Shelter is located northeast of the site along
Fainnont Drive.
The County Sheriff operates a substation at Foothill Blvd. and Fainnont Drive, near
the 1-580 interchange with 1 50th Avenue.
The open and hilly terrain of Lake Chabot Regional Park is further to the north and
east, beyond the Animal Control Facility buildings.
The County of Alameda has leased a portion of the Fainnont Hospital campus to a
non-profit organization that is constructing and will operate the George Mark
Children's House, a hospice facility for up to eight children and their families.
·
·
·
·
·
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-1
f~
~¡:
'" ::>
l:)<l'J
~ta
" '':
;g,~
6 v
"0:::
..,¡ '0
.. '"
~¡:¡,.
U ..
aj
"
'':
"
-<:
.b
t::
'(j
:>
Q) Q)
J5-B
o t::
1-0 .....
~ "'tJ ( )
. c:: Q)
~ ra ( )
Q,lQ)~
"'~"'tJ
6b t:: t::
.... !U !U
'-CJ:)~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
East County Hall of Justice
The existing Dublin-Pleasanton courts are located in a business park area of Pleasant on. Known
as the Gale/Schenone Hall of Justice, the facility comprises approximately 55,000 square feet of
floor area in a two-story office building located at 5672 Stoneridge Drive, south ofI-580. It is
leased by the County from a private owner, and includes tenant irnprovements for six
courtrooms, offices, and security areas. A surface parking lot accommodates approximately 210
vehicles.
Existing San Leandro Property
The Existing San Leandro Property site is located immediately adjacent to the existing Juvenile
Hall facility on a portion of the carnpus that was developed and previously used as ajuvenile
detention camp. The surrounding land uses are as described above for the No ActionINo Project
Alternative.
Glenn Dyer Detention Center
The Glenn Dyer Detention Center (also known as Alameda County's North County Jail) is an
eight-story building located at 550 Sixth Street in downtown Oakland, as shown on Figure 4.2.
It occupies the western half of a double-block bounded by Seventh Street on the north,
Washington Street on the east, Sixth Street on the south and Jefferson Street on the west (Clay
Street ends at Seventh Street directly opposite the entrance to the facility). It shares the site with
several departments of the Superior Court, located in a four-story building to the east. Further
east across Washington Street is the Hall of Justice/Oakland Police Department Headquarters.
An elevated portion ofI-880 is directly across Sixth Street south of the site. There are several
bail-bond establishments and second story offices and residences in the immediate vicinity of the
site, on the north side of Seventh Street and along Washington Street. The Old Oakland district
extends along Clay and Washington Streets toward downtown.
The Glenn E. Dyer Detention Center is an adult Type II Jail. It was designed by Hellmuth,
Obata and Kassabaum (HOK) under the 1980 Title 24, California Code of Regulations (CCR) for
adult local detention facilities and opened in 1984. It originally contained a Board Rated
Capacity (BRC) of 576 beds in single occupancy cells. Each floor ofthe six housing floors
contains six pods of 16 cells each, dayroorn space, a visiting area, a medical exam room and
limited program areas. In addition, the building contains an intake/release (booking) area; a
medical floor and infinnary; a kitchen; storage; and two exercise yards. The Alameda County
Sheriffhas detennined that the operation of the Glenn Dyer Detention Center is no longer
necessary, and therefore use of the building was discontinued in mid-2002 (letter rrom William
Crout, California Board of Corrections, June 2002).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-3
I
~"' I
~f
c.(~
@]
.:Et I
S'~ ..
~>..;::::
-' '0
ô~
êj.9 I
01
~~
Q
.0::
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Þ I'
'2
·d
> I
QJ QJ
::::-£i
~.s I
N ~ OCJ
~O~
Q,I ¡:::=>
... ¡:: ""Ij
~QJ¡:: I
¡¡:(5~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Pardee I Swan Site
The Pardee/Swan Site is located in the City of Oakland within the Oakland Airport Gateway
district, approximately 0.3 miles northeast of Hegenberger Drive. The vacant 34-acre
Pardee/Swan Site is located at the northern tenninus of Pardee Drive at Swan Way in Oakland.
The Port has begun construction of a new parking lot at the site to serve the Oakland
International Airport during implementation of the Tenninal Expansion project, and to replace
parking that was displaced as a result of increased security measures in the wake of the
September 11,2001 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C.
Existing land uses in the vicinity, as shown on Figure 4.3, include:
A large United Parcel Service distribution facility adjoins the site to the southeast.
A small park with picnic grounds is located southwest of the site along Swan Way.
There are several large ponds in the Arrowhead Marsh/Martin Luther King Regional
Shoreline area located opposite the northwestern edge of the site, created as part of a joint
wetlands mitigation effort by the Port and other agencies.
There are business park uses across San Leandro Creek and the adjoining levee, opposite
the northeastern edge of this site, and south of Swan Way.
Recent development within the Oakland Airport Gateway area includes the Catellus Business
Park (warehouse distribution), the Just Desserts/U.S. Postal Service Distribution Center (food
processing and distribution), Zhone Technologies (a corporate telecommunications headquarters
and research facility), Rainin Instnunents (a corporate headquarters and manufacturing campus),
AMB Metropolitan Furniture (a furniture manufacturer) and the hotels at Hegenberger Loop (a
76-room business class Best Western and a I 56-room Courtyard Marriott). Coliseum Lexus of
Oakland is under construction and the Oakland Sports Center at Ira Jinkins Park is in the
design phase. The Port of Oakland's proposed Metroport Project is undergoing environmental
review.l The Port of Oakland also controls a 14.2-acre site in the area that may provide an
opportunity for future commercial development.
·
·
·
·
If approved, the Metroport project would entail the construction of 1,300,000 square feet of office space, two
parking structures, a 350-room hotel and 50,000 square feet of retail space, in addition to a station on the BART link
between the Oakland Coliseum and the Oakland International Airport (actual development in this area is currently
not anticipated before 2005).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 4-5
~f
ð~
,'.-
~ -~
1>.<
L~
-' '0
~~
~š
@f
-;;;
';::
~
Þ
'8
'fj
0,);>
:::: 0,)
rJ:J..s::::
I:: .....
(\3 .S
f'I'J ;: rJ)
. rJ:J 0,)
~_(/'J
Q.l0,);:J
... 0,)
=""0"'0
OJ:) ~ I::
.... (\3 (\3
~p.,,...J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
East County Government Center
The East County Govenunent Center site is located in an area undergoing rapid change, with
large-scale business park, retail and residential developrnent occurring during the past five years
(see Figure 4.4).
· Single-family and multi-family residential developrnent has occurred to the east and
southeast, and industriallbusiness park uses are located to the southwest.
· Commercial retail and office development is located about I mile south near the 1-580
freeway.
· The U.S. Army's Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and a federal correctional
institution are located to the immediate west and northwest.
· The County owns approximately 335 acres of land to the north and east, on which exist
the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center (County Jail) and related Sheriffs Office uses and
large tracts of vacant land.
· Also to the north, the U.S. Air Force operates a microwave station, the Dublin-San
Ramon Services District operates water storage reservoir tanks, East Bay Regional Park
District owns the Tassajara Creek Regional Park, and private land owners control open
hillside and flatland grazing, agricultural and rural residential land.
This alternative site is located at the northern tenninus of Hacienda Drive and generally bounded
by Gleason Drive, Arnold Road, Broder Blvd., and Madigan Avenue. The site is part of the
County's Santa Rita land holdings, which were annexed to the City of Dublin in the early-1990s
for the purpose of facilitating public and private development. It represents the largest remaining
buildable parcel of land in the immediate area. Another large remainder parcel owned by the
County (about 23.5 acres) is located along Tassajara Creek and Gleason Blvd.
The main use of the County's land holdings is Santa Rita Jail, an adult detention facility with a
capacity of3,800 men and women, which was constructed in the late 1980s to replace the old
Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center that had occupied other lands to the southeast. The Sheriffs
Department also operates the Office of Emergency Services and a regional training facility for
various law enforcernent agencies north and east of the jail, including an academy, shooting
range, and driving track. A County fire station (which serves the City of Dublin under contract)
is also located north of the jail, and will relocate to a new building on the eastern end of the site
in the next year or so. County land to the east is presently developed with the Heavy Equipment
Repair Building (HERB), California Highway Patrol (CHP), East County Anirnal Control
Services, and the SPCA.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 4-7
I
~~ I
~i::
t.:IJJ
t~
:E I
Æ S'~
j1j
~£
u ..
ê3.E I
0 @f
'¡¡j
"¡::
.1:!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
..... I
en
I-c
0;
.....
¡::
0;
u I
'Eþ
0; .....
ê .§ I
I-c .....
0;>
;;:. 0;
O,..t::
ü.....
þ.S I
"1!4 ¡:: CI)
. ::s 0;
"1!4 0 CI)
2::U::J
Eb....."O I
CI) ¡::
.... co co
~~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Site 15A
Site 15A is part of the County of Alameda's Santa Rita land holdings that were annexed to the
City of Dublin in the early-1990's for the purpose of facilitating public and private development.
Site 15A is located south of Central Parkway, east of Arnold Road, north of Dublin Boulevard
and west of the new Sybase Corporation Headquarters Complex. It encornpasses approximately
11.5 net acres ofland. The site is currently vacant, relatively flat and contains native and
introduced species of grasses but no trees (see Figure 4.5).
Property north and east of Site 15A was recently sold by the County and developed with private
office complexes, including Microdental and Sybase. Other property in the vicinity is vacant and
is still owned by the County of Alameda. To the south is property known as Site 16A and 16B,
and immediately west of Site 15A is property known as Site F. The U.S. Anny's Parks Reserve
Forces Training Area is located further west and northwest ofthe site across Arnold Road and
Site F.
POLICy/REGULATORY SETTING
Set forth below is an analysis of whether the proposed facilities are consistent with local general
plan, zoning and related policies. As a political subdivision ofthe State, the County is immune
from local regulations. This immunity extends to local land use, zoning and building regulations.
Moreover, Government Code Sections 53090-53096, which generally requires local agencies to
comply with the land use and building regulations of the county or city in which their territory is
located, specifically excludes counties from this requirement. Therefore, the County is not
required to comply with land use, zoning and building requirements of any ofthe local
jurisdictions in which the project may be located, including cities and the County itself.
Consequently, ifthe proposed project is detennined to be inconsistent with local land use, zoning
or building requirements, such inconsistency generally would not prevent implementation of the
project. Nonetheless, the County has, by agreement, recognized certain local land use principles
in the Dublin area as further discussed below.
No Action I No Project
No changes in use would occur at either the existing Juvenile Hall site or the existing Gale-
Shenone Courthouse. The No ActionINo Project Alternative includes the continued operation of
two existing uses located on sites appropriately designated and zoned for such use. The projects
are currently in confonnance with applicable land use regulations.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 4-9
¡;.'"
o ~
~¡:
~~
:E "5
S'~
j<:::
·0
r.i.læ
~ ..
;::>.9
@t
.~
OJ
<C
.b
:§
;;
~~
..... t::
II) 2 .;;;
~ëí5~
~.s ~
6h:Õ ""0
."" 8 t::
~ co
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Existing San Leandro Property
Castro Valley Plan
The Existing San Leandro Property is located in an unincorporated area under the jurisdiction of
Alameda County, with principal land use policy direction as established in the Castro Valley
Plan (Alameda County 1985). The Castro Valley Plan is intended to serve as a general policy
guide for public and private decisions affecting the development of the Castro Valley area, and is
a portion of the County's general plan. The Castro Valley Plan serves to:
· establish a comprehensive and long tenn framework necessary for orderly and
coordinated growth,
· express the community's and the County's goals for future development in Castro Valley,
and
· provide a common foundation for the many programs and instruments which more
directly undetwrite and regulate changes in Castro Valley, including capital improvement
programs as well as zoning, subdivision and building regulations.
The Castro Valley Plan is a comprehensive statement of the County of Alameda's conservation
and development policy for the Castro Valley Planning Area. It includes goals, objectives,
principles and implementation recommendations on land use, housing, open space, parks and
recreation, safety and seismic safety, conservation of resources, noise and circulation. As such, it
addresses all issues required by law to be included in elements of a General Plan that pertain to
the Planning Area.
The Castro Valley Plan guides the location of urban development within the Castro Valley
Planning Area as follows.
Policy 1.1
All urban development in the Castro Valley Planning Area shall be located within the
Castro Valley Urban Area. The Urban Area includes existing urbanized areas, sites
adjoining the existing urbanized areas for which development approval has been granted
by the County, and sites located between existing urban areas and approved
developments. Urban development outside the defined Castro Valley Urban area should
not be permitted except where it is required to meet clearly demonstrated, compelling
social, economic and/or environmental objectives and where no alternative locations are
available.
The Castro Valley Plan designates the hillside open space area as the principal scenic resources
of the Castro Valley Planning Area. The Castro Valley Plan asserts that:
The scenic value of the hill open space area is best preserved by retaining appropriate
and compatible uses through public purchase and zoning.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-11
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Consistency Analysis. The Castro Valley Plan does not designate a specific land use for the site
because the site is located outside of the urban area. Land use designations for properties within
the vicinity ofthe site are shown in Figure 4.6. The Existing San Leandro site is outside ofthe
designated Urban Area ofthe Castro Valley Plan, but is adjacent to the existing Juvenile Rall
Facility located within an existing urbanized area. The Existing San Leandro alternative would
be consistent with Policy 1.1 because this alternative would provide for additional juvenile
justice facilities to meet existing and projected needs and thus, meet a clearly defined and
compelling social objective. Therefore, this alternative would be consistent with County urban
development policy. In addition, as described in the "PolicylRegulatory Setting", under State law
the County is not bound by local regulations; it is allowed to develop County-owned land for
public and/or government use. '
Scenic Route
The Alameda County General Plan, Scenic Route Element includes the following policies
pertinent to new development located within a designated scenic route:
Policy
Architectural and site design review by the appropriate local jurisdiction should be
provided for each site and for all new or altered structures so that particular
consideration will be given to appearances that will enhance scenic qualities from the
scenic routes. Originality in landscape and construction design should be encouraged.
Such designs should be in keeping with cityscape and natural skyline and reflect the
density, movement and activities of the population.
Policy
Landscaping should be designed and maintained in scenic route corridors to provide
added visual interest, to frame scenic views and to screen unsightly views.
Policy
Public agencies and private individuals having control of large holdings should be
encouraged to protect and enhance natural resources within their properties.
Cooperation should also be sought with owners of smaller lots and with community
improvement and conservation groups.
Consistency Analysis. New development at the Existing San Leandro Property would be subject
to review by the General Services Agency, which will consider the requirements ofthe Scenic
Route Element as part of the design-build contract that would be let to a contractor. The primary
scenic route corridor in the vicinity of the San Leandro Alternative site extends up to 1,000 feet
from the roadway, including Interstate 580 and Fainnont Drive. The proposed development area
is located at least 1,200 feet from Interstate 580. This distance as well as the intervening
landscaping and existing development at the lower portions of the site will provide substantial
screening forthe new facility. The Project would be developed within a few hundred feet of
Fainnont Drive, and would be partially visible from that roadway, but landscaping and
topographic differences between the roadway and the facility would provide substantial
screening. Therefore, development of the proposed project at the San Leandro Site would be
consistent with the County's Scenic Corridor policies.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ]! ]!
E
E Q)
Q) '0
ãi '0 ë¡¡
., ë¡¡ Q)
c::: a:
]! Q) Q)
'0 a: Þ
I E ë¡¡ III Þ ë¡¡
Q) Q) Q) Q) c:::
-0 a: In < .¡¡¡ Q)
"m c::: c:::
Þ ::> q) 0 c( Q) Q
a: .¡¡¡ '0 c::: ~ C c i ~
þ c::: ~ 8 I!! 1&1 E
Q) ~
"¡¡¡ c ::¡¡ 0 ;:, "C
I ê Q) :¡:; c:::
c::: 0 a: 0> III
Q) E Q) .J:J
C ;:, '0 ;:, .2 "!.! C ::;; .¡¡¡ :¡
:¡¡ Q)
ï= :¡:; "¡:: :c :c IL ~ '0 .J:J
.3 Q) 8 Q) ;:, ;:, 0 c: ;:,
::;; a: n. n. ~ ::> (/)
I a: cc ;::J c( II: a. z II: Q II:
0 0 :E 0 a. ::::J c Z C
..J :E 0 II: 0 ~ = ..J
0 (/)
I
¡.,Þ§¡c"
6 ¡:; - <II
~ g ~ ~
c¡U...",
I m Q.I_
"'''''C§ <0
W ( ) .....
;2 E @
1'><"'0<1:
~:;:~~
....:¡ ~.. ; '0
Ilji:~æ
u ¡;:"
~ >-. ra 0
;:JÆtr.lõ
O""'õ..:
"'~ Þ~
p"- '"
.l::U"¡:
'" <II
ð <I:
<J)
~
o
:p
fa
~
.....
.2:1 æ
èí50
e ã
~""d¡S:;
~ã-
Q,I OJ fa
'"' ~ !¡:j
g, ~ ß
..... fa r.,
~U':)V
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Alameda County Zoning
Alameda County zoned the Existing San Leandro Property site as "A", Agricultural, and "PD,"
Planned Development (see Figure 4.7). The A District generally allows low-intensity residential
and commercial uses associated with primarily agricultural and open space uses. The zone does
not specifically allow the construction and operation of public facilities. The PD District is
defined for a specific parcel of land according to ordinance as adopted by the Board of
Supervisors for site-specific development. Each PD District includes a land use plan and
provisions of reclassification that identify the allowed uses and procedures for implementing that
development, which may include design review. A p'Ç>rtion of the Juvenile Hall site was zoned
PD at the request ofthe General Services Agency to provide for on-going operation of the
existing use as part ofa bond financing and insurance program in 1995. No provisions of
reclassification were attached to that action.
Consistency Analysis. New development on the Existing San Leandro Property alternative site
would involve a public/government land use, which is not excluded in either the A or PD zoning
districts. In addition, as described in the "Policy/Regulatory Setting", under State law the County
is not bound by local regulations; it is allowed to develop County-owned land for public and/or
government use.
City of San Leandro General Plan
Although the Existing San Leandro Property is located outside of any city's jurisdiction, it is
located near the Hillcrest Knolls neighborhood, just outside of San Leandro's city limits. This
area is one of several areas situated east and southeast of the City of San Leandro -- sometimes
referred to as unincorporated San Leandro-- that are in unincorporated areas but within the City's
"sphere of influence". The Sphere ofInfluence is defined by the California Government Code as
the "probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area" of a city and is designated by a state
agency known as a local agency fonnation commission (LAFCO). Although cities are
empowered to consider these areas in their general plans, a city does not have authority to
regulate a property, and a city's general plan, zoning and other policies do not apply to that
property, unless and until it has been annexed to the boundaries of that city.
As pennitted by State law, the land use element of the City of San Leandro's general plan
identifies the uses pennitted on certain property located outside its boundaries, including the
Existing San Leandro Property. According to this element, the Existing San Leandro Property is
located within the County Hospital Planning Area of unincorporated San Leandro, and is
identified as "Public" land use in the City's diagram of unincorporated area land uses.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ CiS ~
'~"2 æ "E
)(U.~ ~ ~
a: -!,., E i:š æ g-
~ð~8w~ ãi(l»
:::E .-
~ ~ ;m :g oct,~ I!! 0
¡¡¡¡¡¡æ::J~¡:§-g
~~~ ~ 15g>·§,~
a:a:a:8~Cñ<ã:
rnC:::ECo>z"'"cCC
II: II: II: Co> Ja: 11.
o
Co>
t'o: ~~
o IJJ eI: W
bO E::E i::
ð ~ bö~
~ g..e fa
:E 0 ~ "~
"" 00 ..:
§'~ ~ ~
~ tI3 ~"O
r.ij~j~
U þ¡;:..
p::: ~ (13 .8
;:)::;::Itr.)O
@ð f
" '¡;;
11 '~
E ~
"
:;;:
rJJ
¡:;
o
:c
~ ca
êñ6b
o .....
"- ~ ~
~t=O
... ~ CO
- ..... ¡:;
~~ '2
.... ~ 0
~cnN
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Consistency Analysis: New development on the Existing San Leandro Property site would
involve a public/government type of land use, which is pennitted on County-owned land.
Moreover, the Existing San Leandro Property is not within San Leandro's jurisdiction and the
requirements of its general plan do not apply to this property. Nonetheless, although the
County's development of this alternative is not governed by the City of San Leandro's General
Plan, the Existing San Leandro Property alternative would be consistent with the City's General
Plan Land Use Element because the Plan allows public/quasi-public uses on this property.
Glenn Dyer Detention Center
Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element
The Glenn Dyer Detention Center is located within the City of Oakland in an area designated in
the Oakland General Plan as the "Downtown Showcase District" (LUTE, page 6), as shown on
Figure 4.8. This is one of five districts within the City intended to become centers of
transfonnation as Oakland moves into the 21 st century, where activities will link Oakland with
the region, the nation and the Pacific Rim. The Glenn Dyer Detention Center is not within any
of the other Downtown sub-districts. However, the facility is adjacent to the southern edge of the
Old Oakland sub-district.
The LUTE also identifies the area around the Glenn Dyer Detention Center as a "grow and
change" area. Growth and change areas emphasize significant changes in density, activity, or use
which are consistent with the Land Use Diagram, Transportation Diagram, and the Policy
Framework and other Elements of the General Plan. Growth and change areas include areas with
many parcels or, in some cases, larger sites that can accommodate significant increases in
intensity. Growth and change can be achieved through a number of strategies including fe-use of
existing built space, construction on vacant infill sites or site in short-tenn use such as surface
parking lots, additions to built space to expand floor area, or replacement of existing structures
with new ones.
The following General Plan objective and policies from the LUTE relate to the proposed use of
the Glenn Dyer Detention Center:
Objective D6: Eliminate blight caused by underutilized properties.
Policy D6.2: Reusing Vacant or Underutžlized Buildings. Existing vacant or underutilized buildings
should be reused. Repair and rehabilitation, particularly of historic or architecturally
significant structures, should be strongly encouraged. However, where reuse is not
economically feasible, demolWon and other measures should be considered. (Landmark
and Preservation District properties must follow Policy 2.4 of the Historic Preservation
Element.)
Policy D 12.7: Diversifying Building Uses. Diversification of the uses of CŽvic and institutional
buildings should be encouraged.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
+ .¡. ~, ¡ ¡.
~ I I I
8
5:?
I
+-
0;
Q)
IL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
+ 1" 1" ;- 1" T +
t t I I ¡ I I
I
.. ... T + .¡. +
+ 1" T t T
.¡. .¡. .¡. I
·''/'$4
> > >~It~,
.¡. .¡. + .¡. .¡. .¡. .¡.
+ + + + + +
I
ë
«
c:
'"
~ 5: 6 ã:
'E::¡ 'ã ~
<D"C 1;: '"
"C <D 0 <D::>
ëñ)( a. ~i)
æ ~"iij õ ê Q. I!,J
<D ~ ~ ¡ I::e ø ~
Q. 'E~i:S c:e
~ ~ ~ g ~ .'" ~ ~
c: <D ~ ü ê x ~ c: ~
g~~~~~-g§~5!
~ ~ D E ~ <D '" ~ ~ ::¡
I ~ ß E 'E i ~ ~ ~ I
~ 5 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ c: ~ ~
H ¡.-¡ ~.: þ()¡ Vì ¡¡¡¡J IJ1 [J] fJ D
bdL:JG~lLilliilt2J LJ
I ¡ .¡. ¡ .¡. I
+++++++
I
t 1" T' ., I' I ;-
.¡. .¡. .¡. .¡. .¡. .¡.
t' 1" 'I" 1" '. 1" T
I I ¡ ! I I I
+ ;- ... 1" T .¡.
I j ! f t !
+ + .¡. .¡. .¡. .¡. .¡.
+"1"1"++"1"+
I . '. '! I I
.¡. .¡. oj. .¡. .¡. .¡.
,. T t" ;- ;- ... 'I
. ·1 I '.' . ..
I
I
+"" "',f:'-
. ,
+ .. + + + + +
;- 1" T T T ;-
t- I I ! ! I
.¡. + .¡. + .¡. ;- + + .¡.
T T ,. T ;- ! I t I ;-
.¡. .¡. + .. .¡. .¡. ..¡. .¡. .¡.
T++++++++
.¡. + .¡. .¡. -I- .¡. + + .¡.
++"1"++++"1"+
~ ¡ I ¡ I ¡ .¡ +
.¡. .¡. .¡. .¡. .¡. + .¡. .¡.
T .,. T ;- ;- 'I" I' .
+ + + + ;- ;- + ;-
! ;- t T ;- ;- 'I" '.
I
I
~~
OJ_
... '"
" !i::
~ ß
;E\,J
~""
E c
'" '"
-';:;2
<iiQ
u"'"
~þ
o .~
"'u
§
.....
.....
!13
~
.....
00
Q) Q)
.~ 0
C/) ¡::
QO~,$
>,D...
~O""æ
~ ê ~
6b~ ß
~CjCj
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Policy N 1
Institutional uses are among the most visible activities in the City and can be sources of
community pride, high quality design and upkeep/maintenance should be encouraged.
The facilities should be designed and operated in a manner that is sensitive to
surrounding residential and other uses.
Consistency Analysis. Development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at the Glenn Dyer
Detention Center site would be consistent with the objective and policy to eliminate
underutilized properties and with the policy encouraging diversification of uses.
Because the Alameda County Sheriff has discontinued use of this site as an adult jail, a new use
for this building or its site is needed so that the site will not remain vacant or underutilized. A
new Juvenile Justice Facility at the site would provide the type of diverse civic and institutional
uses encouraged under the LUTE. The project would be subject to internal County design
review as part of the design-build contract to assure a high quality design that is sensitive to the
surrounding community.
City of Oakland, CBD Designation
The Glenn Dyer Detention Center site is located in an area designated under the City of Oakland
General Plan as Central Business District (CBD). The Central Business District classification
allows "an exciting mix of urban residential living combined with a wide range of business
operations. The Downtown should be the focus of high density and intensity activities that can
take advantage of the transportation inftastructures and communications network." The CBD
classification is intended to encourage, support, and enhance the downtown area as a high
density, mixed-use urban center of regional importance, and a primary hub for business,
communications, office, government, high technology, retail, entertaimnent, and transportation in
Northern California. The CBD classification includes a mix of large-scale offices, commercial,
urban (high-rise) residential, institutional, open space, cultural, educational, arts, entertaimnent,
service, community facilities, and visitor uses.
Consistency Analysis. A new Juvenile Justice Facility located at the Glenn Dyer Detention
Center site would be consistent with the CBD policies as a type of land use that would take
advantage of the existing transportation and communications network. It would also be
consistent with the intended mix of land uses that include government uses.
City of Oakland Zoning
The Glenn Dyer Detention Center site is located in an area zoned C-40 (Community
Thoroughfare Commercial Zone). Within the C-40 zoning district, "extensive impact civic
activities" are pennitted if the Planning Commission approves a conditional use pennit. The
Project would qualify as a Major Conditional Use Permit due to the size ofthe site and proposed
additional building square footage, and the type of proposed use. See Figure 4.9 for zoning
designations at the site and vicinity.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IsI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
In
1;;
of
o
iii
"Q iii
G,) E
E Q)
E "0
o "~ iii ãi "~
c;, i:: "ü 1~ c:
<;; Q) m Q)
'-wEE
§ g¡ IS IS
t5 ~ ü ü
f ~ ~ ð
~iii~ëã
E ~ ~ ~
8 ~ ô ~
w ... N
Ó Ó Ó
1:
~ ñi
1:: "<;;
~ ~ "~ 6 q¡
g¡ .E ~ 'ã ~
æ ñi <;; i::
mc Q)<;;
J;;<;;'¡¡;rn~
.S?> Q) Q) I!! -.::
:I: C) Q a. ;:)
In 0 0 <It .... co
'9 OP ? rh rh rh
o a: ::Iii
~~&
bO:E ~
~ b.C;::;
[, _5 fJ)
,- ..-
!¡¡o "~
;EN:;:;
1>." -<
E .. u
j~~
.;,¡Ò~
U'õ ..
~ þ~
~Of
"iii
"¡::
<
rJ)
¡:;
o
'.¡:J
$ CO
êí5~
.....
I-< rJ)
0'1 Q) Q)
. >-0
~ 0 be)
~ ß .§
.......... 0
~üN
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Although the County would not be required to seek a condition use pennit from the City of
Oakland for this facility, the alternative would be consistent with the substantive requirements of
its current zoning. Moreover, the surrounding uses are all high intensity activities governed by
the C-40, C-45 (Community Shopping Commercial), C-51 (Central Business Service
Commercial), C-52 (Old Oakland Commercial), and R-80 (High-Rise Apartment Residential)
zoning districts. The S-4 Design Review Combining District is intended to create, preserve, and
enhance the visual hannony and attractiveness of areas which require special treatment and the
consideration of relationships between facilities. The S- 7 Design Review (Preservation
Combining Zone) provides for the preservation of existing structures and regulates the
construction, alteration, demolition and removal of buildings in the Old Oakland district,
adjacent to the east ofthe site.
Pardee/Swan Site
The Public Trust Doctrine
The County's ability to use the Pardee/Swan site as a juvenile justice facility may be limited by
the public trust doctrine. In general, publicly owned submerged lands and tidelands (defined as
the lands lying between the lines designating the mean high tide and mean low tide) are held by
the State in trust for the benefit of the general public. Under the 'public trust doctrine,' the uses of
such lands are limited to navigation, commerce, fisheries, ecological preservation, and recreation,
and ancillary uses directly related to the trust uses.
The State Lands Commission is the state agency with jurisdiction over public trust lands. The
Commission was established in 1938, with authority detailed in Division 6 of the California
Public Resources Code. Lands held in trust by the Commission may be conveyed to local
govenunents and public agencies. Such conveyances typically are effected by a 'grant-in-trust'
by the Commission to the local agency. The Port of Oakland holds numerous parcels of land
under various statutory grants fÌ'om the Commission, each one providing for different uses and
purposes. In such instances, unless otherwise specified by the applicable grant-in-trust, local
agencies such as the Port take such lands rrom the Commission as trustees, and subject to the
public trust doctrine's use limitations.
In their proper administration and management of trust lands, the Commission and local trustee
agencies may allow submerged lands or tidelands to be filled or otherwise cut off from water
access. This often occurs in the context of harbor or marina developments. In such cases, the
filled or severed lands nonnally remain subject to the public trust. However, tidelands that have
been filled or otherwise cut off fÌ'om water access may be removed from the trust if the
Legislature or the State Lands Commission in some circumstances, acting on behalf of the
Legislature, specifically finds and detennines that the lands are no longer useful for trust
purposes, in which case the fonner trust lands may be put to non-trust uses.
To the extent that a local agency generates revenues from the sale or lease of trust properties,
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
those revenues generally must be used only for authorized public trust purposes. In fact, such
revenues typically are considered to be "impressed" with the trust, and any land purchased with
such revenues (even if they are not tidelands or submerged lands) are themselves subject to the
public trust. In such instances, however, the public agency that owns that property may sell it for
non-trust uses without legislative approval, provided the agency receives at least fair market
value for the property, and further provided that the consideration for that sale (whether cash
proceeds or exchange property) is then subject to trust restrictions.
Consistency Analysis. The Pardee/Swan site does not contain presently submerged lands or
tidelands. According to staff counsel for the Port, however, the site was purchased at least in part
with funds that are subject to public trust restrictions (rather than through a grant-in-trust from
the State). Thus, the use ofthe Pardee/Swan site probably is limited by the public trust doctrine
at this time.
As noted above, the uses of public trust lands are generally limited to navigation, commerce,
fisheries, ecological preservation, and recreation, and ancillary uses directly related to the trust
uses. Examples of "related activities" that have been permitted on public trust lands include
cargo handling, ship and airplane building and repair, commercial fishing, cargo industry
services, passenger services, parking, hotels, and ancillary and support services to such uses.
Development of a juvenile justice facility may not come within this range of permissible uses, or
be "directly related" to any ofthese types ofuses.
Ifpublic trust restrictions do prevent use of the site as a juvenile justice facility, then one way of
removing these restrictions is through legislative relief, pursuant to which the Legislature would
find that the site is no longer necessary or useful for public trust purposes. If, however, the
property is subject to trust restrictions only because it was purchased with trust assets, then the
Port may convey the property free ofthe trust (provided it receives adequate compensation)
under the theory that the consideration for that transfer will then be subject to the public trust.
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission: San Francisco Bay Plan
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) is a state agency
that generally performs functions equivalent to those performed by the California Coastal
Commission in those portions of coastal California adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. The
McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 establishes BCDC to ". . . prepare an enforceable plan to guide the
future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline." The outcome of that
legislation, The San Francisco Bay Plan (the "Bay Plan"), was adopted by BCDC in 1968, and
has been amended several times, most recently in April 2001 (BCDC 1968). The Bay Plan
guides BCDC in its protection of the Bay and in its exercise of permit authority over
development adjacent to the Bay.
The Bay Plan defines five special land use designations called "priority uses" that are appropriate
to be located at specific limited shoreline sites. The priority use designations are ports, water-
related industry, airports, wildlife refuges, and water-related recreation. Therefore, if a site is
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-21
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
designated a priority use area in the Bay Plan, it is reserved for that use. In this manner, BCDC
exerts limited land use authority in priority use areas through the Bay Plan and its regulatory
program. In addition to these priority use areas under BCDC limited land use authority, all tidal
areas of San Francisco Bay are subject to the BCDC regulatory program, and BCDC reviews and
issues separate permits for filling, for dredging, and for shoreline development. Shoreline
development is regulated by BCDC through its jurisdiction over a continuous 100-foot-wide
"shoreline band" along the edge ofthe entire San Francisco Bay and related waters; the shoreline
band extends 100 feet inland from the line of highest tidal action.
Consistency Analysis. The Pardee/Swan Site is not designated for any priority uses. Alameda
County has determined that any new development fot a Juvenile Justice Facility at the
Pardee/Swan site would maintain a 100-foot setback frorn the existing property line. This
property line abuts the Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline trail, which is approximately
50 feet in width. The shoreline edge for this trail alignment starts at the high tide line.
Therefore, new development at this site would be at a minimum of 150 feet from the high tide
line and would not be within BCDC jurisdiction. Hence, no land use or design review by BCDC
is required. Moreover, even if development were within the 100-ft BCDC setback, the existing
Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline trail arguably would satisfy any BCDC requirement
for public access.
Airport land Use Commission, Airport Land Use Policy Plan
The Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) Airport Land Use Policy Plan (ALUPP, adopted
in 1986) provides guidelines to the ALUC for its review of proposed local agency actions (such
as project approvals), to determine whether these actions are compatible with current and
anticipated airport operations. In general, the most pressing ALUC concerns and important
policies of the ALUPP regard physical obstacles to air navigation, exposure of persons on the
ground to accidents, hazards to flight (smoke, glare, electrical interference, etc.), and noise.
Projects located within the General Referral Area of the ALUPP and any redevelopment activity
that includes elements 100 feet in height or more above grade are referred to the ALUC for a
determination of consistency with the ALUPP.
Consistency Analysis. The Pardee/Swan Site is located with the ALUC General Referral Area,
and the development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility and airport parking lot would need to be
referred to the ALUC for consistency determination. Both buildings are anticipated to be 50 feet
or less in height. A preliminary review by ALUC staff shows that, given the distance
(approximately 0.5 miles) from the western edge of the site to the nearest runway (at North
Field), the allowable building height on the site would be approximately 85 feet. The proposed
buildings are within this height limit, although construction equiprnent may exceed it. A more
thorough administrative review by the ALUC is recommended. To conform to Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) requirements, if the ALUC review finds that either the buildings or the
construction equipment will exceed the height restrictions, a FAA 7460 study will be required.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 4-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Typically, construction equipment such as cranes that exceed regulated height limits near an
airport is required to be well lit at night.
Development of the new Juvenile Justice Facility would be required to be in confonnance with
federal and state standards as articulated in FAA Regulation, Part 77 and Part 150, in the ALUPP
and in any other applicable regulations and amendments. The project would be designed to
comply with the ALUPP and with the FAA 7460 study (if it is required).
Port of Oakland Business Park Regulations
Section 706(3) of the City of Oakland Charter vests in the Board of Port Commissioners
"complete and exclusive power over all the waterfront properties and lands adjacent thereto or
under water, structures thereon, and approaches thereto, storage facilities, and other utilities, and
all rights and interests belonging thereto, which are now or may hereafter be owned or possessed
by the City, including all salt or marsh or tidelands and structures thereon granted to the City in
trust by the State of California for the promotion and accommodation of commerce and
navigation." The Charter therefore vests the Port with final land use jurisdiction over that part of
the City defined as the 'Port Area', although projects are required to be detennined consistent
with the City General Plan.
The site is located within the Port of Oakland's Airport Business Park which is bounded by the
Nimitz Freeway on the northeast, Hegenberger Road on the southeast, Doolittle Drive on the
south, and on the north generally by the banks of East Creek Slough. The Port of Oakland's land
use ordinance governing this business park (Port Ordinance No 2832, September 1988) states
that "Each site [within the business park] shall be used for manufacturing, warehousing,
processing, laboratory, office, professional, or research and development activities. No other
uses will be pennitted that shall be construed by the Port as being objectionable in a garden-type
business park."
Consistency Analysis. Because the proposed use is not among those specifically identified for
the Airport Business Park, it would be consistent with the Port of Oakland's requirements only if
it were not deemed to be objectionable within a garden-type business park. The County believes
that, ifthis site were to be selected, the facility could be designed to satisfy this goa1. For
example, the Juvenile Justice Facility will undergo internal County design review as part ofthe
design-build process, and, as a part of that process, will be required to include landscaping and
architectural design appropriate for a business park setting. The conceptual site plan was
prepared with the intent of including the Port-required setbacks, laÌ1dscaping, and parking
arrangements, and would be similar in character to the office and distribution facilities that
presently exist in the vicinity. Moreover, there is nothing in the Port of Oakland's ordinances
that would specifically preclude a public facility within this area. Presumably the Port of
Oakland might conclude that the Juvenile Justice Facility is not appropriate for inclusion in this
area, in which case the use would arguably be inconsistent with its policies. Nonetheless, as
described above, the County would not be required to seek the Port's detennination on this
question due to its immunity from local land use regulation.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-23
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
City of Oakland, General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element
As described above, the City of Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element
(LUTE, 2000) provides the City's land use plans and policies for the entire City. According to
the LUTE, the Pardee/Swan Site is located within the Airport Gateway showcase district. This is
one of five districts within the City intended to become centers oftransfonnation as the City of
Oakland moves into the 2P' century, and where activities wil1link Oakland with the region, the
nation and the Pacific Rim (LUTE, page 7). The General Plan's vision is to capitalize on the
economic benefits of the airport and the jobs created by its growth, and to improve the Airport
Gateway into a regional attraction.
The Pardee/Swan site is also located within an area identified in the LUTE as a "Grow and
Change" area (LUTE, page 122). Grow and change areas emphasize significant changes in
density, activity, or use which are consistent with the Land Use Diagram, Transportation
Diagram, and the Policy Framework and other elements of the General Plan. Grow and change
areas include areas with many parcels or, in some cases, larger sites that can accommodate
significant increases in intensity. Growth and change can be achieved through a number of
strategies including re-use of existing built space, construction on vacant infill sites or sites in
short-tenn use such as surface parking lots, additions to built space to expand floor area, or
replacement of existing structures with new ones.
The area is designated for Business Mix, as shown on Figure 4.10.
The Pardee/Swan Site is also designated under the City of Oakland General Plan (LUTE) as
"Business Mix". The Business Mix classification is a flexible "economic development zone",
which strives to accommodate older industries and anticipate new technologies, including both
commercial and industrial operations. These areas contain a wide range of business and
business-serving activities. Different examples of development that would fall into this
classification include Edgewater Business Park, commercial or other market supported
development on the freeway frontage along 1-880, and portions of West Oakland that have
historically been very business intensive. The Business Mix classification is intended to create,
preserve and enhance areas of the City that are appropriate for a wide variety of business and
related commercial and industrial establishments. High impact industrial uses including those
that have hazardous materials on-site may be allowed provided they are adequately buffered from
residential areas. These areas may also accommodate a mix of businesses such as light
industrial, manufacturing, food processing, commercial, bioscience and biotechnology, research
and development, environmental technology, business and health services, air, truck and rail-
related transportation services, warehouse and distribution facilities, office, and other uses of
similar business character.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4·24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, ~ / - .... .... ... ........... .... .....
1/ ~~//~/~/ /,///// / /~/~/.\
.:~:;~~6:::~·.~·.:::~:~.:~~:.~:<;;~? ~~:~:/,,>; / ~ > ,,~~ ;::<;~/~:>;:Jffir:r:~
:::y:: ?\: ~::~;:~ :/¡:~ :/¡:~:: }.: ' :;: ~ç;::;/: ~:/; ~:~:: :~ ;: ;~;::; ;;~¡1mmmm¡W~'
,.', .... .... .... .... ..' /, / / / "....................(
o
8
o
0::
D
Z
<:::(
u.J
...J
Z
<:::(
+-
¡;¡
æ.
I
I
I
o
I
I
I
I
I
...............y..... .' ...{)i\lÌi'i'~' .,......................................... ................................
¡¡ ¡¡¡ H! ¡¡¡¡;?::·.·:..;..·:.·::.:.;:ì~~~:: ;': ~ j.~¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ ¡¡¡¡¡ ¡¡¡¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ ¡¡¡¡¡:: :::¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ ¡¡ H¡¡¡¡¡!¡ ¡¡¡! ¡¡¡¡!j.¡:'
¡:¡:¡¡~;:~: ~': ': ::;:~~?.: ;': '::. ~ ~'),f¡:~¡:¡ ¡¡¡¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡:. ::¡¡¡¡¡:¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ ¡¡:¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡~.
.¡.:Wrii:;¡~~~~~::::}::~~:~¡m!¡¡I¡I¡I¡¡!¡~~¡!¡¡¡¡I¡¡¡[~~~~¡!¡¡I¡I¡I¡I¡I¡I¡I¡I¡I¡I¡I¡lml¡!¡~:
........... ,...."'Çj(),..... ..... ..,., ..~.................j~k;:'( 'it. ..................................~r ~
li,..:.·:·;iiJi':'::'·:;·.:. ':>:>' .. ~¿¡::~¡:¡:¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡:¡:¡:~:::¡:!:~:»..W:¡¡¡¡¡....¡.. ¡¡¡:¡¡¡:¡:¡:¡¡¡¡¡r . #
¡!!:~r·:: ;:;; ~.:: ~::." '.~; . ~i¡1:~¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡:¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡~~:¡:¡¡¡.¡¡¡.¡:~~¡.¡¡~J.¡¡1¡¡· ¡:
I" .. . .¡=1'~......................................<{. ..' . .~$ ,;¡,
I":;;······ '¡¡iiii~~I.·.IA.!·····:···:
I ....<..:....:.....".... ....
. ..... ". .... '. . .'. '. ". '. :,:~:7)::,:,):\:,:::::::/>:"
'." .,.." ."..' .w. ..::.;::::;.(::::.:':.:':::.....
.<......::-.:.:.:-.....::-..,-.:.:.::::.:... ...
............:.,.".....":
...........-.,........, ..
:. ':...: ,'.::: .'.:: ::':.:: ::<;.:: ::..:: :::,:.:.:.:.:.:,:":""}\,,,,,.
. . '. . . . w. . . . '. . . . '. . . . '. . . . '. . " ~::,:::::::.::::;~:':
::. ,:,,~,/,:;,\;.:.;/ :'. : :..: 'w : :: :.. : :.~ .~./:<,.,."'. '
. ........ ':':':':,::::::::,:.,~,.,~., ~ " , ,. ,. ~,~,w:",·~·~"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b,g
g,1'-,
"'-
~ i
:Eü
!~
¡;,¡ò
u""
!'5f,
5ìû
§
.....
....
ra
~
J!:! . r;;
æ Q)
ãO
O~.§
~Cf)~
"I:t4...............
Q,I Q) ra
~ Q) [¡
::I ""0 s:::
.~ ~ l?Q)
~~
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Consistency Analysis. A new Juvenile Justice Facility would be classified under the Oakland
General Plan as an institutional use. The Oakland General Plan acknowledges that institutional
land uses can have significant local impacts on neighborhoods, and must be planned carefully.
The Institutional classification is intended to create, maintain, and enhance areas appropriate for
educational facilities, cultural and institutional uses, health services and medical as well as other
uses of similar character (LUTE, page 154). Institutional uses are not explicitly identified as the
types of land use to be accommodated within the Business Mix land use designation, and for
purposes ofthis analysis, this alternative is not considered to be consistent with this land use
designation. Although under ordinary circumstances a project proponent would apply for a
general plan change to accommodate a proposed use that is not otherwise allowed, in this case
such an application would be unnecessary because the County is not subject to the City of
Oakland's General Plan as described above.
City of Oakland, Land Use
The following Oakland General Plan policies relate to future developrnent at and in the vicinity
of the Pardee/Swan Site:
Policy W7.1 Developing Lands in the Vicinity of the Seaport/Airport. Outside the seaport and airport,
land should be developed with a variety of uses that benefit from the close proximity to
the seaport and airport and that enhance the unique characteristics of the seaport and
airport. These lands should be developed with uses which can buffer adjacent
neighborhoods from impacts related to such activities.
Policy W7.2: Encouraging Commercial and Industrial Uses. Other commercial and industrial uses
should be encouraged at appropriate locations (port-owned or not) where they can
provide economic opportunity to the community at large.
Consistency Analysis. The Oakland Airport parking garage included under this alternative would
be a use consistent with the land use intent expressed through these above policies. However, a
new Juvenile Justice Facility would neither benefit fi-om close proximity to the airport, enhance
the character of the airport area, nor provide substantial economic activity to the community at
large. Thus, for purposes ofthis analysis, this alternative is not considered to be consistent with
the land use intent for this area as expressed in the Oakland General Plan. However, as discussed
above this alternative is not required to comply with local zoning ordinances or other land use
policy. Although the development ofthis site as an institutional use is not consistent with the
current land use designation, these inconsistencies would not prevent implementation of this
alternative.
City of Oakland Zoning
The Pardee/Swan Site is zoned M-40, Heavy Industrial (see Figure 4.11). This district allows
Extensive Impact Civic activities and facilities subject to the granting of a conditional use permit.
No maximum height is prescribed.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cii
.~
011
E
E
Cii 0
.~ Ü
011 ~
E .~
E 011
8 en
-ci
~ .2
.e CD
-§¡ >.
~ I
~ ø
Ž
Cii
... Cii
Cñ .¡::
::> ;¡;
"C ::>
.5 "C
êä .5
ã; ~
.:: CIS
011 011
ø ::¡:
ëa
:=
.::
011
:2
If)
æ ~
~ .:;:
.~ æ
u.. §¡
011 ëñ
.:: 011
o 0
3 ; ~ ~ J;
I
+-
8
:=
ã)
If
o
¡:.0.<I>
o ~ ~
~..,~
tf 'S ~
~ 0 .~
;EN@
0."0 <t
e " u
(ljÆu::::
,.,¡ ï':i'ú
.;jo~
u'õ ..
ê§ b~
O'~ ..<::
",up-<
..
'I;
~
en
¡::
o
.E:! ''¡:
êñ t'tI
¡:: ~
t'tI .....
'!""I ~ æ
'"':!Cf)Q
~ - be
Q,I Q) ....
... Q) I-<
~ 'E 'S
.... t'tI 0
~~N
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Consistency Analysis. The proposed use would be consistent with the allowable land uses under
City of Oakland zoning for the Pardee/Swan Site. The Project would qualify as a Major
Conditional Use Pennit due to the size of the site and proposed additional building square
footage, and the type of proposed use. Although the County would not be required to seek a
condition use pennit from the City of Oakland for this facility, the alternative would be
consistent with the substantive requirements of its current zoning.
East County Government Center
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The East County Government Center site is located within the City of Dublin, and within the
planning area of the East Dublin Specific Plan / General Plan Amendment. The City of Dublin
first adopted the East Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) in 1993. The City then amended its General
Plan in 1994 to reflect additional expansion planned for the Eastern Dublin area. The City's
General Plan had previously identified a western and an eastern Extended Planning Area to
accommodate future growth, subject to General Plan amendments. The City has adopted
additional amendments to the EDSP. Figure 4.12 shows the current Land Use Diagram for the
EDSP at the East County Government Center site.
Annexation Agreements
In 1986, the City of Dublin and County of Alameda entered into an annexation agreement that
set forth certain agreements regarding the annexation of properties described as the Camp Parks
property, Tassajara Park property, and Santa Rita property. Much of that land was subsequently
annexed to the City, and the City prepared the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan described above to guide the development of these and other
properties.
In a subsequent agreement entered into in 1993, the County and City redefined the names and
boundaries of these lands, and agreed that the Santa Rita Property (about 613 acres south of
Gleason Drive) would be developed according to standard zoning, subdivision and pennit
requirements, as it was to be sold and developed in a proprietary manner. A second area was
defined as the County Center (about 214 acres just north of Gleason Road, and wrapping around
to the east and north of the Santa Rita jail and including the East County Government Center
site), and a third area was defined as the County Sheriff Property (about 124 acres north of
Broder Boulevard).
The 1993 Annexation Agreement aclmowledges that the City of Dublin lacks jurisdiction under
State law over any territory owned by the County in the areas covered by the annexation
agreements. Nonetheless, it contains provisions providing the City of Dublin a fonnal
opportunity to review projects proposed by the County in some of these areas, as follows:
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 4-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EAST COUNTY
GOVERNMENT SITE
.
~I
<:c,
~\
<:1
-"
~
'"
[:5'
j
.'Õ·~-..'....-.'¡'''...*¡-;¡-;;.·;¡'¡·''''''''.. ..
................................
................................
..................................
.................................
....................................
...................................
.....................................
....................................
......................................
......................................
........................................
.......................................
............................................
C
II:
<
II:
<
<
VI
VI
1!
t
1000
Feet
Figure 4.12 ~~" SOURCE: Proposed EDSP & GP Amendment
East County Government Center and Site 15A
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map and General Plan Map
II:
C
C
~
o
Z
II:
<
580
I
I
/
I
B'8"8
[]]]
~
~
General Commercial
Campus Office
Industrial Park/Office
High Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Single Family Residential
Public/Semi Public
Elementary School
City Park
o
CENTRAL:.~KWY
...... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:~:..:..:..:.:..::.»:..::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
SITE 15A ~...... ...... ................................. .........:..::..:....::::::.~:..::::...:::::::.
· · · · · · · rI · · · · · .:::::::::::::::::::::.*:::::::::::. ::::::::::::::::::::::~~::::::::::::~~:~:::::~::~:::::
............... .................,....... ., ..,.. ....,....., ........:1........................
.. , ...... ........ : :.: : : : : :.:-: : :.~ : : :.:.: : : :.:.: : : :.; :.: ...:........::::::::::::..::..::...::::.
......... .~. ............. .:::::::::::::: ~:~~~:~:~:~~::~i;i;}~::~1~~~~~¡,~~~:~:~~~~~¡;~j~~¡~¡~¡;¡~:. :::::::::::::::::~:::~:::::::::5:::::::::::::::::::::::
. ' . . . . . ... . . . . ................ . . . . . ..'" . ',," . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .....~........................
.. .. .... .... . . .. ::::::::::;:;:;;::::::-::::;:::;:::;::::;:;;;:::::;;::::'::::: ..::::......:...............:....::..:..:::
I . . . . . .. . . . . .. ............... ¡ . . . . . , . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .........\:.................
.. · · · · · rI · · · · · · · ....:::::::..:..::. ~'~~t;;j~~~f~~~,~'~,~~~~'m~~m~~~~~?~~~j~~t~\~~~~~~~~: .:::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::
I- · · · · .. · · - · · · · ............... :-:.;.:.;.:-:.;.;.;.:.;.;-:.;.:.:.;.:.,;.;.;.:.;.;.:.:.:.;.:-:.:. ..........::..:....,.:::..................:..
. . . . .. . . . . . . . .., BUN°BI:V.D'" :::::;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;,;:;:;,::;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:::; :.:.:.....:............:..........................
I
I
~
~
~
[]J
LSJ
o
EIJ
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Under Section 8 of the 1993 Annexation Agreement, any development or use by the County of
the so-called "Santa Rita properties" (which include Site l5A) "shall comply with" all city land
use laws, including the City's general plan, any applicable specific plan, and certain other
provisions ofthe City's municipal code. Moreover, this provision indicates that the City and the
County "may, but need not" enter into a development agreement (under CaL Gov't Code § 65864
et seq.) prior to any development of the Santa Rita properties.
By contrast, the 1993 Annexation Agreement provides the City of Dublin relatively little
additional authority over those lands identified as "County Center" (which includes the East
County Government Center site). Section 9(a) of that Agreement provides that any
governmental use of the County Center property shall be subject to a general plan consistency
review by the City in accordance with Cal. Gov't Code § 65402 but -- consistent with CaL Gov't
Code § 65402 -- does not require that the use comply with the City's general plan or other land
use laws. In fact, under Section 9(b) of the 1993 Annexation Agreement, land uses proposed for
the County Center property must be processed in accordance with the City's land use ordinances
(including its general plan) only if they are for uses other than county governmental uses. To
provide the City with an opportunity to review the design of a proposed governmental use on the
County Center property, the 1993 Annexation Agreement provides for county governmental uses
such as the Juvenile Justice Facility to be processed through the City's site development review
process, which the City has agreed to complete as expeditiously as possible (with the County
acting as CEQA lead agency).
Land Use Designations
The East County Government Center site encompasses approximately 40 acres of an 88.5-acre
strip of land described as the "County Center", and the EDSP and EDGPA designate this site for
Public/Semi-Public uses. The Public/Semi-Public land use designation provides for the
developrnent of governmental or institutional type uses. The designation generally applies to
parcels of land owned by a public entity or governmental agency. Sites designated as
Public/Semi-Public are not restricted to public uses, and can be approved for joint developrnent
(i.e., a private development on a publicly owned parcel ofland or a public/semi-public facility
built on a privately owned parcel). The original land use concept for the County Center was to
accommodate existing uses in the area and provide a compatible land use between the Santa Rita
Jail to the north and residential uses proposed to the south. A 1996 amendment to the Specific
Plan redefined the County Center to include only the largely undeveloped lands north of Gleason
Drive. This amendment reduced the County Center area to 88.5 acres, all of which are
designated for Public/Semi-Public use. Existing and other planned development occupies about
25 acres of these lands, a large remainder parcel of about 23.5 acres is located to the east of the
existing development, and the East County Government Center site (40 acres) comprises the
remainder of the County Center area.
Consistency Analysis. The East County Government Center Alternative includes a new Juvenile
Justice Facility, the development of a new East County Hall of Justice courthouse and associated
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
parking and related improvements. These government/institutional uses are consistent with the
Public/Semi-Public land use designation of the site under the EDSP.
Development Intensity
The EDSP and EDGP A establish a maximum floor-area ratio (FAR) of 0.50 and assume a mid-
range floor-area ratio of 0.25 for Public/Semi-Public land uses. Based on the assumed mid-range
FAR, approximately 964,000 square feet of development could occur within the 88.5-acre
County Center. Existing development within the County Center has occurred at a lower intensity
than allowed by the EDSP. Therefore, the East County Government Center site and/or other
remaining parcels within the County Center could be developed at more intensive densities (up
to the maximum FAR), without exceeding the rnid-range FAR for the entire property.
As shown below in Table 4.1, existing development within the County Center amounts to only
approximately 84,000 square feet. Subtracting this existing development from the mid-range
development potential assumed under the EDSP's allocated total, the remaining maxirnum
development potential within the County Center is about 880,000 square feet of new space.
Consistency Analysis. The East County Government Center Alternative includes development of
a new Juvenile Justice Facility of about 425,000 square feet and a Hall of Justice Facility with a
total gross square footage of approximately 195,000 square feet. This development would be at
an FAR of 0.36, which is higher than the mid-range, but lower than the maximum allowed
development intensity. This development would be consistent with the EDSP development
intensity assumptions.
Employment Projections
The EDSP used a multiplier factor to estimate the amount of employment that could be generated
by new development in Eastern Dublin. The EDSP applies an average of 590 square feet of
building floor area per employee for Public/Semi-Public land uses, which is similar to the factor
used for commercial and industrial development.2 Accordingly, the 88.5-acre County Center is
estimated to provide employment for about 1,634 persons at buildout of 964,000 square feet.
Existing employment on the County Center properties is about 70 persons.3 Therefore, the
remaining County Center property has a potential employment growth capacity of about 1,565
employees.
The EDSP uses a factor of 490 square feet per employee for office development.
20 at HERB, 20 at CHP, 10 at the Fire Station (plaIUled), 10 at the Animal Shelter, and 10 at SPCA.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-31
Chapter 4: land Use and Planning
Table 4.1: Land Use Development Potential ·"County Center" Property
Acreage of Sq. Feet of Floor - Area
Parcel Bldg. Ratio
(approx.) (approx.) (sq. ft. bldg./sq.
ft. land)
East Dublin Specific Plan
Estimated Development According to the 88.5 964,000 0.25 (avg.), or
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 0.50 (max.)
Existing Land Uses
California Highway Patrol 1.5 12,000 0.18
Heavy Equipment Repair Bldg. 11 35,000 0.07
East County Animal Shelter 3 15,500 0.12
SPCA 2 11,500 0.13
Fire Station (planned) 1 10,000 0.23
Sheriff's Training Facility 6 0 0.00
Total Existing Development 24.5 84,000 0.08
Remainder East of Existing Uses 24 0 0
Proposed Land Uses
Juvenile Justice Facility 20 425,000 0.49
East County Hall of Justice 20 195,000 0.22
Total Proposed Development 40 620,000 0.36
Total Existing and Proposed 88.5 704,000 0.18
Net Additional Development Potential -- 260,000 0.25 overall
average
(possible expansion, offices, other uses)
Source: Alameda County General Services Agency, 2001. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, 1998.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Consistency Analysis. According to the County's programming study for the East County
Government Center Alternative, the Juvenile Justice Facility would employ approximately 450
persons. As with other government operations in the area, not all of the employees would be
present at the same time. About 60 detention staff would be on a night shift. The Hall of Justice
facility would employ about 315 persons in 13 new courts. Development of the remainder of the
County Center property as government office use would probably be at a density more consistent
with typical office uses, estimated in the EDSP at about 490 square feet per employee. However,
due to the government center's likely use of public lobbies, large conference rooms, public
meeting rooms, display areas, archives, and other public functions, the development could lead to
a reduced employee count. Overall, employment is expected to be consistent with the EDSP
employee capacity projections, which, themselves, are not regulatory in nature.
land Use Development Goals and Policies
The EDSP states that the Land Use Map alone does not govern future development, but must be
used in conjunction with plan goals and policies. Appendix 5 of the EDSP provides a summary
of goals, policies, and action programs contained throughout the Plan. This summary includes
five applicable land use goals:
·
To establish an attractive and vital community that provides a balanced and fully
integrated range of residential, commercial, employment, recreational and social
opportunities.
·
To provide a diversity of housing opportunities that meets the social, economic and
physical needs of future residents.
·
To create a well-defined hierarchy of neighborhood, community, and regional
commercial areas, that serves the shopping, entertainment and service needs of Dublin
and the surrounding area.
·
To provide a stable and economically sound employment base for the City of Dublin,
which is diverse in character and responsive to the needs of the community.
To develop a comprehensive, integrated park and recreational open space system
designed to meet the diverse needs of the City of Dublin.
·
The EDSP also includes additional applicable land use policies and action programs, including:
Program 4A: Require applicants to demonstrate that proposed developments are in conformance with
the EDSP policies and land use program.
Policy 4-19: Encourage employment-generating uses which provide a broad range of job types and
wage/salary scales.
The EDSP also provides development and design guidelines necessary to create an attractive,
well-ordered pattern of development featuring pedestrian-scaled streets, thoughtfully designed
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-33
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 4·34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
buildings, and carefully integrated community facilities and public open space. The General
Plan requires that each EDSP project undergo design review based on the EDSP design
guidelines and development standards and any City guidelines.
Consistency Analysis. The East County Government Center Alternative would be integrated
with the remainder of the Eastern Dublin community as part of the governmental services sector.
The alternative meets local and regional needs, as it provides a Juvenile Justice Facility for all
County residents, a local Hall of Justice to serve the Tri- Valley communities of Dublin,
Pleasanton, Livermore and surrounding unincorporated areas, and could eventually provide other
office space for other government services in the Tri-Valley. This alternative would be
accessible from major roadways and transit service, ahd would be adjacent to other existing
government uses on the County property. The Juvenile Justice Facility would have enclosed
recreation areas for the detainees. The other facilities would have on-site open areas to provide
visual relief and outdoor activity areas for employees and visitors.
This alternative would provide for a broad range of job types, including administrative,
management, technical, legal, security, educational, service, maintenance, and similar
occupations. Wage scales would reflect the various job classifications, and would range from
entry-level to upper management. The Project would also provide construction jobs for several
years on each of the project components. Thus, this alternative would be consistent with the
EDSP goals and policies pertaining to land use development.
City of Dublin Zoning
The East County Government Center site is currently zoned "A" Agriculture. The "A" zoning
district allows community facilities such as places of worship, schools, public utilities, publicly-
owned storage garages, repair shops, or corporation yards, or other similar uses or structures.
Neighboring areas to the south were zoned Business Park Industrialprior to annexation, and
subsequently were rezoned Planned Development as projects were approved by the City. In
general, the A zone is considered a "placeholder" while private land remains vacant. The City
rezones private land to PD when a specific development plan is approved, setting forth the
development parameters and conditions of approval that attach to the project.
Consistency Analysis. The East County Government Center Alternative includes a new Juvenile
Justice Facility, the development of a new East County Hall of Justice courthouse and associated
parking and related improvements. Although these uses are not expressly identified in the "A"
zoning district, for purposes of this analysis, the proposed government! institutional uses would
be compatible with "community facilities" allowed under the "A" zoning district because the
proposed uses are operated as public facilities and serve a community/public purpose. Even if
they were not specifically allowable under the "A" zoning district, the City of Dublin considers
the EDSP as its primary policy document for this area and, as indicated above, the Juvenile
Justice Facility would be consistent with its requirernents (and those of the City's general plan).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Site Development Review
As noted above, the 1993 Annexation Agreement provides the City of Dublin an opportunity to
review the project in accordance with Chapter 8.104 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance,
which establishes its design review process. This process will allow the City to review the
project and provide comments to the County relative to various design and related issues
associated with the development of the site.
Site 15A
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Site 15A is also located within the City of Dublin, and within the planning area of the East
Dublin Specific Plan / General Plan Amendment, as more fully described above under the East
County Government Center site. Site 15A is located within the Hacienda Gateway planning sub-
area ofthe East Dublin Specific Plan as shown on Figure 4.12 (above).
Annexation Agreement
The 1986 annexation agreement described above also set forth certain understandings regarding
the annexation of other properties described as the Santa Rita property. Site ISA is located
within the Santa Rita property boundaries and has been subsequently annexed to the City. As
noted above, under the 1993 Annexation Agreement, the County and City agreed that all lands
within the Santa Rita Properties (including Site 15A) would be developed according to the City
of Dublin's general plan and other land use ordinances.
land Use Designations
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan designates Site lSA for High-Density Residential
uses with an average density of 25 dwelling units per acre. This land use designation would
permit up to approxirnately 300 residential units at this site.
Consistency Analysis. Development of Site lSA with a new East County Hall of Justice would
not be consistent with the land use designation for this property under the applicable General
Plan. The annexation agreement provides that development of Site ISA and surrounding
property within the Santa Rita Properties requires development consistent with City of Dublin
land use policy and regulations. The County Surplus Authority has requested :that the City of
Dublin amend the General Plan and EDSP designation from High-Density Residential to a land
use designation supporting campus-type office uses. If the General Plan and EDSP amendments
are approved, the proposed project would be consistent with the new land use designations.
Subarea land Use Planning Concept
Site ISA is part of the Hacienda Gateway subarea of the EDSP. This subarea includes the
southwest corner ofthe Specific Plan area in the vicinity of the I-S80/Hacienda Drive
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-35
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
interchange and the Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection. The land use concept for
this subarea encourages development of uses that will benefit from the subarea's location at two
major vehicular gateways to eastern Dublin and its adjacency to the future East Dublin BART
Station. A goal of the Specific Plan for this area is:
EDSP Goal: Because of the area's high visibility, land uses within the subarea should present a high
profile, quality image that establishes a positive impression on the thousands of travelers
who pass through the area daily. According to the Plan, in the area near the freeway,
emphasis should be placed on developing attractive, high quality development that will
contribute to the creation of a distinctive gateway image at the Hacienda Drive entrance
to eastern Dublin.
The EDSP states that office complexes are one type of use that fit this criteria, along with hotels,
restaurants and quality regional retail.
Consistency Analysis. Given the EDSP's allowance of office complexes as a use that fits the
criteria for high profile and quality image, development of a new East County Hall of Justice at
this site would not be inconsistent with this goal.
The County of Alameda has agreed to subject development of Site 15A to the City of Dublin's
land use regulations in areas outside of the County Center. The County has applied for a General
Plan amendment to change the land use designation of this site from High-Density Residential to
Campus Office. This designation allows attractive, campus-like settings for offices and other
non-retail commercial uses that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or
outdoor storage and operations. Ancillary uses that provide support services to businesses and
employees are allowed. The City of Dublin is currently considering the County's application for
this General Plan amendment.
The East County Hall of Justice is consistent with the proposed Campus Office land use
designation. The courthouses will not generate nuisances related emissions, noise, odors or
outdoor storage and operations. As shown on Figure 3.19, which shows a conceptual rendering
of the East County Hall of Justice, the proposed building is an attractive, campus-like building.
City of Dublin Zoning
Site 15A is zoned PD by the City of Dublin. When development for areas subject to EDSP is
proposed, the City requires a Stage 1 or 2 Planned Development application consistent with the
General Plan and EDSP's land use designation. In conjunction with the assessment of the
application, the City detennines the appropriate zoning for the proposed development. Given that
the proposed East County Hall of Justice would be a use consistent with the City's Campus
Office land use designation, it is expected that the City would consider the proposed project to be
consistent with the zoning for the site. However, as discussed above the County is not required
to comply with local zoning ordinances or other land use policy when it is implementing
governmental projects. Thus, although the development of this site as an institutional use could
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 4-36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
be found to be inconsistent with the current land use designation, these inconsistencies would not
prevent implementation of this alternative.
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
According to the CEQA Guidelines published by the State Office ofPI3IU1ing and Research, the
Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in:
. The physical division of an established community.
· A conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
· A conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan.
Additionally, according to the Program Guidance on Environmental Protection Requirements
published by the Federal Office of Justice Programs, the EIS-portion of this document must also:
. Evaluate how the change in land use will affect the surrounding land uses and those
within the project's area of environmental impact.
· Evaluate the consistency of the project with and its impact on the existing land use plan
and zoning restrictions for the area.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT 4.1:
The physical division of an established community
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Impact 4.1.1 No Action/No Project
NO IMP ACT. This alternative does not, and would not in the future physically divide the
surrounding community. The existing Alameda County Juvenile Hall facility is located along a
portion of Fainnont Drive that is currently undeveloped except for a nearby Alameda County
Animal Shelter and Sheriff's Office. The existing Gale/Shenone Hall of Justice is located in the
Hacienda Business Park, among similar office and retail buildings.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-37
Chapter 4: land Use and Planning
Impact 4.1.2
Existing San Leandro Property
NO IMPACT. Development of this site with a new Juvenile Justice Facility would not
physically divide the surrounding community. The facility would be built adjacent to, and
replace the existing Alameda County Juvenile Hall facility along a portion of Fainnont Drive
that is currently undeveloped except for a nearby Alameda County Animal Shelter and Sheriff s
Office. The neighboring development pattern is established as distinct residential neighborhoods
on the northwest and south, separated by the existing Fainnont Campus, and County uses and
public open space to the east and northeast. There would be no change in this development
pattern if a new Juvenile Justice Facility was constructed and the existing Juvenile Hall
demolished.
Impact 4.1.3 Glenn Dyer Detention Center
NO IMPACT. The Glenn Dyer Detention Center is located in downtown Oakland. This area has
been fully developed with intensive urban uses for over a century. The area has undergone
steady change in the past, and is currently characterized by a mix of uses. The largest
community separator is a major elevated rreeway immediately to the south of the site. The
Glenn Dyer Detention Center is owned by the County and was vacated in mid-2002 when the
County Sheriff relocated the iID11ates currently housed there. Access is provided on three sides
by existing improved roadways. The site does not provide nor interfere with important
pedestrian or vehicular access, and would not change the surrounding land uses that would have
continued connections along existing streets. The modification and reuse of the Glenn Dyer
Detention Center to house juvenile detainees under this alternative would not physically divide
the surrounding community.
Impact 4.1.4
Pardee/Swan Site
NO IMPACT. Development of the vacant Pardee/Swan Site under this alternative would not
physically divide any established community. There are no residential areas in the vicinity of this
site, and the site does not provide important pedestrian or vehicular access among sites in the
vicinity.
Impact 4.1.5 East County Government Center
NO IMPACT. The East County Government Center site is located in the Eastern Dublin
Planning Area. This area has been undergoing rapid change during the past five to ten years as
new development has occurred on property formerly owned by Alameda County. The area is
characterized by a mix of uses, with the U.S. Anny Reserve's Parks Reserve Forces Training
Center to the west, an industrial/business park to the southwest, and single-family residential to
the southeast. Other public agencies use land located to the north and immediate east. This site
is presently owned by the County of Alameda and is vacant. Access is provided on three sides
by existing improved roadways. The existing pattern of development and the planned land use
according to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes additional development of government
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-38
I
I
I
i
-I
I
I
ItI
I
I
I
I
'I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
uses at the site, and other private uses to the south. No connections among private uses would be
interfered with as a result of developing the site for a Juvenile Justice Facility or East County
Hall of Justice. Therefore, the development of this site as an East County Government Center
would not physically divide the surrounding community.
Impact 4.1.6 Site 15A
NO IMP ACT. Development of a new Hall of Justice at this site would not physically divide the
surrounding community. This alternative would be constructed adjacent to the existing Sybase
Corporation Headquarters office complex on a site that is zoned for Business Park use and is
planned for urban development of housing or offices. . Although the Hall of Justice would not be
a business park or residential use, it would function in a manner very similar to a business park.
This alternative site is provided with access on three sides from existing public roadways, which
would continue to provide connections among local uses. The community in the area is still
being established, as much of the surrounding land is vacant but planned for intensive
development. Development of an additional office-type of use on a single parcel of land would
not physically divide the community.
IMPACT 4.2:
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Impact 4.2.1 No Action/No Project
NO IMP ACT. This alternative would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan because there are no habitat conservation plans or natural
community conservation plans applicable to the area.
Impact 4.2.2
Existing San Leandro Property
NO IMP ACT. This alternative would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan because there are no habitat conservation plans or natural
community conservation plans applicable to the area.
Impact 4.2.3 Glenn Dyer Detention Center
NO IMPACT. The Glenn Dyer Detention Center is located in downtown Oakland, an extensively
developed area not covered by any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community
Conservation Plan. The use of the existing structure to accommodate juvenile detainees would
not create any conflicts with any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation
Plans, or the Critical Habitat and Recovery Plans for any listed species.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-39
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Impact 4.2.4
Pardee/Swan Site
NO IMPACT. Although the Pardee/Swan Site is adjacent to Arrowhead Marsh and the Port of
Oakland's wetland restoration area, it is not located in an area covered by any Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Development of this site
consistent with this alternative would not create any conflicts with a Habitat Conservation Plan
or Natural Community Conservation Plan, or the Critical Habitat and Recovery Plans for any
listed species.
Impact 4.2.5
East County Government Center
NO IMPACT. The East County Government Center site is not located in an area covered by any
Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. As described in Chapter 8,
Biologic Resources, the Project is located near designated Critical Habitat / Recovery Plan for
the San Joaquin kit fox. Development of this alternative would not create any conflicts with any
Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plans, or the Critical Habitat and
Recovery Plans for these listed species.
Impact 4.2.6
Site 15A
NO IMP ACT. This alternative would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan, as it is surrounded by urban or vacant previously disturbed land
that is not subject to any such plan.
IMPACT 4.3:
Conflict with applicable land use plans and policies
adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Impact 4.3.1 No Action/No Project
NO IMP ACT. No changes in use would occur at either the existing Juvenile Hall site or the
existing Gale-Shenone Courthouse. The No ActionINo Project Alternative includes the
continued operation of two existing uses located on sites appropriately designated and zoned for
such use. The projects are currently in confonnance with applicable land use regulations.
Impact 4.3.2 Existing San Leandro Property
NO IMPACT. The Existing San Leandro Property is not subject to local land use policies, and
thus there is no impact arising out of conflict with local policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-40
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
environmental effect. Project development at this site would result in a continuation and
expansion of existing uses.
Impact 4.3.3 Glenn Dyer Detention Center
NO IMPACT. The Glenn Dyer Detention Center is not subject to local land use policies, and
thus there is no impact arising out of conflict with local policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an
environmental effect, and would be a continuation and expansion of existing uses. In addition,
the proposed project is consistent with the City of Oakland's land use policies, as per its General
Plan (LUTE, CBD designation) and its zoning.
Impact 4.3.4
Pardee/Swan Site
NO IMPACT. The Pardee/Swan site is not subject to local land use policies, and thus there is no
impact arising out of conflict with local, City of Oakland policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an
environmental effect. Although the project in this location could conflict with public trust
restrictions apparently applicable to that site (see discussion beginning on page 4-20 above), such
conflict would not result in significant effects on the environment other than as described
elsewhere in this document.
Impact 4.3.5
East County Government Center
NO IMPACT. As described above, this site is not subject to the land use policies of the City of
Dublin and there is thus no impact due to conflicts with local applicable policies adopted to
avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. Although the City is pennitted to conduct a general
plan consistency review, the project in this location would comply with the City's general plan,
as well as other relevant documents including the East Dublin Specific Plan.
Impact 4.3.6 Site 15A
NO IMPACT. Under the 1993 Annexation Agreement between the County and the City of
Dublin, Site 15A is subject to City of Dublin's land use policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an
environmental effect. The proposed project is not consistent with the City's existing High
Density Residential land use designation. The County has applied to the City of Dublin for a
general plan amendment to change the land use designation from High Density Residential to
Campus Office. If the City amends its General Plan and adopts the Campus Office designation
for Site 15A, the proposed Project would be consistent with this designation. If the City of
Dublin does not amend its General Plan then the proposed Project would not be consistent with
the High Density Residential designation. However, such inconsistency would not result in
significant effects on the environment other than as described elsewhere in this document.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-41
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
IMPACT 4.4:
Change in land use effects on the surrounding land uses
and those uses within the area of environmental impact.
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
The Project incorporates numerous design features that are intended to address concerns
expressed during the scoping process by community members, particularly by those residents
and businesses in the vicinity of the East County Government Center site. These features are
described in more detail in the following discussion.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Study of Effects of Detention Facilities
A study of the Project's potential effect on property values was completed by Economic and
Planning Systems, Inc. (BPS), in Novernber 2002. The study acknowledges that homeowners
often protest the siting of correctional facilities out of the fear that the facilities will increase
crime rates, create blight and tarnish community character, ultimately causing a decline in
property values (or at least a slowing of price appreciation and unit sales). Primary concerns and
corresponding mitigating factors are discussed below.
Summary of Findings
Given that the largest investment that many households will make is their home, owners often
oppose new construction or expansion of correctional facilities, fearing that the facility will
tarnish community image, damage property values, create visual blight and noise and subject the
community to higher crime risk when inmates escape or are released. Although these fears are
common, academic and professional literature as well as EPS's analysis of property values near
the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center in Dublin (Santa Rita), indicate that these fears are unlikely
to be realized and result in adverse economic impacts. In summary, the study reaches the
following conclusions:
1. The literature indicates that there is generally no statistically significant correlation
between correctional facilities and surrounding property values. Qualitative research on
the topic, consisting primarily of surveys and interviews, also suggests that proximity to a
correctional facility generally does not tarnish a community's image, pose marketability
problems or hurt price appreciation.
2. Studies have found that breaches of institutional security through escapes are rare, with
little or no local crime attributable to escapees. The existing Juvenile Justice Facility in
San Leandro has had only one escape incident in the past years, which was attributable to
a design flaw in the building. Since the problem was corrected, the facility has
experienced no escapes. Assuming that the new facility will incorporate state-of-the-art
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-42
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
a
I,
.
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
design and security measures, the risk of escapes is expected to be minimal.
3. Community perceptions of correctional facilities are generally negative initially but can
be improved over time. Landscaping, architecture and an overall low-key appearance are
typically important factors that can help mitigate initial negative perceptions.
4. EPS' s analysis of single family home transactions indicates that there has been no
significant negative effect of the existing Santa Rita rehabilitation facilities (County and
federal) on the growth of nearby residential property values. Median home sales prices
(predominantly new homes and also some resales) in the area around Santa Rita grew at a
faster average annual pace (17 percent) than prices for either new homes or resales in the
rest of Dublin (6 percent and 13 percent, respectively).
5. Over the past four years, new home sales values in the vicinity of Santa Rita have been
comparable to new home sales in other areas of Dublin, when compared on a square foot
basis. For example, in 2001, the median price per square foot for new homes in the Santa
Rita vicinity was $246; the median square foot price for new homes in other areas of
Dublin was $248.
6. Price growth in the area around Santa Rita exceeded annual average median housing price
increases for all housing transactions (new homes and resales) in the cities of Livermore,
San Ramon and Pleasanton as well as in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
7. Evidence gathered through site visits, the literature review and the analysis of property
values in the vicinity of Santa Rita indicates that the proposed·Juvenile Justice Facility
will not have a deleterious effect on the character of the surrounding areas, regardless of
the alternative selected.
Literature Review
The literature indicates that there is generally no statistically significant correlation between
correctional facilities and surrounding property values; however, a paucity of statistical findings
may stem in part from the difficulty in isolating the many variables that influence property
values. Qualitative research on the topic, consisting primarily of surveys and interviews, also
suggests that proximity to a correctional facility generally does not tarnish a community's image,
pose marketability problems or hurt price appreciation.
In summary, the literature review revealed the following:
. Overall, there are few if any documented instances of long-term, statistically valid decreases
in property values related to the siting of correctional facilities. However, it is widely
recognized that attributing real estate values to a single variable, such as a jail, is a difficult
task that involves controlling a multitude of other factors relating to specific attributes of
housing units, regional trends, general economic factors and knowledge/perception of local
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 4-43
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-44
I
I
,I
í
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
Chapter 4: land Use and Planning
residents. EPS's analysis of property transactions, discussed in the following section of this
report, concludes that the Santa Rita jail facilities (both County and Federal) have not had a
negative impact on residential property values in the surrounding neighborhoods.
· Some evidence suggests that correctional facility related property value impacts occur in
three instances: (1) immediately adjacent to or across from facilities in the absence of buffers
or screening; (2) in the direct line of vision of facilities; and (3) during the initial period of
uncertainty prior to development of a facility. As will be discussed in the following sections,
there are opportunities to mitigate potential problems through high quality building design,
materials and landscaping.
· A substantial portion of the literature deals with smaller towns that benefit economically
from íàcilities due to increased employment and related multiplier effects such as increased
demand for housing. In smaller depressed economies, the location of a large correctional
facility actually increases the value of surrounding real estate. This effect is less likely in
larger metropolitan areas. It is not expected that the relocation of the Juvenile Justice Facility
will serve as a significant economic stimulus for the area.
· Nearly all studies reviewed discuss initial negative perceptions by community members.
Although these perceptions are generally initially negative, they can improve over time. The
initial negative perceptions can be mitigated by a design that maintains continuity with the
existing scale of development, careful landscaping, low-key architecture and high quality
building materials.
Several studies examined in the course of this literature review are discussed in more detail
below.
Selected Studies
Stanley (1978), as cited in Ince (1988), examined the effects on property values oflarge state
correctional facilities in two small Wisconsin towns. The study hypothesized that proximity to a
prison is one of several housing characteristics that combine to detennine a unit's market value.
Stanley fonnulated a regression equation of 124 independent variables, which he used to analyze
data for several hundred residences near each prison.
Stanley found that in both towns, other variables were much more significant in detennining
property values and market prices than was proximity to the prison. The study concluded that
proximity to the prison did not have negative effects on property values and no evidence was
found to suggest that houses near the prisons experienced higher turnover rates.
Abrams et at. (1987) analyzed the socioeconornic impact of state prison siting local communities
for the Florida Board of Regents. The analysis examined the change in property values in the
areas surrounding seven correctional facilities located in populous counties in Florida, Idaho,
Arizona and Tennessee. Property values in concentric study areas around the facilities were
I
I
I
I
I,
-. ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
compared with values in control areas (not proximate to a facility) that were matched to the study
areas based on selected demographic characteristics.
Regression techniques were used to measure the relationship of house value to independent
variables such as lot size, age, location, size, amenities, etc. Resale values for residences in the
study and control areas both prior to and subsequent to facility construction were compared. The
study also mailed a survey to local real estate brokers inquiring about sales activity, property
values and concerns of potential homebuyers in the study areas.
Abrams et al.'s data collection and analysis concluded that over several years, residential
property sales values in the study areas were not significantly different ftom those in the control
areas. One exception was a high-income study area near the Arizona State Prison Complex at
Perryville, where lower property values occurred in the third ofthree years studied. Regression
results indicated that location near the prison had a negative effect on housing prices in that area.
The author also commented that the value of properties ftom which a correctional facility is
directly visible may be affected negatively by the facility. However, due to the nature of
available data the study was not able to isolate those sites ftom the others.
The survey ofreal estate brokers found that most believed the presence of the facilities in their
communities had little or no negative effect on sales prices. Most realtors did not believe that
sales activity was adversely affected by the presence of a correctional facility. Of 79 respondents,
only two realtors, ftom Boise, Idaho, and Memphis, Tennessee, reported losing one or more
potential buyers specifically because of the facility.
Finally, Abrams et al. conducted a literature review. Findings ftom the review generally support
the conclusion that correctional facilities have little or no impact on property values. In
particular, Grieco (1978) found that a decline in property values is conceivable, but the presence
of a multitude of political, architectural and other factors makes it difficult to assign a single
cause, such as a prison siting, as an explanation of property value changes.
Avidon (1998) examined two correctional facilities in Southern Duchess County, New York,
primarily to evaluate the effectiveness of these facilities in spurring economic development. In
the course of his study, Avidon was also able to conclude that, "There are few negative
consequences of building a prison... .Prison escapes are rare, family members of irunates rarely
move to a community to be closer to loved ones, rnost property values in a community do not
decline following the construction of a prison" (A vidon 1998, p. 21).
Coley/Forrest (1996), an economics consulting finn in Denver, Colorado, published a report
investigating perceived potential changes in real estate activity in areas surrounding a proposed
expansion site for the Denver County Jail. Seventy-seven interviews with real estate brokers
were conducted to investigate the experience of property owners and businesses located near the
existing County jail. Those interviews revealed the following:
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-45
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
· Preconstruction impacts may be significant in the short term, even if community fears
(increased crime, negative image, etc.) are not realized in the longer tenn. Both residential
and nonresidential property owners and tenants tend to have strong, negative perceptions of
jails and usually work very hard to defeat them. Negative publicity generated by a
contentious approval process may harm sales and leasing activity and values in the short
tenn.
· Warehouse/distribution and industrial business owners in proximity to the existing Denver
County Jail did not report any significant impacts from the jail, which has been in place for
over thirty years.
· Seven commercial real estate brokers indicated no impact on vacancy rates, the ease of
release or lease rates. Brokers selling land indicated less interest in their listings; however,
they could not attribute the cause specifically to the proximity of the jail.
· Residential brokers handling houses listed in the vicinity of the existing jail indicated that the
jail was not an issue; however, the community has expressed security concerns in the past.
· Real estate brokers near county jail facilities in other areas indicated no adverse impacts, with
the exception of properties located immediately adjacent to the facility. Brokers observed
resistance and objections from local land and building owners when a jail facility was
proposed in a neighboring county, but in fact no adverse effects occurred subsequent to
facility opening.
Factors Potentially Affecting Property Values
Increased Crime Risk
A major concern homeowners have about correctional facilities is that proximity to
concentrations of criminals will result in a higher crime rate. The fear is that inmates who have
escaped from prison, as well as recently released inmates, will commit crimes in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
However, a new Juvenile Justice Facility is unlikely to create new crime problems in its host
neighborhood, regardless of which alternative site is chosen. In general, studies have found that
breaches of institutional security through escapes are relatively uncommon except in minimum
security facilities, with little or no local crime attributable to escapees (Carlson 1990). The new
Juvenile Justice Facility will be a secured facility with state of the art security technology. In
addition, children under detention are not permitted to leave the cornplex for home visits, further
minimizing opportunities to breach security.
The current Juvenile Justice Facility has had only one escape incident in the last 10 years. In that
incident, three juveniles discovered and exploited a design flaw in the building: they kicked
down a door leading directly onto an alley behind the facility. The juveniles were promptly
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 4-46
I
,
I
I-
I
,. .
f
t
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
1
I
I
I
J
,-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
recovered and the design flaw was remedied. No escapes have occurred since that time. In a new
facility, the likelihood of escapes is expected to be even lower. as a result of modem design and
high quality construction.
Newly released juveniles will not pose a problem for the community. At the end of their stay.
they are released directly into the custody of and escorted home by their parent or legal guardian.
Blight
The second major concern many have regarding a correctional facility is that it may create blight
in the neighborhood and drive away desirable investment. Some fear that the design and security
components (fencing, lights and towers) of the correctional facility will create a negative visual
effect and will stigmatize the neighborhood.
Data from a comparative analysis of real estate trends in the area indicate that the existing Santa
Rita jail facilities has not had a significant deleterious effect on property values. This conclusion
is consistent with other studies throughout the country.
EPS's analysis (2002) of single family home transactions indicates that there has been no
significant negative effect ofthe Santa Rita jail facilities on nearby residential property values.
Median home sales prices in the Emerald Park study area. south of the Santa Rita jail facilities
(see Figure 4.13), grew at a faster average annual pace (17 percent) than prices for either new
homes or resales in the rest of Dublin (6 percent and 13 percent. respectively). Price growth in
the study area also exceeded annual average median price increases in the cities of Livennore.
San Ramon and Pleasanton as well as in Alameda and Contra Costa counties (see Table 4.2).
Comparison of Property Value near Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center to the
City of Dublin
Analysis of Dublin housing transaction data from 1998 to 2001 indicates that proximity to the
existing Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center has had no significant adverse effect on housing values.
Table 4.3 demonstrates the median home prices in the study area compared with new home sale
and resale prices in the balance of the City. During the 1998 to 2001 period, median home prices
in the study area appreciated at an average annual rate of 17 percent while the new sales and
resale prices in the rest of Dublin appreciated at 6 percent and 13 percent, respectively.
Per-square-foot values for homes in both areas were commensurate during the period that was
analyzed. Although new home prices in the rest of Dublin were consistently higher than in the
study area, this difference is primarily attributable to the significantly larger size of new homes
being sold in those areas. When prices per square foot are compared, sales in the study area
emerge as comparable. For example. in 2001 Dublin had a median new home sales price of
$668,000 compared with the median price in the study area of $552.500 (see Table 4.2).
However, when prices per square foot are compared, values were comparable at a median of
$248 per square foot in Dublin and $246 in the study area (see Table 4.3).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-47
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
EPS compared absorption rates of two development projects within the Emerald Park study area,
Merrion and Summer Glen, to a development project outside of the study area, The Ridge at
Hansen Hill, for the period trom February to April 1999 (see Figure 4.13). Absorption was
reported to be fastest within the study area: Swnmer Glen had the highest absorption at 11.6 sales
per month and Merrion posted sales of9.4 units per month (see Table 4.4). In comparison, The
Ridge averaged 8.3 unit sales per month.! Although this finding does not prove that there was no
effect as a result ofthe jail facilities, it does indicate that proximity to Santa Rita did not have a
significant negative impact on sales pace.
Comparison of Property Values near Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center to Tri-
Valley & Region
Available data show that proximity to the existing Santa Rita jail facility did not create a regional
price disadvantage for homes in the study area. Discussions with real estate professionals and
data provided by the Rand Corporation for the Tri-Valley region indicate that home prices are
generally higher in Pleasanton and San Ramon compared with Dublin, and lower in Livennore.
However, as shown in Table 4.2, the study area had higher absolute home values and a faster
rate of growth in single family home prices compared with other jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley
submarket, and consistently outperfonned countywide median prices for both Alameda and
Contra Costa counties. Transactions in the study area have been primarily new home sales, which
typically have a price advantage of 10 percent or more over resales. Nevertheless, the available
data suggest that the study area has not suffered a perceptible regional disadvantage as a result of
its proximity to the Santa Rita jail facilities.
I Note that although all three projects had comparable per square foot prices ($180, $170 and $167, respectively, for
Merrion, Summer Glen and The Ridge, The Ridge housing prototype is nearly 1,000 square feet larger than units at
Merrion or Summer Glen. As a result the average base price for a unit at The Ridge exceeded base prices at the other
two projects by more than $100,000. This higher price may help to explain slower absorption rates at The Ridge.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-48
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I '"
a
f5 M g
I, .- :>
~ ll) '"
V ~
::I
0 <Q
en
ë: ~
0 ~lfi
I ¡:: u
~~ '<:I:.., M vi
iX":::! ë:~ 0 ;j
~IQ off¡ r...: ¡,;,¡
~ iX":::& 0 ¡.j
ff¡:æ c ll)
I ~n~~ ~ V ð
::¡~ '"
I
C\I
I C\I
r...:
0
ll) V
V 0
cD
0
I ll)
V
I HOPYARD RD
I M
0
cD
0
ll)
V
I +'
¡::
W
S
0...
0
I ......
Q)
>
. Q)
\ 0
......
< CO
I '''¡:;
\ ~ ¡::
Q) Q)
....."'0
\ ~ ..~ .,..-j
CJ') rJJ
I - Q) ¡::
. ~ Q) p::: .....
\ +' ......
ëñ::.D
.,j Q) ;j
wZO
+'
I ¡:: "'0 +'
Q) ¡:: æ
Ucoa:
+' CO
/ ¡:: Q) ¡::
. . U" Q) '-' .....
I / ....., ê<"'O
0 '<:I:::! Qj
. U"
. V IIJ:E: .c ,-,~ã
( ~lfi E
C. ::¡ ~ ;j CO
U'C a:~ z ° +' Q)
I f$/U !i!~ 13 CjCJ')'-'
§,~ f! ~<
...::t ....
itl rn ff'J.b~>"
::¡
rn ~¡::p.."'O
~: c: ~;j"'O.E
I ) c3 Q,lo......CJ')
+-z ... U ~ Q)
:3 ~+' Q)..z
/ 8 rJJ E +'
.,..¡ CO S
, ~,¡,dI':¡ ~.
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Table 4.2: Comparison of Median Sales Price of Single-Family Homes Between the Emerald Park Study Area,
the Rest of Dublin, and Other Local Areas
Area 1998 1999 2000 2001 Percent Change, 1998
($) ($) ($) ($) to 2001
Total Annual
Average
Emerald Park 291,750 410,750 495,500 552,500 89 17
Study Areaa
The Rest of Dublinb
New Sales 520,000 616,500 627,000 668,000 28 6
Resale 247,000 288,500 355,000 396,000 60 13
Livermore 252,000 269,188 3521,521 367,917 46 10
San Ramon 361,562 398,771 484,758 540,396 49 11
Pleasanton 362,542 401,688 493,062 515,354 42 9
Alameda 250,833 269,812 353,979 365,621 46 10
County
Contra Costa 216,188 232,064 271,604 312,167 44 10
County
Source: EPS, 2002.
Notes:
8Emerald Park study area = Census Tract 4501.
bThe rest of Dublin = Census Tracts 4502, 4503, 4504 and 4505.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-50
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Table 4.3: Comparison of the Median Size and Price Per Square Foot of New Homes in the Emerald Park
Study Area and the Rest of Dublin
Area 1998 1999 2000 2001
New Sales in Emerald Park Study Areaa
Median Size (square feet) 1,764 2,221 2,367 2,376-
Median Price 170 182 211 246
($/square foot)
New Sales in the Rest of Dublinb
Median Size (square feet) 2,936 3,430 3,322 3,116
Median Price 174 183 210 248
($/square foot)
Source: EPS, 2002.
Notes:
aEmerald Park study area = Census Tract 4501.
bThe rest of Dublin = Census Tracts 4502, 4503, 4504 and 4505.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-51
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Table 4.4: Comparison of Monthly Sales of New Residential Development in the Emerald Park Study
Area with a Selected Area in West Dublin, February to April 1999
Development Average Size Average Average Price Total Units in Monthly
(square feet) Base Price Per Square Development Sales
Foot
($) ($/square foot)
Emerald Park Study Area
Merrion 2,059 371,548 180 109 9.4
Summer Glen 2,357 401 ,486 170 150 11.6
Selected Area In West Dublin
The Ridge at Hansen 3,555 592,825 167 66 8.3
Hill
Source: EPS, 2002.
Analysis of Potential Impacts at Alternative Sites
This section evaluates the potential of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility to affect negatively
the character of surrounding uses at the four alternative sites. Evidence gathered through site
visits, the literature review and analysis of property values in the vicinity of the Santa Rita jail
facilities indicate that the Juvenile Justice Facility is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the character ofthe surrounding areas, regardless of the alternative selected. However,
because each alternative site is unique, potential effects of the new facility on community
character have been evaluated for each alternative.
Impact 4.4.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. No ActionINo Project would not change the existing conditions in the vicinity of
the existing Juvenile Hall in San Leandro or the Gale-Shenone Courthouse in Pleasanton because
no new facilities would be constructed.
Impact 4.4.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The surrounding uses include the county health
department psychiatric facility, the Fairmont Hospital, a private hospice, and a mature residential
area west of the facility on the opposite side of Fairmont Drive. The existing Juvenile Hall
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-52
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
resembles an older office building or healthcare facility. The effect of the new Juvenile Justice
Facility in the San Leandro area will likely be minimal because it will embody no change in land
uses, and the Project site is separated from the residential neighborhood by considerable
elevation and by Fainnont Drive. A new Juvenile Justice Facility may be an improvement over
the existing facility because of its newer appearance, improved design standards and the latest
security measures.
Impact 4.4.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is an eight-story
concrete mid-rise alongside the 1-880 rreeway in Downtown Oakland, a few blocks from City·
Center. Other uses include a public park to the north, the City police building and County courts
to the south. Converting the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility into a Juvenile Justice Facility
represents a relatively minor change in use and its effects on the character of the surrounding
neighborhood will be minimal. Although the Project would entail a substantial addition to the
existing building, this addition would be within the overall footprint of the existing complex and
would be consistent with the existing development.
Impact 4.4.4: Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The Pardee/Swan Site is located in an industrial area
surrounded by large distribution facilities for UPS and Fed Ex, two 2- to 3-story office buildings
and vacant public recreation and habitat restoration land to the north. There are no residential
uses near the site. The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility would not have a significant negative
effect on the area's character given its predominantly industrial nature and the large-scale
utilitarian design of the existing buildings.
Impact 4.4.5: East County Government Center Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The East County Government Center site is located near
diverse land uses that include the existing Santa Rita jail facility; corporate/R & D offices; the
Emerald Park residential neighborhood; and various public sector facilities including the federal
correctional institution, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, the County Sheriffs training
facility, County Public Works' heavy equipment maintenance building, California Highway
Patrol offices and other similar government uses.
As noted above, a review of academic literature and analyses of property values near the existing
Santa Rita jail facilities indicates that adverse effects on property values are unlikely. In addition,
the site orientation and the design of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall
of Justice would minimize impacts on the character ofthe existing residential neighborhood.
The Juvenile Justice Facility would occupy the western portion of the site, which is the farthest
from the residential neighborhood located in neighborhoods near Hacienda Drive and Gleason
Drive. These uses are located behind soundwalls and have limited views to the western end of
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-53
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
the site. The East County Hall of Justice would occupy the central and eastern portion of the lot,
effectively screening the Juvenile Justice Facility from the neighborhood. In addition, the two-
story height of the Juvenile Justice Facility will be the same height or lower than the existing
light industriaVoffice buildings at Gleason Drive and Hacienda Drive. It is expected that design
of the new facilities will not detract from existing uses. For example, the Juvenile Justice Facility
proposed for the East County Government Center site is designed to be only two stories. In
addition, the outdoor recreation areas are planned as an interior courtyard to minimize the use of
exterior fencing. A small landscaped benn would be developed around the southern edge of the
site to screen the perimeter wall from view and the structure would be depressed into the site as
the natural grade rises from west to east. The proposed facility will not include surveillance
towers, in contrast to most adult prisons, and exterior 1ighting will be controlled. Although the
East County Hall of Justice is expected to be three to four stories tall, it will be set back from the
street frontage and behind a low benn and parking lot area, similar to the other office buildings in
the vicinity. Finally, the Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice are not
expected to affect adversely the existing office park considering that the current Santa Rita jail
facilities have not prevented the office park from attracting major corporate and R & D tenants
such as Tosoh SET, Blaze and Carl Zeiss Meditec.
Impact 4.4.6: Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. Any potential impacts of developing a new East County
Hall of Justice at Site ISA on property values would likely be even more attenuated than
development at the East County Government Center site due to the site's location in the midst of
larger commercial enterprises and few homes. New development planned for the area,
particularly in the Transit Center area around the Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station, would be
oriented to address future commercial and residential development compatibility. The East
County Hall of Justice would appear and function similar to other office-type uses in the area,
and therefore impacts to the area would be comparable or less than those described above.
Impact 4.5
Risk of Increased Criminal Activity in Vicinity of Proposed
Facilities
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice would be developed with
state-of-the-art security systems, and would be staffed by persOlmel who are trained and
equipped to address security at the facilities. In-custody detainees and persons appearing in court
and at probation offices, and having other business with the County at either facility would be
subject to searches and surveillance while on the premises. In addition, the presence of security
personnel in the vicinity of the facilities would enhance the overall level of patrols and general
security within the Project area.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Impact 4.5: All Alternatives
NO IMP ACT. Some residents living near the East County Government Center site have
expressed concern that the development of the site with a new Juvenile Justice Facility and East
Count Hall of Justice could result in an increase in criminal activity in the vicinity on the part of
those going to and coming nom the proposed Project.
These perceptions related to the likelihood that persons who have been detained at (or simply
visited) the proposed Project could become involved in future criminal activity in the vicinity are
not borne out by experience related to the operation of the existing Juvenile Justice Facility.
There have been anecdotal reports of difficulties related to the release of adult prisoners nom .the
existing Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, north of the East County Government Center site.
These difficulties include "panhandling" and trespassing. In general, the mere presence of
recently released prisoners seems to lead to the perception that there is an increased crime risk
near the jail, as persons are visible walking to the main transportation center near 1-580 and the
Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station.
These experiences and perceptions are generally due to the County Sheriffs policy, in keeping
with constitutional principles, to release prisoners immediately upon the completion of their time
of incarceration. This results in releases throughout the day, including late at night and early in
the morning, when transportation services in the area are limited. These operations are existing
conditions that do not warrant detailed consideration in this EIS/EIR because no changes are
proposed as part of this Project.
A physical change that could occur as a result ofthe Project, and which has been raised by
community members, is the possibility of increased pedestrian access to the community by
released prisoners due to the removal of the existing berm along Broder Boulevard. This berm
generally restricts access to the residential area along Hacienda Drive by acting as a visual screen
between the jail entrance/exit and presenting a steep and inhospitable slope towards the jail. The
County has considered this in planning for the development of the site by creating similar access
constraints along Broder Boulevard. It should be noted that the berm is not presently fenced and
there is in fact no strict barrier to pedestrian movement across the site. The proposed
development would include a secure building perimeter along Broder Boulevard where the
Juvenile Justice Facility would be built, and a building, fence and berm along the edge of the
East County Hall of Justice facility. These features would replicate the effect of the existing
berm. Some vehicular and pedestrian access may be provided at the northeastern end of the East
County Hall of Justice parking lot, which would be similar to the existing condition in which the
berm tapers down to meet the road near the Alameda County Office of Emergency Services.
Furthermore, the operation of the Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice would
be according to a different pattern compared with the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center. The new
facilities would operate with regular daytime hours for visitors, and releases of detainees would
generally occur during those hours. Some juvenile referrals and releases would also be processed
at night, but detainees are released only into the custody of a parent or legal guardian.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-55
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Some members of the community have also raised concerns about the behavior of persons
conducting business with the Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice, such as
probationers, witnesses and others. Speculation regarding the future actions or intent of
individuals traveling to and ITom the proposed facility does not provide a sufficient basis for
identifYing any impact that would result in a physical change in the existing environment.
Therefore, a potential change in the current level of criminal activity in the area surrounding the
East ComIty Government Center site (or near any of the other sites identified in the Draft
EIS/EIR) is beyond the scope of this environmental review.
Impact 4.6
Increased Demand for Housing and Services
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
The proposed Action is proposed to meet the increased demand for services anticipated as a
result on existing trends and future development in the County and, in the case of the East
County Hall of Justice, the specific communities being served.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.6: All Alternatives
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. None of the Project actions would result in a significant
increase in the number of penn anent residents in the vicinity of the alternative sites. The number
of employees at the sites would approximately 315 if only the East County Hall of Justice is
constructed at either the East County Government Center or Site 15A. Approximately 450 to 550
employees would be associated with the development if only the Juvenile Justice Facility is
constructed at the Existing San Leandro Property, Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, Pardee/Swan
Site or East County Government Center, so approximately 865 employees may be actively
involved at the site ifboth the East County Hall of Justice and Juvenile Justice Facility are
constructed at the East County Government Center site. The development ofthe Projects would
also increase daytime activity at the sites, with up to 3,000 visitors to the East County Hall of
Justice and ranging between 1,500 (for a 420-bed facility) to 2,000 (for a 540-bed facility)
visitors to the Juvenile Justice Facility on a typical weekday.
Nearby residents and businesses would be affected by the changes in the existing environment
discussed in other chapters of this EIS/EIR. Most of those effects are addressed by mitigation
measures and would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Significant unavoidable effects
would be limited to changes to the visual character, transportation, construction-period noise and
air pollution, and loss of historic resources and are discussed in the appropriate chapter. None of
these effects would have the potential to pennanently displace existing uses in the vicinity of the
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 4-56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
alternative sites. The increased demand for tranSPOrtation facilities and public services associated
with this activity are addressed in Chapter 9, Transportation, Chapter 13, PnbJic Services and
Chapter 14, Public Utilities.
Impact 4.7
Relocation of Business· Temporary Displacement of
surface Parking Spaces
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project-related benefits have been identified.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.7.1: Pardee/Swan Site
POTENTIALLY SIGNlFICANT AND MlTIGABLE IMP ACT. The Port of Oakland bas begun
construction of a new parking lot at the pardee/Swan Site to serve the Oakland lnternational
Airport during the construction pbase of the terminal expansion project. Development of the
Juvenile Justice Facility at that site would require the development of a parking garage on a
portion of the site to serve the same function. There would be temporary displacement of some of
the surface parking lot spaces during construction of the garage (approximately 8 acres, or about
one-fourth of the total parking lot). It is not clear at this time whether there is sufficient demand
in the short term to fill the parking lot.
. Mitigation Measure 4.7.1: Parking Replacement. If sufficient demand for a surface parking
lot exists prior to the construction of the parking garage proposed in conjunction with the
development of the Juvenile Justice Facility at pardee/Swan site, then the County should
consider assisting the Port of Oakland to find alternative parking space and/or
compensating the Port of Oakland for loss of the space.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 4.7.2: All Other Alternatives
NO IMP ACT. No residents or businesses would need to be relocated to implement any of the
other alternatives being evaluated in this EJSIElR, as the sites are currently vacant or developed
with other County uses.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 4-57
Chapter 4: Land Use and Planning
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice _ Draft EIS / EIR
Page 4-58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5
Visual Quality/Aesthetics
5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BACKGROUND
New development can substantially change the visual qualities and characteristics of an area and
may have long tenn lasting effects on its evolution, thereby stimulating growth and increasing its
attractiveness for new or expanding businesses, residential development or other desired or
planned land uses. On the other hand, new development can change the character of an area by
disrupting the visual and aesthetic features that establish the identity and value of an urban area
for its existing residents, merchants or other users. Loss of such identity and value may
discourage new investment, continued residency or business activity, or other activities that
attract visitors to the area. A single new development can add to a district's appeal and change a
district's scale and visual landmarks. Over time, a new development may become a valued
component of a district and its identity, or generate dissatisfaction by residents, visitors,
employers and employees.
The visual value of any given feature is highly subject to personal sensibilities and variations in
subjective reaction to the features of an urban area. A visual impression may be viewed
negatively by one person and positively by another. Objective or commonly agreed upon
standards are difficult to establish, but an extensive body ofliterature is devoted to the subject of
urban design and visual aesthetics.
This chapter of the Draft EIS/EIR identifies visual qualities and characteristics ofthe area
surrounding each alternative site, and assesses potential effects of the Project on the local visual
quality. The discussion is particularly focused on detennining if the Project would have a
significant adverse effect on identifiable scenic views or vistas, scenic resources, historic
resources as they relate to scenic qualities, and general visual qualities. The chapter also
addresses the potential for creation of adverse levels of light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views. These criteria are consistent with the NEP A and CEQA
guidelines.
LOCAL PHYSICAL SETTING
Existing San Leandro Property
The Existing San Leandro Property is located in the Hillcrest Knolls neighborhood, an
unincorporated area within the City of San Leandro's sphere of influence. The site is directly
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 5-1
Chapter 5: Visual Quality/Aesthetics
east of the existing San Leandro Juvenile Hall Facility, in an area designated by the City of San
Leandro as the County Hospital district. The site and the existing Juvenile Hall are surrounded
on three sides by Fairmont Drive, which forms a V-shaped loop around the site. Residential uses
are located to the immediate north across Fairmont Drive and to the south, beyond a large open
hillside area.
A visual survey was conducted by Lamphier - Gregory to identify the visual qualities,
characteristics and scenic resources of the Existing San Leandro Property area. The survey
consisted of several visits in which the area was viewed while traveling by automobile and
walking. Fourteen representative photographs are included, taken from locations indicated in
Figure 5.1. Copies ofthose photos are included in this chapter in Figures 5.2 to 5.8.
Figure 5.2 shows views taken at location I a and 1 b, illustrating the local residential area. Photo
la is a northward view of Van Avenue, which parallels Fainnont Drive in front of the existing
Juvenile Hall. Photo Ib is a view from the entrance of the Juvenile Hall administration building.
The facility's parking lot, Fairmont Drive and residences along Van Avenue are visible in the
picture.
Figure 5.3 shows views taken at location 2a and 2b, illustrating the less developed portions of
the Juvenile Hall campus. Photo 2a is of a playing field located in a northern portion of the
Project site, while Photo 2b shows a portion of the old Fainnont Drive on the Project site. This
roadway runs from the Juvenile Hall entrance to a minimum-security area of the Project site
called Camp Sweeney.
Figure 5.4 includes views from location 3a and 3b, illustrating the camp existing facilities. A
building located at the Camp Sweeney facility is shown in Photo 3a, while one of the buildings
of the Las Vistas educational complex is shown in Photo 3b.
Figure 5.5 includes views from location 4a and 4b, illustrating the main building complex. A
view of the existing facility is visible from a northern point of Fairmont Drive, as shown in Photo
4a. The entrance to the rnain Juvenile Hall administration building is shown in Photo 4b.
Figure 5.6 includes views from locations 5a and 5b, illustrating details of the main complex. A
wing of the Juvenile facility southeast of the administration building is shown in Photo 5a. The
Gymnasium is shown in the background of the picture. The Juvenile Hall detainee intake area is
shown in Photo 5b.
Figure 5.7 shows views from location 6a and 6b, illustrating support facilities at Juvenile Hall.
Snedigar Cottage, which used to be a young children's facility in the Juvenile Hall's early years,
and is now a maintenance building, is shown in Photo 6a, while the Girls Wing of the Juvenile
Facility built in 1972 is shown in Photo 6b.
Figure 5.8 shows views from location 7a and 7b, illustrating other County facilities in the
immediate vicinity. An Alameda County Animal Control facility that is located north of the
Project site along Fairmont Drive is shown in Photo 7a. A building located south of the Juvenile
Hall Facility, at the John George Medical Center is shown in Photo 7b.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 5.1
San Leandro Site
Photo Locations
:J~)I
, ---'--'--
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
Aerial Photo: Padfic Aerial Surveys
1 a - Houses on Van Avenue
1 b - Westward View from Juvenile Hall
Figure 5.2
San Leandro Site
Site Photos - Neighboring Residential Area
,J~;J
.J
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2a - Recreation Area at Camp
2b - Access Road to Camp
Figure 5.3
San Leandro Site
Site Photos - Camp Area
, I.IF\
'~IJT:';\J
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
3a - Camp Sweeney Dormatory
3b . Las Vistas Day Program
Figure 5.4
San Leandro Site
Site Photos - Camp Buildings
~, 8.;ij::h
::... >' 'J~'
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 4a . View Overlooking Secure Housing Units and Administration Building
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4b - Front Entrance to Administration Building
Figure 5.5
San Leandro Site
Site Photos - Administration Building
r:;;-~
t'W,j
_.c_c_.'.·)-'.___
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
Sa - Housing, Recreation and Gymnasium
5b - Secure Entrance to Administration Building
Figure 5.6
San Leandro Site
Site Photos - Support Areas
>:~fl~~. .
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6a - Snediger CottagelMaintenance Facility
6b . Girl's Wing
Figure 5.7 :~f{
San Leandro Site
Site Photos - Girl's Wing and Maintenance
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
7a - Animal Control and Regional Open Space
7b - JOhn George Psychiatric Pavilion
Figure 5.8
San Leandro Site
Site Photos - Adjacent County Facilities
~~)-
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 5: Visual Quality/Aesthetics
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
The Glenn Dyer Detention Center facility is located in an eight-story building adjacent to an
elevated portion ofI-880 in downtown Oakland. The visual characteristics of the site and
surrounding area can be described as urban. While the Glenn Dyer Detention Center facility
could be characterized as a modem high-rise, building on the opposite side of Seventh Street
have features representative of older structures within the Old Oakland area. The height and
mass ofthe Glenn Dyer Detention Center facility and adjoining courthouse building effectively
blocks views of the Old Oakland area from the 1-880 freeway, and views of the freeway from the
Old Oakland area.
A visual survey was conducted by Lamphier - Gregory to identify the visual qualities,
characteristics and scenic resources ofthe Glenn Dyer Detention Facility area. The survey
consisted of several visits in which the area was viewed while traveling by automobile and
walking. Nine representative photographs are included, taken from locations indicated in Figure
5.9. Copies of those photos are included in this chapter and numbered as Figures 5.10 to 5.14.
Figure 5.10 includes views from location la and lb, illustrating views ofthe site from the
freeway. Photo la is a picture of the Glenn Dyer Detention Center facility toward the southeast
taken from the 1-980 freeway. The existing parking structure, County Jail and Oakland Police
Department Building are all visible in the center of the picture. The Glenn Dyer Detention
Center Facility is also visible from 1-880, as shown in Photo lb.
Figure 5.11 includes views from location 2a and 2b, illustrating views from Ninth Street in
downtown Oakland. From the intersection of 9th Street and Jefferson Street, the project site is
visible when looking the south, as shown in Photo 2a. This figure effectively shows the current
height and massing of the buildings currently on the project site. The 1-880 freeway is shown
behind the buildings on the far right side of the picture. Looking east, from near the intersection
of 9th and Jefferson, it is possible to see a high density housing development, the Marriott Hotel,
and a tall office building in Photo 2b.
Figure 5.12 includes views from locations 3a and 3b, illustrating views from Clay Street. The
same housing development and the Swan's building frame the existing County Jail in Photo 3a,
which was taken from the intersection of lOth Street and Clay Street. Looking north from the
same location, Photo 3b shows the Swan's building, the housing development and nearby office
buildings along Clay Street.
Figure 5.13 includes views from location 4a and 4b, illustrating views along Seventh Street.
The Glenn Dyer Detention Center facility is shown in the center of Photo 4a as it appears from
the comer of ih Street and Broadway. The Oakland Police Department building appears in the
foreground. Photo 4b shows the relationship between the Glenn Dyer Detention Center facility
and neighboring housing and commercial buildings located along Martin Luther King Jr. Way.
Figure 5.14 shows the view from location 5a, which is a panoramic view of the Glenn Dyer
Detention Center facility and surrounding uses looking south. The proposed addition to
accommodate outdoor recreation, shown in Figure 3.8, is indicated on the photo.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 5-11
I
8 ~~ I
ïff:
'" ",JJ
, -
~ 'Ë I
;E
ãJ S'~
Ii. jS
u
., ..
~A-.
U .,
!§.8 I
0 ~~
'"
-¡:
01
<:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.-ê ¡g I
rJ) . $2 I
1-1 .....
0'1 OJ ð
ari63
~ ê 0 I
6bOJÕ
..... -...s:::
~0p...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Glenn Dyer Facility
I
1 a - 1-980 Looking Southeast
1 b - 1-880 Looking Northwest with City Police Building on the Right and in Foreground
Figure 5.10
Glenn Dyer Site
Site Photos - Freeway Views
·,_~\L
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
2a - 9th Street and Jefferson Street Looking South with Manuel Courts to the Left and Parking Garage to the Right
2b - Jefferson Street Near 9th Street Looking East toward City Center
Figure 5.11
Glenn Dyer Site
Site Photos - Ninth Street Views
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 3a - 10th Street and Clay Street Looking South toward Glenn Dyer Facility
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3b - Clay Street Looking North toward City Center
Figure 5.12
Glenn Dyer Site
Site Photos - Clay Street Views
. &k-',
, .. c~f'·;1
c_: .'J.'.
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I I
I
4a - 7th Street and Broadway Looking Northwest with Police Building on Left
4b - 7th Street and MLK Jr. Way Looking Southeast
Figure 5.13
Glenn Dyer Site
Site Photos - 7th Street Views
, ~!f,,"
~"'~,V .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
g,
ð
~
:E
:>.
§
-'
¡,ij
u
a
¡¡¡
~
,¡;;
"S
o
en
~
:;¡¡
o
.3
Qj
!!!
êi5
~
o
"C
!:
<0
~
ëñ
~
,
<0
It)
{t
s
(t
I-<
o
2 g
. J5 p.,
I-< I
"ItI Q) 0
,..-t >......
ariQo
Q.I s::..c::
... s:: p.,
= Q) Q)
bD...... .....
¡¡:C)ëJ5
Chapter 5: Visual Quality/Aesthetics
Pardee I Swan Site
The Pardee/Swan Site is currently vacant. At the time of the photo survey, the site was primarily
covered in exposed soil and sparse vegetation, generally dominated by a variety of non-native
(mostly annual) grasses. Since then, the Port of Oakland has removed the vegetation and graded
the site for development of its airport parking lot. A large United Parcel Service facility is
located on the east side of the site, but other adjoining areas are either in resource protection uses
or recreational uses.
The Pardee/Swan site is a flat to gently sloping parcel without distinguishing unique aesthetic
features. It is located near Arrowhead Marsh, between the San Leandro Channel and Airport '
Channel. Between the southwestern border of the site and the edge of Airport Channel is an entry
road to the Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline and picnic facilities sheltered by trees. On
the northeastern boundary of the site is an existing Shoreline trail along the San Leandro
Channel. The site is separated from the adjacent wetlands restoration area along the northwestern
boundary by a short fence, and a paved trail is in place between that fence and the higher fence
around the wetland restoration area. The vacant Project site is visible in the fore- and mid-
ground from nearby shoreline trails and from the Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline to
the northwest.
To the southeast are developed properties that present a typical business park visual setting,
including light industrial and office buildings (up to three stories tall), as well as nighttime
security lighting. Hangars and other structures associated with Oakland's North Field, and some
of the larger aircraft on display outside the Western Aerospace Museum, are visible to the
southwest of the Project site, across Doolittle Drive. Aircraft operating from the Oakland airport
runways can be seen in the background when looking southwest from the Project site, and some
of the larger buildings of downtown Oakland can be seen in the distance when looking northwest
from the site. There are no scenic highways in the area.
A visual survey was conducted by Lamphier - Gregory to identify the visual qualities,
characteristics and scenic resources of the Pardee/Swan area. The survey consisted of several
visits in which the area was viewed while traveling by automobile and walking. Twelve
representative photographs are included, taken from locations indicated in Figure 5.15. Copies
of those photos are included in this chapter and numbered as Figures 5.16 to 5.21.
Figure 5.16 includes views from location la and lb, illustrating views of the site from the
intersection of Pardee Drive and Swan Way. Photo la shows a northward view of the currently
graded and unpaved Project site at the intersection of Pardee Drive and Swan Way. The site is
currently used by Port of Oakland employees for driving training for trailer truck drivers. A
northwestward view of the site is visible in Photo lb, wherein Swan Way is in the foreground
and North Field buildings are visible in the background.
Figure 5.17 includes views from location 2a and 2b, illustrating the adjacent development at the
intersection of Pardee Drive and Swan Way. A United Parcel Service (UPS) facility is adjacent
to the Project site to the east and south.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 5-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 5: Visual Quality/Aesthetics
Figure 5.18 includes views from location 3a and 3b, illustrating development along Swan Way
near Doolittle Drive. A three-story business park that is located immediately south ofthe Project
site is visible in Photo 3a and partly visible in Photo 3b. The southwesternmost part of the
Project site is visible in the foreground of Photo 3a. Photo 3b also shows a portion of a Port of
Oakland parking lot and Federal Express parking lot.
Figure 5.19 includes views from location 4a and 4b, illustrating a picnic area adjacent to the site,
part of the East Bay Regional Park District's Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline Park.
Photo 4a and 4b illustrate the parking lot, picnic area and open field near Airport Channel. The
latter figure also shows several Oakland Airport North Field buildings in the background.
Figure 5.20 includes views from location 5a and 5b, illustrating the wetland restoration area of
the Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline. Photo 5a illustrates a drainage ditch on the
northern side of the Pardee/Swan site that runs east to west, just south of a pedestrian trail. A
wetland restoration area within the park and immediately north ofthe Project site is shown in
Photo 5b.
Figure 5.21 includes views from location 6a and 6b, illustrating the public trail along the site's
eastern boundary. Photo 6a and 6b were taken from the easternmost point ofthe Project site.
The first picture shows a northward view of San Leandro Channel, a pedestrian walkway that
connects Hegenberger Road with Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline, and the Edgewater
Business Park. The second picture was taken from the same location facing west toward the
Pardee/Swan site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 5-19
Figure 5.15
Pardee / Swan Site
Photo Locations
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory
Aerial Photo: Pacific Aerial Surveys
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 a - Pardee/Swan Site Looking North from Intersection
1 b - Pardee/Swan Site Looking West from Intersection
Figure 5.16
Pardee / Swan Site
Site Photos - Site Overview
l ~;¡~:~,~,)
-.','J'
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
2a - UPS Customer Service Area
2b - UPS Shipping/Distribution Center
Figure 5.17
Pardee/Swan Site
Site Photos - UPS Facility
kA~TJ
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3a . Business Park Building, Swan Way
I
I 3b - Business Park, FedEx Parking, and Port Employee Parking
I
I
Figure 5.18
Pardee / Swan Site
Site Photos - Business Park
~~')
)
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOURCE: Lamplûer-Gregory I I
I
4a - EBRPD Pinic Area at Entrance to MLK Shoreline
4b - EBRPD Pinic Area at Entrance to MLK Shoreline with North Field in Background
Figure 5.19
Pardee/Swan Site
Site Photos - Shoreline Park
:~~0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 5a - Drainage Ditch On Site, Pedestrian Trail Part of Shoreline Park
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5b - Wetlands Restoration in EBRPD Shoreline Park
Figure 5.20
Pardee / Swan Site
Site Photos - Wetlands Areas
_N;;I~)
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I I
I
6a - Edgewater Business Park, San Leandro Channel, Trail that connects Hegenberger Road to Shoreline Park
-
6b - View to West Across Site from San Leandro Creek Shoreline Trail
Figure 5.21
Pardee / Swan Site
Site Photos - San Leandro Channel
~J#1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 5: Visual Quality/Aesthetics
East County Government Center
The East County Government Center Site is a rectangular site in an area referred to in the East
Dublin Specific Plan as County Center. The 40-acre site is situated at the northern terminus of
Hacienda Drive, it is bounded by Gleason Drive along its southern border, on the west by Arnold
Road, to the north by Broder Boulevard, and along the east by Madigan Avenue. Present site
features include a landscaped berm measuring 20 to 30 feet in height and occupying the northern
third of the parcel and a 1.5-acre storm water retention basin at the southwestern comer.
Existing government facilities adjacent to the development include the Santa Rita Rehabilitation
Center and Firearms training facility north of the site and behind the berm. To the east lies the
Heavy Equipment Maintenance Building, the Sheriffs Academy, the California Highway Patrol,
the SPCA the Tri-Valley Animal Shelter and other similar government uses. The U.S. Army
Reserves Camp Parks training facility is situated to the north and west of the site and the Federal
Correctional Institution to the west. A City of Dublin fire station is planned along Madigan
Avenue just north of the existing Highway Patrol facility.
Suburban mixed-use areas occur south of the proposed development as well. Among these are
an industrial business park extending southwest ftom the comer of Hacienda and Gleason, while
a single-family residential development extends southeast ftom the same intersection. There are
similar residential uses farther east of this area plus various commercial developments
approximately one-mile south along the 580 freeway at the Tassajara Road and Hacienda
Boulevard interchanges.
A visual survey was conducted by Lamphier - Gregory to identify the visual qualities,
characteristics and scenic resources of the East County Government Center area. The survey
consisted of several visits in which the area was viewed while traveling by automobile and
walking. Fourteen representative photographs are included, taken from locations indicated in
Figure 5.22. Copies of those photos are included in this chapter and numbered as Figures 5.23
to 5.29.
Figure 5.23 includes views ftom locations I a and 1 b, illustrating residential development along
Hacienda Drive. Photo la is a northeast-facing view of the intersection of Hacienda Drive and
Dublin Boulevard. Photo lb is a picture of single-family residences near the East County
Government Center site, within the Summerglen neighborhood.
Figure 5.24 includes views ftom locations 2a and 2b, illustrating existing commercial
development near the site and a distant view of the site ftom Hacienda Drive. A northwest
facing view of the intersection of Hacienda and Summerglen is visible in Photo 2a, while a view
of Hacienda Drive to the north from the same location is shown in Photo 2b.
Figure 5.25 includes views from locations 3a and 3b, illustrating closer views of the site from
Hacienda Drive. The view ftom the intersection of Gleason Drive and Hacienda Drive facing
northwest is shown in Photo 2a, while a northward view is shown in Photo 2b. In the latter
figure, the vacant site and existing berm are visible in the middleground.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 5-27
Chapter 5: Visual Quality/Aesthetics
Figure 5.26 includes views from location 4a and 4b, illustrating some of the other government
facilities in the area. Photo 4a shows the County's Heavy Equipment Repair Building in the
background and the California Highway Patrol offices in the middleground, with the East County
Government Center to the left. Photo 4b shows the Alameda County Office of Emergency
Services building, which is located north of the site along Border Blvd., near the eastern end of
the project site.
Figure 5.27 includes views from location Sa and Sb, illustrating the existing Santa Rita Jail
along Broder Blvd. The entrance to the Alameda County jail at Santa Rita, which is located
immediately north ofthe East County Government Center site, is shown in Photo Sa. A view of
the Jail's inmate housing facilities is shown in Photo 5b.
Figure 5.28 provides views of the local federal facilities. The Federal Correctional Institution
located immediately northwest of the site is shown in Photo 6a. Photo 6b shows a picture of the
Camp Parks military facility that is located west of the site across from Arnold Road. The
Pleasanton ridgeline is visible in the background, and a portion of the East County Government
Center site is visible in the foreground.
Figure 5.29 provides views to the south from a vantagepoint on top of the existing benn at the
East County Government Center site. Photo 7 a was taken facing south toward the business park
across Gleason Drive along the western half of the site, and higher density office development
near the 1-580 freeway. On the eastern side ofthe project site, looking south, residences located
across Gleason Drive are visible, as is a California Highway Patrol facility on the left side of
Photo 7b.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 5-28
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Æ
o
~~
R,"i::
ð~
~"'æ
1'~
g.'5
:J~
~¿;
d ö
13]
u>"-
;;;
'¡::
::
~
.....
CJ)
I-<
Q)
.....
~
U
.....
~
~
I-<
Q)
>
(5 §
þ:¡j
~ ~ e
. ; 0
U')o....J
~ U 0
6bt)õ
.... !'j..t::
~~P-;
1 a - Apartments along Hacienda Drive
1 b - Houses near Gleason Drive
Figure 5.23
East County Government Center Site
Nearby Residential Uses
~·,~,f~~J
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ì
I
1--"-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
2a - Light Industrial/Commercial Development along Hacienda Drive
2b . Hacienda Drive Looking North toward Site
Figure 5.24
East County Government Center Site
Hacienda Drive
:>~~
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
3a - Gleason Drive Looking West from Hacienda Drive
3b - Project Site at Gleason Drive/Hacienda Drive Intersection
Figure 5.25
East County Government Center Site
Gleason Drive
,Æ~~1_
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
I
I
I
I
I
Î
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
4a . County Maintenance Facility at Gleason DrivelMadigan Avenue
4b . Office of Emergency Services Building along Broder Boulevard
Figure 5.26
East County Government Center Site
Other County Facilities
. ~'":.
I ': : : ¡ ~
\ " -:-~;
.,.::'__ }l.~_
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
Sa - Santa Rita Jail - Main Entrance along Broder Boulevard
5b - Santa Rita Jail, View from Parking Lot
Figure 5.27
East County Government Center Site
Santa Rita Jail
,:~~~~iu
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,,1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6a - Federal Correctional institution west of Arnold Drive
6b . Camp Parks, Dublin, and PJeasanton across Arnold Drive
Figure 5.28
East County Government Center Site
Federal Facilities
~':7.~~~
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
7a - Light Industrial/Business Park along Gleason Drive
7b - CHP Offices and Residential Uses across Gleason Drive
Figure 5.29
East County Government Center Site
Development along Gleason Drive
, I.Z"- ¡
fcc'J'ì'J:
SOURCE: Lamphier~Gregory I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
1\
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 5: Visual Quality/Aesthetics
Site 15A
Site 15A is located within the western portion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area of the
City of Dublin. More specifically, the proposed site is bounded by Central Parkway on the
north, the Sybase Headquarters Complex to the east, Arnold Road to the west and Dublin
Boulevard to the south.
A visual survey was conducted by Lamphier - Gregory to identify the visual qualities,
characteristics and scenic resources of the Site 15A area. The survey consisted of several visits
in which the area was viewed while traveling by automobile and walking. Four representative
photographs are included, taken ftom locations indicated in Figure 5.30. Copies ofthose photos
are included in this chapter in Figures 5.31 and 5.32.
Figure 5.31 includes Photo la and Ib, illustrating local commercial development. Photo la
shows a northward view of Site 15A along Arnold Road, with the Microdental facility in the
background. Photo 1 b shows the Project site in the foreground, with the Sybase headquarters
building in the background.
Figure 5.32 includes Photo 2a and 2b, illustrating the large tracts of vacant land in the area. A
southward view of Site 15A is shown in Photo 2a. The site, additional County land, and a
portion ofInterstate 580 form the foreground and middle ground, and a group of office buildings
south ofI-580 are visible in the background. Photo 2b includes the project site in the
foreground, and the U.S. Army Reserve's Parks training facility in the background.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 5-37
~~
~i':
ð~
,'.-
~ -~
S'~
j~
H '"
µ¡~
U H
ê3B
ij¡f
;;;
"¡::
~
<JJ
~
o
:c
Q t\S
('f') u
ari --< 0
Q.llf).....J
... ,-¡ 0
~.ß!Õ
..... ..... ..s::::
~rJ.)P-4
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 a - Microdental. from Arnold/Dublin Blvd Looking North across Site 15A
1 b - Eastward View of Sybase Headquarters
Figure 5.31 ~J~t
Site 15A
Site Photos - Adjacent Office Buildings
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory
2a . View Southward across Site 15A to 1-580 and Hacienda Business Park
2b . From Sybase Lot Looking West across Site 15A to Camp Parks RFTA and Pleasanton Ridge
Figure 5.32
Site 15A
Site Photos - Views of Site
,J~v
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
Chapter 5: Visual Quality/Aesthetics
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGA TIONMEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The Project would have a significant environmental impact ifit were to result in:
· A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
· Substantial damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
· Substantial degradation in the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings.
· Creation of a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT 5.1:
Substantial degradation in the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings.
Impact 5.1.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. On-going operation of the existing Juvenile Hall in San Leandro would not result
in a substantial change in the visual character of the site or its surrounding area.
Impact 5.1.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. A new Juvenile Justice Facility at the Existing San Leandro
Property site would present a less than significant change in the visual character of the area. The
immediately adjacent site is already used for a juvenile hall and associated buildings. A new
Juvenile Justice Facility would not look substantially different than the existing facility and
would not substantially degrade the site or its surroundings.
Impact 5.1.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. This alternative would entail the addition of a ninth floor above
the eight-story portion of the existing Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, demolition and removal of
the existing two-story portion of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility building, and replacing the
two-story portion with a new, ten-story structure containing the sally-port, recreation yards, a
gymnasium and roof-top mechanical equipment. This new construction would significantly alter
the exterior appearance of the existing building. It would increase the bulk of the structure by
approximately 150 percent, and increase the height of the overall structure by 2 levels (or
approximately 25 percent). Given the existing visual character of the site within the context of
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 5-41
Chapter 5: Visual Quality/Aesthetics
downtown Oakland, this change would not be significantly visually degrading to the site or its
surroundings.
Impact 5.1.4: Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Development of the Pardee/Swan Site with a new Juvenile
Justice Facility would be visually compatible and consistent with the adjacent United Parcel
Service facility and other commercial structures in the adjacent portions of the Oakland Airport
Business Park. The Juvenile Justice Facility would generally be somewhat taller than the UPS
facility, but not as tall as the three-story office building located across from this site at 80 Swan
Way. However, this development would represent a major visual shift from the site's current
open character. While not visually incompatible with adjoining resource protection and
recreation uses nor substantially visually degrading to the site or its surroundings, development
of a Juvenile Justice Facility at the site would represent more of a contrast with the appearance of
the adjoining open space than does the current undeveloped site.
Impact 5.1.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Project development would result in construction of several large
multi-story buildings that would be substantially different in height and bulk, but designed so as
not to substantially degrade the site or its surroundings, including the existing residential uses
along Gleason Drive. Alameda County's project architects have developed an alternative master
plan concept for this site referred to as the "Master Plan Concept A". This master plan concept
provides programmatic elements of the project, as described below:
. The Juvenile Justice Facility, consisting of approximately 425,000 to 465,000 square feet
of space, would be located on the westernmost comer of the site along Gleason Drive,
Broder Blvd., and Arnold Road. This would place it farthest from the existing nearby
residential development. It would be visually screened from the residential areas by
constructing it on a pad approximately level with Gleason Drive, and then building up
landscaped berms along the Gleason Drive frontage. Designed as a combination of
planted landscaping and hardscape/art in the manner of a linear park, the berm would
provide a visual accent along Gleason Drive. Taken together, these juxtapositions,
grading devices and berms would maximize screening of the existing detention facility,
accommodate service and detainee traffic out of site of the rest of the community, and
generally de-ernphasize the new Juvenile Justice Facility vis-à-vis the surrounding
community.
. The East County Hall of Justice is anticipated in the East Dublin Specific Plan.
Encompassing approximately 195,000 square feet with 13 adult courts, it would be
located on the north central portion of the site. Sitting atop a gradually rising slope 12 to
14 feet above Gleason, it would be oriented on axis with Hacienda Drive. The berm,
which would run along virtually the entire length of the site along Gleason Drive, would
be interrupted at the point where Hacienda Drive intersects the site to provide both
visibility and access to the East County Hall of Justice from the south.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility J East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS J EIR
Page 5-42
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 5: Visual Quality/Aesthetics
. The Juvenile Justice Facility would have its main entrance and public functions at the
western end of the site, separate from the existing adult detention center and future
courts, thus providing a distinct identity for this function. The East County Hall of
Justice would be similarly oriented away from the existing jail and toward the
community, with the future office buildings providing a general public function as a
transition to the mix of existing residential and commercial development to the south.
. Current surface parking provides excess capacity for the needs of the existing Santa Rita
Rehabilitation Center and Sheriffs facilities. This alternative would share some ofthis
capacity as well as provide additional spaces. For the proposed East County Hall of
Justice, this alternative includes surface parki~g on the eastern portion ofthe site for ,
approximately 850 spaces, and a means to screen the parking trom view to the extent
practical by incorporating the landscaped berm noted above. Parking for the Juvenile
Justice Facility, with a smaller parking allotment of approximately 550 spaces, is
accommodated in the northwest portion of the site, while the existing Santa Rita
Rehabilitation Center would use approximately 250 parking stalls.
Impact 5.1.6:
Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. This alternative would entail construction of a courthouse
building composed of a three-story wing and a four-story wing. This type, height and mass of
building would not be out of character with nearby buildings, including the four-story
Microdental facility north of Site 15A, and the six-story Sybase headquarters building
immediately east of Site 15A.
IMPACT 5.2:
Substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantial
damage to scenic resources
Impact 5.2.1 No Action/No Project
NQ IMPACT. On-going operation of the existing Juvenile Hall in San Leandro would not
damage or result in a substantial effect on a scenic resource.
Impact 5.2.2
Existing San Leandro Property
NO IMPACT. No scenic vistas or scenic resources would be affected by the construction of a
new juvenile justice Facility at this site. Views in the area from all viewpoints would not be
significantly changed.
Impact 5.2.3 Glenn Dyer Detention Center
NO IMP ACT. No scenic vistas or scenic resources would be affected by the construction of a
new Juvenile Justice Facility at this site. Views in the area from all viewpoints would not be
significantly changed. The height and mass of the existing Glenn Dyer Detention Center facility
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 5-43
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility / East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS / EIR
Page 5-44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 5: Visual Quality/Aesthetics
and/or this Project, and the adjoining courthouse building effectively blocks views of the Old
Oakland area from the 1-880 fteeway, and views ofthe fteeway ftom the Old Oakland area.
Impact 5.2.4 Pardee/Swan Site
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE. Development of this alternative would lengthen the
distance that the line of site for pedestrians walking north along the San Leandro Channel is
blocked. Currently, the UPS facility blocks views of the Martin Luther King Jr. Shoreline until
pedestrians walk far enough north along the San Leandro Channel trail to where views of the
shoreline can be seen. This alternative would cause a substantial amount of the shoreline to be
visually obstructed from the trail. This would be a significant and unavoidable impact ofthe '
project.
Impact 5.2.5 East County Government Center
NO IMPACT. No scenic vistas or scenic resources would be affected by the construction of a
new East County Government Center at this site. Current views of the site look at a large,
undeveloped earthen benn, and views to the surrounding open space and hillsides to the north are
currently blocked by his benn. Views in the area from all viewpoints would not be significantly
changed by the construction of new buildings at this site.
Impact 5.2.6
Site 15A
NO IMP ACT. No scenic vistas or scenic resources would be affected by the construction of a
new Hall of Justice at this site. Views in the area ftom all viewpoints would not be significantly
changed.
IMPACT 5.3:
Creation of a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area.
Impact 5.3.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. On-going operation of the existing Juvenile Hall at this site would not result in
any increased light or glare on the site.
Impact 5.3.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Juvenile Hall at the Existing San Leandro Property
would present a less than significant light and glare impact to the area. The adjacent site is
already used for a juvenile hall, and its buildings are equipped with night lighting systems. A
new juvenile hall would not look substantially different than the existing facility, and would not
contribute substantially more or less light and glare to the site and its surroundings.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 5: Visual Quality/Aesthetics
Impact 5.3.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. No new exterior lighting would be required to enable the existing
Glenn Dyer Detention Center facility to accommodate juvenile detainees. Any changes in
existing interior lighting or additional lighting required for the operation of structural additions
would not be expected to have any measurable effects on existing levels of light and glare in the
vicinity of the building.
Impact 5.3.4: Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. New exterior lighting would be required at the site as part of the
Juvenile Justice Facility development. Increased vehicular activity around the proposed '
structures would also be expected to result in substantially more light and glare than currently
seen at the site. However, the site is adjacent to a major United Parcel Service distribution
facility which contributes significant light and glare 24 hours a day, and the development of the
proposed juvenile justice facility would not add to the existing light and glare in any substantive
way when compared to existing uses.
Impact 5.3.5: East County Government Center
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. Project development could
result in increased light and glare in the area due to lighting used for security purposes, reflective
materials and other sources.
. Mitigation Measure 5.3.5: Lighting Design Criteria. The County shall consider
potential light and glare impacts in the design-build process, and include measures such
as shielding, design revisions, or other means ofreducing impacts. For example, lighting
should, to the extent feasible, be oriented away from residential uses.
Resulting Level a/Significance. Implementation of this measure would reduce light and
glare impacts to a level of less than significant.
Impact 5.3.6: Site 15A
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. Project development could
result in increased light and glare in the area, due to lighting used for security purposes,
reflective materials and other sources.
. Mitigation Measure 5.3.6: Lighting Design Criteria. The County shall consider
potential light and glare impacts in the design-build process, and include rneasures such
as shielding, design revisions, or other means of reducing impacts. For example, lighting
should, to the extent feasible, be oriented away from residential uses.
Resulting Level of Significance. Implementation of this measure would reduce light and
glare impacts to a level of less than significant.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 5-45
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility I East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS I EIR
Page 5-46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 5: Visual Quality/Aesthetics
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6
Geology, Soils and Seismicity
6.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BACKGROUND
The five sites evaluated in this EIS/EIR are located in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province,
which is characterized by northwest-southeast trending valleys and ridges. These are controlled
by folds and faults that resulted from the collision of the Farallon and North American plates and
subsequent strike-slip faulting along the San Andreas fault zone. The Bay Area experienced
uplift and faulting in several episodes during late Tertiary time 25 to 2 million years ago that
produced a series of northwest trending valleys and mountain ranges, including the Berkeley
Hills, the San Francisco Peninsula and the intervening San Francisco Bay. Following this period,
uplifted areas were eroded and Pleistocene-age sediments including alluvium and marshland
sediments were deposited in low-lying areas. Faults exhibit mainly right lateral strike-slip
movement (the rnovement is predominantly horizontal and when viewed from one side of the
fault the opposite side of the fault is seen to move to the right).
Faults that are defined as active exhibit one or more of the following:
· evidence of Holocene Age displacement (within the past 11,000 years),
· measurable tectonic creep along fault lines, and/or
· close proximity to linear concentrations or trends of earthquake epicenters.
Potentially active faults are defined as those that have evidence of Quaternary Age displacement
(within the past 2 million years).
All five sites evaluated are located in a seismically active area of California. Several major fault
systems exist in the area (see Figure 6.1). Earthquakes occurring along these fault systems are
capable of generating strong ground shaking. The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most
seismically active regions in the United States. The significant earthquakes that occur in the Bay
Area are generally associated with crustal movement along well-defined active fault zones of the
San Andreas fault system, which regionally trend in a northwesterly direction.
Soil liquefaction may occur when predominantly granular soils become more compact following
ground shaking, therefore occupying less volume and resulting in settlement. Soils most
susceptible to liquefaction and densification are loose, clean, poorly graded, fine-grained sands.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-1
Fault
. . ... ... Concealed Fault
I
I
I
\~ I
ª
.
· .
· .
· ..~
.. .'é.
.. ..s..
. .
. .
. .
. .
. ..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
..'"
.'é.
..So.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
20
Miles
Figure 6.1
Regional Fault Map
,,-i**
SOURCE: California Ikpartment of Conservation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Expansive soils tend to shrink and swell with changes in moisture content. Expansive soils that
are near the ground surface will shrink and swell due to nonnal seasonal variations in moisture
and have the potential to cause damage to surface-mounted improvements such as buildings
founded on shallow foundations, sidewalks and pavements.
REGULATORy/POLICY SETTING
In 1973, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act went into effect. Alquist-Priolo
regulates development near active faults so as to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture. As
part of the Alquist-Priolo Fault Evaluation Program, the State Geologist in conjunction with the
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) has delineated Earthquake Hazard Zones
around known active faults.
In 1999, the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, in conjunction with the
United States Geological Survey, published an updated report evaluating the probabilities of
significant earthquakes occurring in the Bay Area over the next 30 years. There is an estimated
32 percent chance that at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will occur on the
Hayward fault before 2030 and an estimated 70 percent chance that one magnitude 6.7 or greater
earthquake will occur in the San Francisco Bay region before 2030 (USGS 1999).
The CDMG has also developed Active Fault Near Source Zone maps to be used in conjunction
with the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The UBC methodology characterizes the more
significant active faults as A or B based on the following: Seismic Source Type A refers to faults
having a slip rate greater than 5 rom per year that are capable of producing an earthquake having
a maximum Moment Magnitude greater than 7. Seismic Source Type B refers to faults not
included in Type A having a slip rate greater than 2 rom per year capable of producing an
earthquake having a maximum Moment Magnitude greater than 6.5.
LOCAL PHYSICAL SETTING
No Action/No Project
Two geotechnical reports were prepared evaluating the site of the existing Juvenile Hall in San
Leandro for the purpose of detennining geotechnical concerns related to the possible future
construction of a Juvenile Justice Facility, East County Hall of Justice and East County
Govemnient Center County Offices. The findings of those reports are summarized in this
section.
Site History
Review of aerial photographs shows that parts of the site have been occupied since the 1930s and
have undergone significant modification and grading. In 1939, a govenunent facility occupied
the location of the existing Chabot Boy's Camp and a hog farm operated on the land currently
used by Camp Sweeney. Site alterations include episodes of grading, quarrying and fill
placement. Extensive fill consisting of gravel and clay was placed along the north and
northeastern margins of the site in the 1970s during construction of Fairmont Drive, located
directly east of the site area. Bedrock topographic highs consisting of gabbro were excavated
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6·3
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
along the alignment of Fainnont Drive and the excavated material was used to fill an abandoned
rock quarry located in the east-central part of the site, as well as several steep, west-flowing
drainages that cross the site. Only limited geotechnical data are available on the fill depth and
strength. Estimated fill thickness ranges between less than 10 feet up to at least 70 feet, based on
the comparison oftopographic maps prepared before and after construction of Fainnont Drive, as
well as trench exposures from geotechnical studies.
Geology and Seismicity
The Existing San Leandro Property site is an approximately rectangular parcel that lies east of
the active eastern trace of the Hayward fault. A map of the site showing the location of the
Hayward fault is presented in Figure 6.2. Elevations at the site range from about 250 to 380 feet
above mean sea level.
Based on interpretation of topographical maps, geologic field reconnaissance, trench exposures
and borehole information, the northern part ofthe site near Chabot Boy's Camp consists of
Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits inset into weathered gabbro at the west-facing mountain front.
Remnants of the Pleistocene alluvial fan extend from the track at Chabot Boy's Camp to the
south near the swimming pool and greenhouse. Field reconnaissance and review of previous
geotechnical reports prepared for buildings in this part of the site shows that the alluvium was
locally graded and removed exposing underlying gabbro bedrock in places.
Other regions in the central part of the site apparently unaffected by grading are characterized by
shallow gabbro and Leona ryholite overlain by at least 11.5 feet of Pleistocene
alluvium/colluvium and 8.2 feet of Holocene alluvium/colluvium. On the basis of a fault study
conducted by Woodward-Lundgren and Associates (1974), the southern part of the site is
characterized by shallow gabbro bedrock overlain by a thin veneer of Quaternary
alluvium/colluvium. The Quaternary alluvium/colluvium increases in thickness to at least 5 feet
near the southern property boundary of Camp Sweeney.
The Hayward fault, which traverses the western portion of the site, is considered a major active
fault. Other major active faults in the Bay Area include the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Rodgers
Creek, Concord-Green Valley, Calaveras and Greenville faults. It can be expected that the site
will experience minor earthquakes and possibly a major earthquake on one of the nearby active
faults during the life of any development.
The site is partially within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone surrounding the Hayward
fault, which is characterized as a Seismic Source Type A and controls seismic design at the site.
Published geologic maps show active and potentially active strands of the Hayward fault at the
site. In particular, the CDMG (1982) includes a large portion of the site within the Hayward
Fault Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (A-P Zone). Within this part of the A-P Zone, four
potentially active faults and two photo-lineaments are mapped within 50 feet of, and in some
cases cross, the proposed building envelopes. In addition, a previous geologic hazards
investigation for the existing Juvenile Hall (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1969a and 1978)
identified "Eastern" and "Western" traces of the primary Hayward fault, both of which are
directly west of the site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
t
400
FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD ZONE-DASHED BOUNDARY
INDICATES SETBACK ESTABLISHED BY WLA (2001),
DOTTED BOUNDARY LOCATED BASED ON ASSUMED
50' SETBACK WHERE NO SETBACK WAS
PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED
Feet
PHOTOLlNEAMENT SHOWN BY WLA (2001)
FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS NECESSARY TO
VERIFY THE EXISTENCEINON-EXISTENCE OF
AN ACTIVE FAULT
PROPOSED JUVENILE JUSTICE FACILITY
Figure 6.2
San Leandro Site
Seismic Hazards
'-_ ~1f,~)
SOURCE: Rutherford & Chekene Consulting Engineers
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Surface Conditions
The site is located at the eastern edge ofthe alluvial plain bordering the western margin ofthe
East Bay Hills. The western margin of the site closest to the Hayward fault and the existing
Juvenile Hall currently ranges in elevation ftom about 230 to 250 feet.
Significant local variations in surface topography exist due to the following:
· east-west trending drainages leading from upslope areas to a larger northwest-southeast
trending drainage west of the site
· a significant northwest-southeast trending 50 foot high break in slope associated with the
eastern trace of the Hayward fault
· relatively steep fill slopes at the eastern margin of the site associated with Fainnont Drive
· various cuts and fills associated with previous development at the site.
Subsurface Conditions
Bedrock geology in the East Bay Hills is structurally and lithologically complex. The oldest
rocks in the vicinity are Mesozoic Franciscan Complex sedimentary and volcanic rocks that were
accreted to the western margin of the North American plate during the Cretaceous. These rocks
are juxtaposed against Upper Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous rocks of the Great Valley Sequence,
and in the vicinity of the study area are intruded by Mesozoic mafic and ultramafic rocks
(gabbro, gabbro-diabase). Bedrock in the study area has been intensely sheared and folded, and
many of the rocks are serpentinized. The bedrock at the site is predominantly composed of
highly ftactured, sheared and weathered gabbro of Jurassic age. The depth to bedrock varies, but
it exists close to or at the ground surface throughout much of the site.
Between October 3 and November 10, 2000, Subsurface Consultants, Inc. (Subsurface
Consultants, 2002a) investigated subsurface conditions at the site by drilling a total of 12
exploratory borings. The approximate locations of the borings are shown in Figure 6.3.
Borings 1 through 9 were drilled using an all terrain balloon tire drill equipped with hollow stem
augers and mud rotary drilling equipment. Borings 10 through 12 were drilled with a truck
mounted drill rig equipped with hollow stem augers. A staff geologist supervised the drilling
operations, continuously logged the soils and bedrock encountered, and collected samples ofthe
subsurface materials for subsequent evaluation and laboratory testing. Soil samples and highly
weathered bedrock were obtained using split barrel drive samplers equipped with stainless steel
liners or by a pitcher barrel sampler. Harder bedrock was cored using a core barrel. Core samples
were carefully removed from the inside liner and transferred to core boxes.
William Lettis & Associates, Inc. (2001) perfonned a surface fault rupture hazard investigation
at the Existing San Leandro Property site. Eighteen trenches and seven test pits were interpreted.
Over 1,700 feet of subsurface exposures were excavated, cleaned and documented.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 6.3
San Leandro Site
Boring Locations
SOURCE: Subsurface Consultants, Inc. 2001
Aerial Photo: Pacific Aerial Surveys
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
In addition to the standard logging and interpretation of trench data, separate analyses were
performed to estimate the age ofthe faulted and unfaulted deposits using soil profile
development and radiocarbon dating of organic material. The purpose of the trenches was to
expose near-surface stratigraphy that would provide information on fault location and activity. In
addition, surface projections of faults exposed in the trenches were surveyed (Subsurface 2001 a)
precisely locate these features relative to surrounding cultural reference points. The results ofthis
fault investigation confirm the location of the primary Hayward fault west of the site, and
potentially active secondary faults crossing the site.
Between October 18 and November 2,2000, a seisrnic refraction survey was performed at the
site by Norcal Geophysical Consultants, a subcontractor to Subsurface Consultants, Inc. Seismic
refraction was used to determine the seismic velocities of the subsurface materials along an
approximately 1,460- foot alignment of a proposed upslope retaining wall system. Results from
the survey were used to interpret geotechnical properties ofthe subsurface materials and generate
an idealized soil profile. The seismic refraction survey supplements the subsurface information
obtained from exploratory borings.
Seismic velocities of the subsurface materials were determined by measuring the response of
compression waves (P-waves) generated at the surface using an industrial seismic source. The P-
waves propagate into the soils and refract at boundaries between subsurface materials having
different properties. The refracted P-waves were measured by geophones spaced at 15-foot
intervals at the surface, and a Geometrics Strataviewer 24 channel engineering seismograph
collected the data. The recorded data were analyzed using computer program (SIPT2) by
Rimrock Geophysics using the generalized reciprocal method and an idealized soil and seismic
velocity profile was generated.
Groundwater
Groundwater levels were measured in various test borings at depths of 58 feet, 38 feet and 53
feet. Groundwater was not encountered in all test borings. In general, groundwater levels at the
site are below the depth of planned excavation. However, groundwater is likely present at
shallower elevations in the form of isolated seepage zones or locally perched conditions,
particularly during the rainy season.
landslides
Large-scale landsliding occurred throughout the Bay Area during the Pleistocene Age (more than
10,000 years ago) when the local climate was significantly wetter than it is today. Locally, these
ancient massive bedrock landslides are common in areas of inherently weaker bedrock, such as
might be expected close to the Hayward fault. In the generally drier climate of the past 10,000
years, these massive bedrock landslides have typically become inactive. However, secondary
landsliding continues to occur within generally weakened rock masses comprising the ancient
landslide complexes. Old landslides are present in the hills directly east of the site (see Figure
6.4).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 0 t 400
Feel
I Figure 6.4
I San Leandro Site
Geologic Hazards
I
....., LANDSLIDE HAZARD ZONE·INCLUDES LARGE SURFICIAL
# LANDSLIDES AND DEEP BEDROCK LANDSLIDES
lalS: (LANDSLIDES IDENTIFIED DURING PREVIOUS
'.... STUDIES AS HAVING "GENERALLY LOW RISK"
TO THE SITE ARE NOT INCLUDED)
FILL ZONE-INCLUDES MAPPED AREAS OF FILL
SOFT SOIL ZONE·INCLUDES SOIL (ALLUVIUM)
THAT IS LOCALLY SOFT AND MAY HAVE SHALLOW
GROUND WATER PRESENT. MAY ALSO INCLUDE PEAT
Qls
##
#
.............
;
I
,
~
~
~
'.
.~
·Jij
SOURCE: Rutherford & Chekene Consulting Engineers
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
The CDMG maps the entire hillside directly north and east of the site as a bedrock landslide
extending from the ridge top downslope to the main traces of the Hayward fault. William Lettis
Associates' review of aerial photography and field recoilllaissance confirms the presence of a
4,000 foot long massive landslide complex that extends from the ridge top northwest of Bay fair
Reservoir to the southeastern margins ofthe site.
Landslide Qls-1
The massive landslide complex consists of many large nested landslides, including landslides
designated Qls-l, Qls-2, Qls-3 and Qls-4 that appear to impinge upon the northern and eastern
margins of the site. The western limits of landslide Qls-l are assumed to extend west near the
valley floor. The lateral margins of landslide Qls-l are poorly defined and are inferred based on
the assumption that the major drainages and ridgelines coincide with the landslide margins.
Landslide Qls-I was evaluated in part by Berlogar (1984b) through detailed geologic mapping,
trenching, drilling, analysis of soil samples, preparation of geologic cross sections and slope
stability analyses. Berlogar (1984b) interprets landslide Qls-l as one of the large nested slides
making up part of the 4,000 foot long massive landslide complex. Landslide Qls-I is mapped as
a 2,400 foot wide and 2,300 foot long deep seated bedrock landslide that extends westerly
beneath the site and below the existing valley floor at or near the western margin of the site.
Nested within landslide Qls-l are bedrock landslides Qls-2, Qls-3 and Qls-4.
Landslide Qls-2
Bedrock landslide Qls-2 is at least 400 feet wide and possibly on the order of 1,000 feet long,
although the lower portions of the landslide are poorly defined and are unclear. Landslide Qls-2
consists of a well-defined 60 to 70 foot high arcuate headscarp and broad swales and/or ridges
along the lateral margins. The lateral margins are buried by artificial fill to the southwest near the
existing Animal Control Facility. The upper rnargins of landslide Qls-2 consist of a gentle
southwest dipping planar slide block that appears to be significantly modified by erosion and
weathering and lacks prominent hummocky topography typical of the more recent smaller
landslides in the site area. The slide mass appears to have incorporated a block of Leona rhyolite
that has been displaced to the southwest.
Landslide Qls-3
Landslide Qls-3 is at least 400 feet wide and more than 800 feet long and is characterized as a
bedrock landslide that extends westerly beneath Fairmont Drive and appears to daylight at
Chabot Boy's Camp. The upper left margin of the slide is delineated by a southwest-flowing
swale and the right margin is characterized by a ridgeline that merges with a southwest-flowing
drainage near the intersection with Fairmont Drive. Similar to landslide Qls-2, it contains a large
block of Leona rhyolite located east ofFairmont Drive that appears to have been displaced
southwest toward the site. The slide appears to be about 90 feet thick.
Landslide Qls-4
The 60-foot headscarp of bedrock landslide Qls-4 is located northeast of the Chabot Boy's Camp
at about 580 feet above mean sea level. Based on interpretation of aerial photography and field
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
reconnaissance, the landslide is at least 1,000 feet long and about 500 feet wide and extends
southwest across Fainnont Drive. The toe of the bedrock landslide appears to daylight near the
northern margin of the Chabot Boy's Camp running track although this is poorly constrained. A
large block of rhyolite spans the right lateral margin and delineates the left lateral margin of
landslide Qls-4. It is unclear if the rhyolite is offset across the right lateral margin. Smaller active
surficial slides are nested within landslide Qls-4. In terms of prominent geomorphology,
landslides Qls-2 and Qls-3 are characterized by more distinctive landslide-related
geomorphology.
Foundation Support and Settlement
One of the principal geotechnical considerations with respect to foundations at the site is the
potential for post-construction differential settlement for footings founded on dissimilar materials
(i.e., bedrock, native soil and fill). Fi11locations are shown in Figure 6.4, above.
Expansive Soils
Potentially expansive soils were encountered in test borings in a number of areas at the site.
Existing San Leandro Property
The description of the geologic and soil conditions at the Existing San Leandro Property site
presented in No Action/No Project (see above) applies to the use of the Existing San Leandro
Property for a new Juvenile Justice Facility also.
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
The evaluation of geology, soils and seismicity for the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility site is
based on two previous studies by Dames & Moore, prepared in 1976 and 1980.
Site History
Prior to the construction of the existing Glenn Dyer Detention Facility in the mid-l 980s, the site
supported a number of residential and commercial structures that were demolished to enable the
development of the facility.
Geology and Seismicity
The site is located approximately 6 miles west of the Hayward fault, and approximately 12 miles
east ofthe San Andreas fault. It is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
Surface Conditions
The site is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from Elevation 24 to Elevation 21 (City of
Oakland Datum, +3.07 feet above mean sea level).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-11
Chapter 6: Geology. Soils and Seismicity
Subsurface Conditions
For the 1980 Dames & Moore report, three borings were drilled at the site (see Figure 6.5). The
upper soils consist of fine to medium sands and silty sands with some gravel. This granular fill
material varies :trom about 2 to 4 feet in thickness. The fill materials are supported by a thick
sand layer (Merritt Fonnation) that varies in density :trom loose at the top to very dense with
depth. In the lower portion of this sand layer, traces of clay were found. Below the sands,
medium stiff to very stiff silty clays, sandy clays and clayey sand layers with periodic traces of
gravel and gravel lenses were encountered to the depths explored.
Fill was encountered in the top 1 to 2.5 feet of all three borings made on August 14, 1980. The
fill consisted ofloose to medium dense fine to medium sand containing traces of brick and wood
fragments. Below the fill to the maximum depths explored is a deposit of medium dense to dense
fine to medium sand containing variable amounts of silt and traces of clay. No evidence was
encountered in these borings to indicate that the residential building previously occupying the
site had a basement structure.
Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in all borings. It varied in depth from about 17 to 20 feet. With
the relatively high ground water table, piezometers were installed to in Boring 6 to observe any
fluctuations in the ground water table. Periodic readings taken after the installation of these
piezometers indicate that the ground water has come to equilibrium at approximately 18.5 to 19
feet below the existing ground surface, or about Elevation +5. The 1976 Dames & Moore
investigation indicated that seasonal groundwater fluctuations of at least 3 feet should be
considered prior to structural design, and recommended that during construction, provisions be
taken to lower the groundwater table a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the proposed
footings for the structures.
Landslides
There is no evidence oflandsliding at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, as this site is relatively
level.
Foundation Support and Settlement
Prior to the construction of the existing Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, it was estimated that the
post-construction settlement for the structure would be on the order of I inch. The differential
settlements between similarly loaded footings were projected to be less than one-half this
amount. However, the differential settlement between the structurally separated tower and non-
tower sections was expected to be greater (on the order of 1.5 inches).
Expansive Soils
The presence or absence of expansive soils has not been documented at this developed site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6~12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I!:: ~
o '"
o i':
::E "
't <JJ
,::-;
I '" -¡::
~~
8~
'0
B~
I ~.s
Sh~
';;¡
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I aJ ~
.-::: 0
Cf)::::
I 1-4 ra
II) ~ ~
..cO~
Q,I CO
I ~ ß'2
.,..¡ G 0
~ co
I
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Pardee/Swan Site
This section is based on a report prepared by ENGEO prior to the development of the existing
United Parcel Service facility on the adjacent site (1973) and the Phase VII Site Assessment
prepared by Baseline for the Port of Oakland in 1999, addressing the Pardee/Swan Site.
Site History
The Pardee/Swan Site was created through the placement of artificial fill over historic Baylands.
The earliest available aerial photograph (1947) shows the site as marshy and undeveloped. By
1968, aerial photography indicated some areas of fill at or near the site, although no roadways or
structures were present. By 1977, aerial photography indicates that the entire site was filled,
Pardee Drive was built, and the adjacent United Parcel Service distribution center was in place.
Geology and Seismicity
The Pardee/Swan Site is located in a seismically active region, approximately 15 miles east of
the San Andreas fault and 2.5 miles west of the Hayward fault. It is not located within an
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
Surface Conditions
The site was formerly wetland that was filled approximately 25 years ago. It is currently vacant.
It was previously covered in native and introduced grasses, until late 2002 when the Port of
Oakland began construction of its new airport parking lot on the site, involving extensive grading
to create firm ground conditions and positive drainage for the paved parking lot.
Subsurface Conditions
The Pardee/Swan Site is underlain by an upper layer of fill 6 feet to 10 feet in thickness. Fill
materials were predominantly clayey gravels and gravely clays, although brick, concrete, wood
chips, glass and tarry black material were encountered in the fill materials during the borings
conducted for the December 1999, Phase VII Site Assessment (see Figure 6.6). Below the fill is
a very soft grey-blue compressible silty clay ("Bay Mud"), 3 feet to 10 feet thick. Below the Bay
Mud is a layer of stiff to very stiff grey silty clay 4 feet to 7 feet thick. The clays are underlain by
a layer of dense sand and gravel.
Groundwater
In five of the borings conducted for the December, 1999, Phase I/II Site Assessment,
groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 5 to 7 feet below the existing ground
surface, although the groundwater interface was not apparent in the remaining seven borings.
The presence offill, combined with relatively shallow groundwater, creates conditions prone to
liquefaction under strong ground shaking.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 6.6
Pardee/Swan Site
Boring Locations
SOURCE: Baseline Environmental
Aerial Photo: Pacific Aerial Surveys
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
landslides
There is no evidence of landsliding at the relatively level Pardee/Swan Site.
Foundation Support and Settlement
No evaluation of the potential for differential settlement or other concerns related to structural
foundations has been conducted for this site, which has been created through the use of artificial
fill. The presence of fill, combined with relatively shallow groundwater, creates conditions prone
to liquefaction under strong ground shaking.
Expansive Soils
The Pardee/Swan Site is filled, does not contain topsoils and is not known to contain expansive
soils.
East County Government Center
The evaluation of geology and soils at the East County Government Center site is based on two
reports prepared by Subsurface Consultants, Inc. (Subsurface Consultants, 2002a and 2002b) for
MVE/Rosser, the bridging architect for the Juvenile Justice Facility, on behalf of Alameda
County. The purpose of the work was to explore subsurface conditions and provide
recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the Project. The scope ofthe investigations
consisted of reviewing existing infonnation, perfonning 14 test borings, perfonning geotechnical
laboratory testing and engineering analyses and preparing the geotechnical baseline report. Their
reports present findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding:
· site geology and seismicity;
· soil and groundwater conditions encountered;
· potential geologic hazards and seismic hazards including liquefaction, strong ground
shaking and fault rupture;
· appropriate 1997 Unifonn Building Code (UBC) geotechnical coefficients for code-based
seismic design;
· probabilistic seismic response spectra for site-specific seismic design;
· appropriate building foundation types, estimates of foundation settlement and preliminary
geotechnical recommendations for design;
· preliminary recommendations for earthwork including removal and potential reuse of soil
benn material and other on-site soil, sub grade mitigation within the existing stonn water
detention basin, site preparation, and fill placement and compaction;
· expansion potential of on-site soils and mitigation of expansive soil effects;
· preliminary design criteria for site retaining walls;
· geotechnical requirements for site and subsurface drainage; and
· construction considerations.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
The geotechnical baseline reports provide geotechnical parameters for seismic design and
preliminary geotechnical recommendations for planning of site preparation, earthwork,
foundations and site retaining walls, as outlined above. However, the final size, configuration,
stTUcturalloads and the final locations of the buildings have not been established. Consequently,
the geotechnical engineer of record for the selected designlbuild team will assess the need for
additional subsurface investigation and geotechnical analyses based upon the requirements of the
final design.
Subsurface conditions at the East County Government Center site were explored by drilling 20
test borings at the approximate locations shown on Figure 6.7. The test borings were drilled on
August 16 through 24,2001, to depths of up to 51.5 feet using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped
with hollow stem augers.
Site History
The site was previously part of the Camp Parks military installation that occupied an
approximately 3,600 acre area bounded by 1-580 to the south, Dougherty Road to the west,
Tassajara Road to the east and the Dublin foothills to the north. Camp Parks was primarily
developed in the 1940s during World War II. Although the military's use of the installation
continues today, its size has been greatly reduced through public and private purchases of the
real estate.
Based on a review of available maps showing previous military uses, it appears that the East
County Government Center site was once occupied by a number of structures including
personnel barracks and living quarters, a mess hall, a recreation hall, a greenhouse and nursery
facility, and a boiler house in the area proposed for the Juvenile Justice Facility; and personnel
barracks and living quarters, rness quarters, boiler houses, a prosthetic laboratory, a supply
department, a general detail building, a dispensary, a draft shed, an administrative building, ships
service department store and a recreation center in the area proposed for the East County Hall of
Justice. The military use of the site ended in about 1958 and the buildings were demolished. The
extent (if any) of foundations, utilities and other underground structures associated with past uses
that may still be present at the site are not known at this time.
Construction began in the early 1980s for Alameda County's Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center
(SRRC) located on the property immediately north of the site. Soil excavated frorn the SRRC site
was used to construct the benn along the northern side of the site to create a visual screen for the
SRRC facility. Also in cOlU1ection with the SRRC project, a drainage channel was realigned to a
stonn water detention basin constructed on the west side of the site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-17
<J '"
.s~
tJ~
¡¡¡J5
3]
~~
ð.>!
e:::a
~æ
$.ë
J5..@
..p..
~-
u .~
~~
@
QJ
.....
V5
I-<
2
t:: p..
QJ CtI
~::E
t:: t::
QJ 0
ê .~
I-< U
QJ 0
>...J
o QJ
Ü--'
p..
~ :s ~
\.Õ;::ICf)
~o-
I-< U OJ:)
6b tí 'S
.... CtI 0
~~r:o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Geology and Seismicity
According to published geologic maps, the East County Government Center site is underlain by
Holocene-age (less than about 11,000 years old) alluvium generally consisting of gravel, sand,
silt and clay.
The East County Government Center site is located about three-quarters of a mile east of the
surface expression of the Mount Diablo fault, 2.5 miles northeast of the Calaveras fault, 9 miles
southwest of the Greenville fault, 10 miles northeast of the Hayward fault and 28.5 miles
northeast of the San Andreas fault.
The East County Government Center site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone (AP Zone). The nearest AP Zone is approximately 1,500 feet southwest of the site
associated with a small apparently discontinuous zone of surface faulting. However, earthquakes
occurring along the San Andreas fault or any of a number of other Bay Area faults have the
potential to produce strong ground shaking at the site.
Surface Conditions
The site is bound by Arnold Road to the west, Broder Boulevard to the north, Gleason Drive to
the south and the extension of Hacienda Drive to the east. The Project site is approximately
rectangular in shape, with maximum plan dimensions of approximately 700 by 2,500 feet. Site
grades generally slope gently upward from about 360 feet above sea level along Arnold Road to
an elevation of 380 feet near the intersection of Gleason Drive and Hacienda Drive, continuing
up to about 390 feet at the eastern end of the site near Madigan Avenue and Broder Boulevard.
Two major localized features exist on the site. An approximately 20- to 40-foot high earth berm
is located along the northern portion of the site extending from Arnold Road to near Madigan
Avenue. An approximately 2-acre storm water detention basin exists in the western portion of
the site with a sub grade at approximately an elevation of355 feet. At the time of the field
investigation, the site was vegetated with tall grass and scattered trees.
Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface materials encountered in most areas of the site consist offill overlying native
soils. At several exploration locations, native soils were encountered at the ground surface.
Juvenile JustIce Facility
Borings B-2 through B-5 were drilled from the crest ofthe berm along the northern portion of
the site. The berm fill extends to depths of about 20 to 40 feet and generally consists of stiff to
very stiff silty clay, and medium dense clayey sand. These borings indicate that the berm fill
extends as much as 9 feet below the proposed floor level of the Juvenile Justice Facility. These
berm heights are generally consistent with those shown on the grading plans for construction of
the berm. Beneath the berm, native soil generally consisting of interbedded stiff to very stiff silty
clay, and medium dense to dense clayey sand was encountered and extended to the maximum
depth explored of about 51 feet.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-19
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Borings B-6 and B-11 were drilled in the detention basin. Grades in the detention basin are about
13 feet below the proposed lowest level floor grade of the Juvenile Justice Facility. The soils
encountered generally consist of interbedded stiffto very stiff silty to sandy clay, and medium
dense sand with varying amounts of clay and silt, which extended to the maximum depth
explored of about 41 feet.
The remaining borings (B-1, B-7 through B-10, and B-12 through B-15) were drilled elsewhere
across the site. Fill was encountered in all of these borings to depths of about 6 feet, except in
Borings B-7 and B-12 where native soil was encountered at ground surface. The fill encountered
generally consists of stiff to very stiff silty clay. Construction of the Juvenile Justice Facility at
the proposed elevation will require excavation below.the depth to which fill was encountered,in
these locations. Beneath the fill, and from ground surface in Borings B- 7 and B-12, the soil
encountered generally consists of interbedded stiff to very stiff silty clay and clayey silt, medium
dense to dense clayey to silty sand.
East County Hall of Justice
Additional borings were conducted for the proposed East County Hall of Justice. Borings B-4, B-
5 and B-17 were drilled from the crest of the benn along the northern portion of the site. The
berm fill extends to depths of about 20 to 35 feet and generally consists of stiff to very stiff silty
clay, and medium dense clayey sand. These borings indicate that the berm fill extends below the
proposed floor level of the Project. Beneath the benn, native soil generally consisting of
interbedded stiff to very stiff silty clay, and medium dense to dense clayey sand was encountered
and extended to the maximum depth explored of about 51 feet.
The remaining borings (B-9, B-lO, B-14, B-15 and B-16 through B-20) were drilled elsewhere
across the site. Fill was encountered in all of these borings up to depths of about 3 feet, except in
Borings B-18 through B-20 where native soil was encountered at ground surface. The fill
encountered generally consists of stiff to very stiff silty clay. The proposed elevation for the
basement of the East County Hall of Justice has not yet been determined, so it is unsure if
excavation below the fill will take place. Beneath the fill, and from ground surface in Borings B-
18 through B-20, the soil encountered generally consists of interbedded stiff to very stiff silty
clay and clayey silt, or medium dense clayey to silty sand with some 2-5 foot medium dense to
dense sand layers.
Groundwater
Juvenile Justice Facility
Groundwater was encountered in Borings B-1, B-3, B-11 and B-15 at depths of about 20 to 50
feet at the time of drilling. These depths correspond to approximate elevations of 334 to 350 feet,
and are below the planned levels of filling and excavation for the proposed Juvenile Justice
Facility. However, water should be anticipated in the detention basin during periods of wet
weather.
, Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
East County Hall of Justice
Groundwater was encountered in Borings B-15, B-16 and B-20 at depths of about 40 to 46 feet at
the time of drilling. These depths correspond to approximate elevations of 334 to 339 feet, and
are below the planned levels of excavation for the proposed East County Hall of Justice.
Fluctuations in the groundwater level could occur due to change in seasons, variations in rainfall
and other factors.
Landslides
There is no evidence of landsliding at the relatively level East County Govennnent Center site.
Foundation Support and Settlement
Beneath the near-surface fill materials, the site is underlain by predominantly clayey soils of
moderate strength and compressibility. Low-rise buildings with low to moderate column loads
can likely be supported on spread footings or a mat foundation bearing on native soil or properly
compacted fill. We estimate that long-term total and differential settlement of spread footing
foundations constructed on native soil or on properly compacted fill can be limited to less than
about 3/4-inch and 1/2-inch, respectively.
Taller structures with moderate to high colunmloads may settle unacceptably if supported on
shallow foundations such as spread footings or mats. Consequently, mid-rise buildings wi11likely
need to be supported on deep foundations such as driven piles or drilled piers. Based on the
preliminary information, we judge that driven piles wi11likely be the most economical type of
deep foundation system for this site. We estimate that long-term total and differential settlement
of a driven pile foundation system can be limited to less than about 1/2-inch and 1/4-inch,
respectively.
The field exploration was performed to evaluate overall geotechnical conditions at the site and
did not include borings or test pits to investigate locations where buildings previously existed at
the site. It is anticipated that old foundations, basements, abandoned utilities and areas of locally
deep backfill may exist in areas planned for development. These materials are generally
unsuitable for the support of spread footings, slabs-on-grade, pavements and other planned
improvements.
Expansive Soils
The clayey soil encountered in both the fill and native soil across the entire site has a medium to
high plasticity and a moderate to high expansion potential. Information from the field
explorations indicates that more highly expansive soils were generally encountered in the fill and
shallower native soils.
Site 15A
Lowney Associates conducted a geotechnical feasibility study of Site 15A in December 2000, for
a proposed Cisco Systems office complex. The purpose of their study was to evaluate the
subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site and develop a preliminary opinion
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-21
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
regarding the geotechnical and geologic concerns that might impact buildings constructed on Site
15A as well as Sites 16A and 16F to the south and west of the Site 15A site. Findings and
recommendations made in the report by Lowney Associates (2002) are applicable to the
proposed East County Hall of Justice on Site 15A.
Lowney Associates perfonned the following services related to the preparation of their report:
· explored subsurface conditions by drilling three borings, perfonned six Cone Penetration
Tests (CPTs) and retrieved soil samples for observation and laboratory testing;
· constructed three piezometers to verify depth to groundwater;
· evaluated the physical and engineering properties of the subsurface soils by visually
classifying the samples and perfonning various laboratory tests on selected samples; and
· produced an engineering analysis to evaluate potential geotechnical and geological
hazards.
Site History
As a fonner military facility, the site once supported railroad tracks, two gasoline stations, an
inflammable storage building, a public works office and shop, a transportation shop and
barracks, and another unidentified building. Today it is vacant, and covered in native and
introduced grasses.
Geology and Seismicity
The eastern-most boundary of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the Pleasanton fault
is mapped on the southwest comer of Parcel F, adjacent to the site. The Pleasanton fault is shown
on the 1982 Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone map as a Holocene fault younger than 11,000
years and potentially capable of surface rupture. The Earthquake Fault Zone established for the
Pleasanton fault extends northwest from 1-580 at Arnold Road toward Dougherty Road and ends
south of the Dougherty Hills. The vicinity is underlain by Holocene alluvium, suggesting that
any surficial fault related features are attributable to an active fault.
The San Andreas fault, which generated the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906, passes
about 28 miles southwest of the site. Two other major active faults in the area include the
Hayward fault, located about 9 miles southwest of the site and the Calaveras fault, located about
2 miles to the west.
Surface Conditions
Relatively tall grass and weeds cover most of the site, which is mostly level except for vegetated
drainage ditches running parallel to Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road. A few ditches and
depressions are scattered about the site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIRp
Page 6-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Subsurface Conditions
Exploratory borings and CPTs indicate that the site is underlain by predominantly stiff to very
stiff silty and sandy clay to the maximum depth of 80 feet explored below the ground surface
(see Figure 6.8). Below a depth of 15 feet, the clays were periodically interrupted by 2- to 11-
foot thick medium dense to very dense clayey sands.
Lowney Associates excavated test pits about 100 feet apart across parcels 15A, 16A and F (see
Figure 6.9). These test pits encountered scattered undocumented fills mostly consisting of
gravelly clay, as well as abandoned utility lines and below grade structures such as building
foundations and concrete slabs. Some areas near the previous buildings contained sand and
gravel fills.
Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered during drilling of exploratory borings at depths ranging from 9 to
20 feet. Groundwater was measured in the CPTs at depths ranging fÌ"om 9 to II feet.
landslides
There is no evidence of landsliding at the relatively level Site 15A.
Foundation Support and Settlement
Undocumented fills were encountered across the site, which could present the potential for
compression and/or settlement under new buildings or pavements.
Expansive Soils
Plasticity Index Testing indicates the near-surface soils encountered across Site 15A are highly
expansIve.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-23
Æ ~
'" '"
,:¡ ¡:
~~
>-. ,::
"'~
~ u
0'-=
..J "0
.. '"
¡,¡.¡P-.
U ""
po:,S
8i
",p..
"iÕ
"¡::
..?¿
r¡¡
§
.....
.....
ro
u
o
,..J
a,¡
-
0..
E
(Ij
r:J)
ø :-;:::
. 0
\C<r:J)
~ U") ~
= ~ ro
bD~'1::
¡.':"" ..... =
_r:J)r:J)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '" ~
j!j 01
8 -~ ¡:
In ~J1
~'"
I ~~
¡; ~~
of ..¡ .-
u
B~
ç<: 0
I 0 ~~
]
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fJ)
¡:::
I 0
:P
!t$
U
0
~
I .....
.....
0.-
.....
fJ)
~
I 0"1 §
. .,p
\C<:!t$
~ Lf') 1-1
~ ~.Q
I Q) 0...
.... ..... x
~ëí5~
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the criteria recommended in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project could
have a significant enviromnental effect if it would result in:
· Exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction
(iv) Landslides.
· Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
· Placement of structures on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result ofthe Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
· Placement of structures on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property.
IMPACT 6.1:
Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Rupture of a Known
Earthquake Fault
Surface ground rupture along active earthquake faults can damage property and result in injury
or death. For this reason, the State of California regulates construction within Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zones.
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
The proposed development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility would provide a replacement for
the existing facilities at the Existing San Leandro Property site, where a number of structures
located within the no build zone near an active earthquake fault may be subject to damage during
a major seismic event.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 6.1.1 : No Action/No Project
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND UNA VOIDABLE IMP ACT. Active fault traces have
been identified on the Existing San Leandro Property. Continued operation ofthe existing
Juvenile Hall at this location exposes those at this site to risk of loss, injury or death due to the
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
rupture of known earthquake faults, a potentially significant and unavoidable environmental
impact.
The Draft Evaluation of Existing Juvenile Justice Facilities in San Leandro (Rosser International,
Inc., Beverly Prior Architects, MFT Consulting Engineers, The Engineering Enterprise and SJ
Engineers, December 1997) recommended replacement of the following facilities that either fall
in the "no build zone" (indicating very close proximity to an active fault) or are temporary
structures:
Juvenile Hall Administration
Snedigar Cottage
2nd (newer) Medical Module
1 st Medical Module
Modular Unit 1
Modular Unit 2
The Evaluation also identified the following existing buildings at the site that would require
structural renovations that are prohibitively expensive (greater than $40 per square foot);
Living Unit A
Living Unit B
Living Unit C
Living Unit D
Living Unit B-2
Living Unit 1
Living Unit 2
Living Unit 3
Living Unit 4
Gymnasium
Camp Sweeney Dining Hall
Camp Sweeney School
Of those structures not recommended for replacement due to seismic-related concerns in the
Evaluation, the following were recommended for replacement for reasons of operational
efficiency and effectiveness:
Existing Juvenile Hall - Receiving and Intake Unit
Chabot/Las Vistas - Las Vistas (Units 1,2 and 3), Las Vistas Recreation Building
Camp R.E.A.D.Y - Camp R.E.A.D.Y. Boys Donnitory, Camp Director's Office
Camp Sweeney ~ Camp Sweeney Administration Building, Camp Sweeney Boys
Donnitory
Only eight of the existing structures at the site were found to warrant further evaluation rather
than replacernent, and all of them could be renovated for continued use. However, the Evaluation
indicated that if the County chooses to replace a large portion of the existing structures on the
site, it is likely that Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance would be required for
the entire campus, which would make renovation of these structures extremely expensive.
Given the.costs involved in the replacement of most buildings at the site and the renovation of
others to attain ADA compliance, ongoing use of these structures over the long tenn is not
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-27
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
regarded as feasible. In the absence of building replacement and renovation to meet seismic
safety standards and other current requirements, the potential for structural damage and/or injury
at the site would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 6.1.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Active fault traces have been
identified on the Existing San Leandro Property. Development of a Juvenile Justice Facility at
this location could expose those at this site to risk of loss, injury or death due to the rupture of
known earthquake faults, a potentially significant environmental impact.
The development plan for the Existing San Leandro Property was prepared based on extensive
study of the physical setting. The boring and trenching conducted across the site identified
several fault traces that had not been previously mapped, and failed to uncover evidence of fault
traces that other studies had inferred from physical features of the ground surface. The project
has been designed to accommodate the constraints imposed by those fault traces, and subsequent
design-level investigations and construction monitoring will ensure that the project is constructed
in a manner that confonns to all applicable codes regarding seismic safety.
. Mitigation Measure 6.1.2: Site Design for Fault Avoidance. The development at
the site shall be designed to avoid placing any structures for human occupancy within 50
feet of any active fault traces. Design-level investigations and construction monitoring
shall verify that the project confonns to all applicable codes and regulations. Areas where
active faults have been identified shall be used only for nonhabitable structures or open
space. Utilities shall not be built within the geologic setback zone or cross the fault zone,
unless equipped with flexible pipes that accommodate earth movement without failure
and/or automatic shut-off valves or any other safety designs that the utility provider
deems necessary.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of the recommended mitigation measure
would reduce the potentially significant impact of fault rupture hazards to a less than
significant level.
Impact 6.1.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMP ACT. No earthquake faults have been identified at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
site. The proposed development of a Juvenile Justice Facility at this location would not subject
those at this site to any risk of loss, injury or death due to the rupture of any known earthquake
fault.
Impact 6.1.4: Pardee/Swan Site
NO IMPACT. No earthquake faults have been identified at the Pardee/Swan Site. The proposed
development of a Juvenile Justice Facility at this location would not subject those at this site to
any risk of loss, injury or death due to the rupture of any known earthquake fault.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Impact 6.1.5: East County Government Center
NO IMPACT. No earthquake faults have been identified at the East County Government Center
site. The proposed development of a Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice
would not subject those at this site to any risk ofloss, injury or death due to the rupture of any
known earthquake fault.
Impact 6.1.6: Site 15A
NO IMP ACT. No earthquake faults have been identified at Site 1SA. The proposed development
of the East County Hall of Justice would not subject those at this site to any risk ofloss, injury or
death due to the rupture of any known earthquake fault. '
IMPACT 6.2:
Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Strong Seismic
Ground Shaking
Strong seismic ground shaking can occur during major seismic events. Active fault systems
within the San Francisco Bay area are capable of generating strong seismic ground shaking that
can damage property and cause injury or death.
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
The proposed development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility would replace the existing facilities
at the Existing San Leandro Property site, where a number of structures may be subject to
damage resulting from ground shaking during a major seismic event.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 6.2.1: No Action/No Project
POTENTIALL Y SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMP ACT. The Existing San Leandro
Property is located in a seismically active region of California. Significant earthquakes in the
Bay Area have been associated with rnovements along well-defined fault zones. Earthquakes
occurring along the San Andreas fault or any of a number of other Bay Area faults have the
potential to produce strong ground shaking at the site, which could result in risk of loss, injury or
death. This represents a potentially significant and unavoidable envirorunental impact associated
with the continued operation of the existing Juvenile Hall at this site.
As indicated above, given the costs involved in the replacement of most buildings at the site and
the renovation of others to attain ADA compliance, ongoing use of these structures over the
long-tenn is not regarded as feasible. In the absence of building replacement and major
renovation to meet seismic safety standards and other current requirements, the potential for
structural damage and/or injury at the site would remain significant.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-29
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Impact 6.2.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The Existing San Leandro
Property site is located in a seismically active region of California. Significant earthquakes in the
Bay Area have been associated with movements along well-defined fault zones. Earthquakes
occurring along the Hayward fault, San Andreas fault or any of a number of other Bay Area
faults have the potential to produce strong ground shaking at the site, which could result in risk
of loss, injury or death. This represents a potentially significant environmental impact.
· Mitigation Measure 6.2.2: Seismic Design. The Project shall be designed to
address the projected seismic shaking hazards present at the site, in confonnance with the
Uniform Building Code, California Building Code and Board of Corrections design
standards for juvenile detention facilities.
Resulting Level of Significance: Compliance with current seismic codes and standards
would reduce potential impacts associated with strong ground shaking to levels generally
considered acceptable according to engineering standards for projects of this type in the
seismically active San Francisco Bay region. Therefore, implementation of this measure
would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.
Impact 6.2.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT: This impact would be the same
as Impact 6.2.2, above.
· Mitigation Measure 6.2.3: Seismic Design. Mitigation Measure 6.2.2 (see above)
would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: Compliance with current seismic codes and standards
would reduce potential impacts associated with strong ground shaking to levels generally
considered acceptable according to engineering standards for projects ofthis type in the
seismically active San Francisco Bay region. Therefore, implementation of this measure
would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.
Impact 6.2.4: Pardee/Swan Site
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT: This impact would be the same
as Impact 6.2.2, above.
· Mitigation Measure 6.2.4: Seismic Design. Mitigation Measure 6.2.2 (see above)
would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: Compliance with current seismic codes and standards
would reduce potential impacts associated with strong ground shaking to levels generally
considered acceptable according to engineering standards for projects of this type in the
seismically active San Francisco Bay region. Therefore, implementation of this measure
would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Impact 6.2.5: East County Government Center
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT: This impact would be the same
as Impact 6.2.2, above.
. Mitigation Measure 6.2.5: Seismic Design. Mitigation Measure 6.2.2 (see above)
would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: Compliance with current seismic codes and standards
would reduce potential impacts associated with strong ground shaking to levels generally
considered acceptable according to engineering standards for projects of this type in the
seisrnically active San Francisco Bay region. Therefore, implementation of this measure
would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.
Impact 6.2.6: Site 15A
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT: This impact would be the same
as Impact 6.2.2, above.
. Mitigation Measure 6.2.6: Seismic Design. Mitigation Measure 6.2.2 (see above)
would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: Compliance with Current seismic codes and standards
would reduce potential impacts associated with strong ground shaking to levels generally
considered acceptable according to engineering standards for projects of this type in the
seismically active San Francisco Bay region. Therefore, implementation of this measure
would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.
IMPACT 6.3:
Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving
Liquefaction/Densification
Settlement can occur as a result of seismic ground shaking due to liquefaction or densification of
the subsurface soils. In both liquefaction and densification, ground shaking causes predominantly
granular soils to become more compact, therefore occupying less volume and resulting in
settlement. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction and densification are loose, clean, poorly
graded, fine-grained sands. Liquefaction can occur where these soils are saturated (submerged),
and are accompanied by a temporary loss of strength (i.e., the soil "liquefies"). Densification can
occur where the soils are unsaturated.
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project-related benefits related to liquefaction/densification have been identified.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-31
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 6.3.1: No Action/No Project
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Submerged soils are not likely to be present at the site
of the existing Juvenile Hall under normal conditions, and the material encountered in the
borings consists primarily of bedrock or clayey soils that have sufficient cohesion not to be prone
to significant liquefaction or densification. This represents a less than significant environmental
impact.
As indicated above, given the costs involved in the replacement of most buildings at the site and
the renovation of others to attain ADA compliance, ongoing use ofthese structures over the long
term is not regarded as feasible. In the absence of building replacement and renovation to meet
seismic safety standards and other current requirements, the potential for structural damage
and/or injury at the site would remain significant.
Impact 6.3.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Submerged soils are not likely to be present at the
Existing San Leandro Property under normal conditions, and the material encountered in the
borings consist primarily of bedrock or clayey soils that have sufficient cohesion not to be prone
to significant liquefaction or densification. This represents a less than significant environmental
impact.
Impact 6.3.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Although some modifications to existing foundations
and underground utilities may be required in converting the existing Glenn Dyer Detention
Facility to use as a Juvenile Justice Facility, such modifications could be expected to be
completed without any significant disruption of the soils that already support underground
structures on site. This would be expected to limit any possible increase in exposure to the risks
associated with liquefaction as a result of conversion to a level of less than significant.
Impact 6.3.4: Pardee/Swan Site
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. The presence offill at the
Pardee/Swan Site, combined with relatively shallow groundwater, creates conditions prone to
liquefaction under strong ground shaking. This represents a potentially significant environmental
impact.
. Mitigation Measure 6.3.4: Design-Level Liquefaction Study. The County shall
ensure that design-level studies of the Pardee/Swan Site confirm the conclusions of the
earlier report, and shall ensure that the final Project design conforms to the
recommendations of such a study with respect to design features intended to limit adverse
effects associated with liquefaction during strong seismic ground shaking.
Resulting Level afSignificance: The implementation of this mitigation measure would
reduce the potential impact to a level of less than significant.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-32
I
I
I
,I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-,
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Impact 6.3.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Liquefaction and densification of the soil could occur in
certain zones of sand and gravel on the East County Government Center site. However, the soils
encountered in the borings on site consist predominantly of silty to sandy clay and clayey sand,
and relatively dense sand. These soils have sufficient cohesion and/or density not to be prone to
liquefaction. This represents a less than significant environmental impact.
Impact 6.3.6: Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The clayey sands occasionally encoWltered in
exploratory borings and CPTs at the site were generally medium dense to very dense and located
below a depth of 15 feet. The potential for liquefaction at the site is considered to be low during
seismic shaking. This represents a less than significant environmental impact.
IMPACT 6.4:
Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Landslides
On sites where landslides are possible, damage to property may occur or risk of injury or death
may be present.
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
The development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at a location other than the Existing San
Leandro Property site would represent an overall benefit, in that structures at one of the alternate
locations would not be subject to potential damage related to landslides.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 6.4.1: No Action/No Project
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMP ACT. The site of the existing
Juvenile Hall is in hilly terrain where landslides have occurred in the past. A very deep ancient
landslide underlies most of the site, although this feature has been inactive for thousands of
years, and has a very low to negligible risk of renewed movement. Two secondary landslides
within the massive ancient bedrock landslide may threaten structures at the site if reactivated
during strong seismic ground shaking. This would represent a potentially significant and
unavoidable environmental impact.
In the absence of action to provide engineering solutions that could reduce the potential hazards
associated with landsliding at the site, the potential for damage and/or injury resulting from
landslides would remain significant.
Impact 6.4.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The Existing San Leandro
Property is located in hilly terrain where landslides have occurred in the past. A very deep
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-33
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-34
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
'I·
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
ancient landslide underlies most of the proposed building site, although this feature has been
inactive for thousands of years, and has a very low to negligible risk of renewed movement. Two
secondary landslides within the massive ancient bedrock landslide may threaten structures at the
Existing San Leandro Property if reactivated during strong seismic ground shaking. This would
represent a potentially significant environmental impact.
. Mitigation Measure 6.4.2: Retaining Walls. Upslope retaining wall systems up to
38 feet high will be required to effectively reduce the risks associated with potential
landslides at the Existing San Leandro Property to a level of less than significant.
Resulting Level of Significance: The implementation of this mitigation measure would
reduce the potential impact to a level of less than significant.
Impact 6.4.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMPACT. The GlelU1 Dyer Detention Facility site is relatively flat, and there is no risk of
landslides.
Impact 6.4.4: Pardee/Swan Site
NO IMPACT. The Pardee/Swan Site is relatively flat, and there is no risk of landslides.
Impact 6.4.5: East County Government Center
NO IMPACT. The East County Government Center site is relatively flat, and there is no risk of
landslides.
Impact 6.4.6: Site 15A
NO IMPACT. Site ISA is relatively flat, and there is no risk oflandslides.
IMPACT 6.5:
Soil Erosion
During site preparation and excavation, there may be an increase in soil erosion ftom
development sites unless measures to limit erosion are effectively implemented. Regulations
under the federal Clean Water Act require that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) storm water permit be obtained for projects that would disturb more than S
acres during construction (or more than one acre, begilU1ing in March 2003). Prior to
construction, the Regional Water Quality Control Board will require preparation of a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that contains specific actions (termed Best
Management Practices, or BMPs) to control the discharge of pollutants (including sedirnent) into
the local surface water drainages. Following development, ongoing soil erosion may take place
unless site-specific measures to control it are incorporated within the site design.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project-related benefits related to soil erosion have been identified.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 6.5.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. With no new development proposed under this alternative, there would be no
anticipated increase in soil erosion that may currently originate ITom the site.
Impact 6.5.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. Site preparation could result in
an increase in soil erosion. Unless suitable site-specific erosion control features are incorporated,
the ongoing operation of the facilities proposed could also result in soil erosion. This represents a
potentially significant environmental impact.
. Mitigation Measure 6.5.2: Implementation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Program (SWPPP). The SWPPP will need to include stonnwater quality
BMPs that will reduce runoff of sediment and other pollutants during construction to less
than significant levels. Some of the post-construction source control BMPs that could be
included in the SWPPP would reduce the generation of pollutants ITom activities such as
lawn maintenance, vehicle use, material storage and waste collection/recycling. In order
to be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the SWPPP will need to
demonstrate that implementation will reduce potential soil erosion to a level of less than
significant.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of an SWPPP would reduce the potential
impact to a level of less than significant.
Impact 6.5.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. This impact would be the same
as Impact 6.5.2, above.
. Mitigation Measure 6.5.3: Implementation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Program (SWPPP). Mitigation Measure 6.5.2 (see above) would also
apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: hnplementation of an SWPPP would reduce the potential
impact to a level of less than significant.
Impact 6.5.4: Pardee/Swan Site
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. This impact would be the same
as Impact 6.5.2, above. '
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-35
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Resulting Level of Significance: Either preloading areas intended to support buildings or
parking areas, or using deep foundation systems to transfer building loads below the Bay
Mud would be expected to reduce potential adverse effects associated with differential
settlement to a level of less than significant.
Impact 6.6.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. At the East County Government Center site, low-rise
buildings with low to moderate column loads can likely be supported on spread footings or a mat
foundation bearing on native soil or properly compacted fill with limited long-tenn differential
settlement. Taller structures with moderate to high column loads may settle unacceptably if
supported on shallow foundations such as spread footings or mats, but could be supported
acceptably on deep foundations such as driven piles or drilled piers. Compliance with the
geotechnical engineering recommendations for the foundations of structures that may be
proposed at this site would reduce potential impacts associated with soil instability to a level of
less than significant.
Impact 6.6.6: Site 15A
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Undocumented fills at the site
could present the potential for compression and/or settlement under new buildings or pavements.
This represents a potentially significant environmental impact.
. Mitigation Measure 6.6.6: Removal and Replacement of Undocumented
Fills. All undocumented fills at the site shall be completely removed and replaced with
engineered fill prior to the construction of foundations or other structures.
Resulting Level of Significance: This would be expected to reduce potential damage from
differential settlement to a level of less than significant.
IMPACT 6.7: 'Expansive Soils
Expansive soils have the potential to damage surface-mounted improvements such as buildings
on shallow foundations, sidewalks, pavements, retaining walls and underground utilities.
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project-related benefits related to expansive soils have been identified.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 6.7.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMP ACT. As no new structures would be built at the site of the existing Juvenile Hall, there
would be no increased exposure of any structures to potential hazards associated with the
presence of expansive soils.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-38
I
I
I
I
a
I:
I
I
I.
I
(
I
I
I
,'--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·.
"-'.
I
i
I
I
I
I
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Impact 6.7.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. Potentially expansive soils were
encountered in test borings in a number of areas at the Existing San Leandro Property, and
construction on these soils could result in property damage. This would represent a potentially
significant environmental impact.
. Mitigation Measure 6.7.2: Limitations on Use of Expansive Soils On Site.
The geoteclmical engineering recommendations for the conceptual-level study of the site
indicated that on-site expansive soils could likely be incorporated into the deeper fills
planned west of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility, although expansive soils should
not be used for the construction of fill slopes or as backfill behind walls retaining fill. '
Should expansive soils remain in building areas after site excavations are complete, these
soils shall be removed and replaced with properly compacted. nonexpansive fill.
Resulting Level of Significance: These rneasures would reduce the potential effects
associated with expansive soils at this site to a level of less than significant.
Impact 6.7.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Although some modifications to existing foundations
and underground utilities may be required in converting the existing GlelU1 Dyer Detention
Facility to use as a Juvenile Justice Facility, such modifications could be expected to be
completed without any significant disruption of the soils that already support underground
structures on site. This would be expected to limit any possible increase in exposure to expansive
soils as a result of conversion to a level of less than significant.
Impact 6.7.4: Pardee/Swan Site
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. The Pardee/Swan Site was
created through the use of artificial fill, and is not known to contain expansive soils. However,
until design-level analysis of soils at the site can be completed. the possibility that expansive
soils may be present at this site exists. Construction on expansive soils could result in property
damage, and would represent a potentially significant environmental impact.
. Mitigation Measure 6.7.4: Design-Level Soils Analysis. Prior to finalizing
structural designs, an analysis of soils at the site shall be completed to detennine the
presence or absence of expansive soils. If expansive soils are found to occur at the site,
structural design must incorporate features intended to reduce the risk of property damage
resulting from exposure to such soils to an acceptable level.
Resulting Level of Significance: This would reduce the potential impact to a level of less
than significant.
Impact 6.7.5: East County Government Center
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. Expansive soils have been
identified at the East County Government Center site, and construction in areas characterized by
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacilitylEast County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-39
Chapter 6: Geology, Soils and Seismicity
expansive soils could result in property damage. This would represent a potentially significant
environmental impact.
. Mitigation Measure 6.7.5: Deepening Building Footings/Use of
Nonexpansive Fill. Preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations call for the
deepening of all building footings and using a layer of non expansive fill to support both
interior and exterior slabs on grade.
Resulting Level of Significance: Although consideration may be given during final design
to additional field exploration, laboratory testing and analysis to better define areas for
which deepened footings and nonexpansive fill may be reduced, these measures would be
expected to reduce the risks associated with expansive soils to a level of less than
significant.
Impact 6.7.6: Site 15A
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Near-surface soils at Site 15A
are highly expansive, and construction on these soils could result in property damage. This
would represent a potentially significant environmental impact.
. Mitigation Measure 6.7.6: Design Features to Accommodate Expansive
Soils. The design of structures proposed at the site must incorporate features intended to
reduce the risk of property damage resulting ftom exposure to such soils to an acceptable
level. This could include supporting slabs on a layer of nonexpansive fill to reduce
potential damage to interior slab-on-grade floors or exterior flatwork. In addition, using
positive drainage away from buildings and limiting landscape watering could also limit
moisture changes in the surficial soils.
Resulting Level of Significance: These measures would reduce the potential impact to a
level of less than significant.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 6-40
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
'I
I
,I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7
Hydrology and Water Quality
7.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REGULATORy/POLICY SETTING
Federal
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Waters of the United States (including wetlands) are subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CW A). Section 404
regulates the filling and dredging of U.S. waters. A Section 404 permit would be required for
project construction activities involving excavation of, or placement of fill material into, waters
of the United States or adjacent wetlands. The Corps, in reviewing Section 404 permit
applications, stresses avoidance of impacts, minimization of unavoidable impacts and mitigation
of unavoidable impacts. In addition, a Water Quality Certification (or Waiver thereof) pursuant
to Section 40 I of the CW A is required for Section 404 permit actions. This would need to be
requested from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
National Flood Insurance Program
FEMA has produced maps showing areas and elevations of 100-year flood hazard. FEMA
requires that finished floor elevations for development within this 1 DO-year flood area be equal
or greater than the 1 DO-year flood elevation.
State
Sections 1601 and 1603
The California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) has direct jurisdiction, under CDFG Code
Sections 1601-1603, over any activities that will divert or obstruct natural flow or change the
bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake designated by the CDFG in which there is at
any time an existing fish or wildlife resource or from which these resources derive benefit.
The CDFG Code requires that formal notification and subsequent agreement, including
mitigation measures, must be completed prior to initiating such changes. General project plans
must be submitted to CDFG that are sufficient to indicate the nature of a project for construction
if the project would divert, obstruct or change a streambed; use material from the streambeds; or
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 7-1
Chapter 7: Hydrology and Water Quality
result in the disposal or deposition of debris, waste or other material containing crumbled, flaked
or ground pavement where it can pass into a stream. The 1601 and 1603 Codes are similar to the
Section 404 Pennit, but the area of jurisdiction is typically defined on a case-by-case basis for
the location, nature and extent of disturbance, and mitigation.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
As mandated by the 1987 amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act, discharge ofstonnwater
from developed areas is regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the
NPDES program via the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards). In addition,
the State Porter-Cologne Act requires the development of Basin Plans for drainage basins within
California. The Basin Plans are implemented also through the NPDES program.
Prior to initiating construction for sites that are 5 acres or larger, Project Applicants must submit
a Notice ofIntent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to be covered by
the General Construction Activity Stonnwater Pennit. This requirement also applies to smaller
sites that are part of a larger project. The General Pennit requires the implementation of a
Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which must be prepared before construction
begins. The SWPPP will include:
· Specifications for best management practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during
project construction to minimize the potential for accidental releases or contamination,
and to minimize runoff from the construction areas, including storage and maintenance
areas and building materials laydown areas.
· A description of a plan for communicating appropriate work practices to field workers.
· A plan for monitoring, inspecting and reporting any release of hazardous materials.
· Specifications for BMPs that will be incorporated into the project itself to minimize
runoff of pollutants after the project has been completed.
· A description of a plan to monitor stonnwater runoff after the project has been
completed.
LOCAL PHYSICAL SETTING
Existing San Leandro Property
Drainage at the Existing San Leandro Property site enters an area of wetlands adjacent to
Fainnont Drive via a series of small channels. A stonn drainage system in Fainnont Drive also
discharges into this wetland area. At the lower end of the wetland, a 60-inch stonn drain pipe
conveys runoff downstream into the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (Zone 7) system, eventually draining into the Bay.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 7 ~2
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 7: Hydrology and Water Quality
In three test borings rnade at the Existing San Leandro Property site (Boring B-4, Boring B-7 and
Boring B-8, shown in Figure 6.3 in Chapter 6:Geology, Soils and Seismicity), groundwater
was measured at depths of 58,38 and 53 feet, respectively (Subsurface Consulting, 2001).
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
The existing Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is served by the City of Oakland stonn drainage
system. During boring, groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 17 to 20 feet. The
site is not located within an area subject to flooding during a 100-year stonn event.
Pardee/Swan Site
The Pardee/Swan Site is located nearly adjacent to the southern extension of San Leandro Bay
near Doolittle Drive, and drains directly into San Francisco Bay. A drainage ditch is located
along the northwestern site boundary.
During boring, groundwater interface was encountered at depths ranging from 5.75 to 7.25 feet
below ground surface. Regional topography suggests that shallow groundwater at the site flows
to the west, toward the Airport Channel.
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community-Panel Number 065048 0025 B, September 30,
1982) indicates that the site is within Zone C, an area of minimal flooding. A relatively small
portion of the southwest comer of the site is within the 100-year flood plain of the San Leandro
Bay Airport Channel as shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping
(FEMA and Environmental Systems Research Institute [ESRI], Inc., 2001).
East County Government Center
Although the site is completely isolated from any creeks or streams, the existing, artificially
constructed detention basin along the western boundary of the site is used for detaining
stormwater. The initial wetlands evaluation detennined that the detention basin did not meet the
criteria for jurisdictional wetlands (Valerius, 2002), although the detennination is subject to
confirmation by the Corps during final wetland delineation at the site. Two depressional areas
located on the eastern half ofthe site have been identified as wetlands due to clear evidence of
wetland hydrology and hydric soils characteristics (see Figure 8.1 in Chapter 8: Biologic
Resources). The total acreage of these two wetland areas (isolated seasonal wetlands created by
water ponding during the rainy season) is 4,280 square feet, or approximately 0.098 acres.
Surface runoff from the site collects in an existing detention basin located along the western
property boundary at Arnold Road. The detention basin drains into triple 36-inch diameter
reinforced concrete pipes under Arnold Road, discharging into the Arnold Road channel. There
is also an existing 48-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe that conveys stonn water from the
Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center along Broder Boulevard, and empties into the detention basin.
Additionally, an existing 30-inch stonn drain line is located within Gleason Drive, which
connects to the Arnold Road channel.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 7-3
Chapter 7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Drainage from this area then flows southerly along Arnold Road and leaves the area through two
drainage courses: Tassajara Creek and a culvert under 1-580 about 2,000 feet east of Tassajara
Road. Tassajara Creek drains to the Arroyo Mocho, which then drains to the Arroyo de la
Laguna. Alameda Creek receives flows from the Arroyo de la Laguna, and flows in a westerly
direction through Niles Canyon until it ultimately discharges to San Francisco Bay,
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate that
flooding during a 100-year stonn will occur primarily along Tassajara Creek. The flooded areas
would include an approximately 200-foot width along more than half of the length of Tassajara
Creek in the general vicinity ofthe site, and a wide area just north of where Tassajara Creek
flows under 1-580, which covers portions of the old Santa Rita jail facilities. The main reason for
flooding along Tassajara Creek is inadequate culvert :how capacity where the creek crosses 1-'
580. Currently, Alameda County is studying the flooding problems at these culverts.
Site 15A
Site drainage is split between two separate stonn drain systems. Currently, the system is
designed such that a portion of stonn flows are conveyed directly south in a storm drain pipe
under Arnold Road to 1-580, where it joins three 45-inch diameter stonn drain pipes, which
convey stonn flows into Line G-2. The other portion of stonn flows from this area drain into an
open channel that runs southwest diagonally from Arnold Road to Dublin Boulevard, which
conveys stonn flows into the G-5 Line. This G-5 Line drains to Line G-2 south ofI-580, which
drains to the Chabot Channel and then to Arroyo Mocho in the City of Pleasant on. From Arroyo
Mocho, the Zone 7 drainage system ultimately conveys stonn flows to San Francisco Bay.
Similarly to the East County Government Center site, Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate that flooding during a 100-year stonn will occur
prirnarily along Tassajara Creek, which is more than 3000 feet east of Site 15A. The flooded
areas would include an approximately 200-foot width along more than half of the length of
Tassajara Creek. The main reason for flooding along Tassajara Creek is inadequate culvert flow
capacity where the creek crosses 1-580. The main reason for flooding along Tassajara Creek is
inadequate culvert flow capacity where the creek crosses 1-580. Currently, Alameda County is
studying the flooding problems at these culverts.
7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The proposed development of any of the sites evaluated would have a significant environmental
impact if it were to result in:
. Violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 7-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 7: Hydrology and Water Quality
· Substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or substantial interference with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in acquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table.
· Substantial alteration in the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in
substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation.
· Creation or contribution of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff.
· Other substantial degradation of water quality.
· Placement of housing within a I DO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
· Placement within a I DO-year flood hazard area of structures that would impede or redirect
flood flows.
· Exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT 7.1:
Violation of Water Quality Standards
Impact 7.1.1:
No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. In the absence of new construction, no construction-related water quality impacts
would be anticipated.
Impact 7.1.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Development of the site as
proposed would entail construction activity that could be expected to have short-tenn, temporary
adverse effects on local water quality, such as rrom erosion and siltation, illicit disposal of debris
and wash water from construction vehicles and equipment. This would represent a potentially
significant impact.
. Mitigation Measure 7.1.2: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The County
of Alameda shall prepare and implement a Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General
Permit. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the General Pennit, the Manual
of Standards for Erosion & Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay
Area Govenunents (ABAG), policies and recommendations of the local urban runoff
program (city and/or county) and the Staff Recommendations of the RWQCB. The
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 7-5
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 7 ~6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 7: Hydrology and Water Quality
SWPPP shall incorporate specific measures to reduce and treat runoff rrom developed
areas of the site by means of vegetative buffers, grassy swales or other means, to be
effective for the life of the Project, and shall incorporate Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to control sediment and erosion, both during the building process and in the
long-term.
Resulting Level 0/ Significance: Implementation ofthis mitigation measure would reduce
the potential impact to surface water resources to a level of less than significant.
Impact 7.1.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMPACT. Although construction would take place at the site during the conversion of the
existing structures to a Juvenile Justice Facility, this would not be expected to require extensive
site preparation or earth-moving activities that could be expected to have an adverse effect on
water quality in the vicinity.
Impact 7.1.4: Pardee/Swan Site
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. Development ofthe site as
proposed would entail construction activity that could be expected to have short-term, temporary
adverse effects on local water quality, such as from erosion and siltation, illicit disposal of debris
and wash water from construction vehicles and equipment. This would represent a potentially
significant impact.
. Mitigation Measure 7.1.4: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Mitigation
Measure 7.1.2 (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level a/Significance: Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce
the potential impact to surface water resources to a level of less than significant.
Impact 7.1.5: East County Government Center
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Development of the site as
proposed would entail construction activity that could be expected to have short-term, temporary
adverse effects on local water quality, such as from erosion and siltation, illicit disposal of debris
and wash water from construction vehicles and equipment. This would represent a potentially
significant impact.
. Mitigation Measure 7.1.5: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Mitigation
Measure 7.1.2 (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level o/Significance: Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce
the potential impact to surface water resources to a level of less than significant.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 7.1.6: Site 15A
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Development of the site as
proposed would entail construction activity that could be expected to have short-term, temporary
adverse effects on local water quality, such as from erosion and siltation, illicit disposal of debris
and wash water ITom construction vehicles and equipment. This would represent a potentially
significant impact.
. Mitigation Measure 7.1.6: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Mitigation
Measure 7.1.2 (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementatiön of this mitigation measure would reduce
the potential impact to surface water resources to a level of less than significant.
IMPACT 7.2:
Substantial Depletion of Groundwater
Resources/Substantiallnteñerence with Groundwater
Recharge
IMPACT 7.2:
ALL ALTERNATIVES
NO IMPACT. With the exception of the No ActionINo Project alternative and the proposed
conversion of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, all alternatives evaluated would result in an
increase in the amount of impervious surface at their respective sites. However, within the
context of the total area of the groundwater basins affected, this interference with groundwater
recharge would not be regarded as substantial. None of the alternatives would draw directly from
local groundwater resources, and none would contribute substantially toward the depletion of
any groundwater resources.
IMPACT 7.3:
Substantial Alteration of Existing Drainage Patterns
IMPACT 7.3:
ALL ALTERNATIVES
NO IMPACT. With the exception of the No Action/No Project alternative and the proposed
conversion of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, all alternatives evaluated would result in some
modifications to existing drainage patterns. However, at each site where new development is
proposed, site plans would be designed to effectively link the site to the adjacent stormwater
collection systems that are already in place, so as not to contribute to either on- or off-site
siltation.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 7-7
Chapter 7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 7.4:
Exceed Capacity of Stormwater Infrastructure/Contribute
Polluted Runoff
Impact 7.4.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. In the absence of new construction, there would be no change in the existing links
to the stormwater collection infrastructure in the vicinity, no change in the amount of stormwater
runoff generated at the site, and change in the quality of stormwater runoff entering storm drains
on site and in the vicinity of the site.
Impact 7.4.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. Although development ofthe
site as proposed would not be expected to exceed the capacity of the stormwater infrastructure
serving the site, it would entail construction activity that could be expected to have short-term,
temporary adverse effects on local water quality, such as from erosion and siltation, illicit
disposal of debris and wash water from construction vehicles and equipment. This would
represent a potentially significant impact.
. Mitigation Measure 7.4.2: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Mitigation
Measure 7.1.2 ( see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level afSignificance: Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce
the potential impact to surface water resources to a level of less than significant.
Impact 7.4.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMPACT. Although the existing structures at the site would be expanded during the
conversion to a Juvenile Justice Facility, this would not place any increased demand on the
existing stormwater infrastructure serving the site, and would not change the quality of
stonnwater generated at the site in any meaningful way.
Impact 7.4.4: Pardee/Swan Site
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Although development of the
site as proposed would not be expected to exceed the capacity of the stormwater infrastructure
serving the site, it would entail construction activity that could be expected to have short-term,
temporary adverse effects on local water quality, such as from erosion and siltation, illicit
disposal of debris and wash water from construction vehicles and equipment. This would
represent a potentially significant impact.
. Mitigation Measure 7.4.4: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The County
of Alameda shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General
Permit. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the General Permit, the Manual
of Standards for Erosion & Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 7-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Area Governments (ABAG), policies and recommendations of the local urban runoff
program (city and/or county), and the Staff Recommendations of the RWQCB. The
SWPPP shall incorporate specific measures to reduce and treat runoff from developed
areas ofthe site by means of vegetative buffers, grassy swales, or other means, to be
effective for the life ofthe Project, and shall incorporate Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to control sediment and erosion, both during the building process and in the
long-term.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce
the potential impact to surface water resources to a level of less than significant.
Impact 7.4.5: East County Government Center
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Although development of the
site as proposed would not be expected to exceed the capacity of the stormwater infrastructure
serving the site, it would entail construction activity that could be expected to have short-term,
temporary adverse effects on local water quality, such as from erosion and siltation, illicit
disposal of debris and wash water from construction vehicles and equipment. This would
represent a potentially significant impact.
. Mitigation Measure 7.4.5: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Mitigation
Measure 7.1.2 (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce
the potential impact to surface water resources to a level of less than significant.
Impact 7.4.6: Site 15A
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Although development of the
site as proposed would not be expected to exceed the capacity of the stormwater infrastructure
serving the site, it would entail construction activity that could be expected to have short-term,
temporary adverse effects on local water quality, such as from erosion and siltation, illicit
disposal of debris and wash water from construction vehicles and equipment. This would
represent a potentially significant impact.
. Mitigation Measure 7.4.6: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Mitigation
Measure 7.1.2 (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce
the potential impact to surface water resources to a level of less than significant.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 7-9
Chapter 7: Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 7.5:
Development within 100-Year Flood Hazard Area
IMPACT 7.5:·
ALL ALTERNATIVES
NO IMPACT. None of the alternatives evaluated would result in the placement of any structures
within a designated 100- Y ear Flood Hazard Area.
IMPACT 7.6:
Exposure of People or Structures to Flood Hazards
IMPACT 7.6:
ALL ALTERNATIVES
NO IMPACT. None of the alternatives evaluated would expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 7-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
Biological Resources
8.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
BACKGROUND
Biological resources were identified through the review and compilation of existing information
and conduct of field surveys. The review provided information on general resources in the area
of each alternative site and the distribution and habitat requirements of special-status species
which have been recorded ftom or are suspected to occur in the vicinity, including: records on
occurrences of special-status species and sensitive natural communities maintained by the
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) of the Department ofFish and Game (CDFG);
the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California
(2001); the CDFG's list of special animals (CDFG, 2001) and plants (CDFG, 2001); and a
number of site-specific assessments. Field reconnaissance surveys were conducted to determine
the suitability of each alternative site to support sensitive resources, followed by detailed surveys
for special-status species and wetlands where potential resources were encountered and
confirmation on presence or absence was considered necessary. Additional information on the
scope and dates of the survey efforts is provided under the setting descriptions for each
alternative site.
REGULATORy/POLICY SETTING
Federal and State Regulations
State and federal regulations have been enacted to provide for the protection and management of
sensitive biological resources. State and federal agencies have a lead role in the protection of
biological resources under their permit authority set forth in various statues and regulations. The
. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for administering the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) for freshwater and terrestrial species,
while the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) is responsible implementing the federal ESA
for marine species and anadromous fish. The U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps) has primary
responsibility for protecting wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act. At the state level, the California Department ofFish and Game
(CDFG) is responsible for administration of the California ESA, and for protection of streams,
waterbodies and riparian corridors through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process under
Section 1601-1606 of the California Fish and Game Code. Certification from the San Francisco
Regional Water Quality Control Board is also required when a proposed activity may result in
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-1
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
discharge into navigable waters, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and EPA
404(b )( 1) Guidelines.
Special~Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities
Special-status speciesl are plants and animals that are legally protected under the California
and/or federal ESA2 or other regulations, as well as other species that are considered rare enough
by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly
with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, communal roosts
and other essential habitat. Species with legal protection under the Endangered Species Acts
often represent major constraints to development, particularly when they are wide ranging or ,
highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a "take")
of these species.
The primary information source on the distribution of special-status species in California is the
CNDDB inventory, which is maintained by the Natural Heritage Division of the CDFG.
Occurrence data are obtained from a variety of scientific, academic and professional
Special-status species include:
· listed (rare, threatened or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the CDFG;
· listed (threatened or endangered) and candidate species for listing by the USFWS;
· species considered to be rare or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines,
such as those identified on lists lA, 1B and 2 in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory;
· and possibly other species which are considered sensitive or of special concern due to limited distribution or
lack of adequate infonnation to pennit listing or rejection for state or federal status, such as those included
on list 3 in the CNPS Inventory or identified as animal "California Special Concern" species (CSC) by the
CDFG, which have no legal protective status under the California Endangered Species Act but are of
concern because of severe decline in breeding populations.
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 declares that all federal departments and agencies shall use
their authority to conserve endangered and threatened plant and animal species. The California Endangered Species
Act (CESA) of 1984 parallels the policies of FE SA and pertains to native California species.
"Take" as defmed by the FESA means "to harass, hann, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect"
a threatened or endangered species. "Hann" is further defmed by the USFWS to include the killing or hanning of
wildlife due to significant obstruction of essential behavior patterns (i.e., breeding, feeding or sheltering) through
significant habitat modification or degradation. The CDFG also considers the loss of listed species habitat as "take,"
although this policy lacks statutory authority and case law support under the CESA.
Two sections of FE SA contain provisions that allow or permit "incidental take." Section 1 O( a) provides a method by
which a state or private action which would result in "take" may be permitted. The applicant must provide the
USFWS with an acceptable conservation plan and publish notification for a permit in the Federal Register. Section 7
pertains to a federal agency that proposes to conduct an action which may result in "take," requiring consultation with
USFWS and possible issuance of a jeopardy decision. Under the CESA, "take" can be permitted under Section 2081
of the Fish and Game Code. The applicant must enter into a habitat management agreement with the CDFG, which
defmes the permitted activities and provides adequate mitigation.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
organizations, private consulting firms and knowledgeable individuals, and entered into the
inventory as expeditiously as possible. The presence of a population of species of concern in a
particular region is aD. indication that an additional population may occur at another location
within the region, if habitat conditions are suitable. However, the absence of an occurrence in a
particular location does not necessarily mean that special-status species are absent ftom the area
in question, only that no data have been entered into the CNDDB inventory. Detailed field
surveys are generally required to provide a conclusive determination on presence or absence of
sensitive resources from a particular location.
The USFWS also provides information on listed and candidate species as part ofthe consultation
process under the FESA. Requests were made to the USFWS for lists of species which may be
affected by the proposed Project. Three separate lists were prepared by the USFWS in separate
requests made on behalf of the County. The first was prepared on September 4,2001, the second
on March 6,2002, and the third on December 19,2002. The most recent list identifies a total of
148 listed and candidate plant and animal species which may be present in Alameda County.
Suitable habitat for most ofthese species is not found on the alternative sites, and the Project
would have no effect on these listed or candidate species. The discussion of each alternative site
provides a conclusion on the potential for occurrence of special-status species, with a subsequent
analysis of the effects on the proposed Project for mitigation.
In addition to species-oriented management, protecting habitat on an ecosystem level is
increasingly recognized as vital to the protection of natural diversity in the state. The CNDDB
also monitors the locations of natural communities that are considered rare or threatened, known
as sensitive natural communities. The CNDDB has compiled a list of sensitive natural
communities that are given a high inventory priority for mapping and protection (CDFG, 2002).
Although these natural commwlities have no legal protective status under the state or federal
Endangered Species Acts, they are provided some level of protection under the CEQA
Guidelines. A project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on the
environment if it would substantially affect a sensitive natural community such as a riparian
woodland, native grassland or coastal salt marsh. Further loss of a sensitive natural community
could also be interpreted as substantially diminishing habitat, depending on the relative
abundance, quality and degree of past disturbance, and the anticipated impacts.
Wetlands
Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are
periodically or permanently inundated by surface or ground water, and support vegetation
adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as important features on a regional and
national level due to their high inherent value to fish and wildlife; use as storage areas for storm
and floodwaters; and water recharge, filtration and purification functions. Technical standards
for delineating wetlands have been developed by the Corps and the USFWS, which generally
define wetlands through consideration of three criteria: hydrology, soils and vegetation.
The CDFG and Corps have jurisdiction over modifications to stream channels, riverbanks, lakes
and other wetland features. Jurisdiction of the Corps is established through the provisions of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-3
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
"waters" of the United States without a pennit, including wetlands and unvegetated "other
waters." All three of the identified technical criteria must be met for an area to be identified as a
wetland under Corps jurisdiction, unless the area has been modified by human activity.
Jurisdictional authority of the CDFG over wetland areas is established under Section 1601-1606
of the Fish and Game Code, which pertains to activities that would disrupt the natural flow or
alter the channel, bed or bank of any lake, river or stream. The Fish and Game Code stipulates
that it is "unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the
bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake" without notifying the Department,
incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration agreement. The
Wetlands Resources Policy of the CDFG states that the Fish and Game Commission will
"strongly discourage development in or conversion ofwetlands...unless, at a minimum, project
mitigation assures there will be no net loss of either wetland habitat values or acreage." The
Department is also responsible for commenting on projects requiring Corps pennits under the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958.
Local Policy Setting
County of Alameda
The Castro Valley Plan (1985) identifies the following principles related to Biotic Resources:
Principle 3.15:
Development should be restricted to those areas where native plant life and wildlife
habitat values are least significant, and should be clustered, where possible, to
prese",e adequately wide strips of native vegetation to connect larger tracts of
natural habitat.
Principle 3.16:
Native woodland communities, and particularly riparian areas, should be protected
from direct encroachment of development and from the adverse effects of increased
water runoff, sedimentation, or erosion which could result from development in
adjacent areas. With the exception of improvements required for the protection of life
and property, and as otherwise specified by Environmental Resources Principle 3.17
of this Plan, all public and private improvements proposed within or adjoining
riparian areas should be sited, designed and their uses regulated to minimize direct
damage or indirect disturbance to the riparian areas.
Principle 3.17:
Riparian areas within and adjoining urbanized areas should be prese",ed except
where existing development has already encroached upon the stream channel and
where life or property are endangered. For these exceptions, the required flood
control and channel stabilization improvements should be compatible with and
should preserve as much as possible of the natural riparian character of the channel.
Principle 3.20:
Lands containing highly significant biotic resources, including the following, should
be prese",ed and protected.
· Habitat of rare or endangered fish and wildlife, or species of economic value
either commercially or as game species;
· Habitat providing for seasonal concentrations of wildlife;
· Wetlands supporting concentrations of waterfowl;
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
· Riparian habitats, except as otherwise specified by Environmental Resources
Principle 3.17 of this Plan;
· Open space having present or potential scientific and/or educational uses;
· Areas which support rare or endangered plant species; and
· Areas with quality examples of vegetative communities characteristic of the
County and region.
City of Dublin
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1998) includes the following
policies which are applicable to the project sites relevant to biological and wetland resources at
the East County Government Center alternative and/or Site 15A alternative:
Policy 6-10:
Riparian and wetland areas should be incorporated into greenbelt and open space
areas as a means of preserving their hydrologic and habitat value. Unavoidable loss
of riparian habitat due to development should be replaced with similar habitat on a
3:1 inkind basis. Loss of wetlands must be mitigated consistent with the COE's
current policy.
Policy 6-17:
Impacts to sensitive wildlife species that occur in the planning area will be avoided
wherever possible. Mitigation programs will be required as necessary to reduce or
eliminate impacts on special status species.
City of Oakland
The Open Space Conservation and Recreation Element of the Oakland General Plan includes
the following policies related to biological and wetland resources, which are applicable and
relevant to the Pardee/Swan Site and/or Glenn Dyer Detention Facility:
Policy CO-8.1: Mitigation of Development Impacts. Work with federal, state and regional agencies
on an on-going basis to determine mitigation measures for development which could
potentially impact wetlands. Strongly discourage development with unmitigatable
adverse impacts.
Policy CO-9.1: Habitat Protection. Protect rare, endangered, and threatened species by conserving
and enhancing their habitat and requiring mitigation of potential adverse impacts
when development occurs within habitat areas.
Policy CO-11.1: Protection from Urbanization. Protect wildlife from the hazards of urbanization,
including loss of habitat and predation by domestic animals.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-5
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
LOCAL PHYSICAL SETTING
No Action/No Project
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
The site and surrounding lands have been highly disturbed by past development of the existing
Juvenile Hall. Most of the site has been graded and paved with roads and parking lots, or
developed with structures and ornamental landscaping. Ruderal (weedy), non-native grassland
occurs in vacant areas and the slopes below Fainnont Drive along the eastern edge of the site. An
unnamed drainage flows along the northwestern edge of the site before entering a culvert system
under the main parking lot to the existing Juvenile Hall. Where this drainage remains open, .
willow (Salix spp.) fonns a dense stand of riparian scrub, which is the only remaining natural
area on the site.
Willow scrub and freshwater rnarsh vegetation occur along the unnamed drainage. Surface water
in the drainage supports several wetland indicator species, including: willow, cattail (Typha
domingensis), Himalaya blackberry (Rubus discolor), iris-leaved rush (Juncus xiphioides) and
umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis). The highly invasive pampas grass (Cortaderiajubata)
occurs along the east edge of the complex of riparian scrub and marsh.
Omamentallandscaping and ruderal grasslands fonn the predominant plant cover on the site.
Landscaping consists of turf, groundcovers, shrubs, and trees. Common tree species include blue
gum (Eucalyptus globulus), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Bishop pine (Pinus muricata), and
,coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Groundcover and ruderal grassland species include Algerian
ivy (Hedera helix ssp. canariensis), English ivy (Hedera helix ssp. helix), wild oats (Avena
fatua), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), Italian ryegrass
(Lolium multiflorum), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), yellow star thistle (Centaurea
solstitialis) and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare).
The extent of development and past and ongoing disturbance limits the value of the site to
wildlife. Species associated with the site are common in suburban habitat, and include raccoon,
opossum, Botta's pocket gopher, mourning dove, European starling, house finch and western
fence lizard. The mature trees may be used for roosting and possibly nesting by raptors, but no
evidence of any large nests was observed on the site. The dense thicket of willow riparian scrub
and freshwater marsh is the only sensitive habitat for native wildlife, providing dense cover and
possibly nesting substrate for a number of bird species.
Special·Status Species
A biological assessment of the site was conducted in fall 2000 to characterize biological and
wetland resources, and identifY the potential for occurrence of special-status species on the site
(LSA Associates, 2000). A field visit was made on July 14,2000, with a follow-up survey
conducted in fall 2000 to assess the potential for wetlands on the site. Infonnation on special-
status species suspected to possibly occur on the site was provided in the assessment, together
with conclusions on the potential for occurrence and recommendations for further detailed
surveys where confinnation on presence or absence could not be made during the summer field
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EISfEIR
Page 8-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
survey. The assessment concluded that it was unlikely that any special-status plant species occur
on the site given the extent of past disturbance, and that although occurrence of any special-
status animal species appeared unlikely, that a conclusive determination on absence of five
species was not possible without further study. These species consist of California red-legged
frog, western pond turtle, sharp-shiImed hawk, pallid bat and Townsend's big-eared bat.
Subsequent surveys were conducted in 2002 to confirm the conclusions reached in the biological
assessment and provide detailed surveys of the site. A habitat suitability analysis for special-
status species was conducted on March 23, 2002, and an inventory of plant species on the site
was perfonned on May 16,2002. Protocol surveys for California red-legged frog and western
pond turtle were conducted on May 29, May 30, June, 1 and June 3, 2002 (Rana Resources,
2002).
The biological assessment identified 17 special-status plant species considered to have the
highest potential for occurrence in the San Leandro vicinity, but concluded that none of these
were observed on the site or are believed to occur on the property due to the absence of suitable
habitat and extent of past disturbance. The habitat suitability analysis conducted in March 2002
and the inventory of plant species conducted in May 2002 'confirmed the initial conclusion
reached in the biological assessment. No special-status plant species have been reported from the
site by the CNDDB or are believed to occur on the property.
The biological assessment identified 16 special-status animal species considered to have the
highest potential for occurrence in the San Leandro vicinity. The absence of essential habitat
features and extent of past development were considered to preclude the potential for occurrence
of most of these species from the site. The habitat suitability analysis conducted in March 2002
and the protocol surveys for California red-legged frog and western pond turtle confirmed this
initial conclusion reached in the biological assessment regarding absence of special-status animal
species from the site. Additional information on California red-legged rrog (Rana aurora
draytonii), western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), special-status bird species, and special-
status bat species is summarized.
California Red-Legged Frog
This subspecies is considered a California Special Concern (CSC) species by the CDFG and was
listed as a threatened species by the USFWS in 1996. It is typically found in or near permanent
pools along streams, and occasionally in ponds with dense emergent or riparian vegetation.
Detailed protocol surveys were conducted according to USFWS protocol for this species in
spring 2002, consisting of two daytime and two night surveys. No red-legged frogs were
encountered on the site or are believed to occur on the property.
Western Pond Turtle
This species has no legal protective status under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts,
but is recognized as a CSC species by the CDFG. It typically occurs in ponds and streams with
pennanent pools used as retreat habitat. No western pond turtles were observed on the site during
the red-legged frog surveys and none are believed to occur on the property'due to the absence of
suitable breeding and retreat habitat (Rana Resources, 2002).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-7
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
Bird Species of Concern
There is a possibility that one or more special-status bird species could establish nests on the site,
all of which, when in active use, would be protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No nests
were observed during the field visit for the biological assessment in 2000 or the habitat
suitability analysis in March 2002, but nests could be established in the future before
construction proceeds. The dense willow scrub and mature trees on the site could provide
potential nesting habitat for sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), white-tailed kite (Elan us
leucurns) and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), all of which are recognized as CSC
species by the CDFG. The trees also provide suitable nesting habitat for more common raptors,
such as red-tailed hawk, great horned owl and American kestrel. Additional detailed surveys
would be necessary to confinn presence or absence of any nesting activity, and this could chai1ge
in future as nests are abandoned and new nests established. ,
Bat Species of Concern
Pallid bat (Antrozous pal/idus) and Townsend's western big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii
townsendii) are both recognized as CSC species by the CDFG. They typically occur in caves,
crevices and abandoned buildings or mines. Both are highly sensitive to human disturbance
making their presence in buildings on the site unlikely. No evidence of any bat roosting activity
was observed on the site, but no detailed inspections were perfonned. There is also a remote
possibility that new roosts could be established prior to construction or building demolition, so
preconstruction surveys were recommended in the biological assessment.
Wetlands
The biological assessment in 2000 provided a preliminary assessment of the extent of potential
jurisdictional wetlands on the San Leandro site (LSA, 2000). This was supplemented by a
preliminary wetland delineation conducted on June 21, 2002 using Corps routine methodology
(Valerius, 2002a). The delineation must still be verified by the Corps, but provides an indication
of the likely extent of jurisdictional wetlands. A total of 4 data points were taken to detennine
vegetation, soils and hydrological characteristics at each location.
Based on the results of the delineation, a total of approximately 3.40 acres (147,830 square feet)
of wetlands occur on the site, consisting of the willow riparian/freshwater marsh along the
northwestern drainage (see Figure 8.1). Wetland indicator species along the drainage include
willow, iris-leaved rush, cattail and umbrella sedge. Two drainage ditches were constructed that
flow toward the main drainage: one with an estimated channel width of 1 foot at the Ordinary
High Water Mark (OHWM), the other with a width of2 feet at OHWM. The two ditches may
not be considered jurisdictional by the Corps as they appear to be constructed in uplands and
may therefore not be subject to regulations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
As indicated under the discussion of Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat, the dense willow scrub
and rreshwater marsh provide the only sensitive habitat for native wildlife on the site and should
be considered of high value. The un-vegetated, man-made ditches have little to no value for
wildlife and should not be considered sensitive features on the site.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 8.1
San Leandro Site
Wetlands
"",1
:. ,}l5.v
SOURCE: Jane Valerius I
Aerial Photo: Pacific Aerial Surveys
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
Existing San Leandro Property
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
Vegetation and wildlife resources are identical for both the No Action/No Project alternative,
where the existing Juvenile Hall is located, and the proposed Existing San Leandro Property site.
Special-Status Species
Special-status species resources are identical for both the No Action/No Project alternative and
the proposed Existing San Leandro Property site.
Wetlands
Wetland resources are identical for both the No Action/No Project alternative and the proposed
Existing San Leandro Property site.
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
This site consists of an existing structure in an urban setting with no native vegetation and with
wildlife common to urban areas such as rock dove, house sparrow, Norway rat and house mouse.
No sensitive vegetation or wildlife resources occur on the site.
Special-Status Species
The location ofthis site in an urban setting precludes occurrence of any special-status plant
species or essential habitat for any special-status animal species that may have once occurred in
the vicinity of downtown Oakland. Raptors known to occasionally nest on ledges in urban
settings, such as the state-listed endangered American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus
anatum), have not been observed using this or other buildings in this part of Oakland for nesting.
Wetlands
No wetland resources occur on the site or immediate vicinity.
Pardee/Swan Site
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
The site has been highly modified by past fill activities and was recently graded and graveled in
preparation for use as a paved parking lot.·Vegetative cover over more than two-thirds of the site
was sparse to absent during a field reconnaissance conducted by Mr. Jim Martin of the
Environmental Collaborative on March 23, 2002. Common plant species observed on the site
included soft chess (Bromus hordeasceous), rat-tail fescue (Vulpia myuros), Mediterranean
barley (Hordum marinum var. gussoneanum), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), bird's foot
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), burc10ver (Metacago polymorpha) and sweet clover (Melilotus
indica). Most of this non-native cover was eliminated when the parking lot improvements were
installed. A drainage channel in the northwestern comer of the site supported a band of
pickleweed (Salicornia sp.) on the bottom of the channel, bordered by non-native grassland and a
few coyote brush shrubs. This feature was not disturbed by the parking lot improvements.
The sparse vegetative cover over most ofthe site provided only limited habitat for grassland
dependent wildlife species before the parking lot improvements were installed. Two
concentrations of California ground squirrel were observed along the western edge of the site in
march 2002, with no burrows or signs of small mammal activity over more than two-thirds of the
eastern portion ofthe site. The recent parking lot improvements have eliminated the limited '
grassland habitat values ofthe site, mammal burrows, and the limited opportunities that raptors
may have had for foraging. No evidence of any raptor nesting activity was observed during field
reconnaissance in 2002, or during more detailed surveys conducted in March 2001 (Olderding
Environmental, 2001).
The drainage channel provides only limited value as wetland habitat as it is physically isolated
and relatively small in size. While the adjacent Arrowhead Marsh is of high value to wildlife,
the largely barren site is of limited habitat value.
Special-Status Species
A biological resources analysis of the site was conducted in 2001 to characterize biological
resources and identify the potential for occurrence of special-status species on the site (Olberding
Environmental, 2001). Surveys were conducted on March 26 and 28,2001 to inventory plant
species, evaluate habitat suitability for special-status species and inspect the site for evidence of
any burrowing owl activity. Infonnation on special-status species suspected to possibly occur on
the site was provided in the biological resources analysis. A total of six special-status plant
species typically associated with coastal salt marsh and alkaline grasslands were identified as
having the highest potential for occurrence in the site vicinity, but the extent of past disturbance
precludes their occurrence on the site. Similarly, a number of special-status animal species are
known or suspected to occur in the coastal salt marsh habitat of Arrowhead Marsh and shoreline
of San Leandro Bay, but suitable habitat for these species is absent on the site. These include the
federally threatened California black rail (Laterallusjamaicensis coturniculus), the state and
federally endangered salt-marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), the state and
federally endangered California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) and salt marsh
wandering shrew (Sorex vagarns halicoetes) which is a federal Species of Concern and a
California Special Concern species. Only burrowing owl and other raptors were considered to
potentially use the site, although no evidence of any nesting activity was encountered during
surveys in March 2001 or the field reconnaissance in March 2002.
Wetlands
The Pardee/Swan Site was historically tidal wetlands, but subsequent fill on and adjacent to the
site eliminated coastal salt marsh and seasonal wetlands. The only remaining area with distinct
wetland indicators on the site today is the drainage channel in the northwestern comer ofthe
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-11
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
property, which supports an estimated 0.21 acres (9,000 square feet) of coastal salt marsh
vegetation dominated by pickleweed (see Figure 8.2). A flap-gate culvert links the drainage with
the open waters of Airport ChaIll1el to the west.
The history of jurisdictional wetlands on the site is a complicated one, involving legal action and
eventually a Consent Decree that defines the settlement conditions of the lawsuit (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1994). The Consent Decree in 1994 called for preparation and
implementation of substantial mitigation, resulting in the creation, restoration and enhancement
of the 71-acre Arrowhead Marsh wetlands complex immediately north of the site. Excess dredge
materials generated during construction of new and restored wetlands at Arrowhead Marsh were
deposited on the site as directed under the Consent Decree. Under the authority of Nationwide
Pennit 32 and the Consent Decree, this newly deposited material and the previously
unauthorized fill material could be retained on the site. While the Consent Decree does not
provide a clear statement that the filled conditions on the site are considered nonjurisdictional
uplands, this is inferred through the separation of substantial wetlands mitigation on the 71-acre
Arrowhead Marsh property, from the retained filled lands on the site.
East County Government Center
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
The site and surrounding lands have been highly disturbed by historical agricultural and ranching
activities, the previous military base and more recently by suburban development. Evidence of
past grading extends over much of the site, including a benn over the northern one-third, a
detention basin at the western edge and debris piles in the eastern half. Most of the site is now
covered by nOIll1ative grassland and ruderal (weedy) species, with a few scattered ornamental
trees and shrubs. A row of planted eucalyptus borders the northern edge of the site along Broder
Boulevard. Sapling live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) have been planted along the benn in the
northern portion of the site.
The grassland cover consists of primarily nonnative annual grasses and forbs. Common species
include wild oats, ripgut grass, harding grass, Italian ryegrass, Russian tumbleweed (Salsola
tragus), bristly ox-tongue, English plantain (Plantago lanceo/ata), yellow star thistle and fennel.
A few native species remain in the grassland, such as blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum),
lupine (Lupinus sp.) and Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii).
The extent ofsUITounding development and past disturbance limits the value of the site to
wildlife. Existing development borders the southern, eastern and northern boundaries of the site,
and fencing limits opportunities for movement of larger wildlife to the partially undeveloped
lands to the west.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figue 8.2
Pardee / Swan Site
Wetlands on the Site
~,,:,:)~~);
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory
Aerial Photo: Pacific Aerial Surveys
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
A number of grassland-dependent species continue to use the resources available on the site,
particularly small mammals and birds such as mourning dove, rock dove, European starling,
house finch, western meadowlark, Botta's pocket gopher, California vole, black-tailed jackrabbit,
western fence lizard and gopher snake. California ground squirrels were observed off site along
the flood-control channel on the west side of Arnold Road, but none were observed on the site. A
loggerhead shrike and a white-tailed kite were observed foraging on the site, although no active
nests of these species or other raptors were observed in shrubs or trees on the site. Most of the
wildlife associated with the site have adapted to urban and suburban conditions and tolerate
human disturbance.
Special-Status Species
Detailed surveys of the East County Government Center site were conducted on July 9 and 11,
2001, and March 29 and May 14,2002. The survey on July 9, 2001 served to identify the
vegetation and wildlife habitat types on the site, the potential for occurrence of special-status
species and the possible presence of jurisdictional wetlands. The survey on July 11 provided a
partial inventory of plant species on the site, although a thorough inventory was not possible due
to the date of the fieldwork in the summer when some species are indistinguishable.
Supplemental detailed plant surveys were conducted in March and May 2002 to provide
confirmation on absence of any spring-flowering special-status plant species on the site.
A habitat suitability analysis was conducted during the initial survey to determine the potential
for occurrence of special-status plant and animal species. This was followed by the plant surveys
in 2001 and 2002 conducted to determine presence or absence of special-status plant species.
The extent of past and ongoing disturbance, absence of specific habitat types necessary to
support species of concern (such as vernal pools, ultramorphic soils or specific cover types), and
absence of any indications of presence (such as nest, dens or undisturbed native cover) limit the
likelihood of most special-status plant and animal species on the site.
A number of special-status plant species have been reported trom or are suspected to possibly
occur in the Dublin vicinity. These consist of an estimated 63 species known from grassland and
scrub natural communities. Of these species, an estimated 23 would have been identifiable
during the July 2001 field survey, and one species was encountered on the site, Congdon's
tarplant. The other 40 species would have been detectable during the March and May.2002
spring surveys. No other special-status plant species are believed to occur on the site.
Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) has no state or federal listing status, but
is maintained on List IB of the CNPS Inventory. This annual herb flowers trom June through
November. It occurs in ruderal grasslands, often with alkaline soils or subject to periodic
disturbance. An estimated 325 plants were observed on the site in 2001, with most ofthese
individuals concentrated in the southeastern portion of the site (see Figure 8.3). The CNDDB
records indicate an extensive occurrence of Congdon's tarplant throughout the Camp Parks
vicinity, comprised of over 10,000 individuals as estimated by Preston (1999). The individuals
on the site are most likely part of this larger, more widespread OCCurrence.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
If)
"iij
;:,
~
'6
.5
Õ
"-
Be;
~~
z.!;;
IN
1: ~
:::: Oi
<II i:::
t;~
.g-
- ..
õ .¡::
u '"
-<
~š
e i6
"P-<
8 Ö
'~ õ
~E
~q
u '"
ê3<
~
aJ
.....
.....
CT:J
"'"
~
U
.....
~
~ ~
aJ 0
>:0
o cO
l? g
þ.....J
rt'J ~ 'E
. ::J ro
000......
~Up...
:s ..... ~
òO Ç/) ro
..... ro ...,;
~~-
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
Table 8.1 provides a list of the animal species of concern considered to have the highest
potential for occurrence in the vicinity of the alternative sites. However, the extent of
development, habitat modification or absence of essential habitat features generally precludes the
potential for occurrence for most of these species from this site. No special-status anirnal species
have actually been reported from the site, but a number are known from the surrounding area
according to the CNDDB records. Of particular concern in the Dublin vicinity is the potential for
occurrence of California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma tigrinum californiense) and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). There is
also a potential for a number of the bird species of concern to forage and possibly nest on the
site. Information on each of these species is summarized below.
California Red-Legged Frog
This species has been reported from several locations in the vicinity of the site, including
stockponds and drainages in Camp Parks to the northwest and the Tassajara Creek corridor to the
northeast. However, suitable breeding and dispersal habitat for red-legged frog is absent on the
site. The detention basin does not hold water long enough to provide breeding habitat, and the
lack of any protective marsh or riparian scrub cover precludes occurrence of any dispersing
individuals.
California Tiger Salamander
This subspecies is considered to be a Species of Special Concern by the CDFG and is a candidate
for federal listing. Adults occupy burrows of California ground squirrel and other rodents for
much of the year, and migrate to water sources to breed after the first hard rains in the fall.
Breeding habitat consists of temporary pools and permanent water lasting through late spring to
permit development of larval young. Suitable breeding habitat for tiger salamander is absent
from the site as the detention basin does not hold water into the spring months. Due to the
absence of breeding habitat and the limited opportunities for upland estivation, the site is not
considered suitable habitat for California tiger salamander.
San Joaquin Kit Fox
This subspecies is federally listed as endangered and is a state-listed threatened species. San
Joaquin kit fox historically occurred in alkali sink communities and grasslands of the Central
Valley and adjacent valley systems, extending into western San Joaquin and eastern Contra
Costa and Alameda counties. The USFWS has mapped the range of this subspecies to just north
of the site, although detailed surveys over the past 10 years have not demonstrated presence of
kit fox in the vicinity. The extent of development to the north and east effectively precludes the
occurrence or even the remote potential for possible occasional dispersal by kit fox across the
site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
Table 8.1: Special-Status Animal Species, Potential Occurrence on Alternative Sites
Species Name
Status
Federal/State
Habitat Characteristics
(Occurrence On Site)
AMPHIBIANS / REPTILES
Ambystoma tigrinum californiense C I CSC
California tiger salamander
Grassland and open woodlands with temporary or
permanent water (unlikely)
Clemmys marmorata - / CSC
Western pond turtle
Ponds, marshes, rivers and streams (unlikely)
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus FT / ST, P
Alameda whipsnake
Coastal scrub and chaparral and surrounding
woodlands and grasslands (unlikely)
Rana aurora draytoni FT / CSC, P
California red-legged frog
Permanent ponds, pools and streams in riparian
corridors and surrounding uplands (unlikely)
BIRDS
Aquila chrysaetos - / CSC, CP
Golden eagle
Open mountains, foothills and canyons (unlikely)
Athene cunicularia - / CSC
Burrowing owl
Open grassland and fields, fanns and ruderal areas
(possible)
Circus cyaneus - / CSC
Northern hanier
Marshes, fields and grassland (possible)
Elanus leucurus - / CP
White-tailed kite
Open foothills, marshes and grassland (possible)
Eremophila alpestris actia - / CSC
California homed lark
Open habitat with sparse cover (unlikely)
Falco mexicanus - / CSC
Prairie falcon
Canyons, mountains, open grassland (unlikely)
Falco peregrinus FE / SE, CP
Peregrine falcon
Canyons, mountains, open grassland (unlikely)
LaniU$ /udovicianus - / CSC
Loggerhead shrike
Open habitat with scattered trees, shrubs and other
perches (possible)
LaterallU$jamaicensis coturniculus - / ST, FP
California black rail
Coastal salt marsh (unlikely)
Rallus longirostris obso/itU$ FE I SE, FP
California clapper rail
Coastal salt marsh (unlikely)
MAMMALS
Antrozous pal/idus
Pallid bat
. I CSC
Roosts in caves, crevices, unused structures (unlikely)
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8·17
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
Table 8.1 (continued)
Species Name
Status
Federal/State
Habitat Characteristics
(Occurrence On Site)
Eumops perotis californicus
mastiff bat
- / CSC
Caves and crevices in arid areas with high cliffs California
(unlikely)
Plecotus townsendii townsendii
Townsend's western big-eared bat
- / CSC
Cave, mines, and abandoned buildings (unlikely)
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Salt marsh harvest mouse
FE / SE, FP
Coastal salt marsh (unlikely)
Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
FE / ST
Akali sink, saltbrush scrub, grassland, oak savanna
(unlikely)
STATUS DESIGNATIONS:
Federal:
FE = Listed as "endangered" under the federal ESA.
FT = Listed as "threatened" under the federal ESA.
PE = Proposed for federal listing as "endangered."
PT = Proposed for federal listing as "threatened."
C = A candidate species under review for federal listing. Candidates include taxa for which the USFWS has sufficient biological
infonnation to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened.
State:
SE = Listed as "endangered" under the California ESA.
ST = Listed as "threatened" under the California ESA.
CP = California fully protected species; individual may not be possessed or taken at any time.
CSC = Considered a Species of Special Concern by the CDFG; taxa have no fonnallegal protection but nest sites and communal
roosts are generally recognized as significant biotic features.
Source: Environmental Collaborative, 2002.
Bird Species of Concern
There is also a possibility that one or more special-status bird species could establish nests on the
site, all of which would be protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act when in active use. No
nests were observed during the July 2001 survey, but nests could be established in the future
before construction proceeds. The scattered shrubs and grasslands of the site provide potentially
suitable nesting habitat for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), northern harrier (Circus
cyaneus), white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike. The few trees provide suitable nesting habitat
for more common raptors, such as red-tailed hawk, great homed owl and American kestrel.
Detailed surveys would be necessary to confinn presence or absence of any nesting activity, and
this could change in the future as nests are abandoned and new nests established.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
Wetlands
A preliminary wetland delineation was conducted on August 8, 2001, using Corps routine
methodology (Valerius, 2001). The delineation must still be verified by the Corps, but provides
an indication of the likely extent of jurisdictional wetlands. A total of 10 data points were taken
to detemline vegetation, soils and hydrological characteristics at each location. Based on the
results ofthe delineation, a total of approximately 0.098 acres (4,280 square feet) of wetlands
occur on the site. This consists of two small areas in artificial depressions where all three criteria
of wetland plants, soils and hydrology were met (see Figure 8.4). Nurnerous other depressional
areas occur on the site as a result of past grading, but did not meet all three of the wetland
criteria. Because the two potential wetlands are physically isolated, they are most likely
considered by the Corps to be isolated wetlands, nonnavigable interstate waters that are not
subject to regulations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These seasonal depressions
function largely as grasslands, with no unique values to wildlife.
The detention basin in the western portion ofthe site is a man-made feature used for detaining
water. It functions as part ofa larger drainage system, receiving runoff from northwest of the site
through a culvert under Arnold Road, which is detained on site, and then passes back under
Arnold Road into the flood control channel which flows south along the west side of Arnold. The
basin did not exhibit any soil characteristics indicating wetland conditions, and most of the
vegetation is composed of facultative or upland species. Facultative species are those that can
occur equally in wet areas and uplands. Because of the absence of any strong wetland indicators
and the fact that the basin was constructed in uplands, it is considered to be exempt from Corps
jurisdiction, although this must be confirmed as part of the field verification.
Site 15A
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
Site 15A and surroooding lands have been highly disturbed by historical agricultural and
ranching activities, the previous military base and more recently by suburban development.
Evidence of past and recent grading extends over much of the site, including stockpiled earth and
a man-made drainage swale along Arnold Road and a portion of Dublin Boulevard. Vegetative
cover on the site is limited to nonnative grasses and ruderal species, such as slender wild oats
(Avena barbata), ripgut grass, Paradox canary grass (Phalaris paradoxa), Italian ryegrass, bristly
ox-tongue, English plantain and yellow star thistle. Several depressional areas support
transitional seasonal wetland species, such as curly dock (Rwnex crispus) and rabbitsfoot grass
(Polypogon monspeliensis). The few remaining native species consist of an occurrence of
Congdon's tarplant (a special-status species) and a few scattered coyote brush (Baccharis
pilularis) shrubs.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-19
)~:;'" '= -~~^-:~ :, r=JiT·· rl rJ L'r' "'-:'] 11 ,'I rt" f 1['
"" ç. /<:.;g: -- - - .2.., '" '}. '¡ ¡- l ::1 [ ill 1L+..,.....'~ . i....
.',' . \ \, " L_ r Î ' 'I . 1: ,'" ,
, . .~.:~~~/J~;~~i=-~~~I~:~~j~:~ .'~'
-.J." .,....-.......'..'...._.."'.................mn.m.......n.""'''''. '¡:;"f~' ~ff. '. . ~.. ".'.'h
~~lV~~-:I./i~~~~!.j2~'=Jì
[I. ,0
mnt i~ 'i
_>¡[i. )~\ ...., ··'.~/./,'-¡';:.\.i··.iil·~. <,?;,' \\!.'i:'>l... (' ..; ,\:;~t~i:i.11~,: ,!I
;::::'"Jir''' ",'.I' r.m.~" Iii.} ,.., h"'i' Ji 11\...,...' .' co.f). '.' II ',~¡I,
i' '~\""'. "'" It;.i" . ." . ~d'." ;.'\..'.......,,..,.,....;,. "- .,1", ; Ld...... ..~nm="''"'''-...--.,
f]i " f'ì ) j ',r ~ ; ~:·'Jltj., ,,',:5 .~ i i i: ". 'I ' !~!.I· IJ' )': f'
-'I,', I( .' ~~I i ]'11' .f,r' "\~,, \ !. i'I ': I, ' '
~r ¡ irl~~'l ¡'r .{'\~ :;~!¡. Iii' rt :-.~'
~-=sQ>6.~_i'~:.·/'/?' '1\'/ .11.', . ',,'..11. i" .'o__."-~~_n
~-l ~, \'''c~:=l;/i \ ..m·'f,\W·r,\' J.¡Î¡...., .(,.,n~""~
:- L~~'~i :'1'1,n"711'i 1 I. .''\'''''~;m~~;,"~...,;;
, .. ¡¡ ~~·'~i~OI., ,"1'<"";=: ~=:----:c=
,,1 Z\g (,Z"" ?"""-J"--~} , "1
~o A- IS,. SIT~~:~:' : I,',; ~"." .\'IIJ
r -- --,,,,,,\,, , ¡::!i,: ", .¡
n ~JT1!i: ?c¿J" ~t '[' (I f¡~111 :, ¡"- I.t:
; I", --', ;[I,.Jl J[ì '", \ :1' 'I' I,:, i' itl
¡ r '=~ll}f}:--;~ì ::¡ ¡' .~~"~'! ;r¡
, l~'.'" _.J ~j (l-1[ l~ n' ',' t i ¡' ~\ II' ':' \;\'(;\,\1,1;1' .
t (;~ (J J 1~r::<'J i; :, ,'I, r,l, "i: 'f
I '1 - J~ . Il~I': I 'I 1",7U';1
II ~ ~"(\i) ,¡ , ~. ;:, '..j'.'...'^if+-Þ···\;'i;,.,"'I '
\ J:/.$' ,/ ~
~-=~.."';"~~' '~" /. ....,..,.~,_"..'....~,..........'.'~.'_'.'.'~.','.'._.'~.',:...'~.'_"~."~.'..~.~.:::~,'~,:~_.f.}.:~_=:~...~.~,.·,~.".'.:.~'.~:.~..'.~.¡..,..~_..".',...'......:....,,:.,:..:.~.:_:j.::.'--.'~,\:.,:t'i~ »:,.,.".)1
~'=:~..u....,.:.:..;;... ..'..' t .-.:~--:.. '"'~'u .,'
='"~==~~~ ~,' > ,~~: ¡
¡ ij' ió "; ;fi
, ~ 1',).11~. ; r _______, ~:¡~~.~~_~__r-__m_~____.....~_m.m.'~ (__
Œ~)""~
: .~~ ;-~
j........~...~. Eo-
..:~ .'
U
o
~
o
; :
iLl,
: '1)
<IS
~
<:(
1:1
c::
<IS
~
;:
"'
'"
,'>
,..
~
O\fOiJ (]
c¡¡
c::
o
U
'C
U)
"§
'E ..,
'õ :m
a. 'E
~ ~
o a.
ö
,"
!"ï
:e
:...........,...-----.
3j
Ii.
"',..,
;:>00
li ¡¡¡
'¡¡¡""
>::;
OJ 0
¡::",-
~~
" ."
tJ æ
!3~
@ .~
¡:C
Ä.
~
~
IIi>
en
.:!
(¡¡
c¡¡
>
-;
>.
.D
š2
~
c::
o
~
:;:I
1:1
c::
8
~
~
1:1
ãi
ü:
2
ëï)
I-<
aJ
.....
s::
aJ
U
.....
s::
~
~
o
Cj
Þ
"I:t4 s:: CI1
aò;::::S""O
Q,I 0 s::
"'" U Cd
=.....-
bQCI1'tj
.... ctS:..-
~~;>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
The small size of the site and the extent of surrounding development and past disturbance limit
the value of the site to wildlife. The site is bordered by improved roadways, with existing
development to the east and north. A number of grassland-dependent species continue to use the
resources available on the site, particularly small mammals and birds such as mourning dove,
house finch, Botta's pocket gopher, and black-tailed jackrabbit. No California ground squirrels
were observed on or immediately adjacent to the site, and no evidence of any nesting by birds
was observed on the site.
Special·Status Species
The potential for occurrence of special-status species ·on this site is similar to that for the East
County Government Center site, given the close proximity and similar characteristics ofthe two
sites. A detailed plant survey was conducted on August 7, 2002, providing a partial inventory of
plant species on the site, although a thorough inventory was not possible due to the fact that
some spring flowering species are indistinguishable by mid-summer. A habitat suitability
analysis was conducted on October 2, 2002, determining the potential for occurrence of special-
status animal species on the site. The extent of past and ongoing disturbance, absence of specific
habitat types necessary to support species of concern (such as vernal pools, ultramorphic soils or
specific cover types) and absence of any indications of presence (such as nest, dens or
undisturbed native cover) limits the likelihood of rnost special-status plant and animal species on
the site.
Of the estimated 63 special-status plant species that have been reported from or are suspected to
possibly occur in grassland habitat in the Dublin vicinity, approximately 23 would have been
identifiable during the August 2002 field survey, and one species was encountered on the site,
Congdon's tarplant. The other 40 species would have been indistinguishable from the
surrounding grassland or difficult to identifY due to the timing of the field survey in mid-
summer. Although the likelihood of occurrence of any other special-status plant species on the
site is considered remote, supplemental detailed field surveys during the spring would be
necessary to confirm absence.
As discussed previously (East County Government Center, Special-Status Species),
Congdon's tarplant has no state or federal listing status, but is maintained on List IB of the
CNPS Inventory. An estimated 1,000 plants were observed on the site in August 2002, scattered
throughout the site with individuals concentrated in four major locations (see Figure 8.5).
Subsequent grading of the drainage ditch along Arnold Road in late summer of2002 eliminated
several hundred of these plants, but most likely created suitable conditions for establishment of
more individuals next year. As with the occurrence found on the East County Government
Center site, this population is most likely part of an extensive occurrence of Congdon's tarplant
reported by the CNDDB throughout the Camp Parks vicinity.
The extent of development, habitat modification or absence of essential habitat features
precludes the potential for occurrence of the special-status animal species listed in Table 8.1.
This includes absence of suitable breeding and estivation habitat for California red-legged frog
and California tiger salamander, absence of denning or foraging habitat for San Joaquin kit fox
and absence of suitable nesting habitat for the special-status bird species. Burrowing owl requires
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EISIEIR
Page 8-21
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
ground squirrel burrows or other retreat cover for nesting, which is absent from the site.
Loggerhead shrike, white-tailed kite, marsh hawk and other raptors require shrubs and trees for
nesting, which are also absent from the site. No special-status animal species have been reported
from the site or are believed to occur on the property.
Wetlands
A preliminary wetland delineation was conducted on August 26, 2002, using Corps routine
methodology (Valerius, 2002b). The delineation must still be verified by the Corps, but provides
an indication of the likely extent of jurisdictional wetlands. A total of7 data points were taken to
determine vegetation, soils and hydrological characteristics at each location. Based on the results
of the delineation, a total of approximately 1.44 acres (62,547 square feet) of wetlands occur on
the site. This consists of six depressional areas where all three criteria of wetland plants, soils
and hydrology were met (see Figure 8.6).
A man-made drainage ditch with an average width of 3 feet at OHWM also occurs on the site,
paralleling Arnold Road and a portion of Dublin Boulevard. This ditch supported wetland
vegetation during the August 2002 survey, but had been regraded and striped of vegetation by
October 2002. Because the potential wetlands are physically isolated, they may be considered by
the Corps to be isolated wetlands, nonnavigable interstate waters which are not subject to
regulations under Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act. The drainage ditch may not be considered
jurisdictional by the Corps as it appears to be a man-made feature constructed in uplands and
may therefore not be subject to regulations under Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act. These
wetlands appear to be routinely disturbed by maintenance activities, are dominated by ruderal or
transitional grassland species and do not provide unique wildlife habitat values.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c;
118
eN
il
"0 ::I
l!<:
Ë .s
~~
~ ê;
1]
¡::o
0....
:¡:: æ
2-
Eft
.~ E-
0.'"
"0 ¡::
Q) 0
0."0
0.1::P
!U 0
::Eu
~ ~
., Q)
jj
Ærtï
Õ '¡::
~.(
19~
@ ·ü
~~
o ..
... 0
"> õ
~t
B~
ê3~
~
.....
¡:;
ca
õ..
I-<
ca
E-<
IJJ
'"¡:;
o
""0
o.c
¡:;
o
U
-
o
¡:;
U') .9
. .....
~:;;.Ë
... ~ ',E
~~ .~
~V)O
·g ~
Æ i::
'" '"
><J)
f2
~~
t':J~
p:: ·0
~~
@ ..
,9
o
t
..
'I::
~
I,C
. rJ)
CXI<J::"'O
2:: I.t) ~
:s~......
bD.2:! ti
U:(j)~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Criteria have been established in detennining the significance of potential impacts on biological
resources. The CEQA Guidelines identify potentially significant environmental effects on
biological resources to include:
· A substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
special-status species;
· 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 CDFG or USFWS.
· A substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other
means;
· 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;
· Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance.
· Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural
Community Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan.
IMPACT 8.1:
Special-Status Species
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project-related benefits to special-status species have been identified.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 8.1.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. No adverse impacts on special-status species would occur under this alternative as
no new developrnent is proposed.
Impact 8.1.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The proposed Project would
result in the loss of potential loggerhead shrike and raptor nesting habitat on the site. Although
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-25
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
no evidence of nesting by raptors was observed during the field reconnaissance of the site in
March 2002, there is a possibility that new nests could be established in the future. Destruction
of a raptor nest in active use would be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Given the
possibility that new nests could be established on the site in the future before construction is
initiated, this impact is considered potentially significant, and would require a preconstruction
survey and appropriate mitigation if nests are encountered. Protection of any active raptor nests
until young have fledged would be adequate rnitigation. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for
homed lark and burrowing owl does not occur on the site, so preconstruction surveys for these
species are not necessary.
Although considered unlikely, there is a remote potential for one or more special-status bat
species to occur in the existing buildings on the site. Preconstruction surveys would be necessary
to confirm presence or absence of bat roosts on the site. Effective methods for relocation or
mitigation would be necessary if roosts are encountered, prior to demolition.
No special-status plant species are believed to occur on the site due to the extent of past grading
and development, and no impacts on special-status plant species are anticipated.
No direct impacts on any state or federally listed species are anticipated as a result ofthe Project.
This includes California red-legged frog and Alameda whip snake, which are not believed to
occur on or frequent the site. Suitable habitat for Alameda whip snake is absent on the site and
surrounding lands. Detailed protocol surveys were conducted for California red-legged frog, and
no individuals were detected in the marginal habitat associated with the willow riparian scrub on
the site (Rana Resources, 2002).
. Mitigation Measure 8.1.2a: Preconstruction Nesting Surveys. Preconstruction
nesting surveys for loggerhead shrike and raptors shall be conducted during the months
of April through July prior to any destruction of suitable nesting habitat. The surveys
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to initiation of
grading. If any ofthese species are found within the construction area after April of the
construction year, grading and construction in the area shall either stop or continue only
after the nests are protected by an adequate setback approved by a qualified biologist. If
avoidance of nests is not feasible, impacts to foraging habitat and kite, shrike and raptor
nests shall be minimized by avoiding disturbances to the birds during the nesting season
unless a qualified biologist verifies that the birds have either (1) not begun egg-laying and
incubation, or (2) that the juveniles from those nests are foraging independently and
capable of survival at an earlier date.
. Mitigation Measure 8.1.2b: Preconstruction Roosting Surveys.
Preconstruction roosting surveys for pallid bat and Townsend's western big-eared bat
shall be conducted prior to demolition of buildings on the site. The surveys shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to demolition. Ifbat roosts
are encountered, demolition shall be postponed until bats have been relocated. Roost
entrances shall be fitted with one-way doors that allow exits but prevent entrance for a
period of several days to encourage bats to relocate. If maternity roosts are found, the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
structure with the maternity roost shall be avoided and bat relocation efforts postponed
until the offspring have fledged.
Resulting Level a/Significance: With implementation of the above mitigation measures, potential
impacts on special-status species would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Impact 8.1.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMPACT. Proposed development would occur in an existing urbanized location, and no
impacts on special-status species are anticipated.
Impact 8.1.4: Pardee/Swan Site
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. The existing condition of the
Pardee/Swan site precludes the occurrence of any special status animal species. However, there
is a remaining possibility that burrowing owl could establish new nests along the northern and
western edges of the site where drainage swales have been incorporated into the parking lot
design. If ground squirrels establish colonies along these swales, their burrows could be used by
burrowing owl. Re-grading of the site to accommodate the proposed Project facilities could
eliminate the swales. Destruction of a burrowing owl nest in active use would be a violation of
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Given that new nests could be established on the site in the
future, this impact is considered potentially significant and would require a pre-construction
survey and appropriate mitigation if nests are encountered.
No special-status plants are believed to occur on the site due to the extent of past fill and grading,
and no impacts on special-status plant species are anticipated.
No direct impacts on any state or federally listed species are anticipated as a result of the Project.
This includes salt marsh harvest mouse, California clapper rail, California black rail or California
red-legged frogs, which are not believed to occur on or frequent the site.
. Mitigation Measure 8.1.4a: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Survey.
Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owl within 30 days of Project-
related ground disturbing activities throughout the year to detennine whether any nesting
owls are present and to provide for their protection during the active breeding season or
passive relocation during the non-breeding season if nests are encountered. The surveys
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall comply with Burrowing Owl
Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Ifburrowing owls are found on site, the Mitigation
Guidelines generally require either avoidance of the nest and suitable buffer area, or
creation of other suitable habitat for burrowing owls nearby, relocating any burrowing
owls that are found on site and filling all on-site burrows once they have been vacated.
Resulting level afSignificance: With implementation of the above mitigation measure
potential impacts on special-status species would be reduced to a less than significant
level.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-27
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
Impact 8.1.5: East County Government Center
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. If developed on the East County
Government Center site, the proposed Project would result in the elimination of the occurrence
of Congdon's tarplant from the site, which would be a significant impact. Congdon's tarplant has
no legal protective status under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts, but is considered
rare under Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines.
No other special-status plant species were encountered on the site during systematic surveys
conducted in July 2001, and March and May 2002, and none are believed to occur on the site.
Suitable foraging habitat for burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, other raptors ai1d
loggerhead shrike would be affected by proposed development. While no nests of these species
were encountered during the field survey, there is a possibility that nests could be established
prior to construction. Preconstruction surveys would be required to confinn the presence or
absence of any new nests, together with appropriate development restrictions. Protection of any
active nests until young have fledged would be adequate mitigation for most of these species.
Additional habitat protection would be required if burrowing owl are encountered on the site,
consistent with the mitigation guidelines of the CDFG.
No direct impacts on any state or federally listed species are anticipated as a result of the Project.
This includes California red-legged frog and San Joaquin kit fox, which are not believed to occur
on the site or pass through the site vicinity.
. Mitigation Measure 8.1.5a: Preconstruction Nesting Surveys. Preconstruction
nesting surveys for loggerhead shrike and raptors shall be conducted during the months
of April through July prior to any destruction of suitable nesting habitat. The surveys
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to initiation of
grading. If any of these species are found within the construction area after April of the
construction year, grading and construction in the area shall either stop or continue only
after the nests are protected by an adequate setback approved by a qualified biologist. If
avoidance of nests is not feasible, impacts to foraging habitat and kite, shrike and raptor
nests shall be minimized by avoiding disturbances to the birds during the nesting season
unless a qualified biologist verifies that the birds have either not begun egg-laying and
incubation, or that the juveniles from those nests are foraging independently and capable
of survival at an earlier date.
. Mitigation Measure 8.1.5b: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Survey.
Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owl within 30 days of Project-
related ground disturbing activities throughout the year to detennine whether any nesting
owls are present and to provide for their protection during the active breeding season or
passive relocation during the nonbreeding season if nests are encountered. The surveys
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall comply with Burrowing Owl
Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Ifburrowing owls are found on site, the Mitigation
Guidelines generally require the creation of other suitable habitat for burrowing owls
nearby, relocating any burrowing owls that are found on site and filling all on-site
burrows once they have been vacated.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
. Mitigation Measure 8.1.5c: Congdon's Tarplant Mitigation Program. A
detailed off-site mitigation program shall be prepared to address the loss of Congdon's
tarplant on the site. The program shall be prepared by a qualified botanist or plant
ecologist, and shall at minimum provide for seed collection and reseeding, and creating
replacement habitat at secure locations. The program shall include identification of
appropriate areas(s), including shallow depressions designed with a suitable hydrologic
regime for Congdon's tarplant to be sown with seed collected from the site. Seed shall be
collected from the site in early fall prior to initiation of construction activities. This seed
collection and re-establishment may be combined with other mitigation plans for the
vicinity, such as the mitigation being developed for impacts associated with the Dublin
Transit Center. Any mitigation plan shall include monitoring for a minimum of five years
to determine success of reseeding and habitat creation.
In addition, preservation of another existing occurrence of Congdon's tarplant shall be
required if monitoring efforts indicate that the re-establishment efforts have not been
successful after five years. The preservation program shall provide for permanent
protection of a minimum of 325 plants through land acquisition or use of a conservation
easement over an existing population in east Alameda County (minimum 1: 1
replacement). Any off-site mitigation lands shall include establishment of a management
endowment as necessary to provide for long-term management of the population. The
detailed mitigation program shall be developed in conjunction with the Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan for this EIS/EIR. The plan shall be prepared in consultation with the
CDFG and meet with the approval of the County Community Development Department
prior to any construction or seed collection on the site.
Resulting Level afSignificance: With implementation of the above mitigation measures,
potential impacts on special-status species would be reduced to less than significant
levels.
Impact 8.1.6: Site 15A
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. If developed on Site 1SA, the
proposed Project would eliminate the occurrence of Congdon's tarplant from the site, which
would be a significant impact. There is also a remote possibility that the Project could affect
other special-status plant species if they occur on the site. The single survey conducted in August
2002 would not allow for a conclusive determination on absence of any spring-flowering species
that have a remote potential to occur on the site. Further detailed surveys would be necessary to
conclusively determine the presence or absence of other special-status plant species on the site.
Congdon's tarplant has no legal protective status under the state or federal Endangered Species
Acts, but is considered rare under Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. Thus, elimination of
the entire occurrence ofthis species on the site would be significant.
Suitable foraging habitat for burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, other raptors and
loggerhead shrike would be affected by proposed development. However, the extent of adjacent
development and conversion ofthe surrounding grasslands to suburban use limit the habitat
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-29
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
value of the site for foraging and this loss is not considered significant. The absence of suitable
nesting conditions, such as ground squirrel burrows or shrubs and trees on the site, precludes
nesting by raptors and other bird species of concern, and preconstruction surveys would therefore
not be required on this site.
No direct impacts on any state or federally listed species are anticipated as a result of the Project.
This includes California red-legged frog and San Joaquin kit fox, which are not believed to occur
on the site or pass through the site vicinity.
. Mitigation Measure 8.1.6a: Congdon's Tarplant Mitigation Program. A
detailed off-site mitigation program shall be prepared to address the loss of Congdon's
tarplant on the site. The program shall be prepared by a qualified botanist or plant
ecologist, and shall at minimum provide for seed collection and reseeding, and creating
replacement habitat at secure locations. The program shall include identification of
appropriate areas(s), including shallow depressions designed with a suitable hydrologic
regime for Congdon's tarplant to be sown with seed collected from the site. Seed shall be
collected from the site in early fall prior to initiation of construction activities. This seed
collection and re-establishment may be combined with other mitigation plans for the
vicinity, such as the mitigation being developed for impacts associated with the Dublin
Transit Center. Any mitigation plan shall include monitoring for a minimum of five years
to determine success of reseeding and habitat creation.
In addition, preservation of another off-site existing occurrence of Congdon's tarplant
shall be required if monitoring efforts indicate that the re-establishment efforts have not
been successful after five years. The preservation program shall provide for permanent
protection of a minimum of 1,000 plants through land acquisition or use of a conservation
easement over an existing population in eastern Alameda County (minimum 1: 1
replacement). Any off-site mitigation lands shall include establishment of a management
endowment as necessary to provide for long-term management of the population. The
detailed mitigation program shall be prepared in consultation with the CDFG and meet
with the approval ofthe County Community Development Department prior to any
construction or seed collection on the site.
. Mitigation Measure 8.1.6b: Supplemental Plant Surveys and Protection.
Detailed surveys shall be conducted in spring (March and May) to confirm absence of
any other special-status plant species rrom the site. Ifpopulations of any other special-
status plant species are encountered, the mitigation program for Congdon's tarplant shall
be expanded to address these additional species. Measures to protect and preserve the
additional plant populations shall be developed for any listed species or those maintained
on Lists IB or 2 ofthe CNPS Inventory. These measures may include collection of seeds
during the appropriate developmental stage of the plan, procedures for sowing techniques
appropriate to the life cycle of the plant, development of a maintenance and rnonitoring
plan specific to the environmental conditions necessary for survival of the new
population, identification of funding sources to provide for implementation of the plan
and management and maintenance of the mitigation area. Potential impacts on any
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
species maintained on Lists 3 and 4 of the CNPS Inventory would not be considered
significant and no additional mitigation would be required for these species.
Resulting Level afSignificance: With implementation of the above mitigation measures,
potential impacts on special-status species would be reduced to less than significant
levels.
IMPACT 8.2:
Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project-related benefits pertaining to sensitive natural communities have been identified.
IMPACT 8.2
ALL ALTERNATIVES
NO IMPACT. Sensitive natural community types, such as riparian scrub and native grasslands,
are absent from all of the sites, and no impacts are anticipated. Areas on each of the alternative
sites supporting seasonal wetlands are dominated by nonnative species and are not a sensitive
natural community. Areas on the Existing San Leandro Property site supporting willow riparian
scrub are located outside the anticipated limits of grading and would not be affected by the
proposed Project. Because no impacts are anticipated, no mitigation is considered necessary.
IMPACT 8.3:
Loss or Modifications to Wetlands
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project-related benefits related to wetlands have been identified.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 8.3.1 :
No Action/No Project
NO IMP ACT. No adverse impacts on wetlands would occur under this alternative as no new
development is proposed.
Impact 8.3.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. The proposed Project would
generally avoid the willow riparian scrub along the northwestern edge of the site, but would fill
approximately 920 linear feet of two man-made drainage ditches which may be considered
jurisdictional other waters by the Corps. These drainages collectively comprise an estimated
0.038 acres (1,640 square feet) of potential jurisdictional waters. The assumption that these
drainages may be jurisdictional must be confinned by the Corps as part of its jurisdictional
detennination. If these drainages are detennined to be jurisdictional, then their loss may be
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8631
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
considered significant, requiring mitigation. Careful controls over grading and potential
sedimentation must also be implemented to avoid degradation of the adjacent willow riparian
scrub on the site.
. Mitigation Measure 8.3.2a: Wetland Delineation and Possible Replacement.
The preliminary wetland delineation shall be submitted to the Corps for verification. If
the identified drainages ditches to be filled are not considered jurisdictional then no
additional mitigation is considered necessary. If the Corps detennines these features are
jurisdictional and must be filled, then a mitigation program shall be prepared by a
qualified wetland specialist, and shall at minimum provide for no net loss of wetlands.
This mitigation program will be required to provide for the creation of replacement
habitat with an increase in acreage and value at a secure location to meet the "no net loss"
standard. Any mitigation program shall include monitoring and management for a
minimum of five years to ensure success of wetlands creation; specify success criteria,
maintenance, monitoring requirements, and contingency measures; and define site
preparation and revegetation procedures, along with an implementation schedule, and
funding sources to ensure long-tenn management. If required, the detailed mitigation
program shall be prepared in consultation with the Corps and meet with the approval of
the County Community Development Department prior to any construction on the site.
. Mitigation Measure 8.3.2b: Wetland Protection. As recommended in Mitigation
Measure 6.5.2, a Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared and
implemented using Best Management Practices to control both construction-related
erosion and sedimentation and Project-related nonpoint discharge into waters on the site.
Resulting Level afSignificance: With implementation of the above mitigation measures,
potential impacts on wetlands would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Impact 8.3.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMPACT. Proposed development would occur in an existing urbanized location, and no
impacts on wetlands are anticipated.
Impact 8.3.4: Pardee/Swan Site
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The proposed Project would
avoid the open drainage channel in the northwestern comer of the site. Although indicators of
potential seasonal wetlands were observed in scattered locations on the site during initial field
visits, the site has since been graded and is being developed by the Port of Oakland as a parking
lot, consistent with the Consent Decree issued for the property in 1994, which provided
mitigation/restoration of the adjacent Arrowhead Marsh and allowed for deposition offill
material on the site. However, careful controls over potential sedimentation must be
implemented to avoid degradation of the adjacent marshlands to the north, west and east of the
site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8·32
-'I
I
I
I
I
I,
l
I
1
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,\
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
. Mitigation Measure 8.3.4a: Wetland Avoidance. The drainage channel in the
northwestern comer of the site shall be avoided and a minimum 50-foot setback provided
from this feature to adequately avoid potential jurisdictional waters.
. Mitigation Measure 8.3.4b: Wetland Protection. As recommended in Mitigation
Measure 6.5.2, a Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared and
implemented using Best Management Practices to control both construction-related
erosion and sedimentation and Project-related nonpoint discharge into waters on the site.
Resulting Level of Significance: With implementation of the above mitigation measures,
potential impacts on wetlands would be reduc~d to less than significant levels.
Impact 8.3.5: East County Government Center
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The proposed Project would
result in the elimination of the approximately 0.098 acres (4,280 square feet) of scattered
seasonal wetlands in the man-made depressions on the site. Because these features are physically
isolated and nonnavigable interstate waters, they are not anticipated to be subject to regulations
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Similarly, the man-made detention basin in the
western portion of the site is most likely exempt fÌom Corps jurisdiction as it was constructed in
uplands for flood control. These assumptions must be confinned by the Corps as part of its
jurisdictional detennination. If these features are detennined to be jurisdictional, then their loss
would be considered significant, requiring mitigation.
The loss of biological value attributable to elimination of these wetlands is considered to be less
than significant. The area on this site supporting seasonal wetlands is dominated by nonnative
species and is not a sensitive natural community. The detention basin does not hold water long
enough to provide breeding habitat for red-legged frogs, and lacks any protective marsh or
riparian scrub cover. Similarly, since the detention basin does not hold water into the spring
months it does not provide suitable breeding habitat for tiger salamander.
. Mitigation Measure 8.3.5: Wetland Delineation and Possible Replacement.
The preliminary wetland delineation shall be submitted to the Corps for verification. If
the identified wetlands and detention basin are not considered jurisdictional then no
additional mitigation is considered necessary. If the Corps detennines these features are
jurisdictional, then a mitigation program shall be prepared by a qualified wetland
specialist, and shall at minimum provide for no net loss of wetlands. This program will
be required to provide for the creation of replacement habitat with an increase in acreage
and value at a secure location to meet the "no net loss" standard. Any mitigation program
shall include monitoring and management for a minimum of five years to ensure success
of wetlands creation; specify success criteria, maintenance, monitoring requirements, and
contingency measures; and define site preparation and revegetation procedures, along
with an implementation schedule, and funding sources to ensure long-tenn management.
If required, the detailed mitigation program shall be prepared in consultation with the
Corps and rneet with the approval of the County Community Development Department
prior to any construction on the site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-33
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
Resulting Level of Significance: With implementation of the above mitigation measure,
potential impacts on wetlands would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Impact 8.3.6: Site 15A
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The proposed Project would
result in the elimination of the approximately 1.44 acres of seasonal wetlands scattered across the
site. Because these features appear to be physically isolated and nonnavigable interstate waters,
they are not anticipated to be subject to regulations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Similarly, the estimated 0.06 acre of waters associated with the man-made drainage ditch along
the Arnold Road frontage is most likely exempt from, Corps jurisdiction as it was constructed.in
uplands for flood-control purposes. These assumptions must be confinned by the Corps as part
of their jurisdictional detennination. Ifthe wetland areas are detennined to be jurisdictional,
then their loss would be considered significant, requiring mitigation.
The loss of biological value attributable to elimination of these wetlands is considered to be less
than significant. The areas on this site supporting seasonal wetlands do not contain suitable
breeding or estivation habitat for California red-legged frog or California tiger salamander.
These wetlands appear to be routinely disturbed by maintenance activities, are dominated by
ruderal or transitional grassland species and do not provide unique wildlife habitat value.
. Mitigation Measure 8.3.6: Wetland Delineation and Possible Replacement.
The preliminary wetland delineation shall be submitted to the Corps for verification. If
the identified wetlands and drainage ditch are not considered jurisdictional then no
additional mitigation is considered necessary. If the Corps detennines these features are
jurisdictional, then a mitigation program shall be prepared by a qualified wetland
specialist, and shall at minimum provide for no net loss of wetlands. This mitigation
program will be required to provide for the creation of replacement habitat with an
increase in acreage and value at a secure location to meet the "no net loss" standard. Any
mitigation program shall include monitoring and management for a minimum of five
years to ensure success of wetlands creation; specify success criteria, maintenance,
monitoring requirements, and contingency measures; and define site preparation and
revegetation procedures, along with an implementation schedule, and funding sources to
ensure long-tenn management. Ifrequired, the detailed mitigation program shall be
prepared in consultation with the Corps and meet with the approval ofthe County
Community Development Department prior to any construction on the site.
Resulting Level of Significance: With implementation of the above mitigation measure,
potential impacts on wetlands would be reduced to less than significant levels.
IMPACT 8.4:
Loss of Wildlife Habitat
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project-related benefits to wildlife habitat have been identified.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-34
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 8.4.1 :
No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. No adverse impacts on wetlands would occur under this alternative as no new
development is proposed.
Impact 8.4.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. The proposed Project is not expected to interfere
substantially with the movement of wildlife, impede use of any wildlife nurseries, or result in a
substantial loss of wildlife habitat at this alternative site. This site is surrounded by Fairmont '
Drive and the existing Juvenile Hall. The willow riparian scrub along the northwestern edge of
the site would remain undisturbed, protecting the only sensitive wildlife habitat. Proposed
development would eliminate the omamentallandscaping and ruderal grasslands within the
limits of grading, and wildlife would either be destroyed or displaced to the surrounding lands.
However, most of these species are relatively common and the loss of habitat or individuals
would not be considered significant. Species common to suburban habitat would eventually
occupy landscape improvements and structures developed as part of the Project. No mitigation is
considered necessary.
Impact 8.4.3:
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMP ACT. Proposed development would occur in an existing urbanized location, and no
impacts on wildlife habitat are anticipated.
Impact 8.4.4: Pardee/Swan Site
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. As discussed under Impact
8.1.4, the proposed Project would result in the elimination of suitable grassland habitat on the
site for loggerhead shrike, burrowing owl and other raptors, and could disrupt wildlife use in the
adjacent Arrowhead Marsh. The sparse cover over most of the site currently limits its value to
grassland-dependent species, and a paved pedestrian path along the southern edge ofthe open
space to the north currently separates the site ftom Arrowhead Marsh. However, development of
the site would introduce additional human activity and nighttime lighting into the area, which
could adversely affect wildlife activity in the adjacent open space unless properly screened and
carefully controlled. In addition, the placement of structures (buildings, fences, light poles, etc.)
near the northern edge of the site could provide new perches for predatory birds, which might
enable them to more effectively prey on wildlife using the adjacent marshland habitat.
. Mitigation Measure 8.4.4a: Wildlife Habitat Buffer. As recommended in
Mitigation Measure 8.1.4c: Protection of Raptor Foraging Habitat, a 50-foot setback
shall be provided along the northern, eastern and western edges of the site to provide a
buffer for the surrounding open space lands. Appropriate native and ornamental shrub
and low-growing tree species shall be planted as landscape screening within 20 feet of the
inside edge of this setback to provide screening of new structures, parking and other uses
which may interfere with wildlife activity in the adjacent Arrowhead Marsh and regional
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-35
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
shoreline of San Leandro Bay. Nighttirne lighting shall be designed to minimize any
illumination of the adjacent marshland habitat.
. Mitigation Measure 8.4.4b: Incorporation of Features to Prevent Potential
Predator Perches. In order to reduce the potential for raptor predation in the adjacent
marshland habitat, all structures proposed nearest to the northern edge of the site shall
incorporate design features intended to reduce the potential for viable raptor perches on
site. These could include parapets incorporating angular features to discourage perching,
the placement of "porcupine wire" along potential perch surfaces or the incorporation of
devices (e.g., flashing lights, taped distress calls, holographic reflective tape) that are
intended to cause raptors to seek perches elsewhere.
. Mitigation Measure 8.4.4c: Design Features to Reduce Exterior Lighting. To
the extent possible consistent with security considerations, all exterior lighting shall
incorporate design features such as hooded light shields to direct nighttime light to the
ground or toward structures on the site, and away from the adjacent marshland habitat
area.
Resulting Level of Significance: With implementation of the above mitigation rneasures,
potential impacts on wildlife habitat would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Impact 8.4.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed Project is not expected to interfere
substantially with the movement of wildlife, impede use of any wildlife nurseries or result in a
substantial loss of wildlife habitat at this alternative site. This site is surrounded on three sides by
existing development and is not directly connected to an existing stream or other natural
rnovement corridor. Proposed development would eliminate the remaining grassland habitat, and
wildlife would either be destroyed or displaced to the surrounding lands. However, most ofthese
species are relatively common and the loss of habitat or individuals would not be considered
significant. Species common to suburban habitat would eventually occupy landscape
improvements and structures developed as part of the Project. No mitigation is considered
necessary .
Impact 8.4.6: Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed Project is not expected to interfere
substantially with the movement of wildlife, impede use of any wildlife nurseries or result in a
substantial loss of wildlife habitat at this alternative site. This site is surrounded on three sides by
existing development and is not directly connected to an existing stream or other natural .
movement corridor. Proposed development would eliminate the remaining grassland habitat, and
wildlife would either be destroyed or displaced to the surrounding lands. However, most of these
are relatively common species and the loss of habitat or individuals would not be considered
significant. Species common to suburban habitat would eventually occupy landscape
improvements and structures developed as part of the Project. No mitigation is considered
necessary .
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8·36
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
IMPACT 8.5:
Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No project benefits have been identified related to local policies or ordinances.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 8.5.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would not conflict with any Castro Valley Plan policies-
established for the protection of biological resources as it would not disturb areas where native
plant life or wildlife habitat values are significant, nor would it affect any native woodland
communities or riparian areas. The proposed Project would have no effect on any lands
containing highly significant biotic resources.
Impact 8.5.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The proposed Project would be
consistent with Castro Valley Plan Principal 3.15 requiring that development should be restricted
to those areas where native plant life and wildlife habitat values are least significant. The
proposed Project would generally avoid the willow riparian scrub along the northwestern edge of
the site, thus protecting the only sensitive wildlife habitat at this site.
Consistent with Castro Valley Plan Principle 3.16, native woodland communities, and
particularly riparian areas, would be protected fiom direct encroaclunent of development. Those
portions ofthe Existing San Leandro Property site that support willow riparian scrub would be
located outside the anticipated limits of grading.
The proposed Project would not be consistent with Castro Valley Principle 3.20 requiring that
lands containing highly significant biotic resources should be preserved and protected. The
proposed Project would result in the loss of potential loggerhead shrike and raptor nesting
habitat, may result in the loss of habitat for one or more special-status bat species and would
result in the fill of drainage ditches which may be considered jurisdictional other waters by the
Corps. However, the loss of these potentially significant biological resources would be fully
mitigated through implementation of those measures identified above.
Impact 8.5.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMPACT. The proposed development would occur in an existing urbanized location and
would not conflict with any City of Oakland policies or ordinances established for the protection
of biological resources.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8·37
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 8-40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 8: Biological Resources
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9
Transportation
9.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter is based on traffic and transportation reports prepared by TJKM Transportation
Consultants of Pleasant on, California.
REGULATORy/POLICY SETTING
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency..MandatedEvaluation
The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) requires that local jurisdiction
address traffic operating conditions on Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways for
development projects that would generate more than 100 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips. As such,
evaluations were made of roadways that are part of the MTS network. Inclusion of the CMA
analysis in this document is based on the CMA requirement that the findings of the MTS
network evaluation be discussed in a public forum. For simplicity, agencies (including the City
of Oakland) typically use the EIR as the forum to present the CMA results.
The CMA provided the Countywide Transportation Demand Model for 2005 and 2025 to
forecast link (roadway segment) volumes on the MTS network. The CMA model used the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2000 land use data for years 2005
and 2025. Link volume-to-capacity ratios were calculated based on model forecasts. The level of
standard established in the Alameda County CMA Level of Service (LOS) Monitoring Study of
existing conditions is LOS E.
The general policy for Alameda County and the cities of Dublin and San Leandro is to have their
intersections operate no worse than LOS D.
level of Service Analysis Methodology
Existing San Leandro Property, Glenn Dyer Detention Facility and Pardee/Swan Site
Signalized Intersections
The operating condition at the signalized study intersections were evaluated using the 1994
Highway Capacity Manual Operations Method as incorporated into the standard traffic
engineering software package TRAFFIX. Peak-hour intersection conditions are reported as delay
per vehicle with corresponding levels of service for the intersection as a whole and for each of its
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-1
Chapter 9: Transportation
approaches. LOS A indicates free flow conditions with little or no delay, while LOS F indicates
jammed conditions with excessive delay and long back-ups.
Unsignalized Intersections
The operating conditions at the study intersections with the minor approaches STOP controlled
were evaluated using the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) unsignalized method, also
contained in the standard software package TRAFFIX. Peak hour intersection conditions are
reported as delay per vehicle with corresponding LOS for each of its minor movements. The
method ranks level of service on an A through F scale similar to that used for signalized
intersections, and also uses average delay in seconds ~ its measure of effectiveness.
East County Government Center Site and Site 15A
Signalized Intersections
Peak-hour intersection conditions are reported as volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios with
corresponding levels of service. Level of service ratings are qualitative descriptions of
intersection operations and are reported using an A through F letter rating system to describe
travel delay and congestion. Level of Service (LOS) A indicates free flow conditions with little
or no delay, while LOS F indicates jammed conditions with excessive delays and long back-ups.
The operating conditions at signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection
Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CCTA). This method provides an overall intersection level of service.
Unsignalized Intersections
Level of Service was evaluated using the 2000 HCM Unsignalized Intersections methodology at
STOP-controlled intersections. The method ranks level of service on an A though F scale similar
to that used for signalized intersections, using average delay in seconds for stopping movements
as its measure of effectiveness.
EXISTING SAN LEANDRO PROPERTY
Project Scenarios
The following three scenarios are addressed in the study of the Existing San Leandro Property:
. Existing Conditions. Consists of current traffic volumes and roadway conditions with the
existing 300-bed facility.
. 420-Bed Facility. Forecasted traffic volumes for a 420-bed facility that replaces the
existing 300-bed facility. The 420-bed facility is expected to be approximately 425,000
square feet, including shelled space for an additional pod of 30 beds and a sixth court that
could be utilized at a later date. This scenario would include consolidation of related
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
'I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
Chapter 9: Transportation
court and administrative uses to the San Leandro facility. The accessory camps would
remain in place at the site.
· 540-Bed Facility. Forecasted traffic volumes for a 540-bed facility that replaces the
existing 300-bed facility. The 540-bed facility is expected to be approximately 465,000
square feet. This scenario would also include a consolidation of the related uses to the
San Leandro facility. The accessory camps would remain in place at the site.
The analysis addresses the range of possible impacts by considering the 420-bed and 540-bed
scenarios for the Juvenile Justice Facility. The County of Alameda is proposing to initially
develop a 450-bed facility, but only make 420 beds available in the short tenn. Occupying the
additional 30 beds would increase the traffic attributed to that component of the Juvenile Justice
facility by approximately 7% and would not be a substantial change from the 420-bed analysis,
and would be within the total impact considered in the analysis of possible future expansion to
540 beds, so separate discussion is not provided.
Important Roadways
Important roadways serving the Existing San Leandro Property include:
Interstate 580 is an eight-lane freeway running in the north-south direction in the Project
vicinity. As one of the major rreeways in the San Francisco Bay Area, it provides access to
Oakland and San Francisco to the north, as well as Hayward to the south and Pleasanton to the
east. Average daily volume west of 150th Avenue is approximately 141,000.
East 14th Street (State Route 185) is a major north-south arterial in the City of San Leandro. It is
ftonted largely by commercial land uses and is the "main street" in downtown San Leandro.
Average daily volume north of Hesperian Boulevard is approximately 26,000.
Fairmont Drive is a major east-west arterial in the City of San Leandro. It cormects the existing
Juvenile Hall with Castro Valley to the east and 1-580 to the west. Fainnont Drive becomes
Floresta Boulevard west of Hesperian Boulevard. Average daily volume east of Foothill
Boulevard is approximately 9,100.
Foothill Boulevard is a north-south arterial that runs parallel to and just east ofI-580. Average
daily volume south ofFainnont Drive is approximately 11,400.
Hesperian Boulevard is a major north-south arterial that starts at East 14th Street and continues
south through Hayward. It serves as an alternate route to 1-880. Average daily volume near 150th
Avenue is approximately 25,700.
lsdh Avenue is an east-west arterial in the City of San Leandro. It provides access between
Hesperian Boulevard and 1-580.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9·3
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 94
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
/1
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Study Intersections
Based on input trom staff at the County of Alameda and City of San Leandro, nine intersections
were chosen for analysis near the existing Juvenile Hall. The local roadways and study
intersections and the type of existing traffic control are listed below and are shown in Figure 9.1.
1. 1-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp/150th Avenue (signal)
2. 1-580 Westbound On-Ramp/150th Avenue/Foothill Boulevard (signal)
3. 1-580 Eastbound On-Ramp/Fairmont Drive (signal)
4. 1-580 Westbound Off-Ramp/Foothill Boulevard (off-ramp stop-controlled)
5. Foothill BoulevardlFairmont Drive (signal)
6. Fainnont DrivelEast 14th Street (signal)
7. East 14th Street/150th Avenue (signal)
8. 150th Avenue/Hesperian Boulevard (signal)
9. Fainnont Dr./Juvenile Justice Facility Driveway (Driveway stop-controlled)
Existing Conditions Analysis
Turning movement counts for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for all of the listed study
intersections were conducted by TJKM Transportation Consultants in April 2002. Figure 9.2
illustrates the existing peak hour turning movements for the study intersections.
Table 9.1 presents a summary of existing peak hour levels of service at the study intersections.
Eight of the nine intersections currently operate at acceptable service levels (LOS C or better) in
both morning and afternoon peak hours. The intersection ofI-580 Westbound Off-ramp/Foothill
Boulevard currently operates at LOS F, with the "stop" controlled off-ramp experiencing
substantial delays during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. If this intersection was signalized, it
would operate at LOS B during the peak periods for existing traffic volumes.
Parking
The existing Juvenile Hall is provided with several at-grade parking lots for staff and the public.
The main administration building and detention center is served by the main lot, which is
accessed from Fairmont Drive via two driveways. The westernmost driveway is a one-way
inbound access point, which circles in front of the building for handicap access, into the main
parking lot, and to secondary driveways and lots on the south side of the campus where a loading
dock, maintenance area and day programs are operated. The easternmost driveway provides
secondary access to the main lot and access to the main road into the center of the site, which
serves the loading area, secure transfer area and the low-security camps to the southeast of the
main campus. Each ofthe use areas, such as the loading dock, transfer area, camp and
maintenance building, has separate parking areas in close proximity to the buildings.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Transit
The existing Juvenile Hall is served by AC Transit Line 97, which stops at the site and provides
service to the Bayfair BART station. On weekdays, the Line 97 runs with a 30-minute headway
ITom 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 2:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. On Saturdays, the Line 97 runs with
a 20-30 minute headway between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Various bus lines at Bayfair BART and BART itself offer numerous connections to other transit
routes allowing transit riders to reach most destinations throughout the County. Table 9.2
presents existing capacity and ridership on BART at the Bayfair Station.
GLENN DYER DETENTION FACILITY
Project Scenarios
The following two scenarios are addressed in the study for the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility:
· Existing Conditions. Current traffic volumes and roadway conditions in the Project
vicinity.
· Existing plus 420-Bed Facility. Same as existing conditions, but with additional traffic
from the proposed 420-bed Juvenile Justice Facility. No adjustment is made to account
for the fact that the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility was an ongoing County detention
operation for the past 20 years in which over 550 adult prisoners were housed with
associated staff and visitor activity. That use has been discontinued, so most of the
transportation impacts associated with that facility have ceased. Therefore, this analysis
uses a worst-case approach that analyzes the new Juvenile Justice Facility use of the site
as if it was a new activity that would impose new transportation impacts on the area.
Furthennore, no scenario is considered for a larger facility because the urban location and
existing structure limit the expansion possibilities at this site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-5
Existing
.1Iwnlle
.1Istlce
Center
*
LEGEND
. Study Intersection
~
..
North
Not to Scale
Figure 9.1
San Leandro Site
Study Intersections
",}~01
SOURCE: TJKM I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5
1-560 EB 011 Rampl15OthIFreedom 1·580 WB On Ramp/1501h1Foolhlll 1-560 EB On RamplFairmonllFreedo 1-580 WB Off Ramp/Foothill Foothlll/Fairmont
<ïì",% ¡iJ~g (ô
~~~ :!.~=- §. fR~§
m"~ ~C45 (26) æg¡!¡?,? ~..23 (19) '" ;;;;;;:;- 'e206 (112\
,...,... gJ
""'~ '-319(272) '-111 (91) "''''~ '-712(580) "',...'" '-160(181
,.I, I... F32 (44) F 50 (43) ,.1,1... F56(125) , ,.I ,I.. ,r 7 (6)
474 (611¡ ---'.1 I~ 419(477)J~tr'" 9(13¡J 756 (547¡ J t 268 1438¡_Jf ·1 t r'"
167 (233 " §:§: 65 [112¡ ---. ô(ôíiì 435 (728 ---. 41 (20 " ÎÕ 146 251 ---.-
178177" gJ;bt:. 194 (481 " !2. 147(135)" ffi~&
;:t'" --0 ;;~g
~"'.. '"
",¡¡j gJ ~;¡;
Intersection #6 Intersection #7 Intersection #8 Intersection #9
FairmonVEast14th East 1 4thl1 50th 150thIHesperian FairmonVJJC Driveway
íiìæi oc;) ÎÕ Ô
"',... ~ <XI
~t:.~ ,...'"
§:¡ffi 'e2351172¡ -- --
;;;-;18 'egO (131) :!-;¡; 'e 1 ¡2) ~~ 'e 2(8)
<0 ~ '-680 (640) O"'~ '-476 386 <0'" '-8 19)
,.1,1... F79(158) ,.I, I... F66 (81) ~), F 407 (433) ,I... 30 (107)
29r52¡J ·ltl~ 328 (~J~¡ { ~tr 9r¡_Jf ·Itr'" ~tl·
406 793 ---. ~~_ 20 16 ---.-- &íñ::;",
124 314 " &~Ë 18 (17 " ¥Œ~ 45 52)" ~~~ "'¡¡J-
<0-"" "'~~ ;;;--[!¡
~~~ ~<Oan "'~~ "',...
~ g¡~ an
'"
LEGEND
. Study Intersection
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
,.........
..
North
Not to Scale
Figure 9.2
San Leandro Site
Existing Turning Movement Volumes
: ¡¡ji;¡
~.:~:.¿~1V.
SOURCE: TJKM I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.1: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Conditions
Existing San Leandro Property
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS
sec./veh. sec./veh.
1 / th 16.7 C 16.0 C
1-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp 150 Avenue
2 1-580 Westbound On-Ramp/150th 19.2 C 14.9 B
Avenue/Foothill Boulevard
3 1-580 Eastbound On-Ramp/Fairmont Drive 11.5 B 12.8 B
4 1-580 Westbound Off-Ramp/Foothill Boulevard 120+ F 120+ F
(stop controlled)
1-580 Westbound Off-Ramp/Foothill Boulevard 9.0 B 9.5 B
(if signalized)
5 Foothill Boulevard/Fairmont Drive 19.7 C 18.9 C
6 Fairmont Drive/East 14th Street 16.5 C 19.9 C
7 East 14th Street/150th Avenue 18.7 C 18.7 C
8 150th Avenue/Hesperian Boulevard 13.9 B 11.7 B
9 Fairmont Drive/Juvenile Justice Facility 5.6 B 5.6 B
Driveway
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants.
Note: LOS = Level of Service
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.2: Capacity and Ridership at Bayfair BART during Peak Hours
BART Line (Origin/Destination) A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
and Direction (towards/away from
Oakland Downtown) Capacity Ridership Available Capacity Ridership Available
(seats) Capacity (seats) Capacity
(seats) (seats)
Dublin/Pleasanton Towards Oakland 2,352 2,071 281 2,224 454 1,770
Fremont/Daly City Towards Oakland 2,291 1,873 418 2,027 330 1,697
Richmond/Fremont Towards 1,735 1,363 372 1,592 518 1,073
Oakland
Total Towards Oakland Downtown 6,378 5,307 1,071 5,843 1,303 4,540
Dublin/Pleasanton Away From 2,314 374 1,940 2,265 1,565 700
Oakland
Fremont/Daly City Away From 2,002 364 1,638 1,962 1,267 696
Oakland
Richmond/Fremont Away From 1,503 385 1,118 1,862 1,056 806
Oakland
Total Away from Oakland 5,819 1,123 4,696 6,088 3,887 2,201
Downtown
Source: Paul Forbes, BART, personal communication, November 13, 2002.
Important Roadways
Important roadways serving the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility include:
Interstate 880 is an eight-lane north-south freeway that connects Alameda County (Le., Oakland,
San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, Fremont and Milpitas) with San Jose and other South Bay
communities. 1-880 cormects to 1-980 in downtown Oakland leading toward Highway 24 and I-
580, and becomes 1-80 near the Oakland~San Francisco Bay Bridge. The closest 1-880 on- and
off-ramps to the Project site are located at Broadway (northbound) and Jackson Street
, (southbound). 1-880 has a substantial amount of truck traffic due to its location near the Port of
Oakland and because trucks are prohibited on 1-580 through most of Oakland. Average daily
volume near Broadway is 194,000.
Interstate 980 is a six-lane freeway running east-west in the Project vicinity. It cormects 1-880
with 1-580 and State Route 24. Average daily volume near 14th Street is 97,000.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-9
Chapter 9: Transportation
Broadway is an arterial designed to provide access between 1-880, downtown Oakland and State
Route-24. It has four lanes with an estimated average daily volume of approximately 17,400
north of 6th Street.
Jefferson Street is a two-way east-west street in downtown Oakland that ends at San Pablo
Avenue. It has two lanes with an estimated average daily volume of approximately 2,600 east of
7th Street.
Washington Street is a two-way east-west street in downtown Oakland that tenninates at the
Oakland Convention Center on 10th Street. It has two lanes with an estimated average daily
volume of approximately 2,800 east of 7th Street.
6th Street is a one-way street that goes northbound. 6th Street provides access between the
northbound 1-880 off-ramp at Broadway and the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility. The off-ramp
serves approximately 14,000 vehicles a day.
7th Street is a one-way street that goes southbound parallel to 1-880. 7th Street provides access
between the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility and Laney College, where it becomes East 8th Street.
It has an estimated average daily volume of approximately 11,100 north of Jefferson Street.
Study Intersections
The important roadways serving the site and the following nine study intersections are shown on
Figure 9.3:
1. ih Street/Jefferson Street
2. 6th Street/Jefferson Street
3. ih Street/W ashington Street
4. 6th Street/Washington Street
5. 6th Street/Broadway Street/I-880 Northbound Off-Ramp
6. 5th Street/Broadway Street/I-880 Southbound On-Ramp
7. 1ih Street/Brush Street/I-980 Westbound Off-Ramp
8. 12th Street/Castro Street/I-980 Eastbound Off-Ramp
9. 5th Street/Union Street/I-880 Southbound Off-Ramp
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
. Study Intersection
JI""""IIIII
..
North
Not to Scale
Figure 9.3
Glenn Dyer Site
Study Intersections
, 'w;'ol
'''CL;,J
SOURCE: TJKM I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Existing Conditions Analysis
Peak period counts were conducted by TJKM Transportation Consultants during the a.m. (7:00
to 9:00) and p.m. (4:00 to 6:00) in August and September, 2002 near the Glenn Dyer Detention
Facility. Figure 9.4 illustrates the existing peak hour turning movement volumes. Table 9.3
presents a summary of existing peak hour levels of service at the study intersections. As shown,
under Existing Conditions, all of the study intersections operate acceptably at LOS C or better
during the peak hours.
Parking
The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is currently occupied by an eight story (plus basement plus
rooftop recreation) detention center that was vacated in mid-2002. There is an on-site parking
structure with 617spaces and public access from 7th Street exists on the west side of the block.
An additional 238 parking spaces exist in a City of Oakland pay lot under 1-880 with access from
6th Street between Jefferson Street and Washington Street.
Existing parking occupancy counts were taken at the existing County parking structure and the
City of Oakland lot under 1-880 on Tuesday, September 17, 2002, to better understand the
existing parking demand with the Glenn Dyer site vacant. Based on these counts, the parking
structure was 70 percent occupied with 430 of the 617 spaces full (187 available) at 3:30 p.m. At
the same time, the City of Oakland parking lot under 1-880 was 62 percent occupied with 146 of
the 238 spaces full (92 available).
Transit
The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is served directly by AC Transit Lines 82 and A. Broadway is
located one block to the east, providing access to AC Transit Lines 42,58, 72, 73, 88 and 362.
The headway and hours of operation for these lines are summarized in Table 9.4.
The nearest Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is the 12th Street Station located on
Broadway at lih Street, approximately six blocks away from the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
site. BART offers numerous connections to other transit routes allowing transit riders to reach
most destinations throughout the County. Table 9.5 lists the BART capacity for the lih Street
Station. BART staff provided capacity and ridership data for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour in fall
2002 at the 12th Street Station in Oakland downtown. The data show that there is standing room
only for trains arriving 12th Street BART Station during the a.m. peak hour and departing during
the p.m. peak hour.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '"
.....:
c"
~=
I 'GI!!.
.. c
I! 0
"e
,I=>
I
=¡;5 ...,;¡¡ :;; ... .
I i¡ ...,;¡¡
·!!i c= 5""
.2 ~ :¡¡1I:i
1: 0 i¡' ~f ..o¡¡
I! I! 1!.5 EiiJ
i€ .."" i ë
- .. ill
.E ..
-... ,. -",
I
I .....: :¡:w In": .. .
..... .~ ~ ..... ...,;¡¡
I~ .2 ~ .2 ~
'G 0 ü" Ii
; i! ..~ ;;;
I!.E
.!!;! .."" ~ ë .. e
I .E~ :s ;; ,I",
51: -",
I
'"
,.. ~ ~
.... z -
õ
z
~ ~
::J :;s
8~~
\, .. ..
II ::> ::>
'" 0 0
t::J:::J:
ë.lo:.Io:
-mm
c i;' ø. ø.
Z '=::IE::IE
Wrncø.
CJ ~
~.~~
~
tj
~
@
r¡¡
Q)
S
::s
....
o
>-
.....
¡:::
Q)
E
Q)
:>
~
Q) bJ:)
..... ¡:::
ëí5 'S
I-< :5
~ ~E-t
~~ ~
I-< ¡::: :¡::
6b Q) .;!.1
........ x
~C)~
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.3: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Conditions
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Signalized Intersection Delay Delay
Sec./veh. LOS sec./veh. LOS
1 - ih StreeUJefferson Street 10.0 B 8.2 B
2 6th StreeUJefferson Street 5.8 B 9.1 B
3 ih StreeUWashington Street 8.5 B 11.1 B
4 6th StreeUWashington Street 12.6 B 13.7 B
5 6th StreeUBroadway/I-880 Northbound 10.6 B 14.1 B
Off-Ramp
6 5th StreeUBroadway/I-880 Southbound 14.8 B 18.0 C
On-Ramp
7 12th Street/Brush StreeUI-980 2.9 A 7.5 B
Westbound Off-Ramp
8 1 ih StreeUCastro StreeUI-980 9.8 B 11.5 B
Eastbound Off-Ramp
9 5th StreeUUnion Street/I-880 12.5 B 13.1 B
Southbound Off-Ramp
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants.
Note: LOS'" Level of Service
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-14
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.4: Headways and Hours of Operation for AC Transit Lines 42, 58, 72, 73, 82 and 88
Route Days of Operation Headway Hours of Operation
42 Weekdays Only 15 min. 7:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m. & 4:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m.
58 Weekday 15-60 min. 24-hours a day
Saturday & Sunday 20-60 min. 24-hours a day
72 Weekdays 10-60 min. 24-hours a day
Saturday & Sunday 15~60 min. 24-hours a day
73 Weekdays 10-60 min. 24-hours a day
Saturday & Sunday 15-60 min. 24-hours a day
82 Weekdays 6-20 min. 24-hours a day
Saturday 60 min. 24-hours a day
88 Weekdays 20 min. 5:45 a.m.-12:00 a.m.
Saturday 30 min. 5:45 a.m.-12:00 a.m.
Sources: TJKM Transportation Consultants; AC Transit.
Table 9.5: BART Capacity and Ridership at the 12th St. Station during the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hours
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
BART Line (Origin/Destination) and Capacity Ridership Available Capacity Ridership Available
Direction (towards/away from Oakland (seats) Capacity (seats) Capacity
Downtown) (seats) (seats)
Pittsburg Towards Oakland/SF 6,504 7.743 -1,240 3,042 1,588 1 ,454
Richmond/Fremont Towards Oakland 1,275 661 614 1,519 945 574
Richmond/Daly City Towards Oakland/SF 2,683 2,890 -207 2,611 1,549 1,062
Total Towards Oakland Downtown 10,461 11,294 -833 7,172 4,082 3,091
Pittsburg Away From Oakland/SF 3,246 963 2,283 5,565 7,191 -1,627
Richmond/Fremont Away From Oakland 1,747 1,350 397 1,660 1,986 -325
Richmond/Daly City Away From Oakland 2,710 910 1,799 2,518 2,843 -324
Total Away from Oakland Downtown 7,702 3,223 4,480 9,743 12,019 -2,276
Note: Negative numbers represent standing room only.
Source: Paul Forbes, BART, persona/ communication, November 13,2002.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-15
Chapter 9: Transportation
PARDEE/SWAN SITE
Project Scenarios
The following three scenarios were addressed for p.m. peak hour conditions in the study of the
Pardee/Swan Site:
· Baseline Conditions. Year 2005 traffic volumes and roadway conditions. These volumes
represent the background traffic conditions with planned improvements on the local
roadway system and development of the airport parking lot, as published in the Oakland
Airport Replacement Parking Transportation Study (CHS Consulting Group, 2001). This
baseline condition is used due to the ongoing and rapidly changing conditions in the area,
whereby existing traffic volumes and travel patterns in 2002 would not accurately reflect
the environmental setting conditions that will be present when the Juvenile Justice
Facility is constructed.
· Baseline Conditions plus 420-Bed Alternative. Same as baseline conditions, but with the
addition of traffic fiom a 420-bed Juvenile Justice Facility. This facility would include a
consolidation of administration, probation, district attorney and public defender, and
juvenile justice functions that are currently located at various sites in Oakland, San
Leandro and Hayward.
· Baseline Conditions plus 540-Bed Alternative. Same as baseline conditions, but with the
addition of traffic fiom a 540-bed Juvenile Justice Facility. This scenario would also
include consolidation of related functions to the Pardee/Swan Site.
The analysis addresses the range of possible impacts by considering the 420-bed and 540-bed
scenarios for the Juvenile Justice Facility. The County of Alameda is proposing to initially
develop a 450-bed facility, but only make 420 beds available in the short term. Occupying the
additional 30 beds would not be a substantial change from the 420-bed analysis, and would be
within the total impact considered in the analysis of possible future expansion to 540 beds, so
separate discussion is not provided.
Important Roadways
Important roadways serving the Pardee/Swan Site area include:
Interstate (I)-880 is an eight-lane north-south freeway that connects Alameda County (i.e.,
Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, Fremont and Milpitas) with San Jose and other
South Bay communities. 1-880 connects to 1-980 in downtown Oakland leading toward Highway
24 and 1-580, and becomes 1-80 near the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge. The closest 1-880
on- and off-ramps to the Project site are located at Hegenberger Road and 98th Avenue. 1-880 has
a substantial amount of truck traffic due to its location near the Port of Oakland and because
trucks are prohibited on 1-580 through most of Oakland. Average daily volume near Hegenberger
Road is approximately 214,000.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Hegenberger Road is a major arterial rulUling in the east-west direction, providing access to
Oakland International Airport, 1-880, the Arena and Network Associates Coliseum, and the
Coliseum BART Station. East of State Highway 185 (International Boulevard) Hegenberger
Road becomes 73rd Avenue, with access to Eastmont Mall and 1-580. It provides the primary
access to Oakland International Airport from southbound 1-880. Hegenberger Road is a six-lane,
two-way facility from 1-880 to Doolittle Drive. Approximately 750 feet west of Doolittle Drive,
Hegenberger Road merges with and becomes Airport Drive. The City of Oakland has recently
completed extensive improvements along Hegenberger Road. Average daily volume north of
Pardee Drive is approximately 41,000.
98th Avenue, another main arterial rulUling in the east-west direction, is considered a gateway to
the airport. With a newly constructed underpass under Doolittle Drive, 98th Avenue provides the
most direct access to the Airport from northbound 1-880 and 1-580. Between 1-880 and San
Leandro Boulevard, 98th Avenue widens to four lanes. Average daily volume east of Airport
Drive was approximately 19,000 in 1992.
Doolittle Drive (State Route 61) is a major arterial running in the north-south direction between
the City of Alameda (Bay Fann Island) and the City of San Leandro to the south. To the north,
Doolittle Drive becomes Otis Drive in Alameda. Average daily volwne near Hegenberger Road
is approximately 25,500.
Swan Way is an east-west collector that extends only between Doolittle Drive and Pardee Drive.
At Doolittle Drive, Swan Way is signalized and provides access to the North Field portion of
Oakland Airport. Its intersection with Pardee Drive is not signalized.
Pardee Drive is a four-lane north-south collector providing access to Hegenberger Road. South
of Hegenberger Road, Pardee Drive becomes Airport Drive. Its intersection with Hegenberger
Road is signalized. Its northern tenninus is at the Proj ect site.
Study Intersections
The important roadways serving the site and the following 11 study intersections are shown in
Figure 9.5:
1. Doolittle Drive (State Route 61) and Swan Way
2. Pardee Drive and Swan Way
3. Hegenberger Road and Pardee Drive/Airport Drive
4. Hegenberger Road and Edgewater Drive
5. Interstate-880 Southbound Off-Ramp and Hegenberger Road
6. 98th Avenue and Airport Drive
7. 98th Avenue and Bigge Street
8. 98th Avenue and Empire Road
9. 98th Avenue and 1-880 Southbound Off-Ramp
10. 98th Avenue and 1-880 Northbound Ramps
11. Doolittle Drive and Airport Drive.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-17
Mortin Luther King, Jr.
Regional Shoreline
~
..
North
Not to Scale
LEGEND
. Study Intersection
Figure 9.5
Pardee / Swan Site
Study Intersections
! '.j~."'·1
'3t¡l!
SOURCE: TJKM I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
The traffic analysis at the Pardee/Swan Site focuses on the traffic conditions during the p.m.
peak hour only. This is because traffic in the Oakland Airport area is typically higher in the p.m.
peak compared with the a.m. peak, and so represents the worst case for analysis. For example,
based on turning movement counts conducted at Hegenberger Road/Pardee Drive/Airport Drive
in September 2002, the total number of vehicles entering this intersection during the p.m. peak
hour is approximately 15% higher than the a.m. peak hour. Furthermore, the Oakland Airport
Replacement Parking Transportation Study (CHS Consulting Group, 2001) only has volumes for
the p.m. peak hour from which to ascertain baseline conditions and the trip generation of the
Port's planned parking lot on the Pardee/Swan Site.
Existing Conditions Analysis
Due to the ongoing major roadway improvements under construction in the area, the traffic
conditions are expected to change considerably from the existing conditions in 2002. The
baseline scenario evaluates traffic conditions in Year 2005, in which all major improvement
projects are expected to be completed. Figure 9.6 illustrates the forecasted Year 2005 volumes,
which were estimated based on turning rnovernent counts conducted by TJKM Transportation
Consultants in September 2002 at five ofthe study intersections and the information contained in
the Oakland Airport Replacement Parking Transportation Study (CHS Consulting Group, 2001).
Table 9.6 presents a summary of p.m. peak hour levels of service at the study intersections.
Baseline conditions also assume the development of the Port of Oakland's proposed airport
parking lot serving approximately 4,000 vehicles, which is scheduled for completion in 2003. As
shown, all of the 11 study intersections are expected to operate acceptably under the baseline
conditions.
Parking
The Pardee/Swan Site is presently vacant. The Port of Oakland has proposed developing the site
as a temporary parking lot for airport customers during the terminal expansion at Oakland
International Airport. That Project would accommodate up to 4,000 vehicles on a paved surface
lot that would occupy the entire 34-acre site. Project construction is scheduled to begin in late
2002, with operation beginning in 2003. No on-street parking is allowed in the business park.
Transit
The Project site is served by AC Transit Line 49, which runs along Hegenberger Road and
Doolittle Drive, and Line 58, which provides service along Hegenberger Road. Line 49 operates
only on weekdays with 20 to 30 minute headway between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Line 58
operates seven days a week and 24 hours a day with IS to 60 minute headway. The nearest bus
stop on Hegenberger Road is approximately 0.30 mile from the Project site, while the stop on
Doolittle Drive is approximately 0.21 mile. Both Lines 49 and 58 provide direct access to BART,
which offers numerous connections to other transit routes allowing transit riders to reach most
destinations throughout the County.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-19
Interseclion "
DoolittlelSwan
Intersedion '2
PardeeJSwan
Intersedion 13 Interseçtion '4 Intersection '5
Hegenbe /Airport H enbe er/Edgewater He en er/I-B80 58 Off Ramp
'" '"
N~'" ~181 NO~ ~ 171 "''''
~",æ ~1751 g~~ ·-2027 ~~
~'l,.. ':-397 ~'l.. ':-299 .Il,.. ~1,339
4 ".tr'" 6031 .It¡'" 458 --
494=" "!",o 1,630-- ~~'"
8~ "'gJ&j 18~ N"'::;J
Intersection'S Intersedion #9 Intersection '10
98th/Empire 98thll-B80 S8 Off Ramp 98th/I·B80 N8 Ramps
"''''
N"'!õ tL 158 &:!. ~324
~¡Ç. ;=~3461 ~ l,.. ~639 ~1,305
2,1~~~ :;j,~ 1,574'" 1,617__ ~ I'"
635 .", "'~
15~ ~... "'0
coco
[;;", ~ 173
coco", ~10
~'l,.. ':-23
3531 .Itr'"
26--:1""<p...~
229 " "';::.N
'"
"''''
N~
.1. ,:-4
9." "It,'"
149~ ~¡:;¡...
N~
Intersection '6
98th/Airport
Intersection '7
98th/Bi e
COo
16",;:: "'-.328
~'I.. --1,164
1,454--" t r'"
25 -- 8 ~
N.~
~1,466
,.180
1 .704... .1 I'"
15~ "''''
Nfrl
Intersection ",
Doolittle/Airport
,..,
16 ~74
. ,. 230
74--" t"
1501-- I
'262~ ~~
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Regional Shoreline
........
........
SITE ....
........
\
LEGEND
. Study Intersection
XX PM Peak Hour Volume
~
..
North
Not to Scale
Figure 9.6 lJ~j
Pardee/Swan Site
Base Line (Year 2005) PM Peak Turning Movement Volumes
SOURCE: TJKM I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.6: PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Baseline Conditions - Pardee/Swan Site
(Year 2005 with Planned Improvements and Airport Parking Lot)
P.M. Peak Hour
ID Delay
sec./veh. LOS
Signalized Inters~ctions
1 Doolittle Drive/Swan Way 9.8 B
3 Hegenberger Road/Pardee Drive/Airport Drive 22.2 C
4 Hegenberger Road/Edgewater Drive 25.5 D
5 1-880 58 Off-Ramp/Hegenberger Road 12.3 B
6 98th Avenue/Airport Drive 12.6 B
7 98th Avenue/Bigge Street 14.6 B
8 98th Avenue/Empire Road 6.1 B
9 98th Avenue/I-880 Southbound Off-Ramp 19.8 C
10 98th Avenue/I-880 Northbound Ramps 19.5 C
11 Doolittle Drive/Airport Drive 14.5 B
Unsignalized Intersection
2 Pardee Drive/Swan Way 1.9 (10.3) A (C)
Source: T JKM Transportation Consultants.
Note: LOS = Level of Service
X.X (X.X) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-21
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
BART staff provided ridership data for the a.m. peak hour in fall/winter 2001 at the Coliseum
Station. This data are summarized in Table 9.7. The data show that most of the riders at
Coliseum BART Station during the a.m. peak hour are headed north towards the large
employment centers in San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley. During the a.m. peak hour (7:30-
8:30) there is available capacity on BART going towards Oakland/San Francisco, and especially
away from Oakland/San Francisco. This capacity is conservatively based on a load factor of 1.0,
which corresponds to available seats, and does not take into account the additional capacity
available for standing passengers.
Table 9.7: Capacity and Riders at Coliseum BART during the AM Peak Hour
BART Line (Origin/Destination) and Direction Total Capacity Ridership Available
(towards/away from Oakland CaD) (seats) Capacity
(seats)
Dublin/Daly City towards Oakland CBD 2,219 2,100 119
Fremont/Daly City towards Oakland CBD 2.683 2,470 213
Fremont/Richmond towards Oakland CBD 1,840 1,693 147
Total towards Oakland Downtown 6,742 6,263 479
Daly City/Dublin away from Oakland CBD 2.343 296 2,047
Daly City/Fremont away from Oakland CBD 2,363 320 2.043
Richmond/Fremont towards Oakland CBD 1.585 492 1,093
Total away from Oakland Downtown 6,291 1,107 5,183
Source: Lei Shigemasa, BART, personal communication, February 11,2002.
Notes:
Total Capacity = Average Number of Cars x 68.5 seats/car x 1.0 load factor
Ridership data are based on the average number of cars and riders for 30 typical weekdays in the end of 2001.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
EAST COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER AND SITE 15A
Project Scenarios
The East County Government Center and Site 15A are analyzed together in this traffic study due
to their close proximity and the interrelationship of the Project components. The Project could
consist of a Juvenile Justice Facility and an East County Hall of Justice. This study analyzes
several combinations of development that could occur on the East County Government Center
and Site 15A, including:
· Scenario Ai, in which a Juvenile Justice Facility with 420 beds and an East County Hall
of Justice with 13 courtrooms would be co-located at the East County Government
Center site. No development of Site 15A is considered as part of this analysis.
· Scenario A2, in which a Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 beds and an East County Hall
of Justice with 13 courtrooms would be co-located at the East County Government
Center site. No development of Site 15A is considered as part of this analysis.
· Scenario B, in which a Juvenile Justice Facility would be located elsewhere outside of the
area of influence in Dublin, and an East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms would
be located on the East County Government Center site. No development of Site 15A is
considered as part of this analysis.
· Scenario Ci, in which a Juvenile Justice Facility with 420 beds would be located at the
East County Govenunent Site, and an East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms
would be located at Site 15A.
· Scenario C2, in which a Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 beds would be located at the
East County Government Site, and an East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms
would be located at Site 15A.
· Scenario D, in which a Juvenile Justice Facility would be located elsewhere outside of
the area of influence in Dublin, and an East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms
would be located at Site 15A. The East County Government Center site is not considered
as part of this analysis.
The analysis of these scenarios includes a comparison to the existing condition and to the
baseline condition. The baseline condition is defined as existing conditions plus future traffic
from approved and pending projects within the vicinity ofthe proposed Project. Approved
projects consist of developments that are either under construction, are built but not fully
occupied, or are unbuilt but have final development plan approval. The analysis addresses the
range of possible impacts by considering the 420-bed and 540-bed scenarios for the Juvenile
Justice Facility. The County of Alameda is proposing to initially develop a 450-bed facility, but
only make 420 beds available in the short tenn. Occupying the additional 30 beds would not be
a substantial change from the 420-bed analysis, and would be within the total impact considered
in the analysis of possible future expansion to 540 beds, so separate discussion is not provided.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-23
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Important Roadways
Important roadways serving the East County Government Center and Site 15A area include:
Interstate 580 is an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such as
Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional origins and destinations such as Oakland, Hayward
and Tracy. In the vicinity of the proposed Project, 1-580 carries between 188,000 and 199,000
vehicles per day (vpd) (according to Caltrans' 2000 Traffic Volumes on California State
Highways) with interchanges at Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara
Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon RoadlEl Charro Road.
Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the City of Dublin. It is a four-lane divided road
fronted largely by retail and commercial uses west of Dougherty Road. East of Dougherty Road,
Dublin Boulevard is four lanes to Iron Horse Parkway (currently being widened to six lanes), and
six lanes ftom Iron Horse Parkway to Tassajara Road. Dublin Boulevard extends east of
Tassajara Road to Keegan Street as a four-lane roadway fronted by new residential development.
Average daily volume near Arnold Road is approximately 16,000 vehicles.
Central Parkway is an east-west collector that extends from Arnold Road to Tassajara Road, and
will be extended to Keegan Street (east of Tassajara Road) as part of the East Dublin Properties
project.
Hacienda Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to 1-580. It is a six-lane divided arterial
south ofI-580. Currently, Hacienda Drive has four lanes north ofI-580 to Central Parkway and
continues northward to Gleason Drive as a two-lane roadway. Average daily volume near
Central Parkway is approximately 9,700 vehicles.
Gleason Drive is an east-west four-lane divided road parallel to and north of Dublin Boulevard.
It currently serves the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, the Federal Correctional Institution and
the other government and residential developments along Gleason Drive. Gleason Drive extends
from Tassajara Road on the east to Arnold Road on the west. Access to the proposed East
County Hall of Justice would be from Gleason Drive at the intersection with Hacienda Drive and
a secondary driveway to the east. Average daily volume near Hacienda Drive is approximately
2,000 vehicles.
Arnold Road is a north-south street that extends between Dublin Boulevard and Broder
Boulevard. It is two lanes wide (one lane in each direction). Office uses are located on the east
side of Arnold Road south of Gleason Drive. Average daily volume near Central Parkway is
approximately 2,000 vehicles.
Broder Boulevard is an east-west private street that extends between Arnold Road on the west
and Madigan Avenue on the east. It is two lanes wide (one lane in each direction) and provides
direct access to the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center. Access to the proposed Juvenile Justice
Facility would also be from Broder Boulevard.
Madigan Avenue is a short, north-south street between Broder Boulevard and Gleason Drive. It
has one lane in each direction.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Study Intersections
Nineteen intersections were analyzed for the East County Government Center and Site ISA
Alternatives. These intersections are listed below and shown in Figure 9.7.
1. Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard
2. Arnold RoadlDublin Boulevard
3. Arnold Road/Central Parkway
4. Arnold Road/Gleason Drive
5. Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard
6. Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps
7. Hacienda Drive/I-S80 Westbound Ramps
8. Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard
9. Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway
10. Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive
11. Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive
12. Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard
13. Tassajara Boulevard/Gleason Drive
14. Tassajara Road/Central Parkway
15. Tassajara Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard
16. Dougherty Boulevard/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp
17. Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp
18. Tassajara Boulevard/I-S80 Westbound Off-Ramp
19. Santa Rita Road/I-580 EastboundlPimlico Drive
Existing Conditions Analysis
The existing peak hour of traffic during the a.m. (7:00 to 9:00) and p.m. (4:00 to 6:00) peak
periods were obtained from recent transportation analyses or conducted in the field by TJKM
Transportation Consultants. Figure 9.8 illustrates the existing peak hour turning movement
volumes. Table 9.8 presents a summary of existing peak hour levels of service at the study
intersections. As shown, all of the 19 study intersections currently operate acceptably at LOS C
or better during the peak hours.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-25
J
s ~
i!1
Jh
'"
~ .~
,
,
,
,
, '
, '
, '
_ ~ _ _ J "(]t: NOllY.:! I
I___~__~ I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
(..r
,
,
~~_\.._,r"'~- ~--~
''5 '"
\\ ! ""
, ~
\ ~~
: a
~ I~ ~
,
,
, - -)\99'3",.., ,<iiii >=
....""';..L . - ;I<~_> ..._..~~............ .~.:.....~ ~
; - - - -- --"- - - .. ....... .... ... - <> ~.......:~.: . ~~ ':;
\ .... '"":::"~ f.I¡
\ .. ~",,::,-
\ \ 11; ...":':' ~
... ... ,~tf'
, ' -<;uo,
\ I ci _
\ ~~ ~]
I ~ 1~r.3~
: E N'~^V
: ~~ _ V!;)IOV
, ~Ii
: ~:~
: ~1
,!(
,
,
,d
,~
""
:ffi
,c
IIf o::"t:
¡m~~ iH
:",I!J\ð"\,¡~ ~
; .., ClI=:! OlONi=I;;'" ..
-] Ii :
~ ,1¡ '" :
{i ~ ,,¡¡ :
. ~.¡::.
\¡,;~: ....00 ~
¡ \,¡ - : :rl .æ
: ~ 'õ ~^ 5
.................J Ii: Vol Š
~~
u~
f:~/
~~/
"
-a¡,¡ A.LI 3Ht>noa
..
~.~ ~
.00
z -
õ
z
'§;.¡
å!ø:¡
,5 ;
~~
,
,
,
,
,
i:¡:
'" ..
ª~
8
~
"
é
~
u
~
<:
LI')
...-i
Q)
....
ëi5
--
2
U)
I-<
~
U
....
~
Q)
~ ~
> 0
o .....
üti
Q)
~ f~
0'1 0;:1 'E
Q,I -
I-< U >.
6b...."O
..... ~ .E
~~Cf.)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
mtersection '2
Arnold/l!ttbllO
$;2 II
.-.....-f"-, iii_
~,~~ =.~
~o "'-230(397) 0>0
¡::¡~g --242(477) .,,<D "'-80(5)
#+1... "151 (311) I # I,¡. "'-250(529)
31 (741" ~tr 247(49)"
421 (659 - --- 1341 (1,023)-
423 (482 " 28ìË
"-'-(:Q
o....,.~
"'...-
"''''
Itltersection n
lIadendai1·580 WB Off Ram
ow
"'...
2!£.
~~ 'L313 (.212)
.-I t r 782 (20n
tr
~~
-'-'
....".,
"'I'-
1'-'"
Inter¡ectlon fl3
t3£~ajilralGleason
-'"
u,_
=-~
<0'"
...-
-""
.-It
29 (136)3 ~ t
23 (87)" ~iÑ
""'"
-'"
á>~
~¡g
<'>
Intersection' 19
Santa RlWI·580 EBlrlmUco
-íS";::"
~t:.~
00......
:;! ~~ "'-390 (381)
#t"'- ,,154(128)
422(195)J tr
363 (421) --
571 (245}'"\ ~~
"'~
f2~
íì
North
Not to Scale
mersection'S
Hacienda/Dublin
5}......
¡;;-~~
'"1"'.......,.....
;;:;g¡~ "'-55 (16)
~ '" ~ -. 502 (254)
#t I",. ,,274 126)
15 (99)J ~tr
256 (626)- ~,,~~,
97(130)" g¡m5
=-~~
~~æ
Jnterwçlhm f 14
Ta"ajara/CentraJ
I'-
+13-
'"
'"
I t
I i
I ~,.
I ~
hllmectlon '3
AmoldlCenlIal
Ç:
~~-
'~r-
-'"
;:;;; "t- 35 (6)
t t". ,,29 (62)
tr-
~~
""
"''''
ImeISCC(\OI' '9
lIadcoûa/Ccn1raJ
'"
-~
~........-
;;;:¿.¡!?!. tL5(4)
-"'- -9(5)
#t'.. '¡-97 36)
~¡~¡:! ~tr:
14(159)" &g~.
_~C>
;;~M
'"
Interscdian US
Tas"\laralDublio
-;:::
CI'__
P:.~
"''''
"''''
~1
62 (206)J ~ t
179(1.201)" ôëiì
!:la
...'"
ocr,
"''''
LEGEND
. Study Intersection
o Approved/Pending Project
Project
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
r'·'""·"
, t-~kW
: <''.¡ r"'(ti<I(Kl~
: ImJitl/:f ()"
"
Proj.ct
Imersection 14 lnlfm;ection ,S Inte,section '6
AmokVG1eas<ln Arnold!lIroder Hacll>¡,da/I·580 EB Off Ram
""
_."(ñ~ ~iß
â "'-
"'''' ~¢
~:-.. _M_
("") -""1.."') ~<C
~:;; 'L87 (47) -"'"- 'L4 !4) ",q
"''''''' -36) "".-
t~ ,,10(7) #t~ r12 (16) .-I,
tr- 5 (3)-'" ~tr- 210(426)J~t
0$ 11 (12 - --- ,213 (656)", Sö>
~~. 32 (107) '" !!l;;£ "''''
~,~,
..... g"~ -::"·N
ä:;!
'"
Inwrwcdon t J.O Inl",""c1l0n tJ t Im"''''dion 'Il
Uudenû,JlGlc"son MooigllolG~aso" Moo; an/llroder
ÑiO
'!'.~ S~:~
~~ . \""59(55) DOc;> __5(4)
# t".-143(63) ),~ ;:-1 (66)
56 (35)J 7(6)..~tr-
30 (272)-+ 11 (38)..---
g--
-~
-"'-
M «>
"
Im=ection'16 Intersection '17 In!~rsetilo" '18
fIought'l1yll·5SO WB Olf Ra.np HopyardIJ ,580 Ell Olf RUlnp Tao;.<ajarafJ'SSO wtI O1JRatnp
'" ;! iÑ~
'"
i2 g~ '" .
'g,,)£ <:2._ £i=-
~~. 'L681 ¡575) ~~ ~g tL 260 ¡287)
,,-
r616 293) # #t r 738 507)
r- 395 ¡319)J t r- tr'"
~.;;- 962 350)", ~~ ~Î
"'I'-
-..t~ .....~
ci~ æ~
C>_ ~
...'" ...'"
"
,
, ,
.Ç¡m~~im ¡<;:f<~:::.
~.I¡.·iI"",",. :~"" , . . ' . ,::y~
---------...'. "'C 1
~.~~ ijì.W (:~,:p:~. ARUmt/ /A=.,:.
10 . )'¡Itd Crmfft>{ I... ..':". ....' 1 :.......
.~J:!,~:::~".
<~~~~~_..7+_~~
~~~~~-~f~~-~~~~--
:M
~ h~l¡ft k:mclJ ¡ ~
A.... 0&(" ,...J~__..
...~_J~~-"'... r ~....~
I
,<
SOURCE: TJKM I
Figure 9.8 :,J~)I
East County Government Center Site / Site 15A
Existing Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
g
.'"
.'
~
~
\ ~"
"~",>
.<*'
Cm/I/I
11¡il-L
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.8: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Existing Conditions
East County Government Center and Site 15A
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Signalized Intersections
v/c LOS v/c LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.58 A 0.79 C
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.23 A 0.27 A
3 Arnold Road/Central Parkway 1 0.13 A 0.17 A"
6 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.57 A 0.54 A
7 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps 0.41 A 0.59 A
8 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.27 A 0.34 A
9 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.29 A 0.24 A
10 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.13 A 0.09 A
13 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 0.32 A 0.27 A
14 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 0.27 A 0.15 A
15 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.37 A 0.79 C
16 Dougherty Road/I·580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.54 A 0.49 A
17 Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp 0.55 A 0.49 A
18 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.37 A 0.53 A
19 Santa Rita Roadll-580 Eastbound/Pimlico 0.58 A 0.68 B
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Unsignalized Intersections Delay Delay
sec./veh. LOS sec./veh. LOS
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 7.5 A 8.3 A
5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard 7.4 A 7.4 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive * * * *
11
- Southbound Madigan Avenue Approach (9.7) (A) (10.1) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.1 A 7.4 A
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants.
Note: vie = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service;
X.X (X.X) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS).
*HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Baseline Conditions Analysis
The baseline conditions scenario evaluates how well the study intersections serve the existing
traffic plus the traffic expected to be generated from the nearby approved and pending projects.
Future traffic from approved and pending projects is based on traffic studies conducted for
specific projects. A few projects described below are currently built and operating. However, at
the time that traffic counts for existing conditions (August 2001 and January 2002) were
conducted, those projects were not fully built, and traffic was estimated for these projects for
baseline conditions.
The following projects and occupancy levels are included in Baseline Conditions:
Creekside Business Park III consists of 590,000 square feet of office space located on the north
side of Central Parkway bounded by Hacienda Drive on the east and Arnold Drive on the west.
The development is expected to generate 4,306 daily trips, 659 trips during the a.m. peak hour
and 573 trips during the p.m. peak hour. As of January 2002, this project was approximately
33% completed.
Ko/l Dublin Corporate Center consists of 590,000 square feet of office, 100,000 square feet of
hotel and 7,000 square feet of retail space to be located on the south side of Dublin Boulevard
bounded by Tassajara Road on the east and Miller Court on the west. The development is
expected to generate 8,451 daily trips, 962 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 933 trips during
the p.m. peak hour. As of January 2002, the hotel and the retail space components had not been
built yet.
Sybase Office Development consists of approximately 420,000 square feet of office development
located to the north of Dublin Boulevard, south of Central Parkway and west of Hacienda Drive.
The proposed development is expected to generate 2,800 daily trips, 533 trips during the a.m.
peak hour and 504 trips during the p.m. peak hour. As of January 2002, this project has not been
occupied yet.
Commerce One Office Development consists of 1,600,000 square feet of office development
located on the west side of Hacienda Drive, bounded by Dublin Boulevard on the north and 1-
580 on the south. As of January 2002, this project has not been built yet. This site is currently
being considered for an IKEA furniture store.
Tassajara Meadows II Residential Development consists of96 single-family detached homes
located on the west side of Tassajara Road, north of Gleason Drive. The development is
expected to generate 917 daily trips, 71 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 97 trips during the
p.m. peak hour. As of January 2002, this project was approximately 26% completed.
Emerald Glen Residential Development consists of 143 single-family detached and 152
townhomes to be located on the west side of Tassajara Road, north of Dublin Boulevard and
south of future Central Parkway. The development is expected to generate 2,260 daily trips, 174
trips during the a.m. peak hour and 226 trips during the p.m. peak hour. As of January 2002, this
proj ect has not been built yet.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9p29
Chapter 9: Transportation
Emerald Glen Village Development consists of390 apartments and 132,235 square feet of retail
space to be located on the west side of Tassajara Road, bounded by Dublin Boulevard on the
south and Central Parkway on the north. As of January 2002, this project has not been built yet.
Yarra Yarra Residential Development (Greenbriarl consists of252 single-family detached
homes and 193 townhomes to be located on the west side of Tassajara Road, north of Gleason
Drive. As of January 2002, this project has not been built yet.
Dublin Ranch Phase I Residential Development consists of 847 single-family detached homes
located on the east side of Tassajara Road, north of Gleason Drive. The development is expected
to generate S,106 daily trips, 635 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 855 trips during the p.m,
peak hour. As of January 2002, this project was approximately 81 % cornpleted.
Dublin Ranch Area A Development consists of 562 single-family detached homes to be located
along both sides of Fallon Road, north of Central Parkway. As of January 2002, this project has
not been built yet.
Dublin Ranch Areas B&C Development consists of 1,062 medium density dwelling units, 172
medium-high density dwelling units, 748 high density dwelling units, 449,490 square feet of
commercial use and 676,920 square feet of office space, to be located along the west side of
Fallon Road, between Gleason Drive and 1-580. As of January 2002, this project has not been
built yet.
Dublin Ranch Area F Development consists of91 single-family detached homes and 660
medium density dwelling units, to be located on both side ofDeaveny Street, between Gleason
Drive and Central Parkway. As of January 2002, this project has not been built yet.
Dublin Ranch Area F 1 &F2 Development consists of 221 single-family detached homes located
primarily to the north of the intersection of Devaney Drive/Street A. As of January 2002, this
project has not been built yet.
Dublin Ranch Area G Commercial Development is bounded by Brannigan Street on the west,
Central Parkway on the north, Keegan Street on the east, and Dublin Boulevard on the south.
The residential component of the site is the proposed project analyzed in this study. The
commercial portion of the site, evaluated with 230.000 building square feet, is included as part of
the baseline traffic. As of January 2002, this project was approximately 39% completed.
Dublin Ranch Area H Development consists of 1.080.070 square feet of office space and 176,420
square feet of commercial use, to be located between Dublin Boulevard and Interstate-5S0: As
of January 2002. this project has not been built yet.
Dublin Ranch Middle School is proposed to be open in September 2005 initially as a
kindergarten through 8th grade school with approximately 1,100 students. with the ultimate
capacity for 1,200 middle school students. The proposed school is bounded on the north by
South Dublin Ranch Drive, on the east by Grafton Street and on the south by Kohnen Lane.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
ItI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Quarry Lane School is a private school (Kindergarten through 8th grade) located north of North
Dublin Ranch Road on the east side of Tassajara Road. Ultimately, the school is expected to
increase its current enrollment of 230 students to 850 students.
These projects, except for the Transit Center Development, are included in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (EDSP) area. It was the goal of the EDSP study to maintain Level of Service D or
better as the average intersection level of service within the Specific Plan area during the peak
hours. This goal was achieved using the Specific Plan methodology and land use infonnation.
However, the City of Dublin now uses a more detailed methodology (CCTA) to analyze
intersections and specific projects can be evaluated which may result in different levels of
service. In addition, actual land use development, trip generation and regional travel patterns '
have necessarily changed since preparation of the EDSP.
Under this scenario, and with the currently planned improvements approved pursuant to the
EDSP, 17 of the 19 study intersections are expected to continue to operate acceptably during the
peak hours. Although the planned improvements would result in acceptable levels of service at
17 of the 19 intersections when constructed, the Baseline roadway network for this analysis is
based on existing roadways, improvements already completed, and improvements currently with
funding commitments and under construction as of year 2002. Some improvements are assumed
based on the available space within or adjacent to the right-of-way. The lane geometry of the
following intersections are assumed altered from the existing conditions:
· Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road - adding a south leg with one left-turn lane, one shared left-
turn/through lane, and one right-turn lane, and opening the existing second left-turn lane on
the westbound Dublin Boulevard approach for operation.
· Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway - restriping the southbound Hacienda Drive approach to
include one right-turn lane, two through, and one left-turn lanes.
· Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive - adding a north leg with one left-turn lane and one shared
through/right-turn lane, and installing a left-turn lane on the eastbound Gleason Drive
approach.
· Tassajara Road/Central Parkway - adding a west leg with three lanes; one for each
movement.
· Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard ~ restriping the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach to
include two left-turn lanes, two through lanes and two right-turn lanes, and restriping the
westbound approach to include three left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared
through/right-turn lane.
· Tassajara Road/I-S80 Westbound Off-ramp - installing a second right-turn lane and a second
left-turn lane on the eastbound 1-580 off-ramp approach.
· Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp/Pimlico Drive ~ installing an exclusive left-turn
lane on the 1-580 off-ramp approach.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-31
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
The peak hour turning movement volumes for baseline conditions at the East County
Government Center and Site 15A are shown on Figure 9.9. Table 9.9 presents a summary of
peak hour levels of service at the study intersections. Under this scenario, with the current
planned improvements, 17 of the 19 study intersections are expected to continue to operate
acceptably during the peak hours. The following two intersections are expected to continue to
operate unacceptably.
The intersection of Dougherty RoadJDublin Boulevard is expected to operate at LOS F during
the p.m. peak hour. With the extension of Scarlet Drive to connect Dougherty Road and Dublin
Boulevard, the southbound Dougherty Road left-turn and westbound Dublin Boulevard right-
turn movements at the intersection is assumed to decrease by 75 percent. The extension would
run northwest from the intersection of Dublin Boulevard at Scarlett Drive, allowing vehicles
heading west on Dublin Boulevard to north on Dougherty Road and south on Dougherty Road to
east on Dublin Boulevard to bypass the Dublin/Dougherty intersection. However, even with the
Scarlett Drive extension, the Dougherty RoadJDublin Boulevard intersection is expected to
continue to operate unacceptably (LOS E) during the p.m. peak hour. Mitigation at the
intersection of Dougherty RoadJDublin Boulevard is not feasible.
The Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the
p.m. peak hour. The conversion of a through lane on the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach
to a third right-turn lane would improve operations to LOS C (v/c = 0.74).
Parking
Existing parking occupancy counts were taken at the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center lots on
Thursday, August 16 and Saturday, August 18,2001. Based on these counts, the parking lot on
Broder Boulevard was 32 percent occupied with 177 of the 577 spaces full (380 available) on
Thursday, and 40 percent occupied on Saturday at noon with 223 spaces full (334 available).
There is an expectation that parking for the Project could be accommodated in part by sharing
parking with the existing uses at the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center and Emergency Service
Operations building. Additional secured parking, which is available to the north of the Santa Rita
Rehabilitation Center, could be restriped and used for staff parking, which would free up
additional parking in rront of the jail for public parking.
Transit Service
Existing transit service in the vicinity of the East County Government Center and Site 15A
includes the Livennore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LA VTA--Wheels) Line 1, the
Humphrey/Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center Shuttle, and the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE)
connector. Line 1 provides service to and from BART via Broder Boulevard, Gleason Drive and
Dublin Boulevard on approximately 30-minute headways during the morning and evening
commute hours on weekdays. The ACE shuttle runs to and from the train station at the Alameda
County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton. The shuttle routes coordinate with the arrival and departure
times of the ACE trains. LA VTA Line 12, connecting the BART station, the Las Positas College
and the Livennore Transit Center, also provides service along Dublin Boulevard near Site 15A
site.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Inter5acÜnn 1 J
I'm crtylDublin
'"
-~$
~u")~.
;:;~~ '-365 (113\
N~"" +-455(927)
¥.. '.. ;210 (630)
31 (74)J ~tr'"
784 (964) ;;:;:",¡:;:-
452 (553). ~o.E
m~1'--
:&:g;
Inlen<I:CIl<m '1
Haclendæl-SRO WI! Off Ramp
f'--f'--
~!:f
--
~ g¡ '- 753 (282)
,..., ,,953(494)
r:.
'<!'",
0""
,",0
¿::
""'"
<'0,,"
~.N
Inte,rs«:Uon , 13
Ta.sajara/Glea,nn
ô~
::t--g
~~~'t..40(17)
'" ~ ~ --53 (37)
,..J+I,.. ;307 152)
79 (198)J ~ t r'"
40(61¡- -'--'-
95(134 . ~8:;:
:::.:::~~
"'~'"
(;'P') ~
~'~~
'"
Intc,"cuinnll19
Santa Rlta/J·SIID £I!IPimUto
._Ñ'
;:!;:J~
'f'--
~~o
~L""""'N
-"'-
"'.-'"
::;:3::: "t.390(381
,,) '.. ,154 (128
1.221 (1.155~ tr'"
141 (421" --,
578 (275 '- ~_ S.
..........,,~-~
~~
"'.""
íì
North
Not to Scale
1i1tc:r,,)(~f,:t¡on 12
AmoJdfl)uWin
~- ¡g
;;s;¡ "-128 (13)
"' "" "-.....675 (1,204
..-', I,.. '243 37)
447(91)..$ "':fr'"
(1,564)- -_.-
446(66). ~!::;,æ
t!.C'.Iti
~ <I>
'" '"
I",,,,,,,,"!ion 118
lIa¡:¡c"dalDublJn
¡¡;Ç
6·èh~
.:;0.........-.
'-pr;; 't..74(31)
;g ¡:j ~ -1,014 (753)
..-'+'.. r346 383)
34(141)..$~tr'"
618(1,481) ¡¡;'O~~-
161 P!~8)" ... N
~!£.'-""
"''''''-
M"'o
""'~
Inter.cellon # 14
Ta"ajura/CenIJaI
¡"rer<;e<:llon 13
Arnold/Central
iÕ
"'~
NO
._'"
"'--
:::¡;; '-96 (19)
,I,.. ;50(141)
1~
l'>J~}
e!r'~"
.-'"
'" .-
"''''
1r.1",."elion ,g
HacieJlda/Cenwal
¡¡¡-
_0
~S¡;¡-
;;;-¡i.J::' "- 12 (5)
"''''''' _59(15)
)+I.t. r141 (205)
17 (24)J ~ t ('
10 (54)--~-
46 (366). ifi~ g
tv:¡..........,
~g(2
'"
IlIlerse,cllon , ¡ 5
lk,sajur¡\'Dublin
l",cr~Cllon .4
AmoJdiGlcason
.-.6
""'"
t!.:s
~:; 1It.87 (47)
,I,.. ,32 (14)
1~
t:,)(!J
~.t!
v'"
IlI\crsectkm .10
HafJendalGleasOll
-126 (29)
..205 (154)
26 (109) ~ ('
14 (45)" ê¡::;
~-'('I,j
,...,'~"
"'..
<10
~ $~~
~.~:;'~~ ~ ;-;:
._lt~~_ ......It')-
,~"'.- \.. 91 (50) ;;; "".if{ 't.. 91 (176)
""-"" _56(204) "'.-- -202(534)
..-' ,I,.. r 360 (232) ) I,.. r 527 (802)
96(42)J (' 166 (414)J ....r'"
50 (260)- ~<ò¡,;- 217 (371)- -$;Ç;ô
51 (95)" !::gj::> 413(1,649). i2~æ
;: :::.;-- ;; :::;;
~;: r;.,4;~
InlcrseUjon U 6
J){a¡gheny/I·580 Wß Off Ramp
ø~
1;",
~~ "-740(664)
,,800 (590)
{
~;::
~_.......
LEGEND
. Study Intersactlon
o Approved/Pending Project
Project
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
....-
j'4·11(·1'411
(:"}1"r-"(:(t,) ~1
J)tx{ilJ)j'~/i'I.
;;.
--- .~_~v.... -." '"'~-~.5
~
Proj~t Ii
Site i
~,~:::; \¿
2
'.n_~""~W~~~-~~
,"iuu#liZit«
R...>h.tMJifüt«)Rt'(~h:''''
-'-
""-
3.~
Intc,...,"liul1 '5
Arm,ldIßrodcr
o
""""''''''r_
~;;;''''' "-4 (4)
"'M"" _3(6)
)+1,.. ,12(16)
5(3)-'" ~tr'"
11 (12)- ---.,
32 (107)" ¡:;~~
'-..¡,£J...........
g"'~
Infc",",cl!o" III
Madlga¡¡/OleasDI1
ê:fR
::,! ;; '- 59 (55)
..-' " +-220 (128)
56 (35)..$
72 (382)-
¡IIWfscction *17
Kopyardll·580 f,B OfT Ramp
¡¡;W
.....~
$,~
~~
..-'
620 (352)J t r'"
982 (350)" íô<£
:g;¡;
ti~
æ~
InletsE'erw. ,6
lfad..ndail-580 ED Off Ram
'"
<10
~~
8N
0'"
:!,~
"-""
"'...,
Inwrscrtion 112
Mad! f~r¡¡mdI.·r
~<:i'~,
000 _5 (4)
),1,.. r1 (66)
7(6)_ "ltr'"
11 (36)" ô;;";:::
M--
~N_
'" '"
..
lotersertlon fl8
Tassajarall-580 W8 Off Ramp
¡;¡~
,..""
¿r:L
í&~ "-578 (504)
-- r764 (552)
{
:;:;¡
-",
N~-
-"-
-R
&J
.'
c
ci:
~ > .. ' g: .#-~ r~~~-~-" ~_"~n~_...~
;: ":~~..~...':¡,_..~r !i!
~ ~Uia/Ð~IŠ ~ ...
W. ^*"G r¡ . "''''".",,",~ r,
f : : : AreA¡; B&C ~
11 ;¡ ~ f ,
III - - - ~- ft -......... ~ ~ ~... ~.. r _~ ~ _ ~ _" ~ _ ~..."
J.)jJbfjllRIiIK'b '
A,~~H :
F· 9 9 - I'~'I
19ure . ':'ii'i
East County Government Center Site / 15A Site
Baseline Conditions Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
~
g
"~(\
';r",
~ ,~tf'
SOURCE: TJKM I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.9:Peak Hour Intersection levels of Service - Baseline Conditions
G CdS'
East County overnment enter an Ite 15A
Signalized Intersections
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection
v/c LOS v/c LOS
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.82 D 1.07 F
1
(with extension of Scarlett Drive) 0.72 C 0.92 E
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.47 A 0.58 A
3 Arnold Road/Central Parkway 1 0.20 A 0.29 A
6 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.62 B 0.58 A
7 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps 0.63 B 0.68 B
8 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.56 A 0.67 B
9 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.36 A 0.55 A
10 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.18 A 0.26 A
13 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 0.64 B 0.47 A
14 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 0.69 B 0.65 B
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.67 B 0.93 E
15
(convert an EB through lane to rightMturn lane) 0.81 D 0.74 C
16 Dougherty Road/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.59 A 0.55 A
17 Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp 0.59 A 0.49 A
18 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.77 C 0.81 D
19 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound/Pimlico 0.83 D 0.90 D
Unsignalized Intersections
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Delay Delay
sec.lveh. LOS sec.lveh. LOS
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 7.3 A 7.8 A
5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard 7.4 A 7.4 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive * * * *
11
- Southbound Madigan Approach (10.2) (B) (11.1) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.1 A 7.3 A
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants.
Note: vie = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service;
X.X (X.X) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
*HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9M34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
ACE operates three trains per day on weekdays between Stockton and San Jose. The trains
provide westbound service in the morning and eastbound service in the evening. The ACE trains
provide service to the Pleasanton station at 5:37, 6:46 and 7:52 each morning and at 5:09, 6:19
and 7:39 each weekday evening.
The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District operates trains between the Dublin-Pleasanton
station near Hacienda Drive and the Oakland-San Francisco area. The trains operate on 15-
minute headways on weekdays from 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. and from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on
weekends. BART staff provided capacity and ridership data for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour in
fall 2002 at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. Existing capacity of the Dublin/Pleasanton line away
:trom Dublin in the a.m. peak hour is 2,257 seats, which 1,063 patrons occupy, leaving a seating
capacity of 1,194. In the p.m. peak hour, there is a seating capacity of 2, 196, with 450
passengers, leaving a seating capacity of 1,746. This data show that during both peak periods,
there is available capacity (seats) on BART trains going towards Oakland/San Francisco.
9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Based on the CEQA Guidelines, the Project could have a significant envirorunental impact if it
resulted in:
· 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-to-capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections). This criteria is further
defined as being significant if the project would cause the baseline level of service to degrade
to worse than LOS D at signalized intersections; and/or would increase the volume/capacity
ratio of a signalized intersection operating at LOS E under baselines conditions to increase by
more than 1 percent.
· Exceeding, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. This criteria is
further defined as being significant if the project would cause the baseline level of service to
degrade to worse than LOS E (i.e. to LOS F) on routes of regional significance, and/or would
increase the volume/capacity ratio by more than 1 percent for a roadway segment already
operating at LOS F under baseline conditions.
· A change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks.
· A substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
· Inadequate emergency access.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-35
Chapter 9: Transportation
. Inadequate parking capacity.
. A conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT 9.1:
Increased Traffic in Excess of Local Roadway and/or
Intersection Capacity
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
Consolidating various uses to a central Juvenile Justice Facility would increase activity at the
alternative Project sites, and would reduce activity at the vacated sites where the existing
Juvenile Hall, Probation Department, Juvenile Court and Superior Court activities are presently
located. This could result in some transportation system benefits at those vacated sites (Le.,
reduce traffic and parking demand). However, it is likely that the vacated space would be re-
occupied by other similar County functions, so the potential benefit at those vacated sites is not
considered as part of this analysis.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 9.1.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT: No ActionJNo Project would result in no net change in the existing transportation
systems serving the existing Juvenile Justice and Superior Court functions. Existing conditions
described in the previous section (Affected Environment) would remain unchanged.
Trip generation of the existing Juvenile Justice Facility is described in more detail in the
following section.
Traffic and parking counts were also conducted on Thursday, May 30, 2002, at the existing
Gale/Shenone Superior Court facility (with six courtrooms) in Pleasanton. The results of the trip
generation and parking surveys are as follows:
. The Facility generated a total of 155 inbound trips and 32 outbound trips during the a.m.
peak hour (8:00-9:00 a.m.) Therefore, the East County Hall of Justice is estimated to
generate [(155+32)/7 =] 27 a.m. peak hour trips per courtroom with an inbound/outbound
split of 83%: 17%.
. The Facility generated a total of25 inbound trips and 81 outbound trips during the p.m. peak
hour (4:15-5:15 p.m.) Therefore, the East County Hall ofJustice is estimated to generate
[(25+81)/7 =] 15 p.m. peak hour trips per courtroom with an inbound/outbound split of
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-36
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
24%:76%.
· Peak occupancy occurred in the moming between 9:00 and 9:30 a.m. when 158 (or 75%) of
the 210 spaces were occupied.
· During the peak occupancy, 145 (or 87%) of 167 spaces in the "front" and "side" parking
sections were occupied.
· Afternoon peak occupancy occurred between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m. when 142 (or 68%) of the
210 spaces were occupied.
· 40% of the vehicles surveyed were parked for anywhere between a few minutes and 1 hour.
· 81% of the vehicles surveyed were parked for less than 3 hours.
· 8% of the vehicles surveyed were parked for at least 7 hours (these are probably employees)
Impact 9.1.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT: The intersection of Foothill
Boulevard and the 1-580 Westbound Off-Ramp currently operates at Level of Service F in both
the a.m. and p.m. peak traffic hours. The construction of a replacement facility at the Existing
San Leandro Property, with either 420 or 540 beds, would result in a continuation and slight
worsening of this significant traffic congestion.
Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment
TJKM Transportation Consultants conducted driveway counts at the existing facility to
detennine existing trip generation and local distribution for the existing Juvenile Hall site, and
factored them as a per-bed trip rate. The estimated per-bed trip generation of the proposed
Project is considerably higher, based on the consolidation of other uses to the site. This trip
generation rate was estimated from the architectural program and reflects future staffing,
estimates of agency and public visitors, and court activity at the facility.
The peak hour distribution also is expected to be more pronounced than existing conditions
because consolidation of other functions to the site will include more office workers with regular
work hours are at the site, compared with the existing detention staffwho work odd-hour shifts.
The results of using these rates for the three scenarios are presented in Table 9.10.
In conducting the traffic impact analysis, the impact of developing a new Juvenile Justice
Facility was modeled based on the net new traffic that would be generated, subtracting the trips
generated by the existing Juvenile Hall from the new trips expected as a result of each ofthe
scenarios presented below.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-37
Chapter 9: Transportation
Project trip distribution assumptions were developed based on existing travel patterns, projected
travel patterns, and general knowledge ofthe area. The trip distribution assumptions are as
follows:
· 45% will travel on 1-580 to and from the north
· 30% will travel on 1-580 and Foothill Boulevard to and from the south
· 10% will travel on Fairmont Drive to and from the east
· 10% will travel on Fairmont Drive to and from the west
. 3% will travel on East 14th Street to and from the north
· 2% will travel on Hesperian Boulevard via 150th Avenue.
Figure 9.10 illustrates the trip distribution assumptions for the three scenarios at the Existing
San Leandro Property. The Project trips were assigned to the study intersections using these trip
distribution assumptions to produce forecasts for Project traffic volumes at all of the study
intersections. Figures 9.11 and 9.12 present the projected peak hour turning movement volumes
for the 420- and 540-bed scenarios, respectively.
Table 9.10: Existing San Leandro Property - Trip Generation - Existing Facility and Proposed
Juvenile Justice Facility Scenarios
Saturday Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Project Dally Dally
Size Trip Trip Trip In:Out Trips Trip In:Out Trips
Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Ratio Rate Ratio
In Out Total In Out Total
Existing 0.25 70:30 53 23 76 0.27 10:90 8 72 80
-- - - -
(300 beds)
420 beds 3.12 1,310 7.27 3,053 1.14 83:17 398 82 480 1.09 10:90 46 413 459
540 beds 3.12 1,685 7.27 3,926 1.14 83:17 511 105 616 1.09 10:90 59 530 589
Note: Development scenarios are presented as total trips generated by a new facility. Impact modeling considerad the net effect of the Project
by subtracting existing trips from the new trips for each scenario.
Results of Level of Service Analysis
Table 9.11 presents a summary of peak hour levels of service at the study intersections under
both the 420-bed and 540-bed scenarios.
As shown in Table 9.11, eight of the nine study intersections are expected to continue to operate
at acceptable levels of service with the addition of traffic from the 420-bed and 540-bed
scenarios. In general, the traffic generated from each ofthe Scenarios causes only slight
increases in the average delay when compared to existing conditions. The results indicate that the
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
Chapter 9: Transportation
proposed replacement Juvenile Justice Facility, even with as many as 540 beds, has minimal
impact on nearby intersections and street network.
Table 9.11 also shows that the intersection ofInterstate-580 Westbound Off-ramp/Foothill
Boulevard, with stop control on the off-ramp, is expected to continue to operate at LOS F with
either the 420-bed or 540-bed scenario. However, ifthe intersection were signalized, it is
expected to operate at LOS B.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9·39
I
I
I
I
Existing I
Juvenile
Justice
Center I
*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ I
..
North
Not to Scale I
SOURCE: TJKM I I
I
LEGEND
. Study Intersection
Figure 9.10
San Leandro Site
Trip Distribution
. ,,~, I
',Zeji
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Intersec;tion #1 Inter$l!Ction #2 Intersec;tion #3 Intersection #4 Intersection #5
1-580 EB Off Ramp/15oth/Freedom 1-580 WB On Ramp/15othIFoothill 1-580 E8 On RampIFainnont/Freedom 1·580 WB Off RamplFoothill FoothilllFainnont
(\Jc;]Ô' íii''iii''¡;' ¡;) CD
~!~ """'0 0 ~~'"
~~ ~ "''''-
"'....-
O>O<D ~ 45 (26) <Doo18 ~23 (21) "" ¡;;¡¡¡ ~211 ~143\
<D 0> 0> '"
..."'- _319(274) +·111 (91) gj¡¡)- +-713 (587) "" )¡~ ... 184 209
~,I.. F32 (44) F50 (43) ..I, I.. F 59 (145) , F7(8)
476 !612¡__ "'I r 419 ~477¡---" "'1 t r'" 9 (13!---" 756 (547¡ ---" t 268 !438!---" "'1 t r
169 234 " ã>¡;:- 65 112 -- --- 444 (730 ~ 41 (20 .'" M 174 256 -- ---
-- 205 (184)-" ~~Ë 194(481 ... ~ 147(135 -" ~~E
...0> ;;;;;~ m i~~
~f3 ""
Inter$l!Ction #6 Intersection #7 Inter$l!Ction #8 Intersection #9
Falnnont/East 14th East 14thnSOth 15Oth/Hesperian FainnontlJJC Driveway
--~ o~ -~ ii
'" 00 CD 0>....
0""_ _t;..~ ~'"
~....~
"':112 ~90(131) !2¡gc¡; ~235 ~174) ~;:!; ~1!2) 12-
<D ~ __681 (643) O"'~ __476 387) <D'" --8 19) "'~ 1iL3 (15)
~'l.. FSO(161) ~'I.. F66(S1) ~, ,.- 407 (434) ,I.. 39 (166)
29 ~152¡---" "'1 t r 4 (7¡---" "'ìtr 9t!---" "'ltr "'1 r
411 794 -- --- 330 (294 -- -- 20 18 -- -- ~1g1G
124(314 " ~~æ 18 (17-'" ~m~ 45 52 " ~~~ ~"'~
~~~ "'-""
<D~"" g¡~~ ""....~
"'........ ~"'''' ~'" "'~
m~... '" mO
... ""...
LEGEND
. Study Intersection
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
".........
..
North
Not to Scale
i 'iC" I
I_J¡"':.~
;--.,-,)
SOURCE: TJKM I
Figure 9.11
San Leandro Site
Existing + Project Turning Movement Volumes (420 beds)
Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection 13 Intersection 14 Imersectlon IS
1·580 EB Off Rampl1SOth/Freedom 1·580 WB On Ramp/1SOth/Foothill 1-580 EB On RamplFainnontlFreedom 1·580 WB Off RampIFoolIIlII Foothlll/Fainnom
CÎÌ'Ñè ~ ¡g ~i
oeo,", ~~
~:!.~ ~ (')(')~
"'~-
0>'"'0 ~45 (26) ""0 18 ~ 24 (22) ¡)j ;;o~ ~216!175¡
~~~ +-320 (275) .-111 (91) ~@~ +-714(593) "I (,)'"'~ +-169 236
,.!, I.. F32 (44) F50 (43) ,.! 'L-.. F 62 (165) , ,.!, L-.. F7 (8)
479 !612¡ - -'1 ," 419 (477)J -'1 t r" 9j13¡J 756 (547¡J t 266 ¡436)J '"J t I'
172 234 '" ôK' 65 1112¡- ~- 453! 33 =-- 41 (20 '" ô 202 265¡- ~~
ð::.. 232 190'" ¡:¡8it2 194 481) " 0> 147 135 '" ~~~
"'~- !:?
"'0> *"'~ tx; --~
"If:¡ "I ~~-
Imersectlon #6 Imersection #7 Intersection 18 Intersection #9
Fainnont/East 14111 East 14111/150lIl 150thlHesperlan FalnnonUJJC Driveway
íñæi ~~ -~ ~
o,",~ - ~ =-r.õ
~~-
;;~~ ~90 (131) !:?g¡g¡ ~236 !176) ~~ ~1!2) 0-
'" ~ +- 681 (847) 0"'_ +-476 389) '" +-6 19) ~l(¡ ~4(21)
,.!, L-.. F 60 (165) ~I'L-.. F66(61) ,.!, F 407 (436) ,I.. F 48 (227)
4~¡m¡='~t{ 4 (7¡J -'ltr" 9 (11¡J -'1 t I' ·Itl'
332 (295 - --- 20!16 - --- ~Fl~
124314 -" PJ!i6æ 16 (17 '" ~!li~ 45 52 '" !~~ -(')-
~~=- "'-0
",-,... 0>-- "IIJ;@
"''"'~ ~eo'" (,)~'"
O>:!J'" ~ æ~
*
LEGEND
. Study Intersection
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
".......
..
North
Not to Scale
. ,'ib, I
' ""'v
-"('J
SOURCE: T}KM I
Figure 9.12
San Leandro Site
Existing + Project Turning Movement Volumes (540 beds)
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.11: Existing San Leandro Property - Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
420-Bed and 540-Bed Scenarios
420-Bed Scenario 540-Bed Scenario
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
sec.lveh. sec./veh. sec./veh. sec./veh.
1 1-580 Eastbound 17.0 C 16.2 C 17.3 C 16.3 C
Off-Ramp/150th Ave.
2 1-580 WB On- 19.2 C 14.9 B 19.2 C 14.9 B
Ramp/150th
Av/Foothill
Boulevard
3 1-580 Eastbound 11.8 B 13.2 B 12.2 B 13.5 B
On-Ramp/Fairmont
4 1-580 WB Off- 120+ F 120+ F 120+ F 120+ F
Ramp/Foothill
Boulevard (stop)
(if signalized) 9.3 B 9.5 B 9.5 B 9.5 B
5 Foothill 19.9 C 19.5 C 20.2 C 20.0 C
Boulevard/Fairmont
Drive
6 Fairmont Drive/East 16.6 C 19.9 C 16.6 C 20.0 C
14th Street
7 East 14th 18.7 C 18.7 C 18.8 C 18.7 C
Street/150th Avenue
8 150th 14.0 B 11.7 B 14.0 B 11.7 B
Avenue/Hesperian
Boulevard
9 Fairmont 5.5 B 6.3 C 5.5 B 7.2 C
Drive/Juvenile
Justice Center
Driveway
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 943
Chapter 9: Transportation
. Mitigation Measure. 9.1.2: Improve Operations of the Intersection of Foothill
Boulevard and 1..580 Westbound Off..Ramp. If this alternative is selected, the
County should consider signalizing the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and 1-580
Westbound Off-Ramp. Existing traffic results in Level of Service F in the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours, and addition of Project traffic would add to this condition. Alternatively, a
two-lane roundabout could be installed at this location to alleviate traffic congestion.
Resulting Level of Significance. Either measure would result in an acceptable LOS B and
reduce this effect to less than significant. Because the poor operation of the intersection is
due primarily to existing conditions and the Project would have a minor impact on those
conditions, this mitigation measure is considered optional. Implementation of the optional
mitigation measure listed above would further reduce the Project's impact to a less than
significant level.
Impact 9.1.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Development at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
would be limited to juvenile detention uses. Other progranuned uses such as the probation
administration and juvenile courts would be located elsewhere in the area, as most of them
currently exist. The addition of Project-related traffic in the area would not result in significant
congestion at local intersections. The traffic study concludes that under existing conditions, and
with the 420-bed scenario, all nine of the study intersections operate at acceptable levels during
the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Trip Generation
Person-trips (employees and visitors) for the Juvenile Justice Facility were estimated based on
the Architectural Program for this Project and previous reports. The person-trips were translated
into vehicle-trips by assuming vehicle occupancy rates and transit reductions. The total vehicle
trip generation includes employees and visitors.
Table 9.12 summarizes the trip generation calculations. The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility is
estimated to generate approximately 2,822 daily trips, 353 a.m. peak hour trips and 311 p.m.
peak hour trips on a typical weekday. On a Saturday, the 420-bed facility is expected to generate
approximately 1,310 trips.
The trip generation for this site is lower than at other alternative sites because the site would not
accommodate the full program goals for the new Juvenile Justice Facility. The detention
component of the Project would be developed within the existing Glenn Dyer Detention Facility,
and additional outdoor recreation space would be build adjacent to that building. However, the
maximum number of beds would be limited to 420, whereas other sites allow for future
expansion to 540 beds.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-44
I
I
I
I
I
,-
I
I
I
I
I
1\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
"
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.12: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility - Trip Generation - Juvenile Justice Project Only
Saturday Dally Weekday Dally Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour
Project Trip Trip Trip In:Out Trips Trip In:Out Trips
Trips Trips Rate Ratio Out Rate Ratio
Rate Rate In Total In Out Total
Juvenile
Justice
Facility 3.12 1,310 6.72 2,822 0.84 87:13 307 46 353 0.74 4:96 12 299 311
(420 beds)
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants.
In addition, the juvenile courts and probation administration functions would not be constructed
at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility site. Instead, they would remain at their present locations or
possibly consolidate to other local office buildings in the area. Most of those uses are already in
the vicinity of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility site, so the trip generation estimates for this
study do not account for any additional trips related to those uses.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution assumptions were developed based on existing travel patterns, Project travel
patterns for employment, visitors and knowledge of the study area. These estimates represent a
composite of all uses at the site, although it is recognized that individual uses may vary slightly
in percentages and travel routes. This analysis uses the following trip distribution assumptions:
· 60 percent to/from the south via I-SSO
· 20 percent to/from the east via 1-980
· 5 percent to/from the north via 1-580
· 5 percent to/from the east via Martin Luther King Way
· 5 percent to/from the east via Broadway
· 3 percent from the south via Sth Street
· 2 percent to the south via ih Street.
Figure 9.13 illustrates the resulting trip assignment for the Glenn Dyer project alternative.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-45
I
:; I
é
Q) ~
(.€~ ~ I
.00 5
z -
Õ fJ'J
Z
I
,I
I
,
I
Q) Q) 'I
E E
c==
.2 ~ ~ I
1i .. ..
::I ::I
~ 0 0
:z::z:
ë~~
-III
Q ~D. D. 'I
Z~:i:¡
w <CD.
CI _
~.=~
:: - A ,I
-I ¡ '", I
~
~;§ <'.{
.... I
~ ~ c::
Jf( Q)
~t;; ij 0X cü! ~~ :vj ~
'j I (þ~.{ ~<:I 8iõ ".l$' ,~ ~ I
0." 0. ,- ~ '-Wo" X
Jj iJ .....
I~ ¿ (/)
~c' (/)
~ <:
-.., - .. ...
=r::
0.. I
.....
'"'"
~
.-ê 't
~~ t.f).~ I
~ ... ...ü! ¥ )i ... - ~x tf') '"'" 0
...'" "'5 if '"i ~ d:
,~ ¡ ".J
-II $'" 6,9" a"IQ"'O
J~ fí Q, § Q)
~1 -J ... ¡:Q I
~ '\ <:I \:: gbQ)O
."""...... N
~ü~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I'
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Results of Level of Service Analysis
Existing plus Project peak hour turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 9.14. Table
9.13 presents a summary of peak hour levels of service at the study intersections under Existing
plus Project conditions (420 beds). Based on the results presented above, all of the nine study
intersections are expected to operate acceptably (LOS C or better).
Table 9.13: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility - Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Existing Plus Project Conditions (420 Beds)
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Signalized Intersection Delay Delay
LOS LOS
sec.lveh. sec.lveh.
1 ih Street/Jefferson street 13.2 B 9.2 B
2 6th Street/Jefferson Street 3.9 A 10.0 B
3 ih Street/Washington Street 8.4 B 9.9 B
4 6th Street/Washington Street 11.1 B 13.8 B
5 6th Street/Broadway/l-880 9.9 B 14.4 B
Northbound Off-Ramp
6 5th Street/Broadway/l-880 14.8 B 19.5 C
Southbound On-Ramp
7 12'h Street/Brush Street/I·980 2.8 A 7.5 B
Westbound Off-Ramp
8 12'h Street/Castro Street/I-980 9.8 B 11.5 B
Eastbound Off-Ramp
9 5th Street/Union Street/I-880 12.4 B 13.3 B
Southbound Off-Ramp
Note: LOS = Level of Service
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-47
Q)
,.. € ~
1IIr..~ £¡
~
Q) Q)
E E
c':':
9.~~
i&&
j:z::z:
c......
-mill
Q {j'1I.d:
z .==<:&
~ liiCl:II.
~.~~
...
':;tii
,9 ¡
~ ,-
f:!i
~";~
4'~~ ....Þi :I'ii
~tii ~~~~¡~ =tii
Iii it 'I~ .Ii æ
,- 1! ~..~ ~~
I ~ ~ ?"'c' f1i II Jj
-~ ;!r:
U
-.I:
ii
I ,-
_1
!II:
... .
"'D'I
g""
,- /i;
lí
~lIi
,Ii@
~f
]!i
::;
~
~
u
~
@
{/'J
Ë
;:I
õ
>-
.....
s::
Ë
~
~
0.0
¡::
'Ë
~
{/'J
""0
Q)
Q)J:Q
..... ,
..... 0
t./)N
1-I-.:f'1
;!: Q) +
.>...
a'I Q 0.0
~§:§
6b Q) .~
.......... ><
~l?~
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I'
I
'I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Impact 9.1.4: Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Construction and operation of a new Juvenile Justice
Facility at the Pardee/Swan Site would not have a significant impact on the local roadway and
intersection level of service. The facility with 420 beds is expected to generate approximately
459 trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour, while the facility with 540 beds is expected to
generate 589 trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour. In both scenarios, the baseline includes
the development of the airport parking garage for 4,000 vehicles. Under baseline (Year 2005)
conditions, all ofthe 11 study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable service level
during the p.m. peak hour studied for this location. They all are expected to continue to operate
acceptably with the addition ofthe proposed Juvenile Justice Facility, either with 420 beds or
540 beds.
Trip Generation
Person trips (employees and visitors) for the Juvenile Justice Facility were estimated based on
the Architectural Program for this Project and previous reports. The person-trips were translated
into vehicle-trips by assuming vehicle occupancy rates and transit reductions. The total vehicle
trip generation includes employees and visitors.
Consolidating various uses to a central Juvenile Justice Facility would increase activity at the
Project site, and would reduce activity at the vacated sites. This could result in some
transportation system benefits at those vacated sites (i.e., reduce traffic and parking demand).
However, it is likely that the vacated space would be re-occupied by other similar County
functions (with the exception of the existing Juvenile Hall which would be dernolished), so the
potential benefit at those vacated sites is not considered as part of this analysis.
Table 9.14 summarizes the trip generation calculations. The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility
with 420 beds and five courts is estimated to generate approximately 3,053 daily trips. Of these,
there would be about 459 p.m. peak hour trips on a typical weekday. With 540 beds and six
courts, the Juvenile Justice Facility is estimated to generate approximately 3,926 daily trips, with
about 589 p.m. peak hour trips on a typical weekday. Trip generation of the Port of Oakland's
proposed airport parking lot project is included in the baseline condition, described below.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-49
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.14: Pardee/Swan Site - Trip Generation - Juvenile Justice Project Only
Saturday Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Daily Dally
Project Trip Trip Trip In:Out Trips Trip In:Out Trips
Trips Rate Trips Rate Ratio Rate Ratio
Rate In Out Total In Out Total
Juvenile
Justice Facility 3.12 1,310 7.27 3,053 1.14 83:17 398 82 480 1.09 10:90 46 413 459
(420 beds)
Juvenile
Justice Facility 3.12 1,685 7.27 3,926 1.14 83:17 511 105 616 1.09 10:90 59 530 589
(540 beds)
Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution assumptions were developed based on existing travel patterns, Project travel
patterns for employment, visitors and knowledge of the study area. These estimates represent a
composite of all uses at the site, although it is recognized that individual uses may vary slightly
in percentages and travel routes.
·
45 percent to/ftorn the north via Pardee Drive, Hegenberger Road, the 1-880 ramps at
Hegenberger Road and 1-880 (Oakland, Alameda, Berkeley)
·
45 percent to/ftom the south via Pardee Drive, Airport Drive, 98th Avenue, the 1-880
ramps at 98th Avenue and 1-880 (San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, Fremont)
·
5 percent to/ftom the north via Swan Way and Doolittle Drive (Alameda)
·
5 percent to/ftom the south via Swan Way and Doolittle Drive (San Leandro)
Results of level of Service Analysis (Baseline + 420·Bed Facility)
Trip assignments are shown on Figure 9.15 and the resulting Baseline plus 420-bed facility peak
hour turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 9.16. Table 9.15 presents a summary of
peak hour levels of service at the study intersections for the 420-bed and 540-bed scenarios. With
the addition of the 420-bed facility, all study intersections are expected to continue to operate at
an acceptable service level during the p.m. peak hour.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-50
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.15: Pardee/Swan Site - PM Peak Hour Intersection levels of Service -Baseline Plus Project
(420-Bed and 540-Bed Scenarios)
P.M. Peak Hour
ID 420-Bed Facility 540-Bed Facility
Delay LOS Delay LOS
sec.lveh. sec./veh.
Signalized Intersections
1 Doolittle Drive/Swan Way 10.1 B 10.2 B
3 Hegenberger Road/Pardee Drive/Airport 29.1 D 32.4 D
Drive
4 Hegenberger Road/Edgewater Drive 27.9 D 28.8 D
5 1-880 Southbound Off- 12.6 B 12.7 B
Ramp/Hegenberger Road
6 98th Avenue/Airport Drive 16.0 C 16.9 C
7 98th Avenue/Bigge Street 14.7 B 14.8 B
8 98th Avenue/Empire Road 5.9 B 5.9 B
9 98th Avenue/I-880 Southbound Off-Ramp 19.8 C 19.8 C
10 98th Avenue/I-880 Northbound Ramps 19.5 C 19.5 C
11 Doolittle Drive/Airport Drive 14.6 B 14.6 B
Unsignalized Intersection
2 Pardee Drive/Swan Way 2.1 A (D) 2.3 A (D)
(23.2) (29.9)
Note:
LOS = Level of Service; x.X (X.X) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-51
Intersection #1
DoollttleJSw;ln
~
I"
Intersection #6
98th/Ai on
¡l'
Intersection #11
DoollllleJAlrpon
+
LEGEND
. Study Intersection
XX PM Peak Hour \blume
Interseetion #2
PardeelSwan
Intersedion #3
Hegenberger/Airpon
C\I
@æ
~.
1Jt
co
0<0
...'"
"'~~
..1.1.. ~.4
t
...
Interseetion #7
98th/8i e
Intersection #8
98th/Em ire
+4
136_
Interseetion #9
98thll·880 58 Off Ram
~
136_
Intersection #10
98thll-880 N8 Ram 5
~4
I
+4 +-4 +
136_ 136" ':;.
I'¡¡';-'O" I
' _''1¥)
. -),
Figure 9.15
Pardee / Swan Site
420-Bed Project PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment
íì
North
Not to Scale
SOURCE: TJKM I
I
I
t
I'
I
I
I
I
,I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
Intersection #1
DoolittlelSwan
Intersection #2
Pardee/Swan
Intersection #3
Hagen er/Alrpon
",~¡g ...
OO~. ,,-171
"'~~ ---2031
~. \.to. ,.-299
603 · t"
1,766-+ ..! ~ '"
18" "''''fa
~'"
~~
",I \.to. ___1,339
594-+
~<D ~ 188
(0 (0 ID ---10
~.I... "-28
35-'" ·1 t~
28-+ ID ~
228" "'::. '"
1:i;;;;0 ~185
-"'~ ---1751
.1. t.... "-397
43 -. t"
494-+ .J ....10
8-'~ ID æ gj
I
I
I
I
I
I
~i
~. 11-4
103 -'ìtr
149" ~~...-
"'~
Intersection #6
98th/Ai
Intersection #7
98th/Bi e
Intersection #8
98th/Em ire
Intersection #9
98th/I-880 SB 011 Ram
Intersection #10
98t11l1·88O NB Ramps
"''''
&:!.
~ t.... ..-643
1,574-+
971"
"'ID
g¡:j~ ~332
",1.1... ---1,184
1,4543 t r"
25-+ "''''
~~
",,,,t¡; ~158
;\ '* ~ ;= ~3465
283 -. t"
2324-+ 1",1
'1Ç~ "'~~
~324
--- 1 ,305
1,617-+ -'1 r
o~
;;5~
___1,490
,.- 180
1,840-+ -'1 r
15" æ¡¡¡
'"
Intersection #11
Doolittle/Airpon
~
CD ~ 74
. ,.- 235
743 t"
1501-+ I
'262" ~!è
I
I
I
I
I
I
ì
I
I
íì
LEGEND
. Study Intersection
XX PM Peak Hour Volume
North
Not to Scale
- 4~:;;O' I
-,-if¡,1
SOURCE: TJKM I
I
I
Figure 9.16
Pardee / Swan Site
Base Line + 420-Bed Project PM Peak Turning Movement Volumes
Chapter 9: Transportation
The following three intersections would have the most increase in delay relative to baseline
conditions:
· Pardee/Swan (Baseline: LOS C; Baseline + 420 Beds: LOS D)
· Hegenberger/Pardee/ Airport (LOS C; LOS D)
· 98th Street/Airport Drive (LOS B; LOS D).
Results of Level of Service Analysis (Baseline + 540-Bed Facility)
The 540-bed facility Project-only p.m. peak hour trip assignment is shown on Figure 9.17, and
the resulting Baseline plus 540-bed facility peak hour turning movement volumes are shown on
Figure 9.18.
Table 9.15, above, shows a summary of peak hour levels of service at the study intersections
under the 540-bed scenario. With the addition ofthe 540-bed facility, all study intersections are
expected to continue to operate at an acceptable service level during the p.m. peak hour. Similar
to the 420-bed scenario, the following three intersections would have the greatest increase in
delay relative to baseline conditions:
· Pardee/Swan (Baseline: LOS C; Baseline + 540 Beds: LOS D)
· Hegenberger/Pardee/ Airport (LOS C; LOS D)
· 98th Street! Airport Drive (LOS B; LOS D).
However, the increase in delay would not be significant because all study intersections are
expected to continue to operate at an acceptable service level. No mitigation is required for these
less-than-significant impacts.
Impact 9.1.5: East County Government Center
AND
Impact 9.1.6: Site 15A
SIGNIFICANT AND UNA VOIDABLE IMPACT. Under all scenarios studied for these
alternative sites, there would be a significant unavoidable impact on local traffic congestion at
the intersection of Dougherty Roac1/Dublin Boulevard. The intersection of Tassajara
Road/Dublin Boulevard would be adversely affected, but could be mitigated with intersection
improvements. These impacts would occur with or without the Project, but the Project's traffic
would be a significant impact that requires proportionate contribution toward mitigation.
Six (6) scenarios were evaluated to account for the possibility that one or both of the Projects
would locate at the East County Government Center site, and the possibility that the East County
Hall of Justice could be developed at Site 15A. These scenarios are delineated as AI, A2, B, Cl,
C2 and D, described in more detail in the Affected Environment section, above.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
1\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Î:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Imersection #1
DoolittlelSwan
~
T
Intersection #6
98thfAirpon
+tl~'
Intersection #11
DoolittlefAirpon
+
LEGEND
. Study Interseetion
XX PM Peak Hour Volume
Imersection #2
pardeelSwan
Interseetion #3
Hegenbe fAi
",!j¡
C'J'"
~.
,ß t
+5
175 --..
::
æ:K?
"'~~
~.L.t. ~5
t
'"
Intersection #7
99th1Bigge
Imersection #8
98th/Empire
Intersection #9
98th/I-B80 5B OIJ Ramp
Imersection #5
Hegenbe erll-BBO 5B Off Ram
~
175 --..
Imersection #10
98th11"BBO NB Ramps
~5
I
+5 +5 +
175 --.. 175... ~
Mortin Luther King, Jr.
Regionol Shoreline
.-'-
.-'-
SITE .-
.-'-
,
..
North
Not to Scale
, ~'iic~'i I
··.:...tn\
Figure 9.17
Pardee/Swan Site
540-Bed Project PM Peak Trip Assignment
SOURCE: TJKM I
Intersection '1
DoollttleJSwan
ti:;.... -'~192
""'"'' -+- 10
..I'~ 1>29
353 ·1 tl·
28-", ~
228" "':::.'"
Intersection '6
98th1Alrport
oC¡;:2
"''''''' ~333
..I'~ --1,184
1,4543 tr'"
25..... gJ::8
"!,~
Intersection #11
Doolittle/Airport
~ ~74
, 1>236
743 1I.;or
1,501 ..... J. ~
262" ~~
LEGEND
. Study Intersection
XX PM Peak Hour \blume
Intersection /12
PardeelSwan
:1J~
..J, 1>4
10--· ·1 t I·
149-" ~ g¡..¡-
"'~
gj 0 ~ ~.. 171
"'JJ: í: -+-2,032
.. " .. 1>299
603.II.;or
1,805- Jl.I'
18" "''''æ
æ¡;:!§ ~ 186
~I'}'t __1,751
.. " .. "397
43"11. .
494..... ,..!';'I
8" "'g¡~
Intersection /17
98th/Bi e
Intersection ,a
98th1Em ire
Intersection #9
98thll-880 58 Off Ramp
__1,491
1>180
1,879..... ~ r"
15" "'''''
"'[3
",,,,ti:; ~158
"'~~ --1486
..J'~ 1>63
283 '\<11...
2,363..... ..; J, ~
15" ~..
"''''
;g. :t.
..I ~ .- 644
1,574_
1,010"
~!:I'
~'"
..! I.. __ 1 ,339
633.....
Intersection '10
98th/I·aao N8 Ramps
~324
-- 1 ,305
1,617_·1r'"
~~
..0
"''''
..
North
Not to Scale
I'~C I
~, ::....;ff~i~~
Figure 9.18
Pardee / Swan Site
Base Line + 540-Beds PM Peak Turning Movement Volumes
SOURCE: TJKM I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
í
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Scenario Ai - Juvenile Justice Facility with 420 beds and East County Hall
of Justice with 13 Courtrooms at the East County Government Center Site
Scenario Description
Scenario Al includes the development of a Juvenile Justice Facility with 420 beds and the
proposed East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms at the East County Government Center
site. Site 15A would not be developed under this scenario.
Trip Generation
The trip generation for the proposed Project was developed in coordination with Lamphier-
Gregory and Alameda County. Person trips (employees and visitors) for the Juvenile Justice
Facility were estimated based on the Architectural Program for this Project and previous reports.
The person-trips were translated into vehicle-trips by assuming vehicle occupancy rates and a
10% transit and carpool reduction. The total vehicle trip generation includes employees, visitors
and jurors.
Table 9.16 summarizes the trip generation calculations for Scenario AI. This scenario is
estimated to generate approximately 8,991 daily trips, 1,189 a.m. peak hour trips and 1,168 p.m.
peak hour trips on a typical weekday. In addition, the estimated number of daily trips for a
typical Saturday is presented.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution assumptions were developed based on existing travel patterns, Project travel
patterns for employment, visitors and jurors, and knowledge of the study area. These estimates
represent a composite of all uses at the site, although it is recognized that individual uses may
vary slightly in percentages and travel routes. The analysis generally uses the following trip
distribution assumptions:
·
50 percent to/from the west via 1-580
13 percent to/from the east via 1-580
10 percent to/frorn the south via Hacienda Drive
5 percent to/ftom the south via Santa Rita Road
5 percent to/ftom the south via Hopyard Road
5 percent to/from the west via Dublin Boulevard
5 percent to/ftom the north via Dougherty Road
5 percent to/from the north via Tassajara Road
2 percent to/ftom local areas (Gleason and Central Parkway) from within Dublin.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-57
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.16: East County Government Center Site - Trip Generation - Scenario Ai
Juvenile Justice Facility with 420 Beds and East County Hall of Justice with 13 Courtrooms
Saturday Weekday Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Dally
Project Trip Trip Trip In:Out Trips Trip In:Out Trips
Trips Rate Trips Rate Ratio Out Total Rate Ratio In Out Total
Rate In
Juvenile
Justice
Facility 3.12 1,310 7.27 3,053 1.14 83:17 391 81 479 1.09 10:90 46 412 458
(420 beds)
East
County
Hall of 0 0 456.80 5,938 54.62 82:18 582 128 710 54.62 24:76 170 540 710
Justice
(13 courts)
Total - 1,310 - 8,991 - . 980 209 1,189 . . 216 952 1,168
Note:
Rates for the Project were calculated based on the number of trips estimated for these uses.
Results of Level of Service Analysis
The resulting Baseline plus Scenario A I peak hour turning movement volumes are shown on
Figure 9.19. Table 9.17 presents a summary of peak hour levels of service at the study
intersections under this scenario.
Under Scenario AI, 17 of 19 study intersections are expected to continue to operate acceptably
during the peak hours. The intersections of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, and Tassajara
Road/Dublin Boulevard are expected to continue to operate unacceptably with the Scenario Al
project trips. Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended:
. Mitigation Measure 9.1.5a: Contribute Funds Toward the Implementation of
the Scarlett Drive Extension. The intersection of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard
is expected to operate unacceptably during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. In
order to minimize the Project's effect on the Dougherty Road / Dublin Boulevard
intersection, the County should contribute a fair share of funding toward the
implementation of the Scarlett Drive extension, which is a planned improvement that
would be jointly funded by the City and numerous development sponsors.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-58
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J¡lI~"""d;<>O 11 ¡
UmlgMnyfn"hH"
w'
.n.~.;~'
~A5:'
"''''';" ".}l(;(l61j
"',';'1" «11-46.5 (97[-.,).
Jl'T.... F2:'%(ð41)
31 (74¡~]It ~ t t'"
833 (975¡--- i;&;¿
452 (553),"", "" - ,"
e·~,.,:.::,
æg~'*
~(,'
11,1''''''''''0,,17
¡¡"deml,,+~i80 Wß OflR"mp
g"f2
J::;~'
't.:~~'
2;¡; 1>L ßJ6 (300 I
.v, ,"953 (494)
J.r!
f',-c:r,J
~q
-~
...."'>
",.",
è(+¡;¡
",'
!"I~"'s""Ii¡:m 11 ¡ :\
h"s<\ja",!GIt>aS¡>11
~)
;;"~£~ S"
~u ¡::r.¡ ~"1
",N'''- ..
.- "'i IT> "-. 4.0 (17:.,
,,,-- """"56 (38)
,.it'" F307(152)
90 (247),,,;( "', f r""
41 (64r"" ¿¡.;;;::::
11$ (230¡"'"\ ;s~t;.
.....·..~_<J.:.1
f8~::9
'"
huwsed\(",,¡9
S;\ )t~ RU¡¡,T580 EWI'UnJim
~~% !
¡?,~Ë 't.390(381j
;¡ ~ F 1&4 (12$)
,221 (U55}J t rt i
147 (421):::t" iFh
5/8 (275) ... ~;::
'W'"''
~~, 'w'
æ#
-.................,...,..,...._~~
lø
i NQrth
l~~~ to S¡;a!~
irW"","lion n
AJt~'¡dlJ}"hlh\
bter,corkm 11:1
AtHahltCeì,III:;:1i
lm~r~~niol¡ #4
Arnotd.lGløa~on
3n¡~~~q~Hnn #-:
A",<>ldil\mM,
Ú~· r:¡"
t!,~ M
c_~::..
'" "'''0 "c. 156 (HI)
; ""~"" _723(1.423
: ,,¡.t-. , 243 '31)
¡ 53ß¡111ì"'" 'i f i""
]911 rß·14}..... ~)¡::~:;¡~'
¡ 44" (66) '" :&"'0:'
, ' !::5'<Jti
g;"
""'"
.......·'rn
I"j::\'''''
I,.P~")
~ ~~ ,___ '1'2.1 (25)
... ,"50(147)
ti'"
¿¿F:~'
;: ~~,
··,..,....~O
Q).....
(.Ù(~
<",
":3
.~,M,,~,!
2;;;\S¡.~4 (4\
'''~'''' '-+-3(8j
,.¿ t t". "16 i34¡
11~g(:! ~tr:
32 (Ùn)·m~ ~~~~~I
{~"!.~ tf!"¡
("', r'~
~'~: t..
,,,,,r, "'. ...158 (63)
."- .JZ(14)
t~
;~ô
2~.
~cr~
~;:r;
-:'I",
(t)
-~
.lmer~Òh.m #8
1¡"ä""ddlhhU"
/~.
~2,..~~
~~:t; j: .~ 7ß (32)
, -' ,;: -1,075 US3)
¡ .J. '4 ~r 348 383)
! 259 wvµt "it ("
F1(! PAU;!t:+" :fO(;"
H~7 (4~!4) .. :\A 0,¡ Σ'i
, , t!}:;".~~.
im¡~ ':sp.Uhm PH
H ~~ df¡i1~b}~C~~l1tr:al
irI"f$<'rli<ll1 #1 ¡
M'!~:!~(:l",c'(m
h.\h1fM,'If:"tbn #JU
}fat:'¡t.'n(b./G1H'~Srnn
[2'
~'~
;;:;;," \. g\! (20\
'" ~- - \48 (34)
. t-. þi'- ZS4 (375\
31 (130) __'" . ¡'"
2.5 (93)~ :';,·,~·k·,;.,
N\"t:,~~;
·.......···........N
<1:.''>"''''-
("'Nt.'..!
-<~.~~
<E':;¡~
SË,~
?--·,·N
,.. .." I> "-" '~"')
..; ~ ~w tg, ~ "~~,,
_..~!- --::"!:'..i:ü1)
81 (40)...!
104 (53())--
~'j,':-:"ih'
~;2::; 1>L 12 'IS)
N1'<'!j' N ........f>Û '15ì
)/tl"", r 141 (2U5)
17 (24) :,* "\ t r'"
10 (SS)~ ;;cr:;¡;:;
51 (390) " ¿egg
ro '~-'.......
NM(,\,,)
u'~~~ ~
t-..... I,,,? r--~
mwc."1
""'I,j).......
IHH~'¡·s~~rh¡:m ti4
T",sujafÚCclII'al
N
t,
'"
~Rj~
'" "'. ~ 1iL 91 (50)
""." '" -rom (204)
,.i t t". ,.m 350 (232)
SG (42) m' "" t)lf
50 (260) - ,--,_I~,
51 (96}~I;~",N~
í~~~;;·
tQ::
""
InKt::ï.E~ttinl~ # 15
Ta~sajaI'lJ¡D¡jbll:¡
h,t"""",Ui,,,,#W
lJough"rty/j,ssn \VB Off Ramp
'...1,)'
_?<1
ù~ ,....
8~~·
......'.!.. ...
~~~
"'.-
",'
Jnw"""Ü"" #:11
lI<)pyorj!_~!~i~_~:n~ Ramp
¡;,'
¡.&'~
~='
-'--if¡
æ-
..¿
816 }395)J t ("
!ffi2 ,35m -.. f¡¡¡Q'
b(!)
~!.;;'
.f'.v ~'.~
¿~
f::[j ç":
fK;.....,....~
::::.G};.::
;r;::;:~; '"97 (179)
'"<t" ~,.. W· _____ 205 (535)
,..J.t-. '" 527 (802)
166(414)-' ~ t I"" .
21$(374)--~->
413(Ùi49)-'" ~2ê
~'::~
~'" R:' ~ ~
1>L 740 (004;
..- 80G (617ì
1~
N-
_t-,~
~~-r::
tn "'..
æÞi
rm=~.
iLEGEND
. Study Intersection
o Approved/Pending Project
Project
XX AM Peak Hotlr VOltlmè
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
,_. "./. "...wm
H,h"¡ I
<,:~...'r.:-(·ilrmû¡
¡»:f1":W'~«(¡
.)''i~m"f't.}",',
¡'{Æ(ë:·1;ir'i(il)i¡ (~W1'j.:'f
~. 'n ^.
.,
~r.
,
/.~
Project ,,'
Sit. ~
\ ~
"'....
~
~~,(.~ ~* j:x.',;::;f
.~
'{
~;;.~::
"i¡
I
X:~-_..
/ I~\~
~~,
\';F.
\j;.,
¡4ii;:¡m~. I'¡IJ;:t.
.'\i~;> H
}¡:::JCl
.wlt'J:
Ä
. ~
..
'!
F· 919 ...~è,1
19ure . : ,_\,jJ
East County Government Center Site / Site I5A
Baseline + Scenario Al
Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
l<\t,,,~('ni<m iffi
[f¡¡dendw!··5BO EB Off Ram
-----~..-....."-_...
,.
h.
~~~~
æ~
,..J+
I" 103 (\121)"'" .. +
1.213 (656),"", Ä·¿
¡ ö,·
[' ',_0
;n~
NW
,n
¡Ht{~ ',I,j{~f ¡o:n #12
Mad! awEm!!"r
~..,. (:<) ~"J
¡;~ ~> ~;~ .... 5 ('4 J
,¡.;-' t '-. r 1 (Mi)
?(6ì_ "it~
12 (44), ;:c;::;::-
~.~,~,.
"~'~'
'<Jí ~
'"
¡r¡Kf$"',~t'th:m tiN
T~"'~~i¡¡r¡¡jl-580 WII O f IIm;!)p
[;:{~
","'v
~~si
""'"
æ_~s.
, 1>....623 (514;
",I F 764 (!i52)
-"
~~.
U) "1""
"H"
'!""W
d.;::·
~~ ;2
~
.~.....~. .............--
~ ~ '" ~ '. . ., f ~ ~ 7 ~ .... ~ ^' ^
!,/.:,~:-i'" g;m<.:h
Àj~»::.H...íC
: f
\;)
:~
_~.___~_ ~,w¡
SOURCE: TJKM I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.17: East County Government Center Site - Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Baseline Plus Scenario A1 . Juvenile Justice Facility with 420 beds and
E C t H II f J f ·th 13 C rt
ast ounty a 0 us Ice WI ou rooms
Signalized Intersections
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection
v/c LOS v/c LOS
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.95 E 1.16 F
1
(with extension of Scarlett Drive) 0.75 C 0.99 E
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.53 A 0.64 B
3 1 0.29 A 0.37 A
Arnold Road/Central Parkway
6 Hacienda Drive/I~580 Eastbound Ramps 0.62 B 0.51 B
7 Hacienda Drive/I·580 Westbound Ramps 0.70 B 0.68 B
8 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.78 C 0.76 C
9 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.47 B 0.71 C
10 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.61 B 0.54 A
13 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 0.69 C 0.50 A
14 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 0.70 C 0.66 B
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.68 B 0.94 E
15 (convert an EB through lane to right-turn
lane) 0.74 C 0.82 D
16 Dougherty Road/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.59 A 0.56 A
17 Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp 0.59 A 0.50 A
18 Tassajara Roadll-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.78 C 0.84 D
19 Santa Rita Roadll-580 Eastbound/Pimlico 0.83 D 0.90 D
Unsignalized Intersections
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Delay Delay
sec./veh. LOS sec./veh. LOS
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 8.4 A 10.2 B
5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard 7.4 A 7.4 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive * * * *
11
~ Southbound Madigan Approach (11.3) (B) ( 11.9) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.1 A 7.3 A
Note: vie'" volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service;
X.X (XX) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
*HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Resulting Level of Significance: With the extension of Scarlett Drive to connect
Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard
intersection would improve, but is expected to continue to operate unacceptably (LOS E)
during the p.m. peak hour due to background traffic growth. Additional mitigation at the
intersection of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard is not feasible due to physical
constraints at this location and this impact is significant and Wlavoidable.
. Mitigation Measure 9.1.5b: Modify Configuration of Tassajara Road I Dublin
Blvd. Intersection. The Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection is expected to
operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour with Baseline traffic and with Project-
generated traffic. The COWlty should contribute a fair share of funding toward the
conversion of an eastbound through lane to a third right-turn lane (the same mitigation
recommended under the Baseline scenario).
Resulting Level of Significance. The conversion of an eastbound through lane to a third
right-turn lane (the same mitigation recommended under the Baseline scenario) would
improve operations to LOS D (v/c = 0.82), or acceptable conditions, and mitigate this
impact to a level of less than significant.
Scenario A2 - Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 Beds and East County Hall
of Justice with 13 Courtrooms at the East County Government Center Site
Alternative Description
Scenario A2 includes the development of a Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 beds and the
proposed East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms at the East County Government Center
site. Site 15A would not be developed under this scenario.
Trip Generation
Table 9.18 summarizes the trip generation calculations for the Scenario A2. This scenario is
estimated to generate approximately 9,864 daily trips, 1,326 a.m. peak hour trips and 1,299 p.m.
peak hour trips on a typical weekday. In addition, the estimated number of daily trips for a
typical Saturday is presented.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution assumptions were previously described under the existing plus Scenario Al
conditions.
Results of level of Service Analysis
The resulting Baseline plus Scenario A2 peak hour turning movement volumes are shown on
Figure 9.20. Table 9.19 presents a summary of peak hour levels of service at the study
intersections Wlder this scenario.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9~61
Chapter 9: Transportation
Under Scenario A2, 17 of 19 study intersections are expected to continue to operate acceptably
during the peak hours. Two intersections are expected to continue to operate unacceptably with
the Scenario A2 project trips: Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard, and Tassajara RoadlDublin
Boulevard. These intersections would also operate unacceptably under Baseline conditions
without the Project, so a fair share contribution is reasonable, as opposed to full funding by the
County.
. Mitigation Measure 9.1.5c: Fair Share Contribution Toward Local Roadway
Extension and Intersection Improvements. The same mitigation outlined under
Mitigation Measures 9.1.5a and 9.1.5b (Scenario Al above) would apply to Scenario A2.
Table 9.18: East County Government Center Site - Trip Generation - Scenario A2
Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 Beds and East County Hall of Justice with 13 Courtrooms
Saturday Weekday Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Daily
Project Trip Trip Trip In:Out Trips Trip In:Out Trips
Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Ratio Ratio
In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Juvenile
Justice
Facility 3.12 1,685 7.27 3.925 1.14 83:17 511 105 616 1.09 10:90 59 530 589
(540
beds)
East
County
Hall of
Justice 0 0 456.80 5,938 54.62 82:18 582 128 710 54.62 24:76 170 540 710
(13
courts)
Total . 1,685 . 9,864 . . 1,093 232 1,326 . . 229 1,069 1,299
Note: Rates for the Juvenile Justice Facility were calculated based on the number of trips estimated for these uses.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Intefooøkm , I
DoU 1hcrtylDubUo
'"
_E§"
qu')~
;:;;~¡;{ \,.,377 (166)
N~'" -467 (980)
~+t.. ,.261 (867)
31 (74)J "" t..,
839 (975) -+ .l~I~
452 (553)" ¡g ~ æ
~,o~-=..
øSO')
¡g"':J5
m
Jnterooølon #7
Hadcndall-580 WB Off Ramp
00"
~....
'o..~ '*~
--
fš~ ,-845 (301)
... + ,,953 (494)
tr'"
<,¡M'
&1~
~_.
""'"
g¡;;
Ñ
Ioter.e<1;..n'13
Ta,"'IIIjarajG¡ea.~on
¿
"'--
~~g
~¡..¡;; '-.40(17)
"'~~ +-51(38)
~t~ ,,301 (1$2)
91 (253) J "1 t r'"
41 (65)-+ ,--
118 (242) -.. ~ ª ~
Gî'~
"'¡g~
Inl".!'Secllon #19
Santa RitafJ·580 J:fVI'inùlco
,;;&
~~ç
....,;R
~~~
¡;¡""::: \"390 (381)
~.~ r154 (128)
.221 (1,155).Jf 1.1'"
147 (421~ <ð¡;¡-
578 (275)" ~::.
......
"'3
¡¡:¡..
~
..
North
No! to Scale
)j,.<;¡"..;....
~ ..' .........."'<\~j.
a
;.'....'
¡ ¡""''Ih.'Nf
: Ülm'{"fflll«,1
L'.'_:~:~:¡::~"";1 ~~~ft_n n nn ~~ ~~~ ,1'l~__ -~-~~'~
S ~QW<H ~ü~), g,t~~,~~:Q
~ ~~~: 10 ~~,'Z~;~7::::" __ U"';';}:--' ..,
ProJ_t i B.,I..,,1"'" ..... / """",. ,
i .i<..i...... '.om.M n.",I. ."". ; , '
"'~\,> ~:r Site\¿, ~ (.:.,......"'....~...'...'..~.'."..~.".....f:W...~.... .' 1Lc '"~:'~'" ~\
,ó.,. I" ...cc,""'....·¡~ , .-
.;", . .......,~ .' ,·-..O......Ioii...-. ............*...."""'..... ...;
~ ,., \ ....¥IIIiItoF..)
(.Œi.1:\'if.l.W :% \ZCr't~mh'~',::,,',:',",,',':·:jf"· ·:.15 ¡
..::> ....... ...;............1.1.....;......... ¡.'. ...J< ,,".
.......- ~"
....:.; ........... .';1-;:;-' :/Þ1lY L\'!I. :
N"~"':'.. .... "/>... = 1"""'>/ ,~;
"
~~ 1: ... '-,{ ;,;;..""""
· ~ ''24'
~ ..{#
Inter"'dlon #2
ArnoldlDublin
loterWCUon #3
Arnold/Central
Imm$~ctløn #4
AmokVCIf'.a"""
'" -
:;; :f;
~:::::. ~ 159 ¡20).
...<0'" +-728 1.450
~ + ~ 1'"'243 37)
547 (112)J ~tr'"
1937 (1.617\- ;;¡r:::;;;
446 (68\" '" ~'"
~JN£:!.
~ '"
'" '"
i','
7.¡¡
!£ii ~ 125(25)
+t.. ,.50 (147)
=v-
"'"'
::: :!,
-""
~N
~ffi ~ 166(64)
+1,." ,,32(14)
tr'"
M"S'
~C
~'"
îª
se
Jnleto;eÒion *8
Haclenda/HubUn
~
Ioten;eclion #II
Ha~íendalÇentta)
"
'"
N
N~_
~-'"
;;;~:::.- '- 12 (5)
N"'" -60(15)
;o! + t,.. ,,141 (205)
17 (24)J "itr""
10 (55)- ~~'._-
52 (393)" :g¡g~
~.........-
"'~'"
""'"''
"i
1"1.",,,,<lio.. #15
Ta""'Ja¡a/l)u ) jn
InWT!Wr1;'¡O '16
fjougbt'rtyil·§80 WII Off Ramp
~
~,.
~~~ '- 740 (664)
;o!~ ,,807 (621)
t~
"'~
~""
~.......~
Imer<;et1loo '10
Hadl'ndaIGJea"""
'"
~'~,¡
~::..::
""-
,.,""
"0'>
¡;;';:' ~ 100 (21)
""N +-150(34)
+ t,.. ,,2.59 (402)
31 (133) - "1 t r'"
26 (99) ~ Ñ$'iii
"''''''''
-......-...........r-..¡:
N Q) ~--
"I:t"U)~
"'--""=t'l(-
'"
~~g;: "-.77(32)
~It:- +-1.075(753
It' .1,.,. ,,348 (383)
61~1~~¡::; )1Ç
167 (426) .. ;;5;:; ""
t!t;.,t?.
g~~
~q'\"""
In'e,-,;eçti..n 114
Ta.ssô\jara/C~nltal
~
'"
~;;~
;::'[¡;.::: ~..91 (50)
",....,. _56(204)
~ t t,.. "360 (232)
96 (42)J "1 t I'"
50 (260\-~--.
51 (96)" :::'¡¡j¡;¡
~¿;.
:r:::
¡;¡
;;"[;1:;;;-
"'~'"
;;-i.m "-.96 (179)
......... _206 (535)
,.J + t.. Õ 527 (802)
166 (414)J ~tJ"
218 (375):::'" """ 6"
413 (1,649)" tg~:g
;;";¿;-
[{};:¡!:
'"
--
g'"
"'.:q
LEGEND
. Study IntersÐction
c:::J Approved/Pending Project
Project
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
(
.~i
I _.-, l/
,- .
'-"U~__.m.mU'· ; ~
.'W(1¡'ld ~ff{f
N~J¡uf¡iI¡,'I;1fi(J!I f'mfKf'
: .!!'J'<--
.i·
....
ò
'"
'.
2
g
~
.
~~..
..~
~t
1l,1kf
Figure 9.20 ,.!il~z:1
East County Government Center Site / Site 15A
Baseline + Scenario A2
Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
Inr(!n;~"''1i1.:m .5
Al1IoWBmdcr
8
e::;;'@: "-.4 (4)
<\1M'/,) -3(6)
~ + t.. "16 (36)
5(3)J"iti'"
11 (12)- C¡;'$"¡;)
32 (107)" !:<.;;~
g"'::;
IntersecUon f II
Mad \anlGI~"~",,
i'-,,," J
~5£-
.,'"
~~ "-.66(56)
~ ~ +-389 (163)
84 (41}J
108 ($48)-
Jnt~rseci¡on * 17
HopyanVI·5RO EB Off Ramp
1Õ~
~~
~.
839 (398)J t I'"
962 (350)" ~~
cigj
~~
.
......
.,.i....
.....
-.
~.' .
......... '0,;
.......
.........
lJublm J.t..a~.~.h
'~_'" Area D
..."...",..".....
.... ...........
..... .........
.
.....
......
.......
.. .
. .
.....
·:·.·:···...i. ....'. ··i.
....
l:
, ., 'C·,·.. _ '~ . _ _ _ _ . __ - .
t:)IJt.din 1\#I(b
.o\r¢¡. H.
Iml'rnt><:Uon #6
Had~nda/l·580 EB OIT Ramp
'"
.,
_.N
(~.,..;
~;Q'
oj¡;
....
;,.
,140 (925)_" ~l
,213 (656)" ;Z¡:
¿~.
""'"
2::;
¡",,,.....dion tlZ
Madlp:anlllrnder
~§:§:
000 _5(4)
~+~ ,,1 (66)
7 (6)_ "'¡t r'"
12 (45)" :;;;-.:;;;-ç
"'--
-'N~
o '"
'"
hllt'fSf"ction , 18
TaS5a a¡-.¡,I -580 WB Off Ramp
1Z;;¡
~."
6ti
~c
,~
..~. "-.628 (514)
:;... ,,764 (552)
I ,tJ!
"'~
"""
-U>
~""
",0
.......
~.
';
- ,.....~
,-
"
...... ·...i. .'
>,,,;.:: .'
.""""'"
Ä;:;;'
,::;;
" ........ ....
..............
':"
,
,
I"'V~~ -~~-i'~~___N~~_
-
;"
;~
Æ
:O~ m~k
A~.!i~ t~&(.'
J ~ - -.....
'.
"
'.
-,/~
l
SOURCE: TJKM I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.19: East County Government Center Site - Peak Hour Intersection levels of Service
Baseline Plus Scenario A2 . Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 beds
d E t C t H II f J f ·th 13 C rt
an as ounty a 0 us Ice WI ou rooms
Signalized Intersections
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
IC Intersection
v/c LOS vlc LOS
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.97 E 1.17 F
1
(with extension of Scarlett Drive) 0.81 D 1.00 E
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.54 A 0.66 B
3 Arnold Road/Central Parkway 0.29 A 0.38 A
6 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.62 B 0.61 B
7 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps 0.71 C 0.68 B
8 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.80 C 0.78 C
9 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.49 A 0.74 C
10 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.66 B 0.57 A
13 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 0.70 B 0.51 A
14 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 0.70 B 0.66 B
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.68 B 0.94 E
15
(convert an EB through lane to right-turn lane) 0.74 C 0.82 D
16 Dougherty Road/I~580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.59 A 0.56 A
17 Hopyard Road/l-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp 0.59 A 0.50 A
18 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.78 C 0.84 D
19 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound/Pimlico 0.83 D 0.90 D
Unslgnallzed Intersections
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
IC Intersection Delay Delay
sec./veh. LOS sec./veh. LOS
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 8.6 A 10.6 B
5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard 7.4 A 7.5 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive '" '" '" '"
11
- Southbound Madigan Approach (11.4 ) (B) (11.9) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.2 A 7.3 A
Note: vlc = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service;
X.X (X.X) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
"'HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-64
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Scenario B - Only the East County Hall of Justice at the East County
Government Center Site
Alternative Description
Scenario B would include development of only the East County Hall of Justice at the East
County Government Center site. Site 15A would not be developed in this scenario, and the
Juvenile Justice Facility would be located elsewhere in the County, beyond the area of influence
in Dublin.
Trip Generation
Table 9.20 summarizes the trip generation calculations for the Scenario B. This scenario is
estimated to generate approximately 5,938 daily trips, 710 a.m. peak hour trips and 710 p.m.
peak hour trips on a typical weekday.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution assumptions were previously described under the Existing plus Scenario Al
conditions.
Results of level of Service Analysis
The resulting Baseline plus Scenario B peak hour turning movement volumes are shown on
Figure 9.21. Table 9.21 presents a summary of peak hour levels of service at the study
intersections under this scenario.
Under Scenario B, 17 of 19 study intersections are expected to continue to operate acceptably
during the peak hours.
Two intersections are expected to continue to operate unacceptably with the Scenario B project
trips: Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, and Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard. These
intersections would also operate unacceptably under Baseline conditions without the Project, so a
fair share contribution is reasonable, as opposed to full funding by the County.
. Mitigation Measure 9.1.5d: Fair Share Contribution Toward Local Roadway
Extension and Intersection Improvements. The same mitigation outlined under
Mitigation Measures 9.1.5a and 9.1.5b (Scenario Al above) would apply to Scenario B.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-65
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.20: East County Government Center Site - Trip Generation - Scenario B
East County Hall of Justice Only
Saturday Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Daily Daily
Project Trips Trips
Size Trip Trip Trip In:Out Trip In:Out
Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Ratio In Out Tot Rate Ratio In Out Total
al
East
County
Hall of
Justice 0 0 456.80 5,938 54.62 82:18 582 128 710 54.62 24:76 170 540 710
(13
courts)
Total - 0 . 5,938 - . 582 128 710 . - 170 540 710
Note: Rates for the project were calculated based on the total number of trips estimated for the use.
Scenario C1 - Juvenile Justice Facility with 420 Beds at the East County
Government Center Site and the East County Hall of Justice at Site 15A
Alternative Description
The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility with 420 beds would be located at the East County
Government Center site, and the proposed East County Hall of Justice with 13 courtrooms would
be located at Site 15A. Site 15A is bounded by Central Parkway to the north, Arnold Road to the
west, Dublin Boulevard to the south and the existing Sybase office development to the east.
Trip Generation
Table 9.22 summarizes the trip generation calculations for Scenario C1. The proposed Project is
estimated to generate a total of8,991 daily trips from the two sites combined, 1,189 a.m. peak
hour trips and 1,168 p.m. peak hour trips on a typical weekday. In addition, the estimated
number of daily trips for a typical Saturday is presented.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution assumptions were previously described under the Existing plus ScenarioA1
conditions, above.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-66
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ime¡ooctlo" '1
Dougherly/l)ubUn
'"
-,.~
"'",«>
~8.~ ~371 (740)
_ i'L t' ....461 (954)
#< ,.... r238 (749) _
81~1Jj~ì{. ~!~
452 (553}" ~ é;.:g,
¢)~~
¡g~[¡:;
IlI1e...."'II"" . 7
Hadendall-580 WB Off Ramp
"''''"
~~
~g 1Irt..B02(296)
1"953 (494)
1~
....'"
~~
'"'~
"''''
......
"'!'"
Inlef$eCOon . 13
Tassajara/Gleason
~~
O>_~
:!.",g
~g¡~ 1Irt..40 (17)
"'~ ~ -55 (:reI
~ la. ,.307(152)
66 (226)-1 ~fr
1~Æg~¡" ¡¿-8~-
:::";:ftt'!.
~-<£)
0>",'"
~¡¡¡~
Imersectlon .19
Santa Rita/l·580 EBlPimllco
0>
m~-R
'"'~æ
¿~-
cn~O)
¡:;"'"'~ "-.390 (381~
~ la. ,r154 (128~
.221 (1.155 Jl 4, ¡f.( II
147 (421 ~
578 (275" ~~ _
~;'!;
~~
.,......
..
North
Not to Scale
Intersectlo" n
AmoJdlOuûlin
Inli'rseulon .3 101NM'Ctlon .4 Im"rset1loo .5 nrer""Clion fG
AmoWCenlrnl """"WIG...""""" Amold/Bmdt'r Hadenda/J.580 Ell ott Ramp
'"
ilL '"
~1 -~'"
6' '" -
0>.,. ~.~
--00 ~..,~
",-- ..,-'" 1Irt..
'IT"'¡ ___ t;; ¡¡;; "'-129 (59) -"'- 4¡4) ~~
-,,, 111 ~23) "''''''' _36)
tl-.. r50 ( 47) +l... ".32 (14) ~t"" "14{26) ~-
t( tf 5(3)-" "1tf 972 {9(6)J ~t
fiM'" Œ£ 11 (12)¿- $$'Ñ ,213 (656)-... 00;"
;:~ .~.~ 32 (107) ~ S;;;'~ "'...
~;? "H'" g"~ f".;,q
'" '-~''''''''
"'''' "''''
'" ""'"
Ime""'ctlon 1/9 10(".-..,,,11,,,, f I 0 bltexscctlno .11 Interwctlnn fi Z
Hacknda/C"mml Hacienda/Gleason Mad an/Gleason MadlganIRro<!e¡
¡;:;
-'" ~g
C\i~_,
,... "'-"It) ~§:E
';;-;;!i:::' 1Irt.. 12 (5) "''''
"'...'" ....60 (15) ~ ~ "-..62 (56\ 000 ....5(4)
~t~ r141 (20S) K l... ....310 (154) ~tla. ,.1 (66)
17(24)-1 "1tf 71(39)-1 7(6) "'Itf
10 (55)- ~-- 92 (46!\)- 12 {41}" ;;::;:::::
49 (380)" gr;¡ g <'>--
-N'I'""
"'-- $!g;; ... <D
~<-'" "
"'g.... ~NO
'"
'"- ~
N N
"'--
;;::-;; '-_ 145 (18)
"'/1';-: .... 704 (1.328
~'" ,.243 37)
500 {107)""", "1 t (
820 (1,603)::Þ' ---~
445 (58)"",, ¡;jt:.g>¡
~N~
- '"
'" ""
Io,e!$ettinn 'H
H.<le,¡¡ amublln
""
...,-
.;:.'~.~
Ç".) 1"'- T-
N'......-
;:;:;;t;; 1Irt.. 75 (31)
"'/7 í:" _1,075 (753
#< ,... r 348 (383)
168 {180)Jl "'Iff
18 (1,482) ;;;:.¡;¡-;¡
165 (413)-" ¡g,gri
"'~...
~...~
Interse,1ion '14 Inters"uion , 15 Imerscuion # 16 Im"",",clioil .17 illtersectio" # 18
Tassajara!Ceooal TaS&\lnrnlDttbUn Doughertyll·S80 WH OIfRamp Hopyardll-580 Ell Off Ramp r."$8jar'¡/¡·580 WB Olf Ramp
M N '" ~ <'>~
ã';'~Õ:; ,- "'...
"" ~~ -". -<'>
~.;;~ Ë;:'E. ~,~ ~ci-
;::-~;::' "'-91 (50) ",~:r. ~95 (179) -~ "-.740 ¡664) ~~ \t..604 1512!
o::>~.. _56(204) ... ~ ~ ....204 (535! ¡it Œ~
..-I.l... ,.360(232) ~ t "" ,-527 (802 ,- 804 6(0) K ;;.~. ,-764 552
96 (42!-I "'Iff 166(4141-" ~tr { 7361386)-1 tf'" t'
50 (260 - --- 217 (373 - ~-- "'~ 962 350) -... S:;r :;i.~
51 (96)" ~~;; 413 {1,649 -... ~,ª.~ g.:::. 8&1: ~'"
('\ : ...;,"--" ._~ ct;:-
<-_ill R~g ...- ci;; gg
~;: ...'" ffl;
tr.~t- ..... FJ "1
LEGEND
. Study Intersection
c:::J ApprovedlPending Project
Project
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
...... .. ~ ~-
.',
,,<
. ~ _.. ~ ~... M _ _".. _ ^
"."
,
:('.·;,:t
......~
/ ,.:::~~:".,
i2 ...,.,»
1fÏf!~«(I.., ..!:~.:, ":':.':"
~('''''J,..Ah ~1iI ..~
Ytml r;;::;:/~~':".
"
- "c.~'~;';';';\. " -",'
Duhbn R.3n~ .
AtI!af
ji.ì.~kr.....f
Ü,,";(·("tt(~R¡
ltt#~i"l.(ti(1J/
J;ø"fU'W~
Jh#¡)/.titirwj¡J~ C¡:-;.U;¡'I'
~--~~~,.,~_.&_---
~
~
Projeçt
~~!iI'nt14!.
,.
::1
~... <$;
'.~
'.:"
"~
(~/mfÌ
f\rl't.\
-W~i--~~--·_~
:~
!)\!Nin ~b : ;
A~~I¡iO&.~ ..r"" _J~.. ~...~
"' r ~ ~
'"
~
Š
"
~~!i ßL~,
SOURCE: TJKM I
Figure 9.21 'J~\¡I
East County Government Center Site / Site 15A
Baseline + Scenario B
Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.21: East County Government Center Site - Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Baseline Plus Scenario B - East County Hall of Justice Only
Signalized Intersections
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection
v/c LOS v/c LOS
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.88 D 1.12 F
1
(with extension of Scarlett Drive) 0.74 C 0.96 E
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.51 A 0.61 B
3 Arnold Road/Central Parkway 0.25 A 0.34 A
6 Hacienda Drivell-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.62 B 0.60 A
7 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Westbound Ramps 0.67 B 0.68 B
8 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.69 B 0.72 C
9 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.39 A 0.62 B
10 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.44 A 0.43 A
13 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 0.67 B 0.49 A
14 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 0.70 B 0.66 B
Tassajara RoadlDublin Boulevard 0.68 B 0.94 E
15
(convert and EB through lane to right-turn lane) 0.74 C 0.82 D
16 Dougherty Road/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.59 A 0.56 A
17 Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off·Ramp 0.59 A 0.50 A
18 Tassajara Roadll-580 Westbound Off~Ramp 0.78 C 0.83 D
19 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound/Pimlico 0.83 D 0.90 D
Unsignalized Intersections
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Delay Delay
sec./veh. LOS sec.lveh. LOS
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 7.9 A 8.9 A
5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard 7.4 A 7.4 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive * * * *
11
~ Southbound Madigan Approach (10.9) (B) (11.5) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.2 A 7.3 A
Note: vlc = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service;
X.X (X.X) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
*HCM 2000 mpthodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one~way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9·68
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.22: East County Government Center Site and Site 15A - Trip Generation - Scenario C1
Juvenile Justice Facility (420 beds) and East County Hall of Justice
Saturday Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Daily Daily
Project Trips In:O Trips
Trip Trip Trip In:Out Trip
Size Trips Trips ut
Rate Rate Rate Ratio In Out Total Rate Ratio In Out Total
Trips generated from the East County Government Center site
Juvenile
Justice
Facility 3.12 1,310 7.27 3.053 1.14 83:17 397 81 479 1.09 10:90 46 412 458
(420
beds)
Trips generated from Site 15A
East
County
Hall of 0 0 456.80 5,938 54.62 82:18 582 128 710 54.62 24:76 170 540 710
Justice
(13
courts)
Total - 1,310 - 8,991 - - 980 209 1,189 - - 216 952 1,168
Note: Rates for the Juvenile Justice Facility were calculated based on the number of trips estimated for these uses.
Results of Level of Service Analysis
The resulting Baseline plus Scenario Cl peak hour turning movement volumes are shown on
Figure 9.22. Table 9.23 presents a summary of peak hour levels of service at the study
intersections under this scenario.
Under Scenario C I, 17 of 19 study intersections are expected to continue to operate acceptably
during the peak hours. Two intersections are expected to continue to operate unacceptably with
the Scenario Cl project trips: Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, and Tassajara Road/Dublin
Boulevard. These intersections would also operate unacceptably under Baseline conditions
without the Project, so a fair share contribution is reasonable, as opposed to full funding by the
County.
. Mitigation Measure 9.1.5e: Fair Share Contribution Toward Local Roadway
Extension and Intersection Improvements. The same mitigation as outlined
under Mitigation Measures 9.1.5a and 9.1.5b (Scenario Al above) would apply to
Scenario C 1.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-69
1"I"roocH"" # I
n"'¡gheHyln"bfln
10M~r~fHo.n #2
A1n',hVj}"b!!"
f{~-~' I ¡g-_J~
;::;"'¡::,¡ \,375(761)' ¡;:j::.-¡g ~2.73(S3)
N~(" -4$51975,' i ,.."". +$$4{U9:9:
#... r.... Î'ZH(1 {B56) i _...¿l~,,!.24;¡ ..(F)
31 (74)_4 "'1tf ,. f?1j7(1551';!!¡'''1flX
333 (975):+ '-.;;::- 7 ¡ 7 (1,1>.75)-. ...,.."....
452 (553) " g;;: R 446 (68\ "\. g t;;;.¡g
:;'~r~ i J 2,N:;
æQili ~ ø
Imt'!S"Chw! n
fhod"nda,+580 Wi! Off Ra':!E
"""',
tPN
""""
.,.,...' 'V""~~
hHer~e¡;ji(jt1 $U I
_._....I~.g~~'~~~~~E!·~'~···~l
...
;).&1~ 0
!;::.~'"::,. ¡
,;'gt;; It. 75 1:\1)
I~'"jr -1,080(155
~,. r... Î348 (383.)
125I1S2¡_4·1tf
$19 (Ú67)7 ;"6'1:'
191 m:W! " ""ww
. ~:-9..X~,
rN
:2.;¡, \..810 (293)
~... ¡¢'953 (494)
i(
Nn
ð}~·
~~~.
j'o.... ~~
ËI~:j
,¡
I",,,,,,,,,"!m, #]:¡
la.':i"iajar:íi/Gkasíill
,-,*
~i,g
;;;cJ.;; '- 40 (17\
(~,..~ -%(3¡¡:
#-t r... r3úi ¡Ü¡Z)
83(219).-" "1tr"
41 (64)- .-,-,_.
103 (17$;". § 8 ~
;; ~~,;;;~.
\'.v..m ~Q
'-5;-
"_wt-'...
~{'>l(j
;,('Ji").''I(''''
l.nhjrsnctÎon t 14
1''''.jar¡¡fC''''tfa.l
'"
~~~.~
;£~;:1'-91 í(0)
,. ,. "" ....i\1J (205)
.J" I""r300 123:.!¡
102 (69) _1t ."" t (f'
51 12€4}'""""..,,-,-,
52 (9a)~. Ë~~
Zi:(t;'·
w.,,·
...~
b
kllCr>cdioo . ¡ 9 i
5¡¡¡¡la RJt¡¡fI,·ó8U UIIPlmlkoi
¡
11I!~"",ç¡hn n
Arnold!Cmm a¡
i,(,\
f":¡ ~~,
(")"".
'......-~-r.,
j.(~ .:.....~.
;! ~';j 'It..10e (20',
.. I"" L ae (246)
tf
6;-;~'"
~_E.
81;:-Í
",n
hltì;!'fS(~tlkm .fB
fhldeod/¡/C"njra.l
_ov..-=.t
~~ !;..),
!::?J~.>;¡.-;' ~
"'_:::1" 1"'1~)
ç'cr; '- ~\~~
__.~N .'4if'-91 (2m
.II .t....ìr 141 (20S)
~ ¡~~\~I"."J. f"."
16 1495)" ~ +. 8
" ';:':?,t}.
"*' Ç$, ~"?
W~·;j)
¡"lq·,,~{Ii(lO t·]"
1b"\I"~""IM'¡¡"
~'
~'·~·ri
;;:;~tii 'L94 (178)
.,.~... ......206(535)
,01 f:"" r 527 (Mll)
166 (414¡..ß "" t r
218 1'375¡ '"""" '-. ,~..."
, _ Ö~",fQ
414 (1,652 '" ~g;~
72 .:~g
\'::>2~
LEGEND
. $tuØy Inter$ectlon
D Approllodn>ending Projøct
Project
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Vølume
, " ," ".,,"' ¡
) >:~h~",,¡ 1 ítl'h«~l~i~;i)~~i("~','ff;~.'
~ <1<"':';""~"W:~i
f~~~r.:{tff!ii
,... " ¡ ... ~ ~ ~~,;»'.ji;,~.;~.R U">'
~--tl 10
/ "'¡i~ffl¡~ ~~~,
('(i:'~ í}¡,'
Project ~ii,Ú1lM.~ hwk
Sit.
\
'-,-
'....
-,fi
g".~
~:~R¡:
"""M~! j
þ;".:!::: 1'390 (391j
.11..1 r...~' 154 (1211)
1.221 0~t55µr ..t;;~~· !
147 (421 )~-_. I
5113 (291}" ~. ~ I'
--
"~..~ i
mm.. mmmm..mmm ....m.~.w..m
~"'
,">0
~~
{;»n¡>
{',iI'/.:-;
íì
North
Not 10 Sea1e
g.:titr
>.
'\)"-
"'\;\~
.;~;
.-;\,....;.....:
I" '::ot
,,-'"
i
$ ~
¥
]m~t"I{:!I""14
ArnoW"",.",,,,
tOIf'I''Sf'-f.Hon #5
An¡oWtlrod~r
,~,:.¿'
(t)}.¡-,:-
~!..'-::-,
g~" '1'-116 (50j
'~~j
¡ t,~
¡f:'~
}~:;~'
'"
6'
8:;;0. ~494)
''''?''"' ......3 {(ìj
~tr... r14 (24)
''';;(::;)':::;' ;;;l~"""
11 (12,...... '-'-'""
12 (107) "'\ 1:~'&
g~?~i
.I"lerM,rt)(,.n t HJ
H:ãdt>nd<).!(;¡c~ s(jr
(¡¡wro¡euk", #1\
M.adjga~I!Gh!,¡,1son
-
v~
~t, ......
'F <::~
;':;'7 IlL 36 (4)
M ,,, .._ 1:16 (30)
',¡, i,." ,.-" 301 (2/2;
211 (119)·,. ~ t IX
18 (56)-" 0!æi}¡
;~"';:.'~~;::!
Q'¡--""U)
""'<""~
r2f~J
'<,.!'",
',' 'L()1 (55)
þ' r... -360 (156)
6i3 (36),.,,t
1U2 (518) -
-~-~~..............._~
¡"kNcdirm ·~H¡
J1ough«rl)!158D WB Off Ramp
,
",x
\!Ie::::
~...t-,.
",",
,.. q '-140 (664\
')1 ,'$02 (602;
J(
~;:
~~---:.
¡n({!rS(~!tion #11
U<>w,mIl1·$8(j Œ f)fllb,,,,p
^".
~~
f2~.
~~
)~
816{395}.ß tr
%2 (35ot'\ t::>
Ii ¡~,~~.
(¿~
."^"".~..'
~~ ~f)
("~t'"
".
~ , ~ . - ,,"
: ... 7;;~:~í.~~"/'\
\ DiJMm:R..m¡:,h <
>\I..,~ r '
"
,.:)
~~, ~
~.:
~ :
~
"
. .' ~ !;:!¿~,\
M~'
¡1iM...
. ~~').;i¡:~m,,·~ /
··"19¥.·
r)(~td:i]'1 k,w.:~h
A\![~<t H
m~.~~~.~......~.'.
Figure 9.22 I)~~I
East County Government Center Site / Site 15A
Baseline + Scenario Cl
Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
~~~·~~·_w
lnt~rrsef.Üon #6
Ihd""d::!I·.'80 fl! Offlbmp
1-
¡..~.
,..,N
(.t.) ,
J!~'
I,(1W; P;¡J!)}_,~. " '. '..
1.21;; ,6M)"" 8T=
~':" (:).
~~,...;
1.",?~'
¡ril<'nWrti{ , #12
M"d¡gI~Jj""kr
~:,(?,t:'..
~-:::}. >.:> C: .....' 5- (4,~
,01.1"" r1 (f,{\)
7 (6) -.. ~ " ""
12 (411" dl.·i;::
{"':;õ "<~~'~,..-.
,.~.("..,j~
,0 f..;o).
,r
Imm",,,lim,i.IB
Tns'.þ::.J~ ',5,&0 WB Off Ramp i
m~ ~
::::d I
ß1ã I
:J,;: ....596 ¡S(6)
¥. r764 ,552\ ¡
i~ 1,
R:l!5
..wµ)
~g'
;¡;~ I
...""...¿..",,'"''
"
"
~ i~
~ .,:;
t.h~1iI~ ¡«~Mh , h
<~~~~ M;;,C l ¿
,^ ,,' 'I ,,,. -". ,
,^ ~- ^
/'''''''
I:;":::" \ ~~' '~-
"'.~ /"
-.... '
\
SOURCE: TJKM I
I
I
I
I
.......
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.23: East County Government Center Site and Site 15A
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Baseline Plus Scenario C1
Juvenile Justice Facility (420 Beds) and East County Hall of Justice
Signalized Intersections
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection
vlc LOS V/c LOS
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.96 E 1.16 F
1
(with extension of Scarlett Drive) 0.80 C 1.00 E
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.63 B 0.70 B
3 Arnold Road/Central Parkway 1 0.24 A 0.38 A
6 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.62 B 0.61 B
7 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps 0.70 B 0.68 B
8 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.69 B 0.74 C
9 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.43 A 0.66 B
1D Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.41 A 0.42 A
13 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 0.67 B 0.50 A
14 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 0.70 B 0.66 B
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.68 B 0.94 E
15
(convert and EB through lane to right-turn lane) 0.74 C 0.82 D
16 Dougherty Road/I-58D Westbound Off~Ramp 0.59 A 0.56 A
17 Hopyard Road/I-58D Eastbound Off-Ramp 0.59 A 0.50 A
18 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.77 C 0.83 D
19 Santa Rita Road/I~580 Eastbound/Pimlico 0.83 D 0.90 D
Unslgnalized Intersections
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Delay Delay
sec.lveh. LOS sec./veh. LOS
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 7.7 A 8.6 A
5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard 7.4 A 7.4 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive ... '" ... '"
11
- Southbound Madigan Approach (11.1) (B) (11.7) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.2 A 7.3 A
Note: v/c = volume to capacity ratio, LOS = Leve/ of Service;
X.X (X.X) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
"'HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-71
Chapter 9: Transportation
Scenario C2 - Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 Beds at the East County
Government Center and the East County Hall of Justice at Site 15A
Alternative Description
The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 beds would be located at the East County
Government Center site, and the proposed East County Hall of Justice would be located at Site
ISA.
Trip Generation
Table 9.24 summarizes the trip generation calculations for the proposed Scenario C2. The
proposed Project is estimated to generate a total of9,864 daily trips from the two sites combined,
1,326 a.m. peak hour trips and 1,299 p.m. peak hour trips on a typical weekday. Table 9.24 also
shows the number of vehicular trips for each Project site. In addition, the estimated number of
daily trips for a typical Saturday is presented.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution assumptions were previously described under the Existing plus Scenario Al
conditions.
Results of Level of Service Analysis
The resulting Baseline plus Scenario C2 peak hour turning movement volumes are shown on
Figure 9.23. Table 9.25 presents a sununary of peak hour levels of service at the study
intersections under this scenario.
Under Scenario C2, 17 of 19 study intersections are expected to continue to operate acceptably
during the peak hours. Two intersections are expected to continue to operate unacceptably with
the Scenario C2 project trips: Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, and Tassajara Road/Dublin
Boulevard. These intersections would also operate unacceptably under Baseline conditions
without the Project, so a fair share contribution is reasonable, as opposed to full funding by the
County.
Mitigation Measure 9.1.5f: Fair Share Contribution Toward Local Roadway
Extension and Intersection Improvements. The same mitigation as outlined under
Mitigation Measures 9.1.5a and 9.1.5b (Scenario Al above) would apply to Scenario C2.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-72
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.24: East County Government Center Site and Site 15A - Trip Generation - Scenario C2
Juvenile Justice Facility (540 Beds) and East County Hall of Justice
Saturday Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Project Daily Daily
Size Trip Trip Trip In:Out Trips Trip In:Out Trips
Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Ratio In Out Total Rate Ratio In Out Total
Trips generated from the East County Government Center site
Juvenile
Justice
Facility 3.12 1,685 7.27 3,925 1.14 83:17 511 105 616 1.09 10:90 59 530 589
(540
beds)
Trips generated from Site 15A
East
County
Hall of 0 0 456.8 5,938 54.62 82:18 582 128 710 54.62 24:76 170 540 710
Justice
(13
courts)
Total - 1,685 - 9,864 . - 1,093 232 1,326 - - 229 1,069 1,299
Note: Rates for the Juvenile Justice Facility were calculated based on the number of trips estimated for these uses.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-73
Intersec/inn III
Dnu¡¡heny/DllbJln
inwt'1lœlino '2
AmnJdlDubll"
¡nt""'eelinn f3 Inl,"""cctinn '4 Inr(>f$~ctlnn 115 Int=tion '6
Amold/Central AmukllGkw,nn AmoldlBmdt'/ Ifl1dcoda!l·580 EB OIJ Ramp
'"
'" '"
¡§fª _N
;1,- Ô ~~
,~ ~- -<'">-
"'~ ~;;;,,:, 'L4 (4)
:;!:¡::J ~109(21) :;:¡~ ~124(51) N<'">'" -3(6) ~~
t~ r88(246) t ~ ¡r33 (14) ,.1 t ~ "14 (26\ ;;.
tt" tr 5 (3{J ~ t ¡"" 1.124 !920)J ... +
ª~ ~,~ 11 (12 - --- 1,213 656)", ;if
32 (107)" &;;§ r-&C:.
~.,.. "'''' 0..,.", ,~-
<'>'" ... '" '"
~'" ~~
'"
Inrcn;ecrinn .9 JowrSl'Min" #!O inters..clinn *11 Inl/:"'''''lIol1 '12
Ifadenda/Cenlral Hacienda/Gleason Madigan/Gleason Mlldi¡(anIRmder
.......Œ ¡::-
~¡;;- ~&>J
'---U') N~ ~c:.~
¡:¡~~ 't. 12 (5) ;;;;; ~47 (5) "'''' ~,~~,
- '" -97 (26) ¡;;;. -139131) -- \..62 (55) 000 -5(4)
¥ t I,.. r 141'(205) ¡(" 3fJ7 3(0) ¥ I,.. ..-378 (160) ¥tl,.. ,01 (66)
34 (OO¡J "I t r"" 29 (122)-+ ""1 tr 69 J36! J 7 j6)_ "'1tr""
18 (90 - -~.- 19 (72)-'. -_.- 106( 37- 12 ( 1)", ---
77 (496", ~;g "''''~ g--
--No --
--M -",.,..
?íi~ ",,,,- "' "'
__0 ..,.
-"'~
'"
æ.·-
&).~
.."'-
;;:;&~ 1IL 377 ¡767) ;t, ~8 \_277 (54)
N~'" ......467 981) .,.."'... -699(1.326
,.1tl... r265 882) ¥tl... -,,"243(37)
31 (74)-" ~tt" 697(156)"'" "'1tt"
639 (975)=+ "'"""- 804 (1,578)- ",¡::-¡¡;-
452 (553)" ~;; S 446 (68)" ~;:;æ
i ~~! ~ ffi
Intm~crlnn '7
HadendaJl·580 WB 0If Ramp
"'0
ç)l"
r-.~ """_
--
¡g~ '-.819 (294)
~¡ r953 (494)
+....
¡::-;;;-
~~
=-,~.
"''''
..........
~N
InterSedlon #13
T~jaralGleason
---~
"'--
:'!..¡¡¡g
:€ ",;ñ 'L40 (17)
",-,.. -56(38)
¥tl... ¡("307(152)
84 (225)..... ""Jtr
41 (64)---,-
106(186)" (?!§~
¡::.;;;
-ffi~
interseu;on 119
SlInla RlIIII1·580 EBlPimUcn
~
:8"':R
2~ß
",N",
..."'.'" "'-
"', '7 - "-390 (381
¥.t.. ,..14 (128)
,221 (1.155~ t~
141'(421 -... ¡¡¡.¡;;
5&3 (297 .. ~2
...",
,,""
"''''
-
;r; ;
'" '"
Imerset,;nn '8
Ifndenda/DllbUn
-~~
~~:::
;;;-;!~ \.75 (31)
"',.1"';1,.. ;~4O:~W~5
152 (155)-" "'1 t i'"
619 (1,487)- ,-____
192 (532)Ï11 :€:€~
t!.~~
~GJt:;;
"''''-
Intersecllon 114
Tas,sa,jaralCenlraJ
0"
ç@-
." '"
~æ"'"
~ .:: 'L 91 (50)
--'" -60(205)
¥ t ~ ,r 360 (23~)
102 (69¡=--3' ""Jt r
51 (264)~ --..-
52(98", Ë¡rj~
<I;f" ~.......'
r--::::'-w
oo~
'"
Intersection # 15
Tassa,laro/ }ublin
$¡ß¡::-
ß;E
...
;;;"':[;; \.. 94 (: ¡¡176)
..,. - - "-2Q7 535)
¥tl,.. ¡("527 802)
166 (414)J ~1t'
218(376)- 16",'6·
414(1.652)" ",fj::g
;;;::.~
tñ$t"-
IlIlerset1ioll1l6
U""gbctlyll·S80 WB Olr Ralllp
h
~~.
&~ '-.740 (664¡
~¡ ",803 (605
Jt
Rl;::
~'t""...
Jme,,,,'dJon N 17
lIopYllnlll"580 En on Ramp
.-~
<í; "
...-
.,.-
~'~
~..
839 (398) -", J~
962 (350)" ",._
~~.
.........m
",-
ID"
....
InlerSetrion 1118
Ta$snjarall·580 WB Olr Ramp
Œ~
.,..'"
¿~
&8
,,!.o. "L 601 (507)
;.-¡ 1.764 (552)
+....
§~
Ñ-
~g
",'"
'"
'--
"''''
.,-:I.M
..
LEGEND ¥j" .~"..".
. Study Intersection 1 L'~:::
r:::J Approved(Pendlng Project ~ ....... .... '" . '. IJ..N;.I<;m<"
Project ( ¡" .::> . . "". n
XX AM Peak Hour Volume ,f> ....... . ...:
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume (' ...... ..:...... .. .............. .........
'nn'..n.n./ )i ....~.. ............ ...
"" ... , ~/: .............i "'i..
f~~'~r>.,1 ,'ù#¡ut Rim , ,,:' :~', ":"':,,:,,.:':; ..,',,":-'...:' ::: ,:,,.
Ü¡("~""¡(tru:t! H.i1ul1";'iÙ,#¡.~ t.¥h~'r .,' " ':
Indill./iÜMI
i. >< , ,_.,.
......M.> ,
. ,
.<.........<,:". '
............;;' [.,.;'.:\~".¡,~
"i ..
···<S~:
'······'"'''··········5
r
'2____-.-
:r ~I".Ç"
"f;~(' ('i', 'J:~~~
ru'" «'Off'"
ì\·i..
" ,
,
r~___M_~___~__
go.
~"'e:..(,.'¡,~
1.
.,f..."..., .,":'" , l n"" .-
'Mmii~'Iioi;':,U. '1~3: m ~ ~ w ~\.;~--;;;.,I~~ -... r\.
E)þ'~'t'ü d : I)¡,:hnn .I,¡;l:n::h ~ '" :
~~.. .~~;~ 'L;~::·~^f_,.:' ~\./
!! C4 \i9....~.... R:i>
, C·~~·.bùf<';, if..: ':".'>: '1$ i ":i:
~....I " -·.r'......
.¡ iØI.1 %. ,"'-
.\'h"iJ./fit>'i<t"t /' :.: .::: ~,~~J~~:..:,:", F;' ~, )yþ~~ , .Romt"~
~~:~',,:' , , :,1.~ II \.~ ÁII!'".;5 U
=. 1'7;/ -,..".~:
.. ,,( ;,.;;..",,,,.
'"';;.'
Ai
.·---·-·-1-·······-
.........
..........
fl
t
f
~
~~'~.
Project æ n:~~~1f~
Sit. ã ..........
:'::;¡; \J ......;"';'
t'JI.:im..!1oI ill.W 2
."
'.:\.
~\:~).
. ':'1>
8
'.
th,blifi I\¡¡¡m:;:' : ð
A~>1I~Ii&.(; L}
"
·A····"'·
,,~ ~ ~ ~
.~y~"~~ ~-
~
/~ ...<
'.'
.; ....
...
,....... '.. .'.' ;)'Ç
.. UARt '~ l('
North " . ~
Not to Scale '», ~
'\,
F· 9 23 ' ",~ I
19ure . : eft)
East County Government Center Site / Site 15A
Baseline + Scenario C2
Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
SOURCE: TJKM I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.25: East County Government Center and Site 15A
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Baseline Plus Scenario C2
Juvenile Justice Facility (540 Beds) and East County Hall of Justice
Signalized Intersections
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection
v/c LOS v/c LOS
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.98 E 1.17 F
1
(with extention of Scarlett Drive) 0.82 D 1.01 F
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.64 B 0.71 C
3 Arnold Road/Central Parkway 1 0.25 A 0.39 A
6 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.62 B 0.61 B
7 Hacienda Drive/I-58D Westbound Ramps 0.71 C 0.68 B
8 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.71 C 0.76 C
9 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.43 A 0.69 B
10 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.46 A 0.45 A
13 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 0.68 B 0.50 A
14 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 0.70 B 0.66 B
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.68 B 0.94 E
15
(convert an EB through lane to right-turn only) 0.74 C 0.82 D
16 Dougherty Road/I-58D Westbound Off-Ramp 0.59 A 0.56 A
17 Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp 0.59 A 0.50 A
18 Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.78 C 0.83 D
19 Santa Rita Road/I-58D Eastbound/Pimlico 0.83 D 0.90 D
Unsignalized Intersections
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Delay Delay
sec./veh. LOS sec./veh. LOS
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 7.8 A 8.9 A
5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard 7.4 A 7.4 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive * * * *
11
- Southbound Madigan Approach (11.3) (B) (11.7) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.2 A 7.3 A
Note: vie ::: volume to capacity ratio; LOS::: Level of Setvice;
X.X (X.X) ::: Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
*HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-75
Chapter 9: Transportation
Scenario D - East County Hall of Justice at Site 15A
Alternative Description
The proposed East County Hall of Justice would be located at Site I5A. The proposed Juvenile
Justice Facility would be located elsewhere in the County outside of the influence area of Dublin.
The effects of the Juvenile Justice Facility would be as described in other sections ofthis
chapter.
Trip Generation
Table 9.26 summarizes the trip generation calculations for Scenario D. Note that the estimated
vehicle trip generation includes employees, visitors, and jurors.
Scenario D is estimated to generate approximately 5,938 daily trips, 710 a.m. peak hour trips and
710 p.m. peak hour trips on a typical weekday.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution assumptions were previously described under the Existing plus Scenario Al
conditions.
Results of Level of Service Analysis
The resulting Baseline plus Scenario D peak hour turning movement volumes are shown on
Figure 9.24. Table 9.27 presents a summary of peak hour levels of service at the study
intersections under this scenario.
Under Scenario D, 17 of 19 study intersections are expected to continue to operate acceptably
during the peak hours. Two intersections are expected to continue to operate unacceptably with
the Scenario D project trips: Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, and Tassajara Road/Dublin
Boulevard. These intersections would also operate unacceptably under Baseline conditions
without the Project, so a fair share contribution is reasonable, as opposed to full funding by the
County.
Mitigation Measure 9.1.5g: Fair Share Contribution Toward Local Roadway
Extension and Intersection Improvements. The same mitigation as outlined under
Mitigation Measures 9.1.5a and 9.1.5b (Scenario Al above) would apply to Scenario D.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9·76
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.26: Site 15A - Trip Generation Scenario D - East County Hall of Justice Only
Saturday Weekday Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Project Daily
Size Trip Trip Trip In:Out Trips Trip In:Out Trips
Trips Trips Ratio Rate Ratio
Rate Rate Rate In Out Total In Out Total
East
County
Hallot
Justice 0 0 456.80 5.938 54.62 82:18 582 128 710 54.62 24:76 170 540 710
(13
courts)
Note: Rates for the Juvenile Justice Facility ere calculated based on the number of trips estimated for these uses.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9ø77
Inl......ctÍ<lnlll
DouahenvIDublin
w
...-
¡:;;-E*
":2'-'
~qt:; ~371 (740)
"'~'" -461 (954)
.J .. "" ,;- 242 (765)
31 (74¡..JI .... ('
813 (973 .... ;;;',þõ
452 (553 " go~
;: ¿;;'
:&:gm
¡¡;
Imersectloo f7
ltaciendalt-560 W8 Olf Ramp
"''''
"'IS>
on'"
~
... "" ~ 776 (289)
;~ ,953(494)
!~
"''''
t¡,~
-~
0-'"
"'''''
~'"
Inter.ectl"n II 13
Tas.saja,aIGJ.¡....""
~~
~ißg
~"!;; ~40J11)
"'~~ _54 37)
.-!. "" "'30 '(152)
79 (198)-'" ~ t r
40 (52)....· ~-
95(134)" *g:;¡
t:....--"~
N::'-I.C
~~~
'"
In_ctl"n #19
Santa RnalHIIO f.lIII'imlkn
~-
::;:::~
-..-
~ 5@ "390 (381)
Þ'¡~ 1'154 (128)
1.221 (1,155)-1' t {"
141 (42!~ --
583 (297)" ~~
6::.
;:st
<>;'<;
~
,........
..
North
Not to Scale
Int....cction #2
ArnokVlluhlin
¡.:" $
~, f1
:G £2 ~ 262 (52)
-j'f;- .. 615 (1.204
¥", '>t. ;243 (37)
,~51 (151¡-" ~ t ('
",,6 (1 584 -+- ~--
446 (68"", Ë~~,
- C>
'" w
Ime,sectlon #8
Har:i"lIda/Oublin
;¡.-
_~r;
¡,¡;~:::
~¡;¡t;; ~14 (31)
.17;- -1.060 (755
¥ "' '>t. r348 (383)
34 (141¡,.Jf ~ t ('
19(1,486t- --,-
189 (5111" :gIn;g
~~~
j}1:q~
æ,U)¥'"
Inter.ectlnn 13
Arnnldlr",ntral
iF
reS
-...
",_.
::?!ij __96(19)
+"" ,..88 (246)
tf
;;;âS'
$..~
It""
"'0'1
Intersection f'J
HaoJenda!Cenua
_m
~:iL
--'--~
gj>l>~ '-12 (5)
'-:::!N -97 (26)
.J.,*- r141'(205)
~ ¡~¡:! ~!t
74 (465 " !!~~
mi~
>c
Inle'st'cllnnU
Amold/GIea."""
$KJ
£i~
~:;; '-67 (47)
+I,¡. ,,33(14)
tr
85
tt:!.
"''''
Inle'St1ction #10
Haclenda/Glea.""n
_127 (29)
"'262 (177)
26 (110)_ ~ r
14 (45)" ô2
-'"
-'N
,.,.-
""~
'"
Inle,se.clinn 1\4 Inlersl'<11nn 115
Ta.s~\ja""'Ccnual Tassaj3 'a/nubUn
~ ....)'; -
;:-t::._ ~~!
~~~ Ë, ::'0 ::.
~~:; 'L~Ó «~g~) ;;~¡¡¡ 1t.,91 (178)
¥iol,¡. r360(232) ;~;:. ;:~~¡ä5~
102(69)-"~tf 166 (414)..JI ~.1r!:
51 (264)- iÕ¡;)Q> 218 (374)- 51"":>
52(98)'t t7,¡::j~ 414(1.652)'t ¡¡s~¡g
;! :::;; ;; ¿;;
~::: [r.¡r¿~
<ò
LEGEND
. Study Intersection
c.:::::J Approved/Pending Project
Project
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
~.".- -"
1~¡~'f'ItI
(',¡/of'fij·...·H(ma1
1( ~¡h~tKWI
Ii
~
~
~
((
.."............."".,
/~
Project fi
Sit. ~
~~::;:: " ~
..
ß\;ÆK)Nlli.~ ;I:
I
~-----"..._-~-~
n_ u_......_
$ìmMR-íM
IkhdNMI(¡"''''' {\</Ui'.t
u~..~...~~..........~~~~
~/oi'et.-'¡¡;¡
'0
Gl.ftlt.IJ/I.lN~. '::.::.::'
('~~~";n4~
ßj/*ùt,:,,1.,/);,I1"Þ
.--_''",."''·''.·'i
',·',.1,
"" 'r
'"
6 ~
ii
1"I<,r",,(lionI16
nuugberl}r1·560 WB Olf R<Ullp
i~
&J,~ ~ 740 (664)
~+ ,,800(590)
Jt
.....
c·,....,
«">-
SS
;¡'''''
<:~
Ji
(
,'",,"
(,'
J)
.."- ... ~ ~ 'f>,'¡:,i ,:,:, :.,.
l?
I~··'
InleISL'<:tion #5
Amold'llrod<:r
õ'
~"'~
!2;;;~ __4 (4)
N"'''' -3(6)
.J+1w.. ,,15(31)
5 (3¡..JI ... t '
11 (12 .... 1,_1-
32 (107 " ~~¡;j
-W-"
g"'p!
Intcl'Seçl!on t II
MadIWlnlc'leasu"
§:¡ß. J
"'~
.-~ ~59 (55)
¥ l-.. _299 (1S1}
56 (35¡..JI
89 (455 -
Imers..;tlo,,* ¡ 7
lIo l)'ardll-S80 EB Oft Ramp
!if
._.V
re~~
~i
~,..
.-I.
736 (386).-" t f
962 (350)" šæ
>i~
>co,
>c<'>
j
,
Inlernectlon '6
lIadcnda/I·560 .:B Olf Ramp
~
-',N
N .
;1;:':.
~'"
~';;i;
~¡
956 (901)..JI ~i
,213 (656)" ffì;::
~q
.--
"'0>
Œ>1tJ
....'"
Intersecllrm '1.2
MadlgnnlBrotlcr
25:~
000 _5(4)
,,¿ io t.., r 1 (00)
7 (6) - ... t '
12(43)'t d;;;!;:
0>-
-N"~
'" '"
'"
Inl"tm'ction 111.8
Tassajar.vI-5110 WB 00 Ramp
¡;¡~
,-M
~,ci
~~ It., 578 (504)
;;. ,,764 (552)
fi!'
:8~
-00
!ig
"'...
~,
UL.JbIi" hl:Kb
:l\1't8U
\. ..,,'
.",
~ " - ~ -
. ,.:,'"": ./1"""'.
~"(:" :'
,,', '.__..i,.,L",,"~ ·····.·"·,·c·
--> ...... ,.'. ········00 >-
.,.; ,
:r;~
/ /"~
~·..··/·'f
:!~.~II:ii.«¡" !~.'
.I.i:j~ ("(""/' ,...hn~"{ t...' ':.' ........ ......
Y~yJ (.~~NIR1' /... ' :'. :", ",' '.:. ,'.::'::;,
.."'-..., 0,",,1,""i"""""'"
¡_m E.'lnt'/"IIW
.::'.:: Gh~ß P<s,/;;
..
~.
~
1~J
:",.:,.,:' Œl'(!'JW.'~
g 'Z=~:Ê
,. CA \ci.·. .,..'...."... "'-t.
\t~,jd~1~,;'·',:·:::.:::,':'..:;.t::
~1!=.I>···!
,:: ":":::')",: lJ.'hp:/':jI.;."k /...
~/:--"·'·
... "- l ~l'c",""
~..
~.
l'
F· 9 24 · ¡'iii·1
19ure . 'C::-r.)\Í
East County Government Center Site / Site 15A
Baseline + Scenario D
Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
'.~,
~.... {õ"~
\~<?¡,
~"
"".,.
....,
" #-'R '
H '\;¡,
'"
t
{,
'..'
.>. :~'.
.'..... ..
f' "
.
.': :':i'
,
.' '.' .:. ',',,:i'.··
.
.
.~ ' - - ~'.
- - .';¡;;';', "
j ';J.J:i'- . I
: {~hn~~h ~ ,.;:
Are¡¡¡r ¡ ~:
~\
".
,',
,
-,...~:
,',
-."
r)uMm ~h
^,~<lH
...~~~~?_<-r
~~-i-M"''''''-&_~
UIJ!,Ii!$f(.\tDÇh
,\næ.ß&:.C
,
,
,~
; ~
~
--
<
.
-.
/~
l
SOURCE: TJKM I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.27: Site 15A - Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Baseline Plus Scenario D
East County Hall of Justice Only
Signalized Intersections
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection
vlc LOS vIe LOS
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.89 D 1.13 F
1
(with extension of Scarlett Drive) 0.74 C 0.96 E
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.60 A 0.66 B
3 Arnold Road/Central Parkway 1 0.21 A 0.35 A
6 Hacienda Drive/I~580 Eastbound Ramps 0.62 B 0.60 A
7 Hacienda Drive/I~580 Westbound Ramps 0.67 B 0.68 B
8 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.60 A 0.70 B
9 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.41 A 0.61 B
10 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.24 A 0.32 A
13 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 0.64 B 0.48 A
14 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 0.70 B 0.66 B
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.67 B 0.93 E
15
(convert an EB through lane to right~turn lane) 0.74 C 0.81 D
16 Dougherty Road/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.59 A 0.56 A
17 Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp 0.59 A 0.50 A
18 Tassajara Road/l-580 Westbound Off~Ramp 0.77 C 0.81 D
19 Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound/Pimlico 0.83 D 0.90 D
Unsignalized Intersections
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Delay Delay
sec.lveh. LOS sec./veh. LOS
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 7.3 A 7.8 A
5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard 7.4 A 7.4 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive * * * *
11
- Southbound Madigan Approach (10.7) (B) (11.4) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.1 A 7.3 A
Note: vie == volume to capacity ratio; LOS == Level of Service;
X.X (X.X) == Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
*HCM 2000 methodology does not reporl the overall intersection delay for one~way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9~79
Chapter 9: Transportation
IMPACT 9.2:
Inadequate Parking Supply to Meet Project Demands
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
Consolidating various uses to a central Juvenile Justice Facility would increase activity at the
alternative Project sites, and would reduce activity at the vacated sites where the existing
Juvenile Hall, Probation Department, Juvenile Court and Superior Court activities are presently
located. This could result in some benefits at those vacated sites (i.e., reduce traffic and parking
demand). However, it is likely that the vacated space would be re-occupied by other similar
County functions, so the potential benefit at those vacated sites is not considered as part of this
analysis.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 9.2.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. No ActionINo Project would result in no net change in the existing transportation
systems serving the Juvenile Justice and Superior Court functions. Existing conditions described
in the previous section (Affected Environment) would remain unchanged.
Impact 9.2.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As shown in Figure 9.25, the development concept for
the Existing San Leandro Property includes provision ofa series of new parking lots that would
be accessed from the main driveway into the site. These lots would accommodate all of the
Juvenile Justice Project's parking demand. Secure parking for judicial personnel, police
vehicles, and detainee booking would be provided in separate lots in the rear ofthe facility. A
secondary access driveway would be provided for these areas and for emergency vehicles, with
direct access to Fairmont Drive. Designated parking for handicapped persons would be provided
near the entrances to the facility. The proposed parking lots and access would be sufficient to
meet the Proj ect' s parking demand.
Impact 9.2.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The peak hour parking demand
for a typical weekday and Saturday was determined for the proposed Juvenile Justice Project
based on the estimated trip generation and assumed parking duration. The overlapping of
employee and visitor shifts was also considered. At the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, the 420-
bed Juvenile Justice Facility (without courts or substantial administrative functions) is estirnated
to generate a peak parking demand of 450 spaces at 4:00 p.m. on a weekday (when day and
swing shifts overlap) and about 275 spaces during visiting hours from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on
Saturdays.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-80
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a:
Q
~
o
:Ii
It:
~
Q)
~ .c~
t:tJ)
.~ 12
Õ
z
(l
~~
t» gJ I~
c::_ 0
-:t:E
'Iii == G)
'ië!il"
Wu-,8
g
::E
é
~
~
@
~
Q) ItS
.-;:: E:
en Q)
o .1::
II) I-< en
N"O"d
a\ ã ~
Q,I Q) 0
... ,..J 0..
6b ~ 0
.... ItS I-<
~enll..
Chapter 9: Transportation
Existing parking occupancy counts were taken at the existing parking structure and lot under 1-
880 on Tuesday, September 17, 2002, to better understand the existing parking demand after the
closure of the existing GleIID Dyer Facility as an adult jail. Based on these counts, the parking
structure was 70 percent occupied with 430 of the 617 spaces full (187 available) at 3:30 p.m. At
the same time, the parking lot under 1-880 was 62 percent occupied with 146 ofthe 238 spaces
full (92 available). Therefore, these two parking areas with 279 (=187+92) spaces available
would not be able to meet the peak weekday Project demand of 450 spaces. (See Figure 9.26)
This expected parking demand takes into account the Project's close proximity to transit and
BART and nearby related departments, such as courts, administration, district attorney and
police. People working or visiting these departments can park once and also visit the Glerm Dyer
Detention Facility. '
. Mitigation Measure 9.2.3: Develop a Staff Parking Lot under the 1-880
Freeway. To accommodate the shortfall of approximately 170 spaces, an additional 150
parking spaces should be developed at another area under the elevated section of the 1-
880 fteeway north of Jefferson Street. About half of these 150 spaces could be reserved
for staff use since probation officers have a peak demand at shift change that can best be
accommodated at a remote location. The Project's remaining demand of20 spaces could
be met at other local fee lots and at public parking spaces on the surrounding streets,
where 30 to 50 spaces are available in each lot and on each block fronting the site, though
there would be competition for those spaces.
Weekend parking demand could be met by the vacant spaces in the existing parking in
the County's garage and the City's surface lot. In addition, many of the surrounding uses
are closed on weekends so there would be additional vacancies in the structure and lot,
and additional street parking in the vicinity of the Project to meet the expected peak
Saturday demand of 275 spaces.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of the above mitigation measure would
reduce the Project's impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact 9.2.4: Pardee/Swan Site
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The peak hour parking demand
for the weekday and Saturday was determined for the proposed Project. The parking demand for
the Juvenile Justice Facility was developed based on the estimated trip generation and assumed
parking duration. The overlapping of employee and visitor shifts was also considered. The
Juvenile Justice Facility (with 420 beds, juvenile courts and administrative functions) is
estimated to generate a peak parking demand of 550 spaces at 4:00 p.m. on a weekday (when day
and swing shifts overlap) and about 260 spaces during visiting hours fiom 10:00 a.m. to 2:00
p.m. on Saturdays.
The Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 beds is estimated to generate a peak parking demand of
710 spaces on a weekday, and 330 spaces during the visiting hours on Saturdays.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-82
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~f
f: ;:¡
lf~
.. "
'" "¡::
~<
E u
"0:;
..,¡ "0
~~
u "
ê5~
~i:
..
"¡::
<
Þ
'2
.....
u
:>
s::
.....
.E:! >.
..... .....
oop..
'-C 1-0 p..
NQ):J
. >'00
0'\ 0 b.O
Q.I s:: s::
1-0 s:: J2
6'0 Q) 1-0
......... 113
~Cj~
Chapter 9: Transportation
The Port of Oakland has proposed developing the Pardee/Swan Site for a surface parking lot that
would accommodate up to 4,000 vehicles to serve the Oakland International Airport. That
project would occupy the entire site, and is scheduled for development in late 2002 and early
2003. That lot would serve an interim function (for approxirnately 10 years) to accommodate
expansion at the airport, which will displace existing surface parking lots. (See Figure 9.27)
. Mitigation Measure 9.2.4a: Port Parking Garage Joint Use. In order to
accommodate the Port parking lot and the Juvenile Justice Project, the County is
evaluating joint development of the site, with the proposed Juvenile Justice Project on the
central and eastern portion of the site, and a parking structure on the western portion of
the site. Parking for the Juvenile Justice Facility would be at grade along Swan Way in a
2S0-space public lot, and under a portion ofthe proposed building in a 2S0-space secured
garage. Therefore, shared use of some of the structured parking may also be required to
meet the full Project demand. The Port has downsized its parking lot project to about
3,500 vehicles, so there would be sufficient space in a new parking garage for overflow
parking rrorn the Juvenile Justice Facility. Leases or other arrangements should be made
part of the development if this site is selected for development of both projects.
. Mitigation Measure 9.2.4b: Off-Site Port Parking Development. The Port of
Oakland has evaluated other parking options to meet its interim and long-tenn needs as
part of the Airport Expansion project. A second large site is available in the Central
Basin area that could be developed as another surface parking lot. However, access to
that area has been delayed while the cross-airport roadway project is being constructed.
If the Port developed another site to meet its parking demand, then there would be
sufficient land at the Pardee / Swan Site to accommodate all of the Juvenile Justice
Facility parking demand in surface parking lots. The County should consider pursuing
negotiations with the Port to have other parking lots developed that could relieve the
interim parking demand at the Pardee/Swan Site. This would reduce the cost and
complexity of developing a parking garage at the Pardee/Swan Site and reduce the
associated environmental effects of concentrated development on the site, as described
elsewhere in this EIS/EIR.
Resulting Level afSignificance: Implementation of one of the proposed mitigation
measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact 9.2.5: East County Government Center
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The proposed parking layout for
the East County Government Center Site is shown in Figure 9.28. The peak hour parking
demand for the weekday and Saturday was detennined for the proposed Juvenile Justice Project
and East County Hall of Justice Project. The parking demand for each of the individual
components was developed, and then combined to detennine the peak parking hour at the site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-84
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
l
DNNVfn OWGNV31 NilS
I
I
~.
~"'"
<I¡
<I)
'"
?
/
I
~
1
~
I
I
o
)
~~
ð'i.'
H
~.
~B
¡¡it
I
~
~
""
~
~
6
n::
~.
)
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
1i
~
i
z
I
I
I
I
ø0~
w UJ..J U')
<£. 5 ~ u.:
~<{<5
"1 ~ "',;
& ';;.;: '"
!
¡
I
ii .,.
~~
t)~
0~
~~
""">!2 {)
~~ <:
'2 §¡ ';;1
).jO~~'
~'3.Sg
æKlWd
~., .J"'.'
,0·" ,," .,."
. ^",.",.,';...
-'
w
(~
_I
<J::
W
~ ~~I~
i §~¡
""'I"
ð I'
it
~
Ë
~
~
¡,¡J
::>
""
...i
~
o
~ ,~
~ 8~t~
~ ~~~
;; <J ~~
~ ~~~
~ ~iê
"
U.š
.s _
~- "
'" §
f~
æ E
~E
,.\(-
'" ..
,ñ ~
e ~
~~
~
g,
'"
>-
,,=,'
¡:;
e
'"
'Ò
:E
Ô
~
@
§
1;;
iT.
o
C/)
trJ
2 ~
êí5 u
¡::<
ca"'O
t-. E: ¡::
r"!tJ'}tO
0'1 - b.O
Q Q) ¡::
... Q) :.¥
;:I "'0 ...
bC ""' to
..... to ,.,.
~~-
-JJ
D"[FbiWJ~
. .....................................,........
~
,
~..ì
~lD-~'"
! C)/
' c
I f·-i
: L.;,><,
I C1I '\
'D -
í./:¡ )
I. ,:,,/
Oi b"-!)l
i ¡r;iLJ
: ¡ Liñ~
LJD 1
~-~L_,___
"'.
'~."; ~(.~ '~v >,;,". '><:".
( -;
. . III ¡
~
~~
,~(
?:,
---::::::::::::::::::>
.,~B
~~~
( ~ 90
........__...........i
._...........,.,...,.~.... _...-..-.-~~--~
+-
~
o
3j
L1.
I
ù"" I
.sO)
-,$
§ð
., I
",":;
E ..
o>Æ
-;:;
-:~
&--
'" 5,
o "_ I
~ '"
0~
.s~
,..,¡
"':r:
~ I
'"
~
.¡oj
~
'"
Ii
µJ I
N'
0>
g.
'"
>-
-d
<: I
'"
~
~
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
.& I
.....
U)
I-<
.&
ð I
1::
~ CI:¡ I
I-< CI:¡
Q) Q)
:>- u
o u
ü<
co þ""CJ I
N ¡:; ¡:;
. ~ ItS
a'lobD
Q U ¡:;
... ;.;;;¡ I
g, t} ...
..... ItS CtI
~~p...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
The parking demand for the Juvenile Justice Facility was developed based on the estimated trip
generation and assumed parking duration. The overlapping of employee and visitor shifts was
also considered. The Juvenile Justice Facility (with 450 beds, juvenile courts, and administrative
functions) is estimated to generate a peak parking demand of 550 spaces at 4:00 p.m. on a
weekday and about 275 spaces during visiting hours ftom 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
The Juvenile Justice Facility with 540 beds is estimated to generate a peak parking demand of
710 spaces on a weekday, and 330 spaces during the visiting hours on Saturdays.
Existing parking occupancy counts were taken at the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center lots on
Thursday, August 16 and Saturday, August 18,2001 in the event that there is a shared parking
opportunity with the proposed Project. Based on these counts, the parking lot on Broder
Boulevard was 32 percent occupied with 177 of the 577 spaces full (380 available) on Thursday,
and 40 percent occupied on Saturday at noon with 223 spaces full (334 available).
The East County Hall of Justice is estimated to generate a peak parking demand of 850 spaces at
noon during the week and minimal to no spaces on Saturday since the courts will be closed. This
parking demand is accommodated on the site in a surface parking lot accessed directly from
Gleason Drive and Hacienda Drive, with secondary access from Gleason Drive near Madigan
Avenue and at Broder Blvd. Secure parking for judicial staff, police vehicles, and detainee
intake would be provided in separate lots near the building with access from Broder Blvd.
In total, the Project site would result in a peak parking dernand for approximately 1,400 spaces at
noon during the week and 275 to 330 spaces on Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
. Mitigation Measure 9.2.5: Restripe Parking to Increase Capacity. The County
should restripe the secure parking lot at the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center to
accommodate additional jail staff in order to provide additional public parking for the
Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice Projects. If only one of the
Project components is developed at the site, then adequate parking could be provided in
surface lots on the Proj ect site without providing additional j ail staff parking.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of the mitigation measures would
reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact 9.2.6: Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Adequate parking is planned to be provided for the East
County Hall of Justice if it is developed at Site 15A through the construction of a parking garage
and surface lots (see Figure 9.29). The parking garage would serve for public parking, jurors,
and staff parking, small surface lots would provide short-tenn parking for visitors, a drop-off
area would be provided in front of the facility, and secure parking would be provided for judicial
staff, police vehicles, and prisoner transfer. No mitigation is required.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-87
------
m
I'
, ,
, ,
I,
II
, .
, ,
, .
· ,
· ,
, ,
, ,
· I
"
, ,
, I
¡ ,
, ,
, I
, ,
i ¡.
, ,
, ,
,
,
>
,
,
,
,
,
,
, ,
, ,
, ,
:: i
:: }
"
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
J :,
) :
,
,
,
,
: ¡
I ::
I "
I "
f
I
¡
¡
! ¡ L
lJ¡
¡ ::
i ! I
, ,
I, I
¡ ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
: ¡
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ¡
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
"
.,
, ,
, ,
, I
, ,
i ¡ \
1;\'
, ,
, ,
, ,
" .
:0
:;j:.
i± I
~. ¡~ .
tt;:'~
¡ B ~ it
"
¡*
i1
. II ¡T
-~ø') )i:
3^ltlO \faN31~\iH
,.-------.- ----- ------'"'"""L__ ________--.."
/ )
r I
I ~= :
r ;:: I
I !~~ :
II '''"'" ¡
~ ;:.,\
I '~ I
I t~ I
! ..,J I
/ [l!.11 )
/ r:/~ II
~:~
.:/v,/1 Q:
~:,',','
/ /! f
/ /f: p
/ J t : ¡µ
/,'/: t3
''', !5~
/// ! [[~
./" 'i )rf1;\'W
i ! ~ J ~~~
III j ~«
I \ ~~~
' "!
1- -t--:.-~____-..
I ,
1Ln
i(#:t:
~d[
~
'~
f(jí»
líl'" '\
, ,
,;. '" "l
: X XX A "
X X X X/',........, , "'Z!
¡ , ><Nx ~><X2-~; ", §tjî
¡ I ~ * )< XAYJ=; ~ \ (\I; ..Ii
L X )I, '> :;;:.~::: i 'h..,;,,,,,..._____
~'" )( X X -0l'y * ..., ,
~ . '!*;< }<.X;~x>. .-:..ª D.~
~ v><"w y(. =::. = "
~.~><)< (!) ).J;:::,. = ~
æ' Þÿv< ~ CI'J ~~<~~,~ n ~~ hO<ro; >v
I 'I t><)("X « a:: )<, ~,-,-9 -j U it A ,; :"v
~I 1$=-'" C) <r;<Y·n: - ~ÕJ·""',x..ç~< ,z:l'
~II :::-.:)<)<\~ ~'><~.§î n °8 <>C~>< x
H: ~ >ª ~O)~f7;1 i ~x ^;¡.; x.
: ! þ« > ~ "»~"f:I:: I ¡ ~x x ~>(x><x
~ ¡ ~~~:~~..;..~.; : . )<X<~»
I:LI : I'X ') Xx . ,.)'X.:~ Sï g . x. )<
u0x ><)\ "'1;;;,,;::::t 9
· , ". X ^'~J'.. ". .. '.' .' ~
i ¡ ~ > >Ç >.;>~J',* 0 --.... '. ~ A
¡¡ X.~ -~~~:t ~~~. ~r.8t r¥
"'" - -.- '~L__~~ ~~O"D\lO
-- - - ---~. - -- ~:3.11 i-H ß --G~1,€}N "èr "V- - __·_____u _h___ -____ _______~___
-_._---------~_._~
I
h
Ii
:~
.-.~.=-.-,.,.""""-."".,.",..,..-_.......,.jti
0\10\1 S$!!::>:W 9n!n::>¡¡¡s
~z
,
,
;
,
,
,
,
,.
"
, ¡
, ,
"
I ¡ ¡ 1M ¡ i ~~(!
: ! ¡Ill ; ~ r ¡
lfE
¡f.---
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
s:: I
co
-
0.-
2 I
.....
0'1 U':J
t"! "'t:i
0'1 < Q)
Q, Ll') rJJ
... ,....; 0 I
6bQ)~
~ð5~
I
t
~
:§
:;:
-0
õJ
4:i
"3
<0
U
o\:
,g¡
~
~
OJ
o
::E
~
ô
8
(jJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
IMPACT 9.3:
Increased Demand for Transit Service in Excess of
Capacity
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project benefits are identified related to transit service.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 9.3.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. No Action / No Project would not change the existing transit service demands for
the existing operations in San Leandro and Pleasanton. Those services are currently adequate to
meet the needs of the County, so there would be no impact.
Impact 9.3.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. AC Transit service to the site is
provided directly to the main facility with sufficient headways, capacity and connections to meet
the needs of the general public, employees, and family members of the detainees. However, AC
Transit is considering a decrease in the frequency of service in the Project area. The new project
design would place the main entrance to the facility substantially further from the public
roadway on Fainnont Drive, which could be a disincentive to transit users and could affect the
ability of some visitors to readily access the facility due to the topographic change from the road
to the proposed facility. AC Transit has indicated that a new service connection could be
provided to the entrance to the facility if an adequate bus turn around is built at the new Juvenile
Justice Facility.
BART service is located within one mile of the site and is connected by AC Transit buses. The
proposed Project at the Existing San Leandro Property with 420 or 520 beds would not have a
significant impact on BART, based on existing ridership described in the Affected Environment
section, above, and the projected demand for the Project. The net increase in ridership would be
on the order of about 45 to 62 peak hour transit trips, depending on the development scenario.
BART currently has excess c::apacity of 1,000 to 2,000 seats at the Bayfair Station.
. Mitigation Measure 9.3.2: Preserve and Enhance Transit Service in San
Leandro. The County of Alameda should coordinate with AC Transit service planners
to ensure continued service at sufficient frequency and hours of operation to meet the
needs ofthe Project and to provide a new bus stop at the main entrance to the facility.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-89
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9·90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Impact 9.3.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Existing AC Transit service and BART service is
adequate to serve the proposed project at the Glerm Dyer facility. The numerous lines that serve
the area have sufficient capacity to meet the Project's needs.
Conservatively estimating that 10 percent of the Project-generated trips are on transit, the
proposed Project with 420 beds is expected to generate approximately 282 daily transit trips,
divided between AC Transit and BART, including 35 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 31 trips in
the p.m. peak hour.
The existing BART operations at the lih Street Station are crowded over capacity during the
p.m. peak hour. However, the Project's increase in ridership would be less than significant
because there is sufficient standing-room capacity, and the increase would be a very small
percentage increase over existing useage. Peak hour trips from the Project would amount to an
increase of approximately 0.3 percent ofthe total existing peak hour ridership, which is not
considered significant
No mitigation is required as part of the Project.
Impact 9.3.4: Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Conservatively estimating that 10 percent of the
Project-generated trips would use transit, the Project at the Pardee/Swan Site could generate
approximately 393 daily transit trips, including 45 to 48 a.m. peak hour trips and 59 to 62 p.m.
peak hour trips, depending on the development scenario.
Currently, the passenger volume does not exceed the standing capacity of the trains servicing the
Coliseum Station during the a.m. peak hour. Furthermore, BART has the ability to add cars to
trains to adjust to substantial increases in demand. For example, on one ofthe survey days during
the a.m. peak hour there were only 18 cars going from Richmond towards Fremont, while 40
cars routinely go north from Fremont towards Daly City between 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m.
No mitigation is required as part of the Project.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Impact 9.3.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility with 420 beds is
estimated to generate approximately 305 new transit riders on a typical weekday, with
approximately 46 to 48 riders using transit during each of the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. With the
540-bed option, the Project is estimated to generate 393 new transit riders on a weekday, with 59
to 62 riders using transit during each of the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The East County Hall of
Justice would generate transit demand for approximately 594 daily trips, with approximately 71
trips in each of the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
With the development of the proposed Project, LA VTA will consider expanding route coverage
and hours to accommodate the increased ridership. This enhanced transit program also would
ensure that family members would be able to visit detainees and attend court hearings without
undue delay or inconvenience. The County has drafted a transit plan that analyzes available
transit service, travel times, and cost, and the opportunity for improving access to the East
County Govenunent Center. That plan includes cost estimates for improving transit service to
the site, and could be implemented to address transit needs at the site ifthis alternative is
selected.
BART has sufficient capacity on trains serving the Dublin/Pleasanton Station to accommodate
increased ridership. Demand increases due to the development of the East County Govenunent
Center site would not place a significant demand on the BART system.
Impact 9.3.6: Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. The East County Hall of Justice would generate transit
demand for approximately 594 daily trips, with approximately 71 trips in each ofthe a.m. and
p.m. peak: hours. LA VTA and BART service to the site is adequate to meet the demands. No
mitigation is required.
IMPACT 9.4:
Exceeding a level of Service Standard Established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for Designated
Roads or Highways
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No benefits have been identified for Congestion Management Agency (CMA)-designated
roadways.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 9.4.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. Continued operation of the existing facilities would not result in any changes to
the existing traffic patterns on CMA-designated roadways.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-91
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-92
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Impact 9.4.2: Existing San Leandro Property
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMP ACT. The Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency (CMA) requires that analysis be conducted ofproject impacts on the
Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) for a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions for the year
2005, with and without Project. Tables 9.28 and 9.29 are presented to show the volume-to-
capacity ratio and the corresponding level of services for the 420-bed and 540-bed alternatives,
respectively. Both a.m. and p.m. peak hour volume projections were obtained from the 2005
Countywide Transportation Model. As shown in Tables 9.28 and 9.29, two mainline freeway
segments and five surface street segments were analyzed along 1-580, East 14th Street, 150th
Avenue and Hesperian Boulevard in the Project study area. These include the following
segments:
1-580
· North of 159th Avenue
· North of 150th Avenue
East 14th Street
· North of 150th Avenue
· South of Fairmont Drive
150th Avenue
· West of East 14th Street
Hesverian Boulevard
· South of 150th Avenue
The proposed Project at the Existing San Leandro Property is projected to cause a change in the
level of service on 1-580 southbound on the segment north of 150th Avenue from LOS E to LOS
F during the a.m. peak period under both scenarios. The increase in traffic volume, and the
change to the volume/capacity ratio attributed to the Project under either of these scenarios is
approximately 2%. This increase would change the level of service on this segment ofI-580 to
LOS E, thereby exceeding the threshold of significance established for the Project and resulting
in a significant traffic impact.
The proposed Project at the Existing San Leandro Property is not expected to cause changes in
levels of service on East 14th Street, 150th Avenue or Hesperian Boulevard during either a.m. and
p.m. peak hour conditions under either scenario. It is similarly not expected to cause changes in
levels of service on 1-580 during the p.m. peak hour under either scenario. Hesperian Boulevard
in the northbound direction south of 150th Avenue operates at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour
under both with- and without the Project conditions. The Project's contribution of traffic to
Hesperian Boulevard under either scenario is less than 1 % of the total volume on this roadway,
and it contribution of traffic on this roadway is a less than significant effect.
Year 2005 volumes from the county model shows that there is more than 50% increase in
volumes compared to the existing (Year 2002) volume count. It is expected that the projected
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
volumes would be lower in Year 2005 and would operate at an acceptable level of service. If the
year 2005 volumes as projected in the county model are not fully realized, then all roadway
segments would meet the ACCMA standard of LOS E during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, both
with and without the Project.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-93
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.28: CMA Roadway Analysis - Existing San Leandro Property - 420-bed Scenario
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
2005 No Project 2005 + Project Change 2005 No Project 2005 + Project Change
Location
Capaci~ VolumE VlC Lm VolumE V/C LOS in VlC Woluml VlC Lm \/olumE VlC Lm inV/C
1-580 north of 159th Avenue
Northbound 8,000 5,698 þ.712 C 5,802 b.725 C 0.013 5,698 þ.71: C 5,709 D.714 C 0.001
Southbound 8,000 7.597 Q.95C E 7,615 0.952 E 0.002 7,597 þ.950 E 7,699 D.962 E 0,013
1-580 north of 150th Avenue
Northbound 8,000 7,155 0.894 D 7,182 0.898 D 0.003 7,155 Þ.894 D 7,308 0.914 E 0.019
Southbound 8,000 7,956 0.99E E 8,111 1.01~ F 0.019 7,956 þ.995 E 7,973 0.997 E 0.002
East 14th Street north of 150th Ave.
Northbound 1,800 715 þ.397 A 717 P.398 A 0.001 715 þ.39i A 725 Þ.403 A 0.006
Southbound 1,800 1,190 Þ.661 B 1,230 þ.683 B 0.022 1,190 þ.661 B 1,191 0.66~ B 0.001
ast 14th Street south of Fairmont Dr,
Northbound 1,800 663 p.368 A 680 þ.378 A 0.009 663 þ.368 A 665 0.36E A 0.001
Southbound 1.800 1,060 þ.589 A 1,063 P.591 A 0.002 1,060 þ.589 A 1,077 0.59S A 0.009
150th Avenue west of East 14th SI.
Eastbound 1,800 1 ,421 Þ .78S C 1 ,428 Þ.79~ C 0.004 1 ,421 þ.78~ C 1 ,422 b.790 C 0.001
Westbound 1,800 1,320 þ.733 C 1,321 0.734 C 0.001 1,320 .733 C 1,327 b.737 C 0.004
Hesperian Blvd. south of 150th Ave,
Northbound 1,800 1,806 1.00~ F 1,813 1.001 F 0.004 1,806 1.00~ F 1,807 1.0()'/ F 0.001
Southbound 1,800 1,777 þ.987 E 1,778 0.988 E 0.001 1,777 0.987 E 1,784 b.991 E 0,004
Note: The estimated capacity for 1-580 is 2,350 vehicles per lane. V/C ratios and corresponding LOS are based on
the 2000 HCM for basic freeway segments.
The estimated capacity for the local roadways is 900 vehicles per lane per hour. The V/C ratios correspond to levels
of service for signalized intersections.
Volumes from CMA model shows more than 50% increase compared to the existing volumes.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-94
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
,I
,¡
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.29: CMA Roadway Analysis - Existing San Leandro Property - 540·bed Scenario
"
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
2005 No Project 2005 + Project Change 2005 No Project 2005 + Project Change
Location
Capacity Volume V/C LOS Volume VlC ILOS ¡nV/C Volume VlC LOS Volume V/C LOS ¡nV/C
1-580 north of 159th Avenue
Northbound 8,000 5,698 ).712 C 5,826 0.728 C 0.016 5,698 ).712 C 5,711 ).714 C 0.002
Southbound 8,000 7,597 J.950 E 7,617 0.952 E 0.002 7,597 J.950 E 7,721 .965 E 0.016
1-580 north of 150th Avenue
Northbound 8,000 7,155 0.894 0 7,184 p.898 0 0.004 7.155 0.894 0 7,340 .917 E 0.023
Southbound 8,000 7,956 0.995 E 8,147 ~.018 F 0.024 7,956 0.995 E 7,977 0.997 E 0.003
East 14th Street north of 150th Ave.
Northbound 1,800 715 0.39/ A 717 þ.398 A 0.001 715 0.397 A 728 0.404 A 0.007
Southbound 1.800 1,190 J.661 B 1,252 0.696 B 0.035 1,190 0.661 B 1.192 0.662 B 0.001
East 14th Street south of Fairmont Dr.
Northbound 1,800 663 J.368 A 684 0.380 A 0.012 663 J.368 A 665 0.369 A 0.001
Southbound 1.800 1,060 1589 A 1,063 0.591 A 0.002 1,060 1589 A 1,081 0.601 B 0.012
150th Avenue west of East 14th SI.
Eastbound 1,800 1,421 0.78~ C 1,429 þ.794 C 0.005 1,421 0.789 C 1 ,423 .790 C 0.001
Westbound 1,800 1.320 0.73.; C 1,323 p.735 C 0.002 1.320 0.733 C 1,341 .745 C 0.012
Hesperian Blvd. south of 150th Ave.
Northbound 1,800 1,806 1.003 F 1,814 1.008 F 0.005 1,806 1.003 F 1,808 .OO~ F 0.001
Southbound 1.800 1,777 0.981 E 1,779 p.988 E 0.001 1,777 0.987 E 1.785 1992 E 0.005
Note: The estimated capacity for 1-580 is 2.350 vehicles per lane. VlC ratios and corresponding LOS are based on
the 2000 HCM for basic freeway segments.
The estimated capacity for the local roadways is 900 vehicles per lane per hour. The V/C ratios correspond to levels
of service for signalized intersections.
Volumes from CMA model shows more than 50% increase compared to the existing volumes.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-95
Chapter 9: Transportation
There are no physical improvements that are planned and/or funded that are capable of
addressing the Project's impact on traffic levels at 1-580 that the Project could contribute toward.
As a small contributor of traffic to the overall congestion on this roadway, the Project would not
be individually responsible for making physical improvernents to this regional-serving facility.
However, efforts to reduce Project-generated trips by enhancing alternative travel modes would
serve to reduce and minimize the Project's contribution of trips on this roadway. The following
mitigation measure, as derived from the discussion of transit impacts above, is recommended to
reduce and minimize the effects ofthis unavoidable impact.
. Mitigation Measure 9.4.2a: Preserve and Enhance Transit Service in San
Leandro. The County of Alameda should côordinate with AC Transit service planners
to ensure continued service at sufficient frequency and hours of operation to meet the
needs ofthe Project and to provide a new bus stop at the main entrance to the facility.
. Mitigation Measure 9.4.2b: TSMrrDM Program. The County of Alameda should
develop and implement a Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand
Management program for this Project designed to reduce the use of single-occupant
vehicles, particularly during peak hour periods. This program should include such
strategies as on-site distribution of transit information and passes, provision of shuttle
services to and rrom the BART station, participation in ridesharing services, preferential
parking for vanpools and carpools, and potentially flexible or staggered work hours.
Resulting level of Significance. Even with implementation of Measure 9.4.2a and 9.4.2b,
the Project's contribution of traffic to 1-580 would be a significant and unavoidable
effect.
Impact 9.4.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA)
requires that analysis be conducted of Project impacts on the Metropolitan Transportation
System (MTS) for a.m. and p.m. peak hours conditions for the years 2005, with and without
Project. Table 9.30 is presented to show the volume-to-capacity ratio and the corresponding
level of service. The a.m. and p.m. peak hour volume projections were obtained from the 2005
Countywide Transportation Model. As shown in Table 9.30, three mainline freeway segments
and four surface street segments were analyzed along 1-880,1-980, ih Street, Broadway, Brush
Street and Castro Street in the Project Study Area.
These include the following segments:
1-880
· South of Broadway
· North of Union Street
1-980
· East of Ith Street
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-96
I
I
-I
I
Ii
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.30: CMA Roadway Analysis - Glenn Dyer Detention Facility - 420-bed Scenario
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
2005 No Project 2005 + Project Change 2005 No Project 2005 + Project Change
Location Capacity Volume VlC LOS Volume VlC LOS ¡nVlC Volum V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS ¡nV/C
1-880 south of Broadway
Northbound 8,000 7,697 0,962 E 7,703 0.963 E 0.001 7,697 0.962 E 7,878 1981; E 0.023
Southbound 8,000 7,018 0.87/ 0 7,226 0.903 E 0.026 7,018 0.877 0 7,023 J,87E 0 0.001
1-880 north of Union Street
Northbound 6,000 3,791 þ.63i B 3,808 þ.635 B 0.003 3,791 þ.632 B 3,791 ~.632 B 0.000
Southbound 6,000 3,995 0.666 B 3,996 0.666 B 0.000 3,995 þ.666 B 4,010 1668 B 0.002
1-980 east of 12th Street
Eastbound 6,000 2,862 0.477 A 2,864 0.477 A 0.000 2,862 0.477 A 2,922 1.487 A 0.010
Westbound 6,000 1,636 0.273 A 1 ,705 0.284 A 0.012 1,636 0.273 A 1,638 1273 A 0.000
7th Street north of Jefferson Street
Southbound 5,600 475 D.085 A 578 D.103 A 0.018 475 0.132 A 477 1.13' A 0.001
Broadway east of 7th Street
Eastbound 2,700 140 ~.052 A 140 ~.052 A 0.000 140 0.052 A 140 .052 A 0.000
Westbound 2,700 338 0.125 A 343 0.127 A 0.002 338 0.125 A 483 .179 A 0.054
~rush Street east of 7th Street
Westbound 2,700 365 0.135 A 434 0.161 A 0.026 365 p.135 A 367 .136 A 0.001
þastro Street east of 12th Street
Eastbound 2,700 110 0.041 A 112 0.041 A 0.001 110 0.041 A 170 1.063 A 0.022
Note: The estimated capacity for 1-880 and 1-980 is 2,350 vehicles per lane. V/C ratios and corresponding LOS are
based on the 2000 HCM for basic freeway segments.
The estimated capacity for the local roadways is 900 vehicles per lane per hour. The V/C ratios correspond to levels
of service for signalized intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-97
Chapter 9: Transportation
7Th Street
· North of Jefferson Street
Broadway
· East of 7th Street
Brush Street
. East of 7th Street
Castro Street
· East of lih Street
The proposed Project at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility would not cause changes in levels of
service on 1-880,1-980, 7Th Street, Broadway, Brush Street or Castro Street, which would
continue to meet the ACCMA standard of LOS E during both a.m. and p.m. peak hour, both with
and without the Project. The Project's contribution of traffic to these roadways would be a less
than significant effect.
Impact 9.4.4: Pardee/Swan Site
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT. The Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency (CMA) requires that analysis be conducted of Project impacts on the
Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) for p.m. peak hours conditions for the years 2005,
with and without Project. Tables 9.31 and 9.32 is presented to show the volume-to-capacity
ratio and the corresponding level of service. The p.m. peak hour volume projections were
obtained from the 2005 Countywide Transportation Model. As shown in Tables 9.31 and 9.32,
two mainline freeway segments and five surface street segments were analyzed. These include
the following segments:
1-880
· South of 98th Avenue
· North of Hegenberger Road
Doolittle Drive
· North of Swan Way
· South of Airport Drive
Airoort Drive
· North of 98th Avenue
Hegenberger Road
· East of Airport Drive
98th Avenue
· East of Airport Avenue
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
,I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
'I
I
,
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.31: CMA Roadway Analysis - Pardee/Swan Site - 420-bed Scenario
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
2005 No Project 2005 + Project Change 2005 No Project 2005 + Project Change
Location Capac~ VolumE VIC LOS !volume VlC La! InV/C Volum VlC La! Ivolumt VlC LOS ¡nVlC
1-880 south of 98th Avenue
Northbound 8,000 7,241 0.905 E 7,377 b.92. E 0.017 7,241 0.905 E 7,245 0.9m E 0.001
Southbound 8,000 8,311 1.03~ F 8,315 1.03~ F 0.000 8,311 1.039 F 8,447 1.05E F 0.017
1-880 north of Hegenberger Rd.
Northbound 8,000 7,080 0.885 0 7,084 b.88E 0 0.000 7,080 J.885 0 7,216 0.90~ E 0.017
Southbound 8,000 7,430 0.929 E 7,566 b.946 E 0.017 7,430 0.929 E 7,434 0.92~ E 0.001
Doolittle Drive north of Swan Way
Northbound 1,800 311 0.173 A 311 þ.173 A 0.000 311 0.173 A 326 0.181 A 0.008
Southbound 1,800 135 b.07~ A 150 b.08: A 0.008 135 0.075 A 135 0.075 A 0.000
Doolittle Drive South of Airport Dr.
Northbound 1,800 1,373 0.763 C 1,389 P.772 C 0.009 1,373 0.763 C 1,373 0.763 C 0.000
Southbound 1,800 1,306 0.726 C 1,306 b.nE c 0.000 1,306 0.726 C 1,322 0.734 C 0.009
'\irport Drive north of 98th Avenue
Northbound 1,800 1,278 þ.71( C 1,419 P.788 C 0.078 1,278 0.710 C 1,282 b.m c 0.002
Southbound 1,800 1,055 þ.586 A 1,059 .58! A 0.002 1,055 0.586 A 1,196 b.664 B 0.078
Hegenberger Rd. east of Airport Dr.
Eastbound 2,700 2,023 P.749 C 2,027 .751 C 0.001 2,023 0.749 C 2,159 þ.80C C 0.050
Westbound 2,700 1,178 þ.43¡ A 1,314 n.487 A 0.050 1,178 0.436 A 1,182 0.43E A 0.001
98th Avenue east of Airport Drive
Eastbound 2,700 852 0.316 A 856 0.317 A 0.001 852 0.316 A 988 0.36E A 0.050
Westbound 2,700 189 þ.070 A 325 0.120 A 0.050 189 0.070 A 193 0.071 A 0.001
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-99
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.32: CMA Roadway Analysis - Pardee/Swan Site - 540·bed Scenario
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
2005 No Project 2005 + Project Change 2005 No Project 2005 + Project Change
Location Capac~ Volume VlC LOS Volume V/C OS inV/C "olum V/C OS Volume VlC LOS InVlC
1-880 south of 98th Avenue
Northbound 8,000 7,241 0.905 E 7.416 3,92r E 0.022 7,241 .905 E 7,246 0.906 E 0.001
Southbound 8,000 8,311 1.039 F 8,316 1.039 F 0.001 8,311 1.039 F 8,486 1.061 F 0.022
1-880 north of Hegenberger Rd.
Northbound 8,000 7,080 þ.885 D 7,085 0.88E D 0.001 7,080 .885 D 7,255 P.907 E 0.022
Southbound 8,000 7,430 þ.929 E 7,605 0.951 E 0.022 7,430 .929 E 7.435 0.929 E 0.001
Doolittle Drive north of Swan Way
Northbound 1,800 311 þ,m A 312 0.17~ A 0.001 311 .173 A 330 .183 A 0.011
Southbound 1,800 135 þ.07~ A 154 0.086 A 0.011 135 .075 A 136 .076 A 0.001
Doolittle Drive South of Airport Dr.
Northbound 1,800 1,373 .763 C 1,393 0.774 C 0.011 1,373 .763 C 1,373 .763 C 0.000
Southbound 1,800 1,306 .726 C 1,306 0.726 C 0.000 1,306 .726 C 1,326 .737 C 0.011
~irport Drive north of 98th Avenue
Northbound 1,800 1,278 .710 C 1.459 0.811 D 0.101 1,278 .710 C 1,283 .71~ C 0.003
Southbound 1,800 1,055 .586 A 1,060 0.589 A 0.003 1,055 .586 A 1,236 1687 B 0.101
Hegenberger Rd. east of Airport Dr.
Eastbound 2,700 2,023 .749 C 2,028 0.751 C 0.002 2,023 J.749 C 2,198 1814 D 0.065
Westbound 2,700 1,178 J .436 A 1,353 0.501 A 0.065 1,178 H36 A 1,183 H3€ A 0.002
98th Avenue east of Airport Drive
Eastbound 2,700 852 1316 A 857 0.317 A 0.002 852 0.316 A 1,027 1380 A 0.065
Westbound 2,700 189 1070 A 364 0.135 A 0.065 189 3,070 A 194 3,072 A 0.002
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-100
I
I
I
~
I
I
J
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I,
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
The proposed Project at the Pardee/Swan Site is not expected to cause changes in levels of
service on 1-880, Doolittle Drive, Airport Drive, Hegenberger Road or 98th Avenue during the
p.m. peak hour under either scenario. On 1-880 southbound, south of 98th Avenue the freeway
would operate at LOS F conditions during both a.m. and p.m. peak hour, with or without the
Project. The increase in traffic levels and the change in volume/capacity ratio attributed to the
Project are approximately 1 % under the 420-bed scenario and approximately 2% WIder the 540-
bed scenario. Although the level of service would not be changed, this increase in traffic levels
is a significant effect of the Project. Mitigation Measure 9.4.2b, above, would partially address
this impact.
Resulting level of Significance. Implementation of Measure 9.4.2b, above, would reduce the
Project's contribution of traffic to 1-880. However, the effectiveness of this measure cannot be
expected to fully address the Project's contribution to long-tenn congestion projected on the
region's roadways, so this impact would be significant and WIavoidable.
Impact 9.4.5: East County Government Center
AND
Impact 9.4.6: Site 15A
The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) requires that analysis be
conducted of Project impacts on the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) for a.m. and
p.m. peak hours conditions for the year 2005, with and without Project. Tables 9.33 through
9.38 show the volume-to-capacity ratio and the corresponding level of service for six
development scenarios. The a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes that are projected were obtained
from the 2005 Countywide Transportation Model. As shown in the tables, the analysis included
two mainline segments on 1-580 and three surface streets (Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard
and Tassajara Road) in the Project study area.
Study segments include:
1-580: East of Tassajara Road and West of Hop yard Road
Dougherty Road: South of Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard: East of Dougherty Road
Tassaiara Road: South of Dublin Boulevard
The following segments would operate. at WIacceptable levels of service:
.
1-580 eastbound east of Tassajara Road would operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak
hour both with and without any of the Project scenarios. Under the worst case scenario
(Scenario A2 below), the Project would add approximately 1.5% of the total traffic on
this roadway. This contribution of traffic would be considered a significant effect of the
Project.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-101
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.33: CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site - Scenario A1
420-bed Juvenile Justice Facility and 13-Court Hall of Justice
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Location 2005 No Project 2005 + Project Change 2005 No Project 2005 + Project I"'hange
Capacity Volume V/C LOS Volume VlC LOS In V/C Volume V/C LOS Volume VlC LOS ¡nV/C
1-580 east of Tassajara Road
Eastbound 8,000 5,295 0.662 B 5,323 ~.665 B 0.004 8,426 1.053 F 8,549 1.069 F 0.015
Westbound 9,000 8,765 0.974 E 8,893 1988 E 0.014 5,929 0.659 B 5,957 0.662 B 0.003
1-580 west of Hopyard Road
Eastbound 9,000 5,203 0.578 A 5,721 J.636 B 0.058 7,402 0.822 D 7,516 0.835 D 0.013
Westbound 9,000 7,753 0.861 D 7,864 0,874 D 0.012 6,578 0.731 C 7,081 0.787 C 0.056
1-680 North of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 4,477 0.746 C 4,488 D.748 C 0.002 6,035 1.006 F 6,085 1.014 F 0.008
Southbound 7,000 5,973 0.853 D 6,025 1861 D 0.007 5,628 0.804 D 5,639 0.806 D 0.002
1-680 South of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 3,861 0.644 B 4,042 0.674 B 0.030 5,754 ~.959 E 5,794 0.966 E 0.007
Southbounå 6,000 5,842 0.974 E 5,881 0.980 E 0.006 5,084 J.847 D 5,260 0.877 D 0.029
Dougherty Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 2,670 0.989 E 2,887 1.069 F 0.080 3,093 1.146 F 3,141 1.163 F 0.018
Southbound 2,700 1,924 þ.713 C 1,970 0.730 C 0.017 2,611 0.967 E 2,822 1.045 F 0.078
Dublin Blvd. east of Dougherty Rd.
Eastbound 2,700 1,183 ).438 A 1 ,498 0.555 A 0.117 866 D.321 A 936 0.347 A 0.026
Westbound 2,700 555 J.206 A 621 0.230 A 0.024 1,547 0.573 A 1,854 0.687 B 0.114
~assajara Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 752 0.279 A 846 D.313 A 0.035 867 0.321 A 888 0.329 A 0.008
Southbound 2,700 757 D.280 A 777 0.288 A 0.007 791 0.293 A 882 0.327 A 0.034
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-102
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.34: CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site - Scenario A2
540-bed Juvenile Justice Facility and 13-Court East County Hall of Justice
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Location 2005 No Project 2005 + Project Change 2005 No Project 2005 + Project "hange
Capacity Volume V/C LOS Volume VlC LOS InV/C Volume V/C LOS Volume VlC LOS ¡nVlC
1-580 east of Tassajara Road
Eastbound 8,000 5,295 ).662 B 5,382 0.673 B 0.011 8,426 1.053 F 8,826 1.103 F 0.050
Westbound 9,000 8,765 ),974 E 8,907 0.990 E 0.016 5,929 0.659 B 5,958 0.662 B 0,003
1-580 west of Hopyard Road
Eastbound 9,000 5,203 0.578 A 5,781 0.642 B 0.064 7,402 ~.822 D 7,523 0.836 D 0.013
Westbound 9,000 7,753 0.861 D 7,819 0.869 D 0.007 6,578 ~.731 C 6,882 0.765 C 0.034
1-680 North of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 4.477 ),746 C 4.484 0.747 C 0.001 6,035 1.006 F 6,065 1.011 F 0.005
Southbound 7,000 5,973 ),853 D 6,031 p.862 D 0.008 5,628 0.804 D 5,640 0.806 D 0.002
1-680 South of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 3,861 0.644 B 4,063 0.677 B 0.034 5,754 0.959 E 5,796 D.966 E 0.007
Southbound 6,000 5,842 0.974 E 5,865 0.978 E 0.004 5,084 0.847 D 5,190 0.865 D 0.018
)ougherty Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 2,670 ),989 E 2,912 1.079 F 0.090 3,093 1.146 F 3,144 1.164 F 0.019
Southbound 2,700 1,924 ),713 C 1,975 0.731 C 0.019 2,611 0.967 E 2,848 1.055 F 0.088
Dublin Blvd. east of Dougherty Rd.
Eastbound 2,700 1,183 0.438 A 1,535 þ.569 A 0.130 866 þ.321 A 939 0.348 A 0.027
Westbound 2,700 555 ),206 A 630 0.233 A 0.028 1,547 0.573 A 1,890 0.700 C 0.127
assajara Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 752 0.279 A 846 0.313 A 0.035 867 0.321 A 888 0.329 A 0.008
Southbound 2,700 757 0.280 A 777 0.288 A 0.007 791 0.293 A 882 0.327 A 0.034
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-103
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.35: CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site - Scenario B
13-Court East County Hall of Justice Only
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Location 2005 No Project 2005 + Project Change 2005 No Project 2005 + Project "'hange
Capacit} Volume VlC LOS Volume VlC LOS ¡nV/C Volume V/C LOS Volume VlC LOS inVlC
1-580 east of Tassajara Road
Eastbound 8,000 5,295 0.662 B 5,312 1664 B 0.002 8,426 1.053 F 8,497 1.062 F 0.009
Westbound 9,000 8,765 J.974 E 8,840 0.982 E 0.008 5,929 J.659 B 5,951 0.661 B 0.002
1-580 west of Hopyard Road
Eastbound 9,000 5,203 0.578 A 5,510 0.612 B 0,034 7.402 0.822 D 7.492 0.832 D 0.010
Westbound 9,000 7,753 0.861 D 7,821 D.869 D 0.008 6,578 0.731 C 6,864 0.763 C 0.032
1-680 North of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 4.477 0.746 C 4.484 D.747 C 0.001 6,035 1.006 F 6,064 1.011 F 0.005
Southbound 7,000 5,973 0.853 D 6,004 J.858 D 0.004 5,628 0.804 D 5,637 3.805 D 0.001
1-680 South of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 3,861 D.644 B 3,968 3.661 B 0.018 5,754 D.959 E 5,786 0.964 E 0.005
Southbound 6,000 5,842 D.974 E 5,866 3.978 E 0.004 5,084 D.847 D 5,184 3.864 D 0.017
Dougherty Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 2,670 D.989 E 2,799 1.037 F 0.048 3,093 1.146 F 3,131 1.160 F 0.014
Southbound 2,700 1,924 D.713 C 1,952 1723 C 0.010 2,611 0.967 E 2,730 1.011 F 0.044
Dublin Blvd. east of Dougherty Rd.
Eastbound 2,700 1,183 0.438 A 1,370 0.507 A 0.069 866 0.321 A 922 0.341 A 0.021
Westbound 2,700 555 0.206 A 595 D.220 A 0.015 1,547 0.573 A 1,720 D.637 B 0.064
assajara Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 752 p.279 A 808 0.299 A 0.021 667 0.321 A 883 0.327 A 0.006
Southbound 2,700 757 0.280 A 769 D.285 A 0.004 791 0.293 A 843 0.312 A 0.019
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-104
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.36: CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site and Site 15A-
C1 d JJF C G C HOJ S' 1
Scenario . 420·be at East ounty overnment enter and EC at Ite 5A
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Location 2005 No Project 2005 + Project Chang 2005 No Project 2005 + Project I'hangE
Capacit) Volume VlC LOS Volume V/C LOS InVlC Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS InVlC
1-580 east of Tassajara Road
Eastbound 8,000 5.295 0.662 B 5.311 0.664 B 0.002 8,426 1.053 F 8,501 1.063 F 0.009
Westbound 9.000 8,765 Þ.974 E 8.840 Þ.982 E 0.008 5.929 10.659 B 5.942 0.660 B 0.001
1-580 west of Hopyard Road
Eastbound 9.000 5.203 0.578 A 5,704 0.634 B 0,056 7,402 0.822 D 7.511 0.835 D 0.012
Westbound 9.000 7,753 0,861 D 7.860 0.873 D 0.012 6.578 0.731 C 7.065 0.785 C 0.054
1-680 North of 1-580
Northbound 6.000 4,477 0.746 C 4,488 0.748 C 0.002 6,035 1.006 F 6,084 1.01 F 0.008
Southbound 7.000 5.973 10,853 D 6.023 0.860 D 0.007 5.628 0.804 D 5.639 ~.806 D 0.002
1-680 South of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 3,861 10.644 B 4.036 10.673 B 0.029 5.754 0.959 E 5.792 0.965 E 0.006
Southbound 6.000 5,842 10.974 E 5.879 0.980 E 0.006 5.084 ~.847 D 5,254 0.876 D 0.028
Dougherty Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2.700 2.670 0.989 E 2,903 1.075 F 0.086 3,093 1.146 F 3,146 1.165 F 0.020
Southbound 2.700 1,924 0.713 C 1,974 0.731 C 0.019 2,611 0.967 E 2,837 1.051 F 0.084
Dublin Blvd. east of Dougherty Rd.
Eastbound 2,700 1.183 0.438 A 1,514 10.561 A 0.123 866 þ.321 A 941 0.349 A 0.028
Westbound 2,700 555 10.206 A 625 10.231 A 0.026 1.547 0.573 A 1.869 ~.692 B 0.119
assajara Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2.700 752 10 .279 A 796 10.295 A 0.016 867 0.321 A 873 0.323 A 0.002
Southbound 2.700 757 þ.280 A 766 10.284 A 0.003 791 0.293 A 836 0.310 A 0.017
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-105
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-1 06
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.37: CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site and Site 15A-
Scenario C2· 540·bed JJF at East County Government Center and ECHOJ at Site 15A
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Location 2005 No Project 2005 + Project Chang 2005 No Project 2005 + Project "hange
Capacity Volume V/C LOS Volume VlC LOS inVlC Volume VlC LOS Volume VlC LOS inVlC
1-580 east of Tassajara Road
Eastbound 8.000 5,295 ),662 B 5,314 0.664 B 0.002 8,426 1.053 F 8,516 1.065 F 0.011
Westbound 9,000 8,765 0.974 E 8,854 0.984 E 0.010 5,929 0.659 B 5,944 0.660 B 0.002
1-580 west of Hopyard Road
Eastbound 9,000 5,203 0.578 A 5,765 0,641 B 0.062 7,402 0.822 D 7,518 0.835 D 0.013
Westbound 9,000 7,753 0.861 D 7,873 0.875 D 0.013 6,578 0.731 C 7,128 0.792 C 0.061
1-680 North of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 4,477 0.746 C 4,489 0.748 C 0.002 6,035 1.006 F 6,090 1.015 F 0.009
Southbound 7,000 5,973 0.853 D 6,029 0.861 D 0.008 5,628 0.804 D 5,640 0.806 D 0.002
1-680 South of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 3,861 ~.644 B 4,058 0.676 B 0.033 5,754 þ.959 E 5,795 ),966 E 0.007
Southbound 6,000 5,842 ~.974 E 5,884 0.981 E 0.007 5,084 0.847 D 5,277 J.879 D 0.032
)ougherty Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 2,670 ),989 E 2,929 1.085 F 0.096 3,093 1.146 F 3,149 1.166 F 0.021
Southbound 2,700 1.924 0.713 C 1,979 0.733 C 0.020 2,611 0.967 E 2,863 1.060 F 0.093
Dublin Blvd. east of Dougherty Rd.
.
Eastbound 2,700 1,183 0.438 A 1,552 0.575 A 0.137 866 þ.321 A 944 ~.350 A 0.029
Westbound 2,700 555 0.206 A 634 0.235 A 0.029 1,547 0.573 A 1,907 0.706 C 0.133
assajara Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 752 0.279 A 805 0.298 A 0.020 867 0.321 A 874 0.324 A 0.003
Southbound 2,700 757 ~.280 A 769 0.285 A 0.004 791 0.293 A 847 0.314 A 0.021
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Table 9.38: CMA Roadway Analysis - Site 15A - Scenario D
o I th E C H II f J f S·t 15A
nlv e ast ounty a 0 us Ice at Ie
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Location 2005 No Project 2005 + Project Change 2005 No Project 2005 + Project r'hange
Capacity Volume VlC LOS Volume V/C LOS InVlC Volume VlC LOS Volume VlC LOS InV/C
1-580 east of Tassajara Road
Eastbound 8,000 5,295 0,662 B 5,300 ),663 B 0.001 8,426 1.053 F 8,448 1.056 F 0.003
Westbound 9,000 8,765 0.974 E 8,788 0.976 E 0.003 5,929 0.659 B 5,936 0.660 B 0.001
1-580 west of Hopyard Road
Eastbound 9,000 5,203 þ.578 A 5,494 ~.610 B 0.032 7,402 0.822 D 7,487 0.832 D 0.009
Westbound 9,000 7,753 þ.861 D 7,817 þ.869 D 0.007 6,578 0.731 C 6,848 þ.761 C 0.030
1-680 North of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 4,477 0.746 C 4,483 þ.747 C 0.001 6,035 1.006 F 6.062 1.010 F 0.004
Southbound 7,000 5,973 0.853 D 6,002 þ.857 D 0.004 5.628 0.804 D 5,637 p.805 D 0.001
1-680 South of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 3,861 0.644 B 3,963 ).660 B 0.017 5,754 0.959 E 5,784 0.964 E 0.005
Southbound 6,000 5.842 0.974 E 5,864 þ.977 E 0.004 5,084 0.847 D 5,179 0.863 D 0.016
Dougherty Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2.700 2,670 0.989 E 2,816 1.043 F 0.054 3,093 1.146 F 3,136 1.161 F 0.016
Southbound 2,700 1,924 0,713 C 1,956 0.724 C 0.012 2,611 0.967 E 2,746 1.017 F 0.050
Dublin Blvd. east of Dougherty Rd.
Eastbound 2,700 1,183 þ.438 A 1,387 0.514 A 0.076 866 0.321 A 927 0.343 A 0.023
Westbound 2,700 555 0.206 A 599 þ.222 A 0.016 1,547 0.573 A 1,736 0.643 B 0.070
~assajara Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 752 0.279 A 755 1280 A 0.001 867 0.321 A 868 0.321 A 0.000
Southbound 2,700 757 0.280 A 758 1281 A 0.000 791 0.293 A 794 0.294 A 0.001
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-107
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9·108
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
. 1-680 northbound north ofI-580 would operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour both
with and without any of the Project scenarios. Under the worst case scenario (Scenario
A2 below), the Project would add less than 1 % of the total traffic on this roadway. This
contribution of traffic would be considered a less than significant effect of the Project.
· Dougherty Road northbound, south of Dublin Boulevard would change from LOS E to
LOS F during the a.m. peak hours when traffic generated by the Project (all scenarios) is
added. The Project's contribution of traffic to this roadway during the a.m. peak hour
ranges from a low of approximately 5% (Scenarios Band D below) to a high of
approximately 9% (Scenarios AI, A2, Cl and C2 below). This addition of traffic is a
significant effect ofthe Project. Dougherty Road northbound, south of Dublin Boulevárd
would also operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour both with and without any of the
scenarios. Under all scenarios, the Project would add more than 1 % of the total traffic on
this roadway during the p.m. peak hour. This contribution of traffic would be considered
a significant effect ofthe Project.
· Dougherty Road southbound, south of Dublin Boulevard would change from LOS E to
LOS F during the p.m. peak hours when traffic generated by the Project (all scenarios) is
added. The Project's contribution oftraffic to this roadway during the p.m. peak hour
ranges from a low of approximately 5% (Scenarios B and D below) to a high of 8%
(Scenarios AI, A2, Cl and C2 below). This addition of traffic is a significant effect of
the Project.
Year 2005 volumes from the County model indicate more than a 50% increase over Year 2002
volumes for these segments. If the projected volumes do not increase at such a high rate, all three
roadway segments are expected be at LOS E during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, both with and
without the Project.
Mitigation Measures intended to address these impacts include the following:
. Mitigation Measure 9.4.5a and 9.4.6a: TSMITDM Program. The County of
Alameda should implement a Transportation Systems Management/Transportation
Demand Management program for this Project designed to reduce the use of single-
occupant vehicles, particularly during peak hour periods. This program should include
such strategies as on-site distribution of transit information and passes, provision of
shuttle services to and from the BART station, participation in ride sharing services,
preferential parking for vanpools and carpools, and potentially flexible or staggered work
hours.
. Mitigation Measure 9.4.5b and 9.4.6b: Enhanced Transit Program. The
County of Alameda should implement an enhanced transit program designed to improve
access to the Project, with particular emphasis on expanding LA VTA route coverage and
hours serving the site. Such a program should also consider the potential for participation
in funding LA VTA shuttle services to and from the BART station.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
. Mitigation Measure 9.4.5c and 9.4.6c: TVTC Fees. The County of Alameda
should contribute a proportionate amount to regional transportation mitigation programs
as detennined by the current Tri- Valley Transportation Council fee program. Regional
improvements that may be implemented through use of these fees may include enhanced
rail and feeder bus transit services, construction or upgrading ofI-580 and/or 1-680
fteeways, and/or construction or upgrading of alternative road corridors to relieve
demand on the 1-580 and 1-680 freeways.
Resulting level of Significance. Even with implementation of Measure 9.4.5a, b, and c,
and 9.4.6a, b and c above, the Project's contribution of traffic to 1-580 and Dougherty
Road would be a significant and unavoidable effect. Additionally, improvements to
regional roadways depend upon other agencies for implementation and are outside ofthe
County's jurisdiction. Consequently, construction ofirnprovements cannot be assured.
IMPACT 9.5:
A Change in Air Traffic Patterns, including Either an
Increase in Traffic Levels or a Change in Location That
Results in Substantial Safety Risks
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No project benefits have been identified related to air travel patterns.
PROJECT IMPACTS
IMPACT 9.5.1: All Alternatives
NO IMP ACT. None of the alternatives would result in any change in air travel patterns. The
Projects are intended to meet existing and projected future demands for justice facilities that
serve Alameda County. The Pardee/Swan Site is located near the Oakland International Airport,
but is outside of flight paths that could pI:esent safety risks. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
IMPACT 9.6:
A Substantial Increase in Hazards Due to a Design Feature
or Incompatible Uses
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No benefits have been identified related to hazards ftom design features or incompatible uses.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-109
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-110
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
í
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 9.6.1: All Alternatives
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Each of the Project Alternatives provides an
appropriate site for the development of the Juvenile Justice Project and/or the East County Hall
of Justice. The Projects would be designed to confonn to applicable emergency access codes,
including interior existing strategies and emergency response routes, and would include
secondary roadway access to the perimeter of the site and buildings.
IMPACT 9.7:
Inadequate Emergency Access
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
The Juvenile Justice Project would provide some benefits related to improved safety if a site
other than San Leandro is developed, to the extent that proximity to the Hayward fault could
present difficulties for emergency response vehicles ifroadways or utilities are fractured.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 9.7.1: No Action/No Project
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. Continuing to operate the existing Juvenile Hall and the
Gale/Shenone Hall of Justice facilities would not present new impacts to emergency response.
However, the existing San Leandro Juvenile Hall is located in close proximity to the Hayward
fault, which could rupture utilities and roadways serving the site. No Action / No Project would
result in a continuation of the existing hazards that are present throughout the region, particularly
for development along earthquake faults. Fainnont Drive provides a link to the west and east,
which facilitates emergency access from one or more emergency response agencies despite the
possibility of a roadway failure near the site.
Impact 9.7.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The development ofa new Juvenile Justice Project at
the San Leandro Property would provide an opportunity to build new access routes into the site,
with one to the west ofthe fault and one to the east ofthe fault, providing redundant access for
emergency vehicles and evacuation.
Impact 9.7.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMP ACT. The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is located in an urban setting with adequate
emergency response routes. Public streets front on two sides of the facility.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 9: Transportation
Impact 9.7.4: Pardee/Swan Site
NO IMPACT. The Pardee/Swan Site is located in an urban setting with adequate emergency
response routes. The site would be developed with a perimeter access road that would serve as
an emergency access and evacuation route, and two public roadways provide independent access
to the site.
Impact 9.7.5: East County Government Center
NO IMPACT. The East County Government Center is located in a developed setting with
adequate emergency response routes. The site would be developed with secondary access and
emergency evacuation routes. Separate access would"be provided to each of the Project
components from Gleason Drive, Arnold Road, Madigan A venue and Broder Blvd.
Impact 9.7.6: Site 15A
NO IMPACT. Site 15A is located in a developed setting with adequate emergency response
routes. The site would be developed with secondary access and emergency evacuation routes on
Dublin Blvd. and Arnold Road.
IMPACT 9.8:
Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans or Programs
Supporting Alternative Transportation
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No benefits have been identified related to alternative transportation policies and programs.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 9.8.1: All Alternatives
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As described above under Impact 9.2, each of the
Alternatives would be provided with transit service to meet the needs and/or choices of persons
who use alternatives to the private automobile. The County of Alameda also participates in
programs to encourage ridesharing by employees. Those programs would apply to development
at any of the alternative sites. Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, provision of
motorcycle and bicycle parking, shower facilities for employees, guaranteed ride home, and
similar programs are available to varying degrees, and would be incorporated into the Project.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 9-111
Chapter 9: Transportation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR Page 9-112
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
Noise
10.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ACOUSTICS
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing
or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch
is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (&equency) ofthe
vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds
with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception
characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it
is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave.
In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, several noise measurement scales are used to
describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the
relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level
that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a
logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a lO-fold increase in acoustic energy,
while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There
is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each
10-decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a
fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 10.1.
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A-
weighted sound level or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to
which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of
dBA are shown in Table 10.2.
Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing
either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be
used. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has
the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This energy-
equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly,
but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-1
Chapter 10: Noise
Table 10.1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definitions
Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to
the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the
reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square
metre ).
Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below
atmospheric pressure.
A-Weighted Sound The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter
Level, dBA using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes
the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner
similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with
subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted,
unless reported otherwise.
L01' L10, L50, Lao The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%,10%,50% and 90% of
the time during the measurement period.
Equivalent Noise Level, The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Leq
Community Noise The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after
Equivalent Level, CNEL addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after
addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Day/Night Noise Level, The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after
Ldn addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m.
Lmax, Lm1n The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the
measurement period.
Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or
existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
Intrusive That noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a
given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its
amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or
informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-2
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 10: Noise
Table 10.2: Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry
A-
Weighted
At a Given Distance Sound Noise Environments Subjective Impression
from Noise Source Level in
Decibels
140
Civil Defense Siren (100') 130
Jet Takeoff (200') 120 Pain Threshold
110 Rock Music Concert
Diesel Pile Driver (100') 100 Very Loud
90 Boiler Room
Freight Cars (50') Printing Press Plant
Pneumatic Drill (50') 80
Freeway (100') In Kitchen with Garbage
Vacuum Cleaner (10') 70 Disposal Running Moderately Loud
60 Data Processing Center
Light Traffic (100') 50 Department Store
Large Transformer (200')
40 Private Business Office Quiet
Soft Whisper (5') 30 Quiet Bedroom
20 Recording Studio
10 Threshold of Hearing
0
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-3
Chapter 10: Noise
The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can
accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various
computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels :trom sources, such as roadways
and airports. The accuracy of the predicted rnodels depends upon the distance the receptor is
:trom the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or
minus 1 to 2 dBA.
Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night - because excessive
noise interferes with the ability to sleep - 24-hour descriptors have been developed that
incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise
Equivalent Level, CNEL, is a measure ofthe cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a
5-dB penalty added to evening (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00
p.m. - 7:00 a.m.) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level, Ldn, is essentially the same
as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during
this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period.
REGULATORy/POLICY SETTING
Federal
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) has identified Ldn of 55 dB as the level
requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
State
The State of California has established guidelines and regulations designed to limit noise
exposure at existing and proposed noise sensitive land uses. These guidelines and regulations are
established in the following documents: (1) the State CEQA Guideline, Appendix G; (2) Title 24,
Part 2 of the State Building Code; (3) Title 24, Part 1, Division VII Board of Corrections
Regulations pertaining to minimum standards for juvenile facilities, and (4) the General Plan
Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element of the General Plan. The
regulatory background established by the State would be applicable in the assessment of each
proposed site.
CEQA thresholds are discussed in rnore detail under "Environmental Consequences and
Mitigation Measures," below.
New multifamily housing in California is subject to the environmental noise limits set forth in
Title 24, Part 2, of the State Building Code. The noise limit is a maximum interior noise level of
45 Ldn. Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 Ldn. a report must be submitted with the building
plans describing the noise control measures that have been incorporated into the design to rneet
the interior noise limit. Although not directly applicable to a project such as the Juvenile Justice
Facility or East County Hall of Justice, this threshold provides some comparison to high-density
residential uses.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 1 0-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 10: Noise
The design of juvenile detention facilities is regulated in Title 15 and Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations. Title 24, part 1, Division VII, section 13-201 sets forth the following
minimum design standards for acoustics:
Dayroom areas shall be designed and constructed so that the noise level does not exceed 65
decibels and a reverberation time less than 1.5 seconds. Sleeping areas shall have a noise level
no higher than 35 decibels and a reverberation time less than 1.5 seconds. The heating,
ventilating and air conditioning noise level shall be no higher than 35 decibels in sleeping areas
and classrooms.
The State of California General Plan guidelines, published by the Governor's Office of Planning
and Research, provide recommended community noise exposure levels for various land uses '
categories (see Figure 10.1). These compatibility guidelines identify broad categories of land
uses including residential and office buildings, with noise levels that may be considered
"Normally Acceptable", "Conditionally Acceptable", "Normally Unacceptable", and "Clearly
Unacceptable." The figure assumes conventional construction methods, which provides some
attenuation between the outdoors and interior living/working environment. The figure also
requires interpretation based on factors such as the type of noise source, the sensitivity of the
noise receptor, the noise reduction likely to be provided by structures, and the degree to which
the noise source may interfere with speech, sleep, or other activities characteristic of the land
use.
Local jurisdictions adopt land use compatibility tables, policies, and ordinances consistent with
the State guidelines. The County of Alameda, City of Oakland, and City of Dublin each have
adopted plans, codes, and ordinances that provide guidance for this Project, but would not apply
because the County is exempt from local regulation in the implementation of these Projects.
LOCAL PHYSICAL SETTING
Existing San Leandro Property
The Existing San Leandro Property site is located in the general vicinity of the existing Juvenile
Hall at 2200 Fairmont Drive, but new development at this site would occur further northeast, up
the hill where an unused juvenile detention camp is presently located. Fairmont Drive is the
major noise source affecting this site as it ascends up and around the site into the hills. Northwest
of the site, across Fairmont Drive, are single-family residences along Van Avenue at Placer
Drive. West ofthe site on Fairmont Drive is the Fairmont Hospital (15400 Foothill Boulevard)
and the John George Psychiatric Pavilion (2060 Fairmont Drive).
A noise measurement survey was conducted at the nearest sensitive land use across from the site
on V an Avenue. This survey consisted of a short term, 10-minute measurement made on October
4,2002 (ST-l) and a 24-hour long-term measurement made on November 5 to November 6,
2002 (L T -1). The first measurement was rnade in front of # 14807 V an Avenue at the comer of
V an Avenue and Placer Drive approximately 450 feet from the closest existing Juvenile Hall
building. The second measurement was made across Placer Drive from this spot on a pole. The
measurement locations are depicted in Figure 10.2.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-5
Land U$8 Category
Residential· Low Density
Single Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes
Residenllal .
Multi, Family
Transient Lodging -
Motels, Hotels
Schools, Libraries,
Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert
Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
Playgrounds,
NeighbOrhOOd Parks
Golf Courses, Riding
Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial and
Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture
Community No/s. Exposure
Ldn Of CNEL, dB
60 65 70 75
".)~J
Figure 10.1
State of California Noise and
Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
INTERPRETATION:
1·.I;i:'~~i~~
Ûàn:di~:YMÞ)
Normally Acceptable
Specified land use is satisfactory,
based upon the assumption that any
buildings involved are of normal
conventional construction, without
any special noise insulation
requirements.
...
Conditionally Acceptable
New construction or development
shouid be undertaken only atter a
detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements Is made and needed
noise insulation features included in
the design. Conventional construction,
but with closed windows and fresh air
supply systems or air conditioning
will normally suffice.
...
Normally Unacceptable
New conslruction or development
should generally be discouraged. If
new construction or development d06
proceed, a detailed analysis of the
noise redltCtion requirements must be
made and needed noise insulation
features included in the design.
...
Clearly Unacceplable
New construction or development
should generally not be undertaken,
SOURCE: Office of Planning and Research
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 10.2
San Leandro Site
Noise Measurement Locations
SOURCE: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
Aerial Photo: Pacific Aerial Surveys
Chapter 10: Noise
The 10-minute Leq at site ST-I was approximately 56 dBA. The major noise source at this site
was traffic on Fainnont Drive, which ranged in levels from 60 to 69 dBA per vehicle pass-by. A
total of 117 automobiles and 2 medium-sized trucks passed by at approximately 50 mph on
Fainnont Drive during the 10-minute period from 4:00 p.m. to 4: 10 p.m. Vehicles entering and
exiting the existing Juvenile Hall parking lot were the only discernable noise source from the
existing facility. The backup-beepers of delivery trucks could also be heard but were
indistinguishable from the general noise. Airplanes flying over the site also contributed to the
noise environment. At site L T -I, the measured Ldn was approximately 64 dBA. Hourly noise
levels ranged from 48 to 63 dBA Leq during the 24-hour survey period. Local traffic on Van
Avenue and Placer Drive contributed to levels measured at this site. Figure 10.3 is a graphical
depiction of the results of this measurement. '
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility site is located at 550 6th Street in the City of Oakland at the
existing County detention facility. The site occupies a city block between 6th Street and 7th
Street, from Jefferson Street to Washington Street. The site is directly across 6th Street from
where Interstate 980 (1-980) connects to an elevated section ofInterstate 880 (1-880) through
downtown Oakland. The site is presently occupied by an existing 8-story building and parking
garage. The major noise source at this site is the elevated 12-lane highway, which is
approximately 100 feet west ofthe site.
Noise measurements were conducted at the site during the afternoon of October 3, 2002. The
measurements consisted of three lO-minute spot measurements at various locations
representative of different exposures to the highway. The measurement locations are depicted in
Figure 10.4. The first measurement was made on the roof floor of the 8-story parking garage on
the northernmost portion of the site. At this height (178 feet), all lanes of the highway were
visible. The measured 10-minute Leq was 81 dBA. The second measurement was made on the
fourth floor of the parking garage, which had a view of all lanes except for 1-980 southbound.
The 10-minute Leq was again 81 dBA. The final measurement was made at 6th Street level,
setback with the building facade 50 feet from the near traffic lane of 6th Street and 105 feet from
the edge of the elevated highway. Only the tops of cars in the near 1-980 exit lane were visible.
The Leq at this location was 71 dBA. No measurements were made inside the facility. The
estimated Ldn at this location is about 71 dBA for areas below the freeway and 80-85 dBA at
higher floors.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,........" .
~
I
I
'f')
QC;
,
.
.
'....
....
l'
,
,
,
.
,
.
<III
o
QO
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
<II
,
,
''' II
,
.<11
.
,
.
.4
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
'.
.
.
,
,
,
,
':4
,
,
V¡
r--
'of
.
.
.
.
."
"II'
11
I
I
I
o
r--
'" ................. ..
,
.
VIIP lilA;}'l ;)S!0N
I,f)
'-0
o
\0
'f')
I,f)
'3"
~
....
t
C>
I,f)
x
""
E
....¡
.
I
4
""
<::>
~
~
...
III
.c
~
o
Z
o
"'¡;;
~ð
j~
111-:6
.~ I.t)
o ...
Z1:
þE
... III
:::I >
o 0
;:r::Z
..:
o
~
'"
¡¡:;
."0
~ :;
< .
III
:; >
><
co :;
gj>
""....
"" 0
-:5 t
'0:: ¡::
~ ~
~u
'" III
£-:6
III....
tJ) '"
V'¡
-.,r
~
'"'"
w
.E
"
:.;.z
."
o
p::
,i
i§
o
~
§
¡ij
u
p::
ð
[J'J
o
9-
f'1
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
¿.,:
o
~
o¢
o
o
t-:
8
>b
C>
9-
V'¡
~
4"
o
9-
'"'"
o
9-
N
<101
e
0< ¡.:
?
C>
9-
o
o
?
<""\
N
o
::::
N
N
o
?
N
o
o
Ö
N
o
C>
¿.,:
......
I
Eo-<
.....J
Q)
.....
.....
C/)
.....
co
C/J
......
Q)
Q) >
..... Q)
..... .....J
C/) Q)
8 .;!¡
~"'(j~
'"'" ~
QI Q) >.
........J¡::::
6b s:: g
.... co "T'<
~C/)>-I-<
o
?
o¢
C>
9.
r--
o
::::
'-0
~
II
.g
,..¡
o
9
V'¡
C>
?
"""
o
"""
· '"
~f
.5 ::I
,,>o(¡¡;
11m
¡>: .¡::
.¡j<
'€J!
o ·0
~~
~.š
- 0
~f
u-
!3 .~
5S<
rJ:J
s::
o
.,¡:::
rt
u
.3
.....
s::
Q)
Q) S
.~ Q)
CJ') 1-0
1-0 ~
~ Q) "J
Q ItS
1""1 5 Q)
ell s:: ::E
1-0 s:: Q)
~ Q) .~
.......... 0
~C)z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 10: Noise
Pardee/Swan Site
The Pardee/Swan Site is located on an undeveloped parcel of land in west Oakland off the corner
of Pardee Drive at Swan Way near the Oakland International Airport. The site is located east of
the north field of the airport, across the Airport Channel and immediately north of the United
Parcel Service (UPS) distribution facility on Pardee Drive. The site extends eastward to the San
Leandro Creek. North of the site is the Arrowhead Marsh, which includes open wetland areas
and publicly accessible parkland. The major noise source at the site is the Oakland North Field
Airport, which is approximately 1,100 feet west of the site.
On October 3,2002, a noise monitor was placed on the site where the Juvenile Justice Facility is
proposed. The meter was placed 10 feet high in a tree at the northern edge ofthe UPS parking
lot. The measurement location is depicted in Figure 10.5. The meter was set to measure hourly
noise levels and also intennittent noise levels that exceeded 75 dBA. The meter ran for 24 hours
until the afternoon of October 4,2002 (Figure 10.6). The Ldn measured at the site was 63 dBA.
Noise levels exceeded 75 dBA in only 8 ofthe 24 hours. Single airport events were measured on
October 4,2002. Aircraft engine maximum noise measured at about 75 dBA. The site lies
outside of the airport's 65 Ldn noise contour on the Airport Master Plan Noise Contour Map.
Figure 10.7 depicts the site as it relates to the airport noise contours for the year 2000. Noise
exposure levels depicted for future Master Plan years are not substantially different from existing
conditions.
East County Government Center
The East County Government Center site is located in the City of Dublin on the vacant area
north of Gleason Drive at Hacienda Drive between Arnold Road and Madigan Avenue. The
Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center is located to the north of the site, Camp Parks to the west and
the California Highway Patrol to the east. Business offices are south of the site between Arnold
Road and Hacienda Drive, and single-family homes are south of the site between Hacienda Drive
and Tassajara Drive.
A noise measurement survey was conducted for the East County Government Center site on
August 1 and August 2,2001. Two 24-hour measurements and five short-tenn measurements
were made to quantify the existing noise levels on the site and at nearby residences. The
locations of these measurements are depicted in Figure 10.8. The two 24-hour measurements
were made within the residential neighborhood south of the site. L T -1 was made in the center of
the rear yard of#5764 Idlewood Street behind an 8-foot sound wall along Hacienda Drive. At
this location, Hacienda Drive was the major noise source. Construction of nearby offices also
contributed to noise levels. Distant gunfire from the County Sheriff s Shooting Range was
audible but not measurable at this location. The CNEL measured at this location was 58 dBA.
The hourly data are displayed graphically in Figure 10.9. Measurement LT-2 was made on a
pole at the corner of Idlewood Court and Winterbrook Avenue approximately 60 feet from the
sound wall off Gleason Drive. At this site, gunshots were more audible but not measurable over
the noise from traffic on Gleason Drive. The CNEL at this location was 57 dBA. This data are
displayed in Figure 10.10.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-11
Figue 10.5
Pardee/Swan Site
Noise Measurement Locations
SOURCE: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
Aerial Photo: Pacific Aerial Surveys
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;JIII
,
,
,
,
..:
..
..
..-
_P
~..
,
.
,
...
,
,
,
.
_4
.:P
-p
"' III-
, ,
,
,
..:
..
....
l:'-
p
11'
:,
.
.
... ~ '-
~ -
-,.
,
.
,
.
i,¡¡'
- ..
..
..
..
.
...
.'
..
-..
..
..~
...
--
#-
p#
4.. #-
......
......
......
-
.
..
¡11" --
.
:t
~I
..
"
"
,
'1
,
,
,
A
#
.
,
..
#
..
..
..
"-
A
.
..
<=>
'"
11"\
t'
~ ~ $
(YBP) SiaM'} "'ON
11"\
11"\
<=>
VI
<=>
QQ
VI
QQ
VI
'<t
õ
..,¡
""
"
:E
'"
¡:¡..
"'¡e
~5
'" "'
.s~
i 0
-- ~
'" '"
'ß"O
E g
¡:~
æ E
'" "'
"'.,s
::; c;
sz
o "'
:r:.,s
~1ã
~
11"\
8
.;,;
-
<=>
<=>
¡..;
8
N
0
c.?
-
-
8
§
8
ó\
~
QQ
0
0
t-:.
8
>Ö
0
0
.¡.; U
I:i
g ï=
c:I
.;,; ï
0
<? ...
t") =
Q
<=> =
0
N
0
<?
8
ö
g
,:;.¡
N
0
0
~
~
-
N
0
0
f¿¡
8
ó\
0
c.?
QQ
<=>
0
t-:.
-
8
>Ö
-
0
'<t
~
:#'
...
~
.8
8
N
"2'
<">
j
èS
]
..,¡
,.;
.5
"
~
"0
o
I><:
~
~
o
~
§
Ô
I><:
8
'"
~
......
CJ)
.....
~
Q)
S
~
;j
<JJ
ro
Q)
::;E
1-1
;::I
o
:r::
I
'<:fi
N
.....
ro
<JJ
,....;
Q)
~ >
..... Q)
CJ)~
¡:::: Q)
(t <JJ
~ ~·õ
~~Z
Q, Q) >.
1-1 Q)""';
~""O 1-1
1-1 ;j
o
~~:r::
::.~
~:~
:;Ji
.,''''
~
,;/ ~
il ..J
v~... ë
~. I
~
g § !
'ë
~ a. e. t>
:;.~. I i f
;;,..,
§ Ii: ,I
'< &: ð ~
~ Z
<4
*. I I
~,,) '" .
"=v %¡
I I
*,
-.-..............................
~~~
¡
ik
§
2'
£
~
I
Q
c
z+-
__·m....................,......
æ~..~-t"t]........
;Elãe)¿~§
&~ ~ Æ' ~~
~2ð5ücl:~
~ ~ ~ ~ -- .5"'
~~E~~
e .- E~- ô 0
",<_.."'Z
!;i,1ª - <: '" '"
~5.sQ):B~
-- IE ~ '" ..
~êE8g~
q¡ § .;; <: 8'
~ .s ';; <: 0 0
.Q rWUN
OJ '1J ~ ~~
5; S ~ .- 'Ö
U;:;:¡ ':ö o ,lit
-"'ð Z8
15 0 ~ ~ ~
.g- '6- 8
..; .-
1 :-ê <
- ,.J
ð W
g. þ 15
cl: § IlJ
~ ð :;
~ ~ ~
::> 1! &,
@ f¡j ¡¡:
<
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
crJ
I-<
;::I
.8
2 §
ëñu
§ &
t-.. !> . ....
. ~ 0
QCf.)Z
,.-.4_
Q,I QJ 't
I-< QJ 0
6b 'E e-
.... rt$ .....
~O-i<
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~f
.~ "
~v;
~~
~~
-£~
0'-
~£
¡: ..
§~
..~
""'"
U-
!š .~
0<
v;
QJ
.....
.....
CJJ
I-<
QJ
1:: (/)
QJ s:::
uS
..... ra
s::: V
QJ 0
ê~
QJ QJ
~ S
c..? ~
;:i
CO Þ (/)
. s::: ra
O;:i~
,..-4o,¿¡
~ U QJ
= ..... .~
bO(/}O
.... ra Z
~~
....
.
.
.(
~
,
.
''II
,
.
~
\
.
\
, II
I
I
,
..'
,
I
11
.
I
;'I
.
.
.
~
\
\
.
-~
...~
,
.
..
·
·
·
1
\
\
\
/I
I
·
I
I
..
....................:<--
<0
iXI
V')
to-
<:>
r--
....
.
I
·
l'
.
.
.
....
.
·
,
, .
....
. .
I
·
.-
l'
\
,
\
111
I
.
,
...
.
.
,
. .
-'"
V')
\0
<:::> V') 0
\0 V') on
(Vo:p) SI3¡\3'13S,ON
X
t<I
8' e
...J ...J
f f
or¡
~
o
-.t
;¡;
~
¡::
~
Õ
..E
00
¡::
'"
"0"0
~ ¡::
>-.:2
~~
&(¡j
~8
o ~
~~
"ß:E
u;$
<Ii"-
o£~
.Eõ
on
M
....
o
o
N
'"Ò
¡¡
1
~
.8
§
N
o
~
.,.
<:>
~
M
o
9
N
-
<:::>
'?
<:::>
<:::>
Ö
..>
'"
....
1
<
o
o
0.:
o
~
<XI
o
o
t-:
..;
o
'"
]
"a
'"
;:r::
~
8
I.Ö
<:>
o
.¡...;
8
;,j tIÐ
I:
<:> 'S
~ I:
,..., '6'f¡
8 c!
.. ¡,.
N :::I
Q
~ :c
.0
'?
<:>
.0
.0
M
N
~
N
N
~
N
8
ö
N
<:>
.0
¿,;
<:>
<:>
Cò
8
t..:
I
~J :
.0
!"1
u
.s
¡::
;¡¡
""
&
..¡j
":2
o
l
èJ
a
.2:!
.....
U)
1-1
Q)
1::
Q),....¡
U'
...E-<
¡,::;,..J
Q)...
ê';
1-1 Q)
Q) >
> Q)
O,..J
c..? Q)
þ.~
~ ¡,::; 0
~;::3Z
Q.I 0 >.
"""uo¡::::
:I ..... ;::3
bJ:)cno
..... co ÞO,o4
~~.....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~~
~~
..;~
r-~~
Co V'¡
OQ t-
I
I
,
,
,
,
..~
..:
-.
. .
..:
~.
~..
,.~
.....
<III
,
,
,
,
...
.:
~...
I
,
I
...~
...~
,
,
,
,
...
.-
--
~..
ill
,
..
~--
,
,
.
,...
~ -
-..
o V'¡
t- \0
~~..
-'.AI
_~_~..n...._......_~.~~
o V'¡ 0
\0 V> V>
(V8P) 513'\3'} 35!ON
V>
.".
o
.".
>(
to
E
...J
,
,
,
..
,
,
,
E
o
J:i
Õ
.E
<::>
~
>.
Q)
ê
"X
o
&
«
~
.><: .
gCS
....151::
~ !1 ~
( J 5 '"
§ ~ ë3
U":I:;¡;
( Jg~
-£ "¡;
1¡¡u ~
"Ë-g]
p.. 0 g
'" ~ <:I)
,6;9.£
V> 0
M ....
....
<::>
¡;;¡
"Ò
,l:j
....
»
.8
8
N
....'
or,
....
~
.;:
Oo.,f>
Oo.¿.
'b"
./
a
V.Ò
'"
'f!
.§
,..,¡
'b.~
ê
Oo.¿
è"
'b..:-
è"
Oo.ò
p-
Cb.
"(}""/
Oo.,p
/'
'b.
C'"/
'bj;¡
'/
00..(-
/
'b.,6
i'
00.,;-.
/'
Oo.~
/
00..:-
/
'b.
'0/
'b.
'(}""
Oo.,þ
'b.
<"
q,-.o
00j-
00.,6
till
I:
ï5
I:
'S¡¡
U
==
...
:J
ø
:c
u
.s
<:
:>1
"0
o
ç<:
..¡
~
o
~
§
ö
~
2
.....
Cf'J
J.-<
QJ
.....
~
QJC",
U'
.....¡.....
~,..J
QJ .....
ê';
J.-< QJ
~ >
o QJ
l?~
Q þ.~
~ ~ 0
~;:jZ
Q,I 0 >.
...U¡::
= ..... ;:j
bJ:)C/Jo
.... tIS I-r1
~~'"""
Chapter 10: Noise
Five short-tenn measurements were made on the site and in the residential neighborhood
southeast ofthe site. Site ST -2 was made closest to the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center and was
repeated simultaneously with measurements ST-3 and ST-4. The results of these short-tenn
measurements are displayed in Table 10.3.
Site 15A
The Transit Center site is located in the City of Dublin on Arnold Road between Dublin
Boulevard to the south and Central Parkway to the north. The site lies immediately west ofthe
Sybase Headquarters office complex. Other office buildings lie to the north of the site across
Central Parkway. Vacant lands currently lie to the south and west.
A noise measurement was conducted on October 4,2002, 138 feet from the center of Dublin
Boulevard and approximately 500 feet east of Arnold Road. The location of the measurement is
depicted in Figure 10.11. The measurement was made where the proposed East County Hall of
Justice building would be. At this location, traffic on Dublin Boulevard was the major source of
noise with a total of 301 autos, 4 medium-sized trucks, 3 heavy-sized trucks and 3 buses counted
during the 10-minute measurement. Typical vehicle pass-bys were measured at 53 to 61 dBA.
Trucks and buses were measured between 61 and 66 dBA. The 10-minute Leq at this site was 57
dBA.
Noise measurements made for the Dublin Transit Center Draft Environmental Impact Report
were used to detennine Ldn levels along Dublin Boulevard. In July 1999 a noise measurement
was made at 118 feet south of Dublin Boulevard, and 42 feet west ofIron Horse Parkway. The
Ldn was established to be 64 dBA at that location and 70 dBA along the roadway. The future
baseline noise levels along Dublin Boulevard are expected to increase 5 to 6 dB, to
approximately 70 dBA at a distance of 120 feet and 75 dBA along the roadway by the year 2025.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 10: Noise
Table 10.3: East County Government Center Site - Summary of Short-term Noise Measurements
Date
and
Location Time Leq Lmax LSD Noise Source
ST -1: In the center of the rear 8/1/01 Traffic on Hacienda Dr.
yard of # 5764 Idlewood St. Distant construction
behind an 8 ft. masonry wall off 14:40 53 64 51
Hacienda Dr. Shooting range
(indistinguishable)
ST -2: On the north side of the 8/2/01 Traffic on Broder Blvd.
30 ft. high berm at the northern
edge of the Project site. 36 ft. 14:46 Shooting range gunshots
from the edge Broder Blvd. (52, 56, 60. 63)
across from the Santa Rita 52 67 48
Rehabilitation Center
ST -2: Second measurement 8/2/01 Traffic on Broder Blvd.
made at site ST-2.
15:20 53 71 47 Shooting range gunshots
(49,51,52.53.54,56)
ST -3: Measurement made 8/2/01 Traffic on Gleason Dr.
simultaneously with ST-2, 250
ft. south on the other side of 14:46 Distant Construction
the 30 ft. high berm. Setback
with where the proposed East 58 70 56 Shooting range gunshots
County Hall of Justice would (indistinguishable)
be.
ST -4: Measurement made 8/2/01 Traffic on Gleason Dr.
simultaneously with ST-4. at
the end of Idlewood Ct. 60 ft. 15:20 55 74 50 Shooting range
from the 10ft. sound wall (indistinguishable)
along Gleason Dr. Setback
with residences.
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-19
.fj~
1'" i:
.~ ::
.>o:cJ"J
"8..
~ -¡::
~~
"éJ5
o ·0
~~
.5 Ö
S~
o
.,.<:
ô::
~ ·ê
@~
§
.,¡::
ttI
U
o
~
.....
~
Q)
ß
I-<
1""1 ::J
1""1 C/:J
d æ
1""1<~
2:: 11") Q)
:I ~ C/:J
bI:) Q) ....
..... ..... 0
~ü5Z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 10: Noise
10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This section evaluates the adverse noise effects related to the proposed Project. Both the effects
of existing ambient noise on the developability of each site for its proposed use, and potential
effects of noise from demolition, construction and operation at the sites upon existing sensitive
receivers are evaluated.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), potential noise effects from a project
would be considered significant if any of the following occur: .
· exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
· exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-
borne noise levels;
· a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project;
· a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project;
· for a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been
adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; and
· 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.
CEQA does not define what noise level increase would be considered substantial. Typically, an
increase in the CNEL Ldn noise level resulting from the project at noise sensitive land uses of3
dBA or greater would be considered a significant impact when projected noise levels would
exceed those considered acceptable for the affected land use.
For purposes of this EIS/EIR,long-term noise impacts resulting from the proposed project would
cause a significant adverse environmental effect under the following conditions:
· if the noise exposure at the site exceeds levels considered normally acceptable for the
intended use;
· if noise resulting from the proposed project would increase average ambient noise levels
CNEL (Ldn) by more than 3 dBA at a sensitive receiver and the resulting noise level is
above the level considered acceptable for that land use (e.g., 60 dBA Ldn for residences);
and
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EISIEIR
Page 10-21
Chapter 10: Noise
· if noise resulting ftom the proposed project increased average ambient noise levels CNEL
(Ldn) by more than 5 dBA and the noise level remains below that level considered
acceptable for that land use (e.g., 60 dBA Ldn for residences).
These criteria for significance recognize:
· threshold levels of acceptability established by the local government or agency;
· that once the threshold level has been passed, any noticeable change above that level (a 3
dBA increase) results in a significant degradation of the noise environment; and
· a clearly noticeable change (5 dBA increase) in the noise environment, even though the
acceptability threshold has not been reached, is considered a substantial increase and
would result in a significant impact under CEQA.
Short-term impacts resulting during the construction phase are considered significant under the
following conditions:
· construction site noise levels exceed levels allowed by local ordinances.
· construction site noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Leq 8.hr. during the daytime (weekdays),
or 55 dBA Leq 8-hr. during the daytime on weèkends or holidays or the nighttime, outside
of a residence or other sensitive receptor, and also exceeding existing ambient noise
levels.
The potential for speech interference during the daytime or sleep disturbance at night are the
most appropriate criteria for the purpose of assessing dernolition and construction-related noise
impacts. When the daily average construction noise level exceeds 60 dBA Leq in an outdoor
activity area near a residence or other sensitive receptor and exceeds existing ambient noise
levels, the construction noise will begin to interfere with speech communication. Construction
activity at night exceeding 55 dBA Leq would typically cause the noise level inside of buildings
to exceed 35 dBA even when the windows are closed. A noise level in excess of 35 dBA Leq will
begin to interfere with sleep.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT 10.1: Noise and land Use Compatibility
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES
No benefits of the Project have been identified related to noise and land use compatibility.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 10: Noise
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Impact 10.1.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. If the No ActionINo Project alternative is selected, the existing Juvenile Hall and
Gale/Shenone Hall of Justice would remain in operation at their present locations. The existing
noise setting at these locations is acceptable for the use based on the measured exterior noise
levels at the existing Juvenile Hall vicinity (approximately 60 Ldn at the residential areas) and
general office park setting of the existing courthouse, and because no new construction would
occur under this scenario. There would be no noise/land use compatibility impacts that would
result from the No Action/No Project alternative.
Impact 10.1.2: Existing San Leandro Property
NO IMPACT. The Existing San Leandro Property alternative is located at the site of the existing
Juvenile Hall at 2200 Fairmont Drive. This alternative proposes the demolition of the existing
buildings and the development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility further northeast up the hill.
The exterior noise exposure at the existing Juvenile Hall site is 55 to 60 Ldn. This is clearly
compatible for the proposed use based on the noise and land use compatibility guidelines, so
there would be no impact from environmental noise on the developability of the site.
Impact 10.1.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMP ACT. The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is
proposed as an alternative site for the Juvenile Justice Facility. The site is located at 550 6th
Street in the City of Oakland, and would involve the conversion and expansion of the County's
existing adult detention facility.
This site is located in a severe noise environment resulting from vehicular traffic on the interstate
freeway system. The estirnated noise exposure at street level is 71 Ldn. Upper stories, above the
elevation of the freeway, are exposed to noise levels of80 to 85 Ldn, which is well in excess of
adopted noise/land use compatibility policies. Although the interior environment within the jail
facility is considered acceptable due to the substantial attenuation provided by the heavy
concrete construction, the noise exposure would be considered unacceptable for the outdoor
recreation component that would be added to the existing facility. This is a significant impact.
. Mitigation Measure 10.1.3: Noise and Land Use Compatibility. Outdoor
recreation areas should be located in an orientation away from the freeway, shielded by
buildings, or use noise barrier wing walls and baffling to reduce noise by 20 dB to
provide an acceptable level for regular use as outdoor recreation space.
Resulting Level of Significance: Although noise could be reduced with the recommended
design approaches, outdoor recreation areas are likely to remain exposed to significant
noise. The existing development on the site constrains the opportunity to locate the
outdoor space in a sheltered area, and the State requirements for outdoor space include
natural light and ventilation, which could preclude solid walls of sufficient dimension to
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-23
Chapter 10: Noise
shield the recreation areas from freeway noise impacts. Therefore, it is unlikely that this
site could be developed to meet noise exposure standards. Irnplementation of the above
mitigation measures would reduce the impact, but the impact would likely remain
significant and unavoidable.
Impact 10.1.4: Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. The Pardee/Swan Site has been proposed as an
alternative for the Juvenile Justice Facility. Proposed development consists of a Juvenile Justice
Facility on the eastern and central portion of the site and a four-level airport parking structure on
the western portion. The Juvenile Justice facility woùld include housing, offices, courts, parking,
and outdoor recreation for the inhabitants. The site is located near the Oakland International
Airport at the intersection of Pardee Drive and Swan Way in Oakland, California.
This site is located outside of the 65 CNEL/Ldn noise contour for Oakland International Airport,
and had a measured Ldn of approximately 63 dB. As such, the site is compatible for the intended
use with respect to aircraft noise and other noise sources. There is no other significant source of
noise affecting the site except distant vehicular traffic on the interstate freeway system and
Hegenberger Road. Therefore, the noise exposure at this site would be considered acceptable for
the intended use based on adopted noise exposure standards.
Impact 10.1.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Under this alternative, the East County Government
Center site would be developed with the Juvenile Justice Facility and/or the East County Hall of
Justice. The development of the site would involve the removal of the existing 30-foot high
earthen berm, which runs at the northern edge of the site along Broder Boulevard, for the
construction of the new buildings. Access to the site would be off Arnold Road for the Juvenile
Justice Facility and off Gleason Drive for the East County Hall of Justice. Secondary access ftom
Broder Boulevard is planned for both facilities.
The Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice are noise sensitive land uses and
would, therefore, be subject to noise and land use compatibility guidelines. Potential noise
impacts resulting ftom vehicular traffic noise and general activity are assessed for the maximum
utilization of the site, assuming both facilities are constructed there.
This site is subject to noise from vehicular traffic on Hacienda Drive. Impulsive noise from the
nearby firing range is intermittently audible at the site. The exterior noise exposure at the site is
Ldn/CNEL of 60 to 65 dBA under existing and future conditions. Noise levels in indoor and
outdoor activity areas would be acceptable for the intended uses based on attenuation provided
by structural systems of the building, i.e. the heavy masonry construction of the housing pods
and perimeter wall around the recreation yards for the Juvenile Justice Facility, and by the
distance from the major roadways for the East County Hall of Justice. This is a less than
significant impact.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 10: Noise
Impact 10.1.6: Site 15A
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Site 15A has been proposed as a
possible location for the East County Hall of Justice. This alternative consists of the development
of an East County Hall of Justice building on the southern portion of the site along Dublin
Boulevard and a multistory parking structure on the northern portion of the site along Central
Parkway. Access to the site would be from Arnold Road with secondary parking structure access
from Central Parkway and limited access from Dublin Boulevard.
Vehicular traffic noise along Dublin Boulevard is currently estimated at about 70 Ldn/CNEL. A
significant increase in vehicular traffic noise is projected for Dublin Boulevard as the area
develops. As discussed in the Affected Environment section, the future exterior noise level is
expected to increase to about 75 Ldn along Dublin Boulevard. The noise exposure at the site is,
therefore, conditionally acceptable/unacceptable for the proposed institutionaVoffice use. This is
a potentially significant impact.
. Mitigation Measure 10.1.6: Noise and land Use Compatibility. During design
developrnent, the County should specifY the acoustical criteria for each interior space,
and incorporate the necessary sound insulation treatments, such as heavy glazing and
additional wall insulation, to provide an exterior-to-interior noise reduction sufficient to
meet the acoustical criteria. Typically, a sound reduction of 15 to 20 dB is feasible in
institutional construction, which would provide the necessary reduction to meet noise
exposure and functional standards for this use.
Resulting Level afSignificance: hnplementation of the above mitigation measure would
reduce the Project's impact to a less-than-significant level.
IMPACT 10.2: Vehicular Traffic Noise Increase
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project-related benefits have been identified related to vehicular traffic noise generated by
the proposed uses.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Impact 10.2.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. If the No Action/No Project alternative is selected, the existing Juvenile Hall and
Gale/Shenone Hall of Justice would remain in operation at their present locations. The existing
noise setting at these locations is acceptable for the use. There would be no traffic noise impacts
that would result frorn the No Action/No Project alternative because no change in use would
occur at the existing facilities.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-25
Chapter 10: Noise
Impact 10.2.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at
the Existing San Leandro Property would result in an incremental increase in vehicular traffic on
local roadways. Because there is an existing Juvenile Hall on the site, this incremental increase
will not cause a substantial increase in vehicular traffic noise at sensitive receivers in the area.
Traffic projections for the 420- and 540-bed alternatives were examined at intersections
surrounding the Project site. Traffic noise would increase by less than one or two decibels along
most local roadways. As a worst case, traffic noise could increase along Fairmont Drive between
Foothill Boulevard and the existing Juvenile Hall driveway entrance by between 2 and 3 dBA with
the 540-bed alternative. This increase would be a less-than-significant impact because the resulting
noise level would be acceptable according to land use compatibility standards for the neighboring
residential and institutional uses along this roadway segment. And the project's increase in noise
levels would be below the threshold of human perception. On-site activity-generated noise will
not significantly increase above existing on-site generated noise at any sensitive receivers in the
area, particularly because the new facility would be located about 750 feet farther :trom the
residences than the existing facility. Activity at the site would be similar in character to the on-
going use of the juvenile detention camp, so no incompatibility would exist for that use. No
mitigation is required for this less-than-significant impact.
Impact 10.2.3:
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMPACT. Given the severe traffic noise environment in the area around the Glenn Dyer
Detention Facility resulting rrom traffic on 1-880, Project-generated traffic will not cause any
substantial increases in traffic noise in the area. Using traffic data provided for the local streets, it
is estimated that on streets immediately surrounding the site the local street traffic noise could
increase by less than 3 dBA along 6th and ih streets as a result of Project-generated traffic.
Because noise from 1-880 dominates the noise environment in the area, overall ambient noise
levels will not increase as a result of this alternative at sensitive receivers, particularly apartment
dwellers, which are located east of the site. The high noise exposure in the area will also mask
anyon-site generated operational noise, such as outdoor play activity and vehicular traffic at the
sallyport.
Impact 10.2.4: Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. There are no known noise sensitive land uses along the
access routes to the Pardee/Swan Site. The Project would, therefore, not cause a traffic noise
impact to sensitive noise receptors along local roadways. The only noise-sensitive receivers
immediately adjacent to the Project site would be visitors to the East Bay Regional Park District
facility to the west. A picnic area is located approximately 250 feet :trom the site's western
boundary and from Swan Drive. The possible parking garage would be located an additional
approximately 100 feet from the site's western boundary. Vehicular noise from activity at the
new parking garage would be masked by the existing noise setting, which includes a variety of
distant traffic, local traffic and aircraft noise sources and a resulting Ldn of approximately 63 dB.
An increase of up to 3 dB would not be significant, as the land use compatibility guidelines
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 10: Noise
indicate that noise levels up to 67 dB are acceptable for parks. The operation ofthe Project on
this site would not cause a significant noise impact upon any surrounding land uses.
Impact 10.2.5:
East County Government Center
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMP ACT. There are noise-sensitive receivers southeast
of the East County Government Center site across Gleason Drive, east of Hacienda Drive in the
Summerhill residential subdivision. Additional residential neighborhoods are located along
Gleason Drive, Hacienda Drive, and Tassajara Road. These single-family residences could
potentially be affected by traffic noise increases on Hacienda Drive south of Gleason Drive and
on Gleason Drive east of Hacienda Drive where acces's to the site would be concentrated. '
Traffic noise conditions on these roadway links were examined using the average daily traffic
volumes for existing, baseline and various Project scenarios. The residences closest to the site are
currently shielded from vehicular traffic noise by an 8-foot tall sound wall on Hacienda Drive
and by a lO-foot wall on Gleason Drive. Future baseline traffic increases could affect traffic
noise on Hacienda Drive by approximately 3 dBA near the Project site, and by about 2 dBA
along Gleason Drive. Those baseline levels would occur without the Project, due to other
development planned and approved for the area, particularly other residential development to the
east, and office development near Hacienda Drive.
The various Project scenarios at the East County Government Center site would increase traffic
noise levels over the existing and baseline conditions to a varying degree, depending on the scale
of the Project and the number of trips it creates. Table 10.4 provides a summary of the expected
increase in traffic noise over the existing and baseline levels for the various Project scenarios
considered in the traffic study. These alternatives are Scenarios A1 and A2 (the development of a
Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice at the East County Government Center
site for 420-bed and 540-bed options, respectively); Scenario B (only an East County Hall of
Justice at the East County Government Center); Scenarios C1 and C2 (only a Juvenile Justice
Facility at the East County Government Center for 420-bed and 540-bed options with the East
County Hall of Justice elsewhere in Dublin). Scenario D (only the East County Hall of Justice,
located at Site 15A) is addressed separately, below.
Depending on the development scenario for the East County Government Center alternative,
traffic data indicates that there could be an increase of 3 to 6 dBA on Hacienda Drive over
existing conditions. The baseline traffic conditions, which would be present when the Project is
constructed, would add about 3 dBA to the existing noise levels. Project alternatives would
result in further traffic noise level increases of about 1.5 to 2.9 dBA along Hacienda Drive.
Other local roadways would experience an increase ofless than 3 dBA over the future baseline
conditions. Because increases on Hacienda Drive are greater than 3 dBA and future noise levels
would equal or exceed the 60 dB Ldn/CNEL goal for land use compatibility, the irnpacts of traffic
noise are considered significant.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-27
Chapter 10: Noise
Table 10.4: Significant Traffic Noise Increases Near the East County Government Center (in dBA)
Future Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
A1 (420 to A2 (540 B (Only C1 (420 to C2 (540
Segment Baseline 450 Beds Beds and Hall of 450 Beds Beds w/o
Increase and Hall Hall of Justice) w/o Hall of Hall of
of Justice) Justice) Justice) Justice)
Hacienda Dr. South 3.2 5.8 6.1 5.0 4.7 5.0
of Gleason Dr. (2.6)1 (2.9) (1.8) (1.5) (1.8)
1 Numbers in parentheses represent the Project's incremental increases in noise levels along segment, over baseline.
Tenths of a decibel are shown for informational purposes, to indicate the minor variation among alternatives. In fact,
decibels are measured as whole numbers, so the impact is rounded up.
Sound walls were constructed by the housing developers at the time the housing was constructed
to control future traffic noise levels in this rapidly developing area of Dublin. Those walls were
generally intended to address long-tenn traffic noise projected as a result of build-out of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; it is not reasonable or feasible to consider increasing the heights of
the existing baniers to address the actual noise conditions in the area or the incremental increase
in noise resulting from this Project. The City of Dublin found that the East Dublin Specific Plan
would result in significant unavoidable traffic noise to existing residences as a result of
cumulative development allowed under the Specific Plan. The City acknowledged that physical
constraints may prevent full mitigation of the traffic noise impact.
. Mitigation Measure 10.2.5a: Traffic Noise. In the future, the City and/or County
could consider the use of "quiet pavement" options such as Open Grade Asphalt Concrete
or Rubberized Asphalt to reduce traffic noise in the area when resurfacing local
roadways. This pavement could reduce noise by up to 3 dBA, which would reduce the
Project's traffic noise impact to below 3 dBA and therefore be less than significant.
Resulting Level of Significance: Significant and unavoidable in the short-term. Long-
tenn pavement resurfacing as part of regularly scheduled maintenance could reduce noise
in the long tenn.
Impact 10.2.6: Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Due to the high volume of vehicular traffic in the
vicinity and the absence of noise-sensitive receivers, the proposed Project will not cause any
substantial increases in vehicular traffic noise in the area. Based on the Project traffic study, noise
levels would increase less than 1 dB over predicted baseline traffic noise increases of
approximately 3.6 dB, which would occur without the Project.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I
Chapter 10: Noise
IMPACT 10.3: Construction Noise
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No benefits related to construction noise have been identified as part of the Project.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Impact 10.3.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. If the No ActionINo Project alternative is selected, the existing Juvenile Hall añ.d
Gale/Shenone Hall of Justice would remain in operation at their present locations. There would
be no construction noise impacts that would result from the No ActionINo Project alternative.
Impact 10.3.2: Existing San Leandro Property
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMP ACT. The development of a new Juvenile Justice
Facility at any of the alternative sites would include the demolition ofthe existing Juvenile Hall
following construction of the new Juvenile Justice Facility. Typical noise levels generated during
demolition and construction are shown in Table 10.5, including source noise levels at 50 feet
from a piece of equipment. Hourly average noise levels generated during construction are shown
in Table 10.6. Hourly average construction noise levels during busy construction phases would
exceed 60 dBA Leq within approximately 600 to 700 feet of the construction or demolition site.
Noise from construction would be mitigated by distance, since the new Juvenile Justice Facility
would be located approximately 750 to 1000 feet trom the nearest residence. However, noise
levels at the closest existing residences in the area and existing detainees at the Juvenile Hall and
camps are expected to exceed the 60 dBA Leq threshold and substantially exceed existing
ambient noise levels (approximately 64 Ldn) during construction of a new facility on the site and
during demolition of the existing facility. The impact of demolition would occur for any of the
"build" alternatives for the Juvenile Justice Facility.
Mitigation Measure 10.3.2: Controls on Construction Equipment and
Activity. Project demolition/construction-period noise impacts on nearby residents could
be reduced by incorporating the following conditions in construction contracts:
· Construction Scheduling. Limit noise-generating demolition/construction activities,
including truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose, to daytime,
weekday nonholiday hours (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.).
· Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance. Properly muffle and maintain all
construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines.
· Idling Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engine.
· Equipment Location and Shielding. Locate all stationary noise-generating
construction equipment such as air compressors as far as practical from existing
nearby residences and other noise-sensitive land uses. Acoustically shield such
equipment.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-29
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 10: Noise
Table 10.5: Typical Ranges of Energy Equivalent Noise Levels at 50 Feet,
Leq in dBA, at Construction Sites
Industrial
Parking Garage, Public Works
Religious Roads &
Office Building, Amusement & Highways,
Hotel, Hospital, Recreations, Sewers and
School, Public Store, Service Trenches
Domestic Works Station
Housing
Case I Case II Case I Case II Case I Case II Case I Case II
Ground 83 83 84 84 84 83 84 84
Clearing
Excavation 88 75 89 79 89 71 88 78
Foundations 81 81 78 78 77 77 88 88
Erection 81 65 87 75 84 72 79 78
Finishing 88 72 89 75 89 74 84 84
Source: U.S. EPA, Legal Compi/ation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104, 1973.
Notes: Case I - All pertinent equipment present at site.
Case 11 - Minimum required equipment present at site.
· Quiet Equipment Selection. Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air
compressors, whenever possible. (Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in
good working order).
· Notification. Notify neighbors located within 500 feet of the construction site of the
construction schedule, in writing.
· Noise Disturbance Coordinator. Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who
would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise.
The disturbance coordinator would detennine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g.,
starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures
warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a contact
telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include
it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. (The Agency
should be responsible for designating a noise disturbance coordinator and the
individual project sponsor should be responsible for posting the phone number and
providing construction schedule notices.).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 10: Noise
Table 10.6: Construction Equipment Noise level Range
A-Weighted Noise Level (dB) at 50 Feet
60 70 80 90 100 110
Earth Moving:
Compactors (Rollers)
Front Loaders
Backhoes
Bulldozers
Scrapers, Graders
Pavers
Trucks
Materials Handling:
Concrete Mixers
Concrete Pumps
Cranes (Movable)
Cranes (Derrick)
Stationary:
Pumps
Generators
Compressors
Impact Equipment:
Pneumatic Wrenches
Jackhammers & Rock Drill
Pile Drivers (Peak)
Others:
Vibrators
Saws
Source: Handbook of Noise Control, Cyril M. Harris, 1979
-
Resulting Level of Significance: Although the mitigation measures would reduce
demolition / construction equipment noise, a significant unavoidable impact would
remain for an extended period of time for some residents near the activity.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-31
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacilitylEast County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 10: Noise
Impact 10.3.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMP ACT. There are mixed residential and commercial
land uses to the east of the site that would be affected adversely during the construction phase,
including demolition of the interior of the existing facility and the two-story portion ofthe
facility and erection of the new 1 O-story recreational wing, additional floor of housing, and
interior renovation, if the new Juvenile Justice Facility were constructed at the Glenn Dyer
Detention Facility. Construction noise levels in Oakland are regulated through Section 7701 of
the Oakland Planning Code. At a residential receiver, a daily average noise level of 65 dBA is
the significance threshold. Construction/demolition noise levels would exceed the noise
ordinance limits at the nearby receivers and could occasionally substantially exceed existing
ambient noise levels at these receivers. Under this alternative, there also would be demolition at
the Existing San Leandro Property as described in Impact 10.3.2, above.
. Mitigation Measure 10.3.3: Controls on Construction Equipment and
Activity. See Mitigation Measure 10.3.2. The same mitigation measures would apply to
the construction/demolition period at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility as for the
demolition period at the existing Juvenile Hall site.
Resulting Level of Significance: Although the mitigation measures would reduce
demolition / construction equipment noise, a significant unavoidable impact would
remain for an extended period of time for some residents near the activity.
Impact 10.3.4:
Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. There are no noise sensitive residential receivers in the
vicinity of the Pardee/Swan Site, but park users likely would be present while the parking garage
is being built and trail users likely would be present while the Juvenile Justice Facility is being
built. Although construction noise would intennittently exceed existing levels and may cause
noise levels to exceed 60 dBA Leq, this would not cause a significant impact upon the transient
use of the park and trail facilities because the visitors are present for relatively short periods of
time. Construction activities will, therefore, cause a less than significant impact. Under this
alternative, there also would be the demolition at the Existing San Leandro Property as described
for Impact 10.3.2, above. The same mitigation measures would apply to the demolition activity
at the existing Juvenile Hall site.
Impact 10.3.5: East County Government Center
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMP ACT. Noise sensitive receivers would be located
south and east ofthe East County Government Center site, within approximately 450 feet ofthe
proposed buildings and about 100 feet ITom the closest construction activity, including the
parking lot and landscaping along Gleason Drive. Construction noise could exceed 60 dBA Leq.
Under this alternative, there also would be demolition at the Existing San Leandro Property as
described for Impact 10.3.2, above. The same mitigation measures would apply to the
demolition activity at the existing Juvenile Hall site.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 10: Noise
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the noise impact of
construction on local residences, but would not reduce the level to less than significant.
. Mitigation Measure 10.3.5: Controls on Construction Equipment and
Activity. See Mitigation Measure 10.3.2. The same mitigation measures would apply to
the construction period at the East County Government Center site as for the demolition
period at the existing Juvenile Hall.
Resulting Level of Significance: Although the mitigation measures would reduce
demolition / construction equipment noise, a significant unavoidable impact would
remain for an extended period oftime for some residents near the activity.
Impact 10.3.6:
Site 15A
NO IMPACT. There are no noise sensitive receivers in the vicinity of Site 15A. Construction
activities will, therefore, cause no significant adverse impacts. Construction of the new East
County Hall of Justice is not associated with the demolition of the existing Juvenile Hall or the
existing Gale/Shenone Courthouse, so there would be no demolition-related noise irnpacts.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-33
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 10-34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 10: Noise
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
Air Quality
11.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This EIR section describes potential local and regional air quality impacts resulting from five
possible Project options. This section has been prepared using methodologies and assumptions
recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Handbook
(BAAQMD, 1999). This section describes existing air quality, construction period impacts,
emissions associated with Project operation, the impacts of Project emissions on local and
regional air quality, cumulative impacts and mitigation measures to reduce or avoid identified
significant impacts. The five possible sites can be generally classified into two locations:
Oakland/East Bay, and Dublin.
CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS
Sites in Oakland/East Bay
The potential Project sites are in the eastern shore of the San Francisco Bay. The area along the
bay is primarily flat, and climate is usually controlled by marine air coming across the bay from
the Pacific Ocean. During the day, especially on summer afternoons, the prevailing wind flows
from the north or northwest. In winter, wind speeds are lower, and wind may flow in from the
northerly or easterly directions when weather is fair, but storms often bring southerly winds.
Wind speeds in the area are generally moderate, with an annual average speed of about 5 mph,
although summer afternoon wind speed can average 12 mph or more (at Oakland International
Airport, Moffett Field Naval Air Station (NAS». Highest wind speeds occur during afternoons in
late spring and summer. Average maximum summer temperatures are in the 70s with minimums
of about 55. Maximum winter temperatures averages in the low 60s, while the minimum
temperatures are in the low 40s. Average rainfall at Oakland is 18 inches, with the bulk of that
falling in winter months.
Sites in or near Dublin
The Oakland Hills separate Dublin (in the Amador Valley of eastern Alameda County) from
Oakland and San Leandro, which lie along the San Francisco Bay. Amador Valley is a part of the
Livermore subregional air basin, distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The
climate in Dublin is warmer in summer and has less ventilation in winter, so pollution levels are
often higher than along the margin of the San Francisco Bay. Summer winds are mostly from the
west, averaging about 5 mph. In winter, average wind speed drops a few miles per hour, and the
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11·1
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
wind can blow from almost any direction depending on regional weather conditions. Average
summer high temperatures are in the high 80s while summer lows average in the low 50s,
although the area has recorded temperatures exceeding 110 degrees. Winter high temperatures
average about 60, with nighttime lows averaging about 35. Average rainfall in the Dublin-
Livennore area is about 15 inches per year, with most of that falling between November and
April.
Pollution potential in the Amador Valley is high due to several factors. First, surrounding hills
tend to trap emissions from industry and motor vehicles. Several major freeways run through the
valley with commensurate high levels ofvehic1e emissions. Second, the valley is located
downwind of pollution sources in other parts of the San Francisco Bay or San Joaquin Valley to
the east. Inversions, where a mass of wanner air traps a cooler layer below it, can occur in
Alameda County at almost any time of year, with morning and afternoon inversions occurring
about 90% of the time in summer months. Upper atmosphere inversions occur in late summer,
trapping pollutants near the surface, and causing a buildup of smog. Light winds and very stable
conditions associated with surface-based inversions during the late fall and winter contribute to
the buildup of particulate matter. Major fall and winter pollutant sources are motor vehicles,
agriculture and wood burning in fireplaces and stoves.
Sensitive Receptors
Some groups of people are more affected by air pollution than others. Children, the elderly and
people with respiratory disease or chronic health problems are typically more sensitive to air
pollution. The land uses associated with possibly sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals,
playgrounds, retirement homes, child-care centers, convalescent homes, medical clinics and
residences.
State and Federal Regulatory Background
The Federal and California Clean Air Acts have established ambient air quality standards for
different pollutants. National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) were established by the
federal Clean Air Act of 1970 (amended in 1977 and 1990) for six criteria pollutants (those
pollutants with criteria for exposure based on health risks and environmental effects). These
criteria pollutants include ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), sulfur
dioxide (S02), inhalable particulate matter (PMlO and PM2.5) and lead (Pb). California
established ambient air quality standards as early as 1969 through the Mulford-Carrell Act.
Pollutants regulated under the California Clean Air Act are similar to those regulated under the
Federal Clean Air Act. In many cases, California standards are more stringent than the national
ambient air quality. The six criteria air pollutants are described below.
Criteria pOllutants
1 Ozone (03), Ground-level ozone is the principal component of smog. Ozone is not
directly emitted into the atmosphere, but is fonned by the photochemical reaction of
ozone precursors. These compounds are generally of two classes: reactive organic gases
(ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Ozone levels are highest during late spring through
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
Chapter 11: Air Quality
late summer when precursor emissions are high and meteorological conditions are
favorable for the necessary complex photochemical reactions to occur. Motor vehicles are
the predominant source of reactive ozone precursor emissions in the San Francisco Bay
regIOn.
2 Carbon monoxide (CO). CO is a nonreactive pollutant that is highly toxic, invisible and
odorless. It is fonned by the incomplete combustion of fuels. The largest source of CO
emissions is motor vehicles. Wood stoves and fireplaces also contribute to high levels of
CO. Unlike ozone, CO is directly emitted to the atmosphere. The highest CO
concentrations occur during the nighttime and early mornings in late fall and winter.
Ambient CO levels are strongly influenced by meteorological factors such as wind speed
and atmospheric stability.
3 Nitrogen dioxide (N02). Nitrogen dioxide is a reddish-brown gas that is a by-product of
combustion processes. Automobiles and industrial operations are the primary sources of
nitrogen dioxides. In addition to being a regulated criteria pollutant alone, nitrogen
dioxide contributes to ozone smog fonnation.
4 Sulfur dioxide (S02). Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas with a strong odor and potential to
damage materials. S02 is produced by the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels such as
oil and coal. Refineries, chemical plants and diesel exhaust are the primary sources of
sulfur dioxide emissions in the region.
5 Inhalable particulates. Inhalable particulate is composed of two classes of compounds:
PMlO and PM2.5. PMlO means particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; likewise,
PM2.5 refers to particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. PM2.5 is a subset of
PMIO that has pronounced health effects, so a stringent federal standard was recently
adopted by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (U.s. EP A). Sources of
inhalable particulates include smoke, dust, aerosols and metallic oxides. Some inhalable
particulates are considered toxic. Although particulates are found naturally in the air
(such as sea salt), most particulate matter found in the region are emitted either directly or
indirectly by motor vehicles, industry, construction, agricultural activities and wind
erosion of disturbed areas. Most PM2.5 is comprised of combustion products (i.e., soot).
6 Lead (Pb). Lead occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter. It is primarily emitted by
gasoline-powered motor vehicles burning fuel containing tetra ethyl lead, which has been
virtually eliminated. As a result of lead being eliminated from fuels, levels in the Bay
Area have dropped dramatically. Lead concentrations in the Bay Area are well below the
ambient standards and are not forecasted to increase.
Table 11.1 shows a summary of federal and state ambient air standards. The table also describes
major emission sources for each compound and its potential negative effects.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-3
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
Table 11.1: Ambient Air Quality Standards For Criteria Pollutants
Parts Per Million (ppm) Or Micrograms Per Cubic Meter (ug/m3)
Pollutant Averaging California Federal Pollutant Health and Major Pollutant Sources
Time Standard Primary Atmospheric Effects
Standard
Ozone (03) 1 hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm Irritation and possibly Motor vehicles, including
permanent lung damage. refining and gasoline
8 hours --- 0.08 ppm delivery .
Carbon 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Deprives body of oxygen Primarily gasoline-power~d
Monoxide in the blood. Causes internal combustion engines.
(CO) 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm headaches and worsens
respiratory problems.
Nitrogen Annual --- 0.05 ppm Irritating to eyes and Motor vehicles, petroleum-
Dioxide Average respiratory tract. Colors refining, power plants,
(N02) atmosphere reddish- aircraft, ships, and railroads.
1 hour 0.25 ppm --- brown.
Sulfur Annual -- 0.03 ppm Irritates and may Fuel combustion, chemical
Dioxide Average permanently injure plants, sulfur recovery
(502) respiratory tract and plants, and metal
1 hour 0.25 ppm -- lungs. Can damage processing.
plants, destructive to
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm marble, iron, and steel.
Limits visibility and
reduces sunlight.
Particulate Annual 30 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 May irritate eyes and Industrial and agricultural
Matter Mean respiratory tract, operations, combustion,
(PM10) decreases in lung atmospheric photochemical
capacity, cancer and reactions, and natural
24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 increased mortality. activities (e.g. wind-raised
Produces haze and limits dust and ocean sprays).
visibility.
Particulate Annual 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 Same as PM1Q. Same as PM1Q.
Matter Mean
(PMu)
24 hours -~~ 65 µg/m3
Lead Monthly 1.5 µg/m3 --- Disturbs gastrointestinal Present source: lead
system, and causes smelters, battery
Quarterly --- 1.5 µg/m3 anemia, kidney disease, manufacturing & recycling
and neuromuscular and facilities. Past source:
neurologic dysfunction combustion of leaded
(in severe cases). gasoline.
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-4
I
I
I
,I
'I
I
I
I
I
--I
,I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
'I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11: Air Quality
Regional Air Quality Planning
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulates air quality in the
Alameda County area. The District primarily regulates stationary sources and develops plans to
achieve and maintain air quality standards. The California ARB and EP A have jurisdiction over
mobile sources. To protect public health the BAAQMD has adopted plans to achieve ambient air
quality standards. The BAAQMD must continuously monitor its progress for plan
implementation. The BAAQMD must report this effort regularly to the ARB and the EP A. It
must also periodically revise its attainment plans to reflect new conditions and requirements.
In general, the Bay Area has a moderately high potential for air pollution due to its six million
people, its refineries and other industry, and to a lesser extent, geography and climate. It is a
nonattainment area (ambient levels exceed the respective state or federal air quality standard) for
ground-level ozone, PMlO and PM2.5. Winds often move ozone precursors generated in Alameda
County to other parts of the region, where smog is formed several hours later (hence the highest
pollution levels in the area occur in the wanner inland valleys). The BAAQMD tries to exercise
a unifonn emission control effort that will bring the entire region into compliance with state and
federal standards as quickly as possible.
The BAAQMD prepared its first ozone attainment plan to meet California standards in 1991.
Triennial assessments and revisions to the Clean Air Plan (CAP) have subsequently been
prepared in 1994, 1997 and 2000. The 2000 Bay Area CAP contains specific measures intended
to improve air quality through tighter industry controls, cleaner cars and trucks, and cleaner
fuels. The plan encourages cities and counties to adopt measures to support this clean air goal.
Any project that attracts automobile traffic may be found to have a significant air quality impact,
according to BAAQMD, if the project's traffic generation has not been properly anticipated in
the regional air quality plan. No air quality plans are required for areas violating the state PMlO
standard.
To fulfill Clean Air Act requirements for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and
BAAQMD jointly prepared a Bay Area Air Quality Plan in 1982. This plan predicted attainment
of all national clean air standards within the basin by 1987. Attainment of the federal ozone
standard has not yet occurred. In contrast, the state and national carbon monoxide standards have
been met, and a Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan (ABAG, 1994) has been adopted.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
In addition to the criteria air pollutants discussed earlier, toxic air contaminants (T ACs) are
found in ambient air. Sources include industry, agriculture, motor vehicles and commercial
operations. These contaminants are typically found in low concentrations near their source (e.g.,
vinyl chloride near a fiberglass plant). However, chronic exposure can result in adverse health
effects. T ACs are regulated at the local, state and federal levels.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice'" Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-5
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air, representing about two-thirds of the
population cancer burden attributed to this class of compounds. According to the California Air
Resources Board (ARB, 2002):
"Unlike an assessment of a single chemical, diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of
thousands of gases, vapors and fine particles, and in turn, makes the evaluation of health
effects of diesel a complex scientific issue. Sorting out the contributions between the
chemicals and particles is scientifically challenging. Some of the chemicals, such as
benzene and fonnaldehyde, have been previously identified as T ACs by the ARB and are
listed as carcinogens either under the state's Proposition 65 or under the federal
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) programs.".
The BAAQMD Air Toxics Hot Spots Program shows that there are no known industrial facilities
within the nine-county air district that present a risk greater than lOin one million (BAAQMD,
2001).
Attainment of Federal Standards and Conformity Analysis
Compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
If an area, such as BAAQMD, does not meet one of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), the EP A designates it as nonattainment for that particular pollutant. The EP A
requires states with nonattainment areas toprepare air quality plans showing how the standards
will be met in the future. Incremental progress is required toward meeting the NAAQS, and
areas with the most acute problems must adopt the most stringent rules on new and existing
emission sources. These federal air quality plans are referred to as State Implementation Plans
(SIPs). If an area does not make forward progress or fails to submit an adequate plan sanctions
may be imposed, such as withholding federal highway funds.
Prior to 1989, the Bay Area was classified as a moderate nonattainment for carbon monoxide.
Since 1991, with the introduction ofrefonnulated gasoline and oxygenates (e.g. MTBE), the
federal CO standard has been achieved and not exceeded. Motor vehicle inspection programs
have also played a part in reducing CO in areas with heavy auto traffic. In 1998, the EP A
reclassified the BAAQMD as a carbon monoxide maintenance area.
During the early 1990s, the BAAQMD recorded no violations of federal I-hour ozone standards.
After several years of high ozone levels, in 1997 the EP A revoked the region's clean air status
and designated the area as unclassified nonattainment for the one-hour standard. The BAAQMD
and Metropolitan Transportation Commission subsequently prepared an ozone SIP. This plan
was submitted to EPA in 1999. This plan was designed to show how the region would attain the
federal one-hour ozone standard by the end ofthe 2000 ozone season (which it did not).
Accordingly, EP A required the SIP to adopt additional control measures sufficient to
demonstrate attainment by 2006.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-6
I
I
I
1-
J
.
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
a-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
i
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11: Air Quality
Conformity Analysis
Section 176(c) of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments outlines the requirements for federally
funded projects to confonn with efforts to meet and sustain the NAAQS. Section 176(c) also
assigns responsibility for confonnity assurance to the federal agency undertaking (or funding)
the project. Responsibility cannot be transferred by the responsible agency to EPA, state, or
local agencies (e.g. BAAQMD). Confonnity requires federally-funded or supported activities
not, (1) cause or contribute to any new air quality standard violation, (2) increase the frequency
or severity of any existing standard violation, or (3) delay the timely attainment of any standard,
interim emission reduction, or other SIP milestone aimed at bringing the region into attainment.
In 1993 the EPA issued confonnityregulation (40 CFRParts 51 and 93) that addressed
transportation projects (Transportation Confonnity). The regulations also include a section for
all other non-transportation federal actions (General Confonnity). The General Confonnity
regulations apply to all projects that would cause emissions of criteria pollutants above specified
levels in areas designated non-attainment or maintenance. In the Bay Area, this rule applies to
ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and CO in excess of 100 tons per year, or if the emissions are
more than 10 percent of the inventory for the pollutant of concern. Projects that are subject to
General Confonnity must mitigate or fully offset the emissions cause by the action. This
includes both direct (fossil fuel burning) and indirect (traffic) emissions. The BAAQMD
adopted and incorporated the General Confonnity regulations into the SIP in 1994.
Existing Air Quality Conditions
Criteria Pollutants
Ambient air quality is affected by the rate and concentration of pollutant emissions and
meteorological conditions. Factors such as wind speed, atmospheric stability and mixing height
all affect the atmosphere's ability to mix and disperse pollutants. Long-tenn variations in air
quality typically result from changes in emissions, while short-tenn variations result from
changes in atmospheric conditions. A number of continuous air monitoring stations are operated
by government agencies in the East Bay. The monitors in Oakland, Fremont and Livennore are
representative of conditions near the various possible sites for the new facilities. State and
federal air quality standards, and the highest local air pollutant levels measured over the past 3
years (1999-2001) are reported in Table 11.2.
Measured air pollutant data indicate that ground-level ozone, PMlO and PMZ5 are the air
pollutants of greatest concern. Ambient air pollution data typically receive great scrutiny and
quality assurance testing, so final data lag about one year behind the current calendar year.
Hence, data examined in this report are for the most recent three years ofrecord, ending on
December 31, 2001. This section summarizes infonnation for the 3-year period from 1999 to
2001.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11·7
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
Table 11.2: Measured Criteria Air Pollutant Concentrations in Alameda County
Pollutant and Averaging California National Measured Levels
Measurement Location Time Ambient Air Ambient Air
Quality Quality
Standard Standard 1999 2000 2001
Ozone (03)
Oakland 1-hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.07 ppm 0.07 ppm
8-hour --- 0.08 ppm 0.06 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.04 ppm
Livermore 1-hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.15 ppm 0.15 ppm 0.11 ppm
8-hour -- 0.08 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.11 ppm 0.09 ppm
San Leandro 1-hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.11 ppm 0.10 ppm 0.09 ppm
8-hour -- 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.06 ppm 0.06 ppm
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Oakland 8-hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 5.2 ppm 3.4 ppm 4.0 ppm
Livermore 8-hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 2.9 ppm 2.7 ppm 3.2 ppm
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Fremont 24-hour 50 µg/m3 150µg/m3 88 µg/m3 58 µg/m3 57 µg/m3
Annual 30 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 6 µg/m3 18 µg/m3
Livermore 24-hour 50 µg/m3 150µg/m3 87 µg/m3 71 µg/m3 109 µg/m3
Annual 30 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 23 µg/m3 20 µg/m3 19 µg/m3
Particulate Matter (PMu)
Fremont 24-hour -- 65 µg/m3 57 µg/m3 45 µg/m3 57 µg/m3
Annual -- 15 µg/m3 14 µg/m3 11 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Livermore 24-hour -- 65 µg/m3 63 µg/m3 56 µg/m3 108 µg/m3
Annual - 15 µg/m3 28 µg/m3 11 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002.
Note: Values reported in bold exceed ambient air quality standard.
ppm = parts per million
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
i
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
I
,I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
Sites in Oakland/East Bay
In Oakland, the maximum I-hour levels of ozone were below federal and state standards (e.g.
healthy ozone air quality). The 8-hour federal ozone standard was also not exceeded in Oakland.
Carbon monoxide levels were below state and federal levels for all three years.
There is no PMlO or PM2.5 monitoring station in Oakland, so the ARB considers levels recorded
at Fremont as representative ofthe East Bay. The nearest government PMlO air monitoring site is
in Fremont. At the Fremont station, the federal 24-hour PMlO standard was not exceeded during
the last 3 years. Measured exceedances ofthe more stringent state 24-hour PMlO standard
occurred on 6 to 18 days over the last 3 years (ARB, 2002). No exceedances of the federal PM2.5
standard occurred over the period.
The region has not experienced exceedances of any other pollutants. Maximum CO levels
measured in Oakland were 45 to 60 percent of the state standard over the three years.
Sites in or near Dublin
At Livennore, the maximum I-hour levels of ozone were well above the federal standard in two
ofthe past three years, while the state standard was exceeded on 7 to 14 days annually (Ibid).
The 8-hour federal ozone standard was exceeded on 2 to 5 days annually (Ibid).
The federal 24-hour PMlO standard was not exceeded during the last 3 years. Exceedances of the
more stringent state 24-hour PMlO standard occurred about 6 to 18 days in each of the last 3
years. There were 6 exceedances of the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2001, with none in the
previous two years (Ibid). The federal annual standard for PM2.5was exceeded in 1999, but was
not exceeded in more recent years for which there is data available.
The region has not experienced exceedances of any other pollutants. In fact, maximum CO levels
were approximately one-third of the state standard.
In San Leandro, the state I-hour standard for ozone was exceeded, but not federal I-hour or 8-
hour standards.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
Table 11.3 presents a summary ofTACs measured near the various sites. The predominance of
benzene and MTBE (and their ratio) shows that the primary source of T ACs at most locations is
motor vehicles. Mean levels ofbenzenelMTBE in Oakland and San Leandro are approximately
50% lower than Livennore. Oakland and San Leandro have lower motor vehicle T AC levels than
the Amador Valley because high winds are more common near the bay, inversions are less
common and geography does not trap emissions as effectively as happens near Livennore.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-9
~
(ij
::3
o
L.
<{
>'-t:il¡; C) 0 0 LO 0 0 10 ,....
..... a:> 10 C) ..... I '<t' o::t I
¡~aJ~ N ..... C") 0 0 I C") C") I N .....
OU
c 0 0 C) 0 0
OU C) I 0 N C) I 0 0 I 10 I
::J N I ...t ci c:i ..... I C") C") I N I
~
è OU
..2c C) C) ..... ..,. ..... ..... 10
.c~ ('I') ..... 0 0 ..... I ('I') ('I') I .....
N ci ci ci I ci c:i I N
~~
D..
OU OU
c3! N N N N ~
.!IE C) C) 0 0 0 0 I 10 10
~e N N ci ci c:i ..... ..... ci ci I N N
-.I:> V V V V V
w·-
e
OU
c 0 0 C) 0 0
OU C) 10
N I 0 ..... ..,. ..... I C":! C":! I I
C N I N ci ci I I N I
Æ ..... .....
;:;
c.. e OU
a:> 10 a:> a:>
UJ o æ C) a:> a:> ~ ~ ~ 10 ..,.
CI) ::C>. N 0 ..... ..... I
UJ .!:!~ N N ci 0 ci 0 0 I N N
C'CS V V V
.... .
I
C'CS OU
'!:I
C'CS c·r.:: N C) 0
0.2 ..... .....
s¡ 0> I ..... 0 ..... ..... I ..... ..... I 10 I
N I ci ci ci ci ci I N I
UJ
U
~ ....
... >.E
-
~i C) ('I') 10 ,.... ('I') ('I') 10 10
LO N 0 0 0 ..... I N N I N
C N c:i ci c:i In I ci ci - N
9:! :IE..2 0 ! \C
.c In
u In "It
E 'o::t e\
'" « <
OU OU «
.. c~ 0 0 0 U 0 0 U
u
. OUo C) C) ..... ..... ..... è ..... ..... I .¿' IJ') IJ')
>.- f N N c:i ci c:i ..... ..... ci ci I N N
,¡;.c
w~ V V V 0 V V =
CI) 0 Ë =
C'CS Ë ~ ~
E C ) =
.~ N N 0 ::; N N 0
.2 ...J C) C) 0 0 ('I') 0 0 "' IJ') 10
~ ci ci ci .. ..... ..... ci ~ I ~
of N N I N N
::c V V V rn V
u ~ -
I!! ~
E: ¡¡: =
:: ou 0 0
u 0 'a
.!!~ I: m (0 0 10 ,..... Õ 0 0 CO IJ') N
>'0 æ 0 LO ..... I LO 10 I
.c _ N N a:i ci ci I ci ci I e\ N N
'1i.c V 'It -
:lEu M .... é
Ø) CD
,.... N
ou cÞ =
0 0 0 - 0 0 .....
>."CI "0
c"c ~ C) C) M M M rn ('I') ('I') I IJ') IJ')
>~ N N ci ci 0 - ..... ..... ci ci I = N N
..
U E: V V V I!! V V íJ'1
0 ü: CIJ
u .~
E: 'a
æ CI õ c Q c
I I
~ U) 0 I: ! en 0 I: -= C/) 0
0 cc -' x co 0 cc -' x co = cc -'
E 0 V co c:: Q) E 0 V co c:: Q) = 0 V
~ =It: : : :; ~ ~ ::E ~ : :t : :t ~ ~ ~ ~ : :(: : :t
CD ~
> 0=
:::::¡ ::; 0
.....
.....
L.
Q)
15..
co
.s:::
U
-
.c
-
C)
-
c
t-
<c
-
:a
«
(II)
-
-
:c
t-
I
0 I
"'7
..--
..-- I
Q)
OJ
C'CS
a..
I
I
¡
I
I
I'
a:::: I
w
W
iIi
-= I
~
0
I
~
~ I
:s
-;I
Õ
C'CS
:I: ,-'
>.
1::
:s
0
U
1ñ I
C'CS
~
'0
C'CS
LL i
B
:=
In
:::J
-;I
..!!! I
'2
~
:::J
-;I
.2:-
.:: I
:s
0
()
C'CS
'C
Q)
E I
C'CS
«
I
I
I ~
ro
I :::I
0
...
<{
T"""
I T"""
...
Q)
ã.
(t1
J:.
Ü
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I'
0 Ll:!o (0 <0 I,() 0 Ll:!o 0>
~ "o:t I"-: "o:t
0 ci N T""" 0 ci
T""" V T""" V
0 0 T""" CO 0 0 (10
M N ~ I ,.... C\! I,()
ci N I N
N 0 0 0
I,() T""" "o:t <0 0> T""" "o:t
T""" 0 0 T""" T""" 0 0
ci ci ci N 0 ci ci
N N N N N N
0 0 0 (0 (0 ~ 0 0
0 ci ci N N 0 ci ci
V V V V V V
0 0 ,.... (0 0 0 «I
0> T""" N I T""" T""" N
ci ci N I ci ci
0 T"""
0> (10 "o:t (10 (10 (10
0 (0 (0 ~ ~ ~
0 ci 0
ci ci N N 0 0 0
V V V V
M 0 T""" CO N 0> 0
T""" """: """: I T""" ~ T"""
ci N I ci ci
0 0 0
,.... I,() (0 (0 I,() (0
0 ~ ~ (0 T""" T""" 0 0
ci 0 0 N ci ci ci
V
~
It)
0 0 0 "o:t 0 0 0
T""" """: T""" Cb CO (0 T""" T""" T"""
ci 0 ci c( N N ci ci ci
V V V 0 V V V
è
"C
N N 0 c: N
ca I,() T"""
~ 0 M Cþ <0 It) 0 ~ ~
0 ci ci ...J N N ci 0 0
V V V c: V
ft
tn
0 .g g
0 I,() "o:t > <0 M 0 «I
I"-: M ãi T""" ~
ci ci N N ('I') c:i
T""" V V 0
:E
-
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M M M LL. (0 (0 M M ~
ci ci c:i -= N N c:i c:i 0
V V V 0 V V V
"o:t
It)
'r"
è 0
"C U) 0
c: c c
x (t1 ca m ...J x (t1
(t1 c Q) Cþ 0 V (t1 c: Q)
::2 ~ ::2 ...J :r:t: :r:t: ::2 ~ ::2
c
ft
tn
~
~
,
~
~
Q)
C)
~
'6'
~
~
8
....
~
ï::
co
Q.
-
~
"t5
.æ
~
g .9
c II)
('\ ~
"5 co
:.t c::
co
ec: ~
~ E
c:: ( )
I:: .c::
'<:( (,)
E ~ ( )
:S
~ ....
0
e ~- ~ a::::
a.. C") ¡¡¡
:g (,) .Q ê' Cì.i
( ) co ~
C ( ) w
c:: ~
8 I .c:: 'ª
:5 ~ ~
.!2 c:: C
c:: æ ~ .... I
(\ ~ 0
I:: ~- ~ Q)
'E 0
c:: ( ) 7É
.IS ~ c ( )
.... -J :::I
c:: ~ 0 ( ) -;>
0 :S .....
ü ~ 0
.~ !!! ( ) ~ 16
'<:( .æ -J ~ ::r:
(,) Q) -E
')¡ ~ :5 ~
¡2 ( ) ~ ::I
...: :S .2 II) .e ~ 8
:5 .... ( ) ~ '-'-
~ .Q I:: ~ t)
('\ § ~ 0 m
0 ;¡:, ~ w
13 II) I:: ~ ~
'1:: ~ :;:, ( ) æ ==
~ ~ g (\
(,) .... '0
a ~ Q) 0 c:: 0 m
- II) (,) 0 I:: u..
c:: ( ) -g 't:J (,) 0 Q)
( ) II) ~ 't:J :;:, 0
~ .Q 'õ ~ jg ~
0
.... æ s¡ ~ :::J
.ê 0 .Q -;>
c:: .... .Q 0 II) Q)
( ) § -g §
~ ~ ~ 1ij ï::
.Q c:: ( ) 1ij ~
€ .... &
( ) ( ) .c:: ~ :::I
Q. I:: :S .!2> i -;>
§ II) ( ) .c:: .2 >.
t:S II) ( ) 'E
0 (\ II) I:: :S ( )
.~ æ :S co :::I
Q. I:: II) Q) 0
'<:( II) co E II) U
I:: ( ) I:: I:: :S
(\ (\ m
~ ~ ¡g E c ~ ~ .~ "0
'<:( II) E tJ 0 c: Q)
...J E
:0.. ( ).o .0 ~ c: ro
t5 co C;a.0 v ~ Q) m
OJ :(:a.'*I: '*I: :E :¡: «
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11: Air Quality
Attainment Status
The region does not meet standards for ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter, and is
designated nonattainment for both the federal and state levels. Under the Federal Clean Air Act,
the EP A has designated the region as moderate nonattainment for ground-level ozone. The EP A
grades the region unclassified for all other air pollutants. At the state level, the region is
considered serious nonattainment for ground-level ozone and nonattainment for PMlO. The area
is considered attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants.
11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Tab'le 11.4 provides a summary ofthe criteria used to evaluate potential air quality impacts of
this Proj ect.
CONFORMITY ApPLICABILITY TEST METHODOLOGY
In response to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments the EP A promulgated regulations requiring
federal actions to conform to the SIP. Each state established procedures for evaluating
conformity of the federal actions with the applicable SIP. In 1994, ABAG prepared the
conformity analysis for incorporation into the Bay Area's portion of the SIP. For the Bay Area,
this regulation only applies to direct and indirect emissions of ozone precursor pollutants
(reactive organic compounds and nitrogen oxides) and carbon monoxide. The regulation
includes de minimus levels of 100 tons per year for each compound. Conformity analysis for all
other criteria pollutants is not required. Federal actions, or project receiving federal funding,
resulting in emissions exceeding de minimus levels would be required to make a SIP confonnity
determination.
To evaluate confonnity with the federally enforceable SIP. both direct and indirect emissions
from the proposed action were calculated. Emissions were predicted for three source types: 1)
construction and demolition, 2) heat and electricity (i.e., natural gas combustion for space and
water heating), and 3) project-generated traffic. These are discussed below.
Construction and Demolition Emissions
Start date of construction for the two projects would probably be in early 2004, with construction
lasting 18 months. This would apply to both the first phase of the Juvenile Justice Facility (420
beds available for immediate occupancy, 450 beds constructed), and the East County Hall of
Justice. Site preparation and utility installation could start slightly ahead of the building
construction, possibly in late 2003. A date for beginning to demolish the existing facility has not
set, and may be postponed for some years. As a worst case analysis, this report assumes
demolition occurs within the same 18-month period as construction of new facilities.
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11: Air Quality
Table 11.4. Eva uation Criteria with Point of Significance
Evaluation Criteria As Measured by Point of Significance Justification
1. Will construction of the Size of construction area, Application of appropriate Bay Area Air Quality
Project generate duration of construction mitigation measures Management District
emissions that expose and proximity of receptors. recommended by CEQA Guidelines for
people to high levels of BAAQMD Assessing Impacts of
dust and equipment Projects and Plans
exhaust?
2. Will Project emissions Emissions of reactive Greater than 80 pounds Bay Area Air Quality
cumulatively exceed organic compounds, per day for each pollutant Management District
recommended nitrogen oxides and PM10 CEQA Guidelines for
significance thresholds? Assessing Impacts ot
Projects and Plans
3. Will Project expose Risk associated with Probability of contracting Bay Area Air Quality
people to substantial emissions of toxic air cancer for maximally Management District
levels of toxic air contaminants. exposed individual (MEI) CEQA Guidelines for
contaminants? exceeds 10 in one million Assessing Impacts of
or exposure to Projects and Plans
noncarcinogenic toxic air
contaminants would result
in a Hazard Index greater
than 1 for the ME!.
4. Will Project violate or
contribute to violation of
ambient air quality
standard?
Project-caused traffic
congestion may degrade
LOS to D or below. It so,
this indicates need to
model concentrations ot
carbon monoxide
hotspots.
Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
CEQA Guidelines tor
Assessing Impacts of
Projects and Plans
Greater than 9.0 parts per
million tor 8-hour
averaging periods.
5. Will the Project cause
potential odors?
Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
CEQA Guidelines for
Assessing Impacts of
Projects and Plans
Potential for the Project to
cause complaints.
Greater than 10 odor
complaints in a 90-day
period or greater than 1
confirmed or 3
unconfirmed complaints
per year averaged over 3
years.
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
Annual emissions of carbon monoxide and ozone precursor pollutants from construction
activities are calculated to evaluate the applicability of General Confonnity requirements to the
project. While general start dates and overall duration have been estimated by the County, a
detailed construction schedule is not known at this time, therefore the specific amount, type and
duration of construction emissions cannot be estimated. General construction emission factors
for projects, based on estimated development sizes, are contained in the CEQA Air Quality
Handbook that is published by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD
CEQA Guidelines). Table 9-1 of the SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines lists screening level emission
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-13
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
factors for estimating total construction emissions, based on the type and size of the construction
project. These factors account for all construction activities, such as diesel combustion from
heavy-duty equipment, materials handling (i.e., truck traffic), and construction worker travel.
Table 9-3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines contains screening emission factors of only
worker travel activity and Table 9-4 contains screening emission factors of only material
handling activities. Emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment appear to account for
over 80% of the total construction period emissions ofROG, NO" and CO. Materials handling,
appear to account for almost 15% of the construction period emissions.
Heat and Electricity Emissions
This includes natural gas combustion and electricity for space and water heating. Electricity in
California is generated by hydro, wind and solar power (approximately 30 percent), nuclear
(approximately 10 percent) and natural gas combustion production (approximately 60 percent).
Coal, a major contributor to air pollutants, is only very minimally used to generate electricity in
the state. In addition to generating electricity, natural gas may also be used directly for heat.
Project-generated Traffic Emissions
Project-generated motor vehicle emissions for each site are based on an estimate of traffic
volumes and average travel distances to each site, consistent with the traffic analysis contained in
Chapter 9 of this EISÆIR. An estimation ofthe emissions generated by the existing facilities
provides a baseline to compare the various project options. Tables for each option provide a
summary of Project impacts, below.
IMPACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 11.1
Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminants
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project-related benefits have been identified.
PROJECT IMPACTS
The ARB has identified diesel exhaust as a T AC. In the San Francisco Bay Area diesel exhaust
represents about two-thirds of the total excess annual cancer burden. The BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines specifically state that, "If a project may result in public exposures to high levels of
diesel exhaust, the Lead Agency should propose mitigation measures to reduce this impact."
Construction of the first phase of the Juvenile Justice Facility (420 beds available for immediate
use, 450 beds constructed) and the East County Hall of Justice would take place over about 18
months. Potential uncontrolled daily diesel emissions for each site are shown in Table 11.5. Note
that some of these emissions would be from large trucks hauling materials to and from the site,
so that the impact would be spread over the region and not at a localized site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
Table 11.5: Construction Diesel Exhaust (Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions)
Site and Development Option Annual (tons) Dally (pounds)
East County Government Center
420/450 beds 6.2 50
540 beds 6.9 55
East County Government Center or Site 15A
East County Hall of Justice 1.2 10
Existing San Leandro Property
420/450 beds 6.2 50
540 beds 6.9 55
Pardee/Swan Site
420/450 beds 6.2 50
540 beds 6.9 55
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
420 beds 3.5 28
Source: California ARB, 2002.
Note: Annual assumes 18-month construction period. Daily emissions assume 250 workdays per year.
Impact 11.1.1 All Alternatives
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT: Emissions of diesel exhaust during
construction are a potentially significant impact at all sites.
. Mitigation 11.1.1. Diesel Emissions Control. Construction equipment-generated
diesel exhaust is a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). It poses a potentially significant impact
to nearby receptors. NOx from equipment exhaust can refonn chemically into fine acid
particulates and further contribute to local PMlO and PM2.5 levels. Several straightforward
control measures are available to minimize T AC emissions while also reducing NOx and
ROG. First, low-emission fuels can be used. Second, engine tuning and control
equipment retrofit will help minimize emissions.
1. To control TACs and PMlO, construction contractors should be required to use
biodiesel fuel. For equipment with engines built in 1994 or later, use BlOO fuel that is
100% biodiesel fuel. B 1 00 reduces T AC emissions by approximately 80% to 90%. In
pre-l 994 engines, use B-20 fuel (a mixture of20% biodiesel and 80% fossil diesel
fuel). IfB20 is used, the fossil diesel component should be ARB low-sulfur fuel (less
than 15 ppmw).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-15
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
2. If a certified unit is available for an individual piece of equipment, the contractor
should use an oxidation catalyst or catalytic particulate filter on all diesel-powered
equipment rated above 50 horsepower. These systems require ARB low-sulfur diesel
fuel. Commercial fossil diesel fuel is available with near-zero sulfur levels. Biodiesel
is also ARB certified as low-sulfur (near-zero ppmw).
3. The contractor should use Purinox additive or equivalent. Depending on equipment,
this reduces emissions of both NOx and PMlO by 20% to 40%.
4. Where possible, electrical equipment should be used instead of diesel powered (e.g.,
pumps, compressors).
5. The contractor should install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid
need for independently powered equipment (e.g., compressors).
6. Diesel equipment standing idle for more than five minutes should be turned off. This
would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate or other bulk
materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running
continuously as long as they were on site.
The measures stated above represent best available control measures and would reduce
construction emissions by the following:
· ROG = 5% to 50% (highest with B100 use).
· NOx = 20% to 40% (varies with tuning, fuel additives).
· CO = 5% to 50% (highest with complete B 1 00 use).
· PM 10 = 60% to 80% (dust). Exhaust reduction efficiency varies fiom 10% to 90%
depending on fuels and catalysts.
· TAC = 50% to 80% (assumes some older equipment not using BIOO).
· SOz = 95% (S02 often transfonns in the atmosphere to PM2.5 or acidic mist).
Resulting Level of Significance: Irnplementation of these measures would substantially
reduce T AC emissions fiom diesel exhaust during construction. However, in the absence
of specific construction equipment and scheduling infonnation, it is not possible to
conduct a health risk assessment to detennine for certain whether the emissions could
pose a specific hazard to the human enviromnent. Therefore, this EIS/EIR concludes that
the impact could remain significant after mitigation.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-16
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11: Air Quality
Impact 11.2
Youth Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants
Detainees are provided with opportunities for outdoor recreation at least part of the day. Hence,
it is appropriate to examine the level oftoxic air contaminants (T AC) in ambient air in the
communities of each proposed site to detennine whether there would be unhealthful air at the
site. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the BAAQMD Air Toxics Hot Spots Program shows
that there are no known industrial facilities within the nine-county air district that present a risk
greater than lOin one million. Hence, there are no sites for a new Juvenile Justice Facility and/or
East County Hall of Justice consideration that present a health risk to detainees and/or employees
or other short-term visitors from being located in an area with a stationary source of T ACs.
The main source of T ACs is mobile sources, primarily motor vehicles. As discussed in Table
11.3, (see Existing Conditions), presents a summary ofTACs measured near the various sites.
The predominance of benzene and MTBE (and their ratio) shows that the primary source of
TACs at most locations is motor vehicles. Mean levels ofbenzene/MTBE in Oakland and San
Leandro are approximately 50% lower than Livennore. Oakland and San Leandro have lower
motor vehicle T AC levels than the Amador Valley because high winds are more common near
the bay, inversions are less common and geography does not trap emissions as effectively as
happens near Livennore.
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project-related benefits have been identified.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 11.2.1 All Alternatives
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. None of the alternative sites are located in proximity to
toxic hot spots, so there would be no concentrated exposure to industrial toxics. While the
ambient air quality in the region varies, none of the project alternatives would place detainees in
an area with unusually high toxic air contaminant concentrations. Additionally, detained youth
would not reside at the Juvenile Justice Facility pennanently, so exposure term during detention
would be limited and comparable to the level of exposure that detainees would experience while
living at home within the County. Thus, exposure to TACs would be less than significant.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-17
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-18
I
I
I
I
)1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
Impact 11.3
Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM10
Ongoing operations of the Project would result in contributions to the local and regional levels of
ozone precursors and PMlO and PM2.5. The BAAQMD CEQA Handbook recommends a
significance threshold of 80 pounds per day, or 15 tons per year for each of the following
compounds: ROG, NOx and PMlO.
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project-related benefits have been identified.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 11.3.1: No Action/No Project
LESS THAN SIGNFICANT IMPACT. Motor vehicle emissions for each site are based on an
estimate of travel to each site. All emission estimates provided in the sections below are for Year
2005. This travel estimate assumes weekly round-trips for one parent, one attorney, one county
official and five staff (a total of 16 trip ends per detainee per week). A travel distance is assigned
for each trip to each site based on the 2002 population of juvenile probation,ers. Appendix 11-1
provides details on trip assignment and estimated Vehicle Miles Traveled.
The No ActionINo Project alternative would result in the continuation of existing conditions,
which include the operation of the existing 300-bed Juvenile Hall in San Leandro and the
existing five-court courthouse in Pleasanton. Table 11.6 shows the estimated annual air pollutant
emissions at the existing Juvenile Hall. An estimation of the emissions generated by the No
ActionINo Project alternative provides a baseline to compare the other Project alternatives.
Table 11.6: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions at Existing Juvenile Hall and Courthouse
Source of Emissions ROG NO ( PM10
Existing Juvenile Hall
Heat and electricity >0.1 tons 1.1 tons
Project-generated traffic 2.3 tons 4.8 tons
300 beds
Subtotal 2.3 tons 5.9 tons
Existing Courthouse 0.4 tons 0.8 tons
Total Existing Emissions 2.7 tons 6.7 tons
0.1 tons
0.1 tons
0.2 tons
>0.1 ton
0.2 tons
Sources:
U.S. Department of Energy, 2002.
California ARB, 2001.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2002.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
Impact 11.3.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The Existing San Leandro
Property could be developed with a new Juvenile Justice Facility that would replace and expand
the existing facility and consolidate other operations from locations in Hayward and Oakland.
Development ofthis site would include the demolition of the existing Juvenile Hall
(approximately 200,000 sf), and construction of one of the new facility scenarios (450 beds
constructed and 420 or 450 beds available, or 540 beds). The County's Fairmont hospital (15400
Foothill Boulevard) and John George Psychiatric Pavilion (at 2060 Fairmont Drive) are nearby
sensitive receptors, as are residents northwest of the site across Fairmont Drive. People at these
medical facilities and residences could be impacted by construction activities. Demolition ofllie
existing Juvenile Hall could produce short-term PMIO and PM2.5 impacts. Calculations for similar
demolition activity indicate that heavy equipment would produce less than 100 tons of CO, so no
federal conformity analysis is required. The estimated emissions are shown in Table 11.7.
Construction
The Project could result in a short-term, temporary impact on air quality from dust during and
diesel exhaust from construction machinery.
. Mitigation 11.3.2a. Reduction of Dust During Construction. Construction dust,
generated by soil disturbances, material hauling, and vehicle exhaust, includes PM10. Soil
can also be tracked out onto paved roads where it is entrained in the air by passing cars
and trucks. Dust emission rates are related to the type and size of the disturbance,
meteorological conditions, and soil conditions. Construction activities can cause localized
high PMIO concentrations and worsen regional PMIO levels. Since most of the possible
Project sites will disturb a large area near sensitive receptors, the construction quality
impact is considered potentially significant.
Due to the many variables that affect construction emissions, quantification of the PMIO
impacts is very difficult. The BAAQMD's recommended approach to construction
impacts is to require implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures
rather than detailed quantification of the effects. Implementation of feasible controls,
outlined below, can effectively reduce construction PMIO emissions. Construction
activities are also subject to BAAQMD Regulations VIII, which requires suppressing
dust emissions from all sources of dust generation using water, chemical stabilizers,
and/or vegetative ground cover.
For large projects, the BAAQMD has identified enhanced control measures that should
be implemented beyond the requirements of Regulation VIII. Impacts can be greatly
reduced by implernenting these fugitive dust control measures. The significance of
construction dust air quality impacts is typically determined by the control measures that
will be implemented. '
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-19
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
Table 11.7: Estimated Air Pollutant Emissions for the Juvenile Justice Facility
at the existing San Leandro Property Site
Source of Emissions Timeframe ROG NOx PM10
Construction
Demolition of Existing Juvenile 18 months 1.8 tons 26.8 tons 2.2 tons
Hall
Construction 18 months
420/450 beds 5.9 tons 87.2 tons 55.2 tons
540 beds 6.6 tons 96.5 tons 55.4 tons
Operations Annual
Heat and electricity
420 beds >0.1 tons 0.3 tons >0.1 tons
450 beds >0.1 tons 0.4 tons >0.1 tons
540 beds >0.1 tons 0.4 tons >0.1 tons
Project..generated traffic Annual
420 beds 3.3 tons 6.8 tons 0.1 tons
450 beds 3.5 tons 7.2 tons 0.2 tons
540 beds 4.2 tons 8.7 tons 0.2 tons
Total Annual Emissions Annual
420 beds 3.3 tons 7.1 tons 0.1 tons
450 beds 3.5 tons 7.6 tons 0.2 tons
540 beds 4.2 tons 9.1 tons 0.2 tons
Change from existing Juvenile Annual
Hall* (excludes
420 beds construction) 1.0 tons 1.2 tons (0.1) ton
450 beds 1 .2 tons 1.7 tons No change.
540 beds 1.9 tons 3.2 tons No change.
Sources:
U.S. Deparlment of Energy, 2002.
California ARB, 2001.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2002.
Note: This change is calculated by sUbtracting the emissions from the Existing Juvenile Hall (see "Subtotal, n Table
11.6) from the total annual emissions of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility at this site. A decrease is in shown in
parentheses.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
The implementation of the following measures would reduce the PMIO impact to a less than
significant level:
1. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy
periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all times.
2. Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. Dust-proof chutes
shall be used as appropriate to load debris onto trucks during any demolition.
3. Pave, apply water at least twice daily or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas.
4. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging
areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
deposited onto the adjacent roads.
5. Hydroseed or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(previously graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more).
6. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (nontoxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles.
7. Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph.
8. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
9. Designate an air quality coordinator for the Project. Prominently post a phone number
for this person on the job site, and distribute same to all nearby residents and
businesses. The coordinator will respond to and remedy any complaints about dust,
exhaust or other air quality concerns. A log shall be kept of all complaints and how
and when the problem was remedied.
. Mitigation Measure 11.3.2b. Diesel Emissions Control. Mitigation Measure
11.1.1 (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of the above mitigation measures would
reduce the levels of dust during construction and the exhaust rrom construction
machinery to a less than significant level.
Operations
As shown in Table 11.7, the "Change from Existing" summary shows the difference between the
Project and existing conditions for cumulative emissions (construction emissions are excluded in
this summary). Emissions ofROG, NOx and PMIO will be below 15 tons per year for this option.
Therefore, there will be no significant operational impact.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-21
Chapter 11: Air Quality
Impact 11.3.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The GlelU1 Dyer Detention
Facility would accommodate a new Juvenile Justice Facility with 420 beds (no larger number of
bed options are available at this site). To make way for interior remodeling and construction of a
new tower adjacent to the existing structures, approximately 20,000 square feet of demolition
would occur in the central portion of the site. Interior demolition would also occur, but
significant dust from this activity would not propagate to the outside using conventional debris
removal methods. Sensitive receptors include persons residing in second-story apartments across
the street and in newer high-density housing about one block away. Exterior construction dust
and other emissions could impact these residents during construction. The proposed buildings are
close to Interstates 880 and 980. This location also presents potential impacts to detainees when
they are using the outdoor recreation facilities due to the PMIO and other emissions from the
freeway.
The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility would be the only site that includes demolition activity
during the construction period for the new buildings. This demolition would fit in that 18-month
construction window, probably during the first 6 months. There may be some overlap on the new
construction if construction begins on the new tower while renovation work is continuing in the
existing structure. The estimated emissions are shown in Table 11.8.
Construction
The Project could result in a short-tenn, temporary impact on air quality from dust during and
diesel exhaust from construction machinery.
. Mitigation Measure 11.3.3a. Reduction of Dust During Construction.
Mitigation Measure 11.3.2A (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
. Mitigation Measure 11.3.3b. Diesel Emissions Control. Mitigation Measure
11.1.1 ( see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of the above mitigations would reduce
the levels of dust during construction and the exhaust from construction machinery to a
less than significant level.
Operations
As shown in Table 11.8, the "Change from Existing" summary shows the difference between the
Project and existing conditions for cumulative emissions (construction emissions are excluded in
this summary). Emissions ofROG, NO" and PMlO will be below 15 tons per year for this option.
Therefore, there will be no significant operational impact.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
Table 11.8: Estimated Air Pollutant Emissions for the Juvenile Justice Facility at the Glenn Dyer
Detention Facility
Source of Emissions Timeframe ROG NOx PM10
Construction
Demolition of the existing Juvenile 18 months 1 .8 tons 26.8 tons 2.2 tons
Hall in San Leandro
Demolition of portions of the existing N/A 0.2 tons 2.7 tons 0.2 tons·
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
Construction of Juvenile Justice 18 months 5.7 tons 83.1 tons 3.0 tons
Facility
Operations
Heat and electricity Annual >0.1 tons 0.3 tons >0.1 tons
Project-generated traffic Annual 3.0 tons 6.1 tons 0.1 tons
Total Annual Emissions Annual 3.0 tons 6.4 tons 0.1 tons
Change from existing Juvenile Annual 0.7 tons 0.5 tons (0.1) ton
Hall· ( excludes
construction)
Sources:
U.S. Department of Energy, 2002.
Galifomia ARB, 2001.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Gontrol District, 2002.
* Note: This change is calculated by subtracting the emissions from the existing Juvenile Hall (see "Subtotal," Table
11.6) from the total annual emissions of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility at this site. A decrease is shown in
parentheses.
Impact 11.3.4: Pardee/Swan Site
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The Pardee/Swan Site is
proposed to be developed with a new Juverùle Justice Facility with a 450-bed capacity, of which
420 beds would be available immediately, and an additional 30 beds could be made available at
some time in the future when the County detennines it necessary. The Pardee/Swan site would
also accommodate future expansion to 540 beds. The building would also have five juvenile
courts initially, with expansion potential for operation of a sixth juvenile courtroom within the
shell of the main building. The Project at this site would also include development of a new
parking garage to serve the Oakland International Airport, which would replace the Port of
Oakland's planned surface parking lot that is being developed at the site and would have to be
replaced as part of the Project. No sensitive receptors are living nearby. There are possible
construction irnpacts (dust) to people using the nearby shoreline trail and park area. The
estimated annual ernissions for the Juvenile Justice Facility at the Pardee/Swan Site are listed in
Table 11.9.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-23
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11: Air Quality
Table 11.9: Estimated Air Pollutant Emissions for the Juvenile Justice Facility
at the Pardee/Swan Site
Source of Emissions Tlmeframe ROG NOx PM10
Construction
Demolition of the 18 months 1 .8 tons 26.8 tons 2.2 tons
Existing Juvenile Hall at
the Existing San Leandro
Property
Construction 18 months
420/450 beds 5.9 tons 87.2 tons 31.3 tons
540 beds 6.6 tons 96.5 tons 31.5 tons
Operations
Heat and electricity Annual
420 beds >0.1 tons 0.3 tons >0.1 tons
450 beds >0.1 tons 0.4 tons >0.1 tons
540 beds >0.1 tons 0.4 tons >0.1 tons
Project-generated traffic Annual
420 beds 2.8 tons 5.8 tons 0.1 tons
450 beds 3.0 tons 6.2 tons 0.2 tons
540 beds 3.7 tons 7.4 tons 0.2 tons
Total Annual Emissions Annual
420 beds 2.8 tons 6.1 tons 0.1 tons
450 beds 3.0 tons 6.6 tons 0.2 tons
540 beds 3.7 tons 7.8 tons 0.2 tons
Change from existing Annual
Juvenile Hall'" ( excludes
420 beds construction) 0.5 tons 0.2 tons (0.1) ton
450 beds 0.7 tons 0.7 tons No change.
540 beds 1 .4 tons 1.9 tons No change.
Sources:
u.s. Department of Energy, 2002.
Califomia ARB, 2001.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2002.
"'Note: This change is calculated by subtracting the emissions from the Existing Juvenile Hall (see "Subtotal," Table
11.6) from the total annual emissions of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility at this site. A decrease in shown in
parentheses.
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11: Air Quality
Construction
The Project could result in a short-tenn, temporary impact on air quality from dust during
construction and diesel exhaust from construction machinery.
. Mitigation Measure 11.3.4a. Reduction of Dust During Construction.
Mitigation Measure 11.3.2A (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
. Mitigation Measure 11.3.4b. Diesel Emissions Control. Mitigation Measure
11.1.1 (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of the above mitigations would reduce
the levels of dust during construction and the exhaust from construction machinery to a
less than significant level.
Operations
As shown in Table 11.9, above, the "Change from Existing" summary shows the difference
between the Project and existing conditions for cumulative emissions (construction emissions are
excluded in this summary). Emissions ofROG, NOx and PMIO will be below 15 tons per year for
this option. Therefore, there will be no significant operational impact.
Impact 11.3.5: East County Government Center
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. The East County Government
Center site may be developed with a new Juvenile Justice Facility, a new East County Hall of
Justice or both. Table 11.10 shows the estimated air pollutant emissions for the Juvenile Justice
Facility at the East County Government Center, Table 11.11 air pollutant for the East County
Hall of Justice, and Table 11.12 shows the estimated annual air pollutants for combined projects.
Nearby land uses with potentially sensitive receptors include an existing County jail to the north,
a military installation and federal prison to the west, a business park to the south and homes to
the southeast. The closest home would be approximately 500 feet from the nearest comer of the
proposed Juvenile Justice Facility, about 500 feet from the proposed East County Hall of Justice
building and 100 feet from the nearest parking lot area for that project. Both of these projects
could result in potential construction impacts to these residents. The Juvenile Justice Facility
could include 420 beds, 450 beds or 540 beds. The East County Hall of Justice could have up to
195,000 square feet of new construction for the court.
Construction
As shown on Tables 11.10 and Table 11.11, either of the proposed Projects could result in a
short-tenn, temporary impact on air quality from dust during construction and diesel exhaust
from construction machinery.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-25
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
Table 11.10: Estimated Air Pollutant Emissions for the Juvenile Justice Facility
at the East County Government Center
Source of Emissions Timeframe ROG NOx PM10
Construction
Demolition of Existing Juvenile 18 months 1.8 tons 26.8 tons 2.2 tons
Hall at Existing San Leandro
Property
Construction 18 months
420/450 beds 5.9 tons 87.2 tons 36.5 tons
540 beds 6.6 tons 96.5 tons 36.7 tons
Operations
Heat and electricity Annual
420 beds >0.1 tons 0.3 tons >0.1 tons
450 beds >0.1 tons 0.4 tons >0.1 tons
540 beds >0.1 tons 0.4 tons >0.1 tons
Project-generated traffic Annual
420 beds 5.5 tons 11.9 tons 0.1 tons
450 beds 5.9 tons 12.8 tons 0.2 tons
540 beds 7.1 tons 15.3 tons 0.2 tons
Total Annual Emissions Annual
420 beds 5.5 tons 12.2 tons 0.1 tons
450 beds 5.9 tons 13.2 tons 0.2 tons
540 beds 7.1 tons 15.7 tons 0.2 tons
Change from existing Juvenile Annual
Hall* (excludes
420 beds construction) 3.2 tons 6.3 tons (0.1) ton
450 beds 3.6 tons 6.7 tons No change.
540 beds 4.8 tons 9.8 tons No change.
Sources:
U.S. Department of Energy, 2002.
Califomia ARB, 2001.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2002.
*Note: This change is calculated by subtracting the emissions from the Existing Juvenile Hall (see "Subtotal," Table
11.6) from the total emissions of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility at this site. A decrease is shown in
parentheses.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11 : Air Quality
Table 11.11: Estimated Air Pollutant Emissions for the East County Hall of Justice
(at East County Government Center or at Site 15A)
Source of Emissions Timeframe ROG NOx PM10
Construction 18 months 6.6 tons 96.5 tons 11 .1 tons
Operations
Heat and electricity Annual >0.1 tons 1 .1 tons 0.1 tons
Project-generated traffic Annual 1.0 tons 2.2 tons >0.1 tons
Total Annual Emissions Annual 1.0 tons 3.3 tons 0.1 tons-
Change from existing Annual 0.6 tons 2.5 tons >0.1 tons
courthouse* (excludes
construction)
Sources:
U.S. Department of Energy, 2002.
Califomia ARB, 2001.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2002.
"Note: This change is calculated by subtracting the emissions form the existing courthouse (see Table 11.6) from the
total annual emissions of the proposed East County Hall of Justice at this site. A decrease is shown in parentheses.
Table 11.12: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions for Operation of the Juvenile Justice Facility
and East County Hall of Justice at the East County Government Center Site
Source of Emissions ROG NOx PM10
Change from existing Juvenile HaW
420 beds 3.2 tons 6.3 tons (0.1) ton
450 beds 3.6 tons 6.7 tons 0
540 beds 4.8 tons 9.9 tons 0
Change from existing courthouse* 0.6 tons 2.5 tons >0.1 tons
Total Change in Annual Emissions
420 beds 3.8 tons 8.8 tons 0
450 beds 4.2 tons 9.2 tons >0.1 ton
540 beds 5.4 tons 12.4 tons >0.1 ton
"Note: The change from existing Juvenile Hall at this site is from Table 11.10 and the change from existing
courthouse is from Table 11.11, respectively.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-27
Chapter 11: Air Quality
· Mitigation Measure 11.3.5a. Reduction of Dust During Construction.
Mitigation Measure 11.3.2A (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
· Mitigation Measure 11.3.5b. Diesel Emissions Control. Mitigation Measure
11.1.1 ( see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of the above mitigations would reduce
the levels of dust during construction and the exhaust from construction machinery to a
less than significant level.
Operations
As shown in Tables 11.10 and Table 11.11, the "Change from Existing" summary shows the
difference between the Project and existing conditions for cumulative emissions for the Juvenile
Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice, respectively. Table 11.12 shows the emissions
for the combined project. Emissions ofROG, NOx and PMlO will be below 15 tons per year for
either or ifboth Projects are built at the East County Government Center site. Therefore, there
will be no significant operational impact.
Impact 11.3.6: Site 15A
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. To the north and east ofthe site
is a complex of large office buildings - about 500 feet at the closest point. Since these nearby
modem buildings have filtered air-handling equipment, construction impacts to workers would
be minimized. Dust could impact building filters and they may require temporarily increased
maintenance. Cars in nearby parking lots could be soiled by construction dust. This site would
have no Juvenile Justice Facility, only an East County Hall of Justice. The change in emissions
ofROG, NOx and PMlO would be as shown in Table 11.11 for the East County Government
Center site.
Construction
As shown in Table 11.11, the Project could result in a short-tenn, temporary impact on air
quality from dust during and diesel exhaust from construction machinery.
· Mitigation Measure 11.3.6a. Reduction of Dust During Construction.
Mitigation Measure 11.3.2A (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
· Mitigation Measure 11.3.6b. Diesel Emissions Control. Mitigation Measure
11.1.1 (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of the above mitigation measures would
reduce the levels of dust during construction and the exhaust from construction
machinery to a less than significant level.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 11: Air Quality
Operations
As shown in Table 11.11, the "Change ftom Existing" summary shows the difference between
the Project and existing conditions for cumulative emissions (construction emissions are
excluded in this summary. Emissions ofROG, NOx and PMIO will be below 15 tons per year for
this option. Therefore, there will be no significant operational impact.
Impact 11.4
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
For local air quality impacts, CO is the pollutant of primary concern. Local CO concentrations
near all proposed project sites are typically well below state and federal standards (see Tables
11.6 to 11.11, above). Violations of a CO ambient air quality standard would be considered a
significant adverse impact. Elevated CO concentrations (so-called hotspots) are usually
associated with congested roadways with high traffic volumes. A CO hotspot is an area that
could exceed air quality standards from vehicle emissions under congested traffic conditions and
stagnant meteorological conditions.
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project-related benefits have been identified related to CO emissions.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 11.4.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. The Project would not result in any change to carbon monoxide hotspots if no
new construction occurred and existing operations continued in place.
Impact 11.4.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. Development at the Existing
San Leandro Property could result in congested roadways in the vicinity. Traffic modeling
indicates that the intersection of the 1-580 Westbound off ramp at Foothill Boulevard would
become very congested at peak hours. Off-ramp vehicle delay would degrade to LOS E with
overall intersection operation degrading to LOS D. This intersection congestion has potential to
create a CO hotspot. However, the traffic study recommends that the stop sign be replaced with a
signal, which would improve operations to LOS B.
. Mitigation Measure 11.3.4: Improve Operations of the Intersection of
Foothill Boulevard and 1·580 Westbound Off-ramp. Mitigation Measure 9.1.2
(see Chapter 9: Transportation) would apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of the above mitigation would reduce
this to a less than significant impact on local air quality (CO).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11-29
Chapter 11: Air Quality
Impact 11.4.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. None ofthe local roadways serving the GlelU1 Dyer
Detention Facility site would be congested as a result of the Project, so no CO hotspots would
result.
Impact 11.4.4: Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. None of the local roadways serving the Pardee/Swan
Site would be congested as a result of the Project, so no CO hotspots would result.
Impact 11.4.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Although several intersections would be congested due
to baseline and project-generated traffic, none of the local intersections or roadways analyzed for
the East County Government Center site would cause any CO hotspots, i.e. an exceedence of
State or federal standards.
Impact 11.4.6: Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Although several intersections would be congested due
to baseline and project-generated traffic, none of the local intersections or roadways analyzed for
Site 15A would cause any CO hotspots, i.e. an exceedence of State or federal standards.
Impact 11.5
Odors
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
No Project-related benefits have been identified.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 11.5.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMP ACT. No Project / No Action would not result in any change to odors.
Impact 11.5.2: All Other Alternatives
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The Project's operation would not be a source of odors that would
affect the public fTequently in an objectionable way. Trash would be kept in enclosed containers
and kitchens would equipped with appropriate emission controls, as required by building, health
and air quality regulations. This impact would be considered less than significant.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 11·30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12
Public Health and Safety
12.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REGULATORy/POLICY SETTING
Hazardous Materials Defined
A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or
significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible or
incapacitating reversible illness; or (2) pose substantial present or potential hazards to human
health and safety, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of
or otherwise managed.
As defined by Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), hazardous materials are
grouped into the following four categories: toxic, ignitable, corrosive and reactive. Toxic
substances may cause short-tenn or long-lasting health effects, ranging from temporary effects to
pennanent disability or even death, depending on such factors as concentration, route of
exposure and duration of exposure. Carcinogens (substances known to cause cancer) are a
special class of toxic substances. Ignitable substances are hazardous because of their ability to
bum. Gasoline and natural gas are examples of ignitable substances. Corrosive materials-strong
acids and bases, such as lye or sulfuric (battery) acid--can cause severe burns or damage
materials. Reactive materials may cause explosions or generate toxic gases. Explosives, pure
sodium or potassium metal (which react violently with water) and cyanide are examples of
reactive materials.
Hazardous waste, which is a subset of hazardous material, refers to hazardous material that is to
be abandoned, discarded or recycled.
Regulatory Setting
Storage, handling and documentation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are governed
by federal, state and local laws designed to protect human health and the environment. Agencies
involved in enforcing these regulations include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US
EP A), the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the San Francisco Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) and the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health. Workplace safety
regulations are enforced by the respective federal and state occupational safety and health
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-1
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
administration. The federal agency, administered by the U.S. Department of Labor, is the
Occupational State and Health Administration (OSHA). Its state counterpart is the Division of
Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), which is administered by the California Department of
Industrial Relations.
Federal regulations are contained primarily in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and the Comprehensive Enviromnental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA). RCRA and CERCLA provide the federal government requirements for
identification of hazardous materials and wastes, remediation of hazardous wastes in soil and
groundwater, and reporting. Hazardous waste identification is based on the source of the waste or
the physical/chemical nature of the waste. Remediation requirements are determined on a site.-
specific basis in conjooction with lead state or local agencies, but these acts include federal
guidance pertaining to minimum acceptable remedial actions. Reporting requirements under
these two acts are designed to assure that known releases of hazardous constituents are reported
and that federal agencies participate in the remedial process either directly or through state or
local lead agencies.
State regulations in California pertaining to hazardous materials and wastes are typically
equivalent to, or more stringent than, federal requirements. Some materials and wastes
considered hazardous under California law are not hazardous ooder federal law. Consequently,
the federal EP A often delegates regulatory authority and hazardous waste site oversight to
California agencies. Similarly, the state DOSH standards are typically more stringent than
federal OSHA standards, and U.S. Department of Labor typically delegates responsibility to the
California Department of Industrial Relations.
California hazardous waste material and waste regulations are contained in the California
Hazardous Waste Control Act (CHWCA) and the California Hazardous Substance Account Act
(CHSAA). Hazardous materials and waste regulations are contained in the CCR, Titles 22 and
26. Regulations for occupational safety and health are contained in CCR Title 8. Further,
pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Section 25503.3(c), facilities denoted
as Priority 1 High Risk Facilities! are required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan
(HMBP). The HMBP must include an Emergency Response Plan and Contingency Plan that
specify how a facility operator would manage an accident involving hazardous materials,
including how to safely evacuate the site. None of the proposed sites have Priority 1 High Risk
Facilities. .
The Department of Toxic Substances Control is the lead agency for enforcement of California
regulations and, where so empowered, federal regulations. Depending on the nature of
contamination at a given site (particularly where the primary concern is groundwater
contamination), the appropriate regional water quality control board may be the lead agency. The
proposed sites for the Project are all under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco RWQCB. At
sites where excavation of soils containing hazardous wastes is required, the Bay Area Air
1 As defmed by the federal and state thresholds for Acute Hazardous Materials. These facilities are identified by the
local fITe department and/or emergency services.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12~2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
Quality Management District may impose requirements for protection of ambient air quality
from dust and vapors. Alameda County's Department of Environmental Health Services is
another key agency in implementing state programs at the local level.
Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan
Development near the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport, Hayward Executive Airport
or other airports within Alameda County are subject to the provisions of the Alameda County
Airport Land Use Policy Plan (Airport Land Use Commission, 1986). If located within a
designated referral area, proposed projects must be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) for a Detennination of Plan Consistency. In the Hazards Prevention Zone, all structures
would need to comply with restrictions on lights, reflective objects, the generation of smoke or
certain electrical equipment that could interfere with the operation of aircraft or aircraft
instrumentation. If a site is located within an ALUC Height Referral Area, proposed structures
comply with height restrictions set forth in Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77,
including Subpart D.
LOCAL PHYSICAL SETTING
Existing San Leandro Property
Hazardous Materials
A 6,000-gallon aboveground storage tank: (AST) is located at the existing Juvenile Hall complex,
southwest of the Administration building and near Fainnont Drive. It is used as a backup fuel
source for an existing generator.
In January 2000, the Alameda County General Services Agency received a Remedial Action
Completion Certification from the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency regarding
three underground storage tank:s (USTs) at the existing Juvenile Hall.
The site is located within the Hayward Fault zone in the hills above and east of unincorporated
San Leandro at an approximate elevation of 240 feet above mean sea level. As shown in Figure
12.1, three USTs were previously in operation at this site. A 325-gallon diesel fuel tank: and a
7,000-gallon fuel oil tank: were located adjacent to each other just west of the Administration
building on site, while a 10,000-gallon diesel tank: is located just northeast of the Receiving
building on site.
The 325-gallon tank:, removed in March 1993, was used as an emergency generator fuel source.
This tank: was located directly adjacent to, but at a shallower depth than, the 7,000-gallon fuel oil
tank: that was subsequently removed in 1994. The fuel oil was used by a boiler located in the
basement of the attached building.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-3
Figure 12.1
San Leandro Site
Hazardous Materials Sites
, ¡,:C':-¡ I
' 'r~rv.
~)·I .
SOURCE: Versar, Inc.
Aerial Photo: Pacific Aerial Surveys
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
Upon removal, both tanks showed signs of advanced corrosion and through-going holes,
including up to 3 inches across in the smaller tank.
Soil samples collected following removal of the 325-gallon tank revealed up to 750 parts per
million (ppm) TPHd (total petroleum hydrocarbons in diesel) and no aromatics at a depth of 15
feet, the base of the excavation. Overexcavation of this tank pit did not occur at that time.
Samples collected in October 1994 from the floor of the 7,000-gallon tank excavation following
its removal exhibited up to 4,800 ppm TPHd and trace BTEX (includes benzene, toluene, ethyl
benzene and/or xylene, which may be found in gasoline) at a depth of 22 feet. The north end of
the excavation appeared to be the most impacted by the releases from these two tanks.
Overexcavation ofthis collective tank pit resulted in final overall pit dimensions of 19 x 14 x 20
feet deep, extended to 23 feet at the north end. Excavation was limited by the adjacent roadway
and excavator capabilities. Final pit bottom samples (T3-N-23' and T5-N-23') were void of
detectable target compounds.
Approximately 252 tons of impacted stockpiled soil was reportedly transported to Port Costa
Materials in Port Costa, California, for incorporation into asphaltic products, with another five
yards transported to Forward Landfill in Stockton, California. The excavation was reportedly
restored with both "clean" stockpile soils and 0.75-inch crushed rock.
The 10,000-gallon diesel tank and an associated 200 feet of piping were closed in place with
approval from the Alameda County Health Services Agency and the Alameda County Fire
Department. This tank, located remote to the other two smaller tanks, previously served as fuel
source for both a boiler and emergency generator in two separate locations.
Samples were reportedly collected using a hand auger at the bottom ends of the tank, and at 20-
foot intervals where possible along the extensive piping run. No appreciable impact was noted in
any of the samples. In place closure was subsequently approved. The tank was filled in June
1998 with cement slurry after both it and the piping were reportedly cleaned. The record is
unclear as to the techniques used to abandon the piping.
The Alameda County Health Services Agency granted closure in the case of the subject tanks,
since the case meets the definition of a "Low Risk Soils Case," as outlined in the January 5,
1996, guidance from the RWQCB.
Figure 12.2 shows sites in the vicinity of the Existing San Leandro Property site with real or
potential environmental issues related to the release of hazardous materials. Aside from the
underground fuel storage tanks at the existing Juvenile Hall site, the only location identified
within one-quarter of a mile of the reference point at the Existing San Leandro Property site is
the Alameda County Office of Education (shown as location 1), which has a record of previously
disposing of laboratory waste chemicals.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-5
\
~,
---~ ''''it\.:
-~ '---!!'!t 01(
"" ,.,,,,,,,,,;;;;;
* Tafg9t Pn¡perty Q 1n~ '" m"'....
}~ I
... Sites at eIQ;<¡lü"n" higher than
or equal to the target pJoperty ~
· Sites at øll:waticn$ lower than l\ "1 Power tf'{),nsmìssbr1 Hnes . Areas of Concern
. ..
!h9 urgß! prop/HII' N 011 & GM pipelines
· Coal Ga$ÍilcatiOI1 Sites ~ 1 DD-yuM 11""d ZC!tl6
· $ensiOv¢ Receptors r23 5DO·yuar '!oed ¡one
8 National Priority Us! SitQS . Wetlands
L.1ndml $ltM
TARGET PROPERTY:
ADDRESS:
cnY/STATE/ZIP:
LAT/LONG:
Sail Leandro
Fairmont Drive
San Leandro CA 94&78
37.71621122.1182
CUSTOMER:
CONTACT:
INQUIRY It:
DATE:
Lamphier-Gregory
Sleven Buckley
860340,21.>
October 08.2002 1:52 pm
Figure 12.2
San Leandro Site
Hazardous Materials Locations
SOURCE: EDR, Inc.; GDT, Inc. ReI.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
The presence of common industrial and household hazardous materials was outlined in a recent
Phase I assessment for the Fairmont area (Iris Environmental, 2002). The assessment included
the Project area and Fairmont Hospital, as well as the surrounding environs. Drums of solvents,
waste oil, and waste antifreeze were found in the Project area. One 10-gallon drum of solvents
was found in the shop behind Snedigar Cottage and three 55-gallon drums of waste oil and
antifreeze were found in the generator area behind the existing Juvenile Hall. In addition to these
hazardous wastes, the storage sheds behind Snedigar Cottage contained gasoline, gardening
chemicals, water treatment chemicals, machine lubricants and janitorial chemicals.
Machine lubricants were also found in the boiler room in the existing Juvenile Hall. Lastly, the
carpentry shop within Snedigar Cottage contained paints, wood stains and lacquers.
The same study evaluated potentially contaminated soil in the vicinity ofthe Chabot Boys'
Camp. Low levels of two herbicides, diuron and simazine, were found. Their concentrations are
below the threshold required for remediation, as per the Region IX Preliminary Remediation
Guidelines (PRG) for residential and industrial sites. No remedial action is required.
Aviation Operations in Site Vicinity
The Existing San Leandro Property site is located approxirnately 4 miles east of the Metropolitan
Oakland International Airport, and approximately 3 miles north of the Hayward Executive
Airport. There are no private aviation facilities in the vicinity of the site.
Wildland Fire Hazard
The site is located in a suburban location on the fringe of a semi-rural area near Lake Chabot
Regional Park's rolling grassy hills. The site itself is considerably wooded with a variety of
rnature trees and shrubs. The nearest Alameda County Fire Department Station to the site is
Station 3, located a few minutes away at 1430 164th Avenue. This station consists of two engine
companies and currently services the existing Juvenile Hall, all of the Ashland area and major
sections of Highways 580 and 238.
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
Hazardous Materials
The existing Glenn Dyer Detention Facility was built in the mid-1980s, by which time the
widespread use of asbestos and lead-based paints had been discontinued in the United States.
Although the site has not been evaluated for the presence of hazardous materials, operation ofthe
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility in the years since construction did not involve the use or storage
of significant quantities of hazardous materials, and it is unlikely that such materials would be
found within the existing structures at the facility.
Figure 12.3 shows sites in the vicinity of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility with real or
potential environmental issues related to the release of hazardous materials.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-7
ð¡hN¡-
~5
* Target PrOpOrly
$Ite$ at elevations highe, than
or equal tD the target property
$îtes at elevations lower than
the talget pmpe,ly
Coal Gasilicatiol'l Sitea
$aMibve Receptors'
Nallonal Priority Lis! Sites
l.¡¡nclflllSites
...
11<1111..
¡
!D AreM 01 Concern
~
...
1;/ Power tra!1SmíAAiM ¡;!1M
NOli & Gas pip¡¡Hne5
~ 1ûú·yea, flood zone
[Zj SOO'%a, flood zone
.
..
B
TARGET PROPERTY:
ADDRESS:
CITYISTA TE/ZI?:
tAT/LONG:
Olefin Over
550 Sixth Stroet
Oakland CA 94607
37,8002 ¡ 122.2774
CUSTOMER:
CONTACT:
INQUIRY it:
DATE:
La~hier·Gregory
Steven Buckley
860333,2$
October 08, 2002 8:02 am
Figure 12.3
Glenn Dyer Site
Hazardous Materials Locations
"'--,-
'-~;!
SOURCE: EDR, Inc.; GDT, Inc. ReI. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
A nurnber of sites within one-eighth of a mile of the site have a record of disposing asbestos-
containing waste (shown as locations A2, B8, D and E), while others have either had leaking
underground fuel storage tanks removed (at the Oakland Police station [3], at a Caltrans site [IS]
and at a Salvation Anny site [E]) or maintain active underground fuel storage tanks (at the
Oakland Police parking lot [4], at the OaklandlPiedmont Municipal Court [C] and at the parking
structure adjacent to the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility [B5 and 18]). The Alameda County
Health Lab (shown at location D) generates laboratory wastes.
Aviation Operations in Site Vicinity
The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is located approximately 4.5 miles north ofthe Metropolitan
Oakland International Airport, and beyond the boundâries of the Airport Land Use
Commission's General Referral Area. There are no private aviation facilities in the vicinity of
the site.
Wildland Fire Hazards
The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is located in downtown Oakland, a highly urbanized area not
subject to wildland fire hazards.
Pardee/Swan Site
Hazardous Materials
Although the Pardee/Swan Site is vacant, adjoining uses include commercial office buildings, a
resource protection area and a United Parcel Services distribution center (which uses and
potentially spills some hazardous materials associated with refueling and servicing its fleet of
trucks).
A Phase I/II Assessment of the Pardee/Swan Site was prepared (Baseline 1999). Areas of
potential concern identified during a site reconnaissance included an area of scattered pieces of
black, tarry material that may have been brought to the surface from deeper fill materials during
grading of the site (see Figure 12.4).
An earlier assessment on the neighboring UPS parcel found elevated concentrations of total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs) in the soil and
benzene in the groundwater (Baseline 1999). Since the fill material at the Pardee/Swan site has a
similar history as the UPS site, these compounds may also be found there. Thirty-three sites
associated with hazardous materials use, storage, disposal or releases were identified within one-
half mile ofthis site. A reported release of gasoline frorn an underground storage tank at the
adjacent UPS facility, upgradient from a portion ofthe site, may have the potential to affect
groundwater quality at the site. No other reported releases of hazardous materials within one-half
mile of the site would likely have the potential to affect subsurface conditions at the site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-9
*' Target Property
,. Sites at ¡¡i<¡\lations higher (hst!
or equal to the target property
., Sitø$¡ at ale\la6ons ¡ower than
th" target properly
A Co)! Gasificado(\ Sibs
.r Seomw Receptors
D Nationðl Pliwity ust Sibs
[:J Larujfil! Sites
V1~"
""
11..1110.
I
III Areas of Concern
~
¡v Pow", tr"",¡mission lines
N Oil & (¡S$ pipelines
~ mO-yea' flood lOne
t2d 50G'year flOO(1Z0nS
. W"U:mds
TARGET PROPERTY:
ADDRESS:
CITY/ST A TE!ZIP:
LAT/LONG:
Pardee
Pardee/Swan
Oakland CA 94621
37,7332/ 12.1,2050
CUSTOMER:
CONTACT;
INQUIRY #:
DATE:
Lamphier-Gregory
Steven Buckley
860339,25
OctOber 08, 2002 1 :58 pm
Figure 12.4
Pardee / Swan Site
Hazardous Materials Locations
SOURCE: EDR, Inc.; GDT, Inc. ReI.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
Twenty-six soil samples and four groundwater samples were collected at the site during
preparation ofthe Phase II Site Assessment. Two of the soil samples contained soluble lead
above California hazardous waste thresholds. A statistical analysis indicates that soils at the site
would not be considered a California hazardous waste, once excavated. Three of the soil samples
contained benzo(a)pyrene, a polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAR), above U.S. EPA
Preliminary Remediation Goals (PROs), but within U.S. EPA acceptable risk guidelines. A
breakdown of PRGs by pathway suggests that only those workers coming into direct contact with
PAR-affected soils would be exposed to benzo(a)pyrene at concentrations above the pathway-
specific PRGs. No other compounds were identified above hazardous waste or health and safety
thresholds.
Figure 12.5 shows sites in the vicinity of the Pardee/Swan Site with real or potential
environmental issues related to the release of hazardous materials. Two sites within one-quarter
of a mile of the site have either had leaking underground fuel storage tanks removed or maintain
active underground fuel storage tanks (at the United Parcel Service [A] and Federal Express [B]).
The Ettore Products Company (shown as location 9) has a record of disposing of aqueous
solution with rnetals, the operation at 100 Swan Way (shown as location 10) has recorded a
propane release and an operation at the Airport Business Park (shown as location 11) has a
record of disposing of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Aviation Operations in Site Vicinity
The site is located within the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport and Hayward
Executive Airport Land Use Commission General Referral Area (Alameda County Airport Land
Use Policy Plan, Map II, p. 34), which is also identified as an ALUC Hazards Prevention Zone.
All proposed projects within this area must be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) for a Detennination of Plan Consistency. In the Hazards Prevention Zone, all structures
would need to comply with restrictions on lights, reflective objects, the generation of smoke or
certain electrical equipment that could interfere with the operation of aircraft or aircraft
instrumentation. No portion of the site is located within an ALUC Safety Zone.
The site is beyond the 65 CNEL contour defining the Oakland North Airport ALUC Noise Zone
(Airport Land Use Policy Plan, Map III, p. 35).
Since the site is located within the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport ALUC Height
Referral Area (Airport Land Use Policy Plan, Map Airport Land Use Policy Plan, Map II, p. 34),
proposed structures would need to comply with height restrictions set forth in FAR Part 77,
including Subpart D.
The site is located under the Oakland North Airport VFR Aircraft Noise Abatement Traffic
Pattern for Runway 27R/9L (Airport Land Use Policy Plan, Figure III, p. 42).
The site is designated CIl (CommerciaVIndustrial) on the Metropolitan Oakland International
Airport Generalized Land Use diagram (Airport Land Use Policy Plan, Figure IV, p. 43).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-11
i
1::/1)
8.¡¡¡
Q) .'"
a:.!!!
É~
~ /I)
gj õ
'" "E Q¡
sm1ií
ðJ:~
... Õ ~
~",e
.!i!::! (!)
-'",0>
~Q,; .5
£!a:~ g¡
.!!! 1! = ~
~.!2~ a:
~ 1!:!9 .!!!
oE" ~
~ ~ ~ 'äi
UJ::Ja. J:
!
~
'"
OJ
e
(!)
(û
'"
o
.g. !š
a: .-
1!~
E .-
¡¡¡Q
&:~
I ,
I
1~
E ~
§~
... <II
.~ ·5
µ¡<t
OJ u
:ê:a
OJ <II
:(J~
~, ö
~]
~~
p:::"~
@ ·5
<t
~
@
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t::
;S
.~
$
CTJ
.....
...J$
~éí5
2o'+<
éí5 ...... 0
..!S Q)
lO ~ ~~
ÑCJ)O:::'+<
T"'1-t::"iÕ
~æo::r:
6b "C CTJ cL
¡¡:~~8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
Wildland Fire Hazards
Although the site is currently vacant and supports grasses and other vegetation, the potential for
wildland fires is limited due to the presence of the San Leandro Channel, the Airport Channel
and the wetlands mitigation area along the site boundaries and the previous development of the
adjacent UPS facility.
East County Government Center
Hazardous Materials
Subsurface Consultants, Inc., prepared a Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment for the site
(DRAFT - January 8, 2002) that identified the following Recognized Environmental Conditions
(REC):
· Boiler Room Areas - USTs and associated piping may have been associated with the
fonner military buildings and boiler rooms where hot water would have been generated.
It is possible that the inactive UST and associated piping may still be buried below the
site. Ifpresent, these buried improvements may still contain petroleum hydrocarbon
byproducts.
· Fonner Underground Utility Lines - A myriad of buried utility lines may still exist on
site. Hot water and steam conveyance piping has been found on fonner military
properties in the area. The piping has been observed to be coated with or constructed of
asbestos-containing materials.
· GreenhouselNursery - Chemicals, including pesticides, herbicides and/or heavy metal-
based amendments and treatments, may have been used and stored in this area. Surface
releases of these compounds may have occurred during the time of use.
· Dispensary Garage - Vehicle repair and maintenance may have been conducted in this
area. Petroleum hydrocarbon compounds and other chemicals may have been stored and
used in this area.
· Site Fill Materials - The majority of the fill located at the property is believed to be soil
excavated during the development of the adjacent Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center. The
fill may contain remnants of past surface releases or artifacts and chemical residues from
past source areas associated with fonner fanning and agricultural activities, which were
conducted at the adjacent jail site in the past.
· Detention Basin Soil - This area has been a stonn water detention basin since the early
1980s. Various heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons and other chemical substances are
known to accumulate in basin sediments.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-13
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12·14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
. Fire Fighting Training Area - Chemicals and fuels may have been used within this area
to generate fires and to subsequently extinguish them. Remnants and residues of these
materials may still remain buried below existing fill materials.
. Observed Stained Areas - Two areas of suspected discolored soil were identified by
reviewing a 1957 aerial photograph. Petroleum hydrocarbon-based substances, fire-
related debris, vegetation, moisture and/or chemicals might be responsible for the darkly
colored materials. Remnants and residues of these materials may still remain buried
below existing fill materials.
Limited environmental testing conducted at the site suggests that soil containing petroleum ,
hydrocarbons and metals may exist in localized source areas. Comparison of the analytical data
to the RWQCB's Risk-Based Screening Levels (RBSLs) indicates that no detected chemical
concentrations exceeded the respective general RBSLs.
Figure 12.6 shows sites in the vicinity of the East County Government Center with real or
potential environmental issues related to the release of hazardous materials. There is a record of a
leaking underground fuel storage tank (shown as location I) and active underground fuel storage
tanks (shown as location B) at the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, which also has a record of
disposing of oil-containing wastes and photochemicals. Blaze Network Products (shown as
location A2) is identified as a small quantity generator of hazardous wastes with no record of
violations, and Humphrey Systems (shown as location A3) has a record of disposing of
laboratory waste chemicals and organic liquid mixtures. The Alameda County Heavy Equipment
Repair Building (HERB) facility (shown as location 6) has a record of disposing of waste oil and
organICS.
Aviation Operations in Site Vicinity
The City of Livennore Airport is located more than six miles east of the site, and no private
aviation facilities are located in the vicinity.
Wildland Fire Hazards
The site is located in a suburban area near rolling hills vegetated by wild grasses. The site is not
exposed to a significant risk of wildland fires, since urban development has already taken place
in most of the surrounding areas.
Site 15A
Hazardous Materials
In September 2000, Lowney Associates perfonned a Phase 1 environmental site assessment and
soil and groundwater quality evaluation for the fonnerly proposed Cisco Systems office complex
in Dublin. The study area included Site ISA, as well as adjacent vacant parcels 16A and 16F.
The Cisco Systems project would have occupied these three sites.
I
I
;.<..1
I
I
'"
:,1
~
I
I
II
I
\.
F
"t
·z·
\
\
I
I
I
W¡m~R~io:CI?~,'A~:~~
~£QWO~O NiT
¡~/
~~f;
",*<), ¡
~./ t"-^-"
·!fl /-..J ~
~;~ ,~~;~ /
." \--'/
V /'
I _ /
, ., I
?/
. /' f
"
I
I
\'"
'~
I "'''''''oW'''''~
~I",::<;~p ..:·...'o,J,:H
I
I
...
"
B
* rargM Properly
Sl10s at êlevations higher than
or 6Qual \() the target property
Sites al elevatio"s loweI' than
the Mrge: property
Coal Ga$i!icarion Sit"s
Ser;si:ive Receptors'
N;;.tl(¡t¡al Priority Lis! Si:,,~
LMdfill Sites
HH¡
,
,,~
N"i~u
!
"
I
.
/.'! Power t¡¡¡r¡smiS$bn ¡inas
N Oil 8. G'I~ pIpelines
~ 100-Y9~r !k:;¡d Z()rI\!
!Z3 500-fiJJ1 !load zon~
III Wetlands
¡mm Afe¡¡$ of Concerr
\
µ
f1'
I
TARGET PROPERTY:
ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
LATILONG:
Government Canter
Gleason/Arnold
Dublin CA 94588
37,714B/121.8867
CUSTOMER
CONTACT:
IN()UIRY #:
DATE:
Latll)hier·Gregory
Sloven Buckley
861763.2$
October 09. 2002 6:55 pm
I
Figure 12.6
East County Government Center Site
Hazardous Materials Locations
.JfÌ',J
SOURCE: EDR, Inc.; GOT, Inc. ReI.
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
The purpose of the Phase 1 study was to document environmental concerns at the site related to
current and historic chemical use and to evaluate the potential for a hazardous materials release
from on- or off-site sources that could significantly impact the site's soil and/or groundwater
quality.
Site 15A is approximately rectangular in shape with a wider section at the north end adjacent to
Central Parkway. According to Lowney Associates, the site appeared unpaved and covered with
weeds. Several mounds of soil and concrete debris were scattered across the parcel. A concrete
slab that appeared to be a sidewalk or driveway for a fonner road was observed in the vicinity of
a fonner service station located at the northwest end of the parcel.
An approximately 5 foot deep ditch was observed along the south side of the pad. An
approximately 14-inch diameter plastic pipe was observed at the bottom of the ditch, extending
in an east to west direction. The pipe's purpose was not clear, but it rnay have been related to
utilities adjacent to a fonner road. An approximately 250-foot by 535-foot concrete pad was
located on the east-central portion of the parcel. A drainage ditch was located on the west side of
the parcel and extended along Arnold Road.
Geophysical Survey
To evaluate the presence of buried structures such as Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and
piping, a registered geophysicist perfonned a geophysical survey of the site using a
magnetometer to map the vertical magnetic gradient. Since only ferrous metal objects will
produce magnetic anomalies, nonmetallic structures might not be detected unless they are
connected to metal piping, contain steel reinforcement or have metal grating or covers. No
metallic structures were detected on Site 15A.
Soil Quality Evaluation
To help evaluate soil quality at the two fonner service stations located on Site 15A, a soil vapor
survey was perfonned. Ten soil vapor probes were pushed to a depth of approximately 5 feet at
each service station. Soil vapors were tested on site for total organic compounds using an organic
vapor analyzer (OVA). The results revealed organic vapor concentrations at typical background
levels, with the exception of two locations where 80 to 100 parts per million (ppm) of organic
vapors were detected.
Soil vapor samples were collected frorn the probes with the highest OVA readings and submitted
to a state certified analytical laboratory. Three vapor samples were analyzed for total petroleum
hydrocarbons in the gasoline range (TPHg) and BTEX (EPA Test Method 8015/8020). These
compounds were not detected at or above the laboratory limit.
To evaluate general soil quality, seven near-surface soil samples were collected at the Project
site. The samples were submitted to a state certified laboratory and analyzed for organochlorine
pesticides (EP A Test Method 8080), arsenic, cadmium and lead. These are constituents that may
be present on site from possible previous agricultural use. The lead analyses also helped evaluate
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
potential impacts from lead paint on former structures. The samples were also analyzed for
asbestos to evaluate potential impacts from the demolition of fonner structures.
A total of 62 test pits were dug during a backhoe evaluation to analyze the depth and quality of
fill materials at the site. In fonner structure locations, such as the two service stations, the test
pits were excavated on 20-foot centers. Fill material at depths of about 1 to 6 feet were
encountered. Isolated pockets offill up to about 10 to 12 feet in thickness also were located on
site. The fill was generally sandy gravel.
Groundwater Quality Evaluation
To evaluate groundwater quality at the site, 10 exploratory borings were advanced to
groundwater at locations throughout the site. Groundwater was detected at depths of
approximately 15 to 18 feet. Groundwater samples were collected using a bailer and placed in
appropriate sample bottles labeled with a unique identification number. The samples were
analyzed for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), semi-VOCs (SVOCs), total extractable
petroleum hydrocarbons (TEPH) fuel fingerprinting scan, TPH as gasoline (TPHg), and BTEX
and MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether). These analyses were selected to evaluate the extent of
VOCs and petroleum fuels previously detected in the groundwater by others.
Radiological Evaluation
A screening for radiation was performed on site during the soil and groundwater investigation. A
hand held Sper model 840007 Geiger counter with a detection range of 0.1 to 10 milli-Roentgen
per hour was used to measure radiation levels at randomly selected grid locations. The meter
measured no radiation above background levels.
RaIl Lines
Railroad tracks historically were located on Parcels 1SA and 16A. Earlier analyses of soil
samples collected from the former rail line areas perfonned by others did not detect elevated
levels of metals or herbicides. Surface soil samples collected near the rail line areas during this
investigation also did not reveal elevated levels of metals or pesticides.
Asbestos
Soil samples collected during the site evaluation revealed no evidence of asbestos at the Project
site.
Lead Based PaInt
Since historical site buildings have been demolished, soil analyses were performed in the areas
of fonner structures. No elevated levels of lead were detected in the soil on Site 1SA.
Fill
Based on observations in exploration test pits across the site, fill ranging from 1 to 6 feet
appeared to be present on Site 1SA. Isolated areas of deeper fill up to 12 feet were also
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-17
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
encountered. Laboratory analyses of soil samples collected trom the fill did not detect asbestos,
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) or PARs. Metals that were detected appeared consistent with
typical background levels. Low levels of diesel-range hydrocarbons (less that 100 ppm) were
detected across the site.
DebrisandBuriedP~~nø
Loose debris including concrete rubble, metal pipes, wood and soil mounds were observed
scattered across the site. Buried pipelines and remnants of foundations also were encountered.
Other structures, debris or impacted soil could be encountered during site development activities.
These structures will require removal prior to site gra4ing activities and materials may be
encountered that require special handling.
Health Risk Assessment
Based on a health risk assessment performed by a certified industrial hygienist, carcinogenic risk
associated with compounds detected beneath the site, excluding the materials reconunended to
be hauled away, are less than 10-6. In addition, noncarcinogenic risk is less than 1.
Potential Environmental Concerns in Site Vicinity
Based on the information obtained during tlùs study, no hazardous material incidents have been
reported in the site vicinity that would be likely to significantly impact the site. However, several
facilities in the vicinity were reported as hazardous materials users. If spills or leaks occur at
these facilities, contamination could impact the site, depending on the effectiveness of cleanup
efforts.
Groundwater Contaminants
In 1998, Versar, Inc., performed a preliminary assessment of the presence ofperchloroethylene
(PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), carbon tetrachloride (CTET) and choloroform (all volatile
organic compounds, or VOCs) in the shallow groundwater in the southern and western portions
of Parcel 15. Based on the findings of the 1998 investigation, Versar, the County's GSA and the
RWQCB met and agreed upon a scope of work to characterize the distribution ofVOCs at the
site and assess the risk to groundwater and site use. Versar performed VOC fate and
transportation computer modeling to demonstrate that VOC concentrations detected and defined
at the site will not impact water supply wells in the Livermore-Amador Valley Basin. Based on
use of assumed worst -case soil and groundwater VOC concentrations collected during the field
investigations, Versar's findings indicated that the VOC plume is stable and degrading at a
predictable rate and manner, and is unlikely to impact groundwater supply wells. Versar found
no likely risk ftom residual VOCs in groundwater to potential residential use ofthe site, and
found that the site could be developed for residential, conunercial or mixed uses without active
VOC remediation. Versar prepared a groundwater monitoring plan to monitor the residual
halogenated volatile organic compounds (HVOCs) concentrations in groundwater as a way to
document the stability and degradation of the residual HVOC plume (Versar, 2001).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
it
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
Figure 12.7 shows no sites in the vicinity of the Site 15A with real or potential envirorunental
issues related to the release of hazardous materials.
Aviation Operations in Site Vicinity
The City of Livermore Airport is located more than six miles east ofthe site, and no private
aviation facilities are located in the vicinity.
Wildland Fire Hazard
The site is located in a suburban area in the vicinity of (but not adjacent to) rolling hills vegetated
by wild grasses. The site is not exposed to a significant risk of wildland fires, since it is .
surrounded on three sides by urban development.
12.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The Project would have a significant envirorunental impact if it were to result in:
· Creation of a significant hazard to the public or the envirorunent through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials.
· Creation of a significant hazard to the public or the envirorunent through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment.
· The emission of hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
· Construction 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, creation of a significant
hazard to the public or the environment.
· A safety hazard for people residing or working within an area subject to an airport land
use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.
· A safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
· Impairment of implementation of, or physical interference with, àn adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
· Exposure of people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-19
,¡: \ ,',,,,t
--¡..._..~~-~y.
$
"1/
;;;/
u
~,
;,:
r
~ ,"¡r-
! ;,"?
¡~
j~
¡ "$,'
"'
'"
",
n
í.~~~nM.!..
¡;¡
.~
~.';
";.'
/:
~;>
/../ ..".<,/"
\; .J'
',"
(,~
¡'f.,
.\f
j£~ ì
2' I!i~i
~
* Targi!! Property
. SHß~ ~t \i"1¡¡>vJ.IiQO" higher than
or equal to ttle la'ga! p'op",rty
.. Si!i!$ at el-",viI ril:\";'; !-ow..., thlm
the brgal propar1y
Å Coal Gasi!ìçalio" Sit",r.
~ ~¡I)
'1,'3, ¡f4wlll:l5.
'''~_.''''~''_'''"'''--'"--''"'"''-'-¡
N
N
~
lZ3
III
Power trarls",ission line&
Oil & Gas pipelinas
!OO·ya.;r flood ZON!
SOa'yea' Rood 'ona
Wetl:mds
E Ar~a, Gi Concern
~
,¡
B
SêosHiv" Receptors'
Naticm;:¡1 Primity Ust Sit""
L;¡"dHiI Sites
TARGET PROPERTY:
ADDRESS:
GITY/ST A TElZIP:
LATJLONG:
Dublin 15A
Central ParkwayJArnold Drl'/e
DUblin GA 94568
37,7075/121.8925
CUSTOMER:
CONTACT:
INQUIRY #:
DATE:
La~hlßr'Gregory
Sleven Bucklev
861777.2$ ,
October 09, 2002 6:50 pm
Figure 12.7
Site 15A
Hazardous Materials Locations
, .~ ~1~~~"
SOURCE: EDR, Inc.; GDT, Inc. ReI.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
,
I
t
I
I
I
I
,~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT 12.1: Hazard Related to Routine Transport, Use or Disposal of
Hazardous Materials
Impact 12.1.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. Ongoing operation ofthe existing Juvenile Hall at this site would not result in the
creation of any hazard related to the routine transport; use or disposal of hazardous materials, 'as
no significant quantities of hazardous materials are used routinely at the site.
Impact 12.1.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITlGABLE IMP ACT. State Mandated Asbestos
Notifications filed by the Alameda County General Services Agency indicate that at least seven
buildings at the existing Juvenile Hall contain asbestos materials. Demolition of existing
buildings could expose people to asbestos materials, which are a known health hazard. This
would be a potentially significant impact associated with this alternative.
. Mitigation Measure 12.1.2: Safe Removal of Asbestos During Demolition.
The California Health and Safety Code requires that employees and contractors working
in buildings constructed before 1979 and known to include asbestos-containing materials
are notified oftheir presence. Demolition of existing buildings on site should be
undertaken by contractors equipped and trained in the safe removal of asbestos-
containing materials. This would reduce the health risks of asbestos containing materials
during demolition to a level of less than significant.
Impact 12.1.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMP ACT. Reconfiguration ofthe existing structures at this site for use as a Juvenile Justice
Facility would not be expected to require the use, transportation or disposal of substantial
quantities of hazardous materials, as no significant quantities of hazardous materials have been
identified in the existing structures. Routine operations at the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility
would not be expected to require the use of substantial quantities of hazardous materials.
Impact 12.1.4: Pardee/Swan Site
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITlGABLE IMP ACT. Although soils at the site would
not be considered a California hazardous waste once excavated, construction at the site could
result in potential construction worker health effects from contact with subsurface materials
affected by P AHs. This would represent a potentially significant impact.
. Mitigation Measure 12.1.4: Implementation of Health and Safety Plan. All
construction activity at the site should proceed under a site-specific health and safety plan
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-21
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
to minimize potential construction worker health effects from contact with subsurface
materials affected by PARs. Additional worker health and safety measures may be
required for those workers (such as maintenance personnel) who may potentially come
into contact with PAR-affected soils once construction at the site has been completed.
Effective implementation of measures that would reduce potential exposure to
contaminated soils at the site would reduce the potential impact to a level of less than
significant.
Impact 12.1.5: East County Government Center
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Development of this site as .
proposed would not entail the use of substantial quantities of hazardous materials, and routine
operation of the facilities proposed at the East County Government Center would not entail the
use of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. However, it is the extent to which soils and
groundwater may have been contaminated by previous activities at the site is unknown, and such
contamination (if present) could result in potential construction worker health effects from
contact with subsurface materials, a potentially significant impact.
. Mitigation Measure 12.1.5: Preparation and Implementation of a Soil
Handling/Management Plan (SMP). Prior to site preparation, Alameda County shall
notify their grading and excavation contractor(s) of the potential presence of
improvernents below the native groundsurface, and shall prepare and implement a Soil
HandlinglManagement Plan (SMP). The SMP should address worker notification, dust
control, and include a contingency plan for unexpected conditions. Effective
implementation of an SMP would reduce the potential impact associated with exposure to
soil and/or groundwater contaminants to a level of less than significant.
Impact 12.1.6: Site 15A
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. Groundwater impacted by
petroleum hydrocarbons was encountered at the two fonner service stations on Site 15A. Up to
15,000 parts per billion (Ppb) ofTPHg and 3,300 ppb ofTPHd were detected in the area of the
fonner Building 468B service station on the site. Up to 290 ppb ofTPHd was detected in the
areas of the fonner Building 468A service station on the site. Generally, soil and vapor samples
collected from these areas indicated that the soil was not significantly impacted with petroleum
hydrocarbons. However, a tar-like substance was encountered at two locations where elevated
levels of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected. These samples were collected at fonner station
468B, the northernmost station. The extent of this material is not clear. Laboratory analyses of
groundwater grab samples detected up to 120 ppb ofVOCs (pCE, TCE, CTET and chlorofonn)
on site on the southern portion ofParcel15A and the northwestern portion of Site 16A, adjacent.
to 15A. Previous investigations detected up to 440 ppb ofPCE on the property adjacent to the
east of Site 15A in the area of a fonner laundry. Based on the analytical data and anticipated
groundwater flow direction, the source for the VOCs detected on site appears to be the adjacent
parcel to the east. Alameda County GSA has undertaken characterization activities but has not
been named a responsible party. The presence of hydrocarbons on the site could present a hazard
to those at the site unless remediated, and could present a potentially significant impact.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-22
I
,I
I
I
:1
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
. Mitigation Measure 12.1.6: Remediation. Lowney Associates (2000) recommends
overexcavation and hauling away of this soil off site, at a cost of about $20 to $30 per
cubic yard. The cleanup goal must be set at a level that will allow unrestricted reuse of
soil in this area during construction activities. It is also recommended that case closure
should be achieved for both service stations. Preparation of a soil management plan
should be completed in the event that small pockets of petroleum hydrocarbon impacted
soil are encountered during grading activities. Site characterization and remediation
would reduce the potential impact associated with exposure to hydrocarbons to a level of
less than significant.
IMPACT 12.2: Hazard Related to Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and
Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous
Materials
IMPACT 12.2: ALL ALTERNATIVES
NO IMPACT. None of the alternatives include Priority 1 High Risk facilities as identified by
local fire department and/or ernergency services. Additionally, under each of the alternatives
evaluated, construction and operation of the proposed facilities would not require the use,
transportation or storage of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Although some
common household and industrial hazardous materials may occur on some of the sites (for
example, San Leandro) and would require proper disposal, they do not likely occur in significant
quantities. It is also unlikely that any foreseeable upset or accident associated with the
construction and operation of the proposed facilities would involve the release of significant
quantities of hazardous materials that would pose a threat to public health or the enviromnent.
IMPACT 12.3: Hazard Related to Handling of Hazardous Materials within
One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School
IMPACT 12.3: ALL ALTERNATIVES
NO IMPACT. Under each of the alternatives evaluated, construction and operation of the
proposed facilities would not require the handling of significant quantities of hazardous
materials. None of the sites evaluated are within one-quarter mile of any existing or proposed
school.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-23
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
IMPACT 12.4: Construction on a Listed Hazardous Materials Site
IMPACT 12.4: ALL ALTERNATIVES
NO IMPACT. None of the sites evaluated have been listed as hazardous materials sites pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5.
IMPACT 12.5: Safety Hazard near Public Airports
Impact 12.5.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. The existing Juvenile Hall is located approximately 3 miles north of the Hayward
Executive Airport and approximately 4 miles east of the Metropolitan Oakland International
Airport, and the operation of these aviation facilities presents no significant hazard to those at the
existing Juvenile Hall. Ongoing operations at the existing Juvenile Hall at the Existing San
Leandro Property site would create no new aviation-related safety hazards.
Impact 12.5.2: Existing San Leandro Property
NO IMPACT. Due to the distance ofthe site from nearby airports (approximately 3 miles from
the Hayward Executive Airport and approximately 4 miles from the Metropolitan Oakland
International Airport), the development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at the Existing San
Leandro Property site would pot be expected to create any new aviation-related hazards either for
those at the site or in relation to airport operations.
Impact 12.5.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMPACT. The conversion and expansion of the existing Glenn Dyer Detention Facility to
accommodate juvenile detainees would not expose those using the facility to hazards associated
with routine aviation activity at the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport.
Impact 12.5.4: Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. Although the site is located within the Metropolitan
Oakland International Airport and Hayward Executive' Airport Land Use Commission General
Referral Area, all development at this site would be required to comply with the height
restrictions and other requirements related to lights, reflective objects, the generation of smoke or
certain electrical equipment that could interfere with the operation of aircraft or aircraft
instrumentation. Compliance with current safety requirements would reduce potential safety
impacts to a level of less than significant.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
Impact 12.5.5: East County Government Center
NO IMPACT. The City of Livennore Airport is located more than six miles east of the site, and
development of this site as proposed would not create any aviation-related safety hazard.
Impact 12.5.6: Site 15A
NO IMPACT. The City ofLivennore Airport is located about six miles east of the Project site,
and development of this site as proposed would not create any aviation-related safety hazard.
IMPACT 12.6: Safety Hazard in the Vicinity of a Private Airstrip
IMPACT 12.6:
ALL ALTERNATIVES
NO IMPACT. None of the five sites evaluated are within the vicinity of any private airstrip.
IMPACT 12.7: Impairment/Interference with Emergency
Response/Evacuation Plan
IMPACT 12.7: ALL ALTERNATIVES
NO IMPACT. As discussed in the introductory text and in Impact 12.2 (see above), none of the
alternatives have Priority 1 High Risk Facilities that pose a high risk of an accident for the
release of hazardous materials. Therefore, an HMBP (which must include an Emergency
Response Plan and Contingency Plan and must specify how to evacuate people from the accident
site) is not required for any of the alternatives.
IMPACT 12.8: Exposure to Risk Involving Wildland Fires
IMPACT 12.8: ALL ALTERNATIVES
NO IMPACT. As discussed in the forgoing section, none of the sites evaluated are located in
areas subject to wildland fire hazards.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-25
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 12-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
Chapter 12: Public Health and Safety
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13
Public Services
13.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Public services discussed in this chapter include:
· fire, hazardous materials, emergency medical response
· police,
· schools
· solid waste
· libraries
· parks and recreation facilities.
Significance thresholds for public services would be reached if the Project would result in
emergency response times exceeding established goals or the need for additional facilities, such
as construction of a new fire station or landfill facility. Other thresholds would be reached ifthe
Project resulted in a large influx of new students to the local public schools system, or increased
staffing levels for public services agencies.
REGULATORy/POLICY SETTING
Federal
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is an independent agency of the federal
government, established in 1979 via executive order. FEMA provides direction and assistance to
state and local governments, but does not regulate approaches to emergency planning or
response.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justîce - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-1
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-2
I
I
I-
, '
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
State
Emergency Response
California Government Code Section 8607(a) authorizes establishment of the Standardized
Emergency Management System (SEMS). Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 1 of the California Code
of Regulations (CCR, §.§ 2400-2540) defines SEMS, including its purpose, scope, structure and
applicability. SEMS is intended to standardize response to emergencies involving multiple
jurisdictions or multiple agencies. Local government must use SEMS in order to be eligible for
state funding of response-related persOlUlel costs occurring in response to an emergency incident.
Solid Waste
The California Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB) is responsible for achieving a 50
percent diversion of waste from landfills by 2000. The IWMB works directly with local agencies
and businesses to reduce waste at the source, and encourage recycling. For over 20 years, it has
been a goal of the State of California to reduce the amount of material that is landfilled. The
primary motive behind this goal was to relieve a landfill capacity "crisis." In 1989, the State
enacted AB 939, requiring every city and county to divert 25 percent of waste from landfills by
1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. Failure to meet these goals exposes local governments to
possible fines.
Schools
Section 6699S(d) of the California Government Code indicates that no facility that is owned and
occupied by one or more agencies of federal, state or local government shall be required to pay
development fees to educational districts.
Local Policy Setting
Alameda County
Solid Waste Management
In 1990, Alameda County voters passed Measure D that sets long-teml goals for reduced
landfilling, placing the main emphasis on preserving natural resources. Measure D identifies the
need to establish "sustainable consumption and disposal patterns." Consistent with Measure D,
the Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Source Reduction and Recycling Board
prepared the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Plan (Alameda County, 2000).
This plan identifies the means by which to maximize the conservation of natural resources and
protect the environment through sustainable material management practices. This plan provides a
strategy for achieving a 50 percent diversion rate by 2000, and a 75 percent diversion rate by
2010.1 In order to maximize environmental and economic benefits, this plan seeks to achieve at
Reduction mandated by Measure D; date established by Recycling Board.
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
least a 20 percent source reduction as part of the year 2010 goal. This goal applies equally to
industrial and nonindustrial (organic) materials.
In 1998, Alameda County reduced, reused or recycled 41 percent of waste generated, a dramatic
improvement from a 13 percent diversion rate in 1990. However, to meet the Measure D-
mandated 50 percent diversion rate in the year 2000, Alameda County must reduce the amount of
waste disposed in landfills by 158,000 tons2: from about 1,788,000 tons in 1998 to about
1,630,000 tons per year in 2000. This reduction target would require that the County undertake
very substantial new program efforts, assuming a robust (3.5 percent) rate of growth in annual
total generation. A 3.5 percent increase in total generation would require an annual increase of
over 100,000 tons of new source reduction and recycling activity in order to maintain a "flat"
absolute level of landfill disposal.
Fire Safety
The State Fire Marshal and County Fire Marshal conduct preconstruction review and approval
for all new construction. Upon completion of construction projects, the Alameda County Fire
Department conducts fire safety certification as well as future fire safety inspections. The East
County Hall of Justice and office components of any project would be reviewed and approved by
the Alameda County Fire Department's Fire Prevention Bureau. Prior to issuance of building
pennits, the Fire Prevention Bureau inspects all building plans to ensure that the plans comply
with all applicable fire codes and regulations. Additionally, fire prevention inspectors conduct
periodic inspections of facilities to ensure those business operations are conducted in a safe
manner and are consistent with the conditions of approval.
General Public Services Policy
The Castro Valley Plan (Alameda County, 1985) includes the following policies related to public
services that are relevant to the No Action/No Project and/or Existing San Leandro Property
alternative:
Policy 2.11: Ensure that all new development is designed for adequate access by emergency personnel
and for fire prevention, suppression and detection.
Policy 3.1 To the extentfeasible, all community and neighborhood servicefacilities, including
schools and other educational or child care uses, libraries, cultural, government and
community centers and hospitals and other health care facilities should be planned and
located to serve both existing and projected population needs within their respective
service areas.
Policy 3.2 All community and neighborhood service facilities should be adequately provided with
utilities. including water supply, sewer, gas and electricity and police and fire protection
services.
2
Includes adjustments for population and economic growth.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacilitylEast County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13M3
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-4
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
City of Dublin
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1998) includes the following
policies, which are particularly relevant to public services at the East County Government Center
alternative and/or Site 15A alternative:
Policy 8-1: Reserve school sites in the Specific Plan Land Use Map (Figure 4-1) to accommodate the
future development of schools in Eastern Dublin.
Policy 8-2: Promote a consolidated development pattern that supports the logical development of
planning area schools, and in consultation with the appropriate school district(s), ensure
that adequate classroom space is available in coordination with occupancy of new
homes. 3
Policy 8-3: Ensure that adequate school facilities are available prior to development in Eastern
Dublin, to the extent permitted by law.
Policy 8-11: Encourage and support the efforts of the Alameda County Library System to establish a
library(ies) and associated services for Eastern Dublin as determined to be appropriate
given the size and population of the planning area.
Policy 4-30: Establish a convenient, multi-use all-weather network of trails, including bike lanes, to
link planning areas, parks, recreation facilities, schools, employment centers and major
open space areas to each other and the surrounding community.
City of Oakland
The Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element includes the following policy
related to public services that are relevant to the Pardee/Swan Site and/or Glenn Dyer Detention
Facility alternatives:
Policy NI2.I The development of public facilities and staffing of safety related services, such as afire
station, should be sequenced and timed to provide a balance between land use and
population growth and public services at all times.
LOCAL PHYSICAL SETTING
No Action/No Project
The existing Juvenile Hall site is the location of the No ActionINo Project alternative. This site is
located in a portion of unincorporated Alameda County immediately east of the City of San
Leandro. This portion of Alameda County is on the northerly edge of the County's Castro Valley
This policy references previous jurisdictional boundaries. When the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted,
part of the Specific Plan area was under the jurisdiction of the Livermore Joint Unified School District. Since
adoption of the policy, the area was annexed into the Dublin Unified School District.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
Planning Area. Generally, public services are provided to this site through Alameda County,
even though it is nearly adjacent to the San Leandro city limits.
Fire Protection, Hazardous Materials and Emergency Medical Response
Fire protection in San Leandro and the adjoining unincorporated areas of San Lorenzo,
Cherryland, Ashland and Castro Valley is provided by the Alameda County Fire Department
(ACFD). The City of San Leandro Fire Department was consolidated with the ACFD in 1995.
The ACFD maintains offices at the San Leandro City Hall and staffs five fire stations in San
Leandro. ACFD is responsible for fire suppression and prevention, emergency medical response,
hazardous materials and disaster response, rescue, and community education and training. It has
mutual response agreements with the Oakland Fire Department for coverage of Bay-O- Vista and
the South Oakland Hills, and mutual aid agreements with other departments in the County for
major emergencies (City of San Leandro, 2001)
The nearest ACFD station to the No ActionINo Project alternative site is Station 3, located at
1430 164th Avenue. This station consists of two engine companies and currently services the
existing Juvenile Hall. This station also services all of the Ashland area and major sections along
Highways 580 and 238. Response times from this station to the site are typically under five
minutes and there are few fire-fighting constraints. Additionally, two 100- foot aerial ladder
trucks are located in San Leandro at Stations 9 and 12, and are able to serve this site if needed.
Each fire station is staffed continually by a captain, an engineer and firefighters. Staffing levels
are stable and are not expected to change substantially during the coming years.
As a nearly built out City, San Leandro's principal fire protection objective is to maintain and
enhance the level of service currently provided to residents and businesses (City of San Leandro,
2001). This will require replacement of aging fire-fighting equipment, improvements to, and in
some cases replacement of fire stations, and upgrades to the water supply and hydrant system in
cooperation with the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD).
The ACFD reviews all major development applications to ensure that emergency access
concerns are addressed, and that sufficient water capacity and pressure are available to address
fire-fighting needs. The ACFD also participates with other jurisdictions in hazardous materials
response and vegetation management to reduce the risk of urban wildfires.
Police
Alameda County
Police protection in Castro Valley is provided by the Alameda County Sheriffs Department, and
is funded by the County General Fund. The Sheriff s Department serves as both a countywide
law enforcement agency and a community police department. The Castro Valley area is provided
with community police services from the Eden Township Substation (Alameda County, 1985).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-5
Chapter 13: Public Services
City of San Leandro
Within the nearby City of San Leandro, law enforcement is provided by the City's Police
Department. The Department maintains seven beats for patrol functions, each of which is
patrolled by at least one officer on a 24-hour basis. In 2001, San Leandro Police Department
personnel included 96 sworn officers, equating to a ratio of about 1.2 officers per 1,000
residents. This ratio is lower than the national average of 1.8 but is close to the average ratio for
cities in Alameda County. The Department also has 43 civilian staff, slightly more than it did a
decade ago.
No specific areas in the City have been identified as having service deficiencies. The City
regularly invests in technology and equipment upgrades, enabling the Police Department to
maintain levels of service. The 911 system is being upgraded, and there is strong interest in
improving computer links and applications to increase speed and efficiency. The Department's
facilities were seismically upgraded and the City jail was expanded in 1997. Regular equipment
upgrading will be needed to incorporate new tedmology and improve response times, and
additional facilities may be needed for evidence storage and seized vehicles (City of San
Leandro, 2001).
Schools
The Existing San Leandro Property site is within the San Lorenzo Unified School District
boundaries. Most of the San Lorenzo Unified School District (US D) is beyond San Leandro's
boundaries, serving San Lorenzo, Ashland, Cherryland and parts of the City of Hayward.
Enrollment trends within the San Lorenzo USD suggest that expansion of facilities will be
needed in the future, particularly on the easterly side of the District outside of the City of San
Leandro. Partly to address this need, both residential and nonresidential development within the
San Lorenzo USD is currently subject to a school impact fee (City of San Leandro, 2001, p. IIIH-
8).
Parks and Recreation
Regional Parks
The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) provides and manages the regional parks for
Alameda and Contra Costa counties, ai, 700-square-mile area, which is home to 2.1 million
people. The EBRPD facilities consist of 55 regional parklands and over 1,000 miles oftraÏ1s. The
EBRPD Master Plan provides policies and guidelines for achieving the highest standards of
service in resource conservation, management, interpretation, public access and recreation. These
policies seek to maintain a careful balance between the need to protect and conserve resources
and the recreational use of park lands. EBRPD's Anthony Chabot Regional Park is located near
the existing Juvenile Hall site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
City of San Leandro
The City of San Leandro has 121 acres of developed parkland. These parks are classified as
community, neighborhood, mini-parks or special use parks, based on their facilities, acreage and
service areas. There are also a number of specialized recreational and open space areas within the
City limits, including the municipal golf courses and Regional Shoreline Park at Oyster Bay.
Recreational opportunities are also provided at approximately 87 acres of school grounds,
including schoolyards and athletic fields. City parks in the vicinity of the site include the Toyon
and Halcyon parks and the Heath Tennis Courts, all of which are on the western, opposite side of
1-580 from the site.
San Leandro has an adopted service standard of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The 208
acres of City parks and school facilities equate to 2.62 acres per 1,000 residents, indicating that
the City currently falls short of its service standard. Approximately 30 acres of additional
parkland would be needed to close the gap, particularly including recreational facilities such as
softball fields, soccer fields, tennis courts and volleyball courts (City of San Leandro, 2001, p.
IIIH-ll).
Solid Waste
The Castro Valley Sanitary District provides solid waste services at the Existing San Leandro
Property site under an exclusive solid waste franchise agreement with the Alameda County
Waste Management Authority. All jurisdictions within Alameda County must continue to pursue
programs that divert waste from landfills through recycling, compo sting and source reduction
strategies.
Solid waste from the Existing San Leandro Property site is transported to the Altamont landfill in
eastern Alameda County. The Alameda County Waste Management Authority has a policy of
maintaining at least 50 years of disposal capacity in the County's landfills. Accordingly, the
Authority has been pursuing a major expansion of the Altamont landfill for several years. The
County recently approved a conditional use pennit to expand landfill capacity by 40 million tons.
Barring any major import of waste into Alameda County from other jurisdictions, the expanded
landfill should have capacity well beyond 25 years. The nearby Vasco Landfill was recently sold,
and its new operators are considering its expansion (City of San Leandro, 2001, p. IIlli-10).
Libraries
Alameda County
The Alameda County Library provides library services in unincorporated Alameda County. The
nearest County library branch is located on Redwood Road in urban Castro Valley. Alameda
County Library's Jail Services program provides library services and literacy/life skills
instruction to the more than 4,000 men and women held in County jails. The programs are
designed for people who will be incarcerated for extended periods of time. The length of
incarceration provides enough time for participants in the literacy/life skills programs to benefit
from the instruction offered. However, youth in custody at the existing Juvenile Hall are there
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-7
Chapter 13: Public Services
temporarily while awaiting sentencing or transfer after sentencing. Given the ternporary nature of
their stay at the existing Juvenile Hall, the types of programs offered by the library to the rest of
the jail population in Alameda County cannot provide juveniles the continuity that makes these
programs effective. In order to provide meaningful library services to existing Juvenile Hall
residents, the Alameda County Library Extension Services has received a grant for a visiting
author and motivational book talk program for children in custody at the existing Juvenile Hall.
The program is designed to interest the youth in reading by bringing authors to the j ail to meet
with the residents and talk about their books.
City of San Leandro
The City of San Leandro library system includes one main library and three branch libraries. The
nearest branch library is located near I 50th Avenue and 14th Street, west ofI-580 from the site.
All branch libraries receive heavy use and are important resources for the surrounding
neighborhoods (City of San Leandro, 2001, p.IIIH-9).
Existing San Leandro Property
The Existing San Leandro Property site is located immediately east of the existing Juvenile Hall
site (the No ActionINo Project site), and slightly higher up on the hill. This site is also in
unincorporated Alameda County within the Castro Valley planning area. Therefore, Alameda
County would provide most public services to this site as well.
Fire Protection, Hazardous Materials and Emergency Medical Response
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to fire protection, hazardous materials
and emergency medical response is the same as described above for the No ActionINo Project
alternative .
Police
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to police services is the same as described
above for the No ActionINo Project alternative.
Schools
As with the No ActionINo Project alternative, the Existing San Leandro Property alternative site
is also within the San Lorenzo USD boundaries.
Parks and Recreation
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to parks and recreation services is the
same as for the No ActionINo Project alternative site discussed above.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
Solid Waste
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to solid waste collection, disposal and
recycling services is the same as described for the No ActionINo Project alternative above.
Libraries
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to library services is the same as
described for the No ActionINo Project alternative above.
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is located on County of Alameda-owned property within the
City of Oakland. This site is located within downtown Oakland. Most public services at this
location are provided by the City of Oakland, as further described below.
Fire Protection, Hazardous Materials and Emergency Medical Response
Equipment and Personnel
The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is located in downtown Oakland and is thus provided with
fire suppression, first response emergency medical service, rescue, hazardous materials control
and fire inspection services by the Oakland Fire Services Agency. American Medical Response
West provides ambulance service. The fire station serving this site is Station 2, located at 100
Jack London Square. Station 2 comprises four staff members and is equipped with one engine
and assorted fire-fighting equipment. Station 2 is located approximately eight blocks from this
site and thus provides emergency response times of less than five minutes. The nearest ladder
truck is located at Station 1 (1605 Martin Luther King, Jr. Way).
Water Supply for Fire Suppression
Water for fire-fighting purposes is transported by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
from reservoirs in the Oakland Hills through its supply system. The Fire Services Agency
requires new development to meet hydrant spacing requirements and pressure requirements as
specified in the most current edition of the Unifonn Fire Code. For commercial, industrial and
institutional uses, fire flow and hydrant spacing are detennined on the basis of square footage
and projected building occupancy.
Emergency Medical
The Oakland Fire Services Agency provides first response to emergency medical calls. The
Police Department transfers emergency calls to the Fire Services Agency to detennine the
appropriate level of service. The Fire Services Agency provides patient stabilization, while
American Medical Response West provides ambulance transport to a hospital. American
Medical Response West operates under an exclusive contract in Alameda County, and has
approximately 1,100 employees and 200 vehicles serving four Bay Area counties.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13·9
Chapter 13: Public Services
Police
As with the Pardee/Swan Site, the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is located within the City of
Oakland, which is served by the Oakland Police Service Agency. The Agency is headquartered
at the East County Hall of Justice building at 7th and Broadway, immediately adjacent to the
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility site.
Schools
Public schools within the City of Oakland are operated by the Oakland Unified School District
(USD). The Oakland USD operates 59 elementary schools, 16 middle or junior high schools and
11 high schools, plus temporary alternative school programs and exceptional child centers.
Generally, school enrollment throughout the Oakland USD is at or near capacity although there
are schools in the District that have excess classroom capacity and are considered under-enrolled.
There are no public schools in the immediate vicinity of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility. The
closest public school is Lincoln Elementary School at 225 11 th Street.
Parks and Recreation
The City of Oakland Office of Parks and Recreation operates and maintains approximately 1,320
acres of developed parks within the City of Oakland.
Jefferson Square Park is located across Jefferson Street ftom the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
parking garage. The park (one of Oakland's oldest and a designated historic landmark) provides
a baseball diamond that is seldom used, and the community center located at the edge of the park
has not been available for use since it was damaged during the Lorna Prieta earthquake in 1989.
Solid Waste
Most of the solid waste generated within the City of Oakland is collected by Waste Management
of Alameda County, and is transported to the Davis Street Transfer Station in San Leandro via
solid waste collection vehicles. Waste is then transported to the Altamont Landfill in eastern
Alameda County for disposa1. Construction and demolition debris is nonnally hauled by
contractors or construction companies to asphalt and concrete recycling centers in Oakland, or to
the Vasco Road landfill north of Livennore (City of Oakland, 1997). Infonnation regarding the
capacity of the Altamont landfill is described above under the No Action/No Project alternative.
Libraries
The City of Oakland library system includes one main library, 15 branch libraries and one
bookmobile. The Main Library (125 14th Street) serves all residents and houses large reference,
periodicals and circulating collections. Branch libraries generally serve the population within a
I-mile radius. As many as 10 fonner branch libraries within the City have been forced to close
due to budget reductions. From the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, the nearest Oakland library
facilities are the Asian Branch (388 9th Street, Suite 190) and the African American Museum and
Library at Oakland (659 14th Street).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
Pardee/Swan Site
The Pardee/Swan Site is located on Port of Oakland-owned property within the City of Oakland.
This site is located within the larger East Oakland planning area. Most public services at this
location are provided by the City of Oakland, as further described below.
Fire Protection, Hazardous Materials and Emergency Medical Response
Equipment and Personnel
The Pardee/Swan Site is located within the City of Oakland. The Oakland Fire Services Agency
has 24 engine stations that provide fire suppression, first response emergency medical service,
rescue, hazardous materials control and fire inspection services to the City of Oakland. The
nearest engine station to this site is Station 27, located at 8501 Pardee Drive. This station has one
engine and four on-duty persolU1el and can provide almost immediate response time to the site.
Other stations in the vicinity include Station 13 at 1225 Derby Avenue, Station 18 located at
1700 50th Avenue, Station 29 located at 1016 66th Avenue and Station 20 located at 89th Street
and East 14 th Avenue.
Water Supply for Fire Suppression
Water for fire-fighting purposes is transported by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
from reservoirs in the Oakland Hills through its supply system. The Fire Services Agency
requires new development to meet hydrant spacing requirements and pressure requirements as
specified in the most current edition of the Unifonn Fire Code. For commercial, industrial and
institutional uses, fire flow and hydrant spacing are detennined on the basis of square footage
and proj ected building occupancy.
Emergency Medical
The Oakland Fire Services Agency provides first response to emergency medical calls. The
Police Department transfers emergency calls to the Fire Services Agency to detennine the
appropriate level of service. The Fire Services Agency provides patient stabilization, while
American Medical Response West provides ambulance transport to a hospital. American
Medical Response West operates under an exclusive contract in Alameda County, and has
approximately 1,100 employees and 200 vehicles serving four Bay Area counties.
Police
The Oakland Police Services Agency provides preventative patrol and emergency response
services to the City of Oakland from the East County Hall of Justice in downtown Oakland. The
Agency is currently centralized and divided into patrol districts and community policing areas, or
beats. Generally, each community police beat has one dedicated community police officer
assigned. The Pardee/Swan Site is located in Police Department District 4, which has one
community police officer and two additional officers assigned per shift.
Alameda County Juvenile Justìce Facìlity/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-11
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
Schools
Public schools within the City of Oakland are operated by the Oakland Unified School District
(USD). The Oakland USD operates 59 elementary schools, 16 middle or junior high schools and
11 high schools, plus temporary alternative school programs and exceptional child centers.
Generally, school enrollment throughout the Oakland USD is at or near capacity although there
are schools in the District that have excess classroom capacity and are considered under-enrolled.
There are no public schools in the vicinity of the Pardee/Swan Site, within the surrounding
Oakland Airport Business Park or at the nearby Oakland International Airport. The closest public
school is Brookfield Elementary School on the easterly side ofI-880 near 98th Avenue. ,
Parks and Recreation
The City of Oakland Office of Parks and Recreation operates and maintains approximately 1,320
acres of developed parks within the City of Oakland.
Immediately northwest of the site is a naturallhabitat area, and beyond the natural/habitat area is
the Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline. Two viewing areas (benches and interpretive
signage) and a trail within the adjacent natural/habitat area are located near the northwest
boundary of the site. At a distance of approximately 75 feet to the northeast and southwest ofthe
site are shoreline trail areas ofthe Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline.
Solid Waste
Most of the solid waste generated within the City of Oakland is collected by Waste Management
of Alameda County, and is transported to the Davis Street Transfer Station in San Leandro via
solid waste collection vehicles. Waste is then transported to the Altamont Landfill in eastern
Alameda County for disposa1. Construction and demolition debris is normally hauled by
contractors or construction companies to asphalt and concrete recycling centers in Oakland, or to
the Vasco Road landfill north of Livermore (City of Oakland, 1997). Information regarding the
capacity of the Altamont landfill is described above under the No ActionINo Project alternative.
Libraries
The City of Oakland library system includes 1 main library, 15 branch libraries and 1
bookmobile. The Main Library serves all residents and houses large reference, periodicals and
circulating collections. Branch libraries generally serve the population within a I-mile radius. As
many as 10 former branch libraries within the City have been forced to close due to budget
reductions. Frorn the Pardee/Swan Site, the nearest Oakland branch library is the Brookfield
Library on Edes Street just east ofI-880 at the Brookfield Recreation Center. This library serves ..
a surrounding population base of approximately 22,000 people.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
East County Government Center
The East County Government Center alternative site is located on an Alameda County-owned
site within the boundaries of the City of Dublin. Public services that would be provided to this
site are as described below.
Fire Protection, Hazardous Materials and Emergency Medical Response
The Alameda County Fire Department provides all risk service to the unincorporated areas of
Alameda County, the City of San Leandro and the City of Dublin. These services include fire
suppression, arson investigation, hazardous materials 'mitigation, paramedic services, urban .
search and rescue, fire prevention and public education. The City of Dublin elected to have the
Alameda County Fire Department provide emergency fire and medical services to its residents
through a contractual arrangement.
Stations and Equipment
The City of Dublin owns the fire stations and equipment that service the City, while contracting
with the Alameda County Fire Department for fire protection personnel, emergency medical
response services and response to hazardous materials spills. For fire suppression services, the
County provides 27line personnel who are assigned to the City on two engine companies and
one truck company located in Dublin at Fire Stations 15 and 16.
Station 15 is located on Broder Boulevard near Gleason Drive, housing one full-time engine
company, one engine and one Type III engine. Fire Station 15 currently serves the area including
the East County Government Center alternative site. This station's response area is
approximately five square miles, which includes the County jail and the residential/wildland
interface. This station houses the apparatus and equipment for the Volunteers of the Alameda
County Fire Department. Station 16 is located on Donohue Drive and houses one engine
company, one truck company and a patrol. It provides initial response to west and downtown
Dublin, but can respond to calls at this site if needed.
A new fire station, Fire Station 17, is planned to replace Station 15 in 2002. That station will be
located on land immediately adjacent to the East County Government Center site at Madigan
Avenue and Broder Boulevard. Fire Station 17 is expected to be a 24-hour station with a staff of
six, housing both an engine and a truck company. (Fire engines contain the water pump and other
equipment used to fight fires and a truck contains ladders and other equipment used to access
multistory buildings.) Fire Station 17, like all other fire stations in Dublin, will be able to provide
emergency medical assistance and hazardous materials cleanup. Once Station 17 is operational,
Fire Station 15 will remain open as a volunteer fire station. Volunteer firefighters assist fire
department personnel in post-fire related duties including but not limited to rolling up hoses,
carrying debris from fire scenes and/or assisting with fire investigations.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-13
Chapter 13: Public Services
Fire Suppression Water Supply
Water for fire fighting would be provided by the local water service company, the Dublin-San
Ramon Sanitary District (DSRSD). Water would be provided from DSRSD's Zone 1 reservoirs,
located throughout the lower elevations of Dublin, to amain on Gleason Drive to supply water to
the fire hydrants and the government center. Pipe sizes from the reservoirs to the water main on
Gleason Drive vary in size from 16 to 24 inches. The pipe on Gleason Drive that will supply
water to the fire hydrants is 12 inches in diameter. Static pressure, that is water pressure in the
fire hydrants when they are closed, is 70.0 psi (pounds per square inch). Residual pressure, that is
water pressure when the fire hydrants are open for fire fighting, is 61.0 psi at a flow of 4,000
gprn (gallons per minute). '
Personnel
All fire-fighting persOlll1el are cross-trained to provide emergency medical services and
hazardous materials cleanup. Equipment necessary to perfonn these services is carried on
Department fire trucks. Firefighters are trained as Emergency Medical Technician I (EMT I) in
order to provide emergency medical assistance. They are also trained as Hazardous Materials
Technicians, enabling them to clean up hazardous materials of easily identifiable substances such
as gas or oil. If a hazardous material spill is too large for the fire department to clean up and/or
the material cannot be identified, a County team specialized in hazardous materials would be
dispatched. In addition, each piece of fire,..fighting apparatus is staffed with one person who is a
trained paramedic.
Police
Alameda County
Although the site is within the geographic boundaries of the City of Dublin, all police services
for the East County Government Center site would be provided by the Alameda County Sheriffs
Office and/or the Alameda County Probation Department. Services currently provided by the
Alameda County Sheriffs Department from the Dublin Civic Center station include patrolling,
criminal investigation and crime prevention. The Civic Center station also houses an Emergency
Operations Center, a short-tenn holding cell and training and support facilities.
City of Dublin
The City of Dublin Police Department provides police service within Dublin. In addition to
traditional police functions of enforcement and investigation, the City of Dublin provides drug
education in the schools, traffic enforcement, Holiday Crirne Suppression Unit in commercial
areas, Neighborhood Watch and Merchant's Alert, and bicycle safety education and
enforcement. Other services provided by the Department include development design plan
review, bicycle patrol units and security surveys. The Police Department force serving Dublin
numbers 52.5 sworn officers and the City maintains an officer to population ratio of 1.38 officers
per 1,000 residents. The Department's minimum response time is five minutes or less for in
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
progress emergency calls such as robbery, burglary, felonious assaults or domestic violence,
while response time is about 15 minutes for nonemergency calls.
Schools
The Dublin Unified School District provides school services to the area surrounding the East
County Government Center site. The Dublin USD presently has a total of 4,241 students for the
2001-2002 academic year. Enrollment in five elementary schools totals 1,957 students, 1,005
students attend the only middle school, and 1,279 students are enrolled in two high schools
(Dublin and Valley). The Dublin USD has planned for growth in the Eastern Dublin area and,
recently established Dougherty Elementary School at Hacienda Drive and Central Parkway, with
an enrollment of371 students. In anticipation of future development, the school district is
working on land acquisition and construction plans for a middle school and an elementary school
in the area. The middle school will be located along Gleason Drive east of Tassajara Road, and
the elementary school is located to the north of the middle school and east ofthe new city park
(Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1998).
Parks and Recreation
The City of Dublin Parks Department provides parks and recreation facilities within the City
boundaries. The City of Dublin considers parks and recreation an integral part of establishing
and maintaining a balanced and healthy living environment for its residents and has developed a
number of parks and recreation centers to achieve this goal. At the same time, the City realizes
that employees of Dublin's businesses will also use the parks and recreation facilities and has
made provisions for this in its overall parks and recreation planning.
The City park facilities nearest the East County Government Center site are to the east, within
approximately one mile. The first is Emerald Glen Park, a 28-acre community park that offers
sports facilities, a snack bar, picnic area and a restroom. The second facility is a public access
walking and hiking trail along Tassajara Creek. The trail follows the creek from Interstate 1-580
north, and although the creek continues, the trail cUITently ends along the western side of the
subdivision north of Gleason Drive. Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (Zone 7) owns the right-of-way and has entered into an agreement with the City of
Dublin pennitting public use ofthe maintenance trail provided the City maintains the trail and
assumes financial responsibility for the public's use ofthe trail. There are additional parks and
recreation facilities near the East County Government Center site, but these are private facilities
for residents of area subdivisions.
Solid Waste
Currently, Livennore-Dublin Disposal holds the solid waste collection franchise for the City of
Dublin. Solid waste is transported to the Altamont landfill site in eastern Alameda County.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-15
Chapter 13: Public Services
Libraries
The Alameda County Library provides service to the participating cities of Albany, Dublin,
Fremont, Newark and Union City, as well as unincorporated areas ofthe County that are served
by branches in Castro Valley and San Lorenzo. The Extension Services provides specialized
library services and includes a bookmobile, Adult Literacy program, Hot Wheels (a program for
childcare providers ofpre-schoolers), Senior Services, ADA Services and Jail Services. The
library traditionally receives its funding from property taxes. The Utility Users Tax provides
funding in unincorporated areas. The Library District does not have a capital projects budget, nor
does it collect fees from commercial or residential developments.
The Dublin branch of the Alameda County Library serves the estimated 35,000 residents of the
rapidly growing City and is the major reference center in the Tri-Valley area. The Dublin Library
has a reference book collection as well as a circulating collection that includes books, magazines,
videos, CDs and books on tape. The book collection numbers approximately 86,000 items. The
City of Dublin contributes about half the funds for the hours the library is open as well as
$30,000 annually for new materials. The City is building a new 37,000-square-foot library that
will be located next to Dublin City Hall. The library's first construction phase will result in
20,000 square feet of new space. It is expected that construction activity will be completed by
2003.
Site 15A
Site 15A is located immediately south of the proposed East County Government Center site,
closer to 1-580. This site is also an Alameda County-owned property within the City of Dublin's
city limits.
Fire Protection, Hazardous Materials and Emergency Medical Response
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to fire protection, hazardous materials
and emergency medical response is the same as described above for the East County
Government Center site.
Police
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to police service is similar to that
described above for the East County Government Center site.
Schools
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to schools is similar to that described
above for the East County Government Center site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacUity/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
Parks and Recreation
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to parks and recreation service is similar
to that described above for the East County Government Center site.
Solid Waste
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to solid waste collection, disposal and
recycling is similar to that described above for the East County Government Center site.
Libraries
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to library service is similar to that
described above for the East County Government Center site.
13.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Public Services
According to CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant environmental effect if it
would:
· 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
perfonnance objectives for any of the public services.
Parks and Recreation
In addition, the CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would have a significant environmental
effect if it would:
· result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would
occur or be accelerated; or
· include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that could have significant physical effects on the environment.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-17
Chapter 13: Public Services
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT 13.1: Indirect Effects on Public Services
13.1.1:
All Alternatives
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. For each alternative, it is possible that employees may
choose to move in close proximity to the facilities to be developed under that alternative in order
to be closer to their place of employment. These new 'residents would increase demands on
public services within the local community, but not to an extent that would be significantly
greater than the general background growth that would otherwise be anticipated. Such employees
would not be anticipated to have any greater impact on public services than ernployees of other
area businesses who move to the area to be closer to work. These indirect effects on public
services are therefore considered to be less than significant effects and no rnitigation measures
are warranted beyond the nonnal payment of fees for services and development impact fees for
new residential development already occurring in the affected communities.
IMPACT 13.2: Need for Additional Facilities to Provide Adequate Fire
Protection Services, Emergency Medical Response
Services and Hazardous Materials Response Services
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
Juvenile Detention Facility
Prior to construction, the State Fire Marshall checks construction plans to ensure they are
consistent with State requirements. The State Fire Marshall is also responsible for conducting
fire safety inspections for the construction of any new juvenile detention facility (as in the
Existing San Leandro Property, East County Government Center, Pardee/Swan Site and Glenn
Dyer Detention Facility alternatives). After construction, fire safety at the Juvenile Justice
Facility would become the responsibility ofthe County Fire Marshall.
East County Hall of Justice
Prior to construction, responsible agencies identified in the Setting sections above would review
the building and site plans to ensure fire safety access and oversee fire safety issues at all East
County Hall of Justice (proposed at the East County Government Center site or Site 15A) . Any
new facilities would be built according to the most currently applicable California Building Code
as adopted by Alameda County.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacilitylEast County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
13.2.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. Under the No ActionINo Project alternative there would be no additional need for
fire protection, emergency medical response and hazardous materials response services. The
Alameda County Fire Department would continue to provide service to the site with no
significant change.
13.2.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Construction and operation ofa new Juvenile Justice
Facility (juvenile detention center and juvenile courthouses) at this site would increase demand
for fire protection services, emergency medical response services and hazardous materials
response services. Although this alternative will increase demand for services, construction and
operation of these facilities will not result in a loss of acceptable response times or other ACFD
performance objectives from existing fire protection stations, nor will it result in significant
adverse physical or environmental impacts.
13.2.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. Development of a Juvenile Justice Facility at this site
will increase demand for fire protection services, emergency medical response services and
hazardous materials response services. Although the facilities would increase demand for these
services, construction and operation of the proposed facility would not result in a loss of
acceptable response times or other Fire Service Agency performance objectives nor would it
result in significant adverse physical or environmental impacts. Existing Fire Station 2 from Jack
London Square would provide response times to this site well within the response time goal
established by the City of Oakland.
13.2.4:
Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Development of a Juvenile Justice Facility and Oakland
Airport parking garage at this location would increase demand for fire protection services,
emergency medical response services and hazardous materials response services. Although
demand for services would increase, construction and operation of the facilities would not result
in a loss of acceptable response times or other Oakland Fire Service Agency performance
objectives, nor would it result in significant adverse physical or environmental impacts. Existing
Oakland Fire Services Agency Station 27 would provide response times to this site well within
the response time goal established by the City of Oakland.
13.2.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Construction of a new Juvenile Justice Facility (420-bed
juvenile detention center and five new juvenile courts) and a new East County Hall of Justice (13
Superior Court departments and associated facilities) will increase demand for fire protection
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-19
Chapter 13: Public Services
services, emergency medical response services and hazardous materials response services to this
site. Although this alternative would increase demand for services, construction and operation of
these facilities would not result in a loss of acceptable response times or other ACFD
perfonnance objectives nor would it result in significant adverse physical or environmental
impacts. A new Fire Station 17 will be constructed and fully operational prior to construction of
the new County facilities. Response time for emergency services provided by the ACFD from
this station would be no more than two minutes, well within the five-minute response tirne
established by the City of Dublin.
13.2.6:
Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. Development of a new East County Hall of Justice at
this site would increase demand for fire protection services, emergency medical response
services and hazardous materials response services. Although the East County Hall of Justice
complex would increase demand for services, construction and operation of the proposed
complex would not result in a loss of acceptable response times or other ACFD perfonnance
objectives nor will it result in significant adverse physical or environmental impacts. A new Fire
Station 17 to be constructed and fully operational prior to construction of the complex would
provide response times to this site well within the five-minute response time established by the
City of Dublin.
IMPACT 13.3: Need for Additional Facilities to Provide Adequate Police
Services
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
Juvenile Detention
The Alameda County Probation Department would be responsible for the security and
management of any juvenile detention and related facilities as included in the No Action/No
Project, Existing San Leandro Property, East County Government Center, Pardee/Swan Site and
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility alternatives. Security for the juvenile detention facilities would be
evident upon entry. Security would be upgraded over the security at the existing facility and
would be state-of-the-art. All people entering the facilities would enter at a centra11ocation and
pass through a weapon screening station with an x-ray machine, walk-through metal detectors,
and handheld wands. Exit doors would always be locked, under surveillance, anned by an alarm
and inaccessible from outside the building. The Juvenile Justice Facility would be a temporary
detention facility for children under age 18 for pre-adjudication detention, disposition, awaiting
transfer to another facility or any other reason where surveillance is required. The Juvenile
Justice Facility would be locked and monitored by camera 24 hours per day. Trained counselors,
who are also law-enforcement officers, would staff the hall. The public will not have access to
the Juvenile Justice Facility; however, there will be a separate visitors' area for detainees at the
Juvenile Justice Facility and their visitors.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacilitylEast County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
East County Hall of Justice
The Alameda County Sheriffs Office would be responsible for security at all courthouses,
including juvenile courts as in the Existing San Leandro Property, East County Government
Center and Pardee/Swan Site alternatives, and/or adult courts as in the East County Government
Center and Site 15A alternatives. Security at the courthouses would be similar to that described
above for the juvenile detention facilities, including a central entrance with weapon screening
and metal detectors, surveillance and alanns. Additionally, each courtroom Guvenile and/or adult
courts) would be staffed with a Sheriff Department bailiff and the bailiff would be responsible
for maintaining control of in-custody detainees in co~ and maintaining decorum in juvenile,
courts.
Oakland Airport Parking Garage
The Port of Oakland's Airport Security would provide security services at a new airport parking
garage as included in the Pardee/Swan Site.
PROJECT IMPACTS
13.3.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. Under the No ActionINo Project there would be no need for additional police
services to the site. The Alameda County Sheriff Department would continue to provide service
in the vicinity of the site, with no significant change.
13.3.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Construction of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at this
site will create a slight increase in demand for police services to be provided by the Alameda
County Sheriff Department in the vicinity. The new facility would be larger than the existing
Juvenile Hall and provide additional courtrooms. However, no mitigation measures would be
required since the facility would not significantly reduce the Alameda County Sheriff
Department's perfonnance objectives, nor result in significant adverse physical or environmental
impacts.
13.3.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Operation of a Juvenile Justice Facility center may
create a slight increase in demand for police services to be provided by the Oakland Police
Service Agency in the general vicinity of this site. However, no new police facility would be
required to respond effectively to any potential increase in criminal activity, particularly
considering that the Oakland Police Service Agency's headquarters are immediately adjacent to
this site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-21
Chapter 13: Public Services
13.3.4:
Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Construction of a Juvenile Justice Facility would create
a slight increase in demand for police services to be provided by the Oakland Police Service
Agency in the general vicinity of this site. However, no new police facility would be required to
respond effectively to any potential increase in crirninal activity resulting from construction of
the Juvenile Justice Facility or East County Hall of Justice. Additionally the Port of Oakland
would provide security for the airport parking garage.
13.3.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. Although the Dublin Police Department will not be
required to provide police services at the East County Govenunent Center, there would
nonetheless be an increased need for police services in the City. This need would arise due to
increased vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic traveling along roadways leading to and frorn
the East County Govenunent Center, and people who work or conduct business at the East
County Govenunent Center frequenting nearby shops and restaurants. However, as Eastern
Dublin develops the City will continue to operate the Police Department from the Civic Center,
increasing staffing levels and purchasing equipment as needed to keep pace with the demand for
police services. No Project-specific mitigation measures would be required since the facilities
proposed at this site would not result in a significant reduction in Dublin Police Department
performance objectives nor result in significant adverse physical or environmental impacts.
13.3.6:
Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Although the Dublin Police Department will not be
required to provide police services at Site 15A, there would nonetheless be an increased need for
police services in the City. This need would arise due to increased vehicular, pedestrian and
bicycle traffic traveling along roadways leading to and from Site 1SA, and people who work or
conduct business there frequenting nearby shops and restaurants. However, as Eastern Dublin
develops the City will continue to operate the Police Department from the Civic Center,
increasing staffing levels and purchasing equipment as needed to keep pace with the demand for
police services. No Project-specific mitigation measures would be required since the facilities
proposed at this site would not result in a significant reduction in Dublin Police Department
perfonnance objectives nor result in significant adverse physical or environmental impacts.
IMPACT 13.4: Need for Additional Facilities to Provide Adequate School
Services
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
Local public school facilities are not required for residents of a juvenile detention facility. While
in residence at the Justice Juvenile Facility, students will attend classes on site (whether the
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
facility is built at the Existing San Leandro Property, East County Government Center,
Pardee/Swan Site or Glerm Dyer Detention Facility).
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
13.4.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMP ACT. Under the No ActionINo Project alternative there would be no need for additional
school services for detainees, or for employees' families at the existing Juvenile Hall or Gale-
Schenone Courthouse.
13.4.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The construction of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at
this site would not result in a failure to achieve perfonnance objectives by the San Lorenzo USD.
Detainees at the facility would attend school within the confines of Juvenile Justice Facility.
Expansion ofthe Juvenile Justice Facility would result in an increase in employment at the site,
which could lead to some increase in the nwnber of local families with school-age children if
employees are drawn from outside of the area. This growth would not place a significant burden
on the San Lorenzo or San Leandro USDs, because the number of new families is small in
comparison to the existing enrollment area and capacity of the school districts, and because the
employees would either occupy existing residences and thereby merely replace existing families,
or would occupy new residences that are subject to impact fees that compensate for the
introduction of new students in the affected district.
13.4.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. The construction of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at
this site would have a less than significant impact on the perfonnance objectives by the Oakland
USD. Detainees at the facility would attend school within the confines of the Juvenile Justice
Facility. This growth would not place a significant burden on the Oakland USD, because the
number of new families is small in comparison to the existing enrollment area and capacity of
the school districts, and because the employees would either occupy existing residences and
thereby merely replace existing families, or would occupy new residences that are subject to
impact fees that compensate for the introduction of new students in the affected district.
13.4.4:
Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The construction of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at
this site would have a less than significant impact on the perfonnance objectives by the Oakland
USD. Detainees at the facility would attend school within the confines of the Juvenile Justice
Facility. This growth would not place a significant burden on the Oakland DSD, because the
number of new families is small in comparison to the existing enrollment area and capacity of
the school districts, and because the employees would either occupy existing residences and
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-23
Chapter 13: Public Services
thereby merely replace existing families, or would occupy new residences that are subject to
impact fees that compensate for the introduction of new students in the affected district.
13.4.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. The addition of a new Juvenile Justice Facility and East
County Hall of Justice will not result in a failure to achieve perfonnance objectives by the
Dublin Unified School District. Detainees at the Juvenile Justice Facility would attend school
within the confines of the Juvenile Justice Facility. East County Government Center employees
with school-age children who may move to Dublin will not place a significant burden on the .
Dublin Unified School District because the district has included, in its facilities planning,
planned growth in Eastern Dublin including the East County Government Center. According to
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City already has plans for five new elementary schools,
one middle school and one high school in the area.
13.4.6:
Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMAPCT. The construction of a new East County Hall of Justice
and at this site would not affect the perfonnance objectives by the Dublin USD. County
employees with school-age children who may move to Dublin would not place a significant
burden on the Dublin Unified School District because the District has included in its facilities
planning all planned growth in Eastern Dublin including the residential and commercial centers
near Site 1SA. A change in development from high density residential to governmental use could
reduce the overall impact to the school district compared to the original land use designation for
this site. Since development of this site as proposed would have a less than significant impact,
no mitigation would be required.
IMPACT 13.5: Need for Additional Facilities to Provide Adequate Parks
and Recreation Services
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
Local public parks and recreation services are not required for residents of a juvenile detention
facility. Any new Juvenile Justice Facility would include some fonn of recreation facilities on
site (whether the facility is built at the Existing San Leandro Property, East County Government
Center, Pardee/Swan Site or Glenn Dyer Detention Facility).
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
13.5.1 : No Action/No Project
NO IMP ACT. Under the No Action/No Project there would be no need for additional parks and
recreation services to the site. The City of San Leandro Parks Department would be unaffected
by this alternative.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
13.5.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The construction of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at
this site would not significantly increase demands on local parks or recreation services. The new
Juvenile Justice Facility would include some fonn of recreation facilities on site, and Juvenile
Justice Facility employees who use parks or recreation facilities during their lunch hour or before
or after work would not place a significant burden on local parks or recreation facilities.
13.5.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMP ACT. The construction of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at this site would have no
impact on nearby parks and recreation services. The new Juvenile Justice Facility would include
some fonn of recreation facilities on site, and detained individuals would not be pennitted to use
public parks or recreation facilities.
13.5.4:
Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The construction ofa new Juvenile Justice Facility and
parking garage at this site would not result in a significant increase in the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities in the vicinity. The new Juvenile
Justice Facility would include some fonn of recreation on site, and Justice Facility employees
who use parks or recreation facilities during their lunch hour or before or after parks would not
place a significant burden on local parks or recreation facilities.
A new Juvenile Justice Facility constructed at this site would be located in close proximity (a
distance of approximately 75 feet) from the shoreline trail areas of the Martin Luther King Jr.
Regional Shoreline. The Juvenile Justice Facility would not have a significant adverse effect on
the use of this regional shoreline trail by members of the general public. The facility would be
separated from the trail by a fence or wall, and juvenile detainees would not have access to the
trail. Currently, this site is separated from the trail by a chain-link fence, and this condition
would not be substantially changed with the addition of the Juvenile Justice Facility. Juvenile
Justice Facility employees may use the site at lunch or after work, but given the size of this
regional recreational parkland, this would not place a significant new burden on the Martin
Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline.
13.5.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. The addition of a new Juvenile Justice Facility and East
County Hall of Justice will increase demand for parks and recreation services due to the presence
of employees and visitors. Although development ofthis site would increase demand for
services, construction and operation ofthese facilities would not overburden the local parks and
recreation service providers. The East County Government Center would include a landscaped,
2-acre park-like setting specifically for use by employees and visitors. For County govenunent
employees and visitors who wish to use City of Dublin parks and recreation facilities, the City
has already accounted for this projected use as part of their local land use planning efforts. The
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan indicates that several park facilities are planned for the area.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-25
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
No mitigation measures would be required for this alternative since potential impacts would be
less than significant. Through a prior agreement with Alameda County, the City of Dublin will
not assess parks and recreation development fees to the County when it develops County-owned
land for use by County governmental agencies.
13.5.6:
Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Through a Public Facilities Fee Study (City of Dublin,
October 14,2002), the City has determined that approximately 23 percent of employees of
Dublin businesses use the City's parks and recreation.facilities. It is reasonable to assume that
employees of a new East County Hall of Justice would make similar use of parks, most likely
during the lunch hour and, because their time is limited, would use the nearest facilities.
However, the City has already accounted for a projected increase in use of recreational facilities
as part ofthe Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which indicates that several park facilities are
planned for the area.
No mitigation measures would be required for this alternative since potential impacts would be
less than significant. Through a prior agreement with Alameda County. the City of Dublin will
not assess parks and recreation development fees to the County when it develops County-owned
land for use by County governmental agencies.
IMPACT 13.6: Need for Additional Facilities to Provide Adequate Solid
Waste Services
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
The day-to-day operations of a major County institution such as a Juvenile Justice Center may
facilitate participation in local recycling programs, as solid waste disposal practices within such a
facility can be controlled to a greater extent that would generally be possible in most non-
institutional settings. For those alternatives where demolition would be required, there would be
an opportunity to recycle demolition debris.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
13.6.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. The No Action/No Project alternative would not generate any additional solid
waste than is being generated today, and would have no impact on solid waste collection and/or
disposal.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
13.6.2:
Existing San Leandro Property
Construction
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. Construction of a new Juvenile
Justice Facility at this alternative site would result in demolition of the adjacent existing Juvenile
Hall. The dernolition debris from this existing facility would include wood, metal, concrete,
asphalt and asbestos and would constitute a substantial one-time need for disposal. It is not likely
that these materials would threaten landfill capacity, but could conflict with the County's waste
diversion goals.
. Mitigation Measure 13.6.2A: Demolition Debris Recycling. Demolition of the
existing Juvenile Hall should include a plan to capture as much material as feasible and
recycle it for other uses. Concrete and asphalt should be reused as part ofthe construction
of building slabs or parking lots at the new facility. Asbestos disposal and other Class I or
II hazardous wastes would be disposed of in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality
District and Department of Toxic Substance Control requirements, as appropriate.
Resulting Level a/Significance: With implementation of the recycling program described
above, the volume of waste generated by demolition of the existing Juvenile Hall would
be substantially reduced and the impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Operations
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. The Castro Valley Sanitary
District serving this site cUlTently disposes of approximately 31,000 tons of solid waste per year
at the Altamont Landfill (Alameda County, 2000). Construction of a new Juvenile Justice
Facility at this site would marginally increase generation of solid waste needing collection and
disposal by the Sanitary District.
. The 400,000-square-foot Juvenile Justice Facility would employ approximately 320
regular daily employees. Based on estimates published by the Alameda County Waste
Management Authority (Alameda County, 2000), each employee would generate
approximately 0.5 tons per year of solid waste, or a total of approximately 160 tons per
year.
. The solid waste generated by juvenile detainees would marginally increase with an
increase from 300 to 420 beds. Based on estimates published by the Alameda County
Waste Management Authority (Alameda County, 2000), each detained minor would
generate approximately 2.2 pounds per day, or approximately 0.4 tons per year of solid
waste. This would represent an increase of approximately 48 tons per year of additional
solid waste.
A total increase of approximately 208 tons per year represents less than 0.01 percent of the solid
waste disposed of by the Castro Valley Sanitary District at the Altamont landfill. It is not likely
that this volume of solid waste would threaten landfill capacity, but it could conflict with the
County's waste diversion goals.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-27
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
· Mitigation Measure 13.6.28: Waste Reduction and Diversion. The Alameda
County Probation Department and Superior Court, in cooperation with the County's
General Service Agency, should prepare a plan that demonstrates good faith efforts at
diverting at least 50 percent of the solid waste generated by the new facility from landfill
disposal via waste reduction and recycling.
Resulting Level of Significance: The source reduction and recycling efforts identified in
the mitigation measure above are consistent with state law and County permitting
requirements for diverting countywide projected waste stream. If this goal is achieved by
the Project it would effectively mitigate the Project's contribution to the cumulative need
for additional solid waste disposal facilities to a level of less than cumulatively
considerable, or less than significant.
13.6.3:
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
Construction
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Construction of a new Juvenile
Justice Facility at this alternative site would result in demolition of the existing Juvenile Hall in
San Leandro and the modification of and addition to the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility. The
demolition debris would not likely threaten landfill capacity, but could conflict with the City's
waste diversion goals.
· Mitigation Measure 13.6.3A: Demolition Debris Recycling. Mitigation Measure
13.6.2A (see above) would also apply to this alternative and should be expanded to
address the existing County detention facility as well.
Resulting Level of Significance: With implementation of the recycling program described
above, the volume of waste generated by demolition of the existing Juvenile Hall and
County detention facility would be substantially reduced and the impact reduced to a less
than significant level.
Operations
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. Operation of a new Juvenile
Justice Facility would marginally increase generation of solid waste needing collection and
disposal in the City of Oakland by approxirnately 208 tons per year. This represents an increase
of less than 0.1 percent of the solid waste disposed of by the City of Oakland at the Altamont
landfill. It is not likely that this volume of solid waste would threaten landfill capacity, but it
could conflict with the City's waste diversion goals.
· Mitigation Measure 13.6.38: Waste Reduction and Diversion. Mitigation
Measure 13.6.2B (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: With implementation of the waste reduction and
diversion program described above, the volume of waste generated by operation of the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
Juvenile Justice Facility would be substantially reduced and the impact reduced to a less
than significant level.
13.6.4:
Pardee/Swan Site
Construction
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Construction of a new Juvenile
Justice Facility at this alternative site would result in demolition of the existing Juvenile Hall in
San Leandro. The demolition debris would not likely ~hreaten landfill capacity, but could conflict
with the County's waste diversion goals.
. Mitigation Measure 13.6.4A: Demolition Debris Recycling. Mitigation Measure
13.6.2A (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level afSignificance: With irnplementation of the recycling program described
above, the volume of waste generated by demolition of the existing Juvenile Hall would
be substantially reduced and the impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Operations
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. The City of Oakland currently
disposes of approximately 392,500 tons of solid waste per year at the Altamont Landfill
(Alameda County, 2000). Operation of a new Juvenile Justice Facility would marginally increase
generation of solid waste needing collection and disposal in the City of Oakland by
approximately 208 tons per year. This represents an increase of less than 0.1 percent of the solid
waste disposed of by the City of Oakland at the Altamont landfill. It is not likely that this volume
of solid waste would threaten landfill capacity, but it could conflict with the City's waste
diversion goals.
. Mitigation Measure 13.6.48: Waste Reduction and Diversion. Mitigation
Measure 13.6.2B (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level afSignificance: With implementation of the waste reduction and
diversion program described above, the volume of waste generated by operation of the
Juvenile Justice facility would be substantially reduced and the impact reduced to a less
than significant level.
13.6.5:
East County Government Center
Construction
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Construction of a new East
County Government Center would result in demolition of the existing Juvenile Hall. The
demolition debris would not likely threaten landfill capacity, but could conflict with the County's
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-29
Chapter 13: Public Services
waste diversion goals. Old heating pipes that may be insulated with asbestos may be unearthed
during demolition and construction activities.
. Mitigation Measure 13.6.5A: Demolition Debris Recycling. Mitigation Measure
13.6.2A (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: With implementation of the recycling program described
above, the volume of waste generated by demolition of the existing Juvenile Hall would
be substantially reduced and the impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Operations
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The City of Dublin currently
disposes of approximately 36,000 tons of solid waste per year at the Altamont Landfill (Alameda
County, 2000). Construction of a new East County Government Center would increase the
generation of solid waste needing collection and disposal within the City of Dublin.
· As described above, the Juvenile Justice Facility would generate approximately 160 tons
of solid waste per year.
· The East County Hall of Justice would ernploy approximately 315 regular daily
employees, each generating approximately 0.5 tons per year of solid waste, or a total of
approximately 155 tons per year.
· 420 detained minors would each generate approxirnately 0.4 tons per year of solid waste,
or a total of approximately 170 tons per year of additional solid waste.
A total increase of nearly 500 tons per year represents less than 2 percent of the solid waste
disposed of by the City of Dublin at the Altamont landfill. It is not likely that this volume of
solid waste would threaten landfill capacity, but it could conflict with the City's waste diversion
goals.
. Mitigation Measure 13.6.58: Waste Reduction and Diversion. Mitigation
Measure 13.6.2B (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: With implementation of the waste reduction and
diversion program described above, the volume of waste generated by operation of the
East County Government Center would be substantially reduced and the impact reduced
to a less than significant level.
13.6.6:
Site 15A
Construction
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. Construction of a new East County Hall of Justice under
this alternative would not result in demolition of the existing Juvenile Hall in San Leandro. No
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
demolition debris would be generated, but old heating pipes that may be insulated with asbestos
may be unearthed during construction activities.
. Mitigation Measure 13.6.6A: Waste Reduction and Diversion. Mitigation
Measure 13.6.2A (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: With implementation of the recycling program described
above, the volume of waste generated by operation of the East County Hall of Justice
would be substantially reduced and the impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Operations
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. Operation of a new East County
Hall of Justice would marginally increase generation of solid waste needing collection and
disposal in the City of Dublin by approximately 155 tons per year. This represents an increase of
less than 0.1 percent ofthe solid waste disposed of by the City of Dublin at the Altamont landfill.
It is not likely that this volume of solid waste would threaten landfill capacity, but it could
conflict with the County's waste diversion goals.
. Mitigation Measure 13.6.68: Waste Reduction and Diversion. Mitigation
Measure 13.6.2B (see above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level afSignificance: With implementation of the waste reduction and
diversion program described above, the volume of waste generated by operation of the
East County Hall of Justice would be substantially reduced and the impact reduced to a
less than significant level.
IMPACT 13.7: Need for Additional Facilities to Provide Adequate Library
Services
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
In order to provide meaningful library services to Juvenile Justice Facility residents, the Alameda
County Library Extension Services has received a grant for a visiting author and motivational
book talk program for juveniles in custody. The program is designed to interest the youth in
reading by bringing authors to the detention hall to meet with the residents and talk about their
books.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-31
Chapter 13: Public Services
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
13.7.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMP ACT. Under the No ActionINo Project alternative there would be no need for additional
library services to the site. The San Leandro and Alameda County library system would be
unaffected by this alternative.
13.7.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Residents of the new Juvenile Justice Facility will not
have access to the area's public libraries, as library services to the Juvenile Justice Facility would
be provided through the Alameda County Library Extension Program. Employees of the Juvenile
Justice Facility would be expected to place a less than significant demand on library services.
Therefore, construction of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at the Existing San Leandro Property
site will not result in a failure to achieve perfonnance objectives by the area's libraries and no
mitigation measures are needed.
13.7.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Residents of the new Juvenile Justice Facility will not
have access to the area's public libraries. Library services to the Juvenile Justice Facility would
be provided through the Alameda County Library Extension Program. Employees of the Juvenile
Justice Facility would be expected to place a less than significant demand on local library
services. Therefore, construction of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at this downtown Oakland
site would not result in a failure to achieve perfonnance objectives by the area's libraries and no
mitigation measures are needed.
13.7.4:
Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Residents of the new Juvenile Justice Facility would not
have access to the area's public libraries. Library services would be provided through the
Alameda County Library Extension Program. Employees of the Juvenile Justice Facility are
expected to place a less than significant demand on library services. Therefore, construction of a
new juvenile facility at this site will not result in a failure to achieve performance objectives by
the area's libraries and no mitigation measures are needed.
13.7.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. The addition of a new Juvenile Justice Facility and East
County Hall of Justice would not significantly increase demand for library services. Residents of
the Juvenile Justice Facility will not have access to the Dublin Public Library as library services
to the Juvenile Justice Facility are provided through the Alameda County Library Extension
Program. Employees of the East County Hall of Justice are not expected to place any more
significant demand on County library services than employees of other businesses in Dublin.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13: Public Services
Construction of a new governmental facility will not result in a failure to achieve perfonnance
objectives by the City Library. Therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.
13.7.6:
Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Employees at a new East County Hall of Justice are
expected to place a less than significant demand on library services. Therefore, construction of
these facilities would not result in a failure to achieve perfonnance objectives by the area's
libraries and no mitigation measures are needed.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 13-33
Chapter 13: Public Services
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR Page 13-34
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
14
Utilities
14.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Public utilities discussed in this chapter include:
· water
· sewer
· stonn drainage
· gas, electrical and telecommunications service.
Significance thresholds for utility systems would be reached if the Project would result in an
increased demand for utility capacities that cannot be met by existing or planned utility
infÌ'astructure.
REGULATORy/POLICY SETTING
Federal
Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDW A), 42 USC §§ 300f et seq. is the primary federal law
regulating drinking water quality; it establishes standards intended to protect public health, safety
and welfare. The US EP A implements the SDW A, which delegates its authority under the
SDW A to the states.
The Clean Water Act (CW A) 33 United States Code (US C) §§ 1251 et seq. is intended to restore
and maintain the integrity of the nation's waters, including requirements for states to establish
water quality standards to protect designated uses for all waters of the nation. Many aspects of
the CW A have been delegated to the states, including the regulation of discharges from private
industry and public facilities such as wastewater treatment plants.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacilitylEast County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14·1
Chapter 14: Utilities
State
Water Supply
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act! requires that an understanding of urban
water demands and efficient use of water be actively pursued by water suppliers, including the
requirement for every urban water supplier to prepare and adopt an urban water management
plan (UWMP). Each UWMP must describe the suppliers' services area; identify and quantify
existing and planned water sources; describe the reliability of water supplies; describe
opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water; quantify past, current and projected water use;
and describe and evaluate the supplier's water demand management measures. These plans are
updated every five years. '
The California Environmental Quality Act also requires that projects of a certain magnitude
provide an assessment of water supply. These requirements include an identification of any
existing water supply entitlements, water rights or water service contracts, and a description of
the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system.
The Recycled Water in Landscaping Act requires municipalities to adopt ordinances requiring
use of recycled water for landscaping uses where recycled water of appropriate quality is made
available.
The Department of Health Services (DHS) regulates drinking water, implements the Safe
Drinking Water Act and oversees public water systems in California. The state requires that
public water systems meet two groups of water quality standards: primary and secondary
drinking water standards. Primary drinking water standards, known as Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs), are legally enforceable standards that regulate contaminants that could threaten
public health. Secondary drinking water standards are used to regulate contaminants that affect
the taste, odor and appearance of water, and are enforceable for new potable water sources.
The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has established water
quality objectives to define the level of water quality to be maintained for designated beneficial
uses. Water designated for uses as domestic or municipal supply shall not contain concentrations
of constituents in excess of the limits specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.
Telecommunications and Power
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates privately owned
telecommunications, electric, natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit and passenger transportation
companies.
Division 6, Part 2.6 of the California Water Code.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-2
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I'
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
Local Policy Setting
Alameda County
Public Infrastructure
The Castro Valley Plan includes the following policies related to infrastructure services that are
relevant to the proposed alternative site adjacent to the existing Juvenile Hall:
Policy 3.2
Policy 3.6
Energy
Policy 3.21
City of Dublin
All community and neighborhood service facilities should be adequately provided with
utilities, including water supply, sewer, gas and electricity and police and fire protection
services.
Conservation of water should be encouraged in existing and new development.
All uses should be designed and constructed, and where possible, retrofitted to achieve
maximum feasible energy conservation.
Water Service
The Community Services and Facilities section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Wallace
Roberts & Todd, 2000) includes the following policies relevant to water service:
Policy 9-1 :
Policy 9~2:·
Provide an adequate water supply system and related improvements and storage
facilities for all new development in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
Coordinate with DSRSD to expand its service boundaries to encompass the entire
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Expansion of the DSRSD water system into eastern
Dublin should be coordinated with the Zone 7 wholesale water delivery system. The City
should support DSRSD and Zone 7 policies, capital improvement programs and water
management plans as they relate to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
Wastewater
The Community Services and Facilities section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes the
following policies, which are relevant to wastewater collection and treatment services:
Policy 9-4:
Coordinate with DSRSD to expand its service boundaries to encompass the entire
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Also, coordinate with the District regarding the
possible need for a wastewater storage facility in eastern Dublin. The expansion of the
DSRSD water system should be coordinated with proposed TWA2 [LA VWMA-DSRSD]
wastewater facilities. The City should also support the wastewater management efforts of
2
Note that TWA no longer exists.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-3
Chapter 14: Utilities
TWA and LA VWMA [LA VWMA-DSRSD] as it relates to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
area.
Policy 9-5:
Coordinate with DSRSD to expand its recycled water service boundary to encompass the
entire Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Require recycled water use or landscape
irrigation in accordance with DSRSD's Recycled Water Policy.
Policy 9-6:
Ensure wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are available to meet the needs of
future development in eastern Dublin. The City should support DSRSD's and TW A 's
[LA VWMA-DSRSD 's] wastewater management.
Storm Drainage
The Community Services and Facilities section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes the
following policies, which are relevant to stonnwater and drainage:
Policy 9-7:
Require drainage facilities that will minimize any increased potential for erosion or
flooding.
Policy 9-9:
Plan facilities and select management practices in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area
that protect and enhance water quality.
City of Oakland
The 1998 Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) of the Oakland General Plan (City of
Oakland, 1998) describes Oakland services and some utilities, identifies providers and presents
an outlook on the long-tenn provision of services. The General Plan does not include specific
goals or policies regarding service systems or utilities.
The City of Oakland has adopted the Water Reuse Ordinance, which applies to development
projects that are located within a Water Reuse Area and where new water hook-ups frorn the East
Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) are required.
PHYSICAL SETTING
No Action/No Project
Domestic Water Supply
Water Supply
Water service to the existing Juvenile Hall site and the surrounding City of San Leandro is
provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), a privately owned utility.
EBMUD is responsible for service connections and water delivery to most of Alameda County
and much of Contra Costa County. The EBMUD water supply system is more fully described
below under the Pardee/Swan Site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-4
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
,I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
The City of San Leandro and EBMUD have undertaken programs to conserve water and reduce
the need for developing new water supplies. These programs include public education and
information, economic and financial incentives and a variety of "best management practices"
such as water saving plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping. Using reclaimed water
in lieu of potable water for irrigation, particularly at local golf courses, is an important part of the
conservation program.
Water Distribution System
EBMUD distributes its water through a system of pipelines, storage reservoirs and pumping
plants separated into pressure zones. The two pressur~ zones located in San Leandro include the
Central and Bayfair Zones. The existing Juvenile Hall site is located within EBMUD's Bayfair
Pressure Zone. There are no major water storage facilities in San Leandro; instead the City is
served by nearby storage facî1ities in Castro Valley and Oakland. EBMUD operates and
maintains all water distribution lines within its service area and is responsible for all facilities up
to the location of the water meter. The District reports no known deficiencies in the system
within the vicinity of the existing Juvenile Hall site.
Water distribution systern currently serving the site consists of a 6-inch water line from the small
EBMUD storage tank northeast of the site, across Fainnont Drive. A separate line serves Camp
Sweeney.
Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal
Collection
The Oro Lorna Sanitary District (OLSD) provides sanitary sewer service for the existing Juvenile
Hall. The OLSD was fonned in 1911 and today provides wastewater collection and treatment
services for 44,000 customers within its 13-square-mile service area. The Oro Lorna system
includes 280 miles of sewer pipeline and 15 lift stations.
The existing sanitary sewer service to this site consists of a 10-inch sanitary sewer line from the
east, crossing under Fainnont Drive, and then tapering into a 4-inch line serving the existing
facility. This line also serves the Animal Shelter across Fairmont Drive.
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
The OLSD owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant with an average dry weather design
capacity of 20 million gallons per day (mgd). The plant cunently treats about 15 million gallons
of sewage per day, including flow from the Castro Valley Sanitary District. Treated effluent is
disposed to the deep waters of San Francisco Bay through the collectively owned East Bay
Dischargers Authority pipeline (see discussion below under East County Government Center).
The treatment plant also produces about 14 tons ofbiosolids per day, which are processed for
reuse. The OLSD has a Renewal and Replacement Program that covers ongoing repair and
replacement of system components. Approximately $2.3 million per year was spent on this
program between 1995 and 2000. Revenues for this program are generated through sewer
connection fees and user fees.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-5
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-6
I
I
I
I:,
I
,I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
i'
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
Storm Drainage
The existing Juvenile Hall is located with the unincorporated Castro Valley Planning Area.
Castro Valley is within Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District. The District is responsible for designing all flood control and stonn drainage facilities to
meet IS-year flood standards. A complete system of stonn drainage lines has been constructed
throughout the Castro Valley Planning Area to accommodate storm runoff, with adequate
capacity to accommodate ultimate development (Alameda County, 1985).
The existing stonn drainage system at the site consists of small channels that drain to a large
wetland area adjacent to Fainnont Drive. A stonn drainage systern in Fainnont Drive also
discharges into this wetland area. At the lower end of the wetland a 60-inch stooo drainpipe
conveys runoff downstream into the Zone 7 system, eventually draining into the Bay.
Electricity, Gas and Telecommunications
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (pG&E) provides electrical service to the existing facility
frorn a point adjacent to Fainnont Drive at the southwest comer of the existing facility. An
existing 3-inch gas main also serves the site, coming from the east under Fainnont Drive. A wide
variety of telecommunications services operate within the City of San Leandro. Developers
within the City are free to select the communications service provider of their choice.
Existing San Leandro Property
The Existing San Leandro Property site is located immediately east of the existing Juvenile Hall
(the No Action/No Project site), and slightly higher up on the hill. Utility service providers to
this site would be the same as described above for the No Action/No Project site.
Domestic Water Supply
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to water supply and distribution is the
same as described above for the No Action/No Project site.
Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to wastewater collection, treatment and
disposal is the same as described above for the No Action/No Project site.
Storm Drainage
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to storm drainage is the same as described
above for the No Action/No Project site.
Electricity, Gas and Telecommunications
The existing affected environment at this site in regard to energy and telecommunication
infrastructure is the same as described above for the No Action/No Project site.
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
Domestic Water Supply
The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility site is located in downtown Oakland. The East Bay
Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) serves all of Oakland with potable and reclaimed water, as
described below for the Pardee/Swan Site.
Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal
The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility site would be provided with sewage collection services
provided by the City of Oakland Public Works Department. Sewer lines currently exist at the'
site.
Wastewater treatment and disposal services would be provided by EBMUD as described below
for the Pardee/Swan Site.
Storm Drainage
The City of Oakland is responsible for providing storm drainage infrastructure throughout the
city. Storm drains currently exist in the immediate area to serve this site.
Electricity, Gas and Telecommunications
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns the natural gas and electrical utility lines in
Oakland. Natural gas is distributed via underground pipelines and electrical power is transmitted
primarily via overhead transmission lines. A wide variety oftelecommunications services
operate within the City of Oakland. Developers within the City are free to select the
communications service provider of their choice.
Pardee/Swan Site
The Pardee/Swan Site is located on Port of Oakland-owned property within the City of Oakland.
This site is located within the larger East Oakland planning area. Utility services provided at this
location are further described below.
Water Supply
Potable Water Supply
The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) serves all of Oakland with potable and
reclaimed water. The source ofEBMUD's potable water supply is currently the Mokelumne
River. EBMUD's total service area customer demand in year 2000 was 230 mgd, and when
adjusted for conservation and the use of reclaimed water, net customer demand was estimated at
216 mgd. EBMUD projects that by year 2020 the net customer demand for potable water will
reach 250 mgd assuming that water conservation efforts are successful, that there are no droughts
and that the City grows at an average annual rate of 0.4% (EBMUD, 2000).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-7
Chapter 14: Utilities
EBMUD has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan (EBMUD 2000) that indicates that
with aggressive conservation and reclamation, EBMUD can meet its obligation to serve its
current and future customers in normal rainfall years through year 2020. However, in years of
drought, even with aggressive conservation and reclamation coupled with 25 percent rationing
throughout the service area, EBMUD predicts a shortfall in excess of 131 mgd within the next 25
years. For more than 30 years, EBMUD has pursued a supplemental source of high-quality raw
water from the American River. However, due to long-term strong political and environmental
opposition to this plan, EBMUD recently entered into an agreement with the County of
Sacramento and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to access the Sacramento River as the source of
supplemental EBMUD water supplies (EBMUD, 2001a).
Water Distribution System
The Pardee/Swan Site is located within the EBMUD Central Pressure Zone. Water for this zone
is treated at the Orinda Treatment Plant in Orinda and the Upper San Leandro Filter Plant in
Oakland. This water is stored in the Central Reservoir and Dunsmuir Reservoir, where it then
flows via gravity throughout the EBMUD water transmission system. Within the Pardee/Swan
Site vicinity, EBMUD owns and maintains water transmission mains that would provide water
service to this site.
Reclaimed Water
EBMUD projects that, in 2020, customers will use 14 mgd of reclaimed water for landscape
irrigation and for some industrial and commercial uses. The supply ofEBMUD reclaimed water
from its Main Wastewater Treatment Plan in Oakland far exceeds demand. Reclaimed water
therefore provides a much more stable source of water, not subject to rationing for landscape
irrigation and other potential uses. EBMUD is considering regulations that would require its
customers and applicants to use recycled water when such water is of adequate quality and
quantity, available at a reasonable cost, not detrimental to public health, and not injurious to
plant, fish, or wildlife (EBMUD, 2000).
Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal
Sewage Collection
Generally, the City of Oakland maintains and operates a citywide sewage collection service. The
Oakland Public Works Department provides sewage collection services for approximately 39
square miles within the city, including five pump stations and approximately 4.5 million linear
feet of pipeline ranging in size from 6 inches to 72 inches in diameter. The existing local sanitary
sewer system adequately collects wastewater generated within the vicinity of the Pardee/Swan
Site (City of Oakland, 1995). The City of Oakland has instituted an inflow and Infiltration
Correction Program to reduce wet weather overflows into the sanitary sewer system. This
program is anticipated to increase the capacity of the collection system to allow an
approximately 20% increase in wastewater flows for each subarea within the City. However,
projected flow increases must stay below the base-flow increase allowance for each subbasin of
the system. The Pardee/Swan Site is located within the City of Oakland Coliseum
Redevelopment Area. This Redevelopment Area is included in the City's 20-year program to
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-8
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
t
·1;
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
upgrade sanitary sewers including general rehabilitation, pipe replacement and some pipe size
upgrades.
The City of Oakland sewage collection system discharges into EBMUD's sewer interceptor
system, which comprises approximately 29 miles of large-diameter pipeline, ranging in size from
9 to 12 feet in diameter. Wastewater from this area is collected into an EBMUD 42-inch
interceptor and the EBMUD Wastewater Pumping Station G. Dry weather flows are then
transported via the South Interceptor to the Main Wastewater Treatment Plant. Wet weather
flows are stored and treated in facilities along the South Interceptor.
Treatment and Disposal
EBMUD provides all sewage treatment and discharge services within the City of Oakland. The
EBMUD interceptor system transports sewage to the Main Wastewater Treatment Facility
(WWTF), located in northwest Oakland immediately south of the I-80/I-880/I-580 interchange.
The Main WWTF treats domestic, commercial and industrial wastewater, and currently
experiences an annual average flow of approximately 80 million gallons per day (mgd). The
WWTF, whose dry weather capacity is 120 mgd, can provide secondary treatment for a
maximum flow of 168 mgd, and primary treatment for up to 320 mgd. Storage basins provide
plant capacity for a short-tenn hydraulic peak of 415 mgd.
Treated effluent is discharged from the WWTF to San Francisco Bay south of the Bay Bridge
approximately one mile from the east Bay shoreline via a 102-inch-diameter deep-water outfall
pipeline (EBMUD, 2001b). EBMUD discharges in compliance with conditions of penn its
granted by the RWQCB under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Program.
Storm Drainage
Generally, the City of Oakland's stonn drainage system within this portion of the City is
designed to convey stonn water runoff through a series of engineered channels located between
San Leandro Street and the San Leandro Bay. These channels flow into sloughs that drain to San
Leandro Bay. The Pardee/Swan Site is located nearly adjacent to the southern extension of San
Leandro Bay near Doolittle Drive and drains directly into San Francisco Bay.
Electricity and Gas
The Pardee/Swan Site is located within the electricity and natural gas service area ofPG&E,
which Pacific Gas and Electric Company owns the natural gas and electrical utility lines in
Oakland. Natural gas is distributed via underground pipelines and electrical power is transmitted
primarily via overhead transmission lines. A wide variety of telecommunications services
operate within the City of Oakland. Developers within the City are ftee to select the
communications service provider of their choice.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-9
Chapter 14: Utilities
East County Government Center
The East County Government Center site is located on an Alameda County-owned site within the
boundaries ofthe City of Dublin and within the East Dublin Planning Area. Infrastructure
services that would be provided to this site are described below.
Domestic Water Supply
Water Supply
The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is the water service provider for most lands
within the East Dublin Planning Area. DSRSD serves a population of about 108,000 people in
Dublin, southern San Ramon, Pleasanton and the Dougherty Valley in San Ramon. DSRSD
obtains its water supplies from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 is required to supply water as requested by DSRSD
subject to its availability.
Zone 7 is one of 10 active zones of the ACFCWCD established in 1949 to solve problems of
flooding, drainage, channel erosion and water supply and conservation in Alameda County. Each
zone generally plans for separate watersheds or drainage basins, and independently funds
activities within that zone. Zone 7's boundaries include of all of Eastem Alameda County
consisting of approximately 425 square miles and occupying a major portion ofthe Alameda
Creek watershed above Niles. Its service area includes the cities of Dublin, Livermore and
Pleasanton and the communities ofSunol, Altamont, Mountain House and small areas of the
cities of Fremont, Union City and Hayward.
Zone 7 has obtained water supplies and entitlements to water necessary to serve its service area.
In 1999, Zone 7 estimated that in order to meet the long-tenn, year 2020 water demands
throughout its service area it would need to acquire an additional average year water supply of
approximately 40,400 acre-feet annually (AFA). This estimate was based on input from water
retailers, cities and agricultural users within its service area, and included assumptions regarding
buildout of Eastern Dublin. One of the land use assumptions used in this estimate for East Dublin
included development of the East County Government Center with Public/Semi-Public uses,
generally consistent with development as indicated under this alternative. To meet this demand,
Zone 7 identified a number of water supply options based on average, wet and dry year
scenarios, and has since secured, or is in the process of securing, these identified water supplies.
According to the Final Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin (DSRSD, 2001), Zone 7 has
secured sufficient water supplies to serve the overall water demand of all of Eastern Dublin.
Alameda County also has a direct water supply connection to Zone 7 for servicing the Santa Rita
Rehabilitation Center (immediately north ofthe East County Government Center site) and the
old Santa Rita jail site. The United States Army has a direct water supply connection to Zone 7
to serve the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (immediately west of the East County
Government Center).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EISIEIR
Page 14-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
Water Distribution
DSRSD owns and operates a water distribution system including transmission lines, pump
stations and water turnouts. Treated water is supplied to DSRSD from Zone 7's Cross Valley
Aqueduct through four turnouts. These turnouts are located at Dougherty Road/Iron Horse Trail,
Amador Valley Boulevard/Stagecoach Road, Arnold Road! Altamirano Road, and within Camp
Parks. The East County Government Center is located in DSRSD's Eastern Dublin service area,
which consists of approximately 4,200 acres of future residential, commercial, industrial,
public/semi-public, parks and open space land uses. This service area is bordered on the south by
1-580, on the west by the Camp Parks Reserve Force Training Area (PRFT A), on the north by
the Alameda and Contra Costa County border and on the east by the ridgeline running northwest
from Croak Road and 1-580. This service area is provided with water supplies from the Arnold
Road/Altamirano Road turnout No.3.
Water received from these turnouts is distributed throughout Dublin via a grid of underground
water transmission lines. This grid system includes a water main along Gleason Drive that feeds
into a private loop operated and maintained by Alameda County. The private loop is cOlmected
to the DSRSD system near the intersection of Gleason Drive and Arnold Road. The existing
County loop system includes a 16-inch domestic water line on Arnold Road northerly of
Gleason, which then connects to an existing 12-inch line running east on Broder Boulevard. The
Broder Boulevard line connects to another 12-inch line running south in Madigan Avenue, which
then connects to a 12-inch line in Gleason Drive. The Gleason Drive line then loops back
westerly to connect at Arnold Road. This system effectively loops around the entire East County
Government Center site.
Rec/almed Water
Recycling for Landscape Irrigation is a DSRSD program to use tertiary-treated recycled water
for landscape irrigation. Local parks, school grounds athletic fields, golf courses, street medians
and landscaped common areas in new housing developments are intended to use this recycled
water. DSRSD's long-term plan is to provide recycled water through a pipeline system planned
by the DSRSD-East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Recycled Water Authority
(DERW A), a joint powers authority between DSRSD and EBMUD.
A current DSRSD ordinance3 requires recycled water to be used for approved customer
categories for all new land uses including commercial, multifamily residential and institutional
irrigation uses with the DSRSD potable water service area. New development within the Eastern
Dublin area has been required to install dual water systems and a recycled water distribution
system has been installed within the major streets. A Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(No.1 18-92) has been adopted by the City of Dublin to minimize use of irrigation water. The
existing recycled water mains available to serve this site are operated and maintained by
DSRSD. These recycled water mains run along Arnold Road and Gleason Drive, and are
connected to the recycled water system via a 20-inch recycled water main along Hacienda Drive.
DSRSD Ordinance No. 280, Apri121, 1998.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-11
Chapter 14: Utilities
Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal
Collection
DSRSD collects wastewater with sewers in the cities of Dublin and San Ramon, with a sewer
service area of more than 26 square miles. This sewer service area includes more than 12,000
households, with 43,000 residents and 450 commercial and industrial customers. The DSRSD
wastewater collection system includes over 107 miles of sanitary sewers f:Ì'om 6 to 42 inches in
diameter, and f:Ì'om less than 5 to over 40 years old.
An existing sanitary sewer system serves the site. This system includes a IS-inch sanitary sewer
line along Arnold Road, which flows southerly along-Arnold Road to lower mains. An existing
10-inch sanitary sewer line also runs along Gleason Drive, which connects to the Arnold Road
sewer line and correspondingly drains southerly along Arnold Road.
DSRSD has detennined the capacity of the existing wastewater collection system and the future
capacity requirements of the system through hydraulic modeling (West & Yost, 2000). The
modeled sewer network primarily includes sewers 10 inches in diameter and larger, referred to as
the trunk sewer system. Model simulations were conducted for various flow scenarios to identify
capacity deficiencies in the existing system under existing and 20-year future flow conditions.
The model identified a need for eight capital improvement projects to provide additional trunk
sewer system hydraulic capacity throughout the system. None of the trunk sewer lines that would
serve the East County Government Center site were identified as deficient by the model.
Wastewater Treatment
Collected wastewater f:Ì'om the cities of Dublin and San Ramon are treated at the DSRSD
wastewater treatment plant in Pleasanton. Under contract, DSRSD also treats wastewater
collected by the City of Pleasant on. The DSRSD wastewater treatment plant also serves by
contract the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center and Camp Parks, which are adjacent to the East
County Government Center site. DSRSD services over 98,000 residents and 1,368 commercial,
industrial and government facilities with wastewater treatment.
The DSRSD wastewater treatment plant provides primary and secondary treatment, and filtration
of wastewater to be recycled. Primary treatment is a physical process that removes large objects
as well as finer solids that settle out of the wastewater. Secondary treatment is a more complex
biological process that uses bacteria to convert dissolved organic matter into suspended matter
that also settles out. The treatment plant uses holding basins that enable treatment of average
flows rather than peak flows, increasing capacity efficiency with smaller sized units. By
temporarily storing part of the wastewater flow in these basins, operators can even out the peaks
and valleys in the volume of wastewater entering the plant. The DSRSD treatment plant has a
current capacity of 11.5 million gallons per day (mgd), but is undergoing a first-phase facility
expansion to increase its average dry weather flow capacity to 17.0 mgd. The plant expansion is
expected to be completed prior to November 2003 (DSRSD, 2001). This first-phase plant
expansion is expected to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future growth in DSRSD's
service area through approximately year 2010.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
Wastewater Disposal
Wastewater disposal is provided by the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency
(LA VWMA), a joint powers authority formed in 1974 by DSRSD and the cities of Pleasant on
and Livennore. LA VWMA is responsible for maintaining a pipeline that transports treated
wastewater fÌ"om the DSRSD and Livermore treatment plants to San Lorenzo, where it is
discharged into San Francisco Bay. The original LA VWMA export pipeline was designed with a
capacity of21.0 mgd. LA VWMA is also a member agency of the East Bay Dischargers
Authority (EBDA), another joint power authority formed of cities and agencies in the East Bay.
LA VWMA exports secondary treated effluent to the EBDA interceptor pipeline, which
ultimately discharges to San Francisco Bay via a deep-water outfall.
By the mid-1990s, development in the Livermore-Amador Valley resulted in the need for
additional capacity in the LA VWMA wastewater disposal transmission system. In 1997/98,
average dry-weather flow in the LA VWMA pipeline system was 14.3 mgd, and peak wet-
weather flow was at or near capacity of21.0 mgd. Since then, LA VWMA has begun
implementation of a series of projects that comprise the Export Pipeline Facilities Program. This
$207 million program will expand LA VWMA wet weather disposal capacity ftom 21 mgd to
41.2 mgd through rehabilitation of the existing LA VWMA export pipeline, installation of a new
pipeline and construction of a new 41.2 mgd pumping station. The pump station will be located
at the existing LA VWMA site near the intersection ofI-580 and 1-680. The new export pipeline
will extend west ftom the pumping station, over the Dublin Grade, through Castro Valley and
San Leandro, to a connection with the existing pipeline at the foot of Lewelling Boulevard.
Storm Drainage
The East County Government Center site lies within Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). The existing storm drainage system available
to serve the site is maintained and operated by Zone 7. The stOrm drain system is part of Zone
7's G-5 line. Within the vicinity of the site, this system has three components:
· Surface runoff ftom the site collects in an existing detention basin located on site along
the west property boundary at Arnold Road. The detention basin drains into triple 36-inch
diameter reinforced concrete pipes under Arnold Road, discharging into the Arnold Road
channel.
· There is also an existing 48-inch-diameter reinforced concrete pipe that conveys stonn
water ftom the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center along Broder Boulevard, and emptying
into the detention basin. This system conveys an estimated peak flow rate of75 cubic feet
per second (cfs) from the existing jail facility.
· Additionally, an existing 30-inch storm drain line is located within Gleason Drive, which
connects to the Arnold Road channel.
Drainage fÌ"om this area then flows southerly along Arnold Road and leaves the area through two
drainage courses: Tassajara Creek (designated Line K by Zone 7), and via a culvert under 1-580
about 2,000 feet east of Tassajara Road (designated Line G-3 by Zone7). Tassajara Creek drains
to the Arroyo Mocho, which then drains to the Arroyo de la Laguna. Alameda Creek receives
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-13
Chapter 14: Utilities
flows from the Arroyo de la Laguna, and flows in a westerly direction through Niles Canyon
until it ultimately discharges to San Francisco Bay.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate that
flooding during a 100-year stonn will occur primarily along Tassajara Creek. The flooded areas
would include an approximately 200- foot width along more than half of the length of Tassaj ara
Creek in the general vicinity of the site, and a wide area just north of where Tassajara Creek
flows under 1-580, which covers portions of the old Santa Rita jail facilities. The main reason for
flooding along Tassajara Creek is inadequate culvert flow capacity where the creek crosses
1-580. Currently, Alameda County is studying the flooding problems at these culverts.
Zone 7 has identified major channels in general vicinity of this site that it would like to improve.
These improvements are based in part on channel improvements Zone 7 has identified in through
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1998).
Electricity and Gas
Historically, the major natural gas and electrical service provider to the City of Dublin has been
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). However, in 1996, the California legislature
deregulated energy, establishing a competitive market system for the supply of gas and electrical
power. Although PG&E still owns the gas and electrical system infrastructure and provides much
of the energy service to the City of Dublin, under the present system other companies are free to
compete for and provide energy to residences and business in the Dublin area.
There are two existing electrical systems available to serve the site. One is maintained and
operated by PG&E and Alameda County maintains the other. PG&E's infrastructure at the site
includes an existing 6-inch electrical line along Arnold Road adjacent to the site. There are a
total of three PG&E boxes along the Arnold Road electrical line. Also, a system ofPG&E
electric lines runs along Gleason Drive within a joint trench.
The electrical system maintained and operated by the County is a 21-kilovolt (kV) line with a
utility vault located off Madigan Avenue. If the County were to use this 21 kV line to serve the
site there would not be any PG&E fees associated with the connection. An easement across the
existing parcel to access the vault would be required to use this line.
PG&E has recently proposed new Tri- Valley transmission facilities to increase local electrical
energy supply in the Pleasanton, North Livermore, and Dublin/San Ramon areas. An
Environmental Impact Report, the Tri-Valley 2002 Increase Project (SCH#2000042087) (Aspen
EnvironmentallUrban Alternatives, 2001), has been released by the California Public Utilities
Commission.· That project includes a number of new and upgraded electrical substations and
construction of230 kv overhead transmission lines within the Tri-Valley area to increase the
long-tenn supply of electricity within the area.
Telecommunications
Pacific Bell and other local telephone companies provide local telephone service in the City of
Dublin. Pacific Bell, Sprint and other finns installed a joint trench in the Dublin Boulevard right-
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
of-way to accommodate underground phone, fiber-optic and cable services. Telecommunications
companies have also installed equipment in the Eastern Dublin area, and as the area develops,
the City expects more installation of telephone. fiber-optic and cable service equipment.
In addition, Alameda County also operates telephone system inrrastructure in Dublin. This
system. known as Alconet (Alameda County Network) includes various external source
providers. private telephone and data networks. The Alconet microwave relay distribution
equipment is located at the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center just north of this site.
Site 15A
Site 15A is located immediately south of the proposed East County Government Center site,
closer to 1-580. This site is also an Alameda County-owned property within the City of Dublin's
city limits.
Domestic Water Supply
Water Supply
Site 15A is located within the Zone 7 and DSRSD water supply service area. Existing water
supply information as presented above for the East County Government Center site is similarly,
applicable. Water supply assumptions for Site 15A are included within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and used by Zone 7 for estimating water demand. These estimates have assumed
development of Site 15A for as much as 375 units of High-Density Residential use (15 acres x
25 dwelling units per acre).
Water Distribution
Retail water service. including water distribution to this site, would be provided by DSRSD as
generally described above for the East County Government Center site. The existing DSRSD
water mains available to serve this site include 8-inch and 10-inch water mains located within
Dublin Boulevard. Arnold Road, Central Parkway and Hacienda Drive.
Reclaimed Water
DSRSD's reclaimed water distribution infrastructure is currently available to serve this site. as
more fully described above under the East County Government Center site.
Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal
Sewer Collection
Sewer collection services to this site would be provided by DSRSD as generally described above
for the East County Government Center site. Existing wastewater inrrastructure at this site
includes 6-inch and 8-inch mains along Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard, respectively.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-15
Chapter 14: Utilities
Treatment and Disposal
The DSRSD wastewater treatment plant as described above for the East County Government
Center site would also provide wastewater treatment for new development at Site ISA. Similarly,
wastewater disposal services for this site would be provided via LA VWMA as also described
above.
Storm Drainage
Stonn drainage from Site ISA is split between two separate stonn drain systerns, both operated
and maintained by Zone 7. This split occurs at Arnold Road approximately 800 feet north of
Dublin Boulevard at the northwest portion of Site 1SA. Currently, the system is design such that
a portion of storm flows are conveyed directly south in a storm drain pipe under Arnold Road to
I-S80, where it joins three 4S-inch-diameter stonn drain pipes. These pipes convey stonn flows
into Line G-2. The other portion of stonn flows from this area drain into an open channel that
runs southwest diagonally from Arnold Road to Dublin Boulevard. This open channel conveys
stonn flows into a relatively new G-S Line stonn drain system constructed by Alameda County
pursuant to the Santa Rita Drainage Master Plan (Brian Kangas Foulk, 1999). This G-5 Line
then drains to Line G-2 south ofI-S80. Line G-2 drains into the Chabot Channel and then to
Arroyo Mocho in the City of Pleasanton. From Arroyo Mocho, the Zone 7 drainage system
ultimately conveys stonn flows to San Francisco Bay as described above for the East County
Government Center site.
Electricity, Gas and Telecommunications
PG&E and Pacific Bell, as described above for the East County Government Center site, would
generally provide electricity and gas (PG&E) and telecommunications (Pacific Bell) to this site.
14.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Water Supply
Under CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to:
. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or require new or expanded entitlernents.
. Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal
· Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
· Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities of expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant enviromnental
effects.
· Result in a detennination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve
the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitme~ts.
Storm Drainage
Under CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant enviromnental impact if it were to:
· require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities of expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant enviromnental
effects.
Electricity, Gas and Telecommunications
Although there are no specific thresholds of significance presented for gas, electric or
telecommunications service in the CEQA Guidelines, for the purposes of this evaluation a
project would have a significant enviromnental impact ifit were to:
· require or result in the construction of new electric, gas or telecommunications
transmission facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant enviromnental effects.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT 14.1: Availability of Water Supplies to Serve the Project from
Existing Entitlements and Resources
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
Each of the alternatives described below (except "No Action/No Project") would increase the
demand for water supplies, but both EBMUD and DSRSD have demonstrated that this additional
demand is less than significant and can be met given the respective agency's water conservation
measures. The infrastructure required to implement these water conservation measures would be
a required improvement for any new facility constructed and would be part of the overall Project
costs.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-17
Chapter 14: Utilities
PROJECT IMPACTS
14.1.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. The No ActionINo Project alternative would not result in any increased demand
for water supplies, and no mitigation measures are needed.
14.1.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. Construction and operation of a new Juvenile Justice
Facility (juvenile detention center and juvenile courthouses) at this site would increase demand
for water supply from the EBMUD by approximately' 50,000 gallons per day if a 420-bed facility
is built and 62,000 if a 540-bed facility is built.
· The increase from 300 beds at the existing Juvenile Hall to 420 beds at the Juvenile
Justice Facility would increase potable water demand by approximately 12,000 gallons
per day (gpd).4
· The increase from 300 beds at the existing Juvenile Hall to 540 beds at the Juvenile
Justice Facility would increase potable water demand by approximately 24,000 gallons
per day (gpd).
· The additional approximately 85,000 square feet of juvenile courthouse and associated
space would generate an increased potable water demand of approximately 13,000 gpd.5
· Additionally, the exterior irrigation water demand, assuming approximately 8 acres of
irrigated area, is estimated to be approximately 25,000 gallons per day.6
EBMUD projects that the total water demand throughout its service area is expected to grow by
approximately 34 million gallons per day. The increased demand for water (between 50,000 gpd
and 62,000 gpd for a 420-bed to 540-bed facility) under this alternative represents approximately
0.2 percent of this overall demand. Given that EBMUD has indicated that with aggressive
conservation and reclamation it can meet its obligation to serve its current and future customers
in nonnal rainfall years through year 2020, this alternàtive project's contribution toward the
overall water demand is an insignificant component. However, since EBMUD's ability to meet
this demand is predicated on service area-wide implementation of conservation and reclamation,
the following mitigation measures are recommended:
. Mitigation Measure 14.1.2A: Water Conservation. The Juvenile Justice Facility
should be designed to incorporate water conservation strategies such as low-flow
plumbing installed throughout the facility, installation of pressure-reducing valves to
4 Water demand for each bed within the Juvenile Justice Facility is estimated at 100 gallons per bed per day,
derived from water demand factors for jail inmates (DSRSD, September 2000, Table 3-4).
5 Water demand estimates for Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice are estimated at 0.15 gallon
per square foot per day.
6 Exterior irrigation rates assumed at 3,125 gpd/acre (DSRSD, September 2000, Table 3-4).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
maintain a maximum of 50 pounds per square inch (psi) water pressure and drinking
fountains with self-closing valves. On the exterior, drought-tolerant or native plants
should be used for landscaping, lawn and turf areas should be minimized and efficient
irrigation systems (i.e., drip systems) installed to minimize evaporation.
. Mitigation Measure 14.1.28: Reclaimed Water Use. Reclaimed water is not
currently available near this site. However, new irrigation systems should be designed so
that they can be switched over to reclaimed if and when it becomes economically
available.
Resulting Level of Significance: Although this. impact is considered less than significant
due to the availability of water supplies rrom EBMUD to serve this alternative, the
mitigation measures recommended above would serve to further reduce water demand,
consistent with EBMUD and Alameda County policy.
14.1.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Construction and operation of a new Juvenile Justice
Facility (juvenile detention center and juvenile courthouses) at this site would increase demand
for water supply 60,000 gallons per day, but would decrease demand from the existing Juvenile
Hall by 30,000 gallons per day, which would result in a net increase of 30,000 of potable water
within the EBMUD service area.
The 30,000 gallons per day demand for this site represents less than 0.1 percent ofEBMUD's
overall service area demand. Given that EBMUD has indicated that with aggressive conservation
and reclamation it can meet its obligation to serve its current and future customers in nonnal
rainfall years through year 2020, this alternative project's contribution toward the overall water
demand is an insignificant component.
Additionally this site has, until recently (May 2002), been used by Alameda County as an adult
jail facility accommodating as many 600 inmates at one time. A new Juvenile Justice Facility
accommodating 420 juvenile detainees plus associated courthouse space is projected to generate
water demand at a rate relatively comparable to the previous County jail facility. Thus, this new
facility would result in very little or no net increase in water demand over its preceding use.
However, since EBMUD's ability to meet its long-tenn water demand is predicated on service
area-wide irnplementation of conservation and reclamation, the following mitigation measure is
recommended:
. Mitigation Measure 14.1.3: Water Conservation. Mitigation Measure 14.1.2A (see
above) would also apply to this alternative.
Resulting Level of Significance: Although this impact is considered less than significant
due to the availability of water supplies from EBMUD to serve this alternative, the
mitigation measures recommended above would serve to further reduce water demand
consistent with EBMUD and City of Oakland policy.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-19
Chapter 14: Utilities
14.1.4:
Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Construction and operation of a new Juvenile Justice
Facility at this site would increase demand for water supply ftom EBMUD by approximately
36,000 or 48,000 gallons per day, depending on whether a 420- or 540-bed facility is built. The
Oakland Airport parking garage would not generate a demand for potable water supplies.
· Increasing the size of the Juvenile Justice Facility ftom 300 to 420 beds would result in a
net increase of potable water demand of 12,000 gpd within the EBMUD service area.
Locating the 420-bed Juvenile Justice Facility at the Pardee/Swan Site would increase
potable water demand by approximately 42,000 gpd at this site, but would decrease
demand by 30,000 gpd at the existing Juvenile Hall.
· Increasing the size of the Juvenile Justice Facility fÌ'om 300 to 540 beds would result in a
net increase of potable water demand of 24,000 gpd within the EBMUD service area.
Locating the 540-bed Juvenile Justice Facility at the Pardee/Swan Site would increase
potable water demand by approximately 54,000 gpd at this site, but would decrease
demand by 30,000 gpd at the existing Juvenile Hall.
· The additional 85,000 square feet of juvenile courthouse space would generate an
increased potable water demand of approximately 13,000 gpd.
· Additionally, the exterior irrigation water demand, assuming approximately 3.5-acres of
irrigated area, is estimated to be approximately 11,000 gallons per day.
The 420-bed scenario would result in total increase of 36,000 gpd in the EMBUD service area,
whereas the 540-bed scenario would result in a total increase of 48,000 gpd. Both of these
figures represent a less than 0.1 percent increase ofEBMUD's overall projected water demand
throughout its service area. Given that EBMUD has indicated that with aggressive conservation
and reclamation it can meet its obligation to serve its current and future customers in normal
rainfall years through year 2020, this alternative project's contribution toward the overall water
demand is an insignificant component. However, since EBMUD's ability to meet this demand is
predicated on service area-wide implementation of conservation and reclamation, the following
mitigation measures are recommended:
. Mitigation Measure 14.1.4A: Water Conservation. Mitigation Measure 14.1.2A
(see above) would also apply to this alternative.
. Mitigation Measure 14.1.48: Reclaimed Water Use. EBMUD owns and operates
reclaimed water lines in the vicinity of this site, including mains that served (and
presumably will serve in the future) the Galbraith Municipal Golf Course. Alameda
County should coordinate with EBMUD to determine if this site is a potential "target
candidate" for their reclaimed water reuse program.
Resulting Level of Significance: Although this impact is considered less than significant
due to the availability of water supplies from EBMUD to serve this alternative, the
mitigation measures recommended above would serve to further reduce water demand
consistent with EBMUD and City of Oakland policy.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
14.1.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Construction and operation of a new Juvenile Justice
Facility and East County Hall of Justice at this site would increase demand for water supply from
Zone 7 by approximately 109,000 to 121,000 gallons per day.
· The 420-bed Juvenile Justice Facility would increase potable water demand in Zone 7 by
approximately 42,000 gpd and would reduce it by 30,000 gpd in the EBMUD service
area.
· The 540-bed Juvenile Justice Facility would increase potable water demand in Zone 7 by
approximately 54,000 gpd and would reduce it by 30,000 gpd in the EBMUD service,
area.
· The additional 85,000 square feet of Juvenile Justice Facility and associated space would
generate an increase in demand for potable water demand of approximately 13,000 gpd.
· The proposed 195,000 square feet of East County Hall of Justice would generate an
increase in demand for potable water of approximately 29,000 gpd.
· Additionally, the exterior irrigation water demand, assuming approximately 8 acres of
irrigated area, is estimated to be approximately 25,000 gpd.
Based on DSRSD's Final Water Service Analysis/or Eastern Dublin (DSRSD, 2001) DSRSD
has demonstrated that it has secured sufficient water supplies to serve the approximately
4,970,000 gpd potable water demand for all of Eastem Dublin, assuming significant exterior
water demands are met with recycled water. The East County Govenunent Center's 109,000 to
121,000 gpd demand for potable water (for a 420-bed to 540-bed Juvenile Justice Facility) was
included in this total Eastern Dublin potable water demand estimate. Therefore, water supplies
are currently available to serve all potential Project components at this site. Additionally,
demand for potable water would be reduced in the EBMUD service area.
Although water supply is available to serve the potable water demands ofthe East County
Govenunent Center site, the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce water
demand consistent with current regulations:
. Mitigation Measure 14.1.5A: Water Conservation. Mitigation Measure 14.1.2A
(see above), for all the Project components, would apply to this alternative. Additionally,
all landscaping at the facility should comply with DSRSD's Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance to minimize use of irrigation water.
. Mitigation Measure 14.1.58: Recycled Water Use. DSRSD ordinance requires
that recycled water be used for all approved customer categories for all new land uses,
including the East County Govenunent Center site, within the DSRSD potable water
service area. The East County Govenunent Center should be required to install dual water
systems and a recycled water distribution system to serve all outdoor irrigation needs of
this facility.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-21
Chapter 14: Utilities
Resulting Level of Significance: Although this impact is considered less than significant
due to the availability of water supplies from DSRSD to serve this alternative, the
mitigation measures recommended above would serve to further reduce water demand
consistent with DSRSD ordinances and regulations.
14.1.6:
Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Construction and operation of the East County Hall of
Justice at this site would increase demand for water supply from Zone 7 by approximately
42,000 gallons per day.
. The additional 195,000 square feet East County Hall of Justice facility would generate an
increased potable water demand of approximately 29,000 gpd and would reduce it by
30,000 gpd in the EBMUD service area.
. Additionally, the exterior irrigation water dernand, assuming approximately 4 acres of
irrigated area, is estimated to be approximately 13,000 gpd.
Based on DSRSD's Final Water Service Analysisfor Eastern Dublin (DSRSD, 2001) DSRSD
has demonstrated that it has secured sufficient water supplies to serve the approximately
4,970,000 gpd potable water demand for all of Eastem Dublin, assuming significant exterior
water demands are met with recycled water. This amount of water demand was predicated on a
more intense development plan for Site 15A than this alternative. The Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan assumed that this site would be developed with as many as 375 high-density residential
units, generating a demand for approximately 52,000 gpd. The East County Hall of Justice
facility, although generating an increased demand for water supplies, would generate
approximately 10,000 gpd less demand that what has already been planned for, and water supply
acquired by DSRSD. Therefore, water supplies are currently available to serve this project
alternative. Additionally, demand for potable water would be reduced in the EBMUD service
area. Although water supply is available to serve the Site 1SA, the following mitigation measure
is recommended to reduce water demand consistent with current regulations:
. Mitigation Measure 14.1.6A: Water Conservation. Mitigation Measure 14.1.5A
(see above), for all the Project components, would apply to this alternative.
. Mitigation Measure 14.1.69: Recycled Water Use. Mitigation Measures 14.l5B
(see above) would apply.
Resulting Level of Significance: Although this impact is considered less than significant
due to the availability of water supplies from DSRSD to serve this alternative, the
mitigation measures recommended above would serve to further reduce water demand
consistent with DSRSD ordinances and regulations.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
IMPACT 14.2: Need for Expanded Water Distribution Systems to
Adequately Serve the Site
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
Under each of the alternatives described below, any new Alameda County facilities would be
required to install water delivery infrastructure from the point ofthe nearest public infrastructure
system (either EBMUD or DSRSD facilities) into the new facilities. This new connection would
be a required improvement for any new facility constructed, and would be part ofthe overall
Project costs.
PROJECT IMPACTS
14.2.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. The No ActionINo Project alternative would not result in any increase in demand
for water distribution facilities, and no mitigation measures are needed.
14.2.2: Existing San Leandro Property
NO IMPACT. No expansion ofEBMUD facilities would be needed to serve this site. However,
two water distribution lines that currently serve the existing facility would need to be relocated
under the new access road to this site to accommodate new development. A new, short extension
from the existing water line rrom Fainnont Drive would need to be constructed to serve the new
facility. Service to this new facility and to the adjacent Camp Sweeney would not need to cross
the known active fault at this site.
14.2.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMPACT. The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility site is an existing urban building that was
previously used by Alameda County as an adult jail facility. This site is currently served by
EBMUD water distribution infrastructure and no additional improvements to the public water
distribution system are anticipated.
14.2.4:
Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Water distribution pipelines in the vicinity of this site
vary in age and size. Several sites in the immediate area that are designated for industrial and
commercial uses are currently served by 8-inch water mains, and need to be replaced with 12-
and 20-inch mains to provide adequate water pressure and fire flow requirements to
accommodate more intense development. As noted in the Coliseum Redevelopment Plan EIR
(City of Oakland, 1995), "the extent, cost, and location of on- and off-site improvements would
be determined on a case-by-case basis. The cost would be funded either by developers or by
EBMUD as part of routine system upgrades." In either case, a new Juvenile Justice Facility at
this site would be required to pay for these improvements and/or pay EBMUD connection fees to
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-23
Chapter 14: Utilities
cover these costs. As such, local water delivery system impacts are considered to be less than
significant.
14.2.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The East County Government Center alternative is
located within DSRSD's East Dublin service area. DSRSD has prepared a Water Master Plan
(DSRSD, 2000), which identifies the potable water delivery system improvements needed for
buildout ofthe East Dublin area. These improvements, many of which have recently been
constructed, include new turnouts from the Zone 7 Cross Valley Pipeline, three new storage
reservoirs, two new pump stations and additional distribution lines. Since this alternative was,
assumed as part of the buildout of East Dublin, the water distribution infrastructure needed to
serve this site is included in the overall East Dublin system improvements. Both Zone 7 and
DSRSD currently charge treatment and connection fees respectively on new development within
their service areas. Fees are used for construction of planned water system capital improvements
including storage, pumping, transmission and ongoing water system maintenance and
improvements. The East County Government Center would be required to pay these fees as
determined by Zone 7 and DSRSD. As such, local water delivery system impacts are considered
to be less than significant.
At the East County Government Center site itself, the new facilities would connect to the
existing Alameda County private water system loop, either at the 16-inch pipe along Arnold
Road or to the l2-inch pipe along Broder Boulevard. Water connections for fire hydrants would
be to the nearest pipe on Broder, Gleason or Arnold roads.
14.2.6:
Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Site 15A is also located within DSRSD's East Dublin
service area. As described above for the East County Government Center alternative, DSRSD
has identified the potable water delivery system improvements needed for buildout of the East
Dublin area, including development of this site. A new East County Hall of Justice facility at this
site would be required to pay connection fees as determined by Zone 7 and DSRSD to pay for its
share of these needed water distribution system improvements. As such, local water delivery
system impacts are considered to be less than significant.
IMPACT 14.3: Need for Additional or Expanded Wastewater Treatment
and or Disposal Facilities to Provide Adequate Service
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
If new infrastructure is required to upgrade the wastewater treatment or disposal facilities to
provide adequate service, the improvements would be part of the overall Project costs.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
PROJECT IMPACTS
14.3.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. The No ActionINo Project alternative would not result in any increase in demand
for wastewater treatment or disposal facilities, and no mitigation measures are needed.
14.3.2: Existing San Leandro Property
LESS THAN SIGNFICANT IMPACT. Operation of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at this site
could place increase in demand for wastewater treatment and/or disposal of 22,500 gpd for the
420-bed facility or 33,300 gpd for 540-bed facility. This would be less than significant impact of
this alternative.
· The increase from 300 beds at the existing Juvenile Hall to 420 beds at the new Juvenile
Justice Facility would increase demand for wastewater treatment and/or disposal potable
water demand approximately 10,800 gallons per day (gpd).7
· The increase from 300 beds at the existing Juvenile Hall to 540 beds at the new Juvenile
Justice Facility would increase demand for wastewater treatment and/or disposal potable
water demand by approximately 21,600 gallons per day (gpd).
· The additional 85,000 square feet of juvenile courthouse space would generate an
increase demand for wastewater treatment and/or disposal potable water demand by
approximately 11,700 gallons per day (gpd).
The OLSD currently has 5 million gpd of excess dry weather capacity. The proposed 420-bed or
540-bed facility would reduce the excess capacity of OLSD treatment plant by less than 5
percent and 7 percent, respectively. These estimates are for dry weather only, and do not account
for peak inputs to the system during wet weather, peak usage, or for other potential growth in the
service area. Given these constraints, the following mitigation measure is recommended:
. Mitigation Measure 14.3.2: Agreement Compliance and Preparation of
Analyses. Pursuant to development of new County facilities at this site, Alameda
County shall comply with the requirements of the agreement between Oro Lorna Sanitary
District and Alameda County dated December 19, 2001, Resolution No. 3110. According
to this agreement, the County shall, at its cost, provide capacity analysis of the affected
sanitary sewer system and provide alternative solutions if capacity deficiencies exist. If
up sizing the system is required, the applicant shall construct the required improvements
as part of the development.
Resulting Level afSignificance: This would further reduce the Project's impact to a level
of less than significant.
7 Wastewater generation is estimated as 90 percent of the potable water demand (excluding the demand for exterior
irrigation) as discussed in Impact 14.1.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-25
Chapter 14: Utilities
14.3.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. This alternative would generate approximately 27,000
gpd of wastewater needing treatment and disposal. This would be well within EBMUD capacity
constraints and would not substantially limit other development in the service area. Additionally
this site has, until recently (May 2002), been used by Alameda County as an adult jail facility
accommodating as many 600 inmates at one time. A new Juvenile Justice Facility would be
projected to generate less wastewater needing treatment and disposal than the previous County
jail facility. This new facility would result in no net increase in wastewater treatment and
disposal demand over its preceding use, and would thus be a less than significant impact.
14.3.4:
Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. This alternative would generate between 22,500 gpd
and 33,000 gpd, for a project of between 420 beds and 540 beds, of wastewater needing
treatment and disposal. This would be well within EBMUD capacity constraints and would not
substantially limit other development in the service area, and would thus be a less than
significant impact.
14.3.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. The East County Government Center would
incrementally increase system-wide demand for wastewater treatment and disposal. However,
future development of this site has been anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
DSRSD's long-tenn service plans and existing and planned wastewater treatment facilities at the
Wastewater Treatment Plant can accommodate the wastewater increase attributed to this
alternative. Similarly, completion of the larger LA VWMA wastewater disposal pipe from the
DSRSD Wastewater Treatment Plant to the EBDA's outfall pipe to San Francisco Bay would be
adequate to accommodate increased wastewater flows from this alternative. Therefore, treatment
and disposal of increased wastewater flows associated with this alternative would be less than
significant. DSRSD currently charges wastewater connection and other fees on all new
development within the Districfs service area. Fees are used for construction of planned
wastewater treatment and disposal system capital improvements, as well as ongoing wastewater
system maintenance.
14.3.6:
Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Similar to the above East County Government Center
site, future development of Site 15A (at intensities greater than would occur under this
alternative) has been anticipated in DSRSD's long-tenn service plans. Existing and planned
wastewater treatment facilities at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and completion of the larger
LA VWMA wastewater disposal pipe from the DSRSD Wastewater Treatment Plant to the
EBDA's outfall pipe to San Francisco Bay would be adequate to accommodate increased
wastewater flows from this alternative. Therefore, treatment and disposal of increased
wastewater flows associated with this alternative would be less than significant. DSRSD
wastewater connection and other fees on development of this alternative would be used for
construction of planned wastewater treatment and disposal system capital improvements, as well
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
as ongoing wastewater system maintenance, and this alternative would have a less than
significant impact on these infrastructure systems.
IMPACT 14.4: Need for Additional or Expanded Wastewater Collection
Facilities to Provide Adequate Service
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
Under each of the alternatives described below, any new Alameda County facilities would be
required to install on-site wastewater collection infraStructure from the point of the nearest public
infrastructure system (either Oro Lorna, City of Oakland, EBMUD or DSRSD pipelines) into the
new facilities. This new connection would be a required improvement for any new facility
constructed, and would be part ofthe overall Project costs.
Additionally, for any of the alternatives that include a new Juvenile Justice Facility with juvenile
detention, the facility's wastewater collection system would be designed to connect to the public
infrastructure without providing undue capacity constraints on the system. This would be
achieved by connecting all juvenile detention "pods" to a central plant with a grinder and purnp.
A pump station may then be required to lift wastewater from the grinder to its discharge point
into the public wastewater collection pipes.
PROJECT IMPACTS
14.4.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. The No ActionINo Project alternative would not result in any increase in demand
for wastewater collection infrastructure, and no mitigation measures are needed.
14.4.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALL Y SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The existing sanitary sewer line
that serves the current facility would need to be relocated to serve this alternative. New sewer
service for this site would exit from the new facility at the lower, southern end. A new sewer line
would be constructed under the main access road, where it would eventually join the existing 10-
inch service line running easterly. This new sewer service line would need to cross the known
active fault line, and therefore the following mitigation measure is recommended:
. Mitigation Measure 14.4.2: Special Pipe Design. A flexible sewer pipe connection
with shut-off valves should be included in the sewer line design where it crosses the
known active fault.
Resulting Level of Significance: Installation of the special pipe design requirements
described above would reduce potential environmental consequences associated with
construction of new sewer lines to a less than significant level.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-27
Chapter 14: Utilities
14.4.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMP ACT. The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is an existing urban building that was
previously used by Alameda County as an adult jail facility. This site is currently served by City
of Oakland and EBMUD wastewater collection and transmission infrastructure, and no
additional improvements to the public water distribution system are anticipated.
14.4.4: Pardee/Swan Site
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Wastewater generated from this
site may contribute to exceeding the allocated capacity of the sewer system subbasin serving this
area. The following mitigation measures are recommended to address this impact: '
. Mitigation Measure 14.4.4A: Sewer Line Replacement and Rehabilitation.
Development ofthis alternative should include replacement or rehabilitation of older and
damaged portions of the existing sanitary sewer collection system to prevent an increase
in inflow and infiltration and overload from new wastewater flows.
. Mitigation Measure 14.4.48: Subbasin Flows. A new Juvenile Justice Facility at
this site should be programmed into the City of Oakland's Inflow and Infiltration
Correction Program to ensure that increased flows do not exceed allowable flows and so
that capacity increases can be made as appropriate.
Resulting Level of Significance: With implementation of mitigation measures identified
above, potential impacts to the City's sewer collection system can be reduced to levels of
less than significant.
Wastewater from this portion of the City is discharged from the City collection lines into the
EBMUD Pump Station G. This pump station is currently operating at full capacity and needs to
be upgraded by installing larger pumps, motor, piping and electrical components so that
additional sewer flows can be accommodated. EBMUD collects sewer connection fees to pay for
needed improvements to its wastewater collection, treatment and disposal system. Payment of
these fees for this alternative would provide fair-share mitigation for the identified needed pump
station improvements, and the impact on EBMUD transmission facilities would therefore be
considered less than significant.
14.4.5: East County Government Center
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The existing sanitary sewer system owned and operated
by DSRSD has been designed and constructed with sufficient capacity to accommodate the
wastewater flows from this alternative. The capacity ofthe existing DSRSD wastewater
collection system and the future capacity requirements of the system were detennined by the
DSRSD through hydraulic modeling. The modeled sewer network primarily includes sewers 10
inches in diameter and larger, referred to as the trunk: sewer system. Model simulations were
conducted for various flow scenarios to identify capacity deficiencies in the existing system
under existing and 20-year future flow conditions (20-year future flow conditions included
buildout of the East Dublin area including the East County Government Center site). The model
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
identified a need for eight capital improvement projects needed to provide additional trunk sewer
system hydraulic capacity in the DSRSD wastewater collection systern. However, none of the
trunk sewer lines that would serve this site were identified as deficient by the model.
DSRSD currently charges wastewater connection and other fees on all new development within
the District's service area. Fees are used for construction of planned wastewater treatment and
collection system capital improvements as well as ongoing wastewater system maintenance. The
East County Government Center would be required to pay these fees as detennined by DSRSD.
As such, local water delivery system impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Local connections to the DSRSD system from the East County Government Center site would
likely occur at three different points to adequately serve the site.
· A sewer line connecting the grinding and pump plant for the Juvenile Justice Facility
center would connect to the IO-inch sewer line on Gleason Drive.
· A new 10-inch sewer line to serve the East County Hall of Justice would also connect to
the IO-inch sewer line on Gleason Drive near Arnold Road.
· A new 8-inch sewer line may also be constructed along Broder Boulevard and connected
to the existing IS-inch sewer pipe at the intersection of Arnold Road and Broder
Boulevard. This new sewer line would provide gravity sewer connected to the proposed
gymnasium, kitchen, warehouse and storage spaces.
Provision of these facilities would result in a less than significant impact.
14.4.6:
Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The existing sanitary sewer system owned and operated
by DSRSD has been designed (using hydraulic modeling as described above) and constructed
with sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated wastewater flows fÌ'om a more intense,
high-density residential development at this site. Construction of an East County Hall of Justice
facility at this site would place less capacity burden on the DSRSD sewer collection system than
the residential development assumed for this site. Since none ofthe trunk sewer lines that would
serve this site have previously been identified as deficient, this alternative would not cause a
significant impact on sewer collection facilities. A new East County Hall of Justice facility at this
site would be required to pay sewer connection fees as detennined by DSRSD to pay for its share
of sewer system improvements. As such, local sewer collection system impacts are considered to
be less than significant.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-29
Chapter 14: Utilities
IMPACT 14.5: Need for Additional Facilities to Provide Adequate Storm
Drainage Services
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
If a new a stonn drainage would be needed to ensure adequate services, this new infrastructure
would be a required improvement for any new facility constructed, and would be part of the
overall Project costs.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
14.5.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMP ACT. The No ActionINo Project alternative would not result in any increase in demand
for stonn drain infrastructure, and no mitigation measures are needed.
14.5.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. The Existing San Leandro
Property site is prirnarily undeveloped such that stormwater percolates into the ground,
minimizing runoff. Although a new Juvenile Justice Facility constructed at this site would
increase impervious surface, the facility would be located in a central portion of the site and
surrounded by pervious open spaces and landscaping. The surrounding open space would enable
the new impervious surfaces associated with this facility to be offset by the surrounding pervious
surfaces wherein stonn water can be absorbed. Additionally, upon completion ofthe new
facilities the existing Juvenile Hall including parking lots would be tom down, creating
additional new pervious surface areas near this site. These factors would ensure that the
impervious surface areas created by the new facilities would not place a significant burden on the
existing stonn water drainage system.
Storm drainage for the new facility would involve collecting surface runoff from the site in a
new system of storm drain pipes at the lower (west) side of the site, and discharging this runoff
into the existing wetland. Increased flows from this site could adversely affect the capacity of
downstream storm drain facilities, and could also adversely affect the wetland. The following
mitigation measure is recommended:
. Mitigation Measure 14.5.2: Storm Drainage Design Considerations. The
design of the storm drain system should allow for the retention of runoff within the
wetland in order to achieve as little change to the current runoff rate as possible.
Additionally, energy dissipaters should be installed at the new storm drain outfall into the
wetland, similar to the existing outfall system.
Resulting Level of Significance: Installation of energy dissipaters and retention of
additional storm runoff within the wetland as described above would reduce potential
environmental consequences associated with construction of a new stonn drain system
for this site to a less than significant level.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
14.5.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMP ACT. The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility site is an existing urbanized property with no
current stonnwater recharge. All runoff from this site is currently collected in the City stonn
drains. Construction of a replacement structure (a new Juvenile Justice Facility) at this site would
not result in an increase in stonnwater flows leaving the site and there would be no
environmental effect.
14.5.4:
Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The Pardee/Swan Site is located within the City of
Oakland Coliseum Redevelopment Area. According to the Coliseum Land Use Suitability Study
(City of Oakland, 1993) potential increases in stonnwater runoff would not increase potential
flood hazards nor pose a constraint to the development of new uses in the area. Existing stonn
drainage facilities can accommodate the negligible increase in runoff attributable to development
of vacant sites within the Coliseum Redevelopment Area (such as the Pardee/Swan Site). As
required by the City of Oakland, new development projects are required to include on- and off-
site stonn drainage facilities such as catch basin and pipes to convey runoff into City stonn
drains. The construction of these facilities would ensure that the collection of stonn water flows
generated at the site would be conveyed to appropriate municipal stonn drains. Therefore, this
impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
14.5.5: East County Government Center
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The existing stonn drainpipe
south of the site along Gleason Drive is designed to serve the site in its current undeveloped
condition. Due to the large impervious surface area associated with the East County Government
Center, the stonn drainage runoff coefficient following development may be greater than the
existing pipe's design intent, and the existing pipe would not be able to convey all stonn water
from the developed site.
Alameda County is currently involved in a separate project that includes construction of a new
bypass stonn drain system to reduce runoff into the on-site <ktention basin. Ifthe bypass stonn
system improvement is completed prior to construction ofthe East County Government Center,
the existing stonn drain pipe along Gleason Drive would carry approximately 210 cubic feet per
second (cis) of flow (Brian Kangas Foulk, 1997, cited by Luk and Associates, 2002). If the
bypass stonn system improvement is not completed prior to construction of the East County
Government Center, an additional 295 cfs would flow into the detention basin through the
existing Gleason Drive pipe, exceeding its designed capacity. This would be regarded as a
potentially significant environmental impact.
. Mitigation Measure 14.5.5: Timely Completion of Bypass System. Adequate
stonn drainage capacity is contingent upon concurrent construction of the County's
bypass system. If the bypass system is not completed in time to service the proposed
development at the site, additional off-site stonn drainage improvements will be required.
to provide adequate stonn drainage improvements per the interim condition. These
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-31
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EISIEIR
Page 14-32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
alternative improvements may include a new detention basin north ofthe site to detain
the 295 cfs of stonn water runoff.
Resulting Level of Significance: Timely completion of the bypass system, or alternative
interim stonn drain system improvements described above would prevent stonn water
capacity problems at the site, reducing this impact to a less than significant level.
14.5.6:
Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Development of Site 15A with a new East County Hall
of Justice facility would increase impervious surfaces from this now vacant site, increasing ,
stonnwater runoff. Runoff from this site enters into Zone 7's Line G-5 drainage facility, and
would cause a slight increase in peak flows within Line G-5 during major stonns and high flows.
Zone 7 has completed a Special Drainage Area 7-1 Program Update (Schaaf & Wheeler, 2000),
which has considered the increase of peak flood flows in all stonn drain channels within its
system. Zone 7 is in the process of establishing new fees pursuant to this report to cover the costs
of stonn drain channel improvements as identified in this report. New development at this site
would contribute fees to Zone 7, thereby paying its fair share of the costs of adequate regional
drainage and flood control facilities. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than
significant.
IMPACT 14.6: Increased Demand for Electrical, Gas and
T elecommu n ication Services
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
The US Green Building Council has developed a Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. It is a voluntary, consensus-based and market
driven building rating system based on existing proven technology. The program provides for an
evaluation of environmental perfonnance from a "whole building" perspective over a building's
life cycle, providing a definitive standard for what constitutes a "green building." LEED is based
on accepted energy and environmental principles, and is intended to strike a balance between
known effective practices and emerging concepts. LEED is a self-assessing system designed for
rating new and existing commercial, institutional and high-rise residential buildings. It is a
feature-oriented system where credits are earned for satisfying each criteria and where different
levels of green building certification are awarded based on the total credits earned. Some of the
design and building practices incorporated into the LEED program to significantly reduce or
eliminate the negative impacts of new buildings on the environment include:
· safeguarding water and water efficiency;
· energy efficiency and conservation of materials and resources; and
· indoor environmental quality, including daylight penetration and individual thennal
comfort and control.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
It is the intention of Alameda County to design, construct and operate its new facilities (i.e., the
Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice) under this program in such a manner as
to achieve a Silver Certificate, an ambitious green building level per the LEED rating system.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
14.6.1: No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. The No Action/No Project alternative would not result in any increase in demand
for electrical, gas or telecommunication infrastructure, and no mitigation measures are needed.
14.6.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALL Y SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. Existing electrical service is
available to serve the new facility, as is an existing gas line. However, construction of the new
facility would require relocation of the existing gas line in order to accommodate new
development. The required alignment for this gas line relocation would cross the known active
fault. The following mitigation measure is therefore recommended to address this issue:
. Mitigation Measure 14.6.2A: Special Gas Pipe Design. A flexible gas pipe
connection with shut-off valves should be included in the design of the relocated gas line
where it crosses the known active fault.
Resulting Level of Significance: Installation of the relocated gas pipe's special design
requirements described above would reduce potential envirorunental consequences
associated with construction of this new gas lines to a less than significant level.
Although electrical services are available to serve this site, the following mitigation measure is
recommended to reduce overall energy demand for this alternative:
. Mitigation Measure 14.6.28: Energy Conservation. The County of Alameda
should consider the potential for fulfilling some portion of its energy needs through the
use of on-site solar panels and/or steam energy.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce
potential envirorunental consequences associated with construction of this new gas lines
to a less than significant level.
14.6.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
NO IMPACT. A new Juvenile Justice Facility at this site would not increase the demand for
electrical, gas and telecommunications service in the area over the demand levels of this site's
prior use. Supply lines and capacity for these services already exist to serve future governmental
facilities in this area.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-33
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
14.6.4: Pardee/Swan Site
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. A new Juvenile Justice Facility at this site would
increase the demand for electrical, gas and teleconununications service in the area. Although
development would increase demand for services during construction and operation, the supply
lines and capacity for these services already exist to serve future governmental facilities in this
area.
Although electrical services are available to serve this site, the following mitigation measure is
recommended to reduce overall energy demand for this alternative:
. Mitigation Measure 14.6.4: Energy Conservation. Mitigation Measure 14.6.2B
(see above) would also apply to this alternative.
14.6.5: East County Government Center
NO IMPACT. A new East County Government Center would increase the demand for electrical,
gas and telecommunications service in the area. Although development would increase demand
for services during construction and operation, the supply lines and capacity for these services
already exist to serve future governmental facilities in this area.
Natural gas connections to this site would be provided by PG&E up to the meter. PG&E or the
County would provide electrical connections. If electrical connections were to be provided by the
County, they would be derived from the existing 21-kv line at a utility vault near Madigan
Avenue. Prior to constructing such a connection, the County would need to verify the adequacy
of the existing system to serve this site, and to confinn that access to the system is secured. If
not, electrical connections would be provided by PG&E. Telecommunications infrastructure
would be designed to confonn to the County's Alconet system. The new system would be
connected to the County system at the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center.
Although electrical services are available to serve this site, the following mitigation measure is
recommended to reduce overall energy demand for this alternative:
. Mitigation Measure 14.6.5: Energy Conservation. Mitigation Measure 14.6.2B
would also apply to this alternative.
14.6.6:
Site 15A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACT. A new East County Hall of Justice facility would
increase the demand for electrical, gas and telecommunications service in the area. Although
development would increase demand for services during construction and operation, the supply
lines and capacity for these services already exist to serve future governmental facilities in this
area.
Although electrical services are available to serve this site, the following mitigation measure is
recommended to reduce overall energy demand for this alternative:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
. Mitigation Measure 14.6.6: Energy Conservation. Mitigation Measure 14.6.2B
would also apply to this alternative.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-35
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 14-36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 14: Utilities
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
15
Historic/Archaeological Resources
15.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
INTRODUCTION
Cultural resources represent the social, economic, physical and political history of an area. They
play an important role in defining the unique characteristics of an area and build a bridge of
understanding between the present and the past. A cultural resource may take one of several
forms including: a structure such as a building or bridge; a group of buildings such as an historic
commercial district or fann; a transportation corridor; a natural feature such as a grove of trees or
a rock outcropping; a site on which an important structure once stood or an important event
occurred; or a site containing important archaeological or paleontological artifacts. A structure or
site rnay be a cultural resource because of its physical attributes or because of its connection with
a person or event that is important to the history of the area. Some cultural resources reveal past
ways of life that might otherwise be forgotten. Others serve as a reminder that some activities
that occur today have a long and continuously evolving pattern of activity in the area.
This chapter discusses the potential impacts ofthe Project on the cultural resources of the
alternative sites being considered. It also discusses the potential impact on cultural resources of
the No Action/No Project alternative.
The chapter is structured as follows: it provides an overview of cultural resources of Alameda
County; discusses the applicable laws and regulations governing cultural resource management;
and provides a brief outline of the methods and sources used to assess the cultural resources that
may exist on each ofthe alternative sites. This introductory information is followed by site-
specific background information, which includes a brief description of each site's history and a
summary of the cultural resources that are known to exist on it. The final section discusses the
impacts of the Project on cultural resources and proposes mitigations to reduce potentially
significant irnpacts.
OVERVIEW OF CULTURAL RESOURCES IN ALAMEDA COUNTY
This discussion will focus on three periods in Alameda County history: Native American,
Hispanic and American. The discussion is based on material from Basin Research Associates
(2001).
Native American Period
Alameda County was home to the Costanoan people, who occupied the central California coast
as far east as the Diablo Range. The Costanoans occupied specific territories generally defined
;~.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-1
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
by physiographic features. Each territory normally supported approximately 200 individuals,
although tribelets ranged in size fÌ'om 50 to 500 people. The Costanoans followed a seasonal
hunting and gathering round and moved fÌ'om their respective permanent village to temporary
camps at scattered locations in the tribelet's territory. They relied on a variety of structures-
domed, thatched houses, sweathouses or temescals, dance houses! and storage structures.
Their technology included the bow and arrow and numerous woven items such as baskets, fish
nets, mats, cradles, balsas (boats), traps and snares. They utilized natural fibers and materials
including Tule, milkweed and strips of animal skins. Stone tools were fashioned from
sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, including imported obsidian. Cinnabar and hematite were
used as pigments. Bone, wood and shell were used for both utilitarian and decorative items.
The aboriginal way of life apparently disappeared by 1810 due to its disruption by Euro-
American diseases, a declining birth rate and the impact of the mission system. For the most part,
the former hunters and gatherers were transformed into agricultural laborers and worked with
former neighboring groups such as the Esselen, Yokuts and Miwok. After secularization of the
missions between 1834 and 1836, some Native Americans returned to traditional religious and
subsistence practices while others labored on Mexican ranchos. Multietlmic Indian communities
grew up in and around Costanoan territory and provided informant testimony to etlmologists
fÌ'om 1878 to 1933. Former mission neophytes formed multi tribal Indian communities in
Pleasanton and other locales.
The general alignment of Interstate 1-580 conforms to the location of a major prehistoric trail
linking the interior with the San Francisco Bay. The Costanoans are known to have supplied
mussels, abalone shells, dried abalone meat and salt to the Yokuts and Olivella shells to the
Sierra Miwok. In turn, as part of the aboriginal trade network, the Costanoans received piñon
(pine) nuts.
Hispanic Period
Spanish explorers in the late 1760s and 1770s were the first Europeans to traverse the San
Francisco Peninsula and interior areas. The first party, that of Gaspar de Portola and Father Juan
Crespi, traveled up the coast in search of Monterey Bay, which they had failed to recognize fÌ'om
others' descriptions. In the fall of 1769, this party first sighted San Francisco Bay from a ridge
on the Peninsula. The second Hispanic exploration party, that of Fernando Javier Rivera and
Father Francisco Palou, reached the San Francisco Peninsula in late 1774. The same route was
followed by Heceta in 1775.
After an initial period of exploration (1769-1821), the Spanish focused on the founding of
presidios, missions and secular towns on the land held by the Crown whereas during the later
Mexican period (1822-1848), individual land ownership became important. Mission San
Francisco de Asis, known as Mission Dolores in present-day San Francisco, was established in
Dance enclosures were circular or oval fence-like structures with a door and an opposing opening in the rear and
were usually located in the village proper.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
1776. It was the sixth mission established in California. Mission Santa Clara and Pueblo de San
Jose2 were founded in 1777. Mission San Jose, in the present-day City of Fremont, was
established in 1797, the 14th of21 missions established in California. Baptismal records indicate
Mission San Jose had the greatest impact on the aboriginal population living in the Project area,
followed by Mission San Francisco.
American Period
In the mid-19th century, most of the rancho and pueblo lands in California were subdivided as
the result of population growth, the American takeover and the confinnation of property titles
throughout California. Prior to the confinnation of titles, the transfer of real estate was extremely
risky. The initial explosion in population was associated with the Gold Rush (1848), followed
later by the construction of the transcontinental railroad (which was begun in 1869 and
completed in 1873). The agricultural land use pattern begun in the Hispanic Period and
reinforced in the American Period continued through World War II. Rapid population growth
after World War II created tremendous pressure to urbanize West County, resulting in the loss of
much of the County's most productive cropland. Rapid urban growth has occurred more recently
in East County.
City of San Leandro
Most of modem-day San Leandro was contained within the vast cattle ranches oflgnacio Peralta
(north of San Leandro Creek) and Don Jose Joaquin Estudillo (south of San Leandro Creek). The
ranches gave way to farms as settlers, squatters and "4gers" arrived in the early 1850s. The town
of San Leandro was laid out in 1855 and became the seat of Alameda County in 1856. The
original town plan established a grid of streets, with sites set aside for prominent buildings such
as the County Courthouse and City Hall.
After a catastrophic earthquake destroyed the Courthouse in 1868 and the transcontinental
railroad reached Oakland in 1869, the county seat was relocated :ITom San Leandro to Oakland.
However, San Leandro continued to prosper as a small agricultural town well into the 1940s.
The 1940s and 1950s were a time oftransfonnation for San Leandro. A development boorn,
initially created by the need for wartime housing and then sustained by returning veterans and
their families, brought a 350 percent increase in the City's population in just 20 years. Much of
San Leandro's current fonn and character was defined during this era and nearly half the City's
current housing stock was added.
The City's pace of growth slowed in the 1960s as the City reached its natural limits and
development focused on in-fill sites within the City's boundaries. By the 1980s, as the Bay
Area's economic base shifted from manufacturing to services and technology, many traditional
industries left San Leandro. Families who moved to San Leandro in the 1940s and 1950s
matured, and the City's younger people moved out. The percentage of senior citizens in the City
2
One of the secular towns founded to administer and coordinate the missions and presidios of Alta California.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-3
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
increased from 6 percent in 1960 to 20 percent in 1990, giving San Leandro the highest median
age in Alameda County.
City of Oakland
The City of Oakland also lies within the rancho of Luis Maria Peralta, who in 1842 split his
rancho amongst his four sons (including Ignacio). A small settlement and embarcadero were
established along the east side ofa slough now occupied by lower 14th Avenue to serve the
rancho and import provisions.
The Gold Rush brought settlers to Oakland, including notorious squatters who sold some of
Vicente Peralta's (another of Luis Maria's sons) land ·to other squatters. This settlement was
incorporated in 1852 as the City of Oakland. The City's name is derived from "EI Encinal (oak
grove) de Temescal," which referred to a vast forest of oaks extending from what is now Lake
Merritt to San Francisco Bay. The settlement was located around the foot of Broadway.
Commercial and industrial development were centered near the wharves.
In 1863, the San Francisco and Oakland Railroad was in operation along Railroad Avenue (now
7th Street), extending from the deep-water ferry service at Oakland Point (west of Mandel a
Parkway) to Broadway. When Central Pacific (later Southern Pacific) selected Oakland as the
land tenninus of the first transcontinental railroad in 1869, it stirnulated a development boom.
The railroad company located major service yards at Oakland Point and created a demand for
housing by railroad employees. In 1873, the county seat was relocated to Oakland. Starting in
about 1875, large tracts ofItalianate Victorian houses were constructed. Many of these houses
still survive and are Oakland's largest and most solid concentration of Victorians. They were
home to railroad employees, including significant numbers of African-American sleeping car
porters, and commuters ftom San Francisco. The downtown area continued to grow, and the City
expanded in the flatlands to the west, in East Oakland, in Fruitvale, and along Telegraph and San
Pablo avenues. By the late 1870s, the present-day Chinatown was well established.
In the vicinity of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility site, Sanborn Maps indicate that early in
Oakland's history the Project area was a mix of commercial and residential uses. The 1889 map
shows Jefferson Square Park at its current location. The adjacent block between Jefferson, Clay,
6th and 7th streets (the block on which the 10-story addition will be constructed and current
location of the detention facility) was densely developed with single-family dwellings including
row houses. At the northeast comer, there was a single small shop, the only commercial building
on the block. In contrast, that same year, the block between Clay, Washington, 6th and 7th
streets (current location of the Oakland/Piedmont Municipal Court) shows single-family
dwellings as well as commercial buildings such as a Salvation Army Store, gun shop, photo
gallery, large nursery, locksmith, the Eureka Hotel and a steam dye works.
The 1902 Sanborn Map indicates there were few changes to those buildings in the intervening
years. The block between Jefferson and Clay streets was still primarily residential, although two
of the buildings had been replaced with the Black Hawk Livery. The largest commercial
enterprises on the block between Clay and Washington streets, the Eureka Hotel and a nursery,
remained. The greatest change on that block was the demolition of a house and several shops on
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15·4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
the northeast comer and the construction of a "Coal Yard."
The next major boom for Oakland occurred after the 1906 earthquake, and transfonned Oakland
from a large town to a true city with a downtown focus at 14th and Broadway. The first several
years of the post-earthquake boom resulted in almost total development of North Oakland, the
previously unbuilt residential sections of West Oakland and parts of East Oakland, which were
developed with Colonial Revival and shingled or stuccoed Arts and Crafts houses. Several dozen
of the latter were designed by the well-known Oakland-born architect Julia Morgan (City of
Oakland Historic Preservation Element, 1998). Much of present-day downtown Oakland's most
notable buildings, constructed in the Beaux Arts derivative style popular at the time, were built
during this boom.
In the Project area, the 1912 Sanborn Map shows that commercial uses were beginning to
encroach on the block between Jefferson and Clay streets. By this time, some of the houses had
been replaced with shops including a second-hand furniture store, office, restaurant and several
unidentified shops. In addition, there was an "IWW Hall." Several of the single-family dwellings
had been demolished and multi-unit flats constructed in their place. By that time, on the block
between Clay and Washington streets, the coal yard, nursery and hotel were gone, and the lots
redeveloped with densely packed shops including a plumbing shop, restaurant and picture-
ftaming shop. One of the largest houses had been demolished and replaced with a six-flat
apartment building. Some industrial facilities began to appear at this time such as a macaroni
factory, candy factory, meat and sausage factory, and bottle storage.
Through the 1920s, the extensive rail network and the expanding port made Oakland one of the
West Coast's leading industrial and warehousing centers. The City Beautiful Movement lead to
development of several planned neighborhoods. In the late 1920s, several Art Deco commercial
buildings were constructed "uptown" in the Broadway and 20th area.
Oakland became a major shipbuilding center during World War II. During this time, Oakland's
small but long-established African-American population increased about fivefold with the
migration of shipyard workers from the south. After World War II, the City became increasingly
suburbanized and several rreeways were constructed, and led to a decline of Oakland and other
older central cities. The·1950s Sanborn Maps shows how strongly the car culture had affected the
built environment of Oakland. On the block between Jefferson and Clay, many houses had been
removed to make room for a garage (capacity 100 cars), a large auto parking lot and an auto
painting and body shop. Two apartment buildings, two shops, five houses and one rooming
house trom the late 19th century remained. Fewer changes had occurred on the block between
Clay and Washington streets and shops continued to predominate. There were fewer dwellings;
several houses had been demolished and replaced with a parking lot.
The oldest areas of downtown Oakland, such as the Project site, were the focus of urban renewal
projects in the 1960s and 1970s. The character of the entire downtown Oakland area was
significantly affected by the construction of the elevated 1-880 and the Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART) line. Many of the City's most significant historic buildings were damaged in the 1989
Lorna Prieta earthquake. Oakland experienced a revival during the 1990s, as property prices in
the Bay Area in general skyrocketed with the booming economy.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-5
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
As a result ofthis rich heritage, there are several neighborhoods within Oakland where some of
the original homes and other structures built more than 100 years ago have been maintained.
These homes and other structures (commonly 50 to 100 years old) convey the historic character
and the development evolution of the area. Some sites also are no longer occupied by structures
but are important as locations of historic settlements or events, or are associated with persons
important in the City's history.
City of Dublin
In contrast to the older communities of San Leandro ånd Oakland in West County, rapid urban
development is much more recent in East County. The first homesteaders arrived in the
Livermore-Amador Valley, in which the City of Dublin is located, in the 1850s. Landowners
past and present have taken advantage of the grassland conditions on the hills and the valley
flatlands to graze cattle and sheep and to cultivate forage crops such as wheat, barley and oats.
The development of rail and road transportation networks in the 1870s to service industry and
agriculture was crucial to the development of the periphery of Contra Costa County and the
Livermore-Amador Valleys. The development of the refrigerated railroad car (ca. 1880s), used
for the transport of agricultural produce to distant markets, had a major impact on population
growth. Towns located on railroad lines, such as Livennore and Pleasanton, became farm
centers, initially serving livestock ranching and grain farming, and more recently, serving more
intensive agricultural concerns including viticulture and fruit and nut orchards.
With the construction of major freeways after World War II, towns such as Dublin benefited
from their geographical location. Dublin is at the crossroads of two major freeways, the 1-580
and the 1-680, and historically the City has been an important regional retail center. The City
incorporated in 1982, more than a century after San Leandro and Oakland to its west.
REGULATORy/POLICY SETTING
This section is consistent with both federal and state regulatory requirements for cultural
resources pursuant to Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of
1966 (as amended) (16 D.S.C. Section 470f), its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800)
and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Cultural resources include prehistoric
and historic archaeological sites, districts and objects; standing historic structures, buildings,
districts and objects; and locations of important historic events or sites of traditional/cultural
importance to various groups.
Federal
National Historic PreselVation Act
The NHPA of 1966 (as amended) established the federal government's policy on historic
preservation and the programs, including the National Register of Historic Properties, through
which that policy is implemented. Under the NHP A, historic properties include".. . any
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for
inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places" (16 U.S.C. Section 470w (5)). For listing
on the National Register, an historical resource must be significant at the local, state or national
level, under one of four criteria. A quality of significance in American history, architecture,
archaeology, engineering and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects
that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, worlananship, feeling and
association, and:
A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of our history; or
B. that are associated with the lives or persons significant in our past; or
C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. that may have yielded, or may be likely to yield, infonnation important in prehistory or
history .
The NHPA of 1966 (as amended) and its implementing regulations (16 U.S.c. Section 470 et
seq., 36 CFR Part 800, 36 CFR Part 60 and 36 CFR Part 63) require the Lead Agency to consider
the effect of a proposed project on historic properties. NHP A also requires that the Lead Agency
provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) with a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that
could adversely affect cultural properties listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP.
If a Clean Water Act (CW A) Section 404 pennit is required for construction (wetland fills or
crossings), the NHP A of 1966 (as amended) and its implementing regulations (16 U.S.c. Section
470 et seq., 36 CFR Part 800, 36 CFR Part 60, and 36 CFR Part 63) also apply. The U.s. Anny
Corps of Engineers (USACE), as lead federal agency for issuing the CW A Section 404 pennit,
would be the Lead Agency for NHP A Section 106 compliance. Consultation with the ACHP and
SHPO would be required.
State
Historic Resources
CEQA equates a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource with a
significant effect on the environment (Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code). It defines
a substantial adverse change as any proposed demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration that
would impair a resource's historic significance (Section 5020.1). Section 21084.1 stipulates that
any resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR) is presumed to be historically or culturally significant.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-7
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
The criteria for listing on the California Register are very similar to listing on the National
Register. The historic resource may be listed in the CRHR ifit meets one or more of the
following criteria:
(I) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
(2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history;
(3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction,
or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
(4) It has yielded or has the potential to yield infonnation important in the prehistory or history
of the local area, California or the nation.
Resources listed in a local historic register or deemed significant in an historic resource survey
(as provided under Section 5024.1 g) are presumed historically or culturally significant unless the
preponderance of evidence demonstrates they are not. A resource that is not listed in or
detennined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR is not included in a local register of historic
resources, or is not deemed significant in a historic resource survey rnay nonetheless be
considered historically significant by the Lead Agency for purposes of CEQA (Section 21084.1;
Section 21098.1).
Archaeological Resources
CEQA requires a Lead Agency to identify and examine environmental effects that may result in
significant adverse effects. Where a project may adversely affect a unique archaeological
resource, Section 21083.2 requires the Lead Agency to treat that effect as a significant
environmental effect. When an archaeological resource is listed in or is eligible to be listed in the
CRHR, Section 21084.1 requires that any substantial adverse effect to that resource be
considered a significant environmental effect. Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 operate
independently to ensure that potential effects on archaeological resources are considered as part
of a project's environmental analysis. Either of these benchmarks may indicate that a project may
have a potential adverse effect on archaeological resources.
Other California Laws and Regulations
Other requirements for cultural resources management include Code Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5
(Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites) of the California Public Resources Code.
For lands owned by the state or a state agency, Chapter 1.75, beginning at Section 5097.9
(Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites) applies.
The disposition of Native American burials is governed by Section 7050.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code and Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code and
falls within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). lfhuman
remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there should be
no further disturbance to the site where the remains were found. If the remains are detennined by
Alaméda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
the coroner to be Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the NARC within
24 hours. The NARC, pursuant to Section 5097.98, will immediately notifY those persons it
believes to be most likely descended ITom the deceased Native American so they can inspect the
burial site and make recommendations for treatment or disposa1.
Local Policy Setting
Local requirements are all consistent with federal and state laws and regulations. Because the
alternative sites are located within several jurisdictions, each is discussed below.
Alameda County
Alameda County's policies regarding archaeological and historic resources are that they should
be preserved and maintained "to the maximum extent possible.. .including but not limited to
those listed on official State and National Registers." When site preparation and construction
activities are proposed, the County's policy follows the State laws that require "adequate
identification" of the resources, and, where appropriate, preserves them (Alameda County, 1981,
1985). To implement these policies, the County has created a Park, Historic, and Recreation
Commission and has adopted an overlay zoning designation to allow creation of historic
preservation districts (for the latter, see Chapter 17.20, Alameda County Administrative Code).
The County is updating a 1993 preliminary windshield survey of the historical resources in its
unincorporated areas.
City of Dublin
The East County Government Center and Site 15A sites are within the area covered by the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1998). The policies governing cultural
resources, as described in this plan, are typical of requirements in other many 10caljurisdictions.
For archaeological resources, an assessment of resources will be detetmined, and mitigations
proposed, prior to development (policy 6-24). If previously unidentified resources are found
during construction, activities will cease until a certified archaeologist can ascertain the
significance ofthe resources (Policy 6-25). For historic resources, archival research is required
prior to any alteration of an historic resource (policy 6-26) and adaptive reuse is encouraged
wherever feasible (Policy 6-27).
Port of Oakland
The Port of Oakland has an adopted mitigation measure regarding cultural resources with respect
to a parking lot they proposed for the Pardee/Swan Site. Consistent with federal and state law, it
states that if unknown resources are encountered during construction or maintenance, then work
will be redirected for at least 100 feet around the resources. A qualified archaeologist will be
consulted to assess the significance of the resource and recommend appropriate actions (G.
Borchard & Associates, 2001).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-9
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
City of Oakland
The City of Oakland has a comprehensive historic preservation program. This is in response to
the wealth of historic resources within the City. The element provides policy direction for the
designation of historic structures, sites or districts and outlines procedures for approving
alterations and demolitions of significant structures. To encourage adaptive reuse of historic
structures wherever feasible, the element also provides a comprehensive list of incentives to
promote preservation. Projects affecting historic resources are reviewed by the City's Landmarks
Preservation Advisory Board. The goal of the City's Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey (OCHS)
is to assess every building in Oakland for its historic or architectural interest. The OCHS also
maintains an extensive Local Register of Historic Resources.
The element also provides general policy direction for the City's archaeological resources.
Where the ground may be disturbed in archaeologically sensitive areas, mapping, archival
studies prior to development, and a surface reconnaissance by an archaeologist are required.
Depending on the results of the surface reconnaissance,·an archaeologist may be an on-site
observer during construction, or archaeological excavations may be required prior to
construction.
LOCAL PHYSICAL SETTING
Methods
Qualified professionals prepared archaeological assessments for the East County Government
Center, Site 15A, Existing San Leandro Property and Pardee/Swan sites. Since there are no
existing buildings on the East County Government Center, Site 15A and Pardee/Swan sites, no
historical assessment of these sites was required. However, the existing Juvenile Hall complex at
the San Leandro site is considered potentially historic, thus a qualified professional prepared an
historical and architectural assessment of the building complex, which included a State
Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record (DPR 523A).
The existing Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is located in a highly urbanized section of Oakland.
Because it is in a highly disturbed area, an archaeological assessment was not undertaken. This
existing facility is not historic, but there are historic districts and individual resources nearby. An
architectural historian has prepared an assessment of the Project's potential impacts on these
nearby historic resources.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15·10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
No Action/No Project Site
No demolition or construction would occur under the No Action/No Project alternative. The
existing Juvenile Hall in San Leandro would continue in its present-day use. The cultural
resources at the Existing San Leandro Property are described below.
Existing San Leandro Property
Background Information
The Alameda County Juvenile Hall property includes several groups of related buildings. The
existing Juvenile Hall building, built in 1953, is a high security administrative and detention '
complex containing four interconnected buildings on a sloping site at the base of a hill, facing
southwest to Fairmont Drive. Southeast ofthe existing Juvenile Hall is Snedigar Cottage, built in
1953 as part of the existing Juvenile Hall. A second building group, Las Vistas (1959-62), is
located nearby. Uphill from the existing Juvenile Hall, to the east and north, are two other
building groups, Camp Wilmont Sweeney (1958) and Chabot Ranch (1965). A detached
receiving center and detention wing (1972) extends northwest from the existing Juvenile Hall.
Functionally, the existing Juvenile Hall complex provides short-term detention for juvenile
offenders awaiting trial or sentencing. The other compounds provided longer-term residential
treatment for boys in low security settings. Las Vistas is now used for other purposes, whereas
Camp Sweeney is still used for its original purpose and Chabot Ranch is currently vacant.
Summary of Known Cultural Resources
There are no known prehistoric or archaeological resources on this site (LSA, 2000).
The existing 1953 Juvenile Hall complex, excluding Snedigar Cottage, appears to be eligible for
the California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion (i) (history) and Criterion (iii)
(architecture). It will become eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion
A (history) and Criterion C (architecture) when it becomes 50 years old in 2003 (Minor and
Basin Research Associates, 2002; Minor, 2002).
Native American Resources
The southwestern portion of the study area, which was identified as an area of sensitivity for
prehistoric resources, was thoroughly surveyed and no resources were observed.
Historic Resources
The potential significance of the property was assessed according to the criteria of the National
Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. To be eligible for
the National and California Registers,3 a cultural resource must be significant at the local, state
or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:
3 Because Criteria A-D for the National Register and Criteria 1~4 for Califomia Register are equivalent, they are both
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-11
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
(i) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
oflocal or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
(ii) It is associated with lives of persons important to local, California or natural history;
(iii) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values;
(iv) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield infonnation important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California or the nation.
The existing 1953 Juvenile Hall complex, excluding 8nedigar Cottage, appears to be eligible for
the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion (i) (history) and Criterion (iii)
(architecture). It will become eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under the same
criteria when it becomes 50 years old in 2003.
The 1972 additions, which are for the most part detached and somewhat removed from the
original complex, have not seriously compromised the integrity of the existing Juvenile Hall. The
upper story rear addition to the Administration Building matches the original and is visually
unobtrusive. Camp Wilmont Sweeney and Las Vistas Home, when they attain 50 years of age,
should be evaluated separately for their architectural significance within the context of the career
of its architect, Chester Treichel. They should not be considered part of the existing Juvenile Hall
complex.
Under Criterion (i) (history), the existing Juvenile Hall represents one of the most ambitious
juvenile detention projects undertaken in California in the decade following World War It These
years comprise an important historical period in the development of juvenile halls in California,
as the state government established a new agency and adopted new standards for the diagnosis
and treatment of juvenile crime.
County governments built numerous detention facilities in the late 1940s and 1950s in response
to the rapidly growing problem of juvenile delinquency. The Alameda County existing Juvenile
Hall was the third largest and third costliest complex of its kind to be built in California between
1945 and 1956, surpassed only by juvenile halls in Los Angeles and San Francisco. The San
Francisco complex is to be substantially rebuilt begiru1Ïng in the fall of 2002, which will make
the Alameda County complex the largest intact juvenile hall from the postwar decade in
Northern California. The status of the old Los Angeles County Juvenile Hall is not known.
Apparently some buildings have been demolished and others added, but it is difficult to assess
their integrity without a detailed study.
Under Criterion (ii) (significant persons), the existing Juvenile Hall is not known to be directly
associated with historically significant persons. Therefore, it lacks significance under this
criterion.
represented by Criteria (i)-(iv) in the remainder of this discussion.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-12
I
I
-~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
Under Criterion (iii) (architecture), the Juvenile Hall is a major example of institutional work by
the finn of Kent & Hass and its principal designer, Andrew T. Hass. Although this firm did not
play an important role in the architectural history of the San Francisco Bay Area, it is
representative, in its general conservatism and competence, of many firms ofthe era. The
functional modernist design of the complex conveys the essence of juvenile hall design in
California in the postwar decade (Minor and Basin Research Associates, 2002).
The existing Juvenile Hall is not currently listed on the City of San Leandro's local historic
register (City of San Leandro, 2002). However, given the results noted above and the City's
trend towards greater protection of its historic resources, it may also be eligible for listing on this
register (see Figure 15.1).
Unique Geological and Paleontological Features
There are no unique geological or paleontological resources located at the Project site.
Human Remains
There are no unique geological or paleontological resources located at the Project site.
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
Background Information
The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is located in an eight-story building adjacent to an elevated
portion ofI-880 in downtown Oakland. It was built less than 20 years ago and has been used as a
detention complex since it was finished. The property is owned by Alameda County.
The GleIUl Dyer Detention Facility site is in close proximity to four City of Oakland historic
districts. Some of these historic districts contain historic resources that are listed, eligible for or
appear eligible for listing on the National Register and/or are City of Oakland landmarks, and are
discussed in more detail below.
Some excavation may be required to build the proposed addition at this site, and minor
excavation may be needed to modify the existing facility.
Summary of Cultural Resources
There are no known archaeological resources, unique geological or paleontological resources, or
human remains at this previously developed site, which is located in a highly disturbed,
urbanized area.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-13
Figure 15.1
San Leandro Site
Historic Structures
:cJ~y_
SOURCE: Basin Research Associates
Aerial Photo: Pacific Aerial Surveys
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
Historic Resources
The four City of Oakland historic districts that are in the vicinity of the Glenn Dyer Detention
Facility site include the Old Oakland Historic District, the Grove/Lafayette Residential District,
St. Mary's Church Historic District and the Produce Market Historic District (see Figure 15.2
and Table 15.1). All four are Areas of Primary Importance (API) and S-7 zones as defined by
the City of Oakland. APls are listed on Oakland's Local Register of Historical Resources and are
historically or visually cohesive areas or property groups which contain a high proportion of
individual properties with ratings of"C" or higher, appear eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places either as a district or as a historically related complex and meet the threshold of
at least two-thirds ofthe properties in the district qualÏfying as contributors. Officially designated
Preservation Districts are also known as S- 7 zones by the City of Oakland.
The Old Oakland Historic District encompasses the city's early downtown commercial core. The
district spans the six square blocks bounded by 10th Street on the north, 7th Street on the south,
Clay Street on the west and Broadway Street on the east. Two- to four-story brick Italianate
commercial buildings comprise the majority of the district contributors. These resources
primarily date from the 1870s through the 1880s. The district represents Oakland's commercial
development during the post-Gold Rush period, and after several years of decline,
has recently been revitalized. A smaller National Register-listed Old Oakland District has been
identified along the 500 block of 8th Street from Clay to Washington streets, excluding the
modem Salvation Anny building at 8th and Clay streets.
The southern end of the Grove Street/Lafayette Square Residential District API borders the
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility. The county parking structure and existing Juvenile Hall are
situated between the district and the site of the proposed addition. The district has an irregularly
shaped boundary and is located between 14th Street on the north and 6th Street on the south with
Martin Luther King Jr. Way as the spine. The district includes entire or portions of 15 city
blocks. In addition to residences, a few churches, storefronts, apartment buildings and the Greene
Library (a Carnegie library) are also located in the district. Jefferson and Lafayette Squares, two
of the seven parks set aside in Oakland's original plat, are also within the boundaries. The period
of significance for the district is 1853 to 1915.
Although completely surrounded by the Grove/Lafayette Residential API, St. Mary's Church
Complex between Martin Luther King Jr. Way, and Jefferson, 7th and 8th streets has been
designated as its own API. The complex consists ofthe church, rectory, parish hall, classroom
building, garage, garden and parking lots. The church building was constructed in 1869.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-15
>. ] ~
õ -e '" '"
~ IIJ 8 ;:;;! ¡:
Q) '" Ô~
0 z
ã: è5 ....-¡¡¡
¡¡¡ o .¡:
« þ'"
~ <ñ Õ (~ .~ 0<:
'5> ~ +- '$ u u
ë Q) u. P.'.S
Q) a: ....Q)o ::I U
"C 8£
"(i) c;:¡ -¡¡; c;:¡ ã: r::. {::. 0 ü '.
Q) « r::. « rJ .¡: ~j
a: Q. .Q « i ~.¡;;~
.æ ::J ã: ãi ¡;- g¡ e>É J: 0 ::II'-.
i e « z ;;: "'" .g> i:i5~"C ~-¡¡¡
e,:) "C "C "C Ìij
<tI e> c r::. <tI ::;! >.U)r::. ~ .~
1ii g¡ r::. IIJ IIJ e c:: =Q)IIJ ]0<:
~ ~ ï: 32 32 CD ~ -¡¡; lIJo32
ù5 ~ IIJ IIJ C ::J ... IIJ £
0 0 ~ ::J ~5!~
e ~ .Q ,&
J:: ,.... "C "C ãi
f- en Ô Ô 0 "CQ)_ :e
e,:) CD -' Q. Z .sa:o
[ill ~ ~ [§1 LJ ~ <
W 0 .
'.' ~
:::
::: ... ~
tr>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.~ I
'0
~ I
~
~ I
ÇQ
"'0
~~I
ëñ ·B
"",en I
N OJ·.... _
at) >. 0
"!""I O.~
ä] .~ _I- ~
¡¡::CJ:I:
I
I
Iw
Q)
I~
æ
d
Q)
ctI
13
I~
....
I~
..--
....
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
~
::
.~
LL.
C
o
:,¡:;
c
a)
-
a)
c
...
a)
>-
c
c
c
a)
(;
a)
~
-
õ
~
c
'u
:>
a)
~
-
c
en
-
u
.¡:
-
en
ë
CJ
.¡:
o
-
.!
:I:
or-
an
0r-
a)
15
ns
to-
1: ð
~~LU
i¡:;:;~~
'- t: '<:l
§,:Ja.:
'- LU
CI) <:
OJ
:§
~
"tJ
s::
ctI
~
ctI
o
......
o
€
o
~
..E(ãèB
Q)S::-
-- o·!!2
:9 :::. 0'>
O¡ctlQ)
"- <:: a::
ijj
-- ~
ctlQ)"tJ
s:: - Q)
o .!!2 _
:::. 0'> (I)
ctI Q)'-
<::a::-J
Q)
E
~
1:5
1::
-
(I)
Õ
.g
.2
.!!2
J:
>-
>-
-
Ü
ï:::
.-
w
is
u
.¡::
~
J:
"'0
C
ro
::s;::
ro
o
"'0
o
c
:E
.-
.~
<~
__a..
Z«
a..
«
>-
ts
.¡::
.-
II)
is
u
.¡::
~
:x:
"'C
C
ro
::s;::
ro
o
"'0
o
....
Q)
.-
(/)
"is>
Q)
a::
ro
c
o
:,¡:::;
ro
Z
"'0
C
ro
32-'1
rots
o ï:::
"'C(;)
00
>-
>-
....:
r.tJ
is
-
"'C
ïii
~
Q)
;t:::
~
~
ro
...J
--
Q)
e
C!)
c
:E
.-
!,
.......
a.. a..
««
a..
«
>-
<II
Õ
.¡:
-
r.tJ
is
ro
:,¡:::;
c
Q)
"'C
ïii
Q)
a::
JB
-
Q)
>.
.æ
ro
...J
~
e
C!)
"'x
Q)
ã.
E
o
ü
.c
u
....
~
..r:::
Ü
r.tJ
-~
ro
:E
....:
en
>-
-
a..
«
1:>
ï:::
(;)
is
~
ro
:E
~
~
"'0
e
a..
z
-
en
«
<II
1:5
.¡::
.-
r.tJ
is
>.
~
"'0
ro
e
m
....
~
...J
z
en
«
~
~
It£
J!!
CI)
~
ï::
t:
(tI
õ:
1;)
t:
~
c3
.....
o
è.
C,.')C\I
c
~~
è: '
::3 E
CI),e
(!) CI)
OI~
:me:
~.Q
J:C5
~ê
::3Q
'š.s:
C,.')æ
1;)-
e:.~
(tIOI
=ææ
..0ëi,¡
:ß ~ ã
e ;:...:;:,
::3~'(tI
,9, C,.') <:
v, co '"
<II
a.
::J
e
C!)
.-
Q)
~
û5
.c
-
CO
......
..--
I
10
..--
( )
C>
ro
a..
c::::
iIi
Ci5
ill
~
C
I
8
=
en
::::J
.,.
Õ
16
:r:
~
::::J
ß,
~
( ) e:
o~
e: 0
~Q.
oE
Q.-
.§~
~.¡g
(tI e:
E 8
'e: ( )
(lCl)
..... .....
00
(tI (tI
~ ~
00:(00:(
'. II II
.æ-..""-
~a..CI)
.....00:(q;
"tiS
ro
W
~
.~
u.
~
:=
en
::::J
.,.
Q)
·2
~
::::J
.,.
-Ê
5
ü
ro
-0
Q)
E
t'CI
<ë
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
S
I
I
M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
The Produce Market District is located southeast ofthe Project site. The Produce Market API is
an irregularly shaped district between 5th Street (and 1-880) on the north and Embarcadero Street
on the south, with Franklin Street as the spine. The district encompasses all or part of seven
blocks and includes 21 contributing buildings. The 10 buildings of the original Fruit and Produce
Realty Company (F&PR) complex and other historic produce buildings from the 1910s, 1920s
and 1930s contribute to the historic character of the district. The elevated section ofI-880 and
the BART tracks physically isolate the Project site from these districts.
The Lower Broadway Area of Secondary Importance{ASI) abuts the west boundary of the
Produce Market District and includes all or part of five blocks. An ASI, as defined by the City of
Oakland, does not qualify as an historic district for the Local Register of Historic Resources and
thus is not an historical resource for NEP A or CEQA purposes. The 8th Street Group ASI abuts
the east boundary ofthe Grove/Lafayette Residential District and includes a small group of
buildings on the south side of 8th Street between Jefferson and Clay streets.
There are three properties near the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility site that are individually listed
on the National Register (see Table 15.2). These include the Dunns Block (721-25 Washington
Street), the 10th Street Market (901-21 Washington Street) and the Clay Building (1001-07 Clay
Street). As shown on Table 15.2, there are also five properties that are eligible for the National
Register, three that appear eligible and several that are City of Oakland landmarks. Most of the
properties are located within the Old Oakland API and contribute to it. Jefferson Park, a City of
Oakland landmark (LM-398) is located within the Grove/Lafayette Residential API northwest of
the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility site.
South of the 1-880 at 567-77 Fifth Street, there are three historic houses. The 1985 Cultural
Heritage Survey listed the properties as 3D (appears eligible for the National Register).
However, a City/Caltrans survey undertaken in 1990 downgraded the properties to 5D (does not
appear eligible for the National Register), likely because of some circa 1960 alterations. It should
be noted that as the alterations reach the 50-year age mark, circa 2010, the alterations may
themselves become historic and the properties may become eligible for the National Register
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EISIEIR
Page 15-19
tf
Q)
f::?
::I
o
tf
Q)
c:::
~
OJ
o
Õ
Q)
ro
..r::
f::?
;§
'L:
.9
tf
I
IÖ
.....
...
Q)
ë.
ro
..r::
Ü
ë êi
cu...w
~.g(.)
.- E:;;¡
6,::10.
.- W
U) Z
S
ëi5
~
"u
."
LL
C
o
;¡
c
CI)
1P
c
...
~
c
c
c
CI)
ë3
CI)
:S
'õ
b'
'2
·u
:>
CI)
:S
.S
en
CI)
u
...
:::s
o
en
~
u
.¡::
-=
:¡:
1iš
:::s
'C
"S:
=a
.E
N
v)
-
CI)
:Ei
~
-
....!Ii!
OJ:¡
~.!!!
'-0
(.)1..1
O'L:
-0
...-
0111
--
::S::E:
=ê'tJ
_E:
E: cu
0-
(.)i6
o
...'D~
oE:CU
~J!! E
"'Jo:'D
.- cu E:
(.)OCU
~
f CD iã:¡¡
cu:ø...E:ûj
CD·- 00.-
0. .!?'" ;:; DI
,tw ~~
~ iã~
.Q ... E: 1ií
.- 0 0._
g...~ ~
w ztr::
- ...
CUCD'D
ã:i!s
~ i'.!!!
zo::~
III
In
e
'D
~
Q
~
::s
o
In
CD
0::
1..1
.;::
o
-
In
:f
iã
::I
'D
.;;:
:s
.5
>-
ã:
«
'D
I::
CU
32
cu
o
'D
Õ
>-
>-
CD
~
I::
.s
01
I::
:E
U)
(t
s:
10
~
.-
('\
......
~
u
o
iD
I/
E:
I::
:J
o
>- >- >-
ã: ã:
« «
'D 'D
I:: I::
(t ro
32 32
(t (t
o 0
"'0 "'0
Õ Õ
>- >-
>- >-
ã)
~
Cñ
I:: ã)
.9 ~
g> Cñ
~ £û'
co C3
s: ......
e:¡>
...
o
o
...
...
~
.....
o
e»
)
co £
~ !21 ã)
~ õ
CD :§ :J:
~ ~ ~
i5 £û' 'E
G &.
...
>-
CD
~
Cñ
:5
0)
('\
co
a)
CD
'<:t
m
CJ)
I::
32
'::;
I:D
>-
ã:
«
-0
I::
ctI
32
co
o
'D
Õ
>-
>-
CD
~
C/)
~
~
I
'<:t
co
'<:t
'L
11
o
:J:
I::
.s
C)
E:
'E
«
>-
>-
ã:
«
"'0
I::
co
32
co
o
"'0
Õ
ã:
«
"'0
I::
co
32
Õ
"'0
Õ
>-
>-
>-
CD
~
.r::.
õí
......
e»
I
...
e»
'<:t
CD
~
I::
.s
01
I::
:E
~
.-
(")
I
...
o
e»
m
C)
I::
:§
'5
C)
~
:J:
Æ:!
1õ
C/)
co
...J
"I...
11
I::
Q)
U
'D
o
o
LL
'C
I::
ctI
( )
~
'5. mQ)
( ) I/
o 5
U) :J:
-I:: U)
co I/
~ &.
>-
ã:
«
"'0
I::
CU
32
(t
o
-0
Õ
>-
CD
~
Cñ
.r::.
õ)
......
co
r-:.
......
'<:t
>- >- >-
~ ~ ~
"'0 'D "'0
I:: I:: I::
CU co co
32 32 32
co co co
o 0 0
'C 'D "'0
Õ Õ Õ
>- >- >-
CD
~
Cñ
~
co
CD
..,¡.
CD
'<:t
.r::.
õ)
L()
L()
I
...
L()
:'5!:
ff
co co
e e
I:D C)
L() (")
(") (")
I I
... ...
('\ 0
co e»
m
Q)
I::
.s
I/
"'0
co
'\. Ô m
o ]i .....
c. 0 å
~ J: Z
ÒI .!<:
I:: g
32 iD
'::;
I:D ~
1..1
I:: '1::
co Q)
.9 e
co !6
'Ë ...
~ &
iã ã)
u 0
'D
(t
,g
.¡¡¡
r:r::
1..1
<::
'(3
(t
a..
~
ë
Q)
u
>- >-
ã: ã:
« «
"'0 "'0
I:: I::
co \1
32 32
co 1'0
o 0
'D 'C
Õ Õ
>-
>- >-
CD CD
~ ~
c c
.s .s
01 01
I:: I::
:E :2
I/ I/
1'0 co
s: s:
æ ~
cb ~
... .-
...... co
"I...
~
( )
U m
.ó ~
..ê 32
&. S
§ >-
ëñ æ
U) c.
~ E
ã) 8
.~ oð
¡ j
32 ai
8 cj
>-
ã:
«
'D
I::
co
32
co
o
'D
Õ
>-
ã)
~
Cñ
~
(")
......
I
e»
10
'<:t
m
DI
C
32
'::;
I:D
Q)
C
~
"'0
co
~
Q)
C
~ t;
.!<: \1
g a..
iD C
x ~
ß ¡
~ """')
>- ~z
~
~
Q)
>-
~
...J
~
e
C>
>-
l!l
~
Cñ
C
o
~
&
( )
"""')
"'0
C
co
.r::.
¡::
CD
e
Cñ
.r::.
~
¡¡
......
......
r-:.
(0
L()
~
~
It:
ciJ
OJ
.S
I::
I::
(I
ët
'1:1
I::
~
.¡c
Ö
15
~
üC'\Ï
C>
::::,C>
Q)N
~ E'
CI).s!
Q)~
~CI)
'1::1::
Q).!2
:r:1tí
~ê
::s. 2
:S.s:
u....
'1:1.g
1::.-
~&
0-
¡,;....~
( ) 00
~ è'i
~ 'p,Q<=
~
t?.
I/
( )
I/
:J
o
J:
c:i
....
~
.S
1:
(I
.g
.¡;:
.~
~
o
(,)
Q)
.Q
::,.,
.-~
jg
~
o
N
I
It)
Q)
0)
(t
a.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0:::
w
Cñ
m
~
o
I
Q)
t.)
:;:::;
en
:::I
--:>
.....
o
(t
:t:
C
c:
:::I
o
CJ
1;)
co
w
~
'0
co
LL
Q)
t.)
1)5
:::I
-:J
~
.¡:::
Q)
:>
:::¡
-:J
~
:::I
o
CJ
co
"C
Q)
E
co
«
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
Pardee/Swan Site
Background Information
The available 1899 USGS and 1942 U.S. War Department topographic maps indicate that the
Pardee/Swan Site was within a salt marsh. No structures were located on or adjacent to the
parcel. The channelized portion of San Leandro Creek, on the east side of the parcel, and the
Airport Channel nearby on the west side of the parcel, are twentieth-century features. The
Southern Pacific railroad crossing the marsh was most notable feature in the study area (Basin
Research Associates, 2002b). The site, which has been overlain with 6 to 10 feet offill (G.
Borchard & Associates, 2002), is currently vacant. The property is owned by the Port of
Oakland.
Summary of Known Cultural Resources
No archeological resources are known to exist on, near or adjacent to the Pardee/Swan Site (Port
of Oakland 1996, cited by G. Borchand & Associates 2001; Basin Research Associates, 2002b).
No other local, state or federal historically or architecturally significant structures, landmarks or
points of interest have been identified or observed in or adjacent to the Pardee/Swan Site (Basin
Research Associates, 2002b).
Native American Resources
According to Alameda County maps, the Pardee/Swan Site is situated an area of "minimal"
archaeological sensitivity. There appears to be no or low potential for exposing intact significant
prehistoric and/or historic cultural deposits. Any cultural materials exposed during subsurface
construction would be the result of redeposited fill. No known ethnographic or contemporary
Native American resources, including villages, trails, sacred places and traditional use areas, are
present in the vicinity of the Pardee/Swan Site.
Historic Resources
The Pardee/Swan Site is situated in the Rancho San Antonio, a California State Landmark.
However, Rancho San Antonio, at a total of 43,473 acres, encompassed the present-day cities of
Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Piedmont, Alameda and part of San Leandro. No
Hispanic period dwellings or other structures were located in or adjacent to this site.
No American Period resources have been recorded or reported in or near the Pardee/Swan Site
and archival research indicates minimal potential for significant subsurface American Period
archaeological resources in or adjacent to the parcel.
Unique Geological or Paleontological Resources
No unique geological or paleontological resources have been identified at the Pardee/Swan Site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-21
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
Human Remains
No human rernains are known to be present at the Pardee/Swan Site.
East County Government Center
Background Information
The East County Government Center site, as well as Site 15A (as discussed below), was part of
the 3,600-acre military installation comprising Camp Parks, a military personnel relocation
center, and Camp Shoemaker, a military personnel rehabilitation complex. The installation was
constructed by the United States Navy in 1942 on fonner agricultural lands, was formally
commissioned in January 1943, and was deactivated at the end ofWorId War II (about 1946-'
1947). The structures on the site included living quarters, recreational buildings, warehouses and
stores, administration offices, an agricultural nursery and greenhouse, a multiple ward
dispensary, a prosthetics laboratory and three boiler houses/rooms.
By 1950, some of the buildings had been demolished and/or removed. Between 1953 and 1958,
the installation was reactivated for use as the Parks Air Force Base, and by 1957 most ofthe
remaining structures had been removed although building pads and road and access ways were
still evident. In 1958, the Continental Air Command of United States Air Force took over the
installation. During this period, Camp Parks (also known as Parks Reserve Forces Training Area)
was used as a fire fighting training area. Alameda County purchased a large portion of Camp
Parks in 1969 (Basin Research Associates, 2001). The East County Government Center site is
currently vacant although it is likely that buried foundations, pipes and similar remnants of the
prior military use remain (see Figure 15.3).
Summary of Known Cultural Resources
No recorded prehistoric or historic sites are in, near or adjacent to the proposed Project and no
sites have been recorded in or adjacent to within 0.25 mile of the proposed Project (Ibid).
Native American Resources
No archaeological sites have been recorded in, near or adjacent to the proposed Project.
The study area has been assigned a "high" archaeological sensitivity rating on planning
study maps for Alameda County, but archival research suggests an extremely low
potential to affect any as-yet-undiscovered subsurface archaeological sites that may be
eligible for the National Register or California Register within the proposed Project area.
The site has been highly disturbed.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ ~
'"-:~
É~
"'-
~ '"
::;.¡::
'" Q¡
r;;..:
ð.>i
~:a
'" '"
""~
~ ..
15~
~..<:
~
êj~
~<
@
2
.....
CJ'}
I-<
Q)
.....
c::
Q)
U
'E.¡..>
Q) ;::I
E ~
c:: (t
I-<~
Q) co
::> c::
0.....
C,;)'lj
þ'§
~C::ct:I
11') ;::I U
,...¡ 0.....
Q.I U I-<
... 0
=......¡..>
bÐi€~
¡¡::~iJ.<
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
No ethnographic settlements or traditional Native American use areas have been
identified in, near or adjacent to the proposed Project.
Historic Resources
No Hispanic Period adobe dwellings or other structures, features, etc. have been reported
in, near or adjacent to the proposed Project.
No National Register or California Register listed, detennined or pending archaeological
sites, significant local, state or federal historic properties, landrnarks, etc. have been
identified in, near or adjacent to the proposed Project:
Unique Geological and Paleontological Resources
No unique geological or paleontological resources are known to occur on this site.
Human Remains
No human remains are known to occur on this site.
Site 15A
Background Information
A review of the historic 1906 USGS topographic map indicates that no structures were located
on Site 15A at that time.4 The 1961 and 1980 USGS topographic maps indicate that Site 15A
was within Camp Parks. The history of Camp Parks is discussed above (see East County
Government Center).
In 1957, railroad tracks existed along the northwest boundary of Site 15A. The site was occupied
by two gasoline stations, an inflammable storage building, a public works office and shop, a
transportation shop and barracks and another unidentified building. Alameda County purchased
the parcel in 1969.
A portion of the site has been highly disturbed and has been filled with several feet of imported
fill and construction debris. On the remainder of the site, it appears that the debris from the
demolition and removal of streets was incorporated into the native soils (Holman Associates
Archaeological Consultants, 2000). In addition, an environmental engineer visited the site when
it appeared unpaved and covered with weeds. Several mounds of soil and concrete debris, a
drainage ditch, an approximately 5-foot deep ditch with a 14-inch diameter plastic pipe at the
bottom, and an approximately 250 x 535-foot concrete pad were observed (Basin Research
Associates, 2002a). There are no existing buildings on this site (see Figure 15.4).
4 Note that an isolated structure was located east of the site at the end of a short unpaved road and may have still
been present in 1937. By 1961 the structure had been removed.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15w24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<.i ~
0:: OJ
:' I:
,:,< '"
~~
g .~
~<
~ u
o\J5
@~
~ ö
èj]
!3~
SS .~
..:
04-'
;::S
o
>.
ft
,..J
CO
¡::
=B
-
.....
~ ;::S
lI) r:o
~ --<.~
Q,I Lt') I-<
1-<6b""" .8
Q) rJJ
04-' .....
1të.í5:I:
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
Summary of Known Cultural Resources
No recorded prehistoric or historic sites are in, near or adjacent to Site 15A and no sites have
been recorded in, adjacent to or within 0.25 miles of Site 15A (Ibid).
No National Register or California Register listed, detennined or pending archaeological sites,
significant local, state or federal historic properties, landmarks, etc. have been identified in or
adjacent to Site lSA (Ibid).
Native American Resources
The Project area has been assigned a "high" archaeological sensitivity rating on planning study
maps for Alameda County, but no prehistoric sites, Native American villages, traditional use
areas or contemporary use areas have been identified in, near or adjacent to the Project site. The
site is highly disturbed and there appears to be a low potential for exposing intact significant
prehistoric and/or historic cultural deposits.
Historic Resources
No Hispanic Period roads, adobe dwellings or other structures, features, etc. have been reported
in or adjacent to Site lSA.
The question about the potential historical significance of dumps from the Camp Parks era that
appear on maps dating from the 1950s has been raised (Holman Associates Archaeological
Consultants, 2000). Others have concluded that Camp Parks is considered an unimportant
military facility relative to other similar bases (Baker and Shoup, 1989, cited in Holman
Associates Archaeological Consultants, 2000). Holman concedes that the historic dumping and
grading of the parcel "has effectively masked the exact location of the actual dump deposits" and
that these dumps "may no longer be discrete entities" (Holman Associates Archaeological
Consultants, 2000).
To date, no American Period resources have been recorded or reported in or near the site, and
archival research indicates minimal potential for significant subsurface American Period
archaeological resources in or adjacent to the site (Basin Research Associates, 2002a).
Unique Geological and Paleontological Resources
No unique geological or paleontological resources are known to occur on this site.
Human Remains
No human remains are known to occur on this site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
15.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in:
· A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in
Section 15064.5 of the Public Resources Code or of an historic property as defined by the
National Historic Preservation Act.
· A substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5 of the Public Resources Code.
· The direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological résource or site or unique
geological feature.
· The disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of fonnal
cemeteries.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT 15.1: Disturbance of Previously Undisturbed Archaeological
Resources, Paleontological Resources and/or Human
Remains
15.1.1 : No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. Since there would be no excavation or construction, this alternative would not
disturb previously undisturbed archaeological resources, paleontological resources and/or human
rernams.
15.1.2: All Alternatives Except "No Action/No Project"
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. Constructing a new Juvenile
Justice Facility, either on the Existing San Leandro Property or at any of the proposed alternative
sites (Glenn Dyer Detention Facility, Pardee/Swan Site, East County Government Center or Site
15A), would include the demolition of the existing Juvenile Hall. This demolition would occur
because the expense of retrofitting the existing building to meet current safety standards is
prohibitive; its impacts on historic resources are discussed below (see Impact 15.2). The
demolition may result in excavation on the Existing San Leandro Property, as well as at the
proposed alternative site. This may result in a potentially significant impact on previously
unrecorded cultural resources on both the Existing San Leandro Property and the proposed
alternative site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-27
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
. Mitigation Measure 15.1.2: Halt Construction/Assess Significance of Find.
Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities (either at the Project site or at the
Existing San Leandro Property), the County of Alameda shall inform all supervisory
persOlmel and all contractors whose activities may have subsurface soil impacts of the
potential for discovering archaeological resources, paleontological resources and/or
human remains and of the procedures to be followed if these previously unrecorded
cultural resources are discovered. These procedures shall include:
· halting all ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet ofthe area where a
potential cultural resource has been found;
· notifying a qualified archaeologist of the discovery; and
· following a treatment plan prescribed by the appropriate professional if the
cultural resource is deemed significant, in accordance with federal or state law.
The County of Alameda shall retain an on-call archaeologist to periodically review any
excavation (either associated with construction at the Project site and/or demolition at the
Existing San Leandro Property), assess the significance ofthe potential cultural resource
and prescribe a treatment plan for it. The archaeologist will consult with a paleontologist
as required. The archaeologist shall report any finds in accordance with current
professional protocols, including closure at the end of an on-call contract. The
archaeologist shall meet the Professional Qualifications Standards mandated by the
Secretary ofthe Interior and the California Office of Historic Preservation.
In the event that any human remains are uncovered at the Project site during construction
or at the San Leandro site during demolition, there shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area until after the Alameda County Coroner has
been informed and has determined that no investigation ofthe cause of death is required,
and (if the remains are determined to be of Native American origin) the descendants from
the deceased Native American(s) have made a recommendation to the landowner or the
person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
Resulting Level of Significance: Implernentation of the above mitigation measures would
reduce the Project's impact to a less than significant level.
15.1.3: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The San Leandro site has
already been disturbed by previous urban development. It is unlikely that construction activity
associated with the proposed Project would disturb any previously undisturbed archaeological
resources, paleontological resources and/or human remains. Although unlikely, disturbance of
previously unrecorded archaeological resources, paleontological resources and/or human remains
would represent a potentially significant environmental impact associated with the Project.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 15.1.2 would reduce this impact from potentially
significant to a less than significant level.
15.1.4: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. There are no known
archaeological resources, unique paleontological or geological resources, or human remains at
the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility site. This is a highly disturbed urbanized site. Although
unlikely, disturbance of previously umecorded archaeological resources, paleontological
resources and/or human remains would represent a potentially significant environmental impact
associated with the Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 15.1.2 would reduce this'
impact frorn potentially significant to a less than significant level.
15.1.5: Pardee/Swan Site
NO IMP ACT. The Pardee/Swan Site is located on the site of a former salt marsh. Any cultural
resources exposed during construction would be the result of redeposited fill.
15.1.6: East County Government Center
POTENTIALLY SIGNFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMP ACT. The East County Government
Center has already been disturbed by previous urban development. In the absence of earlier
discoveries, it is unlikely that excavation activity associated with the proposed Project would
disturb any previously undisturbed archaeological resources, paleontological resources and/or
human remains on this site. Although unlikely, disturbance of previously unrecorded
archaeological resources, paleontological resources and/or human remains would represent a
potentially significant environmental impact associated with the Project. Irnplernentation of
Mitigation Measure 15.1.2 would reduce this impact :trom potentially significant to a less than
significant level.
15.1.7: Site 15A
POTENTIALLY SIGNFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Site 15A is located 0.25 miles
south of the East County Government Center site. As discussed above (see Local Physical
Setting), both sites are part of the fonner Camp Parks and have a similar history. As is the case
for the East County Government Center site, Site 15A has already been disturbed by previous
urban development. In the absence of earlier discoveries, it is unlikely that excavation activity
associated with the proposed Project would disturb any previously undisturbed archaeological
resources, paleontological resources and/or human remains on this site. Although unlikely,
disturbance of previously umecorded archaeological resources, paleontological resources and/or
human remains would represent a potentially significant environmental impact associated with
the Project. Irnplementation of Mitigation Measure 15.1.2 would reduce this impact from
potentially significant to a less than significant level.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15~29
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
IMPACT 15.2: Loss of Historic Resources Resulting from the Demolition
of Existing Juvenile Hall
15.2.1 : No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. The existing Juvenile Hall would not be dernolished under this alternative, thus
there would be no loss of historic resources.
15.2.2:
All Alternatives Except "No Action/No Project"
SIGNIFICANT AND 'UNAVOIDABLE IMP ACT. Constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility,
either in San Leandro or at any of the proposed alternative sites (GleIll1 Dyer Detention Facility,
Pardee/Swan Site, East County Government Center, or Site 1SA) would include the demolition
ofthe existing Juvenile Hall, parts of which are considered eligible for the California Register of
Historical Resources and which will in one year be eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. This demolition would occur because the expense of retrofitting the existing building to
meet current safety standards is prohibitive. Demolition of the complex would represent a
significant and unavoidable impact associated with the Project
. Mitigation Measure 15.2.2: Preservation, Adaptive Reuse, Documentation.
The State Historic Office of Preservation (SHPO) shall be consulted regarding the
potential demolition of the existing Juvenile Hall complex and SHPO's proposed
mitigations, as feasible, shall be adopted. These rnay include further study to assess the
feasibility of either preservation or adaptive reuse.
· A Master Plan consistent with the SHPO requirements should be developed to
commemorate the site and its significance in regional history.
· Record original Alameda County Juvenile Hall to meet Historic American Building
Survey Level II requirements in accordance with the Guidelines for Preparing
Written Historical and Descriptive Data for the Historic American Building Survey
prepared by the Division of National Register Programs of the Pacific Great Basin
Office, National Park Service, Oakland. Proposed recordation program and levels of
effort shall be reviewed and approved by NPS prior to initiation.
· The HABS/HAER documentation and the already completed State Department of
Parks and Recreation Primary Record for the historic property shall be submitted by
the County to the Bancroft Library, the Oakland History Room of the Oakland Public
Library, and the California Historical Society in San Francisco within one (1)
calendar year following completion.
Resulting Level of Significance: hnplementation of Mitigation Measure 15.2.2 would
reduce the Project's impact, which would nonetheless remain significant and
unavoidable. The County has submitted correspondence to the SHPO regarding the
consultation and preparation of master plan requirements.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacilitylEast County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15·30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
IMPACT 15.3: Effect on Historic Resources in the Vicinity of the Proposed
Project Site
15.3.1 :
No Action/No Project
NO IMPACT. If there was no Project, there would be no impact on any historic resources.
15.3.2: Existing San Leandro Property
NO IMPACT. There are no historic resources adjacent to or in the vicinity of the San Leandro
site. For the Existing San Leandro Property, the historic resources are on the Project site (see
Impact 15.2).
15.3.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
LESS THAN SIGNFICANT IMPACT. There are no known historic resources at the Glenn Dyer
Detention Facility site. The Project would be constructed on the site of a structure built in 1984
(ARG, 2002). The proposed modification of the existing facility and the addition to the existing
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility that would be required to accommodate juvenile detainees do not
involve the demolition, destruction or relocation of historic resources, although it may involve
some excavation (see Impact 15.1). It is unlikely that any unidentified historic resources would
be encountered during the construction activities.
Although the proposed Project would somewhat alter the area surrounding the nearby historic
districts and individually eligible historic resources, the change would be less than significant.
The proposed architectural modification would be consistent with the modem character of the
immediate area, which includes the eight-story Glenn Dyer Detention Facility and a six-story
parking garage to the west, the six-story Oakland/Piedmont Municipal Court to the east and an
elevated section ofI-880 on the south (ARG, 2002).
The Project would not significantly change the relationship of the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
to the historic districts or to the individual historic resources near or adjacent to it. The Project
would not significantly alter the views from or the views of the historic districts or individually
eligible historic resources. Looking south toward the proposed Project site, the views from
buildings within the Grove Street/Lafayette Square Residential District, St. Mary's Church
District, the Old Oakland District or the individual properties (all of these are located north and
west of the proposed Project) would change little.
From vantage points within the adjacent historic districts north and northwest of the proposed
Project, the new structure and alterations to the existing structure would only block views of the
interstate, BART tracks, the existing Juvenile Hall or the Municipal Court. Since all of these are
modem structures, the change to the views from the historic resources is less than significant.
The proposed Project would only block views of these historic districts and individual resources
when looking northward from the elevated 1-880 and BART. Because of the interstate and
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-31
Chapter 15: Historic/Archaeological Resources
BART tracks, the historic resources north of the Project site are not currently visible from areas
south of the proposed Project site.
Similarly, the views from historic resources south of the interstate (such as the Produce Market
District) looking north or northwest toward the proposed Project site would change little as a
result of the proposed Project. Because 1-880 is elevated and bisects the city at 7th Street, it
blocks views from the Produce Market District looking northwest toward the proposed Project
site. The proposed Project would increase the height ofthe existing structure two stories. The
proposed Project would not be visible above the interstate from most properties within this
district. From those areas that the Project would be visible, only the uppennost stories of the
proposed addition would be seen above the interstate.,
The proposed Project does not affect the physical characteristics that convey the significance of
the historic districts, nor does the Project materially impact the individual National Register-
eligible resources and local landmarks within the Old Oakland Historic District adjacent to the
Project site. The historic resources are not directly altered, and the changes of the views to and
from the historic resources are less than significant. For these reasons, the Project does not have
the potential to disqualify any of the four districts as Oakland Preservation Districts, Oakland
APIs or California Register eligibility, or the Old Oakland National Register District from
National Register eligibility, nor would the individual properties listed on the National Register
or Local Register of Historic Resources be impacted.
In summary, the effect of the Project on the historic setting and environment of the Old Oakland
District, Grove Street/Lafayette Square Residential District, S1. Mary's Church District, Produce
Market District, the nearby individually listed National Register properties and the individually
eligible properties within the Old Oakland District does not constitute a substantial adverse
change in the significance of these resources or their character-defining features (ARG, 2002).
15.3.4: Pardee/Swan Site
NO IMPACT. There are no historic resources on, adjacent to or in the vicinity of the
Pardee/Swan Site.
15.3.5: East County Government Center
NO IMPACT. There are no known historic resources on, adjacent to or in the vicinity of the East
County Government Center site.
15.3.6: Site 15A
NO IMPACT. There are no known historic resources on, adjacent to or in the vicinity of Site
ISA.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 15-32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
16
Environmental Justice
16.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
REGULATORy/POLICY SETTING
Federal
The Office of Justice Programs' Program Guidance on Environmental Protection Requirements,
in addressing socioeconomic effects, requires an indication of the number of people to be
relocated and arrangements being made for any such relocation; a discussion of how impacts
resulting from the Project will affect nearby residents and users of the Project area and
surrounding areas; and a discussion of whether the Project will accommodate any population
increases (including how these increases may have impacts on the area's public and community
services such as schools, health care, social services and fire protection).
Executive Order 12898, signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. at 7630,
section 1-101), is designed to focus the attention of federal agencies on the human health and
environmental conditions in minority communities and low-income communities. The Order
requires the following:
To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law... eachfederal agency shall make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects
of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations.
Eachfederal agency shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially
affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs,
policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons (including populations)
from participation in, denying persons (including populations) the benefits of, or
subjecting persons (including populations) to discrimination under, such programs,
policies, and activities, because of their race, color, or national origin.
Eachfederal agency shall work to ensure that public documents, notices, and hearings
relating to human health or the environment are concise, understandable, and readily
accessible to the public.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-1
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
The U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Environmental Justice (1997)
defines enviromnental justice as:
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that
no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or a socioeconomic group should bear a
disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from
industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local,
and tribal programs and policies. Meaningful involvement means that: (1) potentially
affected community residents have an appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions
about a proposed activity that will affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public's
contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; (3) the concerns of all
participants involved will be considered in the decision making process; and (4) the
decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.
According to the guidance, the goal of this "fair treatment" is not to shift risks among
populations, but to identify potential disproportionately high and adverse effects and identify
alternatives that may mitigate these impacts.
The Council on Enviromnental Quality (CEQ) (1997) similarly publishes guidance on
enviromnental justice, specifically as it is addressed in the NEP A process. That guidance
addresses general principles, and specific considerations in scoping, public participation,
detennination ofthe affected environment, analysis, alternatives, the record of decision and
mitigation. The Executive Order established an Interagency Working Group, which has prepared
additional guidance on key tenns used in the Order.
State
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064 (e) states:
Economic and social changes resultingfrom a project shall not be treated as significant
effects on the environment. Economic and social changes may be used, however, to
determine that a physical change shall be regarded as a significant effect on the
environment. Where a physical change is caused by economic or social effects of a
project, the physical change may be regarded as a significant effect in the same manner
as any other physical change resulting from the project. Alternatively, economic and
social effects of a physical change may be used to determine that the physical change
causes adverse economic or social effects on the environment. If the physical change
causes adverse economic or social effects on people, those adverse effects may be used as
afactor in determining whether the physical change is significant. For example, if a
project would cause overcrowding of a public facility and the overcrowding causes an
adverse effect on people, the overcrowding would be regarded as a significant effect.
The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has been identified as the coordinating
agency in state government for enviromnental justice programs. The office uses a definition of
environmental justice similar to the federal government. The California Environmental
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
Protection Agency is also mandated to implement environmental justice programs through an
interagency environmental justice strategy, pursuant to SB 115 (Solis) and SB 89 (Escutia).
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Statewide and Countywide Population Characteristics
Alameda County is an ethnically diverse area, similar to the statewide characteristics of
California. However, as shown in Table 16.1, higher percentages ofthe population of the County
are classified as Asian (21 % versus 12% statewide) and African American (17% versus 7%
statewide), and lower percentages of the population of the County are classified as Hispanic
(18% versus 31 % statewide) or Causasian (44% versus 50% statewide).
As part of the analysis of environmental justice, Table 16.1 also denotes the racial composition
of Alameda County's juvenile detainees in fiscal year 2000/2001. The characteristics of these
detainees are heavily weighted toward African Americans (59% of the total detainees) compared
with the total Afiican-American youth in Alameda County (20% of the total youth population
age 10 to 19). All other racial categories are underrepresented compared with the countywide
youth population (Hispanic detainees = 18% of the detainees compared with 22% of youth
overall; Asian detainees = 9% ofthe detainees compared with 22% of youth overall; Caucasian
detainees::= 14% of the detainees compared with 37% of youth overall).
Another way to measure the disproportionate representation is by comparing the percentage of
the County's youth who are represented by detainees. African American detainees represent
approximately 5 percent ofthe total African American youth population, compared with the
overall rate of 1.7 percent ofthe County's youth being detained in a given year. All other racial
categories are underrepresented compared with this countywide population average. Note that
this comparison is not strictly a measure of the rate of incarceration because repeat offenders are
also included in the total number of detainees.
Although this higher proportion of African American detainees is similar to statewide and
national detention patterns, it represents a population that is over-represented and could be
subject to environmental effects that would be defined as significant environmental justice
effects.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-3
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
Table 16.1: Comparison of State, County and Juvenile Detainee Population Characteristics
Asian/Pacific
Total Caucasian Hispanic Islander/ African
Native Amer. American
Numeric Total
California Population
All 34,653,395 17,421,511 10,688,752 4,205,197 2,337,935
Age 10-19 4,959,176 2,158,653 1,804,027 618,740 377,756
Alameda County Population
All 1,470,155 648,127 267,915 302,154 251,959
Age 10-19 198,312 73,289 42,755 43,126 39,142
Juvenile Detainees 3,332 455 590 314 1,973
In Alameda County
Percentage of Total
California Population
All 100% 50% 31% 12% 7%
Age 10-19 100% 44% 36% 12% 8%
Alameda County Population
All 100% 44% 18% 21% 17%
Age 10-19 100% 37% 22% 22% 20%
Juvenile Detainees 100% 14% 18% 9% 59%
in Alameda County
as Percentage of
Total Detainees
Juvenile Detainees 1.7% 0.6% 1.4% 0.7% 5.0%
in Alameda County
as Percentage of
Youth Population,
by Race
Sources:
California Department of Finance, 2002.
Alameda County Probation Department, 2002.
Note:
Disproportionate representation of minority and/or low income populations is shown in bold type.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
Local Conditions near Alternative Sites
Table 16.2 illustrates the racial composition, age range and income of the population around
each of the alternative sites evaluated in this EIS/EIR, as described in the following sections.
No Action/No Project
In 2002, an estimated 2,299 people are living within one-half mile of the existing Juvenile Hall
in San Leandro. Approximately 53 percent of this population are White, 15 percent are Black, 16
percent are Asian or Pacific Islanders and 15 percent are in other categories. There are an
estimated 420 Hispanic residents in this area (approximately 18 percent of the total).
Approximately 25 percent of residents in this area are under age 18, and approximately 14
percent are over age 65. Ofthose residents over the age of25, approximately 20 percent do not
have a high school diploma. There are an estimated 836 households within this area.
Approximately 28 percent of these are single-person households, and approximately 32 percent
of all households within this area are renters. Approximately 16 percent of local households have
an estimated income of less than $25,000 per year, and the average annual household income is
estimated at $88,252. Per capita income is estimated to be $31,577 annually. Of the 527 family
households, approximately 5.5 percent have incomes below the poverty threshold.
The data considered alone and in comparison to countywide averages for these race, age, income
and other categories indicate that there is not a substantial concentration of minority and/or low-
income populations that would need to be considered in an environmental justice impact analysis
near the No Action/No Project and Existing San Leandro Property site.
Existing San Leandro Property
The description of the local population characteristics in the vicinity of the Existing San Leandro
Property site presented in No ActionlNo Project, above, also applies to the use of the Existing
San Leandro Property site for a replacement Juvenile Justice Facility.
Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
In 2002, an estimated 6,398 people are living within one-half mile of the Glenn Dyer Detention
Facility in downtown Oakland. Approximately 51 percent of this population are Asian or Pacific
Islanders, 29 percent are Black, 14 percent are White, with 6 percent in other categories. There
are an estimated 677 Hispanic residents in this area (representing approximately II percent of
the total). Approximately 13 percent of residents in this area are under age 18, and approximately
22 percent are over age 65. Ofthose residents over the age of25, approximately 46 percent do
not have a high school diploma. There are an estimated 2,873 households within this area.
Approximately 52 percent of these are single-person households, and approximately 79 percent
of all households within this area are renters. Approximately 64 percent of local households have
an estimated income of less than $25,000 per year, and the average annual household income is
estimated at $29,268. Per capita income is estimated to be $15,534 annually. Of the 1,198 family
households, over 30% are below the poverty threshold.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-5
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
Table 16.2: Comparison of Population and Economic Characteristics of Alameda County and the
Vicinity of Alternative Sites
No Action/ East County
Alameda No Project Glenn Dyer Pardee/ Government
County Total and Detention Swan Site Center and
Existing San Facility Site 15A
Leandro
Property
Total Population 1.458,420 2.299 6.398 0 2.310
White 49% 53% 14% 0 71%
Hispanic 19% 18% 11% 0 9%
Asian/Pacific 22% 16% 51% 0 20%
Islander/Native
American
Black 15% 15% 29% 0 3%
Other 15% 15% 6% 0 3%
Persons under Age 18 25% 25% 13% 0 27%
Persons Age 65 and 10% 14% 22% 0 3%
Older
Households 523,366 836 2.873 0 947
Single-Person 26% 28% 52% 0 24%
Households
Renters 45% 32% 79% 0 51%
Average Household $72,435 $88.252 $31,260 0 $98,864
Income
Per Capita Income $26,680 $31.577 $15,534 0 $32.955
Family Households 342,048 527 1,198 0 604
Families Below Poverty 7.7% 5.5% 30.5% 0 2.3%
Level
Sources:C/aritas, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.
Notes:
Hispanic category overlaps with others.
Data for Existing San Leandro Property and Glenn Dyer Detention Facility are for one-half mile radius
from site.
Data for East County Government Center and Site 15A represent Census Tract 4501, excluding Santa
Rita Rehabilitation Center and the federal Co"ectional/nstitution.
Disproportionate representation of minority and/or low-income categories is indicated in bold type.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
The community surroWlding the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is represented by a
disproportionate population of minority and low-income persons. The population is heavily
weighted toward Asian and Black persons, with 51 percent Asian compared with 22 percent
cOWltywide, and 29 percent Black compared with 15 percent countywide. The aIllmal average
household and per capita income is also considerably lower than average, at $31,260 per
household compared with $72,435 countywide, and $15,534 per capita compared with $26,680
countywide. The proportion of families below the poverty level is 30.5 percent compared with
the countywide average of 7.7 percent. In addition, the population tends to be older (22 percent
age 65 and older compared with 10 percent countywide), have more single-person households
(52 percent compared with 26 percent countywide) and have more renter-occupied units (79
percent compared with 45 percent countywide).
Pardee/Swan Site
The Pardee/Swan Site is located in a business park near the Oakland International Airport. Data
for the area indicate that there may be one household within one-half mile ofthe site. Therefore,
no detailed demographic data are presented for this alternative site.
East County Government Center
The Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center and the Dublin federal correctional institution housed an
estimated 5,283 persons in "group quarters" in 2000. The racial composition and income
characteristics of the inmates are substantially different from the general population. In general,
the inmate population is not adversely affected by the proposed Project, and therefore is not
considered further in this analysis. Due to the limitations of the data sources used in preparing
this discussion, the data quoted are for the entire census tract for eastern Dublin (from Arnold
Road on the west to Tassajara Creek on the east, and from 1-580 on the south to the edge of the
County property on the north), minus the institutionalized persons.
According to the 2000 census, an estimated 2,310 people were living in households near the East
County Government Center site in Dublin. Approximately 71 percent of this population are
White, 20 percent are Asian or Pacific Islanders, 3 percent are Black, and 3 percent are in other
categories. Approximately 9 percent are Hispanic. Approximately 27 percent of residents in this
area are under age 18, and approximately 3 percent are over age 65. An estimated 307
households are within this area. Approximately 24 percent of these are single-person households,
and approximately 51 percent of all households within this area are renters. Approximately 11
percent oflocal households have an estimated income ofless than $25,000 per year, and the
average annual household income is estimated at $110,007. Per capita income is estimated at
$19,448. Of the 604 family households, approximately 1.8% have incomes below the poverty
threshold.
The data considered alone and in comparison to countywide averages for these race, age, income
and other categories indicate that there is not a substantial concentration of minority and/or low-
income populations that would need to be considered in an environmental justice irnpact analysis
near the East County Government Center Site.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-7
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
Site 15A
Site 15A is located near the East County Government Center site; the population characteristics
associated with the area surrounding the two sites are similar and are included within the overall
census tract data. See the discussion above for details.
Juvenile Arrests/Population Characteristics
As part of the scoping process for this EIS/EIR, some commenters suggested that the Juvenile
Justice Facility should be located in close proximity to the place of residence of the detainees.
Data on Alameda County probationers, including persons who were detained and those who have
been released and remain on probation, (see Table 16.3) indicate that juvenile arrests occur in
rough proportion to the local population throughout the County. Countywide, there were 7,762
juvenile arrests for the fiscal year 2000/2001. Not all arrests result in detention; hence, a direct
comparison to the data in Table 16.1 is not appropriate.
However, it is clear from these data that the rate of arrest correlates with local population. The
northern County cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland and San Leandro
accounted for approximately 47 percent ofthe total population and 44 percent ofthe juvenile
arrests. The southern county cities of Fremont, Hayward, Newark and Union City accounted for
32 percent ofthe total population and 33 percent of the juvenile arrests. The eastern county cities
of Dublin, Livennore and Pleasanton accounted for 12 percent of the County's total population
and 12 percent of the County's juvenile arrests. Other agencies and unincorporated areas
accounted for the remaining arrests, roughly in proportion to population and area served.
The Alameda County Probation Department currently operates its main juvenile justice facilities
in Oakland, San Leandro and Hayward, reflecting this general population and arrest pattern.
However, the existing Juvenile Hall was constructed prior to the suburban expansion that has
occurred since the early 1950's, which has resulted in substantial shifts in population away from
the urban centers and toward more remote locations. Some other juvenile justice services aimed
at delinquency prevention and case management are currently provided in the Tri- Valley area of
Dublin, Livennore and Pleasanton. Thus, services are generally concentrated in areas of higher
population density where there are corresponding arrest rates.
16.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION
As noted in Affected Environment, both the federal (see Executive Order 12898) and state
governments require that their agencies address environmental justice issues. Thus, the Project
would have significant impact if a racial, ethnic or socioeconomic group bears a
disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences of an action.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
Table 16.3: Population I Juvenile Arrest Comparison
Population Percentage of Juvenile Arrests Percentage of
(2000) Total (2001 ) Total
Statewide 34,653,395 100% 240,486 100%
Alameda County 1,470,155 4.2% 7,762 3.3%
Unincorporated 138,400 9.4% 449 5.8%
Alameda 74,300 5.1% 578 7.4%
Albany 16,700 1.1% 54 0.7%
Berkeley 104,300 7.1% 695 9.0%
Dublin 32,550 2.2% 114 1.5%
Em eryvill e 7,300 0.5% 185 2.4%
Fremont 207,200 14.1% 724 9.3%
Hayward 144,000 9.8% 868 11.2%
Livermore 75,200 5.1% 262 3.4%
Newark 43,500 3.0% 518 6.7%
Oakland 409,300 27.8% 1,529 19.7%
Piedmont 11,100 0.9% 14 0.2%
Pleasanton 65,500 4.5% 540 7.0%
San Leandro 81,100 5.5% 361 4.7%
Union City 68,700 4.7% 473 6.1%
Other Agencies - - 397 5.1%
Sources:
State of California, 2001.
State of California, Department of Finance, 2002.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT 16.1: Environmental Justice - Disproportionate Effect on Low-
Income and Minority Populations
This section evaluates two general types of environmental justice impacts: (1) impacts to the
surrounding community at each site, and (2) impacts to the youth that are incarcerated in the
facility and their families.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-9
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
The characteristics of the sUlTounding conununity, described in the Affected Environment
section, above, indicate that the GlelU1 Dyer Detention Facility is located in an area with a higher
than average proportion of minority and low-income persons, as well as older, single-person and
renter households. All of the other alternative sites are comparable with the County average, and
hence no environmental justice impacts to those local populations would occur.
As described in the Affected Environment section, the characteristics of the juvenile population
detained at the existing facility indicate that there is a higher than average concentration of
minorities, particularly Amcan Americans, compared with the overall population of detainees
and compared with the countywide population of youth, by race.
This overrepresentation could result in adverse juvenile justice effects ifthe youth are exposed to
significant environmental effects. The current average length of stay for juveniles is
approximately 23 days. However, some youth are detained for extended periods of time. As part
ofthe scoping process for this analysis, conununity members have raised concerns about the
impact that distant locations could pose for individual detainees and families due to the cost of
travel, time to travel, convenience of transit, and resulting adverse effects on detainees' well-
being. Comrnenters have expressed a beliefthat family visits and court appearances could be
compromised if travel distance and inconvenience are increased, which could have a secondary
effect of longer stays in detention because of inadequate resolution of the cases.
This EIS/EIR addresses the physical conditions under which the youth are detained, and uses the
fact that there is a high proportion of minority youth as an indication that environmental effects
could be classified as environmental justice effects. This EIS/EIR does not address the
underlying issues related to why a higher proportion of minority youth are detained, how long
they are detained and how many other sociaVpolitical issues are related to juvenile crime.
However, the County of Alameda is conunissioning a separate study of the juvenile justice
system, which is expected to address these issues in a comprehensive manner over a 24-month
study period. That study could affect the way in which the Juvenile Justice Facility is used and
operated, but is not expected to modify the need for a new Juvenile Justice Facility
Therefore, this analysis considers the effects of the Project on the neighborhood near the GlelU1
Dyer Detention Facility, and the effects of the Project on detainees and their families, who are
overrepresented as minority and/or low-income populations compared with the County
population.
PROJECT BENEFITS/MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED
Development of a new Juvenile Justice Facility would provide an opportunity to address
numerous deficiencies in the existing facility, which affect all of the detainees, regardless of race
or income. The State Auditor, Grand Jury and others have identified problems with the facility
associated with the aging infrastructure, location and capacity constraints, as well as a lack of
centralized functions for administration, adjudication and probation. Overall, the existing facility
fails to meet the current standards of the State and needs of the County.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16·10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 16.1.1: No Action/No Project
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMP ACT. In the absence of any new construction or changes
in the existing Juvenile Hall or the Dublin-Pleasanton Courthouse, there would be no
environmental justice impacts on the surrounding communities because there would be no
change in existing conditions, and those conditions do not include a significant concentration or
disproportionate representation of minority or low-income populations.
However, because No Action/No Project would result in a continuation of the existing conditions
at the existing facilities, there would be a continuation of existing deficiencies that adversely'
affect the detainees, staff and visitors to the existing Juvenile Hall facility due to such factors as
the aging infrastructure; environmental hazards associated with lead-based paint and asbestos;
proximity to the Hayward fault; and overcrowding. Although some of these conditions could be
addressed by making substantial investments in the existing facility, there would be a diminished
return on investment due to the overall lack of flexibility in renovation compared with new
construction, the resulting shortcomings in meeting the modem code requirements for structural
and operational aspects of the facility, and the ongoing likelihood of a major seismic event along
the Hayward fault during the timeframe ofthe Project. The Project objective of increasing
capacity to at least 420 beds also would be difficult to attain, and any new construction to
achieve that objective would likely result in further inefficiencies.
An architectural/engineering evaluation of the campus has determined that major portions ofthe
facility are not suitable for renovation, as they would not conform to either building or
operational codes. Continuing to operate under these conditions for the indefinite future would
be a significant unavoidable impact that would have a disproportionate effect on the minority
population that is overrepresented by the juvenile detainees.
. Mitigation Measure 16.1.1: The County should implement one of the proposed
development alternatives to address the existing conditions at the existing Juvenile Hall
in San Leandro that result in an environmental justice impact to juvenile detainees.
Resulting Level of Significance: Constructing a new Juvenile Justice Facility at one of the
proposed alternative sites would address the existing deficiencies in the existing Juvenile
Hall. However, implementing No Action/No Project would result in a significant
unavoidable environmental justice impact.
Impact 16.1.2: Existing San Leandro Property
POTENTlALL Y SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. Dernolition of the existing
Juvenile Hall and construction of a new Juvenile Justice Facility at the Existing San Leandro
Property would not result in any environmental justice impacts on the surrounding community,
but could have significant adverse effects on the detainees.
The population around the existing facility is composed of households with incomes and racial
composition is similar to the countywide average. Although the level of activity at the site would
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-11
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
increase with the increased bed population and consolidation of courts and administrative
functions, those living nearby would not experience a significant changes in the current level of
activity at the Existing San Leandro Property site. This is because the proposed Juvenile Justice
Facility would replace the existing Juvenile Hall with a similar use to that which has occurred on
the site for the past 50 years, and would be located on a portion of the site that is further removed
ftom the residential neighborhood. Where potentially significant physical environmental effects
have been identified in relation to this alternative in this Draft EIS/EIR, implementation of the
corresponding mitigation measures would reduce effects on nearby residents to a level of less
than significant.
Development of a new facility at the Existing San Leandro Property would address the existing
environmental justice concerns regarding the conditions under which minorities and all youth are
detained. Among the environmental effects described throught the Draft EIS/EIR, this alternative
would result in the exposure of juvenile detainees to potentially significant but mitigable seismic
hazards. The new facility would be constructed to meet stringent seismic safety codes and would
comply with the state code for juvenile detention construction and operations, and the
geoteclmical analysis for the site has identified a buildable area for the Project. Therefore, this
impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
The Existing San Leandro Property is located near the urban centers of the County and has
functioned as the central juvenile detention facility for Alameda County for nearly 50 years. A
weighted-average travel distance to the site based on the place ofresidence of each detainee in
2000/2001 is approximately 13.3 miles, which is comparable to the average home-based work
trip for the region. Access to the site is convenient ftom BART, AC Transit, and the freeway
system. Therefore, accessibility is considered a less than significant impact.
Impact 16.1.3: Glenn Dyer Detention Facility
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT. The conversion of the existing Glenn Dyer
Detention Facility to house juvenile detainees would not have environmental justice impacts on
the surrounding area, but could have significant adverse effects on the detainees that cannot be
readily mitigated.
For more than 15 years, the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility housed adult detainees with limited
effects on those living in the surrounding area. The shift to a juvenile facility would not have any
additional adverse effects on those living nearby, particularly because the total number of
detainees would be lower than the prior capacity of the adult facility (all double-bunk cells
would be converted to single-bed cells, reducing to capacity from approximately 550 beds to 420
beds).
The facility is expected to be sufficient to meet the minimum State requirements for juvenile
detention facilities, and therefore is considered a viable alternative that would meet the goal of
providing a suitable living environment for juvenile detainees during the period of their
detention.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
However, this EIS/EIR concludes that the exposure to elevated noise levels in the recreation
space could be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation measures could be developed to address
the noise conditions in those outdoor spaces, but there are competing objectives of providing
natural light and air, versus providing adequate noise control and shielding. Therefore, this
alternative could result in significant unavoidable environmental justice impacts on the juvenile
detainees if noise cannot be reduced to an acceptable level as part of the design.
The Glenn Dyer Detention Facility is located in an urban area with ready access for a majority of
the detainee's family mernbers and others associated with the process of detention, hearings, and
release (such as attorneys and counselors). The weighted-average travel distance to the site is
approximately 12.0 miles, which is consistent with the average home-based work trip for the-
region. BART, AC Transit, and rreeway access is convenient and rrequent, and the site is
located near large population centers in which a majority ofthe juvenile detainees nonnally
reside. Therefore, the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility alternative would not have any
environmental justice impacts related to accessibility.
Impact 16.1.4:
Pardee/Swan Site
NO IMPACT. The development of the Pardee/Swan Site as proposed would not have any
environmental justice impacts on the very few residents in the area and would not adversely
affect the juvenile detainees.
The Pardee/Swan site is suited to development as a Juvenile Justice Facility and would not be
environmentally or economically detrimental to the detainees or their families. No significant
environmental hazards are present that would preclude development of the site, and the site is
readily accessible from major population centers of the County. The weighted-average travel
distance to the site for detainees is approximately 11.3 miles, which is consistent with the
regional average home-based work trip. The site is accessible by AC Transit and BART, and
would therefore not have a significant environmental justice impact related to accessibility or
environmental constraints. The site would accommodate the complete facility including all of
the planned housing, recreation, education, judicial, counseling and similar uses according to the
program developed by the County of Alameda, and would result in a supportive detention
environment.
Impact 16.1.5: East County Government Center
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACT. The development of the East
County Government Center site as proposed would not result in environmental justice impacts to
the surrounding community, but could have some adverse effects on detainees, to the extent that
access to the area is inconvenient.
The East County Government Center Site is located in a suburban area that is occupied by a
relatively affluent, non-minority population characteristic of rapid new suburban development in
Alameda County. The surrounding area was until recently vacant government-owned land used
for a variety oflow-intensity activities. The area to the southwest has been developed with a
business park, and to the southeast with single-family homes priced in the $400,000 to $600,000
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacilitylEast County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-13
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
range. Further south is a mix of similar single-family homes, condominiums, apartments and
retail commercial development, all constructed within the past 5 to 10 years.
Impacts to institutionalized residents ofthe County jail and federal correctional institution would
be limited due to their controlled experience ofthe environment. The most likely impacts would
be from emissions of noise or air pollution during construction. No significant impact at the jail
facility would occur as a result of the proposed development, due to distance from the
construction activity and shielding provided by the institution's walls. Therefore, no significant
environmental impacts to this minority population would occur.
The East County Government Center Site is suited to development as a Juvenile Justice Facility
and would not present any environmental hazards to the detainees. However, the site's location
could present some transportation difficulties for families and others associated with the
detainees at the Juvenile Justice Facility.
The East County Government Center Site is located in an area with good freeway access, and a
BART station is located approximately 2 miles from the site. However, local transit service
from BART to the site is provided only during peak commute and limited afternoon hours dumg
the weekdays, and does not operate on the weekends. Based on the current pattern of arrests and
home addresses for detainees, a majority of the detainee's family members would have to travel
a greater distance to participate in the detention and visitation processes if the Project was
located in Dublin compared to the existing site or any of the other alternatives being considered
in this EIS/EIR. The weighted-average travel distance to the site is approximately 23.9 miles,
which is approximately twice the average distance to the other alternative sites. Therefore, the
East County Government Center Site alternative could have environmental justice impacts
related to accessibility, including the time and cost of traveling longer distances in an area that is
not as proximate to the majority of detainees nor as well served by transit as the more urban
locations being considered in this EIS/EIR.
The County Administrator's Office has prepared a preliminary analysis of the transportation
impacts of operating the Juvenile Justice Project in Dublin, and concludes that round-trip transit
times could increase by between 10 and 80 minutes for persons ITom throughout the County,
except for persons traveling ITom the Tri- Valley area. Round-trip transit costs could increase by
between $1.20 and $5.70 per person depending on the origin of the trip, except for persons
traveling to the site from within the Tri-Valley area.
The CAO's transportation plan was intended for discussion purposes, and would require
additional input ITom County agencies and the public, but provides a starting point for addressing
transportation issues for detainees' families and others. The draft plan includes efforts to: work
with the Livennore-Amador Valley Transportation Authority (LA VT A) to expand transit
availability to the East County Government Center site (addressing hours of operation, ITequency
of service); consider transit subsidies for parents visiting children or attending court hearings at
the Juvenile Justice Facility; consider the introduction of dedicated transit service between north
/ central county locations to the East County Government Center to coincide with visiting hours;
develop financing mechanisms for supporting expanded transit service and/or transit subsidies;
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
and contract with a local transportation planner to develop a comprehensive approach to
transportation impacts.
. Mitigation Measure 16.1.5: Transit Service Enhancements. The County of
Alameda should complete a formal transportation plan that addresses the economic and
social effects of inconvenient access and increased costs related to traveling to the site,
and should implement feasible and effective measures that improve access to the East
County Government Center Site.
Impact 16.1.6:
Site 15A
NO IMPACT. The development of Site 15A as proposed would not be expected to result in any
en,vironmentaljustice impacts. As indicated in the discussion of the East County Government
Center above, the site is located in a suburban area that is occupied by relatively affluent,
nonminority populations associated with rapid new development.. After the implementation of
mitigation measures identified elsewhere in this EIS/EIR, none of the potential environmental
impacts associated with this alternative would create permanent human health hazards, nor
would they adversely affect a particular group of persons distinct from the overall population
typical throughout the City, which tend to be middle-class, nonminority persons. Such a
population is not the intended focus of the Environmental Justice Order, and therefore the Order
does not apply. No environmental impacts to minority populations institutionalized in the County
jail and federal correctional institution would occur.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-15
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 16-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
17
Growth-Inducing and Cumulative
Impacts
17.1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
The proposed Juvenile Justice Facility and East County Hall of Justice projects are intended to
address documented needs in the County for improved facilities. The proposed Projects would
not induce population growth in the vicinity at any of the alternative sites considered in this
EISÆIR, but would accommodate the existing and projected level of service required to meet the
demands of the County over the next 20 years or more.
The development program for the Juvenile Justice Facility has been studied over the past 10
years, with the most recent program verification completed in 2002 by MVE/Rosser. The
program addresses the immediate need for a facility with 420 beds and five juvenile courts, and
possible expansion to 450 beds and to 540 beds with six courts. The Alameda County Board of
Supervisors would detennine the timing of the expansion based on documented needs, in
collaboration with the managing departments (see discussion of Juvenile Justice Facility purpose
and need in Section 2.2, page 2-4).
The development program for the East County Hall of Justice has also been studied for several
years, with the most recent program verification completed in 2002 by HLM Design/Muller &
Caulfield Architects. The program addresses the need for 13 courts to serve the East County
area with calendar assignments that reflect the type and volurne of cases to be heard through the
year 2020.
The development ofthese Projects at any of the sites evaluated in this EISÆIR would be
consistent with overall land use plans for the areas, in tenns of density and intensity of use. The
sites are each located in urban areas with adequate infrastructure to serve the demands for
services, such as water and wastewater, so no substantial infrastructure irnprovements would be
required which could lead to growth-inducement in neighboring areas.
Employment at any of the sites would be relatively small in comparison to the overall level of
activity in the vicinity. Many ofthe employees (approximately 450 to 550 staff at the Juvenile
Justice Facility, and approximately 300 staff at the East County Hall of Justice) would be drawn
primarily ftom the existing labor supply serving these County functions, and limited new
housing would be required to serve new employees. Considered in the context of Alameda
County and the individual communities in which the projects could be located, the projects do
not represent the introduction of large employment or economic generators. However, the
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-1
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
overall trend in the region is toward increased traffic congestion, a lack of affordable housing,
and increased service demands that could outstrip the ability of cities and other agencies to
provide for all of the long-term growth within and beyond the nine-County San Francisco Bay
Area. Therefore, there is the potential for significant cumulative growth-inducing impacts.
17.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
"Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together,
are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative
impact fÌ'om several projects is the change in the environment which results fÌ'om the incremental
impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably
foreseeable probably future projects. Cumulative impacts can result fÌ'om individually minor but
collectively significant projects taking place over a period oftime (CEQA Guidelines, Section
15355). Cumulative impacts need not be discussed in detail if the incremental effect of a Project
would not be "cumulatively considerable" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130(a»). Cumulatively
considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the probable effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15065(c).
CEQA provides that, where significant cumulative effects may occur, the analysis may be based
on a list ofproject producing related cumulative impacts, or a summary of projections contained
in an adopted general plan or related planning document or in a prior adopted environmental
document that describes area wide conditions.
NEP A contains sirnilar definitions and provisions for analyzing cumulative impacts. Under
NEPA, cumulative impacts are impacts that result fÌ'om the environmental impact of the action
when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Such impacts can
result fÌ'om individually minor but collectively significant actions over time (40 CFR Section
1508.7).
For purposes of this EIS/EIR, cumulative impacts have been assessed for the proposed action
and each alternative. The geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect of the
proposed action is defined as the area surrounding each alternative site under consideration.
No ACTION/No PROJECT
The on-going operation of the existing Juvenile Hall Facility at the San Leandro site and the
existing Gale-Shenone Courthouse in Pleasanton would not have any cumulatively considerable
environmental effects. No construction would take place at either ofthose sites, and the County
would not implement any other activity at the alternative sites evaluated in this EISÆIR. On-
going operations would not result in any change from existing conditions, so there would be no
significant environmental effects that would combine with other cumulative projects. The
significant unavoidable effect of continuing to operate the existing Juvenile Hall in San Leandro,
i.e. exposure to seismic hazards, would be site-specific and similar to the exposure experienced
by all of the County facilities at the San Leandro campus. Consequently, the No Action / No
Project Alternative would not result in significant cumulative impacts.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
EXISTING SAN LEANDRO PROPERTY
Cumulative Development Concept
Demolition of the existing San Leandro facility and construction of a new Juvenile Justice
Facility at the San Leandro site would occur in an area that is already urbanized or set aside for
open space purposes.
The Alameda County General Services Agency has initiated a master plan study of the Fainnont
campus property (including the existing Fainnont Hospital, Juvenile Hall, and other land
generally bounded by Fainnont Drive, Foothill Boulevard, and the existing residential areas) to
detennine asset values and possible disposition ofpoÌ1ions of the site that do not meet the '
County's long-tenn needs, particularly the health care facilities that have deteriorated and are
located in close proximity to the Hayward fault zone. Although reuse or replacement of the
existing Fainnont Campus buildings may occur, specific development projects and land uses for
the existing Fainnont Hospital, juvenile Hall and other County-owned land comprising the
Fainnont Campus area have not been identified. Consequently, specific uses are considered
speculative.
Other past, present, and probable future development in the vicinity would be under the auspices
ofthe City of San Leandro. The City adopted a new General Plan in 2002 that addresses land
use trends within the City and in the City's sphere of influence, which includes the Fainnont
Campus area. The General Plan was evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report, which was
certified and adopted by the City Council in May 2002. The City acknowledged the County's
land use plans for the area and identified a need for continued cooperation in addressing
neighborhood and commercial revitalization. The City also identified several areas of focused
growth potential, including the Bayfair area and East 14th Street corridor. Based upon the City's
growth projections contained in the adopted San Leandro General Plan, the changes anticipated
in those districts would be substantially more intense than the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility,
but are anticipated to occur over a long period oftime in incremental and flexible stages that
cannot be forecast at this time, as much ofthis development would only be initiated during
favorable economic conditions.
Potential Environmental Effects
If the existing Fainnont Campus facilities are reused or replaced, likely impacts from some
future development ofthe Fainnont Campus area might include temporary noise and dust
impacts associated with demolition and construction activity (which could be cumulatively
significant, depending on the amount of construction activity taking place in the vicinity at the
time), vehicular traffic and transit demand within the area, and air pollutant emissions associated
with that traffic. Additional service demands on water and wastewater providers, stonn drainage
systems, electrical and gas service, and other infrastructure could result from redevelopment of
the site. However, those demands would be partially offset by a decrease in activity from the
demolition or reduced use of existing facilities. No estimate of the net impacts is possible until
the General Services Agency completes its study, and recommendations for specific uses are
approved for further consideration by the Board of Supervisors. If the Juvenile Justice Facility is
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EISIEIR
Page 17-3
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
approved for the existing San Leandro Property, then the campus master plan study described
above would incorporate that decision in the preparation ofthe master plan, and would address
any additional impacts and mitigation measures based on that decision.
The facilities study is not expected to be completed for several months, and the study's
recommendations cannot be forecasted at this time. Because the future uses and results of the
master planning effort are considered speculative, no projections are made in this EISÆIR
regarding the potential cwnulative effect of development that may be recommended by that
study. Any such recommended development would be subject to independent review and
approval by the Board of Supervisors, including public notice and environmental impact
assessment. Therefore, there are no cumulative impacts of other projects to be considered, and
the Project's contribution would be limited to the direct effects of the Project as discussed in
Chapters 4 through 16.
The implementation of individual projects in the change areas and elsewhere in the City of San
Leandro would be subject to independent analysis by the City as they are proposed, and are
dispersed over an area at least one-half mile away from the existing Juvenile Hall site. In the
immediate vicinity of the site, limited development is anticipated.
Consequently, the project's incremental effects, in combination with the limited effects of
anticipated! reasonably foreseeable development in the immediate vicinity, would not be
considered cwnulatively considerable except for the following.
Traffic Modeling Pursuant to the Congestion Management Agency Methodology
Traffic modeling has been completed according to the Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency guidelines for Year 2025 scenarios including 420 beds and 540 beds at the Juvenile
Justice Facility. The results, shown in Tables 17.1 and 17.2, indicate that Interstate 580 near the
Project site (north and south of 150th Avenue) would be adversely affected, changing from Level
of Service (LOS) E to LOS F, and the Project would contribute traffic to roadway segments that
are projected to already operate at unacceptable levels of service in 2025.
Mitigation Measures consistent with those proposed for short-tenn impacts (see Chapter 9,
Transportation) would also apply to the long-tenn cumulative impacts of the Project.
. Mitigation Measure 17.1.1 a: Preserve and Enhance Transit Service in San
Leandro. The County of Alameda should coordinate with AC Transit service planners
to ensure continued service at sufficient frequency and hours of operation to meet the
needs of the Project and to provide a new bus stop at the main entrance to the facility.
. Mitigation Measure 17.1.1 b: TSMITDM Program. The County of Alameda should
develop and implement a Transportation Systems Managernent/Transportation Demand
Management program for this Project designed to reduce the use of single-occupant
vehicles, particularly during peak hour periods. This program should include such
strategies as on-site distribution of transit infonnation and passes, provision of shuttle
services to and from the BART station, participation in ride sharing services, preferential
parking for vanpools and carpools, and potentially flexible or staggered work hours.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.1: Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - Existing San Leandro Property - 420-bed Scenario
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
2025 No Project 2025 + Project Change 2025 No Project 2025 + Project Change
Location
Capaci~ Volume VlC LOS Volume V/C LOS ¡nVlC ~olume V/C LOS Volume VlC ..OS ¡nV/C
1-580 north of 159th A venue
Northbound 8,000 6,979 0.872 0 7,083 1.885 0 0.013 6,979 ),872 0 6,990 0.874 0 0.001
Southbound 8,000 7,958 0.995 E 7,976 J.997 E 0.002 7,958 ).99~ E 8,060 1.008 F 0.013
1-580 north of 150th A venue
Northbound 8,000 7,955 þ.994 E 7,982 1998 E 0.003 7,955 0.994 E 8,108 ~.01~ F 0.019
Southbound 8,000 8,198 1.025 F 8,353 1.044 F 0.019 8,198 1.02~ F 8,215 1.027 F 0.002
ast 14th Street north of 150th Ave.
Northbound 1,800 797 þ.44.J A 799 .444 A 0,001 797 1443 A 807 O.44e A 0.006
Southbound 1,800 1,377 p.765 C 1,417 .78f C 0.022 1,377 1765 C 1,378 0.766 C 0.001
East 14th Street south of Fairmont Dr.
Northbound 1,800 699 p.388 A 716 .398 A 0.009 699 ).388 A 701 0.389 A 0.001
Southbound 1,800 1,235 0.686 B 1,238 ),688 B 0.002 1,235 1.686 B 1,252 0.696 B 0.009
150th Avenue west of East 14th St.
Eastbound 1,800 1,299 þ.722 C 1,306 .72E C 0.004 1,299 0.722 C 1,300 0.722 C 0.001
Westbound 1,800 1,273 P.707 C 1,274 1708 C 0.001 1,273 0.70/ C 1,280 b.711 C 0.004
Hesperian Blvd. south of 150th Ave.
Northbound 1,800 1,807 1.004 F 1,814 1.008 F 0.004 1,807 1.00~ F 1,808 1.004 F 0.001
Southbound 1,800 1,755 þ.975 E 1,756 1976 E 0.001 1,755 0.975 E 1,762 p.979 E 0.004
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17·5
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.2: Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - Existing San Leandro Property - 540-bed Scenario
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
2025 No Project 2025 + Project ChangE 2025 No Project 2025 + Project Change
Location
Capacl~ ~olumE VlC LOS Volume VlC LOS InV/C VolumE V/C OS ~olume VlC LOS InVlC
,.
1-580 north of 159th A venue
Northbound 8,000 6,979 .872 0 7,107 p.888 0 0.016 6,979 0.872 0 6,992 1874 0 0.002
Southbound 8,000 7,958 .991; E 7,978 þ.997 E 0.002 7,958 0.991; E 8,082 1.010 F 0.016
1-580 north of 150th A venue
Northbound 8,000 7,955 .994 E 7,984 þ.998 E 0.004 7,955 0.994 E 8,140 1.017 F 0.023
Southbound 8,000 8,198 1.025 F 8,389 1.049 F 0.024 8,198 1.025 F 8,219 1.027 F 0.003
ast 14th Street north of 150th Ave.
Northbound 1,800 797 þ.443 A 799 þ.444 A 0.001 797 0.443 A 810 .450 A 0.007
Southbound 1,800 1,377 Þ .765 C 1 ,439 þ.800 C 0.035 1,377 0.765 C 1,379 .766 C 0.001
East 14th Street south of Fairmont Dr.
Northbound 1,800 699 p.38E A 720 0.400 A 0.012 699 0.38E A 701 þ.38~ A 0.001
Southbound 1,800 1,235 þ.686 B 1,238 0.688 B 0.002 1,235 0.686 B 1,256 þ.698 8 0.012
150th Avenue west of East 14th SI.
Eastbound 1,800 1,299 þ.722 C 1,307 0.726 C 0.005 1,299 0.722 C 1,301 þ.723 C 0.001
Westbound 1,800 1,273 b.707 C 1,276 0.709 C 0.002 1,273 0.70, C 1,294 þ.719 C 0.012
Hesperian Blvd. south of 150th Ave.
Northbound 1,800 1,807 1.004 F 1,815 1.008 F 0.005 1,807 1.004 F 1,809 1.00~ F 0.001
Southbound 1,800 1,755 þ.975 E 1,757 0.976 E 0.001 1,755 0.975 E 1,763 þ.980 E 0.005
Resulting level of Significance. Even with implementation of Measure 17 A.2a and
17A.2b, the Project's contribution of traffic to 1-580 would be a significant and
unavoidable effect.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
-,
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
GLENN DYER DETENTION FACILITY
Cumulative Development Concept
The conversion of the existing Glenn Dyer facility from ajail that housed adult detainees to a
juvenile detention facility would not be expected to have cumulatively considerable effects on
the environment. Although the Project would entail the construction of a new tower in the
middle portion ofthe block to accommodate the required outdoor recreation areas, overall
employment and activity at the site would increase only marginally, and the number of detainees
would decrease from approximately 550 to 420. Existing employment at the site, from the mid-
1980's when the facility opened to mid-2002 when the facility closed, included over 200
Sheriffs department staff plus medical, food service, and other support personnel. Typical shifts
included 60 to 70 employees, with a daily visitor count of approximately 300 persons. The
proposed Juvenile Justice Facility would have an estimated employment of approximately 400
persons for 420 beds, with a typical daytime shift of approximately 200 staff. Average daily
public visits would be approximately 300 persons for the Juvenile Justice Facility. Juvenile
courts and administration functions would not be provided at this site.
Current development activity in the vicinity of the Glenn Dyer facility includes Preservation
Park Phase III (92 townhouses currently under construction), the Housewives Market (phase I,
with approximately 90 units is expected to begin construction later in 2002, Phase II with
approximately the same number ofunÏts is not expected to begin construction until later), the
Arioso project (approved for 88 units), and the City Center project (prirnarily office uses, with
Building T -9 completed and other buildings approved but not yet under construction). Across 1-
880 to the south, development activity includes the development project at Third Street and
Broadway (lIS residential units, 11,000 square feet of retail and the possibility of 57,500 square
feet of office space, approved but not yet in construction), the 300 Harrison project (91
residential units, including 10 live-work units, currently under environmental review) and the
426 Alice project (94 residential units and 9,800 square feet of office space, approved but not yet
in construction), among others. Each of these projects have been subject to environmental impact
review by the City, with appropriate mitigation measures as needed.
In addition, development associated with Phase II of the Jack London Square improvements
could include expansion of the movie theater by 1,500 net new seats, construction of a hotel at
the site of the fonner Jack London Village, and construction of a three-story building supporting
up to 57,000 square feet of mixed uses on the Marina Green, although none of these projects
have been fonnally submitted to the City of Oakland for review. These projects would also be
subject to independent environmental review by the City. In general, these projects are
consistent with the General Plan and zoning for the area.
Potential Environmental Effects
The proposed conversion and expansion of the existing GlelU1 Dyer facility to support juvenile
detainees would contribute toward some of the cumulative effects identified in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report on the Oakland General Plan Land Use and Transportation
Element (City of Oakland, 1997). The City conservatively detennined that traffic increases, air
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17·7
Chapter 17: Growth·lnducing and Cumulative Impacts
pollution (construction, traffic and operations), noise (construction and traffic), wind (for
highrises), and public service impacts City-wide could be significant and unavoidable, even after
implementation of the General Plan policies and programs and recommended mitigation
measures. However, specific analyses for the Glenn Dyer site vicinity, designated the
Downtown Showcase District, showed that no significant impacts would occur for
transportation-related air pollution. The City also determined that some impacts that might be
significant could be mitigated through the adoption of additional policies and programs. Those
included land use conflicts, traffic, population and housing, public services, air quality,
aesthetics, damage to archaeological and historic resources, noise compatibility, and exposure to
hazardous waste.
Regarding transportation impacts, the City of Oakland specifically considered projects in the
Downtown Showcase District near the Glenn Dyer site and found that several key projects would
generate approximately 3,840 a.m. peak hour trips and 5,309 p.m. peak: hour trips, and the local
intersections were expected to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS A through D) with
the exception of 1ih Street / Brush Street. Mitigation was proposed to increase the cycle length
for that intersection, thereby reducing that impact to less-than-significant. The Juvenile Justice
Facility at the Glenn Dyer site is estimated to generate approximately 353 a.m. peak hour trips,
and 311 p.m. peak hour trips. This projection does not account for the fact that the existing
Glenn Dyer jail also contributed similar trips to the area while it was in operation. Overall, the
net contribution to the local traffic conditions is less than significant, and would not be
cumulatively considerable.
Regarding noise impacts, the City of Oakland determined that the Downtown Showcase District,
as a focus of activity, could be exposed to substantial construction noise, as well as
transportation-related noise. Mitigation measures similar to those proposed in this EISÆIR were
recommended to reduce these impacts to the degree feasible. However, construction noise was
determined to be significant and unavoidable. Development of the Juvenile Justice Facility at
the Glenn Dyer site would contribute to this significant unavoidable impact, falling within the
overall projected noise context for the Downtown Showcase District. Traffic noise was
estimated to increase up to 3 decibels as a result of development and traffic projected for the
Downtown Showcase District. The City of Oakland detennined that this impact was less than
significant because the overall noise levels would be acceptable for the proposed land uses in the
area. Development of the proposed Juvenile Justice Facility at the Glenn Dyer site would add to
the traffic noise in the vicinity. However, this EISÆIR concludes that given the severe traffic
noise environment in the area resulting ftom traffic on 1-880, Project-related traffic would not
cause any substantial increases in traffic noise in the area.
Air quality impacts are cumulative in the sense that additional construction, traffic and
operations add to the emissions in the air basin and can affect the region's air quality. The
Project would contribute to the regional diesel emissions during construction, including PMlO,
ozone precursors, and TACs. The project's contribution would be reduced with the
implernentation of mitigation measures, including the use ofaltemative fuels, but would remain
significant for the approximate 18-month construction period in Oakland and during the
demolition activity at the existing Juvenile Hall in San Leandro. If other construction is
occurring in the vicinity during the Project activity, the Project could be said to contribute a
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-8
I
I
I
,I
I
a
I
I
,I
I
I
,I'~
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
cumulatively considerable amount to that impact, and vice versa. Other emissions due to traffic
and general operations would not be cumulatively considerable, based on the project-specific
analysis contained in this EIS/EIR.
The Project's visual impacts would cumulatively add to the intensification of the downtown area
expected as part of the General Plan's designation as a "Change and Grow" area and showcase
district, but the Project's contribution would be less than significant as the impact of the Project
itself would not detract substantially from the visual character of the area and other development
in the area is similarly expected to be compatible with the surroundings as a result of City design
reVIew.
Demand for public services would increase incrementally as a result of the Project, but would not
contribute a substantial burden to the City, as the site would be reused for a similar use as has
been existing since 1984 when the facility originally opened as an adult jail. Cumulative
development in the downtown area could result in a considerable increase in demand, as higher
intensity uses are built at vacant or underutilized sites. That impact is addressed in the City of
Oakland EIR for the General Plan and Showcase District projects, and was found to be less than
significant after mitigation. The Project's contribution would be a less than significant
cumulative impact.
The Project would not contribute to the hazardous materials impacts identified in the General
Plan because there would be no disturbance of hazardous waste, or use/disposal of hazardous
materials at the site.
Traffic Modeling Pursuant to the Congestion Management Agency Methodology
Traffic modeling has been completed according to the Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency guidelines for Year 2025 scenarios including 420 beds at the Juvenile Justice Facility at
the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility. The results, shown in Table 17.3, indicate that no CMA-
designated roadways would be adversely affected by background traffic or the project.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-9
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.3: Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - Glenn Dyer Detention Facility - 420-bed Scenario
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
2025 No Project 2025 + Project [:hange 2025 No Project 2025 + Project Change
Location [:apacity Volume V/C I'-OS ~olume V/C LOS InVlC Volum V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS in VlC
1-880 south of Broadway
Northbound 10,000 8,059 J.806 D 8,065 þ.807 D 0.001 8,059 0.806 D 8,240 þ.824 D 0.018
Southbound 10,000 6,919 J.692 B 7,127 þ}13 C 0.021 6,919 0.692 B 6,924 þ.692 B 0.001
1-880 north of Union Street
Northbound 6,000 3,953 ,659 B 3,970 þ.66~ 8 0.003 3,953 0.659 8 3,953 þ.659 B 0.000
Southbound 6,000 4,373 .72S C 4,374 þ}29 C 0.000 4,373 0.729 C 4,388 þ.731 C 0.002
1-980 east of 12th Street
Eastbound 6,000 2,945 þ.491 A 2,947 þ.491 A 0.000 2,945 0.491 A 3,005 0.501 A 0.010
Westbound 6,000 1,576 þ.263 A 1,645 þ.274 A 0.012 1,576 0.263 A 1,578 0.263 A 0.000
7th Street north of Jefferson Street
Southbound 3,600 573 þ.159 A 676 0.18B A 0.029 573 J.159 A 575 0.160 A 0.001
Broadway east of 7th Street
Eastbound 2,700 164 þ.061 A 164 0.061 A 0.000 164 J.061 A 164 0.061 A 0.000
Westbound 2,700 362 þ,134 A 367 0.136 A 0.002 362 J.134 A 507 0.188 A 0.054
Brush Street east of 7th Street
Westbound 2,700 414 þ.151 A 483 0.179 A 0.026 414 J.153 A 416 0.154 A 0.001
Castro Street east of 12th Street
Eastbound 2,700 107 þ.040 A 109 0.040 A 0.001 107 J.040 A 167 0.062 A 0.022
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-10
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
PARDEE/SWAN SITE
Cumulative Development Concept
There are two major development projects in the vicinity of the Pardee/Swan site that, in
combination with the construction and operation of the proposed Juvenile Justice Center, would
be expected to make cumulatively considerable contributions to local traffic (with related effects
on noise and air quality along roadways in the vicinity of the site).
The proposed expansion of the Oakland International Airport is anticipated to accommodate
future growth in the number of passengers using the airport. In this instance, the airport
expansion project would only make a cumulatively considerable contribution to traffic on local
roadways ifthe anticipated growth in airline passengers actually materializes. It is possible that,
given recent shifts in travel patterns and continuing concern regarding threats to airline safety,
the airport expansion project may not actually be needed to accommodate a significant increase
in the nurnber of airline passengers for the foreseeable future.
The Port of Oakland's Metroport project, on a site near the Hegenberger Road/I-880 interchange,
is currently undergoing environmental review. If developed as currently proposed, this project
would result in 1.3 million square feet of new office space, approximately 50,000 square feet of
retail space, a 350-room hotel, two parking structures and a station on the proposed rail link
between the existing BART line and the Oakland International Airport. Although this project
could be expected to make a significant cumulative contribution to local traffic congestion at
buildout, given the current economic climate, development at this site would not be expected to
begin before 2005.
The City of Oakland also designates the Pardee/Swan area as part of the Airport / Gateway
Showcase District, and a "Change and Grow" area. The Project's contribution to the cumulative
impact of the overall growth in the area would be less than significant based on the level of
development anticipated in the vicinity under current land use regulations.
Although Hegenberger Road between 1-880 and Doolittle Road is identified as potentially
operating at unacceptable levels of service in 2005 with General Plan-based development,
mitigation measures undertaken by the City and Port, particularly the Airport Roadway Project,
would reduce this impact to less-than-significant. The Project's contribution of 140 to 180 peak
hour trips on this roadway not would be cumulatively considerable in light of the projected
overall 3,855 vehicles estimated to use this roadway segment in 2005.
Taken together, however, the Juvenile Justice Facility, the two major development projects in the
vicinity, and other development likely to occur over the life of the Project would make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to local traffic congestion.
This increase in the number ofvehicIes using local roadways would, in turn, contribute to a
cumulative increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of these roadways, and could be
expected to also contribute to a cumulative increase in air pollution within the region. However,
the Project's contribution to the noise environment is considered less than significant at this
location because few sensitive receptors are nearby. Traffic noise along Hegenberger Road due
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-11
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
to cumulative development is projected to decrease in the short term due to the shift in traffic to
98th Avenue, and increase by less than 1 dB, to approximately 70 dB in the long term as
cumulative development occurs. Noise along 98th Avenue is similarly projected to increase less
than 1 dB, which would be unnoticeable to the average person. The overall noise setting would
remain compatible with the planned land uses in the area and the Project's contribution would be
less than significant.
Significant air pollution contributions would occur primarily during construction, due to the use
of heavy equipment. Other air pollutants would contribute to the regional ozone precursors and
PMI0, but would be less than significant after mitigation.
Hazardous materials at the site would be handled according to regulatory mandates, and would
not present cumulative hazards.
As indicated in Chapter 5 of this EIS/EIR, development of the Pardee/Swan site as proposed
would obstruct views of the shoreline :trom the trail along the San Leandro Channel, a significant
and unavoidable impact. Taken within the context of development in the vicinity that has also
blocked views from the trail to the shoreline to some extent, this would be regarded as a
cumulatively considerable impact of the Project that would be significant and unavoidable.
The provision of public services and utilities at the Pardee/Swan site would not present any
significant obstacles. Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Chapter 13 and
Chapter 14 of this EIS/EIR would reduce potentially significant Project-related impacts
associated with solid waste disposal and wastewater infrastructure capacity constraints,
respectively, to a level ofless than significant. Although development of this site as proposed
would increase demand for public services and utilities incrementally, this would be regarded as
a less than significant impact, as these are currently provided to all developed parcels in the
vicinity. The Project-related effects associated with public services and utilities, taken within the
context of the level of development ultimately anticipated in the surrounding area under current
land use regulations, would represent a less than significant cumulative impact.
Traffic Modeling Pursuant to the Congestion Management Agency Methodology
Traffic modeling has been completed according to the Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency guidelines for Year 2025 scenarios including 420 beds and 540 beds at the Juvenile
Justice Facility at the Pardee/Swan Site. The results, shown in Tables 17.4 and 17.5, indicate
that the 420-bed and 540-bed scenarios would contribute to unacceptable travel conditions on
southbound Interstate 880 south of 98th Avenue (LOS F) in the p.m. peak: hour. The 420-bed
scenario would contribute approximately 140 peak hour vehicles and the 540-bed scenario would
contribute approximately 175 peak hour trips to a background of approximately 8,500 vehicles in
2025.
Cumulative impact mitigation consistent with that proposed for short-term impacts (see
Chapter 9, Transportation) would also apply to the long-term cumulative impacts of the
Proj ect.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-12
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I'
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth~lnducing and Cumulative Impacts
T bl 17 4 Y 2025 CMA R d
AI" Pd/S
S't 420 b d S
a e ear oa way nalysls - ar ee wan I e- . e cenano
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
2025 No Project 2025 + Project Change 2025 No Project 2025 + Project Change
Location Capacity r.tolume VIC LOS ¡VolumE V/C LOS InV/C Volum V/C OS Volume VlC LOS InVlC
1-880 south of 98th Avenue
Northbound 8,000 7,571 þ.946 E 7,707 196 E 0.017 7,571 ), 946 E 7,575 0.94 E 0.001
Southbound 8,000 8,455 1.057 F 8,459 1.057 F 0.000 8,455 1.051 F 8,591 1.07~ F 0.017
1-880 north of Hegenberger Rd.
Northbound 8,000 7,300 0.91" E 7,304 .913 E 0.001 7,300 .913 E 7,436 0.93C E 0.017
Southbound 8,000 7,369 0.921 E 7,505 þ.938 E 0.017 7,369 .921 E 7,373 0.922 E 0.001
Doolittle Drive north of Swan Way
Northbound 1,800 362 0201 A 362 þ.201 A 0.000 362 þ.201 A 377 ),209 A 0,008
Southbound 1,800 350 0.194 A 365 þ.203 A 0.008 350 þ.194 A 350 ),194 A 0.000
Doolittle Drive South of Airport Dr.
Northbound 1,800 1,570 0.872 0 1,586 þ.881 0 0.009 1,570 þ.872 0 1,570 .872 0 0.000
Southbound 1,800 1,419 0.788 C 1,419 0.788 C 0.000 1,419 þ.788 C 1 ,435 .797 C 0.009
~irport Drive north of 98th Avenue
Northbound 1,800 790 0,439 A 931 0,517 A 0.078 790 þ.439 A 794 þ.441 A 0.002
Southbound 1,800 765 0,425 A 769 0.427 A 0.002 765 0.425 A 906 þ.50" A 0.078
Hegenberger Rd. east of Airport Dr.
Eastbound 2,700 2,204 0.816 0 2,208 0.818 0 0.001 2,204 0.816 0 2,340 þ.86, 0 0.050
Westbound 2,700 1,144 0.424 A 1,280 0.474 A 0.050 1,144 0,424 A 1,148 þ.42~ A 0.001
98th Avenue east of Airport Drive
Eastbound 2,700 1,061 ),393 A 1,065 0.394 A 0,001 1,061 0.393 A 1,197 þ.44~ A 0.050
Westbound 2,700 190 ),070 A 326 0.121 A 0.050 190 0.070 A 194 þ.072 A 0.001
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-13
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
T bl 17 5 Y 2025 CMA R d
A I . P d IS
S't 540 b d S
a e ear oa way. nalysls- ar ee wan Ie· . e cenano
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
2025 No Project 2025 + Project ..hange 2025 No Project 2025 + Project Change
Location ~apacity Volume VlC LOS Volume VlC LOS InVlC Volum V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS inV/C
1-880 south of 98th Avenue
Northbound 8,000 7,571 0.946 E 7,746 þ.96E E 0.022 7,571 0.946 E 7,576 þ.947 E 0.001
Southbound 8,000 8,455 1.057 F 8,460 1.058 F 0.001 8,455 1.057 F 8,630 1.079 F 0.022
1-880 north of HegenbergerRd.
Northbound 8,000 7,300 0.91.:, E 7,305 Þ.913 E 0.001 7,300 0.913 E 7,475 0.934 E 0.022
Southbound 8,000 7,369 0.921 E 7,544 0.943 E 0.022 7,369 0.921 E 7,374 0.922 E 0.001
Doolittle Drive north of Swan Way
Northbound 1,800 362 0.201 A 363 0.202 A 0.001 362 0.201 A 381 0.212 A 0.011
Southbound 1,800 350 0.19~ A 369 0.205 A 0.011 350 0.194 A 351 0.195 A 0.001
Doolittle Drive South of Airport Dr.
Northbound 1,800 1,570 0.87. D 1,590 0.883 D 0.011 1,570 0.872 D 1,570 0.872 D 0.000
Southbound 1,800 1,419 0.788 C 1,419 0.788 C 0.000 1,419 0.788 C 1 ,439 0.799 C 0.011
Airport Drive north of 98th Avenue
Northbound 1,800 790 0.435 A 971 0.539 A 0.101 790 3.439 A 795 0.442 A 0.003
Southbound 1,800 765 0.42E A 770 0.428 A 0.003 765 0.425 A 946 0.526 A 0.101
Hegenberger Rd. east of Airport Dr.
Eastbound 2,700 2,204 0.81E D 2,209 0.818 D 0.002 2,204 0.816 D 2,379 0.881 D 0.065
Westbound 2,700 1,144 0.424 A 1,319 0.489 A 0.065 1,144 3.424 A 1,149 0.426 A 0.002
98th Avenue east of Airport Drive
Eastbound 2,700 1,061 0.39 A 1,066 0.39"i A 0.002 1,061 0.393 A 1,236 0.458 A 0.065··
Westbound 2,700 190 0.070 A 365 0.135 A 0,065 190 0.070 A 195 0.072 A 0.002
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
. Mitigation Measure 17.1.3a: TSM/TDM Program. The County of Alameda should
develop and implement a Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand
Management program for this Project designed to reduce the use of single-occupant
vehicles, particularly during peak hour periods. This program should include such
strategies as on-site distribution of transit information and passes, provision of shuttle
services to and ITorn the BART station, participation in ridesharing services, preferential
parking for vanpools and carpools, and potentially flexible or staggered work hours.
Resulting level of Significance. Even with implementation of Measure 17.4.3a, the Project's
contribution of traffic to 1-580 would be a significant and unavoidable effect.
EAST COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER AND SITE 15A
Cumulative Development Concept
In addition to the Juvenile Justice Facility and the East County Hall of Justice, the County may
eventually develop the total amount of development potential allocated to the East County
Govenunent Center site by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1998). In
addition to the 425,000-square foot Juvenile Justice Facility and the 195,000-square foot Hall of
Justice, approximately 260,000 square feet of office space also could be developed under the
adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. If this site is selected, the County could develop the
additional offices as the need arises and funds become available. Ifpennanent County facilities
became available, the office space leased by the County in the area (currently about 5,000 square
feet) would likely be vacated and made available to private commercial operations.
The development of the East County Govenunent Center site (approximately 40 acres) would
occur in the context of the overall City of Dublin General Plan, including the East Dublin
Specific Plan (EDSP) and the East Dublin Properties, as well as the Transit Center plan
amendment. These plans provide for the eventual development of approximately 7,000 acres of
land with 18,000 housing units, and 10.5 million square feet of commercial/institutional uses, as
well as parks, schools, and open space, and including the East County Government Center. Of
this area, approximately 5,000 acres are planned for such development, with the remainder
currently designated for large parcel residential and agriculture.
Development in the project area would be in accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
(Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1998). Consistent with this specific plan, two projects may occur in
the vicinity of the East County Government Center site that, when combined with the Proposed
Action, may result in some significant cumulative impacts. These projects are the Dublin Transit
Center, which has recently been approved by the City of Dublin's City Council, and the East
County Government Center Offices.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-15
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Potential Environmental Effects
Biology
Development of either the East County Government Center site or Site l5A, when viewed within
the context of other development taking place within the Dublin area, would result in a reduction
in habitat suitable for Congdon's tarplant within the area, and would also contribute to a
potentially significant cumulative loss of wetlands within the region. Although some
development in Eastern Dublin may result in habitat loss for other federally- and state-listed
species, the proposed Project would not contribute to impacts associated with these habitats.
Traffic Modeling Pursuant to the Congestion Management Agency Methodology
Traffic modeling has been completed according to the Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency guidelines for Year 2025 scenarios including 420 beds and 540 beds at the Juvenile
Justice Facility at the East County Government Center Site and Site 15A. The results are shown
in Tables 17.6 through 17.11.
Development of the East County Government Center site and Site 15A under any of the six
scenarios evaluated would contribute traffic to roadway segments expected to experience
unacceptable levels of service (LOS F) in 2025. These roadway segments are 1-580 east of
Tassajara Road during the p.m. peak hour (eastbound traffic - a project-related increase of up to
approximately 1.9 percent in the number of peak hour trips), Dougherty Road south of Dublin
Boulevard during the a.m. and p.rn. peak hours (northbound and southbound traffic during both
peak periods - a project-related increase of up to approximately 7.6 percent in the total number
of peak hour trips), and Dublin Boulevard east of Dougherty Road during the p.m. peak hour
(westbound traffic - a project-related increase of up to approximately 5.7 percent in the total
number of peak hour trips). Under the East County Government Center 540-bed scenario with 13
courtrooms, 1-580 east of Tassajara Road during the a.m. peak hour (westbound traffic), the
project would also contribute traffic resulting in LOS F along this roadway segment (a project-
related increase of approximately 1.5 percent in the total number of peak hour trips). Project-
related contributions to unacceptable levels of congestion on these roadway segments could be
regarded as cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures intended to address these impacts are consistent with those recommended
for the Project's short-tenn impacts on regional roadways (see Chapter 9, Transportation),
including the following:
. Mitigation Measure 17.1.5a and 17.1.6a: TSMITDM Program. The County of
Alameda should implement a Transportation Systems Management/Transportation
Demand Management program for this Project designed to reduce the use of single-
occupant vehicles, particularly during peak hour periods. This program should include
such strategies as on-site distribution of transit infonnation and passes, provision of
shuttle services to and from the BART station, participation in ridesharing services,
preferential parking for vanpools and carpools, and potentially flexible or staggered work
hours.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
. Mitigation Measure 17 .1.5b and 17.1.6b: Enhanced Transit Program. The
County of Alameda should implement an enhanced transit program designed to improve
access to the Project, with particular emphasis on expanding LA VTA route coverage and
hours serving the site. Such a program should also consider the potential for participation
in funding LA VT A shuttle services to and from the BART station.
. Mitigation Measure 17.1.5c and 17.1.6c: TVTC Fees. The County of Alameda
should contribute a proportionate amount to regional transportation mitigation programs
as determined by the current Tri- Valley Transportation Council fee program. Regional
improvements that may be implemented through use of these fees may include enhanced
rail and feeder bus transit services, construction or upgrading ofI-580 and/or 1-680
freeways, and/or construction or upgrading of alternative road corridors to relieve
demand on the 1-580 and 1-680 freeways.
Resulting level of Significance. Even with implementation of Measure 17.4.5a, b, and c, and
17.4.6a, band c above, the Project's contribution of traffic to 1-580, Dougherty Road and Dublin
Blvd. could be a significant and unavoidable effect because funding may not be adequate to
provide for implementation of all of the necessary mitigation measures planned for the Tri-
Valley.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-17
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.6: Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site-
Scenario A1 - 420-bed Juvenile Justice Facility and 13-Court Hall of Justice
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Location 2025 No Project 2025 + Project Change 2025 No Project 2025 + Project rhange
Capacity Volume VlC LOS Volume VlC LOS InVlC Volume VlC LOS Volume VlC LOS InVlC
1-580 east of Tassajara Road
Eastbound 9,000 6,609 0.734 C 6,645 0.738 C 0.004 9,452 1.050 F 9,639 1.071 F 0.021
Westbound 9,000 8,863 0.985 E 8,991 0.9S9 E 0.014 6,636 0.737 C 6,664 0.740 C 0,003
1-580 west of Hopyard Road
Eastbound 9,000 5,285 0.587 A 5,803 0.645 B 0.058 7,449 0.828 D 7,563 0.840 D 0.013
Westbound 9,000 8,010 0.890 D 8,042 0,894 D 0.004 7,475 0.831 D 7,736 0.860 D 0.029
1-680 North of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 5,529 0.903 E 5,532 0.903 E 0,000 6,463 0.903 E 6,489 0.903 E 0.000
Southbound 7,000 6,145 0.661 B 6,197 0.661 B 0.000 6,248 ),661 B 6,259 0.661 B 0.000
1-680 South of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 5,001 0.830 D 5,182 0.830 D 0.000 5,876 0.830 D 5,916 0.830 D 0.000
Southbound 6,000 5,397 0.748 C 5,408 0.748 C 0.000 5,241 0.748 C 5,332 0.748 C 0.000
Jougherty Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 3,694 1.368 F 3,805 1.409 F 0.041 4,154 1.539 F 4,203 1.557 F 0.018
Southbound 2,700 2,794 1.035 F 2,840 1.052 F 0.017 3,302 1.223 F 3,513 1.301 F 0.078
Dublin Blvd. east of Dougherty Rd.
Eastbound 2,700 2,017 0.747 C 2,332 J.864 D 0.117 2,130 0.789 C 2,200 0.815 D 0.026
Westbound 2,700 1,949 0.722 C 1,969 J.729 C 0.007 2,759 1.022 F 2,918 1.081 F 0.059
rrassajara Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 3,600 1,700 0.472 A 1,748 J,486 A 0.013 2,396 þ.666 B 2,417 0.671 B 0.006
Southbound 3,600 2,301 0.639 B 2,321 J.645 B 0.006 1,833 0.509 A 1,924 0.534 A 0.025
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.7: Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site-
Scenario A2 - 540-bed Juvenile Justice Facility and 13-Court East County Hall of Justice
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Location 2025 No Project 2025 + Project Change 2025 No Project 2025 + Project "hange
Capacity Volume VlC LOS Volume VlC LOS InVlC Volume VlC LOS Volume VlC LOS InVlC
1-580 east of Tassajara Road
Eastbound 9,000 6,609 0,734 C 6,617 0.735 C 0.001 9,452 1.050 F 9,516 1.057 F 0.007
Westbound 9,000 8,863 0.985 E 9,005 1.Q01 F 0.016 6,636 0.737 C 6,665 0.741 C 0.003
1-580 west of Hopyard Road
Eastbound 9,000 5,285 þ.587 A 5,863 0.651 B 0.064 7,449 0.828 D 7,570 0.841 D 0.013
Westbound 9,000 8,010 þ.890 D 8,042 0.894 D 0.004 7,475 0.831 D 7,736 0.860 D 0.029
1-680 North of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 5,529 0.903 E 5,532 0.903 E 0.000 6,463 0.903 E 6,489 0.903 E 0.000
Southbound 7,000 6,145 0.661 B 6,203 0.661 B 0.000 6,248 0.661 B 6,260 0.661 B 0.000
1-680 South of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 5,001 0.830 D 5,203 0.830 D 0.000 5,876 0.830 D 5,918 0.830 D 0.000
Southbound 6,000 5,397 0.748 C 5,408 0.748 C 0.000 5,241 0.748 C 5,332 0.748 C 0.000
Dougherty Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 3,694 1.368 F 3,805 1.409 F 0.041 4,154 1.539 F 4,203 1.557 F 0.018
Southbound 2,700 2,794 1.035 F 2,845 1.054 F 0.019 3,302 1.223 F 3,539 1.301 F 0.088
Dublin Blvd. east of Dougherty Rd.
Eastbound 2,700 2,017 0.747 C 2,369 0.877 D 0.130 2,130 0.789 C 2,203 0.816 D 0.027
Westbound 2,700 1,949 0.722 C 1,969 0.729 C 0.007 2,759 1.022 F 2,918 1.081 F 0.059
Tassajara Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 3,600 1,700 0.472 A 1,748 0.486 A 0.013 2,396 0.666 B 2,417 0.671 B 0.006
Southbound 3,600 2,301 0.639 B 2,321 0.645 B 0.006 1,833 0.509 A 1,924 0.534 A 0.025
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-19
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.8: Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site-
Scenario B -13-Court East County Hall of Justice Only
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Location 2025 No Project 2025 + Project Chang 2025 No Project 2025 + Project Irhangl
Capaclt) Volume V/C LOS Volume VlC LOS ¡nVlC Volume VlC LOS Volume VlC LOS ¡nVlC
1-580 east of Tassajara Road
Eastbound 9,000 6,609 0.734 C 6,617 ~.735 C 0.001 9,452 1.050 F 9,516 1.057 F 0.007
Westbound 9,000 8,863 0.985 E 8,938 ~.993 E 0.008 6,636 0.737 C 6,658 KJ,7 40 C 0.002
1-580 west of Hopyard Road
Eastbound 9,000 5,285 0.587 A 5,592 þ.621 B 0.034 7,449 0.828 D 7,539 0.838 D 0.010
Westbound 9,000 8,010 0.890 D 8,042 0.894 D 0,004 7,475 0.831 D 7,736 0.860 D 0.029
1-680 North of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 5,529 0.903 E 5,532 0.903 E 0.000 6,463 0.903 E 6,489 0.903 E 0.000
Southbound 7,000 6,145 0.661 B 6,176 þ.661 B 0.000 6,248 0.661 B 6,257 0.661 B 0.000
1-680 South of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 5,001 3.830 D 5,108 0.830 D 0.000 5,876 0.830 D 5,908 0.830 D 0.000
Southbound 6,000 5,397 3.748 C 5,408 0.748 C 0.000 5,241 0.748 C 5,332 0.748 C 0.000
þougherty Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 3,694 1.368 F 3,805 1.409 F 0.041 4,154 1.539 F 4,203 1.557 F 0.018
Southbound 2,700 2,794 1.035 F 2,822 1.045 F 0.010 3,302 1.223 F 3,421 1.267 F 0.044
Dublin Blvd. east of Dougherty Rd.
Eastbound 2,700 2,017 0.747 C 2,204 þ.816 D 0.069 2,130 0.789 C 2,186 0.810 D 0.021
Westbound 2,700 1,949 0.722 C 1,969 kJ.729 C 0.007 2,759 1.022 F 2,918 1.081 F 0.059
~assajara Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 3,600 1,700 0.472 A 1,748 P.486 A 0.013 2,396 0.666 B 2,417 0.671 B 0.006
Southbound 3,600 2,301 0.639 B 2,313 0.643 B 0.003 1,833 0.509 A 1,885 0.524 A 0.014
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17·20
I-~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.9: Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site and Site 15A
- Scenario C1 - 420-bed JJF at East County Government Center and ECHOJ at Site 15A
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Location 2025 No Project 2025 + Project Chang 2025 No Project 2025 + Project I"hangE
Capacit) Volume VlC LOS Volume VlC LOS ¡nVlC Volume VlC LOS Volume V/C LOS in VlC
1-580 east of T assajara Road
Eastbound 9,000 6,609 0.734 C 6,617 0.735 C 0.001 9,452 1.050 F 9,516 1.057 F 0.007
Westbound 9,000 8,863 0.985 E 8,938 0.993 E 0.008 6,636 0.737 C 6,649 0.739 C 0.D01
1.s80 west of Hopyard Road
Eastbound 9,000 5,285 ~.587 A 5,786 D.643 B 0.056 7,449 0.828 D 7,558 0.840 D 0.012
Westbound 9,000 8,010 0.890 D 8,042 D.894 D 0.004 7,475 0.831 D 7,736 0.860 D 0.029
1-680 North of 1~580
Northbound 6,000 5,529 0.903 E 5,532 D.903 E 0.000 6,463 0.903 E 6,489 ~.903 E 0.000
Southbound 7,000 6,145 þ.661 B 6,195 D.661 B 0.000 6.248 ~.661 B 6,259 0.661 B 0.000
1-680 South of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 5,001 0.830 D 5,176 J.830 D 0.000 5.876 0.830 D 5,914 0.830 D 0.000
Southbound 6,000 5,397 0.748 C 5,408 1748 C 0.000 5,241 0.748 C 5,332 0.748 C 0.000
Dougherty Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 3,694 1.368 F 3,805 1.409 F 0.041 4,154 1.539 F 4,203 1.557 F 0.018
Southbound 2,700 2,794 1.035 F 2,844 1.053 F 0.019 3,302 1.223 F 3,528 1.307 F 0.084
Dublin Blvd, east of Dougherty Rd.
Eastbound 2.700 2,017 0.747 C 2,348 0.870 D 0.123 2.130 0.789 C 2,205 10.817 D 0.028
Westbound 2,700 1,949 0.722 C 1,969 ~.729 C 0.007 2,759 1.022 F 2,918 1.081 F 0.059
assajara Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 3,600 1,700 10.472 A 1,748 10.486 A 0.013 2.396 0.666 B 2,417 0.671 B 0.006
Southbound 3,600 2,301 0.639 B 2,310 0.642 B 0.003 1,833 0.509 A 1.878 0.522 A 0.013
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-21
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.10: Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - East County Government Center Site and Site 15A
S . C2 540 b d JJF t E t C t G t C t d ECHOJ t Sit 15A
- cenaflo ~ ~ e a as oun[y overnmen en er an a e
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Location 2025 No Project 2025 + Project Change 2025 No Project 2025 + Project ir-hange
Capacit) Volume VlC LOS Volume VlC LOS in VlC Volume VlC LOS Volume VlC LOS ¡nVlC
1-580 east of Tassajara Road
Eastbound 9,000 6,609 0.734 C 6,617 0.735 C 0.001 9,452 1.050 F 9,516 1.057 F 0.007
Westbound 9,000 8,863 0.985 E 8,952 ~.995 E 0.010 6,636 0.737 C 6,651 0.739 C a.002
1-580 west of Hopyard Road
Eastbound 9,000 5,285 0.587 A 5,847 r,650 B 0.062 7,449 0.828 0 7,565 0.841 0 0.013
Westbound 9,000 8,010 0.890 0 8,042 0.894 0 0.004 7,475 0.831 0 7,736 0.860 0 0.029
1-680 North of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 5,529 0.903 E 5,532 0.903 E 0.000 6,463 0.903 E 6,489 0.903 E 0.000
Southbound 7,000 6,145 0.661 B 6,201 ~.661 B 0.000 6,248 0.661 B 6,260 0.661 B 0.000
1-680 South of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 5,001 0.830 0 5,198 r·830 0 0.000 5,876 0.830 0 5,917 0.830 0 0.000
Southbound 6,000 5,397 0.748 C 5,408 0.748 C 0.000 5,241 0.748 C 5,332 0.748 C 0.000
Dougherty Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 3,694 1.368 F 3,805 1.409 F 0.041 4,154 1.539 F 4,203 1.557 F 0.018
Southbound 2,700 2,794 1.035 F 2,849 1.055 F 0.020 3,302 1.223 F 3,554 1.316 F 0.093
Dublin Blvd. east of Dougherty Rd.
Eastbound 2,700 2,017 0.747 C 2,386 0.884 D 0.137 2,130 0.789 C 2,208 0.818 D 0.029
Westbound 2,700 1,949 0.722 C 1,969 0.729 C 0.007 2,759 1.022 F 2,918 1.081 F 0.059
~assajara Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 3,600 1,700 0.472 A 1,748 0.486 A 0.013 2,396 0.666 B 2,417 0.671 B 0.006
Southbound 3,600 2,301 0.639 B 2,313 0,643 B 0.003 1,833 0.509 A 1,889 0.525 A 0.016
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17·22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.11 : Year 2025 CMA Roadway Analysis - Site 15A - Scenario D
Only the East County Hall of Justice at Site 15A
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Location 2025 No Project 2025 + Project Change 2025 No Project 2025 + Project ~hangE
Capacit) Volume VlC LOS Volume V/C LOS InVlC Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS in VlC
1-580 east of T assajara Road
Eastbound 9,000 6,609 0.734 C 6,617 0.735 C 0.001 9,452 1.050 F 9,516 1.057 F 0.007
Westbound 9,000 8,863 0.985 E 8,886 0.987 E 0.003 6,636 0.737 C 6,643 0.738 C 0.001
1·580 west of Hopyard Road
Eastbound 9,000 5,285 D,587 A 5,576 0.620 B 0.032 7,449 0.828 0 7,534 0.837 0 0.009
Westbound 9,000 8,010 n.890 0 8,042 0.894 0 0.004 7,475 0.831 0 7,736 0.860 D 0.029
1-680 North of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 5,529 0.903 E 5,532 D.903 E 0.000 6,463 ~.903 E 6,489 ~.903 E 0.000
Southbound 7,000 6,145 0.661 B 6,174 0.661 B 0,000 6,248 0.661 B 6,257 0.661 B 0.000
1-680 South of 1-580
Northbound 6,000 5,001 10.830 D 5,103 0.830 D 0.000 5,876 0.830 D 5.906 0.830 D 0.000
Southbound 6,000 5,397 10.748 C 5,408 0.748 C 0.000 5,241 0.748 C 5.332 0.748 C 0.000
Dougherty Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 2,700 3,694 1.368 F 3,805 1.409 F 0.041 4,154 1.539 F 4,203 1.557 F 0.018
Southbound 2,700 2,794 1.035 F 2,826 1.047 F 0.012 3,302 1.223 F 3,437 1.273 F 0.050
Dublin Blvd. east of Dougherty Rd.
Eastbound 2,700 2,017 ~.747 C 2,221 0.823 D 0.076 2,130 0.789 C 2,191 0.811 D 0.023
Westbound 2,700 1,949 0.722 C 1,969 0.729 C 0.007 2,759 1.022 F 2,918 1.081 F 0.059
~assajara Rd. south of Dublin Blvd.
Northbound 3,600 1,700 10.472 A 1,748 0.486 A 0.013 2,396 0.666 B 2,417 0.671 B 0.006
Southbound 3,600 2,301 0.639 B 2,302 0.639 B 0.000 1,833 0.509 A 1,836 0.510 A 0.001
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-23
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Traffic Impact Analysis Pursuant to the Tri..Valley Transportation Model
This Year 2025 cumulative scenario is conducted in addition to the CMA analysis above, to
address the local practice in the Tri-Valley area, which is to use the Tri-Valley Transportation
Model (TVTM) to evaluate how well study intersections are expected to serve the traffic
generated from by full buildout of nearby approved projects, plus the proposed Project. The
proposed project in the cumulative scenario consists of a Juvenile Justice Facility, an East
County Hall of Justice, and additional County office buildings that could be developed according
to the development allocated to the County Center as part of the City of Dublin's East Dublin
Specific Plan.
The amount of office development varies in each scenario. It is assumed that if the Juvenile
Justice and/or Hall of Justice projects are constructed, that less office development would occur,
but that if one or both of those projects are not developed at the East County Government Center,
then the County would eventually develop other County functions on the site up to the total
development potential of 964,000 square feet. The intent is to provide an indication of what the
total buildout at the East County Government Center could include. Table 17.12 provides a
summary of the development scenarios.
The resulting level of service impacts at local intersections is demonstrated in Tables 17.13
through 17.19, and Figures 17.1 through 17.7.
Table 17.12: East County Government Center Site I Site 15A .. Cumulative Development Scenarios
Scenario A1 Scenario A2 Scenario B Scenario C1 Scenario C2 Scenario D
ECGC
JJF 420 beds 540 beds - 420 beds 540 beds -
ECHOJ 13 courts 13 courts 13 courts - - -
Office 225.000 sf* 225,000 sf 685,000 sf 420.000 sf* 420,000 sf 880.000 sf
Site 15A
ECHOJ - - - 13 courts 13 courts 13 courts
Cisco as approved as approved as approved - - -
* Note: Although the 420-bed project uses less of the County's development potential for the East County
Government Center Site, the County would reserve square footage for future expansion to 540 beds, so the County
office component would not increase accordingly.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
The following seven alternatives have been analyzed for this traffic study:
· 2025 Conditions (without Project) - Traffic volumes for this alternative are based on the
Year 2025 + Transit Center Scenario presented in the Dublin Transit Center Draft Report
dated April 27, 2001 and prepared by Omni-Means Engineers & PI31U1ers. Specific
turning movements were adjusted to make them consistent with the Baseline volumes.
Furthermore, the volumes were manually adjusted as needed for adjacent intersections so
that "outbound" trips from one intersection correspond to "inbound" trips at the adjacent
"downstream" intersection.
· 2025 plus Scenario Ai Conditions - This scenario is the same as the Year 2025
cumulative conditions, with the addition of traffic from the proposed Juvenile Hall
facility with 420 beds, 13 courtrooms and 225,000 square feet of office use to be located
at the East County Government Center (ECGC) site.
· 2025 plus Scenario A2 Conditions ~ This scenario is the same as the Year 2025
cumulative conditions, with the addition of traffic from the proposed Juvenile Hall
facility with 540 beds, 13 courtrooms and 225,000 square feet of office use to be located
at the ECGC.
· 2025 plus Scenario B Conditions - This scenario is the same as the Year 2025 cumulative
conditions, with the addition of traffic from the proposed 13 courtrooms and 685,000
square feet of office use to be located at the ECGC.
· 2025 plus Scenario Ci Conditions - This scenario is the same as the Year 2025
cumulative conditions, with the addition of traffic from the proposed Juvenile Hall
facility with 420 beds and 420,000 square feet of office use to be located at the ECGC,
and the 13 courtrooms to be located at "Site 15A". However, with the 13 courtrooms at
Site 15A, the "original" trips generated by Site 15A (assumed to be occupied by Cisco
Systems) was subtracted from the volumes at the study intersections.
· 2025 plus Scenario C2 Conditions - This scenario is the same as the Year 2025
cumulative conditions, with the addition of traffic from the proposed Juvenile Hall
facility with 540 beds and 420,000 square feet of office use to be located at the ECGC,
and the 13 courtrooms to be located at Site 15A. Once again, the Cisco trips were
subtracted from the study intersections.
· 2025 plus Scenario D Conditions - This scenario is the same as the Year 2025
cumulative conditions, with the addition of traffic from 880,000 square feet of office use
at the ECGC and the proposed 13 courtrooms to be located at the Site 15A. Again, the
Cisco trips were subtracted from the study intersections.
Cumulative Year 2025 Background (Without Project) Conditions
The following is an excerpt from the Omni-Means report, which describes the methodology used
for Year 2025 + Transit Center Conditions:
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-25
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative year 2025 traffic volumes have been based on the Tri- Valley Transportation
Model (Dowling Associates, Tri-Valley Update Final Report, 1996). Specifically, the
Tri- Valley transportation model's land use assumptions were updated using the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 98 land use data. Since
ABAG projections only extend to the horizon year 2020, a trendline was developed
starting at the Year 2000 and extended every five years to 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 to
determine by land use trends and growth patterns. A five year average growth rate was
determined by land use type and applied to Year 2020 land use data to generate Year
2025 land use growth projections (Willis Cheng, Dowling Associates, "Dublin Transit
2025 Land Use Projections '98, 11/15/2000).
The following approved projects were assumed to be fully built out under this scenario:
Creekside Business Park III, Koll Dublin Corporate Center, Sybase, Cisco Systems (Sites 15A
and 16A), Tassajara Meadows II Residential, Emerald Glen Residential, Emerald Glen Village,
Yarra Yarra Residential, Dublin Ranch Phase I Residential, Dublin Ranch Areas A, B, C, F, F1,
F2, G and H, Dublin Ranch Middle School, Quarry Lane School (K-8) and the Transit Center.
The following is a brief description of these projects:
Creekside Business Park III consists of 590,000 square feet of office space located on the north
side of Central Parkway bounded by Hacienda Drive on the east and Arnold Drive on the west.
The development is expected to generate 4,306 daily trips, 659 trips during the a.m. peak hour
and 573 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Kol/ Dublin Corporate Center consists of 590,000 square feet of office, 100,000 square feet of
hotel and 7,000 square feet of retail space to be located on the south side of Dublin Boulevard
bounded by Tassajara Road on the east and Miller Court on the west. The development is
expected to generate 8.451 daily trips, 962 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 933 trips during
the p.m. peak hour.
Sybase Office Development consists of approximately 420,000 square feet of office development
located to the north of Dublin Boulevard, south of Central Parkway and west of Hacienda Drive.
The proposed development is expected to generate 2,800 daily trips, 533 trips during the a.m.
peak hour and 504 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Commerce One Office Development consists of 760,000 square feet of office development
located on the west side of Hacienda Drive, bounded by Dublin Boulevard on the north and 1-
580 on the south. This site is currently being considered for an IKEA furniture store.
Cisco Office Development (Sites 15A and 16A) consists of a total of 862,000 square feet of
office development on two parcels, one north of Dublin Boulevard and the other south of Dublin
Boulevard. The northern parcel (Site 15A) is bounded by Arnold Road on the west, Dublin
Boulevard on the south, Central Parkway on the north, and the existing Sybase Development to
the east. Project Alternatives C and D assumes that 13 courtrooms will be located on Site 15A
instead of Cisco. The southern parcel (Site 16A) is bounded by Arnold Road on the west, Dublin
Boulevard on the north, 1-580 on the south. This site together with the Conunerce One site is
being currently considered for a possible IKEA.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth·lnducing and Cumulative Impacts
Tassajara Meadows II Residential Development consists of96 single-family detached homes
located on the west side of Tassajara Road, north of Gleason Drive. The development is
expected to generate 917 daily trips, 71 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 97 trips during the
p.m. peak hour.
Emerald Glen Residential Development consists of 143 single-family detached and 152
townhomes to be located on the west side of Tassajara Road, north of Dublin Boulevard and
south of future Central Parkway. The development is expected to generate 2,260 daily trips, 174
trips during the a.m. peak hour and 226 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Emerald Glen Village Development consists of390 apartments and 132,235 square feet of retail
space to be located on the west side of Tassajara Road, bounded by Dublin Boulevard on the
south and Central Parkway on the north.
Yarra Yarra Residential Development (Greenbriarl consists of252 single-family detached
homes and 193 townhomes to be located on the west side of Tassajara Road, north of Gleason
Drive.
Dublin Ranch Phase I Residential Development consists of 847 single-family detached homes
located on the east side of Tassajara Road, north of Gleason Drive. The development is expected
to generate 8,106 daily trips, 635 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 855 trips during the p.m.
peak hour.
Dublin Ranch Area A Development consists of 562 single-family detached homes to be located
along both sides of Fallon Road, north of Central Parkway.
Dublin Ranch Areas B&C Development consists of 1,062 medium density dwelling units, 172
medium-high density dwelling units, 748 high density dwelling units, 449,490 square feet of
commercial use and 676,920 square feet of office space, to be located along the west side of
Fallon Road, between Gleason Drive and 1-580.
Dublin Ranch Area F Development consists of91 single-family detached homes and 660
rnedium density dwelling units, to be located on both side of Deaveny Street, between Gleason
Drive and Central Parkway.
Dublin Ranch Area Fl&F2 Development consists of221 single-family detached homes located
primarily to the north of the intersection of Devaney Drive/Street A.
Dublin Ranch Area G Development is bounded by Brannigan Street on the west, Central
Parkway on the north, Keegan Street on the east, and Dublin Boulevard on the south. The
residential component of the site is assumed to consist of 1,426 apartments. The commercial
portion of the site is assumed to consist of230,000 square feet.
Dublin Ranch Area H Development consists of 1,080,070 square feet of office space and 176,420
square feet of commercial use, to be located between Dublin Boulevard and Interstate-580.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-27
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Dublin Ranch Middle School is proposed to be open in September 2005 initially as a
kindergarten through 8th grade school with approximately 1, I 00 students, with the ultimate
capacity for 1,200 middle school students. The proposed school is bounded on the north by
South Dublin Ranch Drive, on the east by Grafton Street and on the south by Kolmen Lane.
Quarry Lane School is a private school located north of North Dublin Ranch Road on the east
side of Tassajara Road. Ultimately, the (Kindergarten through 8th grade) school is expected to
increase its current enrollment of 230 students to 850 students.
Dublin Transit Center Development consists of 1,500 high-density apartments, 2,000,000 square
feet of office space, and 70,000 square feet of ancillary retail space. The environmental impact
report (EIR) for this project has been approved.
The peak hour turning movement volumes for Year 2025 cumulative conditions without the
Project are shown on Figure 17.1. Table 17.13 presents a summary of peak hour levels of
service at the study intersections. The assumed Year 2025 roadway network is based on existing
improvements, improvements currently under construction, and .required frontage improvements
of approved projects. Even with these assumed roadway improvements, seven of the study
intersections are expected to operate unacceptably during the peak hours. In response, the
following mitigation measures are recommended with Year 2025 without Project volumes:
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard with and without the Scarlett Drive extension between
Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. The extension would run northwest from the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard at Scarlett Drive, allowing vehicles heading west on Dublin
Boulevard to north on Dougherty Road and south on Dougherty Road to east on Dublin
Boulevard to bypass the DublinIDougherty intersection. Therefore, traffic making southbound
left turns and westbound right turns would be reduced. Even with a 75 percent reduction in
traffic for these movements, Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard is expected to operate at LOS F.
There are no feasible mitigation measures given the physical constraints at this intersection.
Perhaps future improvements to 1-580 may reduce the amount of traffic diverting from the
freeway to this intersection.
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Off-ramp: The northbound Hacienda Drive approach
(overcrossing) would need to be widened so that the right most through lane only serves traffic
headed for the 1-580 westbound loop on-ramp. Furthermore, an additional northbound through
lanes would be needed on the overpass to supplement the existing three northbound through
lanes.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JHler~edhm ¡I I I( It~rs(~cti()n i2 IHIPf:-<l"dÜm ji;{
Douglwl'tyi1)uhlin Amold/Dublin '\flln (ji(\ml!al
______~:;::-______ "~"'·_,,,..,.,~.,..~__._..'...~~m.,.._..,...~^,,.~__~__________
-_. ~ ~ ~~
"l:tC
~cs 0--. ~~
~1g;;;t ~_.,365 (2.27'1 ~iJ;:! '" ~2~;~1~ 20" Äf~
:::L~"",; ~,":~., r," 4! ."
Ii 742. (I ,0151 __~, . ': 388 ¡ ,1\ ,
48 (130) m'll 'f;:..~ " ~7 !?2! 'II ".... ...
)UO("1.035).··.. ~~¿'~¿; i$t86\2 ¿j ~ ,~~~ ~t~;
,70 (1,298ì ." $i::" 446 \6B) ~ ¡ìH1æ 2:"1:.
~~~ ._~~ ~~
~~~ 0) ID NN
JII!E>1:--.pcho¡i.¡l, huprSi.:!:"tkm #8
Had<'nù,,;!·.o80 WB ()¡!_.f\~'_':I!__ _ Ih,d" I¡j,,/lh,blill
r;'2;; --------.----"G"".-..u'''.'~'m..~.
;~' FJ ~'~ ~
.:;: fj. ¡ ~=_.::.~.
,-iN!
12)2 ¡ ~ 1,299 (490)
_~____~__.ijf1,456 ~494)
'..
~:¡;¡
~"':t'
......._--_..._-_.._-_.._---_......~:~.. .......-............._... ...............................
hH(~ff>(~i,~ti(Jn * n Inh!I'.':<!~{'H( n jI t 4
ht$s~j¡uüil;I(,~~.;(J1'I T(t~~uln-a!Cf>mf{'1 ¡
1'.
'-'
_...0
~::::¡g
~r-.. ,.
:;;;.;::. ~._.151 (36)
R:_'S ." 129 (37)
___~__t_~ l:._~g.!J.!52)
99 (358).." -., -+:~
40 (144)-+ ,"~';;
1:J1 (350\ " 'J. t,-,~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ ri--.,;.......,
f"'=tc.'!)
¡ô.......
¡œ...;r
,''''''",uo
!::;t :;:.~......
___ m_____:1L~
¡ntH,ceho" 'Hi
Santa Rita/I..580 EB/Pim!i<"
t...¡"
~~J!
~...;; ~~
¡;J"'ii? ~451 (381)
:.':;, ,.187 (161)
._.~~-!-_. -----~-_........
1,221 i',155IJ Âl!
147 {42·1t.... ~.~'
799 (275) " ;.~
~,
~
..
North
Not to Scale
~_\)(1 (18)
1.......!!:5 (233)
-+,"
---
tHh~r..:.;PfHon U~,J
} ~H.:it.~nùu/C ('flU d
····I·~·~·~~~····~y~
~2t~ . 154 t31:
N.(';? ~ .... 1 074 {1~3/
þ!...... f !)!j9 (~W3)
30 j 12.93).;tf -'1. !'
940 (1l117)~ 'iF:">;::'
:)~p f85(H .. '"-. Ñ ~
, ~,~Ë
~,.
¡:;:¡(f,_,
1""-,~,.¡.n
~';g ;.. ~,.. ~ '2 (5)
, " "'m 59 (15)
þ' ,,', Ii' 432 (205)
1Ki~i;::~ ~~f!:--m
10 (366)"?f~ g
\"1..........,_.
OT-'N
l¡j 0> 0",1
""
hih~~'f¡.t~t:liUlI K·1
M1"Inld!C!i~aS(UI
~---;-
,~,(j)
"'~
"I~"~'
~~~r:J:.
""""
"'~
~m154 (112\
Ii 57 (36) ,
~'"
ÑÑ
C.~£.
¡~J
-------.--.- ---.----
rn¡~~ '~~¡~t; iOIl Hf,
AtTln'(I/H'f(d~~r
0'
,-,7:,&)' j
';'?æ;, 1 1it,, 4 (6)
t~ "': ~ 1~--13 (9)
..I .. ~ l,r' 44 (25)
10 (5) --.'*1"". . ,"
~,22 ('~ 8) ...,~¡ ç¡S"~-;;-
137 (1M) ~i~:;;--:";
¡ (',(J C:¡)Q)
t(¡<DN
l.nt!>I~l'dUHl Ii ¡
Madli\",,'C,II."""'"
~~1
::;;:~ ":m97 (61ì
~~'" . ;if¡.i (148)
10b (36)m"
136 (395)--.
--------- --~-----"--"---~-----~---
"
~)N...:tm
"I"""çr"jN
a'I i'~, v')
O')Ø)'I;"""'
t'...
tlll!:~r~¡~Uj¡ I\ ~ W
Hal.::.iP lda/C¡ea~Üil
....11H (56)
Þ' 305 (154;
126 (123).. ~ ,"
106 (122)m-" 3";~
/,,-,¥,,".
-',""
r--~ .......
0"">
~m
h]tel~edìuu .iff:;
____ ___I~::0_'"_,,I_~:'!:;~_('__~__(~tL_I~_¡,,_,,_~_
~;~(,
~,!",:.
g¡~ I
þ'" '
1711 (1,101)"¡ ~J
tßHH65hr~i ~g~
: ""-N
¡ S!~~J
C1>C'>
0Jít"1
~,("'~
tJlil:~ "sl·~rl¡Ii l ¡I 1:1.
Madigan/Brnd{'f
€;fEG ._ 1 (0\
"".,"",n . 11 (5\
þ' "'. Ii 5 m)
1 (0)" ""I t ;;~'
12 (7)--. ~v__,,·,
22 (44) " 8;-~
{""~ ð
co
~
(i;¿,,¡ I
'7..... C",I'
;;ê::, ": 91 (50)
::::~.~ .....56 {204)
~i\~~_~~:U~:$21
96 (152).." 't', -+,~
50 {Z60) :::. ;,:i:'¿;;
111 (395) " ::. f':;~
~,;.,'r.:~¡¡;
M?;:::
~"Q
......___.....................................m_m...__........___.______.._.......m.._____...___________________...___...______________________...._____________________..._______._________.....____...___________._____.___
Jnr~lrs'l!~f'f ()n :Pl:1 jn/t:~r~,;I:'Cf¡¡. fI # It,; Illt(~r;se(l,lofJ il17 f'flWr:'õ¡(~dJOn '# I S
_--l______._I~~:'!:'::¡¡!Duh¡¡" lJough('",)"HiHO \VB nff RamI! ii"py",d![..580 EB on'l<;m,p l'"sitjam/l·SHO WB nff Ramp
$~~~' ~.~ æ·~. $1'~'
,;' 300m(;O:7'~,'; ~.".-I.··~.-.íl~' J! ~:~: ,,,,,d~~r :~
v . [;;'2 1,1:n (833)'~ .;or:;;'
I¡~ g:g~6r:~ m'~,{~.3 ('?~- ~.~2.
_.U . ~)Jr-: ~"
~)::-,C~ ~,'~'~ ;:-í§2
r-~, ~ ¿J¡ ö: t:....-,("'.
l.o~f'.... 0. ''.i_
I
I ~;..3'KI:<Þ1>
¡þj"/~'
: (.,",.. [1.-:;. J.. Y ........J; ..... ...... >. :',
f'i~(ii'I.'d \ ,¡,w,>o _ J_ ~
¡;:::1~:'~~¡¡:::·;.r ~~ ':'<:~~~{, ,',:'::,::"'~~,-=".:j?::,::'~~.~~~~~" ~
¡ 1~ ~~"'~ ::¡,'" :.o:':,..........\00!~4.\'.~.I"I.I.. ~":\
.".""",,,, 'n~','" , ". I.\?". \'
_; I j.\~U)~~"'l"~) I ~i'~ ' ¡ L¡¡¡ i /l~I~~1~i~! ': ¡j", "
'~1'- '" \;;:~:¡:.~::.:~/':b~~j~;~~",¡ I
/~<;~:. .;;::;~;.
.:.J.it·;<·i~'(dl';" ~:¡ 'j 1$
n;;:';:~~+ ," ." "
t¡~'d J \., , ,k~jl1 ¡.:'T-1 L
.í~j,mii~:'('ij / !;,:,n dt!~;~ \~ :
~ ¡iJM (" '''~~~~:,'h<
. '<,~(¡~;;;~:~'~"
19'y}~
,~t
/,..
b_E;;GEND
. Study Intersection
_ Approved/Pending Project
Project
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
!
in -- - -,.
/'''n....''''¡
N~~~~...U..~-y~
._--_._------------~
i
i,
f'
-'
._a....u.-."..····..
-.
..
D j¡lil ~iI(I\~h
}, ~'-~,~ H
Figure 17.1 ~-.',.)I
-'1<)
East County Government Center Site / Site 15A
Cumulative Year 2025 - Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
No Project
;..
/
,/
"
Projeet
Site
@1
(~ ~
~ 1·::'::':.::l~~~:~., :I¡.·.~::. : ')~~~:r;
3' . ..' . ..... '9
-.·.~:~~~~_~[E!I
I
[
,
to:
x.
'"
S,
i
\1/~·-·_.."n_.'"
/\!"
/' )\~"\.....,
~'
'«:.(.
11\J~.
\~\
\-"\~
".'~~fj('~
'<q~
'".
. .,,~:~~!!3;~!::,~.
f¡,~ {¡'"/
('~~¡i~i~~i~~:::,: f·,::H~~~~~ .~
. ::,::*.'...:(:7~)\¡~~
/, ::: }'>;;
<~~c
:1
.m685 (65O)
",764 (611ì
,~
iH
~,~
0~;;
~%ri
~,
----- -------------~--------'-~~
n,ublu, R:"I":!~
V~':;1. U
".'
"
¡ j(I~¡W j,(~!~'(4.'.1\
\,!~'!I~': H.:ii:.C
: ~~
Ii:
- r'-
".
~~~~>
.\
SOURCE: 1JKM I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
T bl 17 13 P k H
I t
f L
fS
c
It' Y
2025 N P . t
a e ea our n ersec Ion eve 5 0 ervlce - umu a Ive ear - 0 rOJec
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
10 Intersection
vlc LOS vlc LOS
-
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 1.41 F 1.54 F
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.74 C 0.77 C
3 Arnold Road/Central Parkway 1 0.24 A 0.43 A
6 Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.90 D 0.74 C
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps 1.01 F 0.92 E
7
- with mitigation 0.82 D 0.57 A
8 Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 0.79 C 0.85 D
9 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.60 A 0.63 B
10 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.30 A 0.26 A
Tassajara Boulevard/Gleason Drive 1.00 E 0.77 C
13
- with mitigation 0.82 D 0.77 C
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 1.00 E 0.83 D
14
- with mitigation 0.79 C 0.83 D
Tassajara Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard 1.20 F 1.51 F
15
- with mitigation 0.88 D 0.85 D
16 Dougherty Boulevard/I~580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.82 D 0.85 D
Hopyard Roadll-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp 0.66 B 0.95 E
17
- with mitigation 0.66 B 0.82 D
18 Tassajara Boulevardll~580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.77 C 0.85 D
Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound/Pimlico 0.86 D 0.99 E
19
- with mitigation 0.80 C 0.90 D
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P. M. Peak Hour
10 Intersection Delay Delay
LOS LOS
(seclveh) (sec/veh)
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 9.41 A 8.77 A
5 Arnold RoadlBroder Boulevard 8.87 A 8.09 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive .. .. .. ..
11
- Southbound Madigan Approach (12.1 ) (B) (11.5) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.75 A 7.40 A
Note: vie = volume to capacity ratio, LOS:: Level of SeNice;
X.X (X.X) :: Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
"HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17 ~30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive was analyzed without the Fallon Road Extension, which is to
connect Tassajara Road with the 1-580 Fallon Road interchange. The results in Table 17.13
(LOS E during the a.m.) assume that this Extension is not in place. The Fallon Road Extension
would run northwest from the 1-580 Fallon Road interchange, allowing vehicles heading west on
1-580 to north on Tassajara Road and south on Tassajara Road to east on 1-580 to bypass
intersections along Tassajara Road, including the one at Gleason Drive. To mitigate Tassajara
Road/Gleason Drive, the southbound Tassajara Road would need one left-turn lane, three
through lanes, and one right-turn lane. The existing curb-to-curb width on this approach is wide
enough for two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway was analyzed withòut the Fallon Road Extension. Withoutthe
Extension, the level of service at this intersection is expected to be LOS E (1.00) during the a.m.
peak hour as shown on Table 9. Therefore, a third through lane would be needed on the
southbound Tassajara Road approach to Central Parkway.
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard was analyzed without the Fallon Road Extension. The results
in Table 17.13 assume that this Extension is not in place. The southbound Tassajara Road
approach would need to be widened to include three left-turn lanes, four through lanes and two
right-turn lanes. The existing curb-to-curb width on this approach is wide enough for two left-
turn lanes, four through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. The northbound Tassajara Road
approach would need to be widened to include three left-turn lanes, four through lanes and one
right-turn lane. The existing curb-to-curb width on this approach is wide enough for three left-
turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard
approach would need to be widened to include two left-turn lanes, three through lanes and three
right-turn lanes. The existing curb-to-curb width on this approach is wide enough for two left-
turn lanes, three through lanes, and two right-turn lanes. The westbound Dublin Boulevard
approach would need to be widened to include three left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and a
shared through/right lane. The existing curb-to-curb width on this approach is wide enough for
three left-turn lanes, one through lane, and a share through/right lane.
Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp: The 1-580 eastbound off-ramp approach would need
to be widened to include three left-turn lanes (two exists) and two right-turn lanes (already
exists).
Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp/Pimlico Drive: The northbound Santa Rita Road
approach would need to be widened to include three through lanes (two exists) that goes onto the
overpass and two through lanes (already exists) that feed the 1-580 eastbound on-ramp.
Cumulative Year 2025 plus Scenario A 1
This scenario is the same as the Year 2025 cumulative conditions, with the addition of traffic
from the proposed Juvenile Hall facility with 420 beds, 13 courtrooms and 225,000 square feet
of office development to be located at the ECGC site.
The peak hour turning movement volumes for Year 2025 Cumulative plus Scenario Al
conditions are shown on Figure 17.2. Table 17.14 presents a summary of peak hour levels of
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-31
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
service at the study intersections. In addition to the seven study intersections described above
that are expected to operate unacceptably during one or both of the peak hours under Year 2025
cumulative conditions without the Project, three other intersections are expected to need
mitigation.
Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended:
. Mitigation Measure 17.2.5a and 17.2.6a: Contribute a Fair Share of Funds
Toward the Implementation of Local Roadway and Intersection
Improvements. Several roadway and intersection projects are expected to be required
as a result of background cumulative development in the area. The Project would add
traffic to those areas adversely affected, and so should contribute a fair share towards the
necessary irnprovements.
The intersection of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard is expected to operate unacceptably
during both the a.m. and the p.m. peak hours. In order to minimize the Project's effect on the
Dougherty Road / Dublin Boulevard intersection, the County should contribute a fair share of
funding toward the implementation of the Scarlett Drive extension, which is a planned
improvement that would be jointly funded by the City and numerous development sponsors.
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard was again analyzed without the Scarlett Drive Extension
between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. With or without the Extension, this
intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during both peak hours. There are no feasible
mitigation measures given the physical constraints at this intersection.
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 cumulative conditions without the Project.
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
conditions without the Project.
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
cumulative conditions without the Project.
Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 cumulative conditions without the Project.
Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp/Pimlico Drive: Same mitigation measure described
above for Year 2025 cumulative conditions without the Project.
. Mitigation Measure 17.2.5b and 17.2.6b: Implement Local Roadway and
Intersection Improvements. Several roadway and intersection projects are triggered
by the development of the East County Government Center and/or Site 15A under the
various scenarios. The Project should therefore fund the necessary improvements at such
time as they are documented as being necessary, unless other funding or alternative
improvements have been constructed that alleviate the Project's significant effects.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive: In addition to the mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 cumulative conditions without the Project, it is expected that the second northbound left-
turn lane on Tassajara Road approach would need to be open for traffic.
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp: The Project would result in a need for the 1-580
eastbound off-ramp to be widened to include two left turn lanes (already exist), one shared
left/right lane, and two right-turn lanes (already exist).
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard: The northbound Hacienda Drive approach would need to
include three left-turn lanes (already exist), three through lanes (two exist), and one right turn
lane (two exist). The eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would need to be widened to
include two left-turn lanes (already exist), four through lanes (three exist), and two right-turn
lanes (already exist). The westbound Dublin Boulevard approach would need to be widened to
include two left-turn lanes (already exist), three through lanes (two exist), and one right-turn lane
(already exists).
Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway: The southbound Hacienda Drive approach would need to
include one left-turn lane (already exists), two through lanes, and one shared through/right turn
lane (one right-turn lane exists).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-33
Intets.ethon Ii I hltN~\~I.'ljon .Jt.2
nough~!nyjn\lhlin ArnlJtdíl.h.lhlin
------------$'--------~._~-~'!'~-~~"'"."'.~"~~~-~
~~'.ê' J ~ .,~,ffi '
:£.~ t:!.: --N t~ i
'''' g;: ~~ ! '" 378 (298) ~ ª"ii ,.169 (25) ,
:'?c;i~ !..···94(;(1'O2:\): .'.l' .r-t89>.Jl1,W.5
þ." '..! 1801 (1.384): ~ T" i.·3ßB(6"1¡
413i130).~ !-., .,.. : 511 (137)1ti·, t ¡,'"
. 72 (1.05G) '''.....¡ i'\tt-~(~ i2,3151.2?OOì..'.t¡ ¡;;"¡;""ro
70 (1:2i¡f))~i ~;::g ,446(68) "': ¡gci~
! ~t:I..o ¡ ;:!r~ ;;;'
I.fIRl~;' V> t.s::J
~..,.:.
11}II~r'S!><:i¡o¡1 li7
) ¡tr~n'¡e(:ht) 1 !i~{
AI'II"kli('<'nr,al
.~-~------- ---------
------------_..~~~~.
¡::..'.......
(J':It.....
~)~S
",_.
1:.Ct"'-
NN
,,,,
"'. 1 :14 (10 j
.t:::~135 (233)
t:,..
Sit:-)"
"''''
=.~.
"'"~
"->N
<t
HaÖ(~utla/!..S80 \\Œ Off RaJup
Tn~~r~<i~rlìon #g
liatil'llrla!lhh!i"
j j!r~r.;¡!.'uh)B 1!q
IliJ:d~~IId¡j/Ce,ltl"d
._------~--
f2~
"""'; i-;:""'~
(::!.~.
Ñ
<ii;!5
..,.... "W
~~:::..£2.
(j)
t1"i[Ï;'
:;;è!;:::, .... 12 (5)
N~t~-;,: ... 61 ('15)
þ.'... '.. þi 432 {205)
;7 (Z4)·=:ïi ~;.~;r..
7}~Jg1\. ::~ ~;!'í3
~:::t::.~.
~¡g&J
...----............................:1:..:.......................,
JnwrspdioH 11:1
:lhs~<Ù< ·alDuh i¡1
t~
~rëi,~
~~(iJS
:;;~;" "'2B6 (404)
.".,,,~ "'1,198 (540
. t', "'527 (802)
300(50'7\'''", :;¡;;;...
218 (10CJ4j···.. ..LL~
434 rÙ4Ð)···" ~~~
~.:;:~
¡¡¡¡;:; "10420 (525)' ;"!:;;g1 ""157 (33)
.':" 11,455 (494).: "',~';- ... 1,076 (753)
....~__-L -¡-:;¡-..: ...'.. '. If 559 (aRa¡
;;&;- i 5()(j'('3ß9I,t -., t ~
iQ" 940 (1,¡)18)·" ¡:.;"-"~
~""" : 400 (a89) " ")~S
'-"~' i ~~/£.
&~ . N~g
.....,."..........................0..:........................"'........__m...____...___;;:.:;;...:'·
intpr.,:,('dhm #'I:~ Inf(~!"M~f,:tì[ U #'14
lH:S~t~ j¡¡nd ,; If.'(t~{}n TÍ"i?~~~~íara/Ct.>nt'flll
r..... :;.
o \.~
~~O ~
m::::~~ lO'l""'.-...,¡
~~ill ~
;;;;;;::- ....151 (31)) .., ;:.-. tt..91 150)
~"':~"134 (:19) ;:"':;;: "'56 (.204)
113'(~G;'::¡ (.£~J.:52) %i.;: ~~~'"
411149\····.. G>...õô 50 (260):.:*" 'J8~
15"1(491;·'·'" n:z!;:: 111(395)" :::',:Z.
N~·(c
8 ~~ i _ ....__..~_~";;
nt(!>"f.,,:>p('fiou :ill~)
$al1la RiÜi!I-580 HVl'imlko
......_._....~--~
t;'
~~·.8·
~.(O~
~NC ,,:
~:;3~J ""451 (381¡'
...¡.. ",187 (161)1
1.221 {1,155)..," ~~!.
1471421'·--' ,,",'"
799 1275;~ ~ y
",<t
~_..,(1")
~
LI::.g~J'¡.P~_~.
.
D
Study Inten¡ection
Approved/Pending Project
Project
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
"--;, .~~__~v. _~u~,..
~.·~",·m,··~^.·~,·,~ '~''''',..,~=''",~~'''~~.
D
"
,.
'"
w
",r)
g
'If-,
,'>1".<-.
"<0;>,
',¢..¡.
(..)>>}p
{'(!!4,)
,.........
..
North
Not to Scale
--~ ----.---------
htler:-¡ül'lion:!i·'1
AllInldiGk':ISfm
llit(~r~~t:tilJn # [,
An!nldíB~Oik"(
~..~=^""~""~,~..~---~
~~'~'
~,t~,
"'"'"
;c'~ ....25"1(14::)
,l.".15ï(36j
-f:~'·'·nn
lõòn
e.e,
;;:;:J
'"
~.
~..,3·ro
~g:j;;.) "'".14 (6)
""~: .....--13(9)
þ.J"" ,.~ 49 (51)
10 ($) ._1t -.. .. ,'"
,22 ,r~8)7 ~i;,:i£
1,j1 (,(>4) " ~_::~:i_
cocnt!:'I
U"J o;)~Ü
Intc:'rS ;'Clinn #'11}
Hacîelldt.'tjGt :,~<.J.~ÜB
.lnh:"I7'iE).C¡iou n I
M Jdi 1i!.!:!LÇ:!,~',~~~~~!,'..".,
SJ.-.
". '"
~2~
8;~. ":...130138)
~ '" .. 210 (66)
---L.l.". þi.::.~~!. (~7ß)
134(1541-.....1 r'"
120 (193)·.. ;."8..'>
mf"',Ó
.........,-('£'¡
m'~'-"
~!'()ð
~~C>
""'"
&2
"",,",cr,\
'" ,.. "'~.106 (63)
Ii '.. .·586 (212)
143 í461 ...1t '
1 77 (611)*"
------..---.----...---..-.--..-.
..m_._......-................... .............. !nfPfseC\"ÍOi! Ii 17 ___n______m..~
·I',pynnlil-S80 liB Off bm'p
,,,,1':
t--.~.
.~.,~..
1r1~(;I~I.:.~ninn #16
n,,"gh..,rlyil·(i80 W~-5.)jf Ramp
.f"").
.- '"
~h
tL::
"'~
~."". tt. 867 1762)
~t ",BOB «nO)
,,..
0$
~~l_ '.'..n.._._.'..
1,456 (1,540) _1t ... ,'I'
1.1:13 (833)·..... 0-1?,
I;.~·
~~
0-i:
--~~--"
;,~~'
.".'"
~s
(""}..t'-~
...'"
~"'"
'"
t'
~r,
~:
~~
DI!I:~¡1~ Jh,fj;'."!,!
"'.f;';;~ H
Figure 17.2 'Jitil
East County Government Center Site / Site 15A
Cumulative Year 2025 + Scenario At + 225,000 sf
County Office-Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
lnwlsec:tion #ü
..'.¡".'..¡~ .~. ~·' ·~:)~'!..~.~_(2~!_J~~~.~_.
·····1" ...g
. ~"I:t:
i ¿.~t
~ ~~
¡ M,'r"
12182 (1):),,~ I.;!-·_··
! 1,ß1B(65ßf\ ;Z~
~ N0-J
! ct :,~..
; ~t:t)
~ r~. If'J
¡ lr.:(~
¡n¡(~r:!j"~r ¡(i ~ #:12
Madig,al'l.lBi'ûdt~r
-¡-------
::.t.).~ ___ 1 (0)
.,...;~~ ~':.'.11 (5)
.., "" I 5 ("13)
-·!"(ü1··,:? ;;'~fT
j¿ 17, .. ···vv-.
23i5,3,)"""" ~~~
,. ...................·a)
{\I 0
'" ~
.....................~......................,., .-
Intprs~)dhHI ~18
1\J'~"Jam!I-580 WH Off R"mp
"'''''
"',-
.....,
:¿ti.:
~Ø¡
~.~ ! ':...751 (669)
;.. 1,"'764 ($11)
".__..",_.,.,.t.!..~_;,,~..
¡ r7~' ';t"
~ c...--
: I,,~.... t'-~
:c..;'.......
!;:;.~
&,c;J
""
"
...... -. ~ ~ - --"
."
U\lhh:l; !{:~;":",h
A¡·....;.!"H,"J.
SOURCE: TJKM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.14: Peak Hour Intersection levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 + Scenario A1 +
225,000 sf County Office at the East County Government Center Site
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection
vlc LOS vie LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 1.67 F 1.69 F
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.83 D 0.84 D
3 Arnold Road/Central parkway1 0.34 A 0.54 A
Hacienda Drivell-580 Eastbound Ramps 1.02 F 0.79 C
6
- with mitigation 0.88 D 0.68 B
Hacienda Drivell-580 Westbound Ramps 1.12 F 0.93 E
7
- with mitigation 0.90 D 0.63 B
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 1.11 F 0.99 E
8
- with mitigation 0.83 D 0.89 D
Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.87 D 0.95 E
9
- with mitigation 0.87 D 0.76 C
10 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.89 D 0.75 C
13 Tassajara Boulevard/Gleason Drive 1.08 F 0.81 D
- with mitigation 0.75 C 0.81 D
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 1.01 F 0.85 D
14
- with mitigation 0.79 C 0.85 D
Tassajara BoulevardlDublin Boulevard 1.21 F 1.53 F
15
- with mitigation 0.88 D 0.85 D
16 Dougherty Boulevard/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.83 D 0.87 D
Hopyard Roadll-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp 0.75 C 0.98 E
17
- with mitigation 0.65 B 0.84 D
18 Tassajara Boulevard/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.79 C 0.89 D
19 Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound/Pimlico 0.87 D 0.99 E
- with mitigation 0.81 D 0.90 D
UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Delay Delay
LOS LOS
(sec/veh) (sec/veh)
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 12.85 B 18.06 C
5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard 8.90 A 8.19 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive * * * *
11
- Southbound Madigan Approach (14.5) (B) (13.1 ) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.84 A 7.39 A
Note: vlc = volume to capacity ratio, LOS = Level of Service;
X.X (X.X) = Overa/llntersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
'HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-35
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative. Year 2025 plus Scenario A2
This scenario is the same as the Year 2025 cumulative conditions, with the addition of traffic
from the proposed 13 courtrooms and 225,000 square feet of office use to be located at the
ECGC.
The peak hour turning movement volumes for Year 2025 Cumulative plus Scenario A2
conditions are shown on Figure 17.3. Table 17.15 presents a summary of peak hour levels of
service at the study intersections. In addition to the 10 study intersections described above that
are expected to operate unacceptably during one or both of the peak hours under Year 2025
Cumulative plus Scenario AI, Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive is expected to need mitigation. '
Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended:
. Mitigation Measure 17.3.5a and 17.3.6a: Contribute a Fair Share of Funds
Toward the Implementation of Local Roadway and Intersection
Improvements. Several roadway and intersection projects are expected to be required
as a result of background cumulative development in the area. The Project would add
traffic to those areas adversely affected, and so should contribute a fair share towards the
necessary improvements.
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard was again analyzed with and without the Scarlett Drive
Extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. With or without the Extension, this
intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during both peak hours. There are no feasible
mitigation measures given the physical constraints at this intersection.
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound OfJ-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound OfJ-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound OfJ-ramp/Pimlico Drive: Same mitigation measure described
above for Year 2025 Cumulative conditions without the Project.
. Mitigation Measure 17.3.5b and 17.3.6b: Implement Local Roadway and
Intersection Improvements. Several roadway and intersection projects are triggered
by the development of the East County Government Center and/or Site 15A under the
various scenarios. The Project should therefore fund the necessary improvements at such
time as they are documented as being necessary, unless other funding or alternative
improvements have been constructed that alleviate the Project's significant effects.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative plus Scenario Al conditions.
Hacienda Driw¿/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 plus Scenario Al conditions.
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
plus Scenario Al conditions.
Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
plus Scenario Al conditions.
Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive: The northbound Hacienda Drive approach would need to be
widened to include one left-turn lane (already exists), one through lane that feeds the ECGC
driveway, and one right-turn lane (already exists).
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-37
Int~I$f'~<:liofi if: !nj(!r$E'nku1 #2 J.otcts.cction :if3
nO\~.~_I_!:!.~:~I!.~~~.I :~.~~.~~_._........_____ ______......___~ :~_~·_f_!~_~5.~r:].~~~~:~~_~!L_....m_m...___ ______._...._..____~~~~.~~.I_~:~~~~~!_~~_~~_~~_I_._....__...
f~~~ 0J
'1""""..-.. r...... Ñ~
;;~~¡": 3B(){303) ~&1i2~U1~2(26)' '"
';': Ñ (D ¡.. fJ4fj{UJ2ßJ . ,+.,1,,~)4P,5fi2
::.'~'" "'''' '.,,:.~'~.'~~...¥S........i6..D
4$(';3Õì=:!f¡~T! u. _ _ ,,æ,i}:OS}Jt "I;' i'I'
,78 (1056)'~! ,,'-bup ¿\41 (2,211\:.'. ",,,¡ro'
. 70 (1298)~ ¡ $i:: <.6 446(68\ '" ¡:¡ ~~~
; ! i.d';I~ '~"t() ......
~ @'~ t_ .~~_...~_...._......u
InH:'fW:'ftion If! IntBI".M?í:.(iün #8
IJ¡,cI,,,,,JMI·580 Wß OJ! Ra"T ¡¡adcnda!Dubll"
~.~ ê:~'
N Í,.'t (;"g~ ::'
<::i,s:! :Æd§,
"'-'t.O ¡
tq;2 ":1,429 (526) R:~:;¡; ¡'" 158 (331
";' ,,"1,456 (404) "'": ~ 1...·1,076 (/53)
..m..m"'......'" 't'~·"'·..·.... ~ ... 1.1 ,. 559 (383)
;;-$ WiG (392}....,( ¡";'" ,'¥
i§;!ò: 0 (1.918)"+¡'''85'
__ 400(893i"'i~_~1£
i,,<:; ,"(,,)N
N(,~.¡,c}
?,....,."!"
I
~;g
"0""
C";'
~~-
m_m____."................. ..............~.................,.,..'.'.'_m'....'"...............,
IU1'P.fspnì J ! Ii!, 'i
~¡ :
~:'i
i l"/' I.. .11'02',"""
,;,;,;;:~rm '::'~)f",.;ê\
/ \
_ " ~ pr;~:ct; ../..1...,:.,'..'.'.;;,'..:.':':.:~.,:.'....::.;.:....~t ~ lk~~~::ti:~
'? ".~,,(', \ ';NM /~:i;¡"('"'''^'''''''1<.. 1~""
Ò, <:q, , i It \"-ï;;';;~I;i ·t;~",: ;'*
g I__~_=,~; ~,~: '~.~l~;r\~-.~ .':::f::"'J¡
/ /:~~;,,) """,, 7 < "W';.w" ."""""'.k, I¡"'M.' ~~\,: ')"':~:::,',;'d'
-'~~~~~-~¡ .I'.~~:~~~--~
Ji1IU.:':i~~ft¡~)U Ii 13
I'asSHjaraJGleaS{}Jl
...
r,
~·~.el
g=_ø~
~~~,
,";;..<>" '10:___151 (36)
e'J ,..; ,.' .." 13f, (39)
n____~!i:""_ !:::~Q7.j~,(2)
114 i436)...CIt "",+'"
41 /150\". '--¡¡¡'
159 (503)'" ~§ g;
<0 '~.r·¡"'"
ø¿g~
....._.._................._........f.l.....~..~..........._
l 1f{~r!'ìP,N¡ül1.flH
SaUl a Rita/I-SaO UVl'imlkp
õ;
~'~L~'
~,........G
'S¢::~_
{,Ool.""'4o
[¡;;:R! '10:__451 (:61
"'''~:J.~~:::,1"~:._.I,,~61
1,221 i1 ,1(5).,( i!
147/421)--. (Y> ""'
799 (275 )'", ~:!.
S;$,
~.
,........
..
North
Not to Sc,lIe
nl"g9~Nº'''~n
. Study Intersection
D Approved/Pending Project:
Project .
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
¡nt'Pf~".~n¡(Jn #'J '1
Toss~.iara¡Ü~llIl'al
'"
~,
'"
§J·~··gf
;;'~~¡"'....91 (50)
~'('. .; ¡..- 56 (204)
.' '"' /-' 44;S (232)
96 {1(2)CIt :!,h"':
50 (260). :;¡: ;! ¡:
111 (3%) ~ :;."',:,!-
('\J::~
(;;~;:
0_
...................__.._.u.........._.~.............~........
....-----.....--.-...-----.--.-.
IlItÐI'<t·CU"" R1
Arn:oldJ(;¡~~i"OU
I1I1'PrM~djon :15
M""ld/KrndH
.-..- -_.__._----~._...__..,~..'^..,,'"
.....~~m~"=~
.~."~"~~~,-,~..,.,._--~----"
~o
2-:;::1
",,-I
æ~ I~ 137 nO)
+1.1,.125 (233)
t---~----~--
It~
C'<'í(f)
:!.:i.
.......r~~
0'1""""
\:')~
""
M';;"~
~t>o
t!.~.
g~!
~N 1"'._265(143)
... f!:___:!__~:~ì
it:~
!w;t~
is:..s
~ ¡:D "1'
""""
I'J
10 (6)
22 (18)'
n7{1(4)
(I;)'
ti)~~,gl.
;::~ ~ 'I.,i····· ~~ f~¡
.1 .¡. I.. /Ii'" 49 (53 \
1 '
CIt I. t .'~
.,-,,-_.
~¡~ê~
il1\~[;;
ính:-rscdí,on ß9
.Ha(il.~lid;.ÚC<~ nr~Û
fnt~fSP.r..¡,¡Ofl # II
~____..nm~~~~.{.~.Œ!'Ù;~~~~,~~~.~~
fnH'\'~t::(tíoll it I n
H;'.,f..ir:'.ndn/Gh'1:a~l.m
._---~--------~-------
Co
0') ¿'.~.~.
'--" .(.¡æ
~~'~ 1'-:.. 12 (.5) ~-~, ¡. ..141 (39)
'"'''''' ... 61 (15) ~'" .." 212 (66)
.' + \.0. /Ii 432 (205) .¡. \.0. þi 372 (505\
17(24)~"'~.,'" 134(1511~"11'"
10(55)'+ _~u~> 1211199)-.1--'~·~"
78 (4M) -. i::~E g , " è?: g
M '~.~..~-.... L L{) "......'~.....
J;8Si gmæ
ð"~ <1J 'tj'
.........m_m......_______________~_____._.__.._..______.__._.__.____...______.._________________......._..._____......_____...._...._..........................................................
Hh>r~t.>qiŒi # 1 j lU((!I"-tnclinn if] 6
'l'a""'laraifJulJlI!I Dl1ughcnyiJ-:i80 WB Oil Rump {npY"l'd"I-,i80 Ell on KlilHp
&>~0 ~'~.'
_.u"'J'_~ cr}t"'"
~.,~. t.?: "'.~".~~179~4í~~O, § ~ "".867/7(2)
FßW (034)
,,~;~.:_"_~~.:f¿_)J~~)2) .1 i F.';
434l1B49\. L;§C¡} ~g
" , j.f]~ I.,(~ ~~ 2"_)"f'o,..
R :::'8 ~~~
~læ~..... ~
,..".....-......-.-..............,..........""'''".'''''.... ..,',...,.."'......,...."'".._..\~...."........,..,,.........,"""",., ................ .....------.....
~'.g ¡
"'''' ,
"'- ''''...107 1lI3)
____.._:4';~i~~~~_~~14 )
146 (41)...'"
Iß'I (629)-+
[~.~
,. ,
:!-.~.
~¡@
_________;:__t..
1,4'79(1.543)..' t,,,
1, 13~> 1(33) ¡;.;:;.
, ''';;!8
(".r·......
i~
C,,!.
t//U "
51
'.h~..\'ti;\
;':: .-.....,..,~
...,'
-··u~.~.·'
~j
...11
Figure 17.3 ,J{Íf)
East County Government Center Site / Site 15A
Cumulative Year 2025 + Scenario A2 + 225,000 sf
County Office...Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
III1Pf'¡;;(~dit)ll #6
.. ___~I"('i,,_,,'!,,!I_:_~~(¡.~.. \.(?t!_ ~,, _ylly__
~~
-~-~.;~: T..........---..
2,219 (1,242ì , ~
1 ,818 (656r~ ~L"
,,¡Z
0:--:
>:0W
ffj.~
~
fnterS~).(lkm ~ 12
I\1:Hl.ìgarl/HrmiN
~'~~rN t!: 1 (0)
..--?~; .....··11 {51
..¡. '.. /ii" 5 (73)
li(),~:t.,;.('
1 Úrj-+ .-''-.-
23 (54 )'" ~ 2iS:'.
~-~",t r:o
[0;, a
G:~ "'^'
"...............".."""......."
J.nt(~rS(\ff¡nn f 1 t\
lit:'''>j¡'w/! ·~.80 WH Off R,,,,,p
to'} ~_
j{',¡ ro
~...
~:t!:.
"""
~ ~~ ....756 {G69}
;:.,. ,:764 (611)
._._t_ "r;"-~""
,i"
¡.i;~;~
c).,.."
0-.11·......
~::::
å[;3
"';
_...._..........~:............................
qd~!~!
,.,'
~.\-
.. .. .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ..
I·"
/\~
/ \ ".... ......,~.
~ \: '~', ~=~.__.
..... \ /
''', ...\(
,
j
-----...--j
SOURCE: TJKM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.15: Peak Hour Intersection levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 + Scenario A2 +
f C t Off' h E t C t G C t S·t
225,000 s ountv Ice att e as ounty overnment en er Ie
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection
vie LOS vie LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 1.69 F 1.69 F
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.84 D 0.85 D
3 Arnold Road/Central Parkway 1 0.35 A 0.55 A
Hacienda Drivell-5BO Eastbound Ramps 1.03 F 0.79 C
6
- with mitigation 0.88 D 0.68 B
Hacienda Drivell-580 Westbound Ramps 1.13 F 0.93 E
7
- with mitigation 0.90 D 0.63 B
Hacienda DrivelDublin Boulevard 1.13 F 1.00 E
8 D D
- with mitigation 0.85 0.90
9 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.89 D 0.97 E
Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.94 E 0.80 C
10
- with mitigation 0.68 B 0.80 C
Tassajara Boulevard/Gleason Drive 1.09 F 0.84 D
13
- with mitigation 0.75 C 0.84 D
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 1.01 F 0.85 D
14
- with mitigation 0.80 C 0.85 D
Tassajara Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard 1.21 F 1.53 F
15
- with mitigation 0.88 D 0.86 D
16 Dougherty Boulevard/I~580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.83 D 0.87 D
Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off~Ramp 0.76 C 0.98 E
17
- with mitigation 0.65 B 0.84 D
18 Tassajara Boulevard/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.79 C 0.90 D
Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound/Pimlico 0.87 D 0.99 E
19
- with mitigation 0.81 D 0.90 D
UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Delay, Delay,
LOS LOS
Seclveh sec/veh
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 13.37 B 20.40 C
5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard 8.90 A 8.20 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive * * * *
11
- Southbound Madigan Approach (14.8) (B) (13.2) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.85 A 7.39 A
Note: vie = volume to capacity ratio, LOS = Level of SeNice;
X.X (X.X) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
*HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-39
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Year 2025 Plus Scenario B
This scenario is the same as the Year 2025 Cumulative conditions, with the addition of traffic
from the proposed Juvenile Hall facility with 540 beds, 13 courtrooms and 685,000 square feet
of office development to be located at the ECGC.
The peak hour turning movement volumes for Year 2025 Cumulative plus Scenario B conditions
are shown on Figure 17.4. Table 17.16 presents a summary of peak hour levels of service at the
study intersections. In addition to the 11 study intersections described above that are expected to
operate unacceptably during one or both of the peak hours under Year 2025 Cumulative plus
Scenario A2, the Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Off-ramp is expected to need mitigation.
Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended:
. Mitigation Measure 17.4.5a and 17.4.6a: Contribute a Fair Share of Funds
Toward the Implementation of Local Roadway and Intersection
Improvements. Several roadway and intersection projects are expected to be required
as a result of background cumulative development in the area. The Project would add
traffic to those areas adversely affected, and so should contribute a fair share towards the
necessary improvements.
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard was again analyzed without the Scarlett Drive Extension
between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. With or without the Extension, this
intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during both peak hours. There are no feasible
mitigation measures given the physical constraints at this intersection.
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp/Pimlico Drive: Same mitigation measure described
above for Year 2025 Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Tassajara Road/I-5S0 Westbound Off-ramp: Three southbound through lanes would be needed
on Tassajara Road approach. This improvement is currently under construction as part of the
new Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road overpass over 1-580.
. Mitigation Measure 17.4.5b and 17.4.6b: Implement Local Roadway and
Intersection Improvements. Several roadway and intersection projects are triggered
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
by the development of the East County Government Center and/or Site I5A under the
various scenarios. The Project should therefore fund the necessary improvements at such
time as they are documented as being necessary, unless other funding or alternative
improvements have been constructed that alleviate the Project's significant effects.
Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive: In addition to the mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 plus Scenario A2 conditions, a right-turn lane would need to be added to the westbound
Gleason Drive approach.
Hacienda Drive/J-580 Eastbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 Cumulative plus Scenario Al conditions.
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard: In addition to the mitigation measure described above for
Year 2025 Cumulative plus Scenario Al conditions, an additional through lane would be needed
on both the southbound and northbound Hacienda Drive approach.
Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway: In addition mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 Cumulative plus Scenario Al conditions, the right most northbound left-turn lane on
Hacienda Drive should be converted to a through lane.
Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive: In addition mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative plus Scenario A2 conditions, the westbound through lane on Gleason Drive should
be converted to a shared through/left lane.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-41
hue..:'!.{~rtinll Ii (j
HademlaiV)80 En Of! Ramp
'"
ii?í
~)~
¿;.¡
Ñgtl
-~j.k-^^"
2,354 (1.357)-~ r _+ I"
1,8181(56)"1 S,',;;,'
, ~1 R¡
tj,i:
..".,
::'\Ii.n
__..___,......................... .~.................................n~..~......,...............
Î~-~~-~··_·_~~-~---~
: ¡n..e'fs~.:nhm # 1
¡ IJmlghens/DuhJ.ìl
_m.......................__"__~....._................~~.~~.__~_~
....~~-~~~.._~-~~-~--~-~~ -
-----------~-~---~------~--~
_._____m...________.. _____________________....________._____~~
Inwr~N·Oon ri2
AmnldJUublin
1I!1f.~rSf.~('.tkm #~l
Arn(}ldit-f"'u'al
I:utf;rsett¡¡:m #4
ArnoldiGlœwF,
In '(.·rsE.~cU()n J~~
A,.,,<lldiBrode,
~S)'
;:.~ 2 N h;E' §"¡;;"
'::'::^:~ !£R~ I' $!,0 ~ '::'.,::"
~~t~ «; ~., 't m"""" I'\!.a~
;?;~¡P, --_379 (323) ;~2i3 il8~(5) 638 æg~ __ 1471~9\ ;:2f¡ --~295 (168)
""N«> """947 (1,.048)1. .1.' :--.,;1" ?JI." - , , '''125 233 ."~ ..---'-7 ',.~, C,,',
þ' '.. '--80B (1,493)' Þ 'f" f,- 31\8(107) ... '.. Ji-,,!--. _'._, ' C, _ ,. v "
, 4P, (nO)Jt ~,"J! ,626 (170)Jt: "'. t I'" ~ + K
i99ß(1,O/4¡--" "'oc', ,2435(2.291):+1----, "':2 .--,
¡770{1,29ß}.i\ ~~:~. i 446(68)~i~&~ t;O.. ~'[è,
i __________________________~:¡t........nnn+mnmnn..'. ' ~"" g¡ mm___mmmmmmmm_m___m!~m__mm__________ m______m__mm__mmm____~:=_____m".
i IHtefSHOion #1 hn.f':rs{~CI'ion !i8 jHfPrSf,~fti(jn 19 IHfPfs.ec.:liorJ ·00
j Hacit';t1da.fJ-~8~) WE Off Ramp H.;;tì·enda¡}lublin Hacielld<t/Cemmt lia(:¡~..ndaiGlp.ason
j gg ~ ~.
~(D æ$f; N ~~N
¡ ",j ,-...j ~.,~c. ~~N.......~ t::..~
I Rig' ---1,463(556): ßbi8> "'158(34\ ~.~~ __12(51 ;¡;;;- "'1/9(/1)
- 5~- .,-ml,456 (494)", "'''';- """1,07<\(153 N_~,";' --63(15) ';-1'" ",,=22~ (!4),
.........."....,,_i ,- 1;1.' ." Ii 559 (383) Jr!" '4 11432 (205) ,.. ,.~7,; (,,91,'
-,?immmm ,
;::--;;; ISO (412)-* ,,+ ,'" 11 (24\.Jt "1 + r'" 134 (165):"'''1 t ,'"
"01', 940(1,911'\)".6'&,'6 1QI55\---· :;;;:-C:;¡fii 120 {2-18; " S'RÑ'
;~~ : 401 (903)--" 'š.ffi1£ 7B (413) --~ ;~§, ~B¡§
': ',)~ ~$.fj~ ~~~ ¥J~~
., .'. C.}.O~~ ~ N(Q\["J
~....................................~...._...... ........-.------...,.,........,................, ,.........................~........ ................................~..._~~_...................... ....-.............-...........................
I I"'nl's<'clifoll n:\ : 1111<""'''.(;00 ii14 1m.",'s.;,U'Io:>H 1!15 Im("'S(Tli'>H #¡G
¡ 1a"ajar;liGk'awJI ___m_L____T''''i1J¡¡r"¡~..,,,_¡~I"~__ la''''J,,'af1)ublin D~:t~;:.:~~~ \Y~Y~_~~,,_'f' ___
r-~-~=- t;' -----m----- !t:J t__"'c·.J
_.~,) r;; .-..8....~ ~~
~= ,:::,3"; !D'::.8 >;r\ ~''W;;f N"'"
~ 11) :!.m;: I ~_'~-*~ ~
~.~-.:::.! "- 151 (36\ " ;;: ~ --- !l1 (50): ~"'-:: "- 26\' (406) J § .~ 867 (7621
'-O.-^~ 1"-136 (41\ ;::"':;;: --oC 56 (204) I <{);:;~" --oC^1 20b (542 ' " .
'''''i"m, ("" . ~.. '" "'" _~-,-1,. '''""" ~ '. :.=,,~9:~~44)
114 (455\ ...:'1' I"', ,'" 96 (1521 .'" !J,~,! 1300 (507) .,., .,"
40 (151)::-.¡ §~'ffi 50 {2(0):" ~ ¡g f? 217 (1.09fJ\ '. o;'þ>¿;. g?;'
1GO(542) .!t'.~::;-, 111 (39ú) -. :_~:t 4::¡'~(1.649) . :g~~ "''''
i f.T; ~~f'~. ;! '_.~ J ~~ ~-~ ~.;':'
't2~~ ~ill'" ~;:'ê ~~
(!'~ m_m~~__:;;. C; 'I;'f.
(ii'
~~'ro'j
?E:;;¡;:;; I ~.. 14 (6)
'" é ~ 1"---13 (9)
.1 t 1"1'- i2..(~9,1
10 to\ ,,,;f ¡".;r
22 <1'['),,.: '"
137 (164 i~ I ii; ~E ~s'
¡ .,~~ ......"~.....
!ørnU)
j¡)OO tc:J
ImeI'S'Jl'rion # ¡.I
Ma<tigall!GlüéJ${)J1
~,,~'
fiJ~ --_1OH(65)
Þ I.... - ß6R (2'57)
157 156\~'"
183 (687)-+-
mmm. ____________...____.
...-.-...".----.._----.._....
---------.-..-_..."..,..,---..".-,
1 ¡If,¡",(;I100' !2
1\t.~digall!1k()dt~r
~OO"" I""
~.--.-' "'__ 1 (0)
~.t"\ : .",11 (5)
....' '" 11m 5 (73)
- 1 (0)._11\ t ,"
12 i7) ~ ~f;¡Ñ'
n (55) " ,,,,--
·~""..q-w
!J'1 0-
'" ~
.mmonmm__mm___ . m__mm_.__,
Ta",, mail-J80 WB Off Ramp
InH.:r~(;dhm #' 17
H<lpya¡dI1-5H()':~Y!!:~_a!~)}~_
6~
t--~ ' ,.
~..:::.
~~"
1;1.'
1.560 {HJ12ìJ
u;n (B:J:J)-"
.'"
,.J..,i~·.
'I""'" (,.~,)
:+:0
8;;'
g~~
""-
--~~
fnu!l"si:!ttl(Ìn ft.1 îJ
S~illt~1 RìI¡Ijl fi110 I':H/P~mlicl) ¡
LEGEND
.
D
;
f~/'-'''~~:''''~
·"-'.v...~~.,. .
'"
I ~~§,
i ~.t--.~~ I
I (0 C\.I 0 : ~
¡ i;> 00,,,, ! --__A51 \381~
! Þ";:¡¡,.187 \161),
[1.221 (1,155), "'rJ)! .
; 1471421\-+-''''''-'
: 799 in5¡. i ~:!,
i !d.~
~ ~
!
I
¡
:
!
i
I
i
I
~1.
Study Intersection
Approved/Pending Project
Project
XX AM Peak Hour Voluore
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
I........".. ~ ~
¡ ~~~~__~~'~r...~~~
g! "
~/~ ,
.~,,)....
j,:'õ !
" .'''''''''' "j
I C:\'~i
):;ù
iL+~~,S;:;}"~<
,,___;? >~': "~:: ~)t~,~?~:j~:
~.'''Ü2;''J'';.::.f-I.(''IIi t,:"
~àl'UI 1(11<).
ti.~,!~;~þ!jù",j!'I~ ~·'~';-¡i,·¡'
, ,
/:;
/
\œ.:í~W:~ljm
"
"
('
~I
3_
".'
Project
Site
/
~/ :
~'~'~~' ::.
....'(:-,
"<:?r
.::,:~~~wi
*~¡:: 1:4.. ,.
1. C':::N;~fi;~~:t;:~77'
~:...:..':.."'..-¡~''''.''' ::·:·::}.:.'1~.,: ,:': ~.,:.¡.,fJ..:.':.'.:'.:'::':.~.I'.:·.~~M.'..'.'~.·... ....¡
g (:~ \~.,,~J ~:I~:::,"::,:~:,: Y11iji¥
.' £/,:~;k':lik":,,:::,,:, :::",,>:1:,:¡,,', "'" 15-
·:t)$2;'-"Tu"',;~:'j:,~, .
S~tl.',md " it. ~ Ç:
",,,,, ! GÚ .'. ......... '-'.1S ",~" :
" I ·.····.·<7i~:,~~~,~:-u-
19 '-Ii;
.~_~~~_..~~_!.:fti:_~~__~~_~__~
'?~~b~~, ,'" ¡ :jd~;~ir:.
t~~~~~~~::::< :::::! $:~~¡'::':: :::.::::'~
..m...m~;J~:;:;-F
....c.,,»J!,:,,:d::..
éÚ)ffi¿;;~::;' L3H(HW1P:
().h~\ :':':: ",,:, w~:~,~tÞ
."*)~,,~,,.t"
"( ¡ /"
"':.'"
e¡¥
¡~
[:
\"
{'¡ .
á
..~~:,~,.,.?~~!~,:,;~:;;.~:,::~~.
,~,:-"
/ /,',:3":>
1"~~',
\"\.
\'h
_...._.._........_---~--~:~,----
t~nt¡t
Ù~fé
ih¡hIEiK:.todJ
,\!!!;I "1
i~Ai(!
Nilk!"
m____~_________
Figure 17.4 'J~~I
East County Government Center Site / Site 15A
Cumulative Year 2025 + Scenario B + 685,000 sf
County Office-Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
_·.._.___mm.........................
tnk ".s(~(:tjpn ~ 1 R
---------------~
2i ~t~
tCN
~,')
::/j
¡;1æ
-.:r.f'-,
~mÆ:i
.___774 (6ß5)
,;764 (611)
.'1.:.."'........'"
~)...,:)"
<~"\""
~t......
t:!,¿;;;
"""
_00
o
..,~~~__~.,.,..).,.;i~
.,---"-.",-...,,.
])iA';in !b.f)¡';~~
/H,': j,)
-....'
"~N~,,_.~~~._
r)l\~!Ü~ !'~.M d~
\rc:fI.~ !J,¡¡':,,(
.;J
;r
~j
~~;..
(',-
.,//'.^~\ :<~>.,~,- ...--
~~',... \~
.,"................';(/
I
SOURCE: TJKM I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.16: Peak Hour Intersection levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 + Scenario B +
685,000 sf County Office at the East County Government Center Site
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection
vie LOS vie LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 1.76 F 1.76 F
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.86 D 0.86 D
3 Arnold Road/Central Parkway 1 0.38 A 0.59 A
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 1.07 F ' 0.83 D
6
- with mitigation 0.90 D 0.71 C
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps 1.17 F 0.94 E
7
- with mitigation 0.80 C 0.60 A
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 1.22 F 1.04 F
8
- with mitigation 0.83 D 0.84 D
Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.98 E 1.06 F
9
. with mitigation 0.76 C 0.83 D
Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 1.10 F 0.96 E
10
- with mitigation 0.73 C 0.80 C
Tassajara Boulevard/Gleason Drive 1.11 F 0.83 D
13
- with mitigation 0.76 C 0.85 D
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 1.01 F 0.86 D
14
- with mitigation 0.80 C 0.86 D
Tassajara Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard 1.21 F 1.54 F
15
- with mitigation 0.88 D 0.86 D
16 Dougherty Boulevard/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.83 D 0.89 D
Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp 0.78 C 1.00 E
17
- with mitigation 0.65 B 0.85 D
Tassajara Boulevardll-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.80 C 0.91 E
18
- with mitigation 0.80 C 0.83 D
Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound/Pimlico 0.87 D 1.00 E
19
- with mitigation 0.81 D 0.90 D
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Delay Delay
LOS LOS
(sec/veh) (sec/veh)
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 15.31 C 38.05 E
5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard 8.90 A 8.23 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive . . . .
11
- Southbound Madigan Approach (15.7) (C) (14.3) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.87 A 7.40 A
Note: vie = volume to capacity ratio, LOS = Level of SeNice;
x.x (X.X) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
"HCM 2000 methodology does not raport the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-43
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Year 2025 Plus Scenario C1
This scenario is the same as the Year 2025 cumulative conditions, with the addition of traffic
from the proposed Juvenile Hall facility with 420 beds and 420,000 square feet of office use to
be located at the ECGC, and the 13 courtrooms to be located at "Site 15A", However, with the
13 courtrooms at Site 15A, the "original" trips generated by Site 15A (assumed to be occupied
by Cisco Systems) was subtracted from the volumes at the study intersections.
The peak hour turning movement volumes for Year 2025 Cumulative plus Scenario C1
conditions are shown on Figure 17.5. Table 17.17 presents a summary of peak hour levels of
service at the study intersections. Ten study intersections are expected to operate unacceptably
during one or both of the peak hours under this scenario.
Therefore, the following mitigation measures are recommended:
. Mitigation Measure 17.5.5a and 17.5.6a: Contribute a Fair Share of Funds
Toward the Implementation of Local Roadway and Intersection
Improvements. Several roadway and intersection projects are expected to be required
as a result of background cumulative development in the area. The Project would add
traffic to those areas adversely affected, and so should contribute a fair share towards the
necessary improvements.
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard was again without the Scarlett Drive Extension between
Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. With or without the Extension, this intersection is
expected to operate at LOS F during both peak hours. There are no feasible mitigation measures
given the physical constraints at this intersection.
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive: Same mitigation mèasure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp/Pimlico Drive: Same mitigation measure described
above for Year 2025 Cumulative conditions without the Project.
. Mitigation Measure 17.5.5b and 17.5.6b: Implement Local Roadway and
Intersection Improvements. Several roadway and intersection projects are triggered
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
by the development of the East County Government Center and/or Site I5A under the
various scenarios. The Project should therefore fund the necessary improvements at such
time as they are documented as being necessary, unless other funding or alternative
improvements have been constructed that alleviate the Project's significant effects.
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 Cumulative plus Scenario Al conditions.
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative plus Scenario Al conditions.
Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative plus Scenario Alternative Al conditions.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-45
h'it(~r~.:.:rÜ(;n #1
Donghf.!l't}! )Ul>lìll
~}.
,~ g ¡;
@~N2. i
! ;:;.~¿;; ~_3$O(317) cr,;;;1;'\297I$4)
: ~::t""937 íf)06i '" "i';'"" ... 188) ,\! 4B9
i ..'~ "'ß16 (1.4ß4J "..., "',þi'J88\(,7¡
! 4H"(130)Jf ~- , i315(189)':"lt~
18751'!,(49)- Ñ'Ò;;;- ,,2.270 (22f¡9)"~ ."",.-.-.
1770(L29ßj"<\ ~:::"' ,446(68)": ~&~
j .i..ci~-! : ~V~ <;
¡ ~N~ m w
J g ~ .;: ~...~.~~.~
! lnrerserlì(Hi #7 nk~f¡;r"ction 118
jl-lw:iend,"1-580 we OIT Rmllp H.Ö,,,,,h''lJnolin
I ::~. f¡j-~0-
¡ ~.2£ ~.:':.C
i ¡g~ "t.1,347 (530)' ¡gg¡;; ":132(331 ,
i þ.J' ,..'1,458 (494)' "','7;- ... 1,082 (¡53j
1 # .: "" I, ,r 55;1 ($83) !
' ;;;is' 58b (390),"',' ", + ," 'I
~~ 841 (1.923). ;r-;::oo'
ci¿ , 415 (883\" ~Le.;;:;
InH~r~:."ri'h:m # 2
^moldj[)ublin
"nwr~~x,t¡{):n #3
A,,.,,,hiiCeul,wl
lmer.wrt"ilm 114
A!II<Jldi(;¡easoTl
InfPfSHClion :i;\;;
Arn<ilcl/1)ruder
m"......
'~'"
~,;Z
"',~
.".if)
NC'J
.¡.....
M~ñ'
~~~-
0.1.""'<1
~..o
'""".";'J
.... 243 í142)
",'53 (:J6)
...,
",'
'I:t..........
,¡,-:.<;"21"
-'N U" n.. 14 (6)
".~ ~ 1"-13 (9)
",I. \...I.--.H (4B)
10(8)-·!~t;·
22 (18).~.:","1 ;;'$;;:;'
135 (1ß4) "i %ò ::::!~
!$~::;
.... 128 130\
þi'-' 163 (332)
t:'"
.. '..
C-5'$
~~t."';.
;;'N
r~)
.,.
c'¡;:'
e:.~%,
{'I~ "'-t
(~~ ""t
'"
~.~~~~~~......._.__...~~
InH'!rsr!':(:t'íún ~! G
1I"'.:;,mdafl·58(j Fr; on RamI'
--.f?::
"'-
(Q ",.
~31
~,~'I
....../t.tJ.................
2,129~
1,818 íŒ6r"i ,,'if'
IN;.:;
! t'~ ..
I'::'.::'
~'; (""J
'" ")
~.<'0
JnH~I·s·ef1¡(ìrl #Ü
Hacinmb/Cenlra(
Ink,.""";,,,., It I
Madigan/(;kt.'ts( u
-----------.-.--------- -------------------
Inwys(lr-hon ·It ¡ 2
Madigi1ufnmd(>J
I'\leht~dion ·#{O
!1~~:hIJuíafCh}a~on
;g
;¡;'~'-t
~'--~l1')
,:.' ::,", "...12 (5¡
....;;.~.; ;~J~.~J.~b5)
34 (&2) ...11 "'I .. ~
1 B (90),~'~ iiii2'¢,>
mJ (515) . >:'Ec
,.,
t8~~
'"".
ç(;.~,'~
('"_"'¡. 1") (l)
~::;. U"~ 'F"
<5\~t
0_
.~~..~=~
,,'... ., 113 (38\
';". - ..... 206 (6S')
~~~ .410 (403)
132 (145)..··.. "'I t I·
nf.j(185)"~ i-:~·22
to"'''"
'~''''''M
ð")'~''''''''''
~("\ r-~
~«'Þr-~
\1)(>')
""-
~r~':;'
It)f.(.1
c:'~' ._ 104 (63)
Þ' ",,,, ,620 (n4)
138 (47) .,
18:1 (843)"'.
~¡g
'" .".
~- +~~
Inkr$!..~(:düH fI' 1:{ lme(:>~,~di.on if J ,1
T.....s:)¿~jara!GJ,<;~~~~nI1 Ta<'¡!$Aja¡'aJCealtu,}
---.. ···----······tD~-······~ -----.......------.cr,~..............-.-......""
-~:; ~
¡;; ¿¡;; ,;;:::.0
'i) ~ S
:;,'~'.:' ¡ .~.151 (,36) '" @ ~- \:'.. 91 (50)
'" "CI>1+'130(40\ ;!"'::; ."'60(205)
i ~+~jr3G7J1.(2) Þ··... ,.-443 (232)
i 108(4'14) "'!!:t!" 102 (1791"'!\ ,"!,
i 41 (147)::.!:g;:;:g 51 (264)'" ~¡::¡::
i 149 (489) "i ':~:S 112 1398) " ::"o:!.
I ¡~_~ '~~~
l¡g;~ ~~~
f ....,.,.........-.....---.-...-.................."......."..'".,...-'..,
I fnlÌ.~r.sI.~(doh it 1 Ü i
~ Sa..", RH~j. :IH~..J~I\IP¡lIllkll;
1 -.fJ]
! ~-~§;~
I :SC)~J
;:::;:;;.&1.451 (381\
......;.,i~it 1B7 _(181)
\221 (1.155),.~!J~
147(421)~1"''''
804 (297)" I 7.,;-
't2.,(I"")
,~
iß.
h}[m:$Atd!)B #I 1::i-
n ... n... ...J~~??-),?~~:~~d)IiH
:::.,=,.:.~~, .~1 (0) ,
{'\j, ..... 11 (~')
_~ +.. )i·:!!..f?~'L
1 (0) ...'1 I'" ; /"
12 (7\ ...., .,,-,--
¿5 {52'1·"'~! ~ ~~
. , [~:;.~~
g¡ "t"'"
---~~-~-~~.~
_. iÜ' __
m~o
~~,(,"\I
::,;.t.1~J
,. ':;J... "..25[,(404)
~~.~ ""·,'1.175 (541
.._..~..t.'!,. t_~?lJ~92)
300149ì) ...'1 "'," r"
21ß (f081)"''' 6'&"0'
431 (1,652) <\ :f!,:f?i
~).......·o
.... ""
If) ~~
hÜ.C¡H·$t:~tttün "# t f¡ Tnh~I'Sf~ctinn #- 17 lut :-I'$í~ct:i(m # t B
()01I¡;I,.,,~lr!,I.:,:î~() WB Off Ibmp liup'ilnJlI-5BO lOB Off Ramp Tas,ajara/I·580 WB OffR.mp
~ ~~ ..---.........--....... ..........-.-........-.......~;i __.....m_m........__.__ .....---......---......~.~-.......-...........,--~...
N~ ~~ 2~~
~* ¡;j~
.".,..... ,",,,,'142 (669\
~ ';'" .....n_'~:.i ,.764 i611)
1,534 (1,b74J~'" l'" 'I~-'--
1,133 (833ì"'-" ::151:;; ON
t.....tp NI'-~_
~:;;.. £i~;;'
þ.)~ ;!ä5
!;'<""{ (~
.....................................-...-....................-....
m_________·_____~_~~__~~~~_w,··_·w~__~_~
...I".r;.Ç!.r;~º..~.~"
. Study Intersection
[;:::] Appro\ledfPending Project
Project
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
~.... ...... ... _ w _ _ J ... Y - '"
(1
"
Project
Situ
ill
g
\.
íì
North
Not to Scale
Figure 17.5 ,.J~~ I
East County Government Center Site / Site 15A
Cumulative Year 2025 + Scenario Cl + 420,000 sf
County Office-Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
r.i-d)!iB 1?J [~":h
~.h1J~ ~t((
(4
.~
SOURCE: TJKM I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.17: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 + Scenario C1 +
420,000 sf County Office at the East County Government Center Site
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection
vie LOS vie LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 1.71 F 1.73 F
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.86 D 0.83 D
3 Arnold Road/Central Parkway 1 0.35 A 0.59 A
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 1.00 E 0.80 C
6
- with mitigation 0.87 D 0.68 B
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps 1.12 F 0.93 E
7
- with mitigation 0.90 D 0.61 B
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 1.06 F 0.98 E
8
- with mitigation 0.80 C 0.88 D
Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.83 D 0.98 E
9
- with mitigation 0.83 D 0.81 D
10 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.85 D 0.74 C
Tassajara Boulevard/Gleason Drive 1.08 F 0.81 D
13
- with mitigation 0.90 D 0.81 D
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 1.01 F 0.86 0
14
- with mitigation 0.80 C 0.86 D
Tassajara Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard 1.20 F 1.53 F
15
- with mitigation 0.88 D 0.85 D
16 Dougherty Boulevard/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.83 D 0.88 D
Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp 0.78 C 0.99 E
17
- with mitigation 0.65 B 0.84 D
18 Tassajara Boulevard/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.78 C 0.88 D
Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound/Pimlico 0.87 D 1.00 E
19
- with mitigation 0.81 D 0.90 D
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Delay Delay
LOS LOS
(sec/veh) (sec/veh)
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 11.79 B 15.76 C
5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard 8.87 A 8.17 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive * * * *
11
- Southbound Madigan Approach (14.8) (B) (13.4) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.82 A 7.39 A
Note: vie = volume to capacity ratio, LOS = Level of Service;
XX (XX) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
*HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-47
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Year 2025 plus Scenario C2
This scenario is the same as the Year 2025 cumulative conditions, with the addition of traffic
ftom the proposed Juvenile Hall facility with 540 beds and 420,000 square feet of office use to
be located at the ECGC, and the 13 courtrooms to be located at Site 15A. Once again, the Cisco
trips were subtracted from the study intersections.
Results of Level of Service Analysis
The peak hour turning movement volumes for Year 2025 Cumulative plus Scenario C2
conditions are shown on Figure 17.6. Table 17.18 presents a summary of peak hour levels of
service at the study intersections. The same 10 intersections that are expected to operate
unacceptably under Year 2025 Cumulative plus Scenario Clare also expected to operate
unacceptably under this scenario.
. Mitigation Measure 17.6.5a and 17.6.6a: Contribute a Fair Share of Funds
Toward the Implementation of Local Roadway and Intersection
Improvements. Several roadway and intersection projects are expected to be required
as a result of background cumulative development in the area. The Project would add
traffic to those areas adversely affected, and so should contribute a fair share towards the
necessary improvements.
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard was again analyzed without the Scarlett Drive Extension
between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. With or without the Extension, this
intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during both peak hours. There are no feasible
mitigation measures given the physical constraints at this intersection.
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 Cumulative conditions without the Project.
Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp/Pimlico Drive: Same mitigation measure described
above for Year 2025 Cumulative conditions without the Project.
. Mitigation Measure 17.6.5b and 17.6.6b: Implement Local Roadway and
Intersection Improvements. Several roadway and intersection projects are triggered
by the development of the East COWlty Government Center and/or Site 15A under the
various scenarios. The Project should therefore fund the necessary improvements at such
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 1748
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
time as they are documented as being necessary, unless other funding or alternative
improvements have been constructed that alleviate the Project's significant effects.
Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative plus Scenario Al conditions.
Hacienda Drivell-580 Eastbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 Cumulative plus Scenario Al conditions.
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative plus Scenario Al conditions.
Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative plus Scenario A I conditions.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-49
-----:-·---··...···J-;;;;;~(~i.~tjon #2
A"""lrlfl)"bho ,
..~~~~.._...~._.~._------!~--
---"'-^.._..~_..~
IntNs{~rH()n -# f
L~......._!~?ugh€ny/nuhJ ìn
¡ S~
~,-~ § ~ ~
£~=~~ :~:\(\¡2}. ! !
;;'~;¡;' "_382(;\23) di ;;8 i~301 (C,,'Ô¡ i
~:::Jt;; 4939 (912) i "'.::- ¡",,1,886\1's16j
þ.J t... .'$21 (1.610)! þ." ""Þ'388(0/) .
, 48 (130)'; .,. ," ¡. 625 (19())';¡., t í"
!Bln (ÙWJj"~ '''. '8£ 1229r 12212)-+1 ._,_.-
:,no (1,298)" ~:;::[;; i 446(00,,,i ¡;¿~:¡g
- i ' i ,2.;;;~~,
! ..............................§'~::~"',..,',...,...j,.....,....,...., ó> ....:................i
i lnrpPH,-tl,inl) 41 i Int.erspctl.on #8
¡ HadNH1a/!-5f10 \\11 OffHamp i IbdNI{b;f}ubhll
i..riv·
"""V
"'...
tit!
jHH~N*.'('H(}n #3
Aro,, ,VCenlral
In'~~r<j.(~·(liÙH /1-1
Anmlí1!Glf~i:~$I".ln
lut'i.'l'fwrt.ion #·5
'\moldiHrorl.".
..__n______
M__.
~iª
t"c .~-~
""" <D
"'N
~.~
~,...
,- C)
~N
~... 2f>1 (14J)
. 53 (35)
t,"
Nr::
2?~.S.
¡¡:¡;
N
_~i}'1
2:~~;;; \...14 W)
""'~·:··1.·13 (H)
þ.' t" "47 (50)
,':;'~·(0'i·:::¡ ;;;;"r......'"
22 ,16, .....- --,
'13$ (164) "'<¡ ;;!~~
fR~:l
"_ 131 (31)
.163 (332)
.-:;-
i.ë"¿}
:2 ~:.""
;':~N
N<"">
".
,,,
,,,
.._.___________...____...___...____..........m.........____..................._._.,...
,.,........................................... ................~........_._-_..
intl-rSific.Hoo 49
Ililc;,."ula/C¡""rat
""
«>
~.~
tt) "" .n...
M·........~
~:ßc.: ~ 1215)
"', ":~" +- 88 (213)
.. t '... ,. 432 (205)
34(82)3 "', + ~
18 á90) '7 æ',;;:<,'
no (,)18) " ,,~~g
le......."~·
'.(;;i;ÕN
¡,oN{~
~
1/li\'rsecÜu/I # to
Hi.Hjendü/Gk.fi$on
¡.oh~.rsc~tio.n -;r ¡ 1
Mad¡~p.lJjCit,·ã~nu
.,.'
§';~ ~
:f.~.::t~.
ill';;;-
l..'1'-"¡
~.~-
'f'CO "'..124 (:n)
'" r', ..." 209 (66)
.1... ,.' 416 (':91)
1:1:, (14B)·.. .1 . :'"
116 (191)" ffi:f¡'§'
..........~ p,
u¡ '-.~ ~.'~
\")")ON
~;'g;;;
~I~!
{.(,)Ç;Þ :
';'í :",105(53)
þ.' ... :+-638 (236)
141 (47) ..."
187 {661ì""+
I
Y-'0 "'.356 (531)! ;;fž8; ~ 132 (33)
n...__...~ni .~.L~.~~".~494)i :,r;::. ; ~5~8(1g;)3!i
~':, i H 1:! (393)--" ., t ,'"
'" h 941 (1923,'" ;;--;:::-6
~~. ' 416 ¡$(7)" :e.~?€,
.,-....-~
'I"'^("..I'-f)
~CC:.,n
~J~
<"">.,-
.............................. J_2 _..m._________...._____..,
IntnrsOdÜm II L1
l~l~.sajara;Glnasnll
'...m..."...........:::.~'t':.......................l........_.
....._._._-~...-
m_m...___________._______.....___..______.......______.__.._._..
_._.___.._.... ..'m........,............................._....._.
Intpr.spf.!iml ,ff 14
f;)").:':t(1J~,r,ÚC(';UIJal
h~t.HSi..·tl¡U¡1 11.1;\
las",jaraiD,ibJ,n
Inwrsr:rrion r, ¡ t;
Du"gIH.,tI~/! :jRO WI! 011 R,,,,,p
a,)ffi'
,~¡::t
2,;¿:.
iJ lf.~rs(wlinn i! 1'1
H!}I'}l!rdfl-~¡RO FE nIT RaUlI)
i3'~
r-- '
"" ¡;;;¿:[:v-.
'1.133 (033) '''~ ;n ~
r....w
~._.
šq
~,
~:
~'
-~..)
: ~;;;~~..
: "'2)-' 151 (36)
: ;3;~ ~ . 130(40)
: ~... ~M"~P?J.1. 52\
i Wi! (4;ü)~4 '!t~,;!
: 41 (147)..... ¡g';" g¡
i 152(481)" N¡¡;~
i it".;::-
i in;'~
. eo
8 @.
S'::£õ'
~~~ ~ '-'~
,,,'-"" "'...91 (50) :::gË ~.265¥404)
:!~j= ....60/205,ì ~, :;;f""~[;-)
;a-','¡ Þ' 443(232): ;;t·~ ;:~;Nr8~~1
102 (17m __" !i-,"-~! ! 300 '497)3 ".?""
51 (264)'7 ~;!R :218 (1~082)'~. 6'82
112 (3981 . :::'::~ '431 (1.652)···. ¡ggæ
~~ø' _?_-
~{"}~ 8~'~
"'g.~ "'g'-
(")(0
(;8
",;'N
þ.:.
..~ 867 (762)
þ<-- 806 (629)
J,::
<»",
<rOC>
d.;:"
c>N
("",I"""
<r
ç;j------------
:
~:, ------ "1-'___
Inwr'S(!ttÎon :#) q :
Sau,,, RiI.Ji·"I!O ElWi",)jço!
fE' ----.-.~~
Œ'{1:r
i!S"~'
j ~~~I. ,¡
. "'. ,?;;, "_451 (38H
: "'~"" "
! þ.' t '...! ,,187 161 ~
:1221 (1 ,155>---Jf¡!;! '
! 147(421ì'7¡~~
: 804 (297) ,,: "", ,~,
, !'''';3;
! ;;
~
"'.
;
p.!.:::~ . .~~.
..J
;¡'
.¡~ I
~!
LEGEND
.
o
Sjj:~:ii:ná
Study Inter$ection
ApprovedlPending Project
Project
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak. Hour Volume
,..._ .."':;:r....~ ~_~
. "::"\--
J
(!
/
:..."",,
.,
ø.\i~j':¡~" l~i:":t
'I Ptì:r~~
(~J ~
...... ':):!.¡
t)'»' I ~;.¡%
"".".iÙ" : (.:.~~.,.,.~.,. ~:>'~?/;""'-¡L_._&,,:.
¡hjld~I!«,,[i~'IJ (~'H~< ' ",~_, -
¡ ,CW..: »1 :"Y;-¡tr~ ~,",....---.-.., ;cr-;:': 'ffl ~MtØ$~;"':
1 ~1;¡: ..~~~ t ('.;~1JßI*' W¥':.!~"4 ~
~,. ~ ~ ~ ~R~;'r.~~~rn~~; - ~ ~ ~ 1: ,~17,,~ '~('~ . ..I..¡I1.~... '..'."..<.'.. If',
_..¡ ;:¡:- ( .¡~ f,' ! :M~~~~:k~.>;
./" 4 10 ~ ~ rj /."",,,,1.,,,,1,::::
/., j ~;u ~I><~ - - n '..... )iJ('!'i'r·/',:'X'~~·d¡¡:r:~:,:,: ":':: -
Project ~ : I,;:;;~;:,:;i;!~", ~"'''m' ;U >'>_/.:.....I;M&il""'d' '1-,'. - - ¡ ;.~-:;:,~~~'~',:'\
Site" ~~"'" NI~~;;:,'.'j........ .;.:.'.I.~.Sr.,...'............::.:..-......'.~.:.^....:.:^.~;2.·.\c[.:.;::.::~.'~.'~.:,::_.>.::~"'~'~:J';¡:':'~ 14 ' A"", :
....'..1 ~ '\NI~:1~:_1_"""":::'!ri! . \; ~)i~ \",:,:'l~: \rjU:IÚ
__ ._~:.._ W"~":'. 4""~t""..2n1i~;:~~;""\.J."".i., ··.·,5
~r:l8,i ::':Ü.ffl:ij~f.ç£: ~.':~.J~::!tI(Wi: 1.". "".: ". .. ). .....::.: :. .. ·.1.·..··.... . .·...1.. ·.·...'"k.\.'.."I.II.. .......:,,: ..~:',:':, "
:\[~iÚÞ~ Ol~; Hi.W¡~~Þ .', . ¡ ",/" ""fh¡hlm,: ,:¡ \1:,~ Dubl1t! :R~~¡)(:h
""~ " """'" S('1:~:,~t!< ,',;.':::':':::".:1: ,'" ""ß\S-~, ~ ,b:~ ~¡
"~~ · (~~?f;;:;
., /:;'
___J_ __~___________
,,,_.nm.l.. . - ~. , . . -- .. . . . - - .
--
i"
," i
~.: !
~¡
~i
"~~;~1'"
"'~:r
',~\
5;.
"
"'''''111
..
NQrth
Not to Scale
\J./'
/....16
/ 1\>""
J Y' ,
~\.¿ ....,
~''''~'~.
11\\(':
\..:4
\.1-;
\'~,
/'i.,HI
iI..W.1"
~.~~...~._...~_....,---
Figure 17.6 ,,,~~I
East County Government Center Site / Site 15A
Cumulative Year 2025 + Scenario C2 + 420,000 sf
County Office-Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
Jntr:fSN,~Ü{)n iiÚ
. f¡;'clend"Jj,5g0 1m Olf Ramp
'0'
~.~
'''i''~~·: >¡.---
1,f!18 (656f<t Rig
~.~'{
t::!..::;.
~fri
If{ ~.>')
mmnom mmm...n._
hUPI',l;¡f1tlìon :.I;: I!.
Mad;gaw'¡¡""kr
:;:",iZi ... ~
'-.--'- "__.1 (0
~,..~ "',,11 ()
þ.' ~.... ,.-' 5 (73)
1 (0) _'II "," ;.-
12 (7):!" ;i;':¡',";j-
23 (52) " ~~~:;:;;;
- '"
'" ~
m.m..."'__ .._____.___
lul('r:;,:e<.:Ü()U ¡118
'L"·'''iara;] ,;gO WH on' RalUl'
tJ·~
-<r
:::,.ci.
;z ~!
~.'f"'~.
þ.'
~.747 ({j70)
."/64 (611)
. I'-
~'ç-
<:)-t\
Nt-.
tI;;
<n Il",
"",""
"'!.
()¡,I~I:iil~ tUIl~d!
Af":~ 0
,:'
.~, .. ,",. '.', -
n~¡M:ij,:$:,Wi¡~h .
~~\~M·)::
/~I::;;;:\\.
:; . :\~.~ I
~ -", I
'~,-'" ~ 1
"
D...bi.iul{; d:
r\fL'i¡1>R\,C
1:X
:f
! f
!
L
\ "
/\,'
<',~\'~~':~.m
i
SOURCE: 1JKM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.18: Peak Hour Intersection levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 + Scenario C2 +
420,000 sf County Office at the East County Government Center Site
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection
vie LOS vie LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 1.73 F 1.74 F
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.87 D 0.84 D
3 Arnold Road/Central Parkway 1 0.36 A 0.60 A
Hacienda Drive/I~580 Eastbound Ramps 1.01 F 0.80 C
6
- with mitigation 0.81 D 0.69 B
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Ramps 1.12 F 0.93 E
7
- with mitigation 0.90 D 0.62 B
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 1.09 F 0.99 E
8
- with mitigation 0.82 D 0.89 D
Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.86 D 1.01 F
9
- with mitigation 0.86 D 0.83 D
10 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.90 D 0.77 C
Tassajara Boulevard/Gleason Drive 1.09 F 0.81 D
13
- with mitigation 0.75 C 0.83 D
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 1.01 F 0.86 D
14
- with mitigation 0.80 C 0.86 D
Tassajara Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard 1.20 F 1.53 F
15
- with mitigation 0.88 D 0.85 D
16 Dougherty Boulevardll-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.83 D 0.88 D
17 Hopyard Roadll-580 Eastbound Off~Ramp 0.78 C 0.99 E
- with mitigation 0.66 B 0.85 D
18 Tassajara Boulevard/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.78 C 0.89 D
Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound/Pimlico 0.87 D 1.00 E
19
- with mitigation 0.81 D 0.90 D
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
10 Intersection Delay Delay
LOS LOS
(sec/veh) (see/veh)
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 12.18 B 17 .44 C
5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard 8.87 A 8.18 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive * * * *
11
- Southbound Madigan Approach (15.2) (C) (13.5) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.83 A 7.39 A
Note: vlc'" volume to capacity ratio, LOS'" Level of Service;
X.X (X.X) '" Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
'HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-51
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Year 2025 Plus Scenario D
This scenario is the same as the Year 2025 cumulative conditions, with the addition of traffic
from 880,000 square feet of office use at the ECGC and the proposed 13 courtrooms to be
located at the Site 15A. Again, the Cisco trips were subtracted from the study intersections.
Results of Level of Service Analysis
The peak hour turning movement volumes for Year 2025 Cumulative plus Scenario D conditions
are shown on Figur:e 17.7. Table 17.19 presents a summary of peak hour levels of service at the
study intersections. Eleven study intersections are expected to operate unacceptably during one
or both of the peak hours.
. Mitigation Measure 17.7.5a and 17.7.6a: Contribute a Fair Share of Funds
Toward the Implementation of Local Roadway and Intersection
Improvements. Several roadway and intersection projects are expected to be required
as a result of background cumulative development in the area. The Project would add
traffic to those areas adversely affected, and so should contribute a fair share towards the
necessary improvements.
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard was again found to operate at LOS F without the Scarlett
Drive Extension between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. With or without the
Extension, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during both peak hours. There are
no feasible mitigation measures given the physical constraints at this intersection.
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative No Project conditions.
Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
Cumulative No Project conditions.
Hopyard Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 Cumulative No Project conditions.
Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp/Pimlico Drive: Same mitigation measure described
above for Year 2025 Cumulative No Project conditions.
. Mitigation Measure 17.7.5b and 17.7.6b: Implement Local Roadway and
Intersection Improvements. Several roadway and intersection projects are triggered
by the development of the East County Government Center and/or Site 15A under the
various scenarios. The Project should therefore fund the necessary improvements at such
time as they are documented as being necessary, unless other funding or alternative
improvements have been constructed that alleviate the Project's significant effects.
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 plus Scenario B conditions.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025 plus
Scenario Al conditions.
Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Off-ramp: Same mitigation measure described above for Year
2025 plus Scenario Al conditions.
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025
plus Scenario B conditions.
Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025 plus
Scenario B conditions.
Hacienda Drive/Gleason Road: Same mitigation measure described above for Year 2025 plus
Scenario B conditions.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17 ~53
hIWI':"Ìo(~d ¡·on :If I
Ouughenyl()uhhn
~
¡2~:~
to '"
;;10:,-; ._382 (342)
tr¡Mm
'.-.,'" '" "'-939 (931)
~.. i,\23 (1 ,~94
! 48 (1301.. ., ,'f'
!9in i1.068¡--" M3"
bW(12'B'··'" "",,,,g
¡r : ~ t ~~t:..
i ~~g
¡ I..~~)N~
..¡...................................__0~~L:;:................ ...............
¡ IHtt.?tSPCl.iofl·¡r¡
! Jb(:iJ"I<Jn¡I-~¡gO WB Off Ramp
¡ &.~'G· .
! ~',"~',!
¡ l"'("""}:
r:;;. ~! ".,..1,390 \&01 i
þf. i i'l ,456 (494)
-------..-m--tn-y--
!¡g~
:~~.'q^
:u,~·
g¡g
"'",t "'1
~---_...~--
lBt.f~rs~dioo #: J ~S
1Ü;~~.ajanfGlpasü!
---------------~·0·'··"····
....-~,E
~~~\': 1511361
11; .cr, '''--13~ (411
....~ii!!::i/; (152)
110 (439)"":~;..(!
i 401149)--"': g;¡; if,
: 152 ",19) "!''\'''_~:;
¡ ¡ç>~::,r--.
i ;$;::::'
I.."......... .........._._______...._.__~~,....,.................. ..
j lnfl:<fSt:'fHí)1I !i 1.9
i ''''W.' RIIJil-:i80 EßfPillllÌ<:"
.r,
~~,§
.=.~~,
R~,g ~c-.45'1 {3ß'1
~ë(~ .-18711/31
h221 í1,155)m..t f;!
i 147 (421):~ E~
! í'.04 (297) " ;::;i
I:, ~~
C('~
In¡,,'s""!km #·2
Arnold/J)ublin
Intt~J':'je{; íou !j3
An",ldiC""t,el
I"t","""t!ol< '~4
ArnnldiGh.'H..,.<)O
~ g ¡i,'¡¡,-
S~tt'!r tC --
fl,g~ ~n;&(!i1,602î i~ ._nI42 (40;
þ;'1' '. Jll'38R(67)' 1'... . 16ê!(332\
664 (2211....t ..., '" ,. t ¡'f'
2,391 (2292) ,;'",7 $;;:;
446 (68) '" ~ S!;::j :;:: '.:::,
":"""'-1,(') '";..- '".~''t-
"I""" ~ ....")~
.I-¡i~,.:;(;,;,:~,~..~¡:I~(·;j;;:.·,;,~-¡:)·;,~,·'I')#¡:8,(,'~I:·..m..m·....t: ...."..mm""ï;;;"';~-;~~;;n;;~;_n-mm
n - _ Hark"d¡¡fCfJltr¡;¡
~)'·o
æ~
;;-;;'
:::;::; 1 "'. 281 (1681
':.1~-;3 (:lG)
.1
Ñ~
~~:
~,"""It
"''''
'"
'"
..............._......u........................
Intersection # (
HatiendMCj~a~() 1
,,"
§-~~.
~~,:-""'~
~h~j ~__133(35) ¡
"'t: ~ .. \~84 (7~31
... ,l-.. ,. 5~" (;18\ ,
706 (473~_..t ~;.,... i
.41 n.922)""'" ;;,::G I
417 (897)" ~¡,~ is :
N·::.(\¡ ¡
qg~ ¡
~Q:)~
""
~
íÒ{.~·"m.
n '~~r~()
;::;;;:::. ",12 (5)
"",''è'" .....'10'1120\
~ .... JII' 432 (205)
:>4 i(2) -'" ~ -+ I"
18 (39) '~'.~"" iJ)'~'Ô)
B1 (527) . g.21,~
f......ç...¡N
:'---'t'-G)
(Q~
'"
;:;:.êQ'
;::~ I
;;;~ .162 ¡70;
_un_mt';___ _;:J.1.~J~ j)n
132 (1,,7)··..1.., '" ,'"
'17 (210)··"1'. ,__c..;_.,
8;J;~
::,['"2:'2:.
~tõg
"'~ i'''''"If'
m~rSf'ftiOJl iil4 inh'p'¡·Pf'fion #lS (utNsN:tion #fit";
-~_.._...~~~~~~j .~~:~~~~~:~~-~~-~~:~~-~------- _____~~.~:~::IJ.:~~ ~~!:~~~~~-!~!.~-..------------- --~~~~B~-~-~:.':~lt.k~~~~:!?~~~!.!..~.:~.~~~~~-~
~-; Ñ' ~¡e
, . {S-m (t) r:j.,-¿..
~·~··~·I "'91 (50): ~i~ I ~ 2(18 (4(16) ~ 8
::!:~':; ¡":.=€O{205} ¡ ~~IJJ ... ,.1'78 (543 ~::--¡
mn~J~J~~32) i ~~Ltn~ ,,~,52 r (S02) m~'ui
102 (179)···..t1'!,""! : lIJ(J(497) ~I.';"'"
5'1 (2G4)::.·!"*~¡:' ::18 (1,()M) ".. .3·;:¿;-
112 (T¥:') " "S.~.'!. 1431 (1652' '" :f;2fB
~ ;;.~ Î ¡.; ~(~;
°3~ ~~æ
())
~__. gG7 (762)
,. mrr (6Jli)
r;¡--···
_m__mm..mm_m..mmmm~":'m.....................l.............
~~ ....~
t'-o-{"r)
>t";«:J
,?:r;:'
;1·; ~{
"-i"1
__.___.____....___.........m_m..._.__...__,_..,... ..........~...................
..r::i .m.m..mmmmm._j
lJ,,,ÿE§JlNQ
I · Study Intersection
: c::J Approved/Pending Project
I Project
! XX AM Peak Hour Volume
L (XX) P~~~,~~.~~!..~o ume
----------------_.~,~,
!
!~~~~~"".
;'éd,·!'r!.i
,'//
~' >!, 'rI
...
Project
Site
\
\.
..m....~
,xi :
~!
3:
.. .'
'-....¡
,,;~:~.~~,.(~~~',7·,~~;.
t
i~
t- ,
,
\ 1 ,/..,-~.
,)~~
/ ".,-,",..
.<~,~~.':"
1~,i;"
\<~)
m.......',. ..mmmmmmmmm__m...m.. ....,.,~.:
""'~~~:
~:.b~WI~'i;'. tH}ß:,ét.Vti~ M'{¡i:~þ\L:: il \, ': :::, ,,,"": ~,y' '
ÖÚ "'. :',,::-, : '!'~~~,:,lf~t!~;~~f¡' ·:: ,M~:'I':,,:': :',' :"............'~. .,'.'..'..'. ... ..,~. .....' ·i?)I. .. '.
L ' ·.'.:I;",<j;II""'t",~ : ~:,:::nW.ij.i:~"::, i"-i ;
.1:,:':~'>:~~~ ~: C J " (,M ¡,,, ,',. ,:: 'U~, \~~ ¡
/;i (')\:,:., &i i I~::,^,~r.?~~;~
,~ ), .-' ...,.. .-....::.....l:.'., ~"I~ll'('~ !11~
'....<~¡.i~·.J· "¡D~à"";';";~".::..
: 6 19)i:
'....mmmmm_mnm___mmmmmmm.m.. . ..'..f ...... mmmmmmmmmn__n___mm_mm"/Z..
~
..
North
Not to Scale
fun
Figure 17.7 'ê,Æ;;]
East County Government Center Site / Site 15A
Cumulative Year 2025 + Scenario D + 880,000 sf
County Office-Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
rnh~r!;e~'tiqn #5-
Af ~ol(!/H "(Hipf
'e;;
"'-.
.........._r·OO
¡£¡~;;; ~...14 (6)
,~'":" ~ "m 13 (9)
#...It.. ,: 50 (72)
'1(:;-((;):::~ ;;;-r;-
22 (11\)..... ,-"',-,
135 (it)4)" gJ,êÇ:i
;:O~CQ
~.rJ <'Q r-
m____mt
--....--------....--.,.............................................
Inlf>!7),'rlhHI ffl!
MadiganJGløas()n
'1--. UJ I
~J}:_:, !
~~ i,:..
,"",.._,!';I,._~r:'·"
, 52 (57) m:l'
188 (719)··.
HAl ((;5)
lü3 (29())
IntnrSt),cHun fiG
Uack"d,ü1",80 ml Off Ram¡,
._'"
",5',
~~-~
~ffi
~"1 <t".~.
þ;'
2303 (1 ,3i)-h"" 'i~--'
,1,818 (656P, ;:,'2
æ0i
2:J.¿
"''''
f&~
_..........______.___...._....:t:_.......................~.
¡nWnwdhm:¥12
MmHgm¡!Hf',d",
::G:B i.. 1 (0)
~"'~ 1"11 (5)
,¡( ., '''I Þ'm 5 (73)
'..1miÕ)·~:;¡!~;·¡··..---'--·
12 (7),,"1 «;i:?:.:¡'
23 (60) ,,¡ s::;:;;-
¡§ 0
~.~~~
fnt,cðecliOlI itlY TnterSel.'.\iwi ,#,JR
__i_I'~IJ!:"~~I~_:~_~r~;:¡~~!_J~~t,,.. "..:~.~:~<~,j,,!:('~_:~~_~__~:_l\__2i'!:~¡,~,~
(""".' ~~R
~·8. ~~
,=:], 'F ~:~i
¡il
~;I
¡ ,,;, I
i.1<5JB i1B4ß)_<fI;.,....
'i n~; (BTJ) ""IS. is
! . ;:.!
. ~:;¡:
t:'t.~
------......."..,.,..............,............
~,ih~%¡
.,
:),!.:.!¿¡ ~.
tJ(¡;:,i ~~~ !'f-;~¡j,,:'h
:\~.~.:11. 1 ¡
I
__m___mj
rð~ ...
"':'" ,",,, 766 1685;
...___~;i~__.!~..~6_11j
II: ,"
¿-S~~.
('.J("\.)
r:'>l ",
0;;-
0'"
8~
___...........__.__......_.,."....,,:>.t...........................
! J~~~;;;~~:;;; ~~\
.J 12 ·,1" ",,' ~.~,;'""<I\~¡~~y.¡;::j"<1. ~ ~
m"_ ....."'.........h.u..,.nu. ).' ",r~" ':"
_~:. I;f'q)ç~ ~l v>, ~ ~j/~!,:" 4!lJ]rf/ .>!It;~!J~~;~ /.. .~, ~
~ ì«~( ~~~;,~:;,;~,!'.:.;~~~j~¡~'" i' . I
~(-..., .."",,,,~k~t;,¡<J¡'S;·I·:·.¡ ;,\ ,
'..,/.....................'...,.----:.--.. ,
i)uhh~ R~:~~~d¡ ,
r!hohl;
k~\!!;:i:
A~~~.~ f.
_.....!.
_. ~ N ~ _, . .. _ ~
¡'h¡¡,1f;I,~ !'!'.:\¡ J~
.\n~;:¡>. n...~('
If),
d
. .
l-, '
/\:~::>~;,
',-.......\.'/..
~._,.~....
SOURCE: 1JKM I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I,
ì
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Table 17.19: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Cumulative Year 2025 + Scenario D +
880,000 sf County Office at the East County Government Center Site
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection
vie LOS vie LOS
1 Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 1.80 F 1.81 F
2 Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.89 D 0.86 D
3 Arnold Road/Central Parkway 1 0.39 A 0.63 B
Hacienda Drive/I-S80 Eastbound Ramps 1.05 F 0.85 C
6
- with mitigation 0.89 D 0.72 C
Hacienda Drive/I-S80 Westbound Ramps 1.16 F 0.94 E
7
- with mitigation 0.79 C 0.59 A
Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 1.18 F 1.03 F
8
- with mitigation 0.89 D 0.84 D
Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.94 E 1.09 F
9
- with mitigation 0.84 D 0.88 D
Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 1.06 F 0.98 E
10
- with mitigation 0.68 B 0.75 C
Tassajara Boulevard/Gleason Drive 1.11 F 0.82 D
13
- with mitigation 0.76 C 0.84 D
Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 1.01 F 0.87 D
14
- with mitigation 0.80 C 0.87 D
Tassajara Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard 1.20 F 1.54 F
15
- with mitigation 0.88 D 0.86 D
16 Dougherty Boulevard/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.83 D 0.89 D
Hopyard Road/I-S80 Eastbound Off-Ramp 0.81 D 1.01 F
17
- with mitigation 0.66 B 0.86 D
18 Tassajara Boulevard/I-S80 Westbound Off-Ramp 0.79 C 0.90 D
Santa Rita Road/I-S80 eastbound/Pimlico 0.87 D 1.00 E
19
- with mitigation 0.82 D 0.90 D
UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS
A. M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Intersection Delay Delay
LOS LOS
(sec/veh) (sec/veh)
4 Arnold Road/Gleason Drive 13.70 B 29.86 D
5 Arnold Road/Broder Boulevard 8.88 A 8.28 A
Madigan Avenue/Gleason Drive '" '" * *
11
- Southbound Madigan Approach (16.0) (C) (14.8) (B)
12 Madigan Avenue/Broder Boulevard 7.92 A 7.41 A
Note: vie = volume to capacity ratio, LOS = Level of Service;
x.X (X.X) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS)
"HCM 2000 methodology does not raport the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-55
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Parking
Additional parking may be needed as large projects are developed within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Area. However, large projects will have to provide parking consistent with the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requirements, which discourages excessive amoW1ts of parking
because it encourages daily vehicle trips. As indicated in Policy 5-19, parking requirernents in
eastern Dublin shall be kept to a minimum consistent with actual parking needs, with allowances
made for shared parking in mixed-use areas. Parking requirements may be reduced wherever it
can be demonstrated that use of alternative transportation would reduce actual parking demand.
The Dublin Transit Center Draft Environmental Impact Report (prepared for the City of Dublin
by Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, July 2001) indicates that the proposed Dublin Transit Center
would include the removal of most of the existing BART surface parking lots and replacing these
spaces with a five-level parking garage that would contain approximately 1,700 spaces. This
parking garage would be designed to accommodate an additional floor of parking space in the
future that could accommodate approximately 250 additional parking spaces. The proposed
Transit Center would rely primarily on structured parking incorporated into individual
development projects, with the precise amount of parking provided for each individual project to
be detennined during the Stage 2 Rezoning and Site Development Review process. At the
Transit Center, the project applicant is proposing that residential development provide parking at
a lower rate than the two spaces per residential unit required by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance,
based on proximity to the BART station, and less parking than would nonnally be required for
ancillary ground-floor retail uses. Approximately 200 additional parking spaces would be
provided along Iron Horse Parkway, DeMarcus Boulevard, aroWld the Village Green, and on
Digital Drive and Campus Drive to serve as a reservoir of short-term parking. While it is
anticipated that the approved West Dublin BART station will reduce parking demand somewhat
at the East Dublin BART station, it is likely that available BART parking spaces will not fully
meet demand. Unless properly managed, on-street parking spaces and nearby residential and
office parking structures could be used by BART patrons, precluding parking for residents and
visitors. This was identified as a significant impact in the Dublin Transit Center Draft
Environmental Impact Report, that could be mitigated to a level of less than significant by
posting time limits at nearby on-street parking and by discouraging unauthorized BART use of
on-site parking lots and structures through security, validation or other means (pages 155-156,
168).
Additional parking may be needed at the East COWlty Government Center site if the East COWlty
Government Center Offices are built. Future development at the Bast County Government Center
site should include a then-current parking study to determine the actual use of the parking lots
developed for the Juvenile Justice Facility andlor East COWlty Hall of Justice. If the existing
parking is heavily utilized, then for each phase of office development additional parking should
be developed to meet projected parking needs. A potential future site for parking garages is at the
Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center parking lots north of Broder Boulevard.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
i,
I
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
Air Quality
Air quality impacts are cumulative in the sense that additional construction, traffic and
operations add to the emissions in the air basin and can affect the region's air quality.
Development of the East County Government Center site and Site 15A in Dublin would
contribute to the regional diesel emissions during construction, including PMl 0, ozone
precursors, and TACs. The project's contribution would be reduced with the implementation of
mitigation measures, including the use of alternative fuels, but would remain significant during
the site preparation and construction period in Dublin and during the demolition activity at the
existing Juvenile Hall in San Leandro. Depending on the level of construction activity taking,
place in the vicinity while the project is under construction, the project's contribution to
construction-related air pollution could be regarded as cumulatively considerable.
Under any of the scenarios for the construction of facilities at the East County Government
Center site or Site 15A, development would add to the total number of vehicle trips in the area,
and would thus entail a project-related contribution to regional air pollution. The development
scenarios that would generate the most traffic would also be expected to make the greatest
cumulative contribution to air pOllution within the region. However, no CO hotspots were
identified for any of the scenarios based on the future roadway and intersection traffic volumes
and level of service.
Noise
Development at either vacant site in Dublin (the East County Government Center site or Site
15A) would involve construction activity that could contribute to a temporary increase in noise
levels which could be regarded as cumulatively considerable, depending on the level of
development taking place concurrently in the immediate vicinity. After construction has been
completed, cumulative traffic noise conditions in the vicinity of the East County Government
Center could increase by from 3 dB to 9 dB. On roadway links adjoining noise-sensitive
residential land uses, cumulative noise levels would increase by about 4 dB on Hacienda Drive
between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway, 5 dB on Hacienda Drive between Central
Parkway and Gleason Drive, and 2 dB on Gleason Drive east of Hacienda Drive. With the
project, cumulative noise impacts (overall noise level increase greater than or equal to 3 dB)
would occur on all of the local roadways. The project's contribution to these levels would range
from 1 to 4 dB Ldn compared to predicted cumulative noise levels without the project. Overall
cumulative noise levels would be about 4 to 11 dB higher than existing noise levels. Cumulative
noise level increases with the project would be approximately 6 dB Hacienda Drive between
Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway, 8 dB on Hacienda Drive between Central Parkway and .
Gleason Drive, and 5 to 6 dB on Gleason Drive east of Hacienda Drive. This is a significant
cumulative impact as the project substantially contributes to the future cumulative noise level.
Public Services
Under any of the scenarios for the construction of new facilities at the East County Government
Center site or Site 15A, there would be an incremental increased in the demand for public
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacilitylEast County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-57
Chapter 17: Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts
services and utilities. However, development at both ofthese sites has been anticipated by the
City of Dublin, and the provision of public services and utilities to serve new development in this
area would not be expected to entail cumulatively considerable environmental impacts.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 17-58
I
I
I,
I
I,
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
,
I
I
,I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
t
I
I
18
Report Preparation
18.1 EIS/EIR PREPARERS
This Draft Environmental Impact StatementÆnvironmental Impact Report has been prepared for
the County of Alameda, California Board of Corrections, and u.s. Department of Justice as Lead
Agencies by Lamphier-Gregory, Inc., in affiliation with TJKM Transportation Consultants,
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., Environmental Collaborative, and Basin Research Associates.
Alameda County
Board of Supervisors
1221 Oak Street, Fifth Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
510-272-6347
County Administrator's Office
1221 Oak Street, Fifth Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
510-272-6984
Susan Muranishi, County Administrator
Donna Linton, Assistant County Administrator
Stephen Walsh, Senior Analyst
General Services Agency
1401 Lakeside Drive, Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94612
510-208-9700
Aki Nakao, Director
Tim Timberlake, Portfolio Manager
Lou Shikany, Construction Projects Manager
Merle Lynn Easton, Architect
Community Development Agency - Planning Department
399 Elmhurst Street, Room 136
Hayward, CA 94544
510-670-5400
James Sorensen, Planning Director
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 18·1
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
u.s. Department of Justice
Corrections Program Office/Bureau of Justice Assistance
810 7th Street NW., Fourth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20531
202-514-7903
Paul DeLameter, Program Manager
The Louis-Berger Group, Inc.
1819 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
202-331-7775
Anjana Mepani, Environmental Planner
State of California Board of Corrections
600 Bercut Drive
Sacramento, California 95814
916-322-7085
Mr. Michael Houghtby, Field Representative
ICF Consulting
9300 Lee Highway
Fairfax, Virginia 22031
703-934-3616
Alan Summerville, Project Manager
Master City Planning, B.A. Economics and Political Science. 14 years of experience
preparing environmental impact assessments.
Lamphier-Gregory, Inc.
Prime Consultant
1944 Ernbarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
510-535-6690
Steven Buckley, Senior Planner.
Project Manager, B.S. City and Regional Planning. 10 years of experience conducting
environmental impact assessments. Member - American Institute of Certified Planners,
Association of Environmental Professionals.
John Courtney, Senior Planner.
Author/researcher, Ph.D. Geography, MCRP, B.A. Geography/Communications. 10 years of
experience conducting environmental impact assessments.
Rudy Calderon, Planner.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 18·2
I
I
"
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
,
i
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I'
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
Author/researcher, M.A. Urban Planning, B.A. Anthropology. Three years of experience
conducting environmental and economic impact assessments.
Denise Hart, Associate Planner.
Author/researcher, M.A, Planning, B.S.F. Resource Management. Four years of experience
conducting environmental impact assessments.
T JKM Transportation Consultants
Traffic, Parking, Transit
5960 Inglewood Drive, Suite 100
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-463-0611
Chris Kinzel, Principal.
Registered Traffic and Civil Engineer. M.S. Transportation Engineering, B.S. Civil
Engineering. 42 years of experience conducting transportation studies.
Gary Kruger, Senior Associate.
Registered Traffic Engineer. M.S., Transportation Engineering, B.S. Psychology. 39 years of
experience conducting transportation studies.
Walter Laabs, Senior Associate.
Registered Traffic, Civil and Professional Engineer. M.S., Transportation and Traffic
Engineering, B.S. Civil Engineering. 22 years of experience conducting transportation
studies.
Dlingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
Noise and Air Quality
505 Petaluma Boulevard South
Petaluma, CA 94952
707-766-7700
Richard Illingworth, Principal.
Registered Civil Engineer. B.S. Civil Engineering. 28 years of experience conducting
acoustical and air quality studies.
Richard Rodkin, Principal.
Registered Mechanical Engineer. M.S. Mechanical Engineering, B.S. Mechanical
Engineering. 30 years of experience in preparing acoustical assessments.
James Reyff, Air Quality Consultant.
Meteorologist. B.S. Meteorology. 10 years of experience conducting acoustical and
meteorological studies.
Frederick Svinth, Architect.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 18-3
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
M.S. Architecture, B.S. Mechanical Engineering. 5 years of experience conducting acoustical
studies.
Michael Thill, Acoustical Consultant.
B.S. Environmental Science. 4 years of experience conducting noise and air quality studies.
Environmental Collaborative
Biological Resources
1268 64th Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
510-654-4444
Jim Martin, Principal.
B.S. Biology, B.A. Fine Art. 20 years of experience as an environmental consultant in
preparing biological assessments, including vegetation analyses and mapping, tree species
identification and mapping, wetland delineation and restoration plans, wildlife surveys and
habitat suitability analyses, and special-status taxa studies.
Basin Research Associates
Historic / Archaeological Resources
1933 Davis Street, Suite 210
San Leandro, CA 94577
510-430-8441
Colin Busby, President.
Ph.D, Anthropology. 27 years of experience in cultural resource management, CEQA and
NEP A regulatory compliance. Experience includes design, direction, and execution of the
cultural resource components of EISs, EIRs, EAs and other investigations for federal, state
and municipal govenunents, private industry, land developers, the military and the scientific
community.
Melody Tannem, Vice President. SpecialistlProject Management.
B.A. Anthropology / Geography. 22 years of experience in cultural resource
assessment/management, graphics and project administration.
Donna Garaventa, Senior Research Scientist.
Ph.D Anthropology. 24 years of experience in all aspects of cultural resource
assessment/management and CEQAlNEP A regulatory compliance.
Stuart Guedon, Archaeologist/Assessment Specialist/Graphics/Geographer.
M.A. Historical Geography. 20 years of experience in cultural resource
assessment/management and CEQAlNEP A regulatory compliance.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 18-4
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
18.2 OTHER PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Rosser International / MVE Architects
350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 100
Oakland, CA 94612
510-267-3188
Liz Whitt, Project Manager
Larry Phillips, Project Designer
Subsurlace Consultants
1000 Broadway, Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94607
510-268-0461
R. William Rudolph, Pricipal Engineer
Dr. Shaahriar Vahdani, Pricipal Seismic Consultant
Ed Woo, Associate Engineer
Wayne Magnusen, Associate Engineer
MuIler& Caulfield Architects
339 15th Street, Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
510-832-8560
Rosemary Muller, Principal
Patrick McDennott, Architect
HLM Design
466 8th Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-252-9500
Bruce Glasgow, Architect
18.3 PERSONS CONTACTED
Alameda County Community Development Agency, Planning Department
Lisa Asche, Planner
Cindy Horvath, Transportation Planner
Alameda County Surplus Property Authority
Stuart Cook, Project Manager
Pat Cashman, Project Director
City of Dublin
Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft ElS/EIR
Page 18·5
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
Alameda County. 2002. Site Investigation Report, Alameda County, Juvenile Justice Facility.
Vanir Construction Management Inc. Letter to Aki N. Nakao, Director, General Services
Agency, July 26,2002
HLM Design and Muller & Caulfield, Alameda East County Hall of Justice Final Verified
Architectural Program, March 18, 2002.
HLM Design and Muller & Caulfield, Alameda East County Hall of Justice, Architectural
Program, September 12, 2002.
City of Dublin, Initial Study - P A 00-029 Cisco Systems, Inc., June 200 I.
G. Borchard & Associates, Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report ~ Proposed
Airport Development Program - Metropolitan Oakland International Airport, July 13,2001.
MVE & Partners/Rosser International, Inc. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center Bridging
Documents, Volume 1. May I, 2002.
Port of Oakland, Oakland Airport Development Program (ADP) Response to Comments on the
Pardee Parking Lot Addendum to the ADP Environmental Impact Report (EIR), January 8, 2002.
4. Land Use and Planning
Abrams, Kathleen et a1. 1987. Socioeconomic Impacts a/State Prison-Sting on the Local
Community. North Maimi, FL: F AUIFIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems.
Cited in: Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS). 2002. Assessment of Potential Property
Value Impacts of Proposed Juvenile Justice Facility. Prepared for Alameda County. Draft
Report. EPS #12119. October 22,2002.
Alameda County, General Plan for the Central Metropolitan Eden and Washington Planning
Units, Alameda County, January 13, 1981.
Alameda County, Castro Valley Plan, April 4, 1985.
Alameda County, Specific Plan for Areas of Environmental Significance, May 1977.
Alameda County, Scenic Route Element of the General Plan, May 1966.
Avidon, Jacob E. 1998. The Economic and Social Impacts a/Prisons and Small Cities. New
Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Cited in: Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.
(EPS). 2002. Assessment of Potential Property Value Impacts of Proposed Juvenile Justice
Facility. Prepared for Alameda County. Draft Report. EPS #12119. October 22,2002.
Carlson, Katherine A. 1990. "Prison Escapes and Community Consequences: Results of a Case
Study." Federal Probation: Journal of Correctional Philosophy and Practice, Vol. 54, No.2, pp.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 18-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
36-42. Cited in: Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS). 2002. Assessment of Potential
Property Value Impacts of Proposed Juvenile Justice Facility. Prepared for Alameda County.
Draft Report. EPS #12119. October 22, 2002.
City of Dublin, Revised Draft: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - East Dublin
Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation (Volume 1: Draft: Supplemental EIR),
January 2002.
City of San Leandro, The City of San Leandro General Plan - 2015 (Draft for Public Review).
Barry Miller, AICP, Draft: Environmental Impact Report - San Leandro General Plan,
November 2001.
City of Oakland, Envision Oakland: City of Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation
Element, March 1998.
Coley/Forrest. 1996. Potential Real Estate Impact of a County Jail Expansion into Stapleton. Pp.
14-15. Cited in: Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS). 2002. Assessment of Potential
Property Value Impacts of Proposed Juvenile Justice Facility. Prepared for Alameda County.
Draft Report. EPS #12119. October 22,2002.
Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS). 2002. Assessment of Potential Property Value
Impacts of Proposed Juvenile Justice Facility. Prepared for Alameda County. Draft Report. EPS
#12119. October 22,2002.
Environmental Science Associates, Oakland General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 31, 1997.
Grieco, A.L. 1978. "New Prisons - Characteristics and Community Reception:' Quarterly
Journal of Corrections, Vol. 2, No.2, pp. 55-60. Cited in: Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.
(EPS). 2002. Assessment of Potential Property Value Impacts of Proposed Juvenile Justice
Facility. Prepared for Alameda County. Draft: Report. EPS #12119. October 22,2002.
Ince, Martin. 1988. "The Impact ofa Correctional Facility on the Surrounding Community." PAS
Memo. American Planning Association. July 1988. Cited in: Economic and Planning Systems,
Inc. (EPS). 2002. Assessment of Potential Property Value Impacts of Proposed Juvenile Justice
Facility. Prepared for Alameda County. Draft Report. EPS #12119. October 22,2002.
Letter from William J. Crout, Deputy Director, Facilities Standards and Operations Division,
California Board of Corrections to Aki Nakao, Director, Alameda County General Services
Agency, June 4.2002:
Letter from Tay Yoshitani, Executive Director, Port of Oakland to Aki K. Nakao, Director,
General Service Agency, January 29,2002
Letter from Tay Yoshitani, Executive Director, Port of Oakland to Aki K. Nakao, Director,
General Service Agency, May 21,2002
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 18-9
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
Stanley, Craig. 1978. The Impact of Prison Proximity on Property Values in Green Bay and
Waupun, Wisconsin. Report commissioned by the State of Wisconsin Division of Corrections.
Cited in: Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS). 2002. Assessment of Potential Property
Value Impacts of Proposed Juvenile Justice Facility. Prepared for Alameda County. Draft
Report. EPS # 12119. October 22, 2002.
V. O'Neal, Port of Oakland, Staff Counsel, pers. comm.
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Draft Environmental.Impact Report - East Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan (Part I).
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report - East Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan (Volume III ~ Responses to Comments on the DEIR, Part I [For
Planning Commission Review D.
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1998. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Prepared for the City of
Dublin.
Jerry Haag, Draft Environmental Impact Report - Dublin Transit Center, July 2001.
Alameda County Planning Department, Unincorporated Eden Area (Portion) Plan: Part of the
Alameda County General Plan, November 3, 1983.
Rosser International, Inc., Beverly Prior Architects, MFT Consulting Engineers, The
Engineering Enterprise and SJ Engineers, Draft Evaluation of Existing Juvenile Justice Facilities
in San Leandro, December 1997.
5. Aesthetics
Alameda County, Castro Valley Plan, April 4, 1985.
Alameda County, Scenic Route Element of the General Plan, May 1966.
City of San Leandro, The City of San Leandro General Plan - 2015 (Draft for Public Review).
Barry Miller, AICP, Draft Environmental Impact Report - San Leandro General Plan ,
November 2001.
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1998. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Prepared for the City of
Dublin.
6. Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Alameda County, General Plan for the Central Metropolitan Eden and Washington Planning
Units, Alameda County, January 13, 1981.
Alameda County, Castro Valley Plan, April 4, 1985.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 18-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
Baseline. 1999. Phase I/II Site Assessment for Port of Oakland.
Berlogar 1984b. Supplemental geologic and geotechnical investigation of landslides, Alameda
County-Fairmont Drive Parcel. Prepared for: Alameda County Department of Public Works
Agency. December 27, 1984. Cited in: William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 2001. Surface Fault
Rupture Hazard Evaluation for the Proposed Juvenile Justice Center, San Leandro, Alameda
County, California.
City of Oakland: Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element of the General Plan
(OSCAR), 1996.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 1982. Special Study Zones, Hayward 7.5-
minute quadrangle, 1:24,000. Cited in: Williarn Lettis & Associates, Inc. 2001. Surface Fault
Rupture Hazard Evaluation for the Proposed Juvenile Justice Center, San Leandro, Alameda
County, California.
Dames & Moore. 1976. Foundation Investigation - Phase I Proposed Municipal Court Building
and Pretrial Facilities, Oakland and Hayward, California for the County of Alameda.
.''''..
Dames & Moore. 1980. Supplemental Report - Foundation Investigation Proposed Parking
Structure 7th Street Lot, Oakland, California for the County of Alameda.
ENGEO. 1973. Incorporated, Soil Investigation ~ United Parcel Service Terminal, Port of
Oakland. Engeo Project No. N3-0161-B1.
Lowney Associates. 2000. Geotechnical Feasibility Study - Cisco Systems Site 9, Dublin
Boulevard and Arnold Road, Dublin, California.
Rosser International, Inc., Beverly Prior Architects, MFT Consulting Engineers, The
Engineering Enterprise and SJ Engineers. 1997. Draft Evaluation of Existing Juvenile Justice
Facilities in San Leandro.
Subsurface Consultants, Inc. 2001a. Geotechnical Investigation/Conceptual Planning Study,
Juvenile Justice Center, San Leandro, California.
Subsurface Consultants, Inc. 2001b. (with Beverly Prior Architects, Brian Kangas Foulk and
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.) Conceptual Site Analysis, San Leandro, California.
Subsurface Consultants, Inc. 2002a. Geotechnical Baseline Report - Alameda County Juvenile
Justice Center, Gleason Road and Arnold Drive, Dublin, California. SCI 1364.001
Subsurface Consultants, Inc. 2002b. Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment - Alameda
County Proposed Juvenile Justice Center and Courthouse Complex, Gleason Drive and Arnold
Road, Dublin, California.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EISÆIR
Page 18·11
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Understanding Earthquake Hazards in the San Francisco Bay
Region: Major Quake Likely to Strike Between 2000 and 2030. USGS Fact Sheet 152-99.
William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 2001. Surface Fault Rupture Hazard Evaluation for the
Proposed Juvenile Justice Center, San Leandro, Alameda County, California.
Woodward~Clyde Consultants. 1969a. Geological and Earthquake Engineering Studies, Phase II
Juvenile Hall Expansion. August 5, 1969. Cited in: William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 2001.
Surface Fault Rupture Hazard Evaluation for the Proposed Juvenile Justice Center, San Leandro,
Alameda County, California.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1978. Geologic/Seismic Hazards Evaluation - Fairmont Hospital
_ Juvenile Hall, San Leandro, California. Cited in: William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 2001.
Surface Fault Rupture Hazard Evaluation for the Proposed Juvenile Justice Center, San Leandro,
Alameda County, California.
Woodward~Lundgren and Associates. 1974. Geotechnical Studies Demountable School Structure
site, Alameda, California. Cited in: William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 2001. Surface Fault
Rupture Hazard Evaluation for the Proposed Juvenile Justice Center, San Leandro, Alameda
County, California.
7. Hydrology and Water Quality
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Environmental Systems Research
Institute (ESRl). 2001. Cited in: Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report Proposed
Development Program, Metropolitan Oakland International Airport. Prepared by G. Borchard &
Associates for the Port of Oakland. July 13,2001.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1997. Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of
Dublin, Alameda County. Community Panel 0607050002 B. Revised September 17, 1997.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1982. Flood Insurance Rate Map.
Community Panel 065048 0025 B, September 30, 1997.
Jane Valerius Environmental Consulting. Delineation of Potential Wetlands and Waters of the
United States for the Proposed County of Alameda Juvenile Hall and Government Complex.
March 8, 2002.
8. Biological Resources
California Department ofFish and Game. 2001. Natural Diversity Data Base, Special Animals.
California Department ofFish and Game. 2001. Natural Diversity Data Base, Special Plants.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EISIEIR
Page 18-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
California Department ofFish and Game. 2002. Natural Diversity Database, List o/California
Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database,
February Edition.
California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California.
6th Edition. Special Publication No.1.
LSA Associates. 2000. Biological Assessment of the Juvenile Justice Center Project Site in San
Leandro, Alameda County. Prepared for Subsurface Consultants, 29 November.
Olberding Environmental. 2001. Biological Resources Analysis Letter of Findings for the
Oakland Airport Tex (Retained Site). Prepared for The Port of Oakland and G. Borchard &
Associates.
Rana Resources. 2002. California Red-legged Frog Surveys, San Leandro Juvenile Justice
Center, San Leandro. Letter to Jim Martin, Environmental Collaborative, from Gretchen E.
Padgett-Flohr, dated 6 June.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to
the Clean Water Act. See: www.epa.gov/fedrgstrÆPA-GENERAL/1994/0ctober/Day-24/pr-
48.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands:
California (Region 0). Biological Report 88(26.10).
Valerius, J. 2001. Delineation of Potential Wetlands and Waters for the Proposed County of
Alameda Juvenile Hall and Government Complex.
Valerius, 1. 2002a. Delineation of Potential Wetlands and Waters of the United States for the
Proposed Juvenile Justice Center Project, San Leandro, Alameda County.
Valerius, J. 2002b. Delineation of Potential Wetlands of the United States for the Dublin Site
15A, County of Alameda Juvenile Hall and Government Complex.
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2002. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Prepared for the City of
Dublin.
9. Transportation
Caltrans. 2000. 2000 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways.
CHS Consulting Group. 2001. Oakland Airport Replacement Parking Transportation Study.
10. Noise
Alameda County Noise Ordinance
City of Dublin. 1998. General Plan ~ Noise Element, Revised July 7, 1998.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 18-13
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
Harris, C.M.1979. Handbook of Noise Control.
U.s. E.P.A., Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. I, p. 2-104, 1973.
11. Air Quality
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 1994. Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan.
BAAQMD. 2001. Toxic Hot Spot Reporting.
httu:/ /www .baaqmd.S!ov/uermit/toxics/toxinvOO/volumel/rDtOO.Ddf
BAAQMD. 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. December 1999.
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2002. www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/aqd.htrn.
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2001. Urban Emissions Model (Urbemis).
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2002. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air
Quality Impacts (GAMAQI).
U.S Department of Energy. 2002. Emission Factors and Energy Prices for the Cleaner and
Greener Environmental Program April 2002.
12. Public Health and Safety
Airport Land Commission (ALUC) .1986. Alameda County Airport Land Use Plan.
Baseline. 1999. Phase 1/11 Site Assessment, Arrowhead Marsh Site Parcel PO 592, Pardee Drive
and Swan Way, Oakland, Calif. Confidential.
Iris Environmental. 2002. Draft Phase I Environmental Site Asssessment, Fainnont Area, San
Leandro, California. Project No. 02-230-A. Prepared for CMA Asset Manager, Inc., Oakland,
Calif.
Lowney Associates. 2000. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soil and Groundwater
Quality Evaluation, Cisco Systems Site 9, Dublin, Calif.
Subsurface Consultants, Inc. 2002. Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment. Draft.
Versar, Inc. 2001. Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Plan for ParcellS, Camp Parks/Santa
Rita, Dublin, CA. From Tim Berger, Supervising Geologist to John Wolfenden, California
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
13. Public Services
Alameda County. 1985. Castro Valley Plan.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 18-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Plan. Adopted by Alameda County Waste
Management Authority (Sept. 27, 2000) and Alameda County Source Reduction Board (June 8,
2000).
City of San Leandro. 2001. General Plan 2015: Draft for Public Review.
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2002. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Prepared for the City of
Dublin.
14. Utilities
Alameda County. 1985. Castro Valley Plan.
Brian Kangas Foulk. 1997. Hydraulic and Hydrology Calculations for Opus Southwest, Interim
Conditions.
Brian Kangas Foulk. 1999. Santa Rita Drainage Master Plan.
Aspen Environmental Group/Urban Alternatives. 2001. Tri-Valley 2002 Increase Project
Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2000042087). Prepared for: California Public Utilities
Commission.
City ofOaIdand. 1993. Coliseum Land Use Suitability Study.
City of Oakland. 1998. Envision Oakland: City of Oakland General Plan, Land Use and
Transportation Element.
City of Oakland. 1995. Coliseum Redevelopment Plan EIR.
Dublin-San Ramon Sanitary District (DSRSD). 2000. Water Master Plan.
Dublin-San Ramon Sanitary District. 2001. Final Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin.
East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2000. Urban Water Management Plan.
East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2001a. EBMUD Board Agrees to Look to Sacramento River
for Water. Press release, January 23.
East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2001b. Water Treatment Plants, Water Supply, Wastewater
Treatment.
MVE & Partners/Rosser International, Inc. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center Bridging
Documents, Volume I. May 1, 2002.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EISÆIR
Page 18-15
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
Schaaf & Wheeler. 2000. Special Drainage Area 7-1 Program Update. Prepared for the Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7).
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1998. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Prepared for the City of
Dublin.
West & Yost Associates. 2000. Dublin San Ramon Services District Water Master Plan.
15. Historical/Archaeological Resources
Alameda County. 1981. General Plan for the Central Metropolitan, Eden, and Washington
Planning Units, Alameda County, California.
Alameda County. 1985. Castro Valley Plan. Adopted April 4, 1985.
Architectural Resources Group (ARG). 2002. Historic Resources Evaluation - Glenn Dyer
Facility, Oakland. Prepared for S. Buckley, Lamphier-Gregory.
Baker, S. and L. Shoup. 1989. Technical Report: Cultural Resources BART Dublin/Pleasanton
Extension Project. On file, Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University.
Basin Research Associates. 200 I. Archaeological Resources Assessment Report, Alameda
County Juvenile Hall, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. Prepared for Steven Buckley,
Lamphier-Gregory. November 2001.
Basin Research Associates. 2002a. Archaeological Resources Literature Review, Parcel15A
Site, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. Prepared for Steven Buckley, Lamphier-
Gregory.
Basin Research Associates. 2002b. Archaeological Resources Literature Review, Pardee and
Swan Site, City of Oakland, Alameda County, California. Prepared for Steven Buckley,
Lamphier-Gregory .
City of Oakland. 1998. Historic Preservation: An Element of the Oakland General Plan. Adopted
March 8, 1994. Amended July 21, 1998.
City of San Leandro. 2001. Chapter 7: Historic Preservation and Community Design Element.
Draft for Public Review. See: www.ci.san-Ieandro.ca.us/pdf.slgptxtchap7.pdf
G. Borchard & Associates. 2001. Addendum to the ADP EIR, Pardee Parking Lot. Prepared for
the Port of Oakland.
Holman Associates Archaeological Consultants. 2000. Archival Research and Field Inspection of
the Proposed Dublin Transit Center EIR Project Area, Dublin, Alameda County, California.
Prepared for Jerry Haag.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EISÆIR
Page 18-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
LSA Associates, Inc. 2000. A Cultural Resources Study of the Alameda County Juvenile Justice
Center, San Leandro, Alameda County, California. Prepared for W. Magnusen, Subsurface
Consultants, Inc.
Minor, Woodruff, M.A. 2002. Historical and Architectural Assessment: Alameda County
Juvenile Hall. State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record, Form
DPR 523A.
Minor, Woodruff, M.A., and Basin Research Associates, Inc. 2002. Historical and Architectural
Assessment: Alameda County Juvenile Hall, San Lea,ndro, Alameda County, California.
Prepared for Steven Buckley, Lamphier-Gregory.
National Register Information System, 2002. See www.cr.nps.gov/nr/research/nris.htm.
Port of Oakland. 1996. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Arrowhead Wetland
Mitigation at the Distribution Center.
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1998. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Prepared for the City of
Dublin.
16. Environmental Justice
Alameda County. 1985. Castro Valley Plan. Adopted April 4, 1985.
Alameda County Probation Department. 2000/01 Facts Booklet.
www.alameda.ca.us/probation/240 Facts Booklet.ndf. Accessed November 12,2002.
Bass, R.E., A. Herson, K.M. Bogdan. 2001. The NEPA Book: A Step-by-Step Guide on How to
Comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Second Edition. Solano Press Books: Port
Arena, California.
City of Oakland, Envision Oakland: City of Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation
Element, March 1998.
Claritas, Inc. 2002. Site Reports for Juvenile Hall, San Leandro, CA; Port of Oakland Pardee,
Oakland, CA; Government Center -Transit Center Dublin, CA; Glenn Dyer Facility, Oakland,
CA. Project Code 881152_881155. Prepared for Lamphier-Gregory, June 6, 2002.
Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental
Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. December 10, 1997.
Port of Oakland Board of Commissioners. 1988. Ordinance 2832. September 1988.
www.portofoakland.com/pdf/real_reso_Ol.pdf
State of California, Department of Finance. 2002.
www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/nroico.pdf and
www.dof.ca.~ov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/proica.ndf . Accessed November 12,2002.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EISIEIR
Page 18-17
Chapter 18: Report Preparation
State of California, Department of Justice. 2002.
www.iustice.hdcdoinet.state.ca.us/ciscstats/profOl/0l/17.htm. Accessed November 12, 2002.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2002.
http://ftp2.census.gov/plmap/pl trtIst06 California/c0600 1 Alameda/CT0600 1 BO 1. pdf and
http://ftp2.census.g:ov/plmap/pl trtIst06 Califomia/c06001 Alameda/CT06001 001.pdf.
Accessed December 10, 2002.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. State and County Quickfacts: Alameda County.
httv://auickfacts.census.gove/qfd/states/06/0600 l.htm1. Accessed November 13, 2002.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171 Summary File,
Matrices PLl, PL2, PL3 and PU. See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Corrections Program Office. 2000.
Program Guidance on Environmental Protection Requirements. March 1, 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance under the
National Environmental Policy Act (www.epa.eov/cei-binlepaprintonlv.cgi) Accessed
November 11,2002.
Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1998. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Prepared for the City of
Dublin.
17. Growth Inducement and Cumulative Impacts
Jones & Stokes, Draft Environmental Impact Report - 200-228 Broadway Mixed-Use Project,
prepared for City of Oakland CEDA, February 2002.
Jones & Stokes, Final Environmental Impact Report - 200-228 Broadway Mixed-Use Project,
prepared for City of Oakland CEDA, May 31, 2002.
City of Oakland, Housewives Marketplace Mixed-Use Project Draft EIR, December 2000.
City of Oakland, Housewives Marketplace Mixed-Use Project Final EIR and Response to
Comments, March 2001.
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Draft Environmental Impact Report - 300 Harrison Street
Project, September 2002
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 18-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
19
Glossary I Index
19.1 GLOSSARY
A
ABAG
Association of Bay Area Governments.
ACCMA
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency.
ACFCWCD
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
ACFD
Alameda County Fire Department.
ACHP
United States Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
AC Transit
Alameda Contra Costa County Transit District.
ADA
Americans with Disabilities Act.
AFA
Acre Feet Annually.
Alconet
Alameda County Network.
ALUC
Airport Land Use Commission.
ALUPP
Airport Land Use Policy Plan.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL The total noise in a given environment independent of a specific
noise source to be measured; "residual" or "background" noise.
ANSI
APE
American National Standards Institute.
AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT. The area in which cultural
resources could be affected by a proposed proj ect.
A-P Zone
Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
AST
Aboveground Storage Tan1e
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19-1
Chapter 19: Glossary/Index
B
BAAQMD
BART
BCDC
Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
BMPs
Best Management Practices.
BOC
BOS
Board of Corrections.
Board of Supervisors.
BRC
Board Rated Capacity.
BTEX
Any of the following compounds, which rnay be found in gasoline:
benzene, toulene, ethyl benzene, or xylene.
Btu
British Thennal Unit.
C
CAA
CAAA
Clean Air Act.
Clean Air Act Amendments.
Cal/OSHA
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
CAL TRANS
California Department of Transportation.
CAP
CARB
CASP
Clean Air Plan.
California Air Resources Board.
California Aviation System Plan.
CBD
Central Business District.
CBRS
CCAA
CCR
Coastal Barrier Resources System.
California Clean Air Act.
California Code of Regulations.
CDF
California Division of Forestry.
CDFG
California Department ofFish and Game.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 19: Glossary/Index
CDMG
California Division of Conservation Department of Mines and
Geology.
CEQ
CEQA
CERCLA
Council on Environmental Quality.
California Environmental Quality Act.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act.
CESA
California Endangered Species Act.
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations.
CFS
CHP
CHSAA
CHWCA
Cubic Feet per Second.
California Highway Patrol.
California Hazardous Substance Account Act.
California Hazardous Waste Control Act.
CNDDB
California Natural Diversity Data Base.
CNEL
COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIV ALENT LEVEL. The Community
Noise Equivalent Level is similar to the DNL except that it
includes an approximate 5-dBA "penalty" for evening noise (7:00
p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) in addition to the lO-dBA "penalty" for
nighttime noise.
CNPS
California Native Plant Society.
CO
CORPS
Carbon Monoxide.
United States Anny Corps of Engineers.
COUNTY
CPO
Alameda County.
Corrections Programs Office.
CPT
Cone Penetration Test.
CPUC
California Public Utilities Commission.
CRHR
CSC
CTET
California Register of Historical Resources.
California Special Concern Species.
Carbon Tetrachloride.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19-3
Chapter 19: Glossary/Index
CWA
Clean Water Act.
D
dB
DECffiEL. The standard unit of noise measurement, which
expresses the relative difference in energy between acoustic signals
in tenns ofthe common logarithm of the ratio between the signals.
Ten units represent a doubling of acoustic energy.
dBA
DECIBEL A-WEIGHTED. Environmental noise is usually
measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). A dBA is a decibel
corrected for the variation in fTequency response of the human ear
at commonly encountered noise levels.
DERWA
Dublin San Ramon Services District - East Bay Municipal Utility
District Recycled Water Authority.
DHS
California Department of Health Services.
DNL
DAY-NIGHT NOISE LEVEL. The day-night average noise level
is based on human reaction to cumulative noise exposure over 24
hours. To calculate the DNL, noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m. is weighted by adding 10 dBA to take into account the greater
annoyance of nighttime noise.
DOJ
Department of Justice.
DOSH
Division of Occupational Safety and Health, California
Department of Industrial Relations.
DOT
Department of Transportation.
DSRSD
Dublin-San Ramon Sanitary District.
DTSC
Department of Toxic Substances Control.
DWR
Department of Water Resources.
E
EA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. An analysis of the
environmental effects of a proposed action prepared pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing
guidelines that provides a federal agency sufficient evidence to
detennine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (see EIS) is
required. The EA serves as the basis for the agency's Finding of
No Significant Impact if an EIS is detennined not to be necessary.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 19: Glossary/Index
EBDA
East Bay Dischargers Authority.
EBMUD
East Bay Municipal Utility District.
EBRPD
East Bay Regional Park District.
East County Area Plan (a portion of the Alameda County General
Plan).
ECAP
EDSP
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
EIR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. A document prepared
by an agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
that discloses the significant environmental impacts of a proposed
project and that identifies alternatives to the project as well as
measures to mitigate or avoid the impacts.
EIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. An analysis of a
proposed action, prepared pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act and its implementing guidelines, that discloses the
significant environmental impacts of the action and all reasonable
alternatives to the action. The EIS also identifies mitigation
measures not included in the action or alternatives.
EMS
Emergency Medical Service.
EMT
Emergency Medical Technician.
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
EQUNALENT
NOISE LEVEL (Leq)
The equivalent steady-state sound level that, in a stated period,
would contain the same acoustic energy as the actual time-varying
sound level during the same period.
Endangered Species Act.
ESA
ESU
Evolutionary Significant Unit.
F
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration.
FAR
Federal Aviation Regulations.
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FESA
Federal Endangered Species Act.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19-5
Chapter 19: Glossaryllndex
FIRM
Flood Insurance Rate Map.
FLOODPLAIN
A nearly level alluvial plan that borders a stream and is subject to
flooding unless protected artificially.
FLOW
Direction of activity.
FONSI
Finding of No Significant Impact.
FPPA
Fannland Protection Policy Act.
G
GIS
Geographic Information System.
GPD
Gallons Per Day.
GROUNDWATER
All subsurface water (below soil/ground surface), distinct rrom
surface water.
GSA
General Services Agency.
H
HAPS
Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program.
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL A substance or combination of substances, that, because of
quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious
characteristics, may either: (1) cause or significantly contribute to
an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or
incapacitating, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported or disposed of, or otherwise managed.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Hazardous wastes are hazardous materials that no longer have
practical use, such as substances that have been discarded, spilled,
or contaminated, or that are being stored temporarily prior to
proper disposal.
HERB
Heavy Equipment Repair Building.
HMBP
Hazardous Materials Business Plan.
HMMP
Hazardous Materials Management Plan.
HOK
Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum.
HSC
California Health and Safety Code.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 19: Glossary/Index
HSWA
Hazardous and Solid Waste Act.
HUD
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
HVOCs
Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds.
HWCL
Hazardous Waste Control Law.
IWMB
Integrated Waste Mana~ement Board.
K
kWh
KILOWATT -HOURS. A kWh is a unit of electrical energy, and
one kWh is equivalent to 10,238 Btu, taking into account initial
conversion losses (i.e., fìom one type of energy, e.g., chemical, to
another type of energy, e.g., mechanical) and transmission losses.
L
LAFCO
Local Agency Fonnation Commission.
LAVTA
Livennore - Amador Valley Transportation Agency.
LAVWMA
Livennore - Amador Valley Water Management Agency.
LCP
Local Coastal Program.
Ldn
See DNL.
LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
Leq
EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVEL. The equivalent A-weighted
sound level for a specified period of time.
Lmax
Maximum A-Weighted Sound Level.
LOS
Level of Service.
LUTE
City of Oakland Land Use and Transportation Element.
M
MCE
Maximum Credible Earthquake.
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19-7
Chapter 19: Glossary/Index
MEI
MG
Maximally Exposed Individual.
Million Gallons.
MGD
MOBILE SOURCE
Million Gallons per Day.
Refers to a category of air pollutant emissions sources. This
category includes those sources that routinely move from place to
place. Examples include aircraft, automobiles, trucks, trains, ships,
and bulldozers.
MOU
Memorandwn of Understanding.
MSDSs
Material Safety Data Sheets.
MSL
Mean Sea Level.
N
NAAQS
NARC
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Native American Heritage Commission.
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
NEM
Noise Exposure Maps.
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act.
NESHAP
National Environmental Standard Hazardous Air Pollutants.
NFPA
National Fire Protection Association.
NGVD
NHPA
NMFS
National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
National Historic Preservation Act.
National Marine Fisheries System.
NO
Nitric Oxide.
N02
Nitrogen Dioxide.
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
NOI
Notice ofIntent.
NOISE CONTOUR
A line on a map connecting points of equal noise exposure.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19-8
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 19: Glossary/Index
NOP
Notice of Preparation.
NOx
Nitrous Oxide.
NPDES
NRCS
NRHP
NWIC
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.
National Resources Conservation Service.
National Register of Historic Places.
Northwest Infonnation Center.
o
03
Ozone.
OCHS
OHP
Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey.
California Office of Historic Preservation.
OHWM
Ordinary High Water Mark.
OJP
OLSD
Office of Justice Programs.
Oro Lorna Sanitary District.
OPR
Governor's Office of Planning and Research.
OSCAR
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element of the City of
Oakland General Plan.
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States
Department of Labor.
OVA
Organic Vapor Analyzer.
p
PARs
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
PANE
Pb
People Against Nuclear Energy.
Lead.
PCB
Polychlorinated Bipheny1.
PCE
PG&E
Perchloroethylene.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19-9
Chapter 19: Glossary/Index
PM 10
PPB
PPM
PRC
PRFTA
PRG
PSI
Suspended Particulate Matter.
Parts Per Billion.
Parts Per Million.
Public Resources Code.
Camp Parks Reserve Force Training Area.
Preliminary Remediation Guidelines.
Pounds per Square Inch.
R
RCRA
REA
RFP
RMPP
ROG
RWQCB
S
SAA
SARA
SCAQMD
SDR
SDWA
SEMS
SF
SHPO
SIP
SLC
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Registered Enviromnental Assessor.
Request for Proposals.
Risk Management and Prevention Program.
Reactive Organic Gases.
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Streambed Alteration Agreement.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act.
South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Site Development Review.
Safe Drinking Water Act.
Standardized Emergency Management System.
Square Feet.
State Historic Preservation Officer.
State Implementation Plan.
State Lands Commission.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19·10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 19: Glossary/Index
SLUSD San Lorenzo Unified School District.
SMP Soil Handling / Management Plan.
S02 Sulfur Dioxide.
SOCIOECONOMIC Pertaining to the population and economic characteristics of a
regIOn.
SOx Sulfur Oxide.
SR State Route.
SRRC Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center.
SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
ST A TIONAR Y SOURCE Refers to a category of air pollutant emission sources. This
category includes those sources that routinely remain in one place.
Examples include power plants, boilers, and storage tanks.
Swppp Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board.
T
TAC
TCE
Toxic Air Contaminant.
Trichloroethylene.
TEPH
Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
TOC
Total Organic Compound.
TPH
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
TPHd
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (in diesel).
TPHg
TSCA
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (in gasoline).
Toxic Substances Control Act.
TSM
Transportation System Management.
TSS
Total Suspended Solids.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19-11
Chapter 19: Glossary/Index
u
UBC
UPS
USC
USD
Uniform Building Code.
United Parcel Service.
United States Code.
Unified School District.
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture.
USEP A
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
USGS
United States Geological Survey.
UST
Underground Storage Tanle
UWMP
Urban Water Management Plan.
V
VMT
VOC
Vehicle Miles Traveled.
Volatile Organic Compound.
Val-TIS
Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing
W
WETLANDS
Wetlands as defined under the Clean Water Act (33 CFR 328.3[b];
40 CFR 230.3[tD are ".. .those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas."
WHR
Wildlife Habitat Relationships System.
WTTF
Main Waste Water Treatment Facility.
z
Zone 7
ACFCWCD, Zone 7.
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 19: Glossaryllndex
19.2 INDEX
A
AC Transit .................................................................. 1-9,9-5,9-12,9-15,9-19,9-89,9-90,9-95, 16-12, 16-13, 17-4
Airport Land Use Commission................................................................................ 1-9, 4-22, 12-3, 12-9, 12-11, 12-24
airport parking garage................................................................ S-5, 3-2, 3-15,4-26,9-49, 13-19, 13-21, 13-22, 14-20
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ..........................1-9,7-2, 13·15, 14-6, 14-10, 14-13
asbestos ..................................................................................... 12-7, 12-17, 12.18, 12-21, 13-27, 13~30, 13-31, 16-11
B
Bay Area Air Quality Management District ...................................................1-9,11-1, 11-5, 11-6, 11-7, 11-11, 11-13
......................................................................................................................11-14, 11-17, 11-18, 11-19, 12-1, 12-3
Bay Area Rapid Transit District ................................. S-7, 1-9, 3-23,3-33, 3-34,4-5,4-35,4-54,4-55,9-5, 9-9, 9-12,
.......................................................... 9-15,9-17,9-19,9-22,9-32,9-35,9-82,9-89,9-90, 9-91, 9-95, 9-107, 15-5,
............................................................15-19,15-31,16-12, 16-13, 16-14, 17-4, 17-12, 17-16, 17-17, 17-18, 17-57
C
California Department ofFish and Game............... 1-9, 7-1, 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-7, 8-8, 8-16, 8-18, 8-25, 8-28, 8-29, 8-30
California DepaI1n1ent of Parks and Recreation .........................................................................................15-10, 15-30
California DepaI1n1ent of Toxic Substances Control...............................................................................1-9, 12-1, 12-2
California Department of Transportation............................................................................ ......... 1-9,9-24, 12-9, 15-19
Califomia Environmental Quality Act...........S-l, S-4, S-8, S-23, 1-2, 1-3, 1-7, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12,3-1,3-32,4-30,
...................................................4-37,5-1,6-27,8-2, 8-3, 8-25, 8-28, 8-29, 9-35, 10-4, 10.21, 10-22, 11-1, 11-13,
....................................11-14,11-18,13-17,14-2,14-16, 14-17, 15-6, 15-7, 15-8, 15-17, 15-19, 15-20, 16-2, 17-2
California Highway Patro1......................................................1-9, 3-19, 4-7,4-31,4-32,4-53, 5-27, 5-28, 10-11, 15-7
California State Lands Commission .................................................................................................................1-9,4-20
Camp Parks..... 4-7, 4-28, 5-27, 5-28, 6-18, 8-14, 8-16, 8-21, 10-11, 14-10, 14-11, 14-12, 15-22, 15-24, 15-26, 15-29
Canlp Sweeney ,...................................................................................................5-2 6-3, 6-4, 6-28, 14-5, 14-23, 15-11
D
detention basin............................. 3-19, 6-17, 6-18, 6-20, 6-21, 7-3, 8-12, 8-16, 8-19, 8-33, 8-38,12-13,14-13,14-31
Dublin-San Ramon Services District................1-9, 4-7,13-14,14-3,14-4,14-10,14-11,14-12,14-13,14-15,14-16,
.....................................................................14-17, 14-18, 14-21, 14-22,14-23,14-24, 14-26, 14-27, 14-28, 14-29
E
East Bay Municipal Utility District ...................................1-9, 13-5, 13-9, 13-11, 14-4, 14-5, 14-7, 14-8, 14-9, 14-11,
.....................................................................14-17, 14-18, 14-19, 14-20, 14-21, 14-22, 14-23, 14-26, 14-27, 14-28
East Bay Regional Park District .................................................................................................. 4-7, 5-19, 10-26, 13-6
East Dublin Specific Plan ........................................................ 4-28, 4-32, 4-35, 4-41, 5-27, 5-42, 10-28, 17-16, 17-25
endangered species ........................................................................................................................................... 8-2, 8-28
Endangered Species Act ...........................................................................................8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-7, 8-18, 8-28, 8-29
energy ..........................................................10-1, 10-30, 11-18, 14-3, 14-6, 14-14, 14-30, 14-32, 14-33, 14-34, 14-35
environmental justice ............................................................................. S-19, S-22, 1-12, 16-1, 16-2, 16-3, 16-5, 16-7,
............................................................................................... 16-8, 16-9, 16-10, 16-11, 16-12, 16-13, 16-14, 16-15
erosion ............................................. 6-10, 6-27, 6-35, 6-36, 7-5, 7-6, 7-7, 7-8, 7-9, 8-4, 8-32, 8-33, 11-3, 14-4, 14-10
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacilitylEast County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19-13
Chapter 19: Glossary/Index
F
fault zones .............................. ....... ........... ............. .................................. ..................... .......... ........ 6-1, 6.27, 6-30, 6-31
Federal Bureau of Prisons................ ........ .................... ............ ............... ........ ........ ..................... ..... ............... .......... 1-9
Federal Emergency Management Agency ..............................................................1-9, 1-14, 7-1, 7-3, 7-4, 13-1, 14-14
floodplains............................................................................................................................... ................................ 1-14
J
John George Medical Center ......................................................................................................... 4-1, 5-2, 10-5, 11-19
L
Lake Chabot Regional Park ..............................................................................................................................4-1, 12-7
landslide........................................................................ S-II, S-22, 6-8, 6-10, 6-12, 6-15, 6-22, 6-24,6-27,6-34, '6-35
liquefaction.............................................................................S-l0, 3-32, 3-33, 6-1, 6-14, 6-17, 6-27, 6-32, 6-33, 6-34
Livermore-Amador Valley Transportation Agency ......................................1-9, 9-32, 9-90, 9-91, 9-107, 16-15, 17-18
M
Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline ............................................................................... 4-22,5-18,5-19, 13-25
N
National Environmental Policy Act....................................S-l, S-4, S-23, I-I, 1-2,1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11,
................................................................................................1-12, 3-1, 3-32, 5-1, 15-17, 15-19, 15-20, 16-2, 17-2
National Historic Preservation Act ......................................................................................................15-6, 15-7, 15-27
Native American....................................................... 15-1, 15-2, 15-8, 15-11, 15-21, 15-22, 15-24, 15-26, 15-28, 16-6
Notice of Availability .... ................. ............ ................................ ...................................................................... 1-9, 1-13
Notice of Determination ....................................................................................................................... S-24, 1-10, 1-11
Notice of Intent .............. ...... ....... ........ ................... ................. ......................... ................... ................. ........1.4, 1-5, 7-2
Notice of Preparation ... ....... ....... .............................. ....... ..... ... ........................................ .... ................................ 1-4, 1-5
o
Oakland International Airport......................S-6, 3-1, 3-33, 3-34, 4-5, 4-22, 4-57, 5-18, 5-19, 9-17, 9-19, 9-84, 9-108,
........................................................10-11,10-24,11-1,11-23, 12-3, 12-7, 12-9, 12-11, 12-24, 13-12, 16-7, 17-12
Oakland, Port of............S-5, S-7, 1-9,2-10,3-4,3-15,3-32,3-33,3-34,4-5,4-20,4-23, 4-39,4-57,5-18,5-19,6-14,
.................................8-32,8-39,9-9,9-16,9-19,9-49, 9-84,11-23,13-11,13-21,13-22,14-7,15-9,15-21,17.12
Office of Historic Preservation ..............................................................................................................1-9, 15-7, 15-28
p
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area............................................................................S-7, 4-7, 4-9, 4-53,14-10,15-22
Probation Department, Alameda......................................................... 2-3, 9-36, 9-80, 13-14, 13-20, 13-28, 16-4, 16-8
public meetings ..... .............. ............................ ............. ........ ....... .................................. ......... ................ ......1-4, 1-7, 1-8
public notices............................................................................................................................... ..................... 1-9, 17-4
R
Regional Water Quality Control Board ....................................................1-9,6-36, 7-1, 7-2, 7-5, 7-9,8-1, 12-1, 12-2,
.............. .......... ............. ...... ..... ......... ........... ....................... ............................. 12-5, 12-14, 12-18, 14-2, 14-9, 14-17
S
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission................................................. 1-9, 1-14,4-21,4-22
Santa Rita Jail.......................... S-6, 4-7, 4-28, 4-30, 4-43, 4-46, 4-47, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 5-28, 5-34, 7-4,14-10,14-14
species of special concern. ...... ................................... ........... ....................................... ...................................8-16, 8-18
Sybase...................................................................................S-7,3-23,4-9,4-39,5-37,5-43,9-29,9-66,10-18,17-27
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 19: Glossary/Index
T
threatened species ............................................................................................................................ 8-5, 8-7, 8-16, 8-38
trails, recreation .......................... 4-22,5-18,5-19,5-44,10-32,11-23, 13-4, 13-6~ 13-12, 13-15, 13-25, 14-11, 17-13
u
U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation .............................................................................................. 1-9, 15-7
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers ... 1-9, 7-1,7-3,8-1,8-3,8-5,8-8,8-19,8-22,8-31,8-32, 8-33, 8-34, 8-37, 8-38,15-7
U.S. Army Reserve ............................. ........... ........ .............. ............... ................ ...................................4-38, 5-27, 5-37
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency................................... 1-7, 1-9, 1-13, 8-2, 8-12, 10-4, 10-30, 11-3, 11-5, 11-6,
............................................................................................11-7, 11-12, 12-1, 12-2, 12-11, 12-16, 14-1, 16-2, 16-3
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .........................................................................1-9,8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-7, 8-16, 8-18, 8-25
U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service ............................................................................................................ 1-9
underground storage tanks ...................................................................................................................12-3, 12-9, 12-16
United Parcel Service .................................... 4-5, 4-53,5-18,5-22,5-42,5-44,5-45,6-14, 10-11, 12-9, 12-11, 12-13
W
wetlands.......................................S-12, S-21, 3-32,4-5,4-39,5-18,5-19,5-25,6-14,7-1,7-2,7-3, 8-1, 8-3, 8-4, 8-5,
.........................................................8-6,8-8,8-9,8-10, 8-11, 8-12, 8-13, 8-14, 8-19, 8-20, 8-22, 8-24, 8-25, 8-31,
.............................................................. 8-32,8-33,8-34,8-35,8-38,8-39,10-11,12-13,14-6, 14-30, 15-7, 17-17
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 19-15
Chapter 19: Glossary/Index
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR Page 19-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
20
Consultation and Distribution List
20.1 CONSULTATION
The following agencies were contacted during preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR as part of the
consultation and confonnity detennination process:
Alameda County Community Development Agency, Planning Department
Alameda County Surplus Property Authority
City of Dublin
Dublin-San Ramon Services District
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
California Department of Fish and Game
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
20.2 DISTRIBUTION
A. Congressional Delegation
1. U.S. Senate
The Honorable Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Diane Feinstein
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
2. U.S. House of Representatives
Barbara Lee - 9th District
414 Canon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Richard Pombo - 11 th District
2411 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 20-1
Chapter 20: Consultation and Distribution List
Fortney "Pete" Stark ~ 13th District
239 Canon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
B. STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICIALS
1. Governor's Office
The Honorable Gray Davis
Governor of California
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
2. California State Senate
Tom Torlakson - 7th District
State Capitol, Room 2068
Sacramento, CA 95814
Don Perata - 9th District
State Capitol, Room 4061
Sacramento, CA 95814
Liz Figueroa - 10th District
State Capitol, Room 2057
Sacramento, CA 95814
3. California State Assembly
Dion Aroner - 14th District
State Capitol, Room 2163
Sacramento, CA 95814
Ellen Corbett - 18th District
State Capitol, Room 4126
Sacramento, CA 95814
John Dutra - 20th District
State Capitol, Room 6011
Sacramento, CA 95814
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 20-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 20: Consultation and Distribution List
C. FEDERAL AGENCIES
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service
u.S. Department of the Interior
Attn: Margaret Kolar, Project Leader
I Marshlands
Fremont, CA 94536
u.S. Army Corps of Engineers
South Pacific Division
333 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
u.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Ste. 809
Old Post Office Building
Washington DC, 20004
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service
Attn: Jeffrey V onk, State Conservationist
u.S. Department of Agriculture
430 G Street, Suite 530
Davis, CA 95616
United States Army Reserve
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area
Attn: Paul Kot, Environmental Department
790 5th Street
Dublin, CA 94568
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Administration Division
320 First Street NW
Washington, DC 20534
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IX
Attn: Sandro Amaglio, REO
1111 Broadway, Suite 1200
Oakland, CA 94607
D. CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
California Department of Fish & Game
Central Coast Region
P.O. Box 47
Yountville, CA 94599
California Department of Transportation
District 4
Attn: Tim Sable, Senior Transportation Planner
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 20-3
Chapter 20: Consultation and Distribution List
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
California Highway Patrol
Attn: Bill Baggett, Captain
Area Command
3601 Telegraph Avenue
Oakland, CA 94609
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
110 1 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
E. LOCAL I REGIONAL AGENCIES
San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission
50 California Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Oro Lorna Sanitary District
Attn: Marta Borerger, Administrator
2600 Grant A venue
San Lorenzo, CA 94580
Livennore - Amador Valley Transit Authority
Attn: Lydia Wehrli
1362 Rutan Court, Suite 100
Livermore, CA 94551
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Attn: Luce Zoyd, Safety Department
1330 Broadway
Oakland, CA 94612
San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board
Attn: Dale Bowyer, Supervisor
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
California Office of Historic Preservation
Attn: Dr. Hans-Kreutzherg
14169th Street, Room 1442
Sacramento, CA 95814
California State Lands Commission
Attn: Dwight Sanders, Environmental Planning
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South
Sacramento, CA 95825
Dublin - San Ramon Services District
Engineering Department
Attn: David Behrens, Principal Engineer
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Attn: Marie Valmores, Senior Civil Engineer
375 11th Street, MS 701
Oakland, CA 94607
Alameda - Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit)
Attn: Suzanne Patton, Environmental Engineer
1600 Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Attn: Suzanne Bourguignon, Environmental Planner
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Port of Oakland
Environmental Planning Department
Attn: Jim McGrath, Dept. Manager
530 Water Street
Oakland, CA 94007
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 20-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 20: Consultation and Distribution List
East Bay Regional Parks District
Office of Public Affairs
2950 Peralta Oaks Court
P.O. Box 5381
Oakland, CA 94605
F. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission
Attn: Cindy Horvath
399 Elmhurst S1. #136
Hayward, CA 94544
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
Attn: Jean Hart, Planning Director
1333 Broadway, Suite 220
Oakland, CA 94612
Scott Haggerty
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
District 1
1221 Oak Street, Suite 536
Oakland, CA 94612
Alice Lai-Bitker
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
District 3
1221 Oak Street, Suite 536
Oakland, CA 94612
Keith Carson
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
District 5
1221 Oak Street, Suite 536
Oakland, CA 94612
Alameda County Flood Control
& Water Conservation District (Zone 7)
5997 Parkside Dr.
Pleasanton, CA 94588-5127
Alameda County Public Works Agency
(for flood control outside Zone 7)
Administrative Office
299 Elmhurst S1.
Hayward, CA 94544
Gail Steele
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
District 2
1221 Oak Street, Suite 536
Oakland, CA 94612
Nate Miley
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
District 4
1221 Oak Street, Suite 536
Oakland, CA 94612
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 20-5
Chapter 20: Consultation and Distribution List
G. CITY OF DUBLIN
Janet Lockhart
Mayor
Attn: City Manager's Office
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Claudia McConnick
City Council Member
Attn: City Manager's Office
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Tony Oravetz
City Council Member
Attn: City Manager's Office
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
George Zika
City Council Member
Attn: City Manager's Office
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Tim Sbranti
City Council Member
Attn: City Manager's Office
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Richard Ambrose
City Manager
Att1l: City Manager's Office
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Libby Silver
Meyers Nave Law Firm
City Attorney
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA 94607
Christopher Foss
Economic Development Director
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Kay Keck
City Clerk
Attn: City Clerk's Office
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Diane Lowart, Chairperson
Parks and Connnunity Services Connnission
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Lee Thompson
Public Works Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
John Sugiyama, Superintendent
Dublin Unified School District
7471 Larkdale Avenue
Dublin, CA 94568
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 20-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 20: Consultation and Distribution List
H. CITY OF OAKLAND
Mayor Jetty Brown
City of Oakland
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Robert Bobb
City Manager
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
John Russo
City Attorney
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
William Clagett
Economic Development Director
250 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Fire Services Agency
City of Oakland
250 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
City Clerk
City of Oakland
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Nancy Nadel
City Council Member
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Jane Brunner
City Council Member
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Richard Spees
City Council Member
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Ignacio de la Fuente
City Council Member
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Moses Mayne
City Council Member
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Danny Wan
City Council Member
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Larry Reid
City Council Member
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Henry Chang
City Council Member
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Oakland Unified School District
955 High Street
Oakland, CA 94605
Parks & Recreation Department
City of Oakland
1520 Lakeside Drive
Oakland, CA 94612
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 20-7
Chapter 20: Consultation and Distribution List
Oakland Police Department
455 Seventh Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Public Works Agency
City of Oakland
250 Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
I. CITY OF SAN LEANDRO
Sheila Young
Mayor
Attn: City Manager's Office
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
10M 1ennanis
City Manager
Attn: City Manager's Office
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
OIVa1 Badger
City Council Member
Attn: City Manager's Office
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Surlene Grant
City Council Member
Attn: City Manager's Office
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Glenda Nardine
City Council Member
Attn: City Manager's Office
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Bob Glaze
City Council Member
Attn: City Manager's Office
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Bill Stephens
City Council Member
Attn: City Manager's Office
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Tony Santos
City Council Member
Attn: City Manager's Office
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Liane Randolph
City Attorney
Meyers Nave Law Finn
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA 94607
Hanson Horn, Director
Attn: Community Development Dept.
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacilitylEast County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 20-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 20: Consultation and Distribution List
Marian Handa
City Clerk
Attn: City Manager's Office
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Joe Kitchen, Police Chief
Attn: Police Department
901 East 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Bill McCammon, Fire Chief
Attn: Fire Administration
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Bob Rockett, Director
City of San Leandro Public Works
14200 Chapman Road
San Leandro, CA 94577
Carolyn Knudtson, Director
Attn: Recreation and Human
Services Department
835 East 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
J. LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
City of Albany
Community Development Department
Attn: Ann Chaney, Director
1000 San Pablo A venue
Albany, CA 94706
City of Alameda
Planning Department
Attn: Vivan Day, Bldg Services Mgr
2263 Santa Clara Ave, Room 190
Alameda, CA 94501
City of Berkeley
Planning and Development Department
Attn: Carol Barrett, Planning Director
2118 Milvia Street, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94704
City of Emeryville
Plalll1ing Department
Attn: Charles Bryant, Planning Director
1333 Park Avenue
Emeryville, CA 94608
City of Fremont
Department of Development & Enviromnental
Services, Planning Division
P.O. Box 5006
Fremont, CA 94537
City of Hayward
Department of Community
and Ecomomic Development
Attn: Sylvia Ehrenthal, Director
777 B Street
~ Hayward, CA 94541
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Facility/East County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 20-9
Chapter 20: Consultation and Distribution List
I
Alameda County Juvenile Justice FacilitylEast County Hall of Justice - Draft EIS/EIR
Page 20~ 1 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Livermore
Conununity Development Department
Attn: Eric Brown, PlaMing Manager
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
City of Newark
Conununity Development Department
Attn: Richard Fujikawa
37101 Newark Boulevard
Newark, CA 94560
City of Pleasanton
PlaMing Department
Attn: Brian Swift, Director
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
City of Piedmont
Department of Public Works
Attn: Kate Black, City Planner
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
City of Union City
Community Development Department
Attn: Joan Malloy, Planning Manager
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587