HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Send Comments RE Prison to Government CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 26, 1987
SUBJECT: WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: Environmental Assessment Report - Federal
Detention Center (FDC)/Federal Correctional
Institution (FCI) facilities.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Exhibit A) Cover Letter from Allan Parr,
Regional Architect,
U.S. Department of Justice,
requesting comments on
Environmental Assessment for
FDC/FCI Facility
Exhibit B) Excerpts from Environmental
Assessment for FDC/FCI
Facilities Abstract and
Introduction Sections)
RECOMMENDATION Direct Staff to send comments to the
U.S. Department of Justice.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT Negligible fiscal effect on the City.
DESCRIPTION The U.S. Department of Justice has released
for review and comment the Environmental Assessment Report prepared for a
proposed 100-cell Federal Detention Center (FDC) facility. The FDC facility
is proposed for construction by the U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau
of Prisons within the confines of the 83+ acre Pleasanton Federal Correctional
Institution (FCI) facility. The FDC facility, although designed for 100
federal detainees, is anticipated to house 200 inmates. The federal detainees
to be housed at this facility are required by law to be separated from
sentenced inmates.
A detailed description of the proposed FDC facility is contained within
Exhibit B of this Report.
The Environmental Assessment proposes a finding that the project will not
have any significant adverse impact. If the Environmental Asessment is deemed
complete and adequate, the FDC facility could be constructed without the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by the U.S. Department
of Justice - Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Staff' s review of the Environmental Assessment Report has resulted in a
determination that certain issues were either not addressed in the Report or
were inadequately addressed. The following is a summary of the principle
issues Staff feels must be addressed:
1. Socioeconomic Impacts - The Environmental Assessment Report indicates that
the construction of the proposed 100-cell facility is anticipated to add
200+ additional inmates (page 9) to the existing 700+ inmate FCI facility
(page 2) . The proposed FDC facility is proposed to be constructed
adjoining the 2,000-inmate County Jail facility (currently under
construction to the east of the subject property) . Unlike the existing
facility, the FDC facility would house detainees that may require security
at all levels (page 33) .
The Report does not provide an adequate analysis of potentially adverse
socioeconomic impacts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. 6.z COPIES TO: Planning Department
A. The project may result in too large a land use concentration of three
separately operated jail facilities housing a total of 2,900 inmates
in a rapidly urbanizing area. The project would add up to 200 inmates
to the other 2,700 inmates in the existing and under-construction
facilities.
B. The project may change the security level of the inmates confined in
the area. If 58% of the additional inmates are convicted of drug or
robbery offenses, over 100 potentially violent criminals could be
added to the area (Informational Sheet, Federal Detention Center
[FDC] , FCI, Pleasanton, California) .
C. The Report needs to provide an adequate analysis of the infrequent but
inevitable inmate revolts or jail breaks that historically accompany a
jail facility. Such events could have serious socioeconomic impacts
on the surrounding communities.
2. Traffic - The Traffic Report cited within the Report appears to include
out-of-date information regarding Levels of Service for surrounding street
intersections. The Report needs to discuss the anticipated future traffic
capacity impacts and the potential mitigation measures, such as assisting
with improvements to the needed Dublin Boulevard extension (page 22) and
I-580 interchanges (page 22) .
3. Sewerage - Analysis of potential sewer service impacts is inadequate. The
Report needs to adequately analyze the problems currently facing the
U.S. Army resulting from peak outflows of 893,000 gallons per day (gpd)
when the current contracted allocation is for only 300,000 gpd (page 30) .
The proposed FDC facility would aggravate this problem by adding 25,000+
gpd of outflow.
The Report cites the U.S. Army's planned two-Phased sewer project, but no
funds have been allocated for Phase I of the rehabilitation of the
existing sewer system, and Phase II, the replacement system, is in a "Camp
Parks Master Plan" which may or may not ever be completed and released for
review.
4. Project Alternatives - As presented in the Environmental Assessment
Report, it would appear that no effort has been made to investigate the
feasibility of locating this new facility at a different location
controlled by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or some other arm of the
Federal Government. The Report needs to reasonably and adequately
consider the alternative of building at another location.
Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to send the above
comments, either as drafted or with revisions, to the U.S. Department of
Justice.
-2-
W. U.S. Dep, lent of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons
....... Western Regional Office
1301 Shoreway Road
Fourth Floor
Belmont, California 94002
September ZZ, 1987 R C E ) y E D
C�
Dublin Planning Department J` J �v C
City of Dublin DUBLIN pL NNING
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
Attn: Mr. Larry Tong, Planning Director
Dear Mr. Tong:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Environmental Assessment for the planned
construction of a Federal Detention Center for Pleasanton California, for your
review and comment.
We would appreciate having comments back to us by November Z, 1987. Thank you
for your time and assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or I can be of
any assistance, don't hesitate to call. My phone number is (415) 598-4743.
Yours truly,
Allan Parr
Regional Architect
cc: Cal File
Project File T4D-Ple
MINI
BITA
Um r a
rte"` U.S. Dep ent of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons
} Western Regional Office
RECEIVED.
1301 Shoreway Road 5
0
Fourth Floor
Belmont, California 94002
DUBi_iN FLANNE i?:3
September 23, 1987
Honorable Linda J. Jeffrey, Mayor
City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mayor Jeffrey:
In accordance with your request, we are enclosing a copy of the Environmental
Assessment for the planned construction of a Federal Detention Center. This
Detention Center is planned to be located within the existing security perimeter of
the Pleasanton Federal Correctional Institution. If after your review, you have any
questions or I can be of any assistance, don't hesitate to call. My phone number is
(415) 598-4700. Because of time constraints we would appreciate having any written
comments by November 2, 1987. Thank you for your time and support in this matter.
cerely,
RR WILLIF RD
Si egional Director
F
•
F71 Environmental
Assessment
Federal Detention Center
Federal Correctional Institution
Pleasanton, California
L_
Prepared by:
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
i
Under Contract to:
U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons
�- Washington, D.C. R E c c 1 v � c
DU Iij
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
l:l�r
ABSTRACT. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . .. . .. . . .. .. . . ......... .. ...... ... . .. v
I. INTRODUCTION. . .. . .. . . .... . . .. .. .. ... .. .. 1
A. Background. .. .. .. .. .. .. o.. .. . .. o. .. ... 1
,.. 1. History. . . . . . . .... ... . ... .. .. .. ....... ...... .... . . ... .. 1
2. Inmate Population. :. .. . .. . o .. .. . . .. .. .. 1
f 3. Bureau Construction, Renovation and Resources.. ... . ... . 2
B. Description of the Proposed Project. . .. .. .. .... .. .. . ... ... . 2
C. Methodology. . . . . . ... . .. . . .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. . 6
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS....... . ... . .. .. .. ..... ...... .... ... . .. ..... 10
`= A. Land Use. . .. .. . 10
B. Geology and Seismicity.. . .. . . . . . ... ... .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .... . . . 13
C. Archaeological Resources. .. ... . .. . .. .... ... .. . . ... . . .. ... . . 16
iD. Noise. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. ... ..... . ..... .. . .. .. .. .. . 17
E. Traffic. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . .. . ... . . .... .. .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . . 18
F. Utilities. . . . . . ... . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . ... ...... 24
G. Hazardous Substances.. .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. ..... ..... . ... .. .. . . 31
III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION. . . . ... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . 33
A. Land Use. . . . . . .. . .... .. .. . . ...... .... .. .. . .. .. .. . . 33
B. Geology and Seismicity. .. . . ... . .. . .. ...... . .. . ... .. . .. . . . . . 34
C. Archaeological Resources. . .. ... . . .. .. ..... ... . ... .. . ... .. . . 36
D. Noise. .. . . . .. . . . . .... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ... ... ..... . . . .. . . . . .. 37
E. Traffic. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . ..... . .. . .. .. . .. . . .. . 38
F. Utilities. . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . . .... . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . 41
' i G. Hazardous Materials. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . .. .. ..... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 42
IV. ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . ....... .. ... .. .. .. . .. .. . 43
r.a A. No-Build Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .... .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . 43
�.._, B. Build Alternative. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
V. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY.. .. . .. . . 45
VI. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES. . . . . . . . 46
VII. REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . 47
A. Documents. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. ... . . . .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . 47
B. Contacts. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . ... . ... . . . .. . . .. . . . 48
C
I �
i
S�+
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Cont'd)
(! Page
VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS.. . . . . .... .. .. ... .. ...... . ... . ...... .... .. . 50
W APPENDICES
A. Environmental Checklist.. . . . .. . . ... ....... ... . .... .. .. ... . . A-1
B. Archaeological Resources Assessment. . ..... .. .. .. .... .... .. . B-1
C. Inspection Report for Hazardous and Radioactive
Materials. . . . . . .. .. . . . ... . . . . .. .. . ... .. .. . ...... ... ..... . . C-1
P
i
,•a
f.
's
"f f
S
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Exisiting
Exterior Noise Levels.. .. ... . . . . . .. . ..... .. ... . ... .. . .. ... 20
l�
R. 2 Existing Peak Hour Volumes and Levels of Service
on I-580. . . ... . . .. .. . . . . ... . .. . .. . :. . . ..... .. .. .. .. . .... .. 23
3 Existing Peak Hour Volumes and Levels of Service
. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . ..
on I-680. . . . . . . . ... . ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 26
l
4 Existing Peak Hour Volumes and Levels of Service
onDougherty Road. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . ... . ... .. ... .. ... . .. .. . 27
K 5 Water Usage at Pleasanton FCI March 1986 - February 1987. . 29
f 6 Electricity and Natural Gas Usage (Institution Only)
(� March 1986 - February 1987. . . . . . . .. . . ... .. .. ... .. . ... .. . . . 32
f.
u
L�
'�•�, iii
u.
Rii LIST OF FIGURES
P,j
Figure Page
1 Federal Prison System Facilities. . ...... ... .. . ... .. ... .. . 3
2 Regional Location Map. .. . .. . . . . . . . ... .. .... . . . . .. .. .. .. .. 4
3 Site Location. . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. ..... .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. . . 5
�' _r
4 Conceptual Site Plan. .. . . . . . . . . .. ..... ... . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. 7
5 Pleasanton Federal Detention Center Site Plan.. . . .. .. .. . . 8
6 Site Views: . . . ... .. ... . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. ... . ...... . . .. . . 11
7 Site Views. . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... .. . ... .. .. .. . . ... 12
r;+
8 Alquist - Priolo Special Study Zone.. . .... .. . ... ... .. .. . . 15
9 Pleasanton Federal Detention Center Transport Network.. . . 19
10 Typical Levels of Service Photographs. ..... ... .. .. . ... . . . 25
11 TVTS-85 Recommended Roadway Improvement. .. . . .. .. .. . . ... . . 39
I
i.�
Li
iv
P.J
i �
l�
J
r ;
I '
1
i
Abstract
ABSTRACT
{ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER
CITY OF DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT SPONSOR: U.S. Department of Justice
,.. Federal Bureau of Prisons
CONTACT: Jerry Williford, Regional Director
Western Region
f�} Federal Bureau of Prisons
1301 Shoreway Road, 4th Floor
Belmont, CA 94002
PROPOSED ACTION: The Federal Bureau of Prisons proposes to construct a
�= Federal Detention Center (FDC) on the grounds of the
Pleasanton Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in
{�- Dublin, California. The FDC is designed to accommodate
100 federal detainees who are required by law to be
separated from sentenced inmates. Federal detainees are
� - the responsibility of the U.S Marshal Service.
PROJECT LOCATION: The Pleasanton FDC site is located within the confines
of the Pleasanton FCI which, in turn, is located within
the Camp Parks Army Base (also known as the Parks
Reserve Force Training Area). Camp Parks (including the
Pleasanton FCI) was recently annexed into the City of
Dublin in Alameda County, California. The FDC site is
._, bounded by Camp Parks lands to the north, west and
south. To the east, across Arnold Road is the Alameda
County Santa Rita Jail Facility which is currently under
construction.
FINDINGS: During its construction and operation, the proposed
Federal Detention Center would result in negligible
impacts to the immediate project site and local com-
munity.
Surrounding public lands provide a buffer between the
proposed FDC and nearby residential and commercial
areas. The facility is designed to incorporate a maximum
level of security measures and detainees released from
custody would be returned by the U.S. Marshal Service to
the location where he/she was arrested. Therefore, the
FDC is not anticipated to create an adverse impact on
the surrounding community.
Background research and field investigations indicate
the FDC would not impact any significant archaeological
or historic resources or expose inmates, staff or visi-
- v
tors to potential health hazards. Traffic generated by
operation of the proposed FDC is not anticipated to be
rt affected significantly, nor is the demand on local water
supplies. The facility would incorporate architectural
elements and be designed in strict accordance with state
and federal building requirements which should mitigate
any impacts created by seismic activity known to occur
in the region or high noise levels created by Army
Reserve Forces Training activities in the surrounding
�,'.. area.
DATE ISSUED: September 1987.
l•
i }
tir
i.
vi
;r
I
r-
i
,
I. Introduction
I
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
+s e
1. History
Prior to the establishment of the Federal Bureau of Prisons in 1930, there
were seven federal prisons, each funded separately by Congress and operated
under policies and regulations established individually by each warden.
During this period, there were 12,000 offenders in federal institutions and
an equal number in state and local facilities. Prisons were overcrowded and
understaffed, and rigid rules governed every aspect of the inmates, lives.
r' Little thought was given to educational . and . vocational training for
offenders.
pp In 1929 a Congressional committee was established to study conditions in the
existing federal prisons. In the same year, a study group developed a penal
philosophy which outlined practical steps for improving the federal prisons.
Based upon recommendations of the Congressional committee, legislation was
enacted by Congress ress to establish the Federal Bureau of Prisons. On May 14
Y
1930, President Hoover signed the bill into . law, directing the Bureau to
r+ develop an integrated system of prisons to provide custody and programs
?J� based on the individual needs of the offenders. Subsequent legislation
approved minimum security camps, the construction of new institutions and a
r- program of diversified industrial employment within the institutions.
{1a
Il J
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is responsible for carrying out judgements of
federal courts whenever a period of confinement is ordered. Currently, over
43,000 individuals are housed within the 48 federal institutions which have
��' levels of security ranging from minimum to maximum. All sentenced offenders
who are medically able are required to complete regular daily work assign-
ments. In addition, all offenders have opportunities to participate in self-
improvement,_..� p programs including education, vocational training, work,
religion, and counseling.
r-:
2. Inmate Population
The inmate population of the Federal Bureau of Prisons has been increasing
a at an unprecedented rate. Since January 1981, the number of inmates incar-
'-=J cerated has increased from 23,779 to 43,783 as of August 16, 1987 or approx-
imately 58 percent over the current combined rated capacities of the 48
I .J institutions.
Federal court sentencing of offenders to longer terms of confinement for
l •:j serious crimes, an increase in the number of immigration offenders and the
effort to combat organized crime and drug trafficking contributed to the
I' population increase.
Several measures have been taken to alleviate the population pressures,
including construction of new institutions, acquisition of surplus facili-
ties, the expansion and improvement of existing facilities and the expanded
•: use of contract confinement and halfway houses.
iJ,, 1
3. Bureau Construction, Renovation and Resources
The Bureau of Prisons is in the midst of expanding its capacity through an
active construction and renovation program. In 1984, new additions to this
capacity included a camp at the U.S. Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia; a
0 housing unit at the Federal .Correctional Institution, Seagoville, Texas; and
Federal Prison Camps in Loretto, Pennsylvania, and Duluth, Minnesota. A
Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, was acquired and partially
activated in 1984; it will soon be fully operational and will house 500
l;kr offenders, the majority requiring special medical or mental health care.
A new Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Phoenix, Arizona, opened in
May 1985 and a 1,000-bed Federal Detention Center in Oakdale, Louisiana
opened in March 1986. Construction has began on a Metropolitan Detention
Center in Los Angeles, California to house 550 federal detainees, and a FCI
and maximum security camp at Marianna, Florida to house 700 inmates. Con-
L- struction has also begun on 'a new 550-bed FCI in Fairfield, New Jersey, a
550-bed FCI and 150-minimum . security camp near Bradford, Pennsylvania, a
-� 550-bed FCI and 250-bed minimum security camp in Sheridan, Oregon, and con-
struction will soon begin on a 550-bed FCI and 250-bed minimum security camp
in Jesup, Georgia. A new 150-bed minimum security camp will soon be acti-
vated at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida.
Housing projects at existing institutions are under construction at various
Federal Correctional Institutions around the country. Searches are underway
(( y for other building sites throughout the U.S. Figure 1 shows existing
federal prison system facilities and facilities under construction.
B. Description of the Proposed Project
-' The Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) proposes to construct a Federal Deten-
tion Center (FDC) on the grounds of the Pleasanton Federal Correctional
( Institution (FCI) in Dublin, California. The proposed FDC facility is
! . intended to house federal detainees who are required by law to be separated
from sentenced inmates. Federal detainees are the responsibility of the
; .; United States Marshal Service while awaiting trial or sentencing.
I�1 The Pleasanton FCI fronts onto Eighth Street and Arnold Road within the
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFA). The Parks RFTA (formerly referred
to as Camp Parks) is located approximately 20 to 30 miles east of the cities
'.� of Oakland and San Francisco. Major highways in the area are I-580, a major
east-west highway extending through the Livermore-Amador Valley, and I-680,
f a major north-south highway extending through the San Ramon Valley and
.. Amador Valley. Regional and site location maps are shown in Figures 2 and 3,
respectively.
' The Pleasanton FCI, which opened in 1974, is an administrative facility for
women and men from the western states. While the rated capacity is for 351
inmates, the facility had a population of 699 inmates as of July 23, 1987,
of which 8 were federal detainees (all female). Approximately 60 percent of
the FCI inmate population is female and 40 percent are male. Inmates are
accommodated in three modular housing units (two female units, one male) of
split-level design. Current FCI staff totals 183 employees for an inmate to
2
t
1 F igure 1
,. FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM FACILITIES
I;
R.
. D
DULUTH
M
RAY
STONE
•
r.
BRADFORD
lL3'
' siieR D p
UR Y
FORD
N
•
T
ES E
R
•
I
lAN
YORK
nt
•
=e
1
Y
C 1 CA00
T:} .�,::;::''�'.�:'%'''';:?"::':%:�:`;:'•'i2::>'�'+: ORE
•�:::::: i•:: y::�i:::::>::::::: ::;: :i::::i::::::'•i:
NINGTON.D.C.p...: TERRE NA. ::: `:
FAIRFIELD
LEAVENWORTN O
KANSAS CITY
IC 4
SPAIN •
S FIELD
•
LOS ANG 1
"t'SRilptfAG .;:::Q'i;cj>::'•i [''%;ia
SAN DIEOO ••• '� �'� ' ' � JE$UP
GLYNCO
MARIANNA
.LAUDERDALE
MIAMI
a
`-
WESTERN REGION
Bunmgame.California
NORTH CENTRAL REGION
Kansas City.Missouri
j SOUTH CENTRAL REGION �!
Dallas.Texas
SOUTHEAST REGION
Atlanta.Georgia
NORTHEAST REGION
Philadelphia,Pennsvlwma
FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM FACILITIES •
"COMMUNITY PROGRAMS OFFICES O
FACILITIES UNDER CONSTRUCTION p
+.. STAFF TRAINING CENTERS A
r;
r ;
j SOURCE: FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,1986.
is
""'Id
n
PO,,,t son PedIO
alrtaX S�anb'�; SAN #I
elmo San 3 2
CL
OWN 5
It- Ross San Fablo 2 2
Kerillield Gfeen, 0 leasant
RD. 2
4
AA ,
•
La
Clayt III
Uentin 0..,
_
4 San
OFF•Cc Madera .. 6 J,
4k—
PL E1 r 41,, h
Mill Valle y
I F.", p fiwh.md I., a u
Creek
A
t IF AV
CIIIIII
81.11 P.
Ber e.
Bely,dere 1.OF c 2
2 4
DY-1111
Tiburon Rheem
Ad
,r I? Rossmoor rsuxo IV VIA. 11 V.11.
IIV Avg. IN—I Leisure World
Ad 5
AN— 21
.le Sausalito
0,. IAVAND- a 3 Alarn Sim I,art MY- 11 11
IF..,.r: \ Emeryville '� rr„w:. aa".uaaa. ,� I t•,N.a. a s. " w •7
3
C. cr.11.FV m WIND
181ASAJ.9 2 Ar
L"'PO 4
e* VON
•aI 'All K 9 ISLA.0 6 Piedmont 3
2 C.01Y VIA, 2
P,0,I_, —A
ry ."2 0 3 3
rwawN me w.arc "A a—
las5alasa
Rocs o an'd ......
2
s' Ya,s,.< .",'•1 \ u--cn,w I� ,� E try +ass 2 fPt a G �4 \
It,4000
San Ar
Alam
11 A, %
A(S N Francisi:6 DAY Do It Mr
a \ FAFm PLEASANTON FC1
Pg. Is a d"
Wrft
MI, IN.
A rxr
IL 1 1. _' f! b y`IAIAC tIA11 At.,—A AINA
y
3
lot
3
Dal 9 \San Lore.... 1 2. [•�•\ ..`° y,o,,,a 0Y.I.,ft Hayward 4
I city si...pe.
3
Up.i on! \ -W.— I', & ,v . I%.
e r
Pacific Minorlsi South San Francisco \ .1 :IK"" 7!,,s-%1.7 leasanten
4 Vim
Pacifica 2 s-b—pi l 0104 AV to
B.
I;.n 13....C.-I At
Sharp Park Disil
San Bruno 7, 9 LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
"AftP PADEACII
J!AN IMANCISCO 2
r
1,N-J Did
WIWI! 3 Fit REGIONAL LOCATION MAP .
All 0 ..purlingarne,.— AlVdi,ldfl-
Disl
Ail b oug
Hills oroug ,-
FRANCISCO AV'
FusteiCily DATE: August 1987 FIGURE: 2
San M t e d 'K'.
i R
CW-1
kS A EM
n 14morr.
Village'. 4EA SANTON F
6 00
4r
t- 31 NEW W SAN A
41WW
RITA JAIL,.. :i-Q
T, 1FACILITYW,
8TH STREET
W Ir- under,"_m'7-
ion)
construct 400
PROPOSED FDC SITE
Ln
6A
M Jul
imbe
I art*
Sd
cc u Inu
04
Q-Z
in NJ
__7rh
am N
325 1-580
1K
A
%'Claiie
4k, 00
610
•, ,.. 1' `. I 'y 3 v LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
S..IR!�Itv
SITE LOCATION
A
•r
staff ratio of 3.9:1. Of the site's 83.3 total acres, approximately 30 acres
are developed and enclosed; the remaining acreage provides a buffer between
r ; the facility and surrounding lands. Perimeter security for the enclosed site
area is maintained by a double fence and monitoring cameras. Exterior faci-
lity security is maintained by vehicular roving patrols along the perimeter
road outside the secure fence.
I
The proposed Federal Detention Center is a design adaptation of a FDC faci-
lity currently under construction in Englewood, Colorado. The design provides
tT for a self-contained two-story "L" shaped building located at the southwest
corner of the enclosed portion of the Pleasanton FCI. The Federal Detention
Center will be separated from the main facility by fencing and will have its
own entrance and reception area. The FDC will encompass approximately 3.9
acres of the 83.3 acre Pleasanton FCI site (see Figures 4 and 5).
The proposed Federal Detention Center would be comprised of two housing
wings and one central administration component. The administrative area will
house a kitchen facility, administrative processing, records administration,
facility support (i .e., maintenance), and staff support. The housing wings
are essentially two levels, consisting of one-story structures with mez-
zanines. Each wing has 50 cells (100 total ), 25 per level , opening onto a
common dayroom area. Ancillary space includes rooms for program administra-
tion, counseling and special housing. In total , the FDC will consist of
j approximately 44,200 gross square feet.
Although the proposed Pleasanton FDC is a site adaptation of a facility
currently under construction in Colorado, the Pleasanton facility has been
designed in an architectural character that is compatible with the existing
FCI. This compatibility will be achieved through the use of similar building
materials and architectural design elements.
As a Federal agency, the Bureau of Prisons is mandated to use less energy
due to high energy costs and the basic need for conservation. The facility
will be designed to be energy-efficient and will use energy conserving
equipment.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons proposes to begin construction in the fall of
1987 with anticipated occupancy by late summer, 1988. The estimated con-
struction cost is $6,000,000.
C. Methodology
A Preliminary Site Investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of
Prisons in April , 1987 to analyze environmental , utility and service
requirements for the proposed FDC and to determine which factors would need
to be considered further in the design and development of the facility.
Subsequently, an Environmental Checklist was prepared for the project to
identify potential environmental issues that would or may be relevant to the
proposed project. In addition, individual meetings were held with officials
from the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton at the beginning of the Environmen-
t tal Assessment process to ensure all relevant environmental issues and con-
cerns were addressed.
ti
6
�'• -,_..._�_�' �~ ,tea l� � .�� .r:.iAp• ��' _.. -_c �
it:��7 l �•� •� 'w�.
r -
�w '\
�Dall
� �
mr-ow
r
rode nhovw
f..
f alcartaa�rwcA
-• ^ /j �• r- - ;� ill
0-0 F"W MMOM CUM
1MKA I Owe n1►Tp� wuG��
(6.0aw) i
M as
-
mv ..
at w.w ao-- A■~
j •:
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
i
I '
PLEASANTON FEDERAL
DETENTION CENTER
SITE PLAN
DATE: AUGUST 1987 FIGURE: 5
8
ty�
This Environmental Assessment focuses on those issues thus identified
through the above process. These issues include: cumulative impacts to
utilities (i .e., water and sewer); geotechnical constraints and seismic
' hazards; archaeological resources; noise impacts; cumulative traffic
�r-
impacts; land use compatibility; and, hazardous materials. All other poten-
tial environmental issues as discussed in the Environmental Checklist, are
not anticipated to be significantly affected by the proposed project and are
,- therefore not addressed in this Environmental Assessment. The Environmental
Checklist is provided in this report as Appendix A. It is important to note
that although the proposed FDC has been designed to provide 100 detainee
y bedspaces (100 cells, single-bunk arrangements), the analysis of impacts in
this Assessment considers a detainee population of 200 to allow for the
�,,e potential of housing detainees in excess of the rated capacity.
}
,
}
l.w
t �
9
i
i