macarthur transit village project€¦ · macarthur transit village project volume 1. draft...
TRANSCRIPT
-
January 2008
Prepared for: City of Oakland
MACARTHUR TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECTVolume 1. Draft Environmental Impact ReportSCH No. 2006022075
-
MACARTHUR TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT Volume 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2006022075
Prepared for: City of Oakland January 2008
-
N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\00_TOC-LATEST.doc (1/30/2008) i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1. DRAFT EIR
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 A. PURPOSE OF EIR................................................................................................ 1 B. PROPOSED PROJECT .......................................................................................... 1 C. EIR SCOPE......................................................................................................... 3 D. REPORT ORGANIZATION ................................................................................... 4
II. SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 7 A. PROJECT UNDER REVIEW ................................................................................... 7 B. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES......................................... 7 C. SUMMARY TABLE ............................................................................................ 10
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 47 A. PROJECT SITE.................................................................................................. 47 B. PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 52 C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES....................................................................................... 53 D. PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................................ 54 E. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS............................................................................... 71
IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................................................................. 75 A. LAND USE ....................................................................................................... 81 B. PUBLIC POLICY................................................................................................ 91 C. TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION AND PARKING........................................... 123 D. AIR QUALITY................................................................................................. 227 E. NOISE AND VIBRATION.................................................................................. 281 F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................... 311 G. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY ................................................................. 329 H. PUBLIC HEALTH AND HAZARDS ..................................................................... 347 I. PUBLIC SERVICES........................................................................................... 365 J. UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................. 381 K. CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES........................................... 397 L. AESTHETIC RESOURCES................................................................................. 425
V. ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................ 455 A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND IMPACTS .............................................................. 456 B. CEQA PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................... 461 C. PLANNING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ............................................................... 483 D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE................................................. 526
-
M A C A R T H U R T R A N S I T V I L L A G E P R O J E C T E I R J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
ii N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\00_TOC-LATEST.doc (1/30/2008)
VI. CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................555 A. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ........................................................................555 B. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES.............................................................556 C. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS................................557 D. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ......................................................558
VII. REPORT PREPARATION .............................................................................................561 A. REPORT PREPARERS .......................................................................................561 B. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................563 C. CONTACTS....................................................................................................571
APPENDICES VOLUME 2 Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters A1. 2006 NOP and Comment Letters A2. 2007 NOP and Comment Letters Appendix B: Air Quality B1. Health Risk Assessment B2. URBEMIS Modeling B3. CA Line Source Dispersion Model Appendix C: FHWA Roadway Noise Level Analysis Appendix D: Water Supply Assessment Appendix E: Land Use Database and Cumulative Growth Scenario Memorandum VOLUME 3 Appendix F: Transportation, Circulation and Parking
-
J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M A C A R T H U R T R A N S I T V I L L A G E P R O J E C T E I R T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\00_TOC-LATEST.doc (1/30/2008) iii
List of Figures
Figure I-1 Project Location and Regional Vicinity Map .............................................. 2 Figure III-1 Project Location and Regional Vicinity Map ............................................ 48 Figure III-2 Parcels within Project Site ...................................................................... 49 Figure III-3 Conceptual Site Plan .............................................................................. 56 Figure III-4 Conceptual Garage Level Plan ................................................................ 57 Figure III-5 Conceptual Street Level Plan .................................................................. 58 Figure III-6 Conceptual Upper Level Plan.................................................................. 59 Figure III-7 Conceptual 40th Street Elevation............................................................. 60 Figure III-8 Conceptual Telegraph Avenue Elevation................................................. 61 Figure III-9 Conceptual Internal Street Elevation....................................................... 62 Figure III-10 Proposed Circulation Plan ...................................................................... 66 Figure III-11 Conceptual Landscape Master Plan ........................................................ 69 Figure IV.A-1 Existing Land Uses in the Project Area ................................................... 83 Figure IV.B-1 General Plan Land Use Designation Map................................................. 94 Figure IV.B-2 Zoning Designations Map .................................................................... 101 Figure IV.C-1 Project Location................................................................................... 124 Figure IV.C-2 Study Intersections .............................................................................. 127 Figure IV.C-3 Existing Site Access and Circulation..................................................... 128 Figure IV.C-4 Transit Service..................................................................................... 132 Figure IV.C-5 Transit and Shuttle Facilities ................................................................ 133 Figure IV.C-6 MacArthur BART Station Layout............................................................ 141 Figure IV.C-7 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .............................................. 144 Figure IV.C-8 On-Site Parking Facilities ..................................................................... 147 Figure IV.C-9 Existing Pedestrian Volumes and Designated Routes............................ 148 Figure IV.C-10 Existing Bicycle Volumes and Designated Routes ................................. 150 Figure IV.C-11 Surrounding On-Street Parking............................................................. 153 Figure IV.C-12a Study Intersections (1-19) Existing Geometry ....................................... 156 Figure IV.C-12b Study Intersections (20-24) Existing Geometry ..................................... 157 Figure IV.C-13a Study Intersections (1-19) Existing Traffic Volumes.............................. 158 Figure IV.C-13b Study Intersections (20-24) Existing Traffic Volumes............................ 159 Figure IV.C-14a Inbound Travel Routes and Project Trip Distribution (Residential)......... 174 Figure IV.C-14b Outbound Travel Routes and Project Trip Distribution (Residential) ...... 175 Figure IV.C-15a Inbound Travel Routes and Project Trip Distribution (Non-
Residential) ......................................................................................... 176 Figure IV.C-15b Outbound Travel Routes and Project Trip Distribution (Non-
Residential) ......................................................................................... 177 Figure IV.C-16a Study Intersections (1-19) Existing Plus Project Conditions................... 182 Figure IV.C-16b Study Intersections (20-25) Existing Plus Project Conditions................. 183 Figure IV.C-17a Study Intersections (1-19) Cumulative Year 2015 Baseline No Project
Conditions........................................................................................... 184
-
M A C A R T H U R T R A N S I T V I L L A G E P R O J E C T E I R J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
iv N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\00_TOC-LATEST.doc (1/30/2008)
Figure IV.C-17b Study Intersections (20-25) Cumulative Year 2015 Baseline No Project Conditions................................................................................185
Figure IV.C-18a Study Intersections (1-19) Cumulative Year 2015 Baseline Plus Project Conditions................................................................................190
Figure IV.C-18b Study Intersections (20-25) Cumulative Year 2015 Baseline Plus Project Conditions................................................................................191
Figure IV.C-19a Study Intersections (1-19) Cumulative Year 2030 Baseline No Project Intersection Volumes............................................................................195
Figure IV.C-19b Study Intersections (20-25) Cumulative Year 2030 Baseline No Project Intersection Volumes ................................................................196
Figure IV.C-20a Study Intersections (1-19) Cumulative Year 2030 Baseline Plus Project Intersection Volumes ................................................................198
Figure IV.C-20b Study Intersections (20-25) Cumulative Year 2030 Baseline Plus Project Intersection Volumes ................................................................199
Figure IV.E-1 Noise Monitoring Locations ..................................................................295 Figure IV.G-1 Regional Faults.....................................................................................332 Figure IV.K-1 OCHS Properties Within and Adjacent To the Project Site ......................411 Figure IV.L-1 MacArthur BART Parking Lot and Frontage Road...................................427 Figure IV.L-2 MacArthur BART Plaza ..........................................................................428 Figure IV.L-3 Existing Buildings on the Project Site....................................................429 Figure IV.L-4 Views of Surrounding Areas .................................................................431 Figure IV.L-5 Photo Viewpoint Locations ...................................................................436 Figure IV.L-6 Conceptual Visual Simulation from Viewpoint 4....................................437 Figure IV.L-7 Conceptual Visual Simulation from Viewpoint 6....................................438 Figure IV.L-8 Conceptual Visual Simulation from Viewpoint 5....................................439 Figure IV.L-9 Conceptual Visual Simulation from Viewpoint 1....................................440 Figure IV.L-10 Conceptual Visual Simulation from Viewpoint 2....................................441 Figure IV.L-11 Conceptual Visual Simulation from Viewpoint 3....................................442 Figure IV.L-12 Project Shadow Patterns .......................................................................448 Figure IV.L-13 Project Shadow Patterns .......................................................................449 Figure IV.L-14 Project Shadow Patterns .......................................................................450 Figure IV.L-15 Project Shadow Patterns .......................................................................451 Figure IV.L-16 Project Shadow Patterns .......................................................................452 Figure IV.L-17 Project Shadow Patterns .......................................................................453 Figure V-1A Conceptual Plan, Existing Zoning Alternative ........................................468 Figure V-1B Conceptual Cross-Section, Existing Zoning Alternative..........................469 Figure V-2A Conceptual Site Plan, Mitigated Reduced Building/Site Alternative ........476 Figure V-2B Conceptual Cross-Section, Mitigated Reduced Building/Site
Alternative ...........................................................................................477 Figure V-3A Conceptual Plan, Full BART Replacement Parking Alternative ................485 Figure V-3B Conceptual Cross-Section, full BART Replacement Parking Alternative...486 Figure V-4A Conceptual Plan, Tower Alternative ......................................................493 Figure V-4B Conceptual Cross-Section, Tower Alternative ........................................494
-
J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M A C A R T H U R T R A N S I T V I L L A G E P R O J E C T E I R T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\00_TOC-LATEST.doc (1/30/2008) v
Figure V-5A Conceptual Plan, Increased Commercial Alternative ............................. 510 Figure V-5B Conceptual Cross-Section, Increased Commercial Alternative ............... 511 Figure V-6A Full BART Parking Replacement Alternative Visual Simulation ............... 531 Figure V-6B Full BART Parking Replacement Alternative Visual Simulation ............... 532 Figure V-6C Full BART Parking Replacement Alternative Visual Simulation ............... 533 Figure V-6D Full BART Parking Replacement Alternative Visual Simulation ............... 534 Figure V-6E Full BART Parking Replacement Alternative Visual Simulation ............... 535 Figure V-6F Full BART Parking Replacement Alternative Visual Simulation ............... 536 Figure V-7A Tower Alternative Visual Simulation ..................................................... 537 Figure V-7B Tower Alternative Visual Simulation ..................................................... 538 Figure V-7C Tower Alternative Visual Simulation ..................................................... 539 Figure V-7D Tower Alternative Visual Simulation ..................................................... 540 Figure V-7E Tower Alternative Visual Simulation ..................................................... 541 Figure V-7F Tower Alternative Visual Simulation ..................................................... 542 Figure V-8A Tower Alternative Shadow Patterns ...................................................... 543 Figure V-8B Tower Alternative Shadow Patterns ...................................................... 544 Figure V-8C Tower Alternative Shadow Patterns ...................................................... 545 Figure V-8D Tower Alternative Shadow Patterns ...................................................... 546 Figure V-8E Tower Alternative Shadow Patterns ...................................................... 547 Figure V-8F Tower Alternative Shadow Patterns ...................................................... 548 Figure V-9A Increased Commercial Alternative Visual Simulation............................. 549 Figure V-9B Increased Commercial Alternative Visual Simulation............................. 550 Figure V-9C Increased Commercial Alternative Visual Simulation............................. 551 Figure V-9D Increased Commercial Alternative Visual Simulation............................. 552 Figure V-9E Increased Commercial Alternative Visual Simulation............................. 553 Figure V-9F Increased Commercial Alternative Visual Simulation............................. 554
-
M A C A R T H U R T R A N S I T V I L L A G E P R O J E C T E I R J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
vi N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\00_TOC-LATEST.doc (1/30/2008)
List of Tables
Table II-1 Summary of Impacts, Conditions of Approval (COA) and Mitigation Measures (MM).......................................................................................11
Table II-2 Recommendations..................................................................................45 Table III-1 Project Site Parcels and BART Plaza.........................................................50 Table III-2 Summary of Proposed Development .......................................................63 Table III-3 Phasing Schedule ...................................................................................68 Table III-4 Required Permits and Approvals.............................................................73 Table IV.B-1 Relationship of Project to Relevant Plans and Policies ...........................108 Table IV.C-1 AC Transit Service Summary.................................................................135 Table IV.C-2 AC Transit Loads, Boardings and Alightings (Average Weekday)............136 Table IV.C-3 MacArthur BART Station Train Schedule................................................142 Table IV.C-4 Peak Hour Load Factors by Line at MacArthur BART Station...................142 Table IV.C-6 MacArthur BART Station and Systemwide All Day Access Mode
Shares..................................................................................................143 Table IV.C-5 MacArthur BART Station Fare Gate Queues (AM and PM Peak Periods) ...143 Table IV.C-7 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections .........................160 Table IV.C-8 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections .............................161 Table IV.C-9 Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service Summary ...................162 Table IV.C-10 Vehicle Collision Data Summary by Type (2000-2006) ..........................165 Table IV.C-11 Pedestrian/Bicycle Collision Data Summary by Type (2000-2006)..........165 Table IV.C-12 Project Vehicle Trip Generation ............................................................172 Table IV.C-13 Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary ..................186 Table IV.C-14 Cumulative Year 2015 Baseline Intersection Level of Service
Summary..............................................................................................188 Table IV.C-15 Cumulative Year 2015 Baseline Plus Project Mitigated Intersection
Level of Service Summary .....................................................................193 Table IV.C-16 Cumulative Year 2030 Baseline Intersection Level of Service
Summary..............................................................................................200 Table IV.C-17 Cumulative Year 2030 Baseline Plus Project Mitigated Intersection
Level of Service Summary .....................................................................202 Table IV.C-18 Project Effects on AC Transit Ridership................................................214 Table IV.C-19 Project Effects on BART Ridership.........................................................216 Table IV.C-20 AC Transit Average Weekday Loads (With and Without Project) .............217 Table IV.C-21 AC Transit Travel Times (With and Without Project)...............................218 Table IV.C-22 BART Average Weekday Loads (With and Without Project) .....................219 Table IV.C-23 Estimated Peak Parking Demand...........................................................223 Table IV.D-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................228 Table IV.D-2 Health Effects of Air Pollutants .............................................................230 Table IV.D-3 San Francisco Bay Area Attainment Status.............................................234 Table IV.D-4 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data ....................................................239 Table IV.D-5 Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day ......................................245
-
J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M A C A R T H U R T R A N S I T V I L L A G E P R O J E C T E I R T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\00_TOC-LATEST.doc (1/30/2008) vii
Table IV.D-6 Construction Emission Estimates ......................................................... 247 Table IV.D-7 CO Concentrations for Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions.... 249 Table IV.D-8 CO Concentrations for Cumulative Year 2015 Baseline With and
Without the Project .............................................................................. 250 Table IV.D-9 CO Concentrations for Cumulative Year Baseline 2030 With and
Without the Project .............................................................................. 252 Table IV.D-10 Oakland Community-wide GHG Emissions Summary – 2005
(tons/year) .......................................................................................... 258 Table IV.D-11 Estimated CO2e Emissions from the Proposed Project (Tons/Year) ....... 276 Table IV.E-1 Definitions of Acoustical Terms ........................................................... 282 Table IV.E-2 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ......................................................... 284 Table IV.E-3 Summary of EPA Noise Levels .............................................................. 285 Table IV.E-5 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria............................................... 286 Table IV.E-4 Summary of Human Effects in Areas Exposed to 55 dBA Ldn................ 286 Table IV.E-6 Noise Land Use Compatibility Matrix.................................................... 288 Table IV.E-7 City of Oakland Construction Noise Standards at Receiving Property
Line, dBA............................................................................................. 289 Table IV.E-8 City of Oakland Operational Noise Standards at Receiving Property
Line, dBA............................................................................................. 290 Table IV.E-9 Short-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, dBA ............................. 294 Table IV.E-10 Meteorological Conditions During Ambient Noise Monitoring............... 294 Table IV.E-11 Existing Traffic Noise Levels, dBA ........................................................ 296 Table IV.E-12 Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax ............ 299 Table IV.E-13 Existing with Project Traffic Noise Levels, dBA ..................................... 302 Table IV.E-14 Cumulative 2015 Baselinea Without Project Traffic Noise Levels, dBA.... 302 Table IV.E-15 Cumulative 2015 Baseline Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, dBA .......... 303 Table IV.E-16 Cumulative 2030 Baseline Without Project Traffic Noise Levels, dBA..... 303 Table IV.E-17 Cumulative 2030 Baseline Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, dBA .......... 304 Table IV.G-1 Modified Mercalli Scale ........................................................................ 334 Table IV.I-1 Neighborhood Schools......................................................................... 368 Table IV.J-1 Projected Wastewater Generation......................................................... 391 Table IV.K-1 Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey Significance Ratings ......................... 400 Table IV.K-2 Property Ratings/Historical Resource Status for Buildings Within
Project Site .......................................................................................... 410 Table IV.K-3 Property Ratings/Historical Resource Status for Buildings Adjacent to
Project................................................................................................. 412 Table V-1 Project and Alternatives....................................................................... 457 Table V-2 No Project/No Build Alternative Scenario Compared to the Proposed
Project................................................................................................. 463 Table V-3 Existing Zoning Alternative Scenario Compared to the Proposed
Project................................................................................................. 466 Table V-4 Existing Zoning Alternative Scenario Trip Generation ........................... 470
-
M A C A R T H U R T R A N S I T V I L L A G E P R O J E C T E I R J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
viii N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\00_TOC-LATEST.doc (1/30/2008)
Table V-5 Mitigated Reduced Building/Site Alternative Scenario Compared to the Proposed Project ............................................................................475
Table V-6 Mitigated Reduced Building/Site Alternative Trip Generation.................479 Table V-7 Full BART Replacement Parking Alternative Scenario Compared to
the Proposed Project ............................................................................487 Table V-8 Tower Alternative Scenario Compared to the Proposed Project..............492 Table V-9 Tower Alternative Vehicle Trip Generation ............................................496 Table V-10 Existing Plus Tower Alternative Intersection Level of Service
Summary..............................................................................................497 Table V-11 Cumulative Year 2015 Baseline Intersection Level of Service
Summary (Tower Alternative)................................................................499 Table V-12 Cumulative Year 2030 Baseline Intersection Level of Service
Summary (Tower Alternative)................................................................501 Table V-13 CO Concentrations for Tower Alternative Conditions ............................503 Table V-14 Tower Alternative Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day ......................504 Table V-15 Existing with Tower Alternative Traffic Noise Levels, dBA......................504 Table V-16 Cumulative Year 2015 Baseline with Tower Alternative Traffic Noise
Levels, dBA ..........................................................................................505 Table V-17 Cumulative Year 2030 Baseline with Tower Alternative Traffic Noise
Levels, dBA ..........................................................................................505 Table V-18 Increased Commercial Alternative Scenario Compared to the
Proposed Project ..................................................................................509 Table V-19 Increased Commercial Alternative Vehicle Trip Generation....................513 Table V-20 Existing Plus Increased Commercial Alternative Intersection Level of
Service Summary..................................................................................514 Table V-21 Cumulative Year 2015 Baseline Intersection Level of Service
Summary (Increased Commercial Alternative) .......................................516 Table V-22 Cumulative Year 2030 Baseline Intersection Level of Service
Summary (Increased Commercial Alternative) .......................................518 Table V-23 CO Concentrations for Increase Commercial Alternative Conditions......520 Table V-24 Increased Commercial Alternative Regional Emissions in Pounds Per
Day ......................................................................................................521 Table V-25 Existing with Increased Commercial Alternative Traffic Noise Levels,
dBA......................................................................................................521 Table V-26 Cumulative Year 2015 Baseline Plus Increased Commercial
Alternative Traffic Noise Levels, dBA.....................................................522 Table V-27 Cumulative Year 2030 Baseline with Increased Commercial
Alternative Traffic Noise Levels, dBA.....................................................523 Table V-28 Increased Commercial Alternative Projected Wastewater Generation .....524 Table V-29 Summary of Project and Alternative Impacts .........................................527
-
N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\1-Introduction.doc (1/30/2008) 1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE OF EIR In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the environmental consequences of the proposed MacArthur Transit Village Project (project). This EIR is designed to inform City staff, the Planning Commission, City Council, Redevelopment Agency, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), other responsible and interested agencies, and the general public of: (1) the proposed project and the potential environmental consequences of the project, (2) mitigation measures recommended to lessen or avoid significant adverse impacts, and (3) a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the project. The information contained in the EIR will be reviewed and considered by public agencies prior to making a decision to approve, reject, or modify the proposed project. The City of Oakland (City) is the lead agency for environmental review of the proposed project, and BART is a Responsible Agency.
B. PROPOSED PROJECT The 8.2-acre project site is located in North Oakland, within the block bound by 40th Street, Telegraph Avenue, West MacArthur Boulevard, and State Route 24, as shown in Figure I-1. The project site includes the BART parking lot, the BART plaza, Frontage Road between West MacArthur Boulevard and 40th Street, and seven privately owned parcels. The MacArthur Transit Village Project seeks to redevelop and revitalize an underutilized site in Oakland to create a vibrant transit village that provides pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development (residential, commercial and community services) that enhances the character of the neighborhood and improves access to (for all travel modes) and ridership of BART. The project would include five buildings with up to 675 units of high-density multi-family housing, up to 44,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving commercial, and 5,000 square feet of community or childcare facility space. Up to 113 units, approximately 17 percent of the units (20 percent of total market-rate units), would be below market-rate, with the remainder of the units being market-rate residential units. The project includes approximately 700 residential, commercial and community use parking spaces and 300 BART parking spaces. The proposed project also includes several public infrastructure upgrades, including two new streets in the project site, improvements to the existing access road that connects 40th
-
Emeryville
Berkeley
W. MACARTHUR BLVD.
HO
LLIS
ST.
32ND ST.
HO
RTO
N S
T.
CH
RIS
TIE
AVE.
SHEL
LMO
UN
DAV
E.
WES
T ST
.
MACA THUR
WES
T ST
.TT
PROJECTLOCATION
FIGURE I-1
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, 2000.
N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\Figures (01/08)
MacArthur Transit Village Project EIRProject Location and
Regional Vicinity Map
FIGURE I-1
Legend
Project Site
feet
40000 2000 Cumulative Project Study Area for Select Topics(Land Use, Transportation, Operational Noise and Aesthetics)
2
-
J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M A C A R T H U R T R A N S I T V I L L A G E P R O J E C T E I R I . I N T R O D U C T I O N
N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\1-Introduction.doc (1/30/2008) 3
Street with MacArthur Boulevard, the renovation of the existing BART entry plaza, inter-modal improvements, a new intermodal area, and a new public plaza adjacent to the commercial space.
C. EIR SCOPE The City of Oakland circulated two Notices of Preparation (NOP), which stated that all environmental topics identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines would be evaluated in the EIR. The first NOP was published on February 15, 2006, and the public comment period for the scope of the EIR lasted from February 15, 2006 to March 16, 2006. Due to changes in the project description, a second NOP was circulated on June 13, 2007. The public comment period lasted from June 13, 2007 to July 13, 2007. Both NOPs were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the project site. The NOPs were also sent to responsible and trustee agencies, organizations, and interested individuals. Additionally, the NOPs were sent to the State Clearinghouse. Two scoping sessions were held for the project. The first was a public scoping session for public agencies on February 28, 2006. Additionally, a scoping meeting was held in conjunction with a Planning Commission meeting on March 15, 2006. Comments received by the City on the NOP at the agency scoping meeting and at the public scoping meeting were taken into account during the preparation of the EIR. NOP comments were received from public agencies, area property owners and concerned citizens regarding a wide range of issues to be addressed in this EIR. Topic areas that were most widely referenced in the NOP comments letters include transportation, parking, air quality, noise, visual resources, storm drainage and water quality, utilities and infrastructure. Additionally, several comments related to non-CEQA topics (i.e., building design and architecture and crime). The NOPs and written comments received are included in Appendix A. The following environmental topics are addressed in this EIR:
A. Land Use B. Public Policy C. Transportation, Circulation and Parking D. Air Quality E. Noise and Vibration F. Hydrology and Water Quality G. Geology, Soils and Seismicity H. Public Health and Hazards I. Public Services J. Utilities and Infrastructure K. Cultural and Paleontological Resources L. Aesthetic Resources
-
M A C A R T H U R T R A N S I T V I L L A G E P R O J E C T E I R J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 I . I N T R O D U C T I O N
4 N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\1-Introduction.doc (1/30/2008)
Environmental topics not warranting detailed evaluation (agricultural resources, biological resources, mineral resources, and population and housing) are discussed in Chapter VI.D, under Effects Found Not to be Significant.
D. REPORT ORGANIZATION This EIR is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter I – Introduction: Discusses the overall EIR purpose; provides a summary of the proposed project; describes the EIR scope; and summarizes the organization of the EIR.
Chapter II – Summary: Provides a summary of the impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project, and describes Standard Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures recommended to avoid or reduce significant impacts.
Chapter III – Project Description: Provides a description of the project objectives, project site, site development history, the proposed development, and required approval process.
Chapter IV – Setting, Impacts, Standard Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures: Describes the following for each environmental technical topic: existing conditions (setting); Standard Conditions of Approval; significance criteria; potential environmental impacts and their level of significance; Standard Conditions of Approval relied upon to ensure significant impacts would not occur; and mitigation measures recommended when necessary to mitigate identified impacts. Cumulative impacts are also discussed in each technical topic section. Potential adverse impacts are identified by levels of significance, as follows: less-than-significant impact (LTS), significant impact (S), and significant and unavoidable impact (SU). The significance level is identified for each impact before and after implementation of the recommended mitigation measure(s).
Chapter V – Alternatives: Provides an evaluation of seven alternatives to the proposed project. Three of the alternatives are included to meet the CEQA requirement that require an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substant-ially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The CEQA alternatives include the: No Project/No Build Alternative; Existing Zoning Alternative; and Mitigated Reduced Building/Site Alternative. Three additional planning alternatives to the project are also considered: Proposed Project with Full BART Replacement Parking Alternative; Tower Alternative; and Increased Commercial Alternative. These alternatives are evaluated primarily to consider variants to the project that may be desirable to the project developer, the City, BART, and/or members of the community, but might not lessen or avoid any of the significant, adverse environmental effects of the project.
-
J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M A C A R T H U R T R A N S I T V I L L A G E P R O J E C T E I R I . I N T R O D U C T I O N
N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\1-Introduction.doc (1/30/2008) 5
Chapter VI – CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions: Provides the required analysis of growth-inducing impacts; significant irreversible changes; effects found not to be significant; and significant unavoidable and cumulative impacts.
Chapter VII – Report Preparation: Identified preparers of the EIR, references used, and the persons and organizations contacted.
Appendices: The appendices contain the NOPs and written comments submitted on the NOPs; traffic, air quality and noise modeling data and supporting analysis; the Water Supply Assessment; and Land Use Database and Cumulative Growth Scenario.
All supporting technical documents and the reference documents are available for public review at the City of Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency, Planning Division, under case number ER06004. The Draft EIR is available for public review for the period identified in the Notice of Availability attached to the front of this document. During this time, written comments on the Draft EIR may be submitted to the City of Oakland Community & Economic Development Agency, Planning Division at the address indicated on the Notice of Availability. Responses to all comments received on the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR during the specified review period will be included in the Response to Comments/Final EIR.
-
M A C A R T H U R T R A N S I T V I L L A G E P R O J E C T E I R J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 I . I N T R O D U C T I O N
6 N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\1-Introduction.doc (1/30/2008)
-
N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\2-Summary.doc (1/30/2008) 7
II. SUMMARY
A. PROJECT UNDER REVIEW This EIR has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the MacArthur Transit Village project. The project site includes the BART parking lot, the BART plaza, Frontage Road between West MacArthur Boulevard and 40th Street, and seven privately-owned parcels. The MacArthur Transit Village Project seeks to redevelop and revitalize an underutilized site in Oakland to create a vibrant transit village that provides pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development (residential, commercial and community services) that enhances the character of the neighborhood and improves access to (for all travel modes) and ridership of BART. The 8.2-acre project site is located in North Oakland, within the block bound by 40th Street, Telegraph Avenue, West MacArthur Boulevard, and State Route 24 (SR-24), as shown in Figure I-1. The project would include five buildings with up to 675 units of high-density multi-family housing, up to 44,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving commercial, and 5,000 square feet of community space or childcare facility space. Approximately 17 percent of the units (20 percent of total market-rate units) would be below market-rate (affordable), with the remainder of the units being market-rate condominiums. The project includes approximately 700 residential, commercial and community use parking spaces and 300 BART patron parking spaces. The proposed project is described in detailed in Chapter III, Project Description.
B. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES This summary provides an overview of the analysis contained in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts, Standard Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures. CEQA requires a summary to include discussion of: (1) potential areas of controversy; (2) significant impacts; (3) cumulative impacts; (4) significant irreversible and unavoidable impacts; and (5) alternatives to the proposed project. Each of these topics are summarized below.
1. Potential Areas of Controversy Letters and verbal comments received on the Notices of Preparation (NOP) (February 15, 2006 and June 13, 2006) raised a number of topics that the commentors wanted addressed in the EIR, including transportation, parking, air quality, noise, visual resources, storm drainage and water quality, utilities and infrastructure impacts that may result from the proposed project. In addition, some of the comments offered in the NOP comment letters addressed the merits of the project itself and not the potential adverse environmental
-
M A C A R T H U R T R A N S I T V I L L A G E P R O J E C T E I R J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 I I . S U M M A R Y
8 N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\2-Summary.doc (1/30/2008)
impacts that are the subject of this EIR. Verbal comments offered by those in attendance at the CEQA Scoping Sessions, held on February 28, 2006 and March 15, 2006, included many of the comments offered in writing as comments on the NOP. Copies of the NOPs and written comment letters are included in Appendix A.
2. Significant Impacts Under CEQA, a significant impact on the environment is defined as “…a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.”1 Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in adverse environmental impacts related to transportation. Transportation impacts would be significant without the implementation of Standard Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures, but, with the exception of two intersections (#3 and #22), would be reduced to a less-than-significant level if the Standard Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures noted in this report are implemented. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant for all other environmental topics.
3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Chapter V includes the analysis of three alternatives to the proposed project to meet the requirements of CEQA to analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that would feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The three project CEQA alternatives analyzed in Chapter V include:
The No Project/No Build Alternative, which assumes the continuation of existing conditions within the project site.
The Existing Zoning Alternative, which assumes development in accordance with the existing zoning (C-28 and R-70) and General Plan land use designation (Neighborhood Center Mixed-Use). The Existing Zoning Alternative would include demolition of all existing buildings and the BART parking lot and remediation of hazardous materials on-site. Development under this alternative would include 530 dwelling units, 44,000 square feet of commercial space (this may include a community space) and approximately 1,015 parking spaces (including 300 exclusive BART parking spaces). Development would consist of five new buildings (including a parking garage). Structures within the existing C-28 zone (properties adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard and Telegraph Avenue) would have a maximum height of 55 feet and structures within the R-70 zone (properties currently developed with the BART parking lot) would have a maximum height of 40 feet. This alternative would include new access/circulation improvements and BART plaza improvements.
114 California Code Regs. 15382; Public Resources Code 21068.
-
J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 M A C A R T H U R T R A N S I T V I L L A G E P R O J E C T E I R I . S U M M A R Y
N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\2-Summary.doc (1/30/2008) 9
The Mitigated Reduced Building/Site Alternative, which assumes development would only occur on the BART parking lot. The Mitigated Reduced Building/Site Alternative would include demolition of the BART parking lot, but all other buildings and uses would remain. Development under this alternative would include four five- to six-story structures with approximately 200 dwelling units, 20,000 square feet of commercial space and 750 parking spaces (including 300 exclusive BART parking spaces).
Three additional planning alternatives to the project are also considered in this EIR. These alternatives may not lessen or avoid any of the significant, adverse environmental effects of the project as they are evaluated primarily to consider variants to the project that may be desirable to the project developer, the City, BART, and/or members of the community. The planning/project merit alternatives analyzed in Chapter V include:
The Proposed Project with Full BART Replacement Parking Alternative, which assumes the proposed project is developed with a 600-space parking garage for BART patrons (as opposed to a 300-space parking garage for BART patrons). Parking spaces under the Proposed Project with Full BART Replacement Parking would be approximately 1,300 with 600 exclusive BART parking spaces. All other project components remain the same (up to 675 residential units, 44,000 square feet of commercial area and 5,000 square feet of community space or childcare facility). Site improvements and circulation pattern are the same the proposed project.
The Tower Alternative, which assumes a 23-story tower building would be constructed at Building D. Under the proposed project, Building D is a four-story residential building. In the Tower Alternative, residential units would increase to 868 units with 720 market-rate and 148 affordable units (as opposed to 675 residential units with 562 market-rate and 113 affordable units) and parking would increase to approximately 1,210 parking spaces, including 300 exclusive BART parking spaces. All other project components remain relatively similar with 34,000 square feet of commercial area and 7,500 square feet of community space or childcare facility. Site improvements and circulation pattern are the same the proposed project.
The Increased Commercial Alternative, which assumes 172,000 square feet of commercial office development, would occur at Building A. Under the proposed project, Building A is a five- to six-story mixed-use building with 230 market-rate units above 26,000 square feet of ground floor commercial and live/work flex space. Under the Commercial Alternative, 172,000 square feet of commercial office space is introduced onto the site with 475 residential units (395 market-rate and 80 affordable units), 27,000 square feet of commercial commercial area and 5,000 of community space or childcare facility. Site improvements and circulation pattern are the same the proposed project.
-
M A C A R T H U R T R A N S I T V I L L A G E P R O J E C T E I R J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 I I . S U M M A R Y
10 N:\2007\1407011 MacArthur BART Transit Village EIR\Documents\Public Review Draft\2-Summary.doc (1/30/2008)
4. Significant Unavoidable and Cumulative Impacts As discussed at the end of each topical section in Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, the project would not significantly contribute to any significant cumulative impacts for any topics other than transportation. The project would significantly contribute to cumulative impacts at the following intersections:
Telegraph Avenue/52nd Street and Claremont Avenue intersection (#2)
Telegraph Avenue/51st Street intersection (#3)
West Street/40th Street intersection (#8)
the Telegraph Avenue/40th Street intersection (#13)
Market Street/MacArthur Boulevard intersection (#16)
Telegraph Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard intersection (#20)
Broadway/MacArthur Boulevard intersection (#22) The project’s contribution to the cumulative impact at each of the above intersections can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level except at intersection #3 and intersection #22. No other significant and unavoidable impacts would result.
C. SUMMARY TABLE Information in Table II-1, Summary of Impacts, City Standard Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures has been organized to correspond with environmental issues discussed in Chapter IV. The table is arranged in four columns: (1) impacts; (2) level of significance prior to mitigation (when mitigation is necessary); (3) required Standard Conditions of Approval and/or recommended mitigation measures; and (4) level of significance after implementation of Standard Conditions of Approval and/or mitigation. Levels of significance are categorized as follows: LTS = Less Than Significant; S = Significant; and SU = Significant and Unavoidable. A series of mitigation measures is noted where more than one mitigation measure is required to achieve a less-than-significant impact, and alternative mitigation measures are identified when available. For a complete description of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, please refer to the specific discussions in Chapter IV. Table II-2 lists recommended improvements identified throughout the document to address project issues not considered significant environmental impacts under CEQA. The recommendations should be considered by the City during the review of the project’s merits, independent of the CEQA impacts and mitigation measures. The failure to adopt such recommendations, however, would not result in any new impacts or the increase in severity of previously identified impacts.
-
JA
NU
AR
Y 2
00
8
MA
CA
RT
HU
R T
RA
NS
IT V
ILL
AG
E P
RO
JE
CT
EIR
II.
SU
MM
AR
Y
LTS
= L
ess
Th
an S
ign
ific
ant
, SU
= S
ignif
ican
t an
d U
nav
oid
able
, S
= S
ignif
ican
t
N:\
20
07
\14
07
01
1 M
acA
rthur
BAR
T T
ransi
t V
illag
e EI
R\D
ocu
men
ts\P
ublic
Rev
iew
Dra
ft\2
-Su
mm
ary.
doc
(1/3
0/2
008
)
11
Tab
le I
I-1
Su
mm
ary
of
Imp
act
s, C
on
dit
ion
s o
f A
pp
roval
(CO
A)
an
d M
itig
ati
on
Measu
res (
MM
)
Imp
act
Level o
f
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Wit
ho
ut
M
M
Sta
nd
ard
CO
A/M
M
Level o
f
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Wit
h
MM
/CO
A
A. L
AN
D U
SE
No
signif
icant
land u
se im
pact
s w
ould
occ
ur.
B. P
UBLIC
PO
LIC
Y
No
signif
icant
public
pol
icy
impact
s w
ould
occ
ur.
C. T
RA
NSPO
RT
AT
ION, C
IRC
ULA
TIO
N A
ND
PA
RK
ING
No
signif
icant
const
ruct
ion p
erio
d t
ransp
orta
tion
-rel
ate
d im
pact
s w
ould
occ
ur
wit
h im
ple
men
tati
on o
f th
e C
ity
Standard
Con
dit
ions
of A
ppro
val lis
ted in t
his
table
.
CO
A T
RA
NS-1
: Pri
or
to t
he
issu
ance
of
each
build
ing p
erm
it, th
e pro
ject
spon
sor
and c
onst
ruct
ion
contr
acto
r sh
all m
eet
wit
h t
he
Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n S
ervi
ces
Div
isio
n
and o
ther
appro
pri
ate
Cit
y of
Oak
lan
d a
gen
cies
to d
eter
min
e tr
affi
c m
anag
emen
t st
rate
gie
s to
red
uce
, to
the
max
imum
exte
nt
feas
ible
, tr
affi
c co
nges
tion
an
d t
he
effe
cts
of
par
king d
eman
d b
y co
nst
ruct
ion
work
ers
duri
ng c
onst
ruct
ion
of
this
pro
ject
an
d o
ther
nea
rby
pro
ject
s th
at c
ould
be
sim
ult
aneo
usl
y un
der
co
nst
ruct
ion
. The
pro
ject
sponso
r sh
all dev
elop a
const
ruct
ion
man
agem
ent
pla
n
for
revi
ew a
nd a
ppro
val by
the
Cit
y Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n S
ervi
ces
Div
isio
n.
Th
e pla
n
shal
l al
so b
e su
bm
itte
d t
o B
ART a
nd A
C T
ran
sit
for
revi
ew a
nd c
om
men
t. T
he
pla
n s
hal
l in
clude
at lea
st t
he
follo
win
g ite
ms
and
req
uir
emen
ts:
A
set
of
com
pre
hen
sive
tra
ffic
contr
ol m
easu
res,
in
cludin
g s
ched
ulin
g o
f m
ajor
truck
tri
ps
and d
eliv
erie
s to
avo
id p
eak
traf
fic
hours
, det
our
sign
s if
re
quir
ed, la
ne
closu
re p
roce
dure
s, s
ign
s, c
ones
for
dri
vers
, an
d d
esig
nat
ed
con
stru
ctio
n a
cces
s ro
ute
s.
N
oti
fica
tion
pro
cedure
s fo
r ad
jace
nt
pro
per
ty o
wn
ers
and p
ublic
saf
ety
per
sonnel
reg
ardin
g w
hen
maj
or
del
iver
ies,
det
ours
, an
d lan
e cl
osu
res
will
occ
ur.
Lo
cati
on
of
const
ruct
ion
sta
gin
g a
reas
for
mat
eria
ls, eq
uip
men
t, a
nd v
ehic
les
(must
be
loca
ted o
n t
he
pro
ject
sit
e).
Id
enti
fica
tion o
f hau
l ro
ute
s fo
r m
ove
men
t of
const
ruct
ion
veh
icle
s th
at
would
min
imiz
e im
pac
ts o
n v
ehic
ula
r an
d p
edes
tria
n t
raff
ic, ci
rcula
tion
an
d
safe
ty; an
d p
rovi
sion
for
mon
itori
ng
surf
ace
stre
ets
use
d f
or
hau
l ro
ute
s so
th
at a
ny
dam
age
and d
ebri
s at
trib
uta
ble
to t
he
hau
l tr
uck
s ca
n b
e id
enti
fied
an
d c
orr
ecte
d b
y th
e pro
ject
applic
ant.
LTS
-
MA
CA
RT
HU
R T
RA
NS
IT V
ILL
AG
E P
RO
JE
CT
EIR
J
AN
UA
RY
20
08
II
. S
UM
MA
RY
LTS
= L
ess
Th
an S
ign
ific
ant
, SU
= S
ignif
ican
t an
d U
nav
oid
able
, S
= S
ignif
ican
t
12
N
:\20
07
\14
07
01
1 M
acA
rthur
BAR
T T
ransi
t V
illag
e EI
R\D
ocu
men
ts\P
ublic
Rev
iew
Dra
ft\2
-Su
mm
ary.
doc
(1/3
0/2
008
)
Tab
le I
I-1
Su
mm
ary
of
Imp
act
s, C
on
dit
ion
s o
f A
pp
roval
(CO
A)
an
d M
itig
ati
on
Measu
res (
MM
)
Imp
act
Level o
f
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Wit
ho
ut
M
M
Stan
dard
CO
A/M
M
Level o
f
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Wit
h
MM
/CO
A
CO
A T
RA
NS-
1 c
onti
nued
Tem
pora
ry c
onst
ruct
ion
fen
ces
to c
onta
in d
ebri
s an
d m
ater
ial an
d t
o s
ecure
th
e si
te.
Pr
ovi
sion
s fo
r re
mova
l of
tras
h g
ener
ated
by
pro
ject
con
stru
ctio
n a
ctiv
ity.
A
pro
cess
for
resp
on
din
g t
o,
and
tra
ckin
g,
com
pla
ints
per
tain
ing t
o
const
ruct
ion
act
ivit
y, in
cludin
g iden
tifi
cati
on
of
an o
n-s
ite
com
pla
int
man
ager
.
Su
bje
ct t
o C
ity
revi
ew a
nd a
ppro
val, p
rior
to s
tart
of
const
ruct
ion
, a
const
ruct
ion
work
er t
ran
sport
atio
n d
eman
d m
anag
emen
t (T
DM
) pro
gra
m
shal
l be
imple
men
ted t
o e
nco
ura
ge
const
ruct
ion
work
ers
to c
arpool or
use
al
tern
ativ
e tr
ansp
ort
atio
n m
odes
in
ord
er t
o r
educe
the
ove
rall
num
ber
of
vehic
le t
rips
asso
ciat
ed w
ith c
onst
ruct
ion
work
ers.
Id
enti
fica
tion a
nd m
ainte
nan
ce o
f ve
hic
ula
r, b
icyc
le, ped
estr
ian
and t
ransi
t ac
cess
to a
nd f
rom
the
BAR
T S
tati
on.
It is
anti
cipat
ed t
hat
this
Const
ruct
ion
Tra
ffic
Man
agem
ent
Plan
would
be
dev
eloped
in
the
conte
xt
of
a la
rger
Const
ruct
ion
Man
agem
ent
Plan
, w
hic
h w
ould
ad
dre
ss o
ther
iss
ues
such
as
hours
of
con
stru
ctio
n o
n-s
ite,
lim
itat
ion
s on
nois
e an
d d
ust
em
issi
on
s, a
nd o
ther
applic
able
ite
ms.
TRA
NS-
1:
Th
e ad
dit
ion
of
pro
ject
tra
ffic
would
ca
use
a s
ignif
ican
t im
pac
t at
the
Tel
egra
ph
A
ven
ue/
51
st S
tree
t in
ters
ecti
on (
#3
) un
der
C
um
ula
tive
Yea
r 2
01
5 B
asel
ine
Plus
Proje
ct
con
dit
ions.
Th
e pro
ject
would
contr
ibute
to L
OS
E oper
atio
ns
duri
ng
the
PM p
eak
hour
and in
crea
se
crit
ical
move
men
t av
erag
e del
ay b
y m
ore
than
6
seco
nds.
S TRA
NS-
1:
Opti
miz
e si
gn
al t
imin
g (i.e.
, ad
just
the
allo
cati
on
of
gre
en t
ime
for
each
inte
rsec
tion
appro
ach
) at
the
Tel
egra
ph A
ven
ue/
51
st S
tree
t in
ters
ecti
on a
nd
coord
inat
e si
gnal
ph
asin
g a
nd t
imin
g w
ith t
he
adja
cent
Tel
egra
ph A
ven
ue/
52
nd
Stre
et a
nd C
lare
mont
Ave
nue
inte
rsec
tion
an
d o
ther
inte
rsec
tion
s in
the
sam
e co
ord
inat
ion
gro
up
. To im
ple
men
t th
is m
easu
re, th
e p
roje
ct s
ponso
r sh
all
sub
mit
a s
ign
al o
pti
miz
atio
n p
lan
to C
ity
of
Oak
land’s
Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n S
ervi
ces
Div
isio
n f
or
revi
ew a
nd a
ppro
val. T
he
pla
n s
hal
l co
nsi
st o
f si
gnal
tim
ing
par
amet
ers
for
the
signal
s in
the
coord
inat
ion g
roup.
Th
e pro
ject
spon
sor
shal
l fu
nd
the
cost
of
pre
par
ing a
nd im
ple
men
ting t
he
pla
n.
LTS
-
JA
NU
AR
Y 2
00
8
MA
CA
RT
HU
R T
RA
NS
IT V
ILL
AG
E P
RO
JE
CT
EIR
II.
SU
MM
AR
Y
LTS
= L
ess
Th
an S
ign
ific
ant
, SU
= S
ignif
ican
t an
d U
nav
oid
able
, S
= S
ignif
ican
t
N:\
20
07
\14
07
01
1 M
acA
rthur
BAR
T T
ransi
t V
illag
e EI
R\D
ocu
men
ts\P
ublic
Rev
iew
Dra
ft\2
-Su
mm
ary.
doc
(1/3
0/2
008
)
13
Tab
le I
I-1
Su
mm
ary
of
Imp
act
s, C
on
dit
ion
s o
f A
pp
roval
(CO
A)
an
d M
itig
ati
on
Measu
res (
MM
)
Imp
act
Level o
f
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Wit
ho
ut
M
M
Stan
dard
CO
A/M
M
Level o
f
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Wit
h
MM
/CO
A
TRA
NS-
1 c
onti
nued
As
show
n in
Tab
le IV
.C-1
5, af
ter
imple
men
tati
on
of
this
mea
sure
, th
e in
ters
ecti
on
would
conti
nue
to o
per
ate
at L
OS
E duri
ng t
he
PM p
eak
hour.
H
ow
ever
, th
e in
crea
se in
ave
rage
del
ay f
or
the
crit
ical
move
men
ts w
ould
be
reduce
d t
o les
s th
an t
he
6-s
econ
d t
hre
shold
of
sign
ific
ance
. N
o s
ign
ific
ant
effe
cts
would
res
ult
fro
m im
ple
men
tati
on
of
this
mea
sure
.
TRA
NS-
2:
Th
e ad
dit
ion
of
pro
ject
tra
ffic
would
ca
use
a s
ignif
ican
t im
pac
t at
the
Mar
ket
Stre
et/M
acA
rthur
Boule
vard
inte
rsec
tion (#1
6)
un
der
Cum
ula
tive
Yea
r 2
01
5 B
asel
ine
Plus
Proje
ct
con
dit
ions.
Th
e pro
ject
would
deg
rade
inte
rsec
tion
oper
atio
ns
from
LO
S D
to L
OS
E d
uri
ng
the
PM p
eak
hour.
S TRA
NS-
2: C
han
ge
the
sign
al c
ycle
len
gth
to 9
0 s
econds
and o
pti
miz
e si
gnal
ti
min
g (i.e.
, ad
just
the
allo
cati
on
of
gre
en t
ime
for
each
inte
rsec
tion
appro
ach
) at
th
e M
arke
t St
reet
/Mac
Art
hur
Boule
vard
inte
rsec
tion
. To im
ple
men
t th
is m
easu
re,
the
pro
ject
spon
sor
shal
l su
bm
it a
sig
nal
opti
miz
atio
n p
lan
to C
ity
of
Oak
lan
d’s
Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n S
ervi
ces
Div
isio
n f
or
revi
ew a
nd a
ppro
val. T
he
pla
n s
hal
l co
nsi
st
of
sign
al t
imin
g p
aram
eter
s fo
r th
e M
arke
t St
reet
/Mac
Art
hur
Boule
vard
in
ters
ecti
on
. Th
e pro
ject
spon
sor
shal
l fu
nd t
he
cost
of
pre
par
ing a
nd
imp
lem
enti
ng t
he
pla
n.
As
show
n in
Tab
le IV
.C-1
5, af
ter
imple
men
tati
on
of
this
mea
sure
, th
e in
ters
ecti
on
would
oper
ate
at L
OS
C d
uri
ng
both
AM
an
d P
M p
eak h
ours
. N
o
signif
ican
t ef
fect
s w
ould
res
ult
fro
m im
ple
men
tati
on o
f th
is m
easu
re.
LTS
TRA
NS-
3:
Th
e ad
dit
ion
of
pro
ject
tra
ffic
would
ca
use
a s
ignif
ican
t im
pac
t at
the
Tel
egra
ph
A
ven
ue/
52
nd S
tree
t an
d C
lare
mont
Ave
nue
inte
rsec
tion
(#
2)
un
der
Cum
ula
tive
20
30
Bas
elin
e Pl
us
Proje
ct c
ond
itio
ns.
Th
e p
roje
ct w
ould
co
ntr
ibute
to L
OS
F oper
atio
ns
and in
crea
se
inte
rsec
tion
ave
rag
e del
ay b
y m
ore
than
2
sec
on
ds
duri
ng
the
AM
pea
k h
our;
would
co
ntr
ibute
to L
OS
E oper
atio
ns
and
in
crea
se
crit
ical
move
men
t av
erag
e del
ay b
y m
ore
than
6
sec
on
ds
duri
ng
the
PM p
eak
hour.
S TRA
NS-
3:
Imp
lem
ent
the
follo
win
g m
easu
res:
Pr
ohib
it lef
t-tu
rns
from
nort
hboun
d T
eleg
raph A
ven
ue
into
wes
tboun
d 5
2nd
Stre
et d
uri
ng
the
pea
k co
mm
ute
tim
es (i.e.
, 7:0
0 a
.m. to
9:0
0 a
.m. an
d 4
:00
p.m
. to
6:0
0 p
.m.)
. C
urr
entl
y, a
sm
all vo
lum
e of
traf
fic
use
s th
is m
ove
men
t (a
bout
10 p
eak
hour
veh
icle
s),
wh
ich
can
be
div
erte
d t
o 5
1st
Str
eet.
Th
us,
the
pea
k hour
pro
hib
itio
n o
n lef
t-tu
rns
would
not
resu
lt in
exce
ssiv
e an
d
circ
uit
ous
div
ersi
on
s.
C
han
ge
signal
cyc
le len
gth
to 1
20
sec
on
ds
and o
pti
miz
ing
sig
nal
tim
ing
(i.e.
, ad
just
the
allo
cati
on
of
gre
en t
ime
for
each
inte
rsec
tion
appro
ach
) at
the
Tel
egra
ph
Ave
nue/
52
nd S
tree
t an
d C
lare
mont
Ave
nue
inte
rsec
tion
; co
ord
inat
e si
gnal
tim
ing a
nd p
has
ing
wit
h t
he
adja
cent
Tel
egra
ph A
venue/
51
st S
tree
t in
ters
ecti
on
and o
ther
inte
rsec
tion
s in
the
sam
e co
ord
inat
ion
gro
up.
LTS
-
MA
CA
RT
HU
R T
RA
NS
IT V
ILL
AG
E P
RO
JE
CT
EIR
J
AN
UA
RY
20
08
II
. S
UM
MA
RY
LTS
= L
ess
Th
an S
ign
ific
ant
, SU
= S
ignif
ican
t an
d U
nav
oid
able
, S
= S
ignif
ican
t
14
N
:\20
07
\14
07
01
1 M
acA
rthur
BAR
T T
ransi
t V
illag
e EI
R\D
ocu
men
ts\P
ublic
Rev
iew
Dra
ft\2
-Su
mm
ary.
doc
(1/3
0/2
008
)
Tab
le I
I-1
Su
mm
ary
of
Imp
act
s, C
on
dit
ion
s o
f A
pp
roval
(CO
A)
an
d M
itig
ati
on
Measu
res (
MM
)
Imp
act
Level o
f
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Wit
ho
ut
M
M
Stan
dard
CO
A/M
M
Level o
f
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Wit
h
MM
/CO
A
TRA
NS-
3 c
onti
nued
To im
ple
men
t th
ese
mea
sure
s, t
he
pro
ject
sp
on
sor
shal
l su
bm
it t
he
follo
win
g t
o
Cit
y of
Oak
lan
d’s
Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n S
ervi
ces
Div
isio
n f
or
revi
ew a
nd a
ppro
val:
Si
gn
ing
pla
ns
to p
roh
ibit
lef
t-tu
rns
from
nort
hbound T
eleg
raph A
ven
ue
into
w
estb
oun
d 5
2nd S
tree
t.
Si
gn
al t
imin
g p
lan
s fo
r th
e si
gnal
s in
the
coord
inat
ion
gro
up.
Th
e p
roje
ct s
pon
sor
shal
l fu
nd
the
cost
of
pre
par
ing a
nd
im
ple
men
ting t
hes
e pla
ns.
As
show
n in
Tab
le IV
.C-1
7, af
ter
imple
men
tati
on
of
this
mea
sure
, th
e in
ters
ecti
on
would
conti
nue
to o
per
ate
at L
OS
F duri
ng t
he
AM
pea
k hour.
H
ow
ever
, th
e in
crea
se in
inte
rsec
tion
ave
rage
del
ay w
ould
be
red
uce
d t
o les
s th
an t
he
two-s
econd t
hre
shold
of
sign
ific
ance
. Th
e in
ters
ecti
on
would
oper
ate
at
LOS
C d
uri
ng t
he
PM p
eak
hour
afte
r im
ple
men
tati
on
of
this
mea
sure
. Th
e in
crea
se in
sig
nal
cyc
le len
gth
may
res
ult
in
addit
ional
del
ay f
or
ped
estr
ians
and
bic
ycle
s. H
ow
ever
, n
o s
ignif
ican
t ef
fect
s w
ould
res
ult
fro
m im
ple
men
tati
on o
f th
is m
easu
re.
TRA
NS-
4:
Th
e ad
dit
ion
of
pro
ject
tra
ffic
would
ca
use
a s
ignif
ican
t im
pac
t at
the
Tel
egra
ph
A
ven
ue/
51
st S
tree
t in
ters
ecti
on (
#3
) un
der
C
um
ula
tive
Yea
r 2
03
0 B
asel
ine
Plus
Proje
ct
con
dit
ions.
Th
e pro
ject
would
contr
ibute
to L
OS
F oper
atio
ns
duri
ng
both
AM
and P
M p
eak
hours
; w
ould
in
crea
se c
riti
cal m
ove
men
t av
erag
e del
ay
by
more
than
4 s
econ
ds
duri
ng
the
AM
pea
k
hour;
an
d w
ould
in
crea
se inte
rsec
tion
ave
rage
del
ay b
y m
ore
than
2 s
econ
ds
duri
ng
the
PM p
eak
hour.
S TRA
NS-
4:
Imp
lem
ent
the
follo
win
g m
easu
res:
C
han
ge
signal
cyc
le len
gth
to 1
20
sec
on
ds
and o
pti
miz
e si
gnal
tim
ing
(i.e.
, ad
just
the
allo
cati
on
of
gre
en t
ime
for
each
inte
rsec
tion
appro
ach
) at
the
Tel
egra
ph
Ave
nue/
51
st S
tree
t in
ters
ecti
on
an
d c
oord
inat
e si
gnal
phas
ing
and
tim
ing w
ith t
he
adja
cent
Tel
egra
ph A
ven
ue/
52
nd S
tree
t an
d C
lare
mont
Ave
nue
inte
rsec
tion
and o
ther
inte
rsec
tion
s in
the
sam
e co
ord
inat
ion
gro
up.
To
imp
lem
ent
this
mea
sure
, th
e pro
ject
spon
sor
shal
l su
bm
it a
sig
nal
opti
miz
atio
n p
lan
to C
ity
of
Oak
lan
d’s
Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n S
ervi
ces
Div
isio
n f
or
revi
ew a
nd a
ppro
val. T
he
pla
n s
hal
l co
nsi
st o
f si
gnal
tim
ing p
aram
eter
s fo
r th
e si
gnal
s in
the
coord
inat
ion g
roup
. Th
e p
roje
ct s
pon
sor
shal
l fu
nd t
he
cost
of
pre
par
ing a
nd
im
ple
men
ting t
he
pla
n.
SU
-
JA
NU
AR
Y 2
00
8
MA
CA
RT
HU
R T
RA
NS
IT V
ILL
AG
E P
RO
JE
CT
EIR
II.
SU
MM
AR
Y
LTS
= L
ess
Th
an S
ign
ific
ant
, SU
= S
ignif
ican
t an
d U
nav
oid
able
, S
= S
ignif
ican
t
N:\
20
07
\14
07
01
1 M
acA
rthur
BAR
T T
ransi
t V
illag
e EI
R\D
ocu
men
ts\P
ublic
Rev
iew
Dra
ft\2
-Su
mm
ary.
doc
(1/3
0/2
008
)
15
Tab
le I
I-1
Su
mm
ary
of
Imp
act
s, C
on
dit
ion
s o
f A
pp
roval
(CO
A)
an
d M
itig
ati
on
Measu
res (
MM
)
Imp
act
Level o
f
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Wit
ho
ut
M
M
Stan
dard
CO
A/M
M
Level o
f
Sig
nif
ican
ce
Wit
h
MM
/CO
A
TRA
NS-
4 c
onti
nued
As
show
n in
Tab
le IV
.C-1
7, af
ter
chan
gin
g t
he
signal
cyc
le a
nd t
urn
s, t
he
inte
rsec
tion
would
conti
nue
to o
per
ate
at L
OS
F duri
ng t
he
PM p
eak
hour,
an
d
the
incr
ease
in
ave
rag
e del
ay f
or
the
crit
ical
move
men
ts w
ould
conti
nue
to b
e m
ore
than
the
4-s
econd t
hre
shold
of
signif
ican
ce.
Th
us,
this
mea
sure
is
not
suff
icie
nt
to m
itig
ate
the
impac
t to
a les
s-th
an-s
ignif
ican
t le
vel. In
addit
ion
, th
e in
crea
se in
sig
nal
cyc
le len
gth
may
res
ult
in
addit
ion
al d
elay
for
ped
estr
ian
s an
d b
icyc
les.
To h
elp f
urt
her
min
imiz
e im
pac
ts a
t th
is inte
rsec
tion
, a
Tra
nsp
ort
atio
n
Dem
and M
anag
emen
t (T
DM
) p
rogra
m s
hal
l b
e im
ple
men
ted
at
the
pro
ject
sit
e to
en
coura
ge
more
res
iden
ts a
nd
em
plo
yees
to s
hif
t fr
om
dri
ving a
lone
to
oth
er m
odes
of
trav
el. Po
tenti
al T
DM
mea
sure
s m
ay in
clude,
but
are
not
limit
ed t
o, tr
ansi
t ti
cket
subsi
die
s, a
war
enes
s pro
gra
ms,
dir
ect
tran
sit
sale
s,
pro
vidin
g a
guar
ante
ed r
ide
hom
e pro
gra
m,
and p
arki
ng
man
agem
ent
stra
tegie
s. T
he
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
TD
M p
rogra
m s
hal
l be
regula
rly
mon
itore
d, an
d if
nec
essa
ry a
dju
sted
to m
eet
its
goal
s. T
he
pro
ject
applic
ant
shal
l su
bm
it t
he
TD
M p
rog
ram
to t
he
Cit
y fo
r it
s re
view
an
d a
ppro
val. T
he
pla
n s
hal
l al
so b
e su
bm
itte
d t
o B
AR
T f
or
revi
ew a
nd c
om
men
t. T
he
pro
ject
ap
plic
ant
shal
l al
so b
e re
spon
sib
le f
or
fun
din
g a
nd
im
ple
men
ting t
he
TD
M
pro
gra
m.
Th
e co
mpon
ents
of
the
pro
pose
d T