Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. Issues The Project site is located within the Coastal Ranges geomorphic province characterized by northwest trending ridges and valleys. The Coast Ranges can be further divided into the northern and southern ranges which are 1-22 Marinwood Plaza Project EIR
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. CEQA FINDING NO. GEO-MANAGEMENT-1 Impact: GEO-MANAGEMENT-1. Implementation of the Project at the location could result in erosion due to disturbance of the streambank or stream channel from the installation, operation, or removal of research and monitoring equipment. Finding(s): (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING(S) Activities proposed as part of the Project have the potential to change erosion patterns in the river. Releasing fish that have been trapped and hauled for management purposes may change the flow of water in both the upstream and downstream vicinity of the barrier or the release location. This changed flow could affect erosion patterns downstream. Implementation of MMs GEO-MANAGEMENT-1a and GEO-MANAGEMENT-1b have been incorporated into the Project to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Please see CEQA Finding No. FISH-MANAGEMENT-2 for MMs GEO-MANAGEMENT- 1a and GEO-MANAGEMENT-1b. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION. With the mitigation described above, this impact is reduced to a less than significant level. CEQA FINDING NO. GEO-MONITORING-1 Impact: GEO-MONITORING-1. Implementation of the Project at the location could result in erosion due to disturbance of the streambank or stream channel from trap and haul activities. Finding(s): (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING(S) Activities proposed as part of the Project have the potential to disturb the streambank or streambed. Instream monitoring equipment, including screw traps and fry traps, may be used in order to assess the effectiveness of the Project. Traps would need to be anchored either to the streambed or banks, and may disturb the streambanks or stream bottom during installation or removal. Such disturbances could create loose sediment that could potentially cause erosion and degrade downstream waters. Implementation of MMs GEO-MANAGEMENT-1a and GEO-MANAGEMENT-1b have been incorporated into the Project to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Please see CEQA Finding No. FISH-MANAGEMENT-2 for MMs GEO-MANAGEMENT- 1a and GEO-MANAGEMENT-1b. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION. With the mitigation described above, this impact is reduced ...
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. All new facilities would need to be designed and constructed to meet current building codes and EBMUD’s seismic design requirements and would comply with Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 from the 2011 EIR, which specify design of facilities to address potential seismic hazards. The HRS would not cause effects that were not analyzed in the 2011 EIR. No new mitigation measures would be required, and impacts would remain less than significant. GEO-1 requires EBMUD to perform site-specific, design-level geotechnical evaluations to identify potential secondary ground failure hazards (i.e., seismically-induced settlement) associated with the expected level of seismic ground shaking. For specific Land Use Master Plan element sites within the MWWTP that have previously been subject to a geotechnical investigation, a geotechnical memorandum shall be prepared to update the previous investigation. GEO-2 requires EBMUD to perform site-specific design-level geotechnical evaluations to identify geologic hazards and provide recommendations to mitigate those hazards in the final design and during construction. For specific Land Use Master Plan element sites within the MWWTP that have previously been subject to a geotechnical investigation, a geotechnical memorandum shall be prepared to update the previous investigation. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: GHG emissions associated with construction of the HRS would be less than the emissions associated with construction of the food waste preprocessing facility, because the HRS facilities are smaller and construction would require less equipment over a shorter construction period. Mitigation Measure GHG-1, requiring GHG reduction measures during construction, would be applicable to the construction of the HRS. The refueling station would facilitate use of fuel cell electric vehicles at the Port of Oakland (Port) and would thus reduce GHG emissions from trucks servicing the Port, which is consistent with Mitigation Measure GHG-2a from the 2011 EIR. Mitigation Measure GHG-2b: Water Conservation Measures would be implemented as appropriate. The HRS would not cause effects that were not analyzed in the 2011 EIR. No new mitigation measures would be required, and impacts would remain less than significant with implementation of the HRS. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requires EBMUD to implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) for GHG emissions where feasible, that include at...
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. GEO-1: Facility damage and exposure of people to hazards from strong seismic groundshaking GEO-1: Perform Design-Level Geotechnical Evaluations for Seismic Hazards: During the design phase for the proposed project, perform site-specific, design-level geotechnical evaluations to identify potential secondary ground failure hazards (i.e., seismically-induced settlement) associated with the expected level of seismic ground shaking. A geotechnical memorandum shall be prepared to detail the findings of the evaluations. The geotechnical analysis will provide recommendations to mitigate those hazards in the final design and, if necessary, during construction. The design-level geotechnical evaluations, based on the site conditions, location, and professional opinion of the geotechnical engineer, may include subsurface drilling, soil testing, and analysis of site seismic response to determine appropriate feasible measures to be incorporated into the project design. The performance standard to be used in the geotechnical evaluations will be minimization of the hazards associated with liquefaction and seismic groundshaking. The geotechnical engineer will review the seismic design criteria of facilities to ensure that facilities are designed to withstand the highest expected peak acceleration, set forth by the California Building Code for each site, and ensure that secondary ground failures, such as liquefaction, are minimized. Recommendations resulting from findings of the geotechnical study will be incorporated into the design and construction of proposed facilities. City of Modesto City of Modesto 1. Confirm geotechnical evaluations have been completed 2. Confirm that contract documents include recommendations of geotechnical study. 1. Design 2. Design. 1. 2. Impact Statement Mitigation Measure (Exact Text) Party Responsible for Implementation and Reporting Review and Approval by: Monitoring and Reporting Actions Implementation Schedule -Design -Pre- construction -Construction -Operation Verification: Status/ Date Completed/ Initials GEO-2: Facility damage and exposure of people to hazards from liquefaction and lateral spreading GEO-2: Perform Design-Level Geotechnical Evaluations for Soil Expansion: During the design phase for all components of the project, a design-level geotechnical evaluation to determine the presence and characteristics of potentially compressible and expansive soils, the engineering properties of the foundation material, and the depth and thic...
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. CEQA FINDING NO. GEO-1 Impact: Impact GEO-1: Facility Damage and Exposure of People to Hazards from Strong Seismic Groundshaking. Finding(s): (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING(S) Activities proposed as part of the Project have the potential to result in damage from groundshaking and liquefaction. Implementation of MM GEO-1 has been incorporated into the Project to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MM GEO-1: Perform Design-Level Geotechnical Evaluations for Seismic Hazards. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION. With the mitigation described above, this impact is reduced to a less than significant level. CEQA FINDING NO. GEO-2 Impact: Impact GEO-2: Facility Damage and Exposure of People to Hazards from Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading. Finding(s): (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDING(S) Activities proposed as part of the Project have the potential to result in damage from expansive soils. Implementation of MM GEO-2 has been incorporated into the Project to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MM GEO-2: Perform Design-Level Geotechnical Evaluations for Soil Expansion. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION. With the mitigation described above, this impact is reduced to a less than significant level.
