Document elcerrito_gov_doc_0f4a54a756

April 2007 P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T W INDRUSH SCHOOL M A STER PL A N INITI A L STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATI V E DECL A R ATION ---PAGE BREAK--- Submitted to: City of El Cerrito Community Development Department City Hall, 10890 San Pablo Ave El Cerrito, CA 94530 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 [PHONE REDACTED] April 2007 W INDRUSH SCHOOL M A STER PL A N INITI A L STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATI V E DECL A R ATION P U B L I C R E V I E W D R A F T ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) i TABLE OF CONTENTS A. B. DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION C. PROJECT D. I. AESTHETICS II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES III. AIR IV. BIOLOGICAL V. CULTURAL RESOURCES VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER IX. LAND USE AND X. MINERAL RESOURCES XI. NOISE XII. POPULATION AND XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES XIV. RECREATION XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE E. REPORT PREPARERS F. BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX B HISTORIC RESOURCES EVALUATION REPORT APPENDIX C TRANSPORTATION DATA ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) ii TABLES Table 1: General Plan Noise Level 4 Table 2: Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, January 17, 2007 4 Table 3: Typical Construction Equipment Noise 4 Table 4: LOS/Delay At Intersections 4 Table 5: Trip Generation 4 Table 6: Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions LOS 4 FIGURES Figure 1: Project Site 4 Figure 2: Existing Site Plan 4 Figure 3: Site 4 Figure 4: Master Plan – All 4 Figure 5: Landscape 4 Figure 6: Strom Water Control 4 Figure 7: View Analysis 4 Figure 8: Visual Simulations From Neighboring 4 Figure 9: Visual Simulations on Project 4 Figure 10: Monitoring 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 1 A. INTRODUCTION This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) includes an evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed Windrush School Master Plan. All significant environmental impacts of the Master Plan would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures outlined in this document. Components of the IS/MND. The IS/MND includes the following components: • A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, the formal finding made by the City of El Cerrito (City) that the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment (after mitigation); • Summarized project information (including a list of agencies that would grant project approvals); • A detailed Project Description; • The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Checklist, which provides standards for determining whether a project’s environmental impacts would be significant in relation to 16 different topical areas. Brief discussions are provided outlining the project’s anticipated environmental impacts in relation to each environmental topic, and mitigation measures are recommended to reduce each identified significant impact to a less-than-significant level. • Appendix materials that provide more detailed information on geologic, historic, and traffic issues as they relate to the project. CEQA Process. The CEQA process for this project started after Windrush School (the project applicant) submitted an application for an amended Use Permit, which would allow for changes to the existing Master Plan. Because a Use Permit involves a discretionary approval by the City of El Cerrito (City) that could result in adverse environmental effects, the project is subject to CEQA. An Initial Study (IS), which comprises a portion of this document, was prepared to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND/MND) would need to be prepared to satisfy CEQA requirements. The analysis in this IS indicates that, with recommended mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts; therefore, an MND has been prepared. The IS/MND will be released for 30 days for public and agency review; at this time, individuals and agencies may submit comments on the adequacy of the environmental review. Following the public review period, the City will consider any comments received on the IS/MND in its decision to adopt the MND. After adoption of the MND, the City will decide whether to grant the discretionary approvals requested by the project applicant. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 2 B. DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Name. Windrush School Master Plan Project Location. Windrush School is an independent elementary and middle school located on a 4- acre site at 1800 Elm Street in the City of El Cerrito (City).The site is located to the east of the intersection of Key Boulevard, Elm Street, and Hill Street, and is bordered by residential uses to the north, east, and south, and by Elm Street to the west. The school is located approximately two blocks east of the El Cerrito del Norte Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, and consists of one parcel (APN 502-122-041). Description of Project. The project would result in an amendment to the existing use permit (which was last amended in November 1998). The amended use permit would allow Windrush School to proceed with the following key changes to the existing Master Plan over a four phase, 20-year period: • Increase enrollment from 250 students to 330 students 5 percent) during the regular school year and from 125 students to 175 students during summer sessions; • Improve accessibility; • Undertake a 23,000 (net) increase in additional floor space; and • Increase building height limits from two stories to a maximum of 35 feet. Phase 1 would include the replacement of an existing one-story classroom wing in front of the gymnasium with a new two-story 13,500 square-foot addition in the same location. The new addition would contain an interim library, classrooms, and a supporting circulation area. Phase 2 would include the construction of a new library, performing arts classroom, and a dance classroom adjacent to the gymnasium and Phase 1 classrooms. These uses would be accommodated in a 9,000 square- foot addition. Phases 3 and 4 would include the renovation of the existing main classroom and administration building, and the replacement of an existing 5,000 square-foot classroom with a new 5,500 square-foot classroom, respectively. Findings. It is hereby determined that, based on the information contained in the attached Initial Study, the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Mitigation measures necessary to avoid potentially significant effects on the environment are detailed on the following pages. These mitigation measures are hereby incorporated and are fully made part of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project applicant hereby agrees to incorporate as part of the project and implement each of the identified mitigation measures, which would be adopted as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Date: 4-11-07 City of El Cerrito ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 3 1. Project Title: Windrush School Master Plan 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of El Cerrito Community Development Department City Hall, 10890 San Pablo Ave El Cerrito, CA 94530 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Sarah L. Goralewski, Associate Planner Phone Number: (510) 215-4330 e-mail: [EMAIL REDACTED] 4. Project Location: Windrush School is an independent elementary and middle school located on a 4-acre site at 1800 Elm Street in the City of El Cerrito (City).The site is located east of the intersection of Key Boulevard, Elm Street, and Hill Street. It is bordered by residential uses to the north, east, and south, and by Elm Street to the west. The school is located approximately two blocks east of the El Cerrito del Norte Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, and consists of one parcel (APN 502-122-041). Figure 1 shows the location of the project. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Windrush School 1800 Elm Street El Cerrito, CA 9450 6. General Plan Designation: Institutional and Utility 7. Zoning: The entire site, with the exception of the southwestern corner, is zoned Single-Family Residential District The southwestern corner of the site is zoned Duplex Residential District (R-2).1 1 As of March 2007, the City is in the process of revising the Zoning Ordinance. The Administrative Draft of the Zoning Ordinance revision designates the proposed zoning for the project site as Public/Semi-Public (PS). ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 4 8. Description of Project: The project would result in an amendment to the existing use permit (which was last amended in November 1998). The amended use permit would allow, over a four phase, 20-year period, Windrush School to: • Increase enrollment from 250 students to 330 students 5 percent) during the regular school year and from 125 students to 175 students during summer sessions; • Improve accessibility; • Increase building area by 23,000 square feet (net) increase in additional floor space; and • Increase building height limits from two stories to a maximum of 35 feet. Phase 1 would include the replacement of an existing one-story classroom wing in front of the gymnasium with a new two-story 13,500 square-foot addition in the same location. The new addition would contain an interim library, classrooms, and a supporting circulation area. Phase 2 would include the construction of a new library, performing arts classroom, and a dance classroom adjacent to and north of the gymnasium and the Phase 1 classrooms. These uses would be accommodated in a 9,000 square-foot addition. Phases 3 and 4 would include the renovation of the existing main classroom and administration building, and the replacement of an existing 5,000 stand-alone square-foot classroom building with a new 5,500 square-foot classroom building, respectively. Refer to Section A, Project Description, and Figure 4 for additional detail. As part of the proposed project, the applicant is requesting adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and is requesting City approval of a use permit amendment to the Windrush School Master Plan. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site, which comprises the existing campus of the Windrush School, is located in the City of El Cerrito in Contra Costa County. The site is approximately two blocks east of the El Cerrito del Norte BART station and three blocks east of San Pablo Avenue, which is a major commercial and transit corridor in the City. The school is located in a residential neighborhood, and is bordered primarily by single-family residential uses on the north, east, and south (one multi-family residential building is located east of the site). The site is bordered by Elm Street on the west. Beyond Elm Street are single- family residential uses; approximately one block to the east of the project site, residential uses transition to the large parking lots surrounding the BART station. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) • Regional Water Quality Control Board • Stege Sanitary District • East Bay Municipal Utility District • Pacific Gas and Electric ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECT SITE Elm S t. Parking Parking Hill St. Hill St. BART- BART- El Cerrito El Cerrito Del Norte Del Norte Station Station Liberty St. Liberty St. Elm St. Elm St. RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL Glen Mawr Ave. Glen Mawr Ave. Snowdon Ave. Snowdon Ave. Walnut St. Walnut St. W e s l e y Av e. Mano r C ircl e H a g e n B l v d . Knott Ave. Knott Ave. Key Blvd. Key Blvd. Cutting Blvd. Cutting Blvd. Kenilworth Ave. Kenilworth Ave. Blake St. Blake St. RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL Elm St. Parking Hill St. BART- El Cerrito Del Norte Station Liberty St. Elm St. RESIDENTIAL Glen Mawr Ave. RESIDENTIAL Snowdon Ave. Walnut St. W e s l e y Av e. Mano r C ircl e H a g e n B l v d . Knott Ave. Key Blvd. Cutting Blvd. Kenilworth Ave. Blake St. feet 0 175 350 project site Hayward Walnut Creek Lafayette Richmond San Pablo Concord Berkeley El Cerrito Alameda Union City 101 80 80 13 24 1 880 238 92 280 580 San Leandro Sausalito Oakland PROJECT LOCATION 1 680 80 101 101 San Francisco 680 Danville SAN FRANCISCO BAY Regional Location FIGURE 1 SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, 2006 I:\CEC0602 windrush\figures\Fig_1.ai (1/16/07) Windrush School Master Plan Project Site and Regional Location ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 7 C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following discussion includes a description of the project site and surrounding land use, a history of the project site, project background information, and a description of the proposed project. 1. Setting of Project and Site Vicinity The project site comprises the approximately 4-acre campus of Windrush School, an independent elementary and middle school, located at 1800 Elm Street in El Cerrito. The site is located east of the intersection of Key Boulevard, Elm Street, and Hill Street, and is approximately two blocks east of the El Cerrito del Norte Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station and three blocks east of San Pablo Avenue. The site, which consists of one parcel (APN [PHONE REDACTED]), is bordered by residential uses to the north, east, and south, and Elm Street to the west (refer to Figure The site is designated for Institutional and Utility uses in the El Cerrito General Plan. The entire site, with the exception of the southwestern corner, is zoned Single-Family Residential District The southwestern corner of the site is zoned Duplex Residential District However, as of March 2007, the City was in the process of revising the Zoning Ordinance. The Administrative Draft of the Zoning ordinance revision designates the proposed zoning for the project site as Public/Semi-Public (PS). Existing Site Uses. Windrush School includes several existing campus buildings that are clustered along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site (refer to Figure The remainder of the site consists of open space, recreational facilities, driveways and parking areas, and walkways. The hilly campus contains two levels – a lower level and an upper level. The lower level includes most of the recreational facilities in the campus and the gymnasium building; the upper level includes most of the school’s classrooms and administrative facilities. According to the project sponsor, the topographic difference between the two levels has posed problems to wheelchair access in the campus. There are three site access points: 1) a surface parking lot in the southwest portion of the site, adjacent to and accessible from Elm Street (pathways connect this parking lot to the rest of the project site); 2) a driveway extending from the intersection of Hill Street and Elm Street that terminates in a parking lot adjacent to the main administrative/classroom building; and 3) a driveway extending along the northern boundary of the project site from Elm Street. School bus drop-offs occur on Elm Street (but out of main traffic flow); all other pick-ups and drop-offs occur within the campus at designated locations. Figure 3 includes photos of the project site. The site contains a total of four buildings with a footprint of 24,150 square feet (approximately 0.6 acres) and 33,500 square feet of interior space. The four buildings include: 1) a three-story main building in the northwestern portion of the site that contains classrooms and administrative space on five different levels; 2) a split-level one/two-story classroom building in the northeast portion of the site; 3) a small one-story art studio situated along the northern boundary of the site; and 4) a one-story gymnasium classroom building situated along the eastern boundary of the site. A turf play field, basketball court, informal open space areas, driveways, pathways, and parking areas comprise the remainder of the project site. Approximately 51 percent of the site is covered with impervious surfaces, including building footprints (building footprints cover approximately 13.9 percent of the site). ---PAGE BREAK--- Administrative / Classroom Classrooms Gymnasium Play Field Basketball Court Classroom Walnut Street Elm Street Key Blvd 3" DIAM TREE TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF PHASE 1 12' DIAM TREES TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF PHASE 4 PLAY AREA TO BE RELOCATED AS PART OF PHASE 4 LOW BUSHES & SMALL TREES TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF PHASES 1 & 2 24" MONTEREY PINE TREES TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF PHASE 1 feet 40 0 20 FIGURE 2 Windrush School Master Plan Existing Site Plan SOURCE: RATCLIFF, OCTOBER 2006. I:\CEC0602 windrush\figures\Fig_2.ai (1/17/07) ---PAGE BREAK--- View of Entry from Elm Street View of Main Building from Entry Drive View of Main Building View of Main Building Entry View from Gym Towards Main Building View of Gym View of Classroom Building View of Kindergarten Play Area FIGURE 3 Windrush School Master Plan Site Photos SOURCE: RATCLIFF, OCTOBER 2006. I:\CEC0602 windrush\figures\Fig_3.ai (1/25/07) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 11 The main parking area in the site is located in the southwestern portion of the campus, immediately adjacent to El Street. This parking lot contains 39 parking spaces. Additional parking is located along the main driveway extending from the intersection of Hill Street/Elm Street, and on the driveway extending along the northern boundary of the site. There are 57 parking spaces within the site. According to the project sponsor, there is an average of 24 unused spaces during school operation. The site currently contains 11 bicycle parking spaces. Existing Enrollment, Employment, and Operating Hours. The school has an enrollment cap of 250 students during the regular school year, with no more than 175 students in either elementary school or middle school; summer enrollment is capped at 125 students. The school currently employs 33 full-time employees and 17 part-time employees, a total of 41 full-time-equivalent (FTE) employees. The school operates from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. each day, including extended day programs (regular school sessions operate from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. each day). Classroom hours are staggered to reduce traffic surges in the morning and afternoon: Grades K-3: 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Grades 4-5: 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Grades 6-8: 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. In addition, Windrush School occasionally holds evening or weekend events. These events occur several times a year. 2. History of Project Site Prior to the 1930s, the project site was occupied by a dairy owned by the Heidie family. In 1935, the Chung Mei Home for homeless and orphaned Chinese-American boys was constructed on the site; the land was purchased for $10,000 with funds earned by the boys. The Chung Mei Home, which was run by Baptists, relocated to the El Cerrito site from the home’s original location in Berkeley (the home opened in Berkeley in 1923). According to a family history, the site was chosen because El Cerrito lacked laws prohibiting Chinese residences.2 The three-story main building at the existing Windrush School campus and the one-story art studio (formerly used as a garage) were the original buildings constructed for the Chung Mei Home. Since 1935, the interior of the main building has been substantially modified to accommodate various uses; interior remnants from the time of the Chung Mei Home include select bathroom fixtures. However, the exterior of the building is largely intact.3 2 Lim, Glenn 2007. Lim Family History. Website: limfamilyhistory.pbwiki.com. January 3. 3 Feagans, Brian, 2007. Architect, Ratcliff Architecture. Personal communication with Adam Weinstein, LSA Associates, Inc. January 11. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 12 The home was directed by Dr. Charles E. Shepherd, who, according to an interview with George Haw (a Chung Mei resident), had been a British missionary in China for 35 years and was fluent in Cantonese. The home was operated as a dormitory, with beds, lockers, bathroom facilities, a kitchen, and classroom/prayer space. The boys at the home attended local public schools and worked during the summer, including at berry farms in Sebastopol. According to Haw, many of the Chung Mei residents who reached draft age served in World War II.4 In 1948, a maintenance structure attached to the main building was constructed. In 1949, the existing gymnasium was built as part of the Chung Mei campus; additions to the building were completed by subsequent owners. The Chung Mei Home closed in 1954; in 1956 the property was transferred to the Western Baptist Bible College. The one/two-story classroom building in the northeast portion of the project site was constructed between 1956 and 1959. Prior to occupation of the site by Windrush School in 1987, the school complex was owned and operated by Preparatory School. These owners have modified portions of the campus outdoor spaces and existing buildings (including the main administrative/classroom building). Refer to the Cultural Resources section of this IS/MND for additional information on the history of the site. 3. Project Background Windrush School opened at its current location in 1987 under the previously-approved use permit for the Preparatory School, which was issued in 1974. In 1988, the El Cerrito Planning Commission reviewed the school’s original use permit, due to complaints from neighbors that the use of the lower play yard was increasing noise levels and creating privacy concerns. The Planning Commission approved the use permit, which required that: 1) school operations be in accordance with the December 1987 Windrush School Master Plan; 2) hours of play for specified play areas be limited to 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and a maximum of 2 hours per day per play area; and 3) specified play areas be evaluated for noise impacts no later than January 1998. These provisions were later revised to include a buffer zone around the play areas, the construction of a chain link fence, and a reassessment of play area impacts within 2 years. In January 1998, Illingworth and Rodkin prepared a noise analysis of the play areas, which recommended that the school construct a sound wall to reduce noise levels at residences adjacent to the project site. Subsequent to preparation of the Illingworth and Rodkin report, the noise study was expanded to include an assessment of alternatives to the sound wall, and additional noise studies were completed that evaluated anticipated noise both with and without the sound wall. In October 1998, Windrush School submitted a revised Master Plan and a proposed amendment to the existing use permit conditions. The changes to the use permit conditions included: 1) conversion of a play area to a grass play field; 2) amendment of time limitations on use of facilities; 3) erection of a sound wall for noise mitigation of the play field; and 4) reconfiguration of parking areas and access points. Long-term changes included the addition of 7,500 square feet of building space and the re- 4 Maw, Eve 2000. Interview with George Haw. El Cerrito Wire. Website: elcerritowire.com. Mar 25. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 13 landscaping of various areas. A Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted by the City in November 1998, and the proposed use permit amendments were approved. A subsequent proposal for a use permit amendment, which would update the school’s Master Plan, is the subject of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). 4. Proposed Project The project includes an amendment to the existing use permit (which was last amended in November 1998). The amended use permit would allow Windrush School to proceed with the following key changes to the existing Master Plan over a four phase, 20-year period: • Increase enrollment from 250 students to 330 students 5 percent) during the regular school year and from 125 students to 175 students during summer sessions; • Improve accessibility; • Undertake a 23,000 (net) increase in additional floor space; and • Increase building height limits from two stories to a maximum of 35 feet. a. Project Phases. As noted above, the proposed Master Plan would be built out over 20 years in four phases (refer to Figure Minor alterations to the existing utility system would be required to connect new structures to existing sanitary sewer, water, energy, and telecommunications lines. Each of the four Master Plan phases is discussed below: Phase 1 – Classroom Addition. Phase 1 of the proposed project includes the removal of a one- story portion of the gymnasium currently occupied by classroom space and replacement with a new 13,500 square foot two-story addition. This addition would contain an interim library, three new classrooms, four enhanced classrooms, and a supporting circulation area with a new lobby for the gymnasium. The addition would be approximately 31 feet in height, approximately 4.5 feet taller than the roof of the existing gymnasium. The building would comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and would include an elevator, new accessible toilets, and improvements to the accessibility of the existing gymnasium. The upper level of the addition would be accessible from the lower level of the building, and the lower level of the building would be accessible from the lower play field and parking lot. At completion of Phase 1, there would be a wheelchair-accessible route from the lower parking lot to the lower level of the main classroom and administration building. Phase 2 – Library, Performing Arts, and Classroom Building. Phase 2, like Phase 1, involves the construction of an addition to the existing gymnasium building. The Phase 2 addition would be built to the north of the gymnasium and would comprise 9,000 square feet. The new structure would include a new library, performing arts classroom, and a dance classroom. The interim library built as part of Phase 1 would be converted into two classrooms as part of Phase 2. The new addition would be built up a north-trending hillside, and would range from one to two stories (15 feet to 33.5 feet). At its maximum height, the building would be 7 feet taller than the roof of the gymnasium. ---PAGE BREAK--- PHASE 4 CLASSROOM REPLACEMENT PAVED PLAY AREA TURF PLAY FIELD PLAY AREA CLASS WALNUT STREET ELM STREET HILL STREET GLEN MAWR AVE. KEY BLVD PHASE 2 LIBRARY & PERFORMING ARTS PHASE 3 INTERIOR RENOVATIONS MAIN BUILDING CLASSROOMS & ADMIN PHASE 1 CLASSROOM ADDITION GYM NEW PLAZA & STAIRS NEW ELEVATOR 128'-0" 133'-0" 141'-0" 146'-0" 159'-6" RIDGE 151'-0" RIDGE 142'-6" RIDGE 145'-3" RIDGE 138'-3" RIDGE PARAPET PARAPET SKYLIGHT MEMBRANE ROOF STAIR MECH STAIR PROPERTY LINE NEW ELEVATOR 9' HIGH WOOD ACOUSTIC WALL SETBACK FENCE FENCE & RETAINING WALL SEWER EASEMENT PROVISIONAL SEWER EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED 2' ROOF OVERHANG STAIR METAL COPING TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAY AREA SCHOOL SIGN UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (TYPICAL OF 4) PROPERTY LINE SETBACK SETBACK 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 12 13 14 10 28 29 30 31 32 39 33 34 35 36 37 38 11 12 13 14 15 17 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 feet 80 0 40 FIGURE 4 Windrush School Master Plan Master Plan - All Phases SOURCE: RATCLIFF, OCTOBER 2006. I:\CEC0602 windrush\figures\Fig_4.ai (3/22/07) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 15 The addition constructed as part of Phase 2 is sited between the gymnasium building and the main classroom and administration building, and is designed to provide wheelchair accessibility between the upper and lower levels of campus. Phase 3 – Interior Renovations of Existing Main Classroom and Administration Building. Phase 3 of the proposed project involves the renovation of the main three-story classroom and administration building, and would not result in an increase in building square footage. The building’s five different levels pose barriers to wheelchair access. Also, according to the project sponsor, the building is in need of new heating and cooling systems, and technology and electrical updates. In addition, certain classrooms receive little natural light. The proposed renovations to the classroom and administration building are intended to improve the technological aspects of the existing building, meet ADA requirements, and better utilize existing space. An elevator would be installed in the building, improving access to all three floors. The interior spatial organization of the building and its network of hallways, classrooms, and accessory spaces, would be largely unchanged from existing conditions (although the uses of certain spaces would change). One key change involves the renovation of existing space in the south side of the first floor to create classrooms that would capitalize on southern exposure. No changes would occur to the exterior of the building, with the exception of modifications to access to meet accessibility requirements. All interior renovations would be in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, to retain the integrity of the building’s design.5 Phase 4 – Classroom Replacement Building. Phase 4 of the project involves the demolition of the existing 5,000 square foot classroom building in the northeast portion of the site, and the replacement of this building with a new 5,500 square foot classroom building. The new building would be one story in height (approximately 16.5 feet tall at its highest point), and would step up the hill. The building also includes a small courtyard. The existing playground in this areas would be removed as part of Phase 4. b. Enrollment and Employment. As part of the Master Plan, student enrollment at Windrush School during the regular school year would increase from 250 students to a maximum of 330 students 5 percent (16 students) enrolled in both elementary and middle school). During the summer, maximum enrollment would increase from 125 students to 175 students. Employment would increase from 33 full-time and 17 part-time employees to 38 full-time and 17 part-time employees (an increase from 41 FTE employees to 49 FTE employees). c. Circulation and Parking. As discussed above, one of the key objectives of the Master Plan is to improve circulation throughout the campus – particularly through the provision of wheelchair access (via a series of flat pathways and elevators) from the lower campus to the upper campus. In addition, the driveway extending from the intersection of Hill Street and Elm Street would be modified to minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. A paved path extending from this driveway would also be upgraded to improve fire truck access. Student drop-offs and pick-ups would continue to occur at the lower parking lot and the main driveway that extends from the intersection of Hill Street and Elm Street. In addition, school 5 Feagans, Brian, 2007. Architect, Ratcliff Architecture. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. March 13. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 16 start/stop times would continue to be staggered, as under existing conditions. The bus stop would remain along Elm Street, out of main traffic flow. According to the project sponsor, due to the school’s proximity to the El Cerrito del Norte BART station and AC Transit routes, and its location in a residential neighborhood, the school experiences a high commute rate by transit and other alternate forms of transportation. No parking spaces would be added to or removed from the project site as part of the Master Plan. Parking would remain at a total of 57 spaces. All staff members would continue to be required to park on campus. After implementation of the Master Plan, bicycle parking would be increased from 11 spaces to 19 spaces. d. Landscaping and Storm Water Management. Landscape changes to the site include the installation of decorative paving adjacent to existing and proposed buildings, the creation of a new courtyard in the northeast portion of the site, the removal of select vegetation, and the development of on-site storm water management features. Figure 5 is the proposed Landscape Plan; Figure 6 is the Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan. Vegetation that would be removed as part of the project includes: a series of small bushes and shrubs immediately to the north of the existing gymnasium; a 3-inch diameter tree located south of the annex to the main administration/classroom building; four trees, including one 24-inch diameter Monterey pine, southwest of the classroom building proposed for demolition as part of Phase 4; and four 12- inch diameter trees immediately to the east of the existing classroom building. As part of the Master Plan, impervious surfaces (including building footprints) would increase from 51 percent of the site to 55.2 percent of the site (although impervious surfaces, excluding building footprints, would be reduced from 37.1 percent of the site to 34.9 percent of the site due to the development of new lawns and other pervious landscape features). This increase in impervious surfaces equates to approximately 0.17 acres of new impervious surfaces on the site. Landscaped area on the site would decrease from 49 percent of site coverage to 44.8 percent. Storm water runoff on the site generally flows to the south and west. The Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan prepared for the Master Plan indicates that runoff from existing and proposed buildings would be routed to on-site pervious surfaces, including lawns, swales along the southern and northeastern boundaries of the site, and three planters adjacent to paved areas and buildings. These features are designed to treat the runoff from the portions of the campus that would be altered by the Master Plan. e. Architecture and Design. The design of the new buildings and landscaping proposed as part of the Master Plan is designed to complement (but not re-create) the architecture of existing buildings, particularly the design features of the main administration/classroom building, which is considered to have historic value. According to application materials submitted by the project sponsor, “The building design will be in keeping with the scale and architectural vocabulary of the existing buildings, taking into account conforming roof shapes, window fenestration, and use of color and materials.” ---PAGE BREAK--- PLAY FIELD PLAYGROUND NEW LAWN WALNUT STREET ELM STREET KEY BLVD NEW PLAZA & STAIRS 102 100 116 126 130 36" PINE 40" CEDAR 36" CEDAR 24" TREE 40" PALM PLAY AREA COURTYARD W/ LOOSE PAVERS 24" TREE feet 80 0 40 legend new lawn existing lawn new paving & concrete walks existing paving & concrete walks FIGURE 5 Windrush School Master Plan Landscape Plan SOURCE: RATCLIFF, OCTOBER 2006. I:\CEC0602 windrush\figures\Fig_5.ai (1/25/07) ---PAGE BREAK--- WALNUT STREET ELM STREET HILL STREET GLEN MAWR AVE. KEY BLVD PROJECT SIT SWALE 1 PLANTER 2 PLANTER 3 PLANTER 4 SWALE 5 AR - 4 AR - 3 AR - 1 AR - 2 AR - 5 feet 80 0 40 legend existing building proposed site drainage areas direction of flow FIGURE 6 Windrush School Master Plan Storm Water Control Plan SOURCE: RATCLIFF, OCTOBER 2006. I:\CEC0602 windrush\figures\Fig_7.ai (1/25/07) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 19 Based on building elevations, new structures would be characterized by unadorned facades coated with cement plaster (similar to existing structures). The buildings would contain large, rectangular metal windows and metal railings. The new structure adjacent to the gymnasium is proposed to be clearly distinguishable from the original gymnasium structure. Figures 7, 8, and 9 show the viewshed analysis for the project, and on- and off-site visual simulations. f. Construction. Buildout of the Master Plan would occur over a 20-year period. However, construction activities would be segmented and would not occur continuously during the 20-year buildout period. Each phase is expected to take 1 year or less. Phase 1 would start in 2007; Phase 2 in 2012; Phase 3 in 2018; and Phase 4 in 2025. Construction staging would occur at the paved court in front of the Phase 1 addition; south of the main administration/classroom building annex (Phase and adjacent to the existing one-story classroom building (Phases 3 and The main school driveway extending from the intersection of Elm Street and Hill Street would be used as the construction route for Phases 1 and 2; the driveway along the northern boundary of the site would be used as the construction route for Phases 3 and 4. During the construction period, the area south of the existing gymnasium would serve as a play area for Phases 2 and 3, and temporary classrooms space during Phases 1 and 4. The area to the east of the main parking lot would be used as a play area during Phases 1 through 4. 5. Requested Approvals The project sponsor is requesting approval of a Use Permit amendment and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- 100 120 140 160 180 200 100 120 140 160 180 200 Top of Roof @ +159' Ridge @ +138'-3" Ridge @ +145'-3" Top of Roof @ +142' Walnut Street Elm Street Key Blvd Top of Roof @ +146' Ridge @ +128' Glen Mowr Blvd Wesley Avenue Top of Roof @ +153' ' +118' +117' +116' +140' +142' +150' +158' +170' +120' +140' +180' +175' +168' +160' +157' +140' +132' +138' +140' +140' +142' +142' +140' +115' +140' +150' +160' +130' +128' +128' +120' +120' Top of Roof @ +133' Top of Roof @ +141' feet 120 0 60 legend existing building proposed building existing house with main floor elevation site contours per contra costa county map +116' 100 FIGURE 7 Windrush School Master Plan View Analysis SOURCE: RATCLIFF, OCTOBER 2006. I:\CEC0602 windrush\figures\Fig_7.ai (1/25/07) ---PAGE BREAK--- VIEW 3 - EXISTING VIEW 2 - EXISTING VIEW 1 - EXISTING VIEW 3 - FUTURE VIEW 2 - FUTURE VIEW 1 - FUTURE A-A SECTION FIGURE 8 SOURCE: RATCLIFF, OCTOBER 2006. I:\CEC0602 windrush\figures\Fig_8.ai (1/25/07) Windrush School Master Plan Visual Simulations From Neighboring Buildings ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING PROPOSED 1 View from Playfield EXISTING PROPOSED 2 View from Entry Drive EXISTING PROPOSED 3 View from Gym toward Main Building FIGURE 9 Windrush School Master Plan Visual Simulations on Project Site SOURCE: RATCLIFF, OCTOBER 2006. I:\CEC0602 windrush\figures\Fig_9.ai (1/25/07) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 27 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ˆ Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials ˆ Mineral Resources ˆ Public Services ˆ Utilities/Service Systems ˆ Agricultural Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Noise ˆ Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Geology/Soils ˆ Land Use/Planning ˆ Population/Housing Transportation/Traffic Determination. (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ˆ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ˆ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ˆ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been ade- quately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ˆ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Jennifer Carman, AICP, Planning Manager, City of El Cerrito ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 28 D. CHECKLIST Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qual- ity of the site and its surroundings? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ˆ ˆ ˆ The visual resources analysis in this section is based on a reconnaissance of the project site and surrounding neighborhoods conducted on January 3, 2007, and a review of a view preservation analysis and visual simulations prepared by Ratcliff Architecture in October 2006. The view preservation analysis and visual simulations are reproduced as Figures 7, 8, and 9. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Scenic vistas in the City, as designated in the General Plan, include views from public spaces and streets in upper hillside areas that encompass notable Bay Area landmarks such as San Francisco and San Pablo bays, Mt. Tamalpais, Marin County, and the Golden Gate Bridge. Scenic vistas also include views to the east of the East Bay Hills and Albany Hill. The General Plan includes policies to preserve key public views of the Bay and other prominent visual resources, including the hillsides. Because the existing campus is built on a hillside, and buildings are generally clustered in the higher portions of the site along the north and east site perimeters, expansive views are available of the Bay, Marin County, and surrounding landmarks. Views of the East Bay Hills are also available from the site. Implementation of the proposed Master Plan would result in the development of three new structures. Two structures would be adjacent to the existing gymnasium building and one structure would replace an existing stand-alone classroom building. The two structures adjacent to the gymnasium would be 4.5 to 7 feet taller than the gymnasium. The proposed classroom building would be a one- story structure ranging up to 16.5 feet in height that would replace an existing split one/two story building. The construction of these buildings would not block views from the site of the Bay and adjacent landmarks. As shown in Figure 9, the proposed Phase 1 and 2 additions to the gymnasium would block select views of the East Bay Hills from open spaces in the project site. However, the campus is not public property; therefore, obstruction of hillside views from certain campus locations would not ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 29 be considered significant. Views of the Bay are available from streets uphill of the project site. However, proposed buildings would not obstruct these views. New construction associated with Phase 1, 2, and 4 would be located adjacent to existing housing along Walnut Street and Glen Mawr Boulevard. Figure 8 shows visual simulations from buildings adjacent to the proposed gymnasium additions. As depicted in these visual simulations, the proposed project would only marginally change existing views from properties to the east of the project site. The new structures would not block views of San Francisco Bay or associated landmarks. The Phase 4 classroom replacement would be approximately the same height as the existing building. Therefore, the proposed structure would not substantially change views from adjacent residential properties. Because changes to views from locations adjacent to the project site would be minor, and because the views are not from public property, the impact of the project on scenic views would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? (No Impact) The only officially designated State scenic highways within Contra Costa County are portions of Highway 24 and Interstate 680.6 The project site is not visible from these highways. Therefore, the proposed project would damage scenic resources within a designated State scenic highway. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The site is characterized by institutional buildings and large open space areas planted with turf. A key visual element of the site is the three-story main administration/classroom building, which was originally constructed in 1935 to house a home for Chinese-American children. The building retains some Chinese-influenced features, including a stylized dragon at the main entrance. However, all buildings on the site share key stylistic elements, including white plaster walls, rectangular windows, and unadorned facades. Implementation of the project would retain the spatial organization of the existing project site, with buildings clustered along the northern and eastern boundaries of the project site, and the remainder of the site used as open space and parking. In addition, the architecture of proposed buildings, which would feature white plaster walls and unadorned facades, would be compatible with existing buildings on the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect the visual quality of the site. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Lighting would be installed adjacent to proposed buildings to ensure the safety of students, staff, and visitors, and the security of the campus itself. However, this lighting would not be substantial in relation to existing lighting. The project would not contain large areas of reflective material and would not result in the generation of substantial glare. The exterior of the buildings would contain some potentially reflective material, such as metal railings and window frames and panes. However, these elements are typical of recently-built institutional buildings and would not result in excessive 6 California Department of Transportation, 2007. California Scenic Highway Program. Website: January 18. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 30 glare. Other materials, such as stucco and asphalt shingles, would not be highly reflective. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant new source of light or glare. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environ- mental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agri- cultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farm- land), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Pro- gram of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (No Impact) No agricultural resources are located on or near the project site, and the site has not been subject to agricultural use since at least the early 1930s (prior to construction of the Chung Mei Home). The project site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the State Department of Conservation.7 Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not convert agricultural land to non- agricultural uses. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses and is not operated under a Williamson Act contract. 7 California Department of Conservation, 2007. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Website: www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/index.htm. July. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 31 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? (No Impact) Implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of new school facilities within an existing campus and would not result in: the extension of infrastructure into an undeveloped area, the development of urban uses on a greenfield site, or other physical changes that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the fol- lowing determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applica- ble air quality plan? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substan- tially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ˆ ˆ ˆ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less-than-Signifi- cant Impact) The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards. Air quality plans describe air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region. The project site and the City of El Cerrito are located in the San Francisco Bay air basin and are within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The district has developed the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in order to bring the region into compliance with State and federal air quality standards. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 32 BAAQMD has developed CEQA Guidelines8 that direct the analysis of air quality impacts that could result from projects subject to discretionary approvals. While vehicle trips associated with almost any development project in the air basin would result in the emission of ozone precursors and carbon monoxide, the BAAQMD generally does not recommend detailed analysis for projects generating less than 2,000 vehicle trips. The proposed project, which would expand an existing school by approximately 23,000 square feet, would generate approximately 161 additional vehicle trips per day. The number of trips generated by the project would be well below the BAAQMD-established threshold of 2,000 vehicle trips. Therefore, trips generated by the proposed project are not expected to result in a significant increase in ozone, carbon monoxide, or other pollutants associated with fuel combustion, or obstruct implementation of the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air qual- ity violation? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The San Francisco Bay air basin is under nonattainment status for ozone (O3), particulate matter, (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), based on State standards. The air basin is also under non- attainment status for the federal 8-hour ozone standard.9 Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would occur over the short term as a result of construction activities and over the long term due to vehicle trips associated with operation of expanded school facilities. These activities could result in air quality violations in association with: 1) construction equipment exhaust emissions; 2) construction dust; 3) long-term vehicular emissions; and 4) local carbon monoxide hot spots. Expected sources of air pollution resulting from the proposed project are discussed below. 1. Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions Construction equipment emits carbon monoxide, ozone precursors, and particulate matter from diesel- fueled engines. Diesel exhaust is considered a toxic air contaminant (TAC). Both carbon monoxide and ozone precursors have been included in an emissions inventory, which takes into account construction activity associated with expected regional development, and serves as the basis for regional air quality plans. Therefore, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines note that these short-term construction-period emissions are not expected to impede attainment of national or State standards for carbon monoxide and ozone. In 1998, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). Since then, ARB completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities using diesel-fueled engines.10 High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic distribution centers and truck stops) were identified as having the highest associated risk. 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1996 (Amended 1999). BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. April. 9 San Francisco Air Quality Management District, 2007. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Bay Area Attainment Status. Website: www.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm. January 19. 10 California Air Resources Board, 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 33 Health risks from toxic air contaminants are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. Unlike the above types of sources, construction diesel emissions are temporary, affecting an area intermittently. In the case of the proposed project, the entire construction period of Master Plan buildout would comprise 20 years; however, construction activities would occur only intermittently throughout this period (each phase of the four phase buildout is expected to last less than 1 year). Because of the relatively short duration of the construction period, associated health risks from emissions of diesel particulate would be considered a less-than-significant impact. 2. Construction Dust Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in the generation of emissions and dust that could contribute to the air basin’s nonattainment status for PM10 and PM2.5. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust gen- eration when underlying soils are exposed. Sources of emissions and dust include construction period activities such as excavation, grading, vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicle and equipment exhaust. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of particulates downwind of the project site. Construction dust has the potential to create a nuisance at residential uses adjacent to the project site and within existing school buildings themselves. In addition to nuisance effects, excess dustfall can increase maintenance and cleaning requirements and could adversely affect sensitive electronic devices. Emissions of particulate matter or visible emissions are regulated by the BAAQMD under Regulation 6: “Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions.” Regulation 6 prohibits visible particulate emissions where the particulates are deposited on real property other than that of the person responsible for the emissions, and when these emissions cause annoyance. The proposed project would also be subject to the above regulations as a result of the dust produced by demolition of the addition to the gymnasium (as part of Phase 1 of the project) and demolition of the classroom building (as part of Phase 4 of the project). In addition, dust particles from demolition may contain lead from lead-based paint (LBP) and asbestos, which were used in a wide variety of building products. Both materials were routinely used in construction prior to 1978, the year the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned LBP and asbestos-containing materials from use in residential construction. Since the addition to the gymnasium and classroom building were built prior to 1978, they may contain both LBP and asbestos-containing materials. If the buildings contain asbestos, demolition activities would be subject to District Regulation 11, Rule 2: Hazardous Materials; Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing. Airborne asbestos fibers pose a serious heath threat, and demolition that does not comply with the requirements of District Regulation 11 would be considered to have a significant impact on air quality and human health. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impacts of exposure to LBP and asbestos-containing materials to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 34 Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce fugitive dust-related air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Consistent with BAAQMD guidance, the following measures shall be implemented on the project site during the construction period: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles dirt, sand, etc. • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved access roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 3. Long-Term Emissions The BAAQMD sets thresholds of significance for operational period emissions. Below these thresholds, project operation emissions from mobile sources motor vehicles) are anticipated to have a less-than-significant impact; however, projects within 20 percent of the threshold are required to undergo a more detailed analysis. The BAAQMD threshold of significance for the ozone precursor nitrogen oxide (NOx) is 80 pounds per day. Projects generating fewer than 2,000 vehicle trips per day are assumed to contribute NOx emissions below this threshold. Implementation of the proposed project would result in expansion of existing school facilities by approximately 23,000 square feet. Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation average rates, the project would generate a total of 161 daily trips to local roadways. The increase in long-term vehicular emissions generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the BAAQMD’s operations threshold and would have a less-than-significant impact on local and regional air quality. 4. Local CO Hot Spots The primary mobile source pollutant of local concern is carbon monoxide (CO). CO concentrations are a direct function of vehicle idling time caused by traffic flow conditions. While CO transport is limited, the pollutant disperses over time with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations close to a congested ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 35 roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels affecting local sensitive receptors residents, school children, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. The State of California has set a 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) for CO emissions, which is below the national 1-hour standard of 35 ppm. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines suggest carbon monoxide modeling for projects generating 10,000 or more vehicle trips per day. For projects generating fewer trips, manual calculations based on a simplified formula are recommended. The formula assumes worst case climatic conditions, resulting in the highest CO concentrations. Based on the traffic analysis prepared for the project, the intersection of Elm Street/Cutting Boulevard/Key Boulevard/Key Street will operate at LOS D or better under Existing plus Project Conditions. The Existing plus Project Conditions represent traffic conditions projected to occur under existing conditions with the addition of the proposed project. Following guidance from BAAQMD, calculations for carbon monoxide concentrations at the study intersection was performed. Baseline CO measurements at the San Pablo Air Monitoring Station (the closest monitoring station to the project site) indicate existing CO concentrations are 1.7 ppm and 1.0 ppm for 1-hour and 8-hour averages respectively. These values are well below State standards of 9.0 ppm and 20 ppm, respectively. Based on the calculations, the potential increase in carbon monoxide would be minimal. Therefore, CO concentrations would remain well below established CO standards and therefore would not be significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Less-than-Significant Impact) See III.b, above. Based on long-term emission estimates, the proposed project would not result in sub- stantial net increases of any criteria pollutant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Sensitive receptors are facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particu- larly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and persons with illnesses. The project site contains an operating school, which would be considered a sensitive receptor. In addition, residential neighborhoods are located to the east of the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of new school facilities and would not generate substantial pollutant concentrations during the operational period. Air pollution associated with the proposed project would be primarily vehicle-related and would not necessarily be concentrated in the vicinity of the project site. Anticipated vehicle emissions would be below the significance thresholds established by the BAAQMD. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce construction period emissions to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure AIR-3: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 36 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines list potential odor sources that could cause significant environmental impacts. The types of operations that would occur on the project site are not included in this list and would not generate objectionable odors. In addition, the proposed project is not located downwind from any significant odor sources landfills, sewage treatment plants) that could affect persons within the project site. Some objectionable odors could be generated from the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment and/or asphalt paving during the project construction period. However, these odors would be short-term in nature and would not result in permanent impacts to surrounding land uses, including sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people or subject persons to objectionable odors. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Cali- fornia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Through direct removal, filling, hydrologi- cal interruption, or other means? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corri- dors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ˆ ˆ ˆ ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 37 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ˆ ˆ ˆ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any spe- cies identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact) The project site has been developed with institutional/academic uses since at least 1935 and has low wildlife habitat value. Wildlife species that would be expected to use or pass through the site are common species that are adapted to urban and suburban conditions, and would not be adversely affected by the proposed changes to the school campus (including removal of select trees and shrubs). No protected species are known to occur in the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial direct or indirect effect on protected species. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) No riparian habitat or wetlands are located within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The nearest creek to the project site, Baxter Creek, is located approximately 0.3 miles to the north of Windrush School, in Canyon Trail Park. Development on the project site would not adversely affect the water quality of Baxter Creek. However, the project site drains to San Francisco Bay, which hosts a variety of sensitive natural communities. Runoff from the project site could adversely affect water quality in the Bay and associated natural communities. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Implement Mitigation Measures HYD-1a and HYD-1b. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact) Federally-protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, are not located on the project site. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 38 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The project site has been subject to human disturbance since prior to 1935 (when the site was occupied by a dairy farm before being developed into the Chung Mei Home). The project site is located within ½-mile of two natural areas in El Cerrito that are used by native wildlife: Hillside Natural Area and Canyon Trail Park. However, wildlife associated with the project site is adapted to disturbed urban sites and would not be substantially affected by the proposed project. No native wildlife nursery sites are known to occur on the project site. Buildout of the Master Plan would result in the removal of small bushes and shrubs, in addition to 11 trees with diameters ranging from 3 inches to 24 inches. These trees could be used by wildlife species that are adapted to urban conditions; however, the removal of these trees would not be expected to result in long-term adverse impacts to populations of these wildlife species. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially interfere with the movement of native or migratory wildlife species, or adversely affect native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact) As noted in IV.d, the Master Plan would result in the removal of bushes, shrubs, and 11 trees. However, the removal of these woody plants would not be expected to have a long-tern adverse effect on resident wildlife. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City does not have a tree protection ordinance. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? (No Impact) The project site is not subject to the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ˆ ˆ ˆ ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 39 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ˆ ˆ ˆ The following section is based on a historic resources evaluation of the project site conducted by LSA Associates, Inc.11 This study was prepared based on a records search, archival research, communication with historic resources agencies and potentially interested organizations, a site reconnaissance, and building evaluations. Refer to the historical resources evaluation (Appendix B) for additional detail on the methods used to evaluate the buildings; correspondence with historical resources agencies; maps and photographs of the site; historic blueprints; historical information about Chinese Americans and the project site, report conclusions; and a full bibliography. In summary, the project site is a “District” comprising buildings associated with the Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys. This District is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and is considered a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA. Implementation of the proposed project would result in limited diminishment of some aspects of the District’s integrity. However, this diminishment would be considered less than significant. All other cultural resources-related impacts associated with the project would be reduced to a less-than- significant level with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. The following introductory section discusses: 1) the legislative context of historic resources in California; 2) the history of the project site; 3) the basic physical characteristics of the District; and 4) the eligibility evaluation of the District. Legislative Context CEQA defines a “historical resource” as a resource which meets one or more of the following criteria: • Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register; • Listed in a local register of historical resources; • Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; or • Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency. A historical resource consists of “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manu- script which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California . . . Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be 11 LSA Associates, Inc., 2007. Historical Resources Evaluation for the Windrush School Project, El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California. March. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 40 ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (CCR Title 14(3) § 15064.5(a)(3)). Archaeological resources may also be considered historic resources. A cultural resource is evaluated under four criteria to determine its eligibility for listing on the California Register. A resource must be significant at the local, State, or national level in accordance with one or more of the following criteria: • Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of California’s history and cultural heritage; • Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or • Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time must have passed to allow a “scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource.” Fifty years is used as a general estimate of the time needed to understand the historical importance of a resource. The State of California Office of Historic Preservation recommends documenting, and taking into consideration in the planning process, any cultural resource that is 45 years or older. The California Register also requires a resource to possess integrity, which is defined as “the authen- ticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.” Resources that are significant, meet the age guidelines, and possess integrity will generally be consid- ered eligible for listing in the California Register. History of the Project Site The Chung Mei Home was relocated to El Cerrito on land that was previously owned by the Heidie family, which operated a dairy. The land was purchased for $10,000 which was earned by the boys through musical performances and other endeavors. The main building was constructed in 1935 and dedicated in June of that year. By 1940, the Chung Mei Home was already in need of expansion, and again the boys stepped up to raise money for the cause. They earned $12,000 by harvesting crops and salvaging paper and other scrap materials. Additional funds were donated by entertainer (and adoptive parent) Bob Hope, who contributed 10 percent of the proceeds from several of his Bay Area performances. Money raised locally and in the greater San Francisco Bay Area added to the fund, and in 1948 a maintenance building was attached to the east elevation of the main building. In 1949, a gymnasium was constructed to the southeast of the main building of the Chung Mei Home. Both of these buildings incorporated motifs, fenestration, and roof lines that evoked Chinese architecture. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 41 The Chung Mei Home was established to provide for young Chinese boys who were in need of care and guidance and for whom there was no other provision. After World War II, the need for welfare facilities like the Chung Mei Home was reduced because of the change in perception toward people of Chinese descent. The Chinese community had become fairly integrated into the general society and the children were more welcomed into regular child care facilities and foster homes. The Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys, the only institution of its kind, closed its doors in the summer of 1954. For over 30 years, nearly 700 boys benefited from the care, guidance, and structure provided by Dr. Charles R. Shepherd and the Chung Mei Home. For two years the former site of the Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys remained unoccupied, and in 1956 the “property evolved to the Western Baptist Bible College.” It was during this ownership that the L-shaped building in the northeast corner of campus was constructed, as well as minor additions to the gymnasium. The campus changed hands again in 1974 when Preparatory School assumed ownership of the site. It appears that during this ownership, the roof on the gymnasium was and skylights intact. The Windrush School purchased the campus in 1987. Historic District LSA identified the project site (District) as a potential historic resource due to its association with the Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys. The District is the remnant of a 5.5-acre campus in El Cerrito, where, from 1935 to 1954, abandoned or orphaned boys of Chinese ancestry in the East Bay were cared for and educated. The District consists of the current Windrush School campus, with four of its five buildings contributing to the potential California Register eligibility of the District. Contributors to the District include the main building (administrative/classroom); the former garage (art studio); the maintenance building (attached to the main building on the east elevation by a covered walkway); and the gymnasium. The L-shaped classroom building in the northeast portion of the campus is the only building in the project site that does not contribute to the District. The entrance to the campus, once gated with a sign, is on Elm Street; the paved drive curves up the hill to the main building where the driveway circles around a planter that once contained rose bushes and a flag pole, both no longer present. Tall trees, also no longer present, blocked the view of the gymnasium from the lower levels of the campus. Sidewalks and stairs join the upper level main building, art studio, and L-shaped classrooms with the gymnasium, play areas, and the newer visitor parking lot, on the lower levels. The main building, constructed in 1935, is a three-story, poured-in-place reinforced concrete modified International-style building with Chinese architectural embellishments. This building was the primary residence for the boys at Chung Mei. The low-pitched, hipped roof is clad in terra cotta tile painted green and flared at the corners and ridge ends to reference traditional Chinese architecture. Decorative molding on the exterior walls, stylistic fenestration, and dragon motifs add to the Chinese-style architecture. The former garage, north of the main building, is a one-story, flat roofed, stucco-clad Art Moderne style building constructed in 1935. This building is currently used as an art studio. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 42 The maintenance building is a one-story, hipped roof, stucco-clad Art Moderne-style building constructed in 1948. The building is attached to the main building via a covered walkway. The east entrance is framed by a modified “torii” the gateway to a Shinto temple, consisting of two uprights supporting a concave crosspiece with projecting ends and a straight crosspiece beneath it). The gymnasium is a one-story, stucco-clad International-style building constructed in 1949. The front (west) elevation, which housed classrooms, lockers and bathroom facilities, has a flat roof, while the back (east) elevation is the open beam, side-gabled roof of the gymnasium. The gabled roof was originally clad in tile and topped with a prominent red Chinese motif ridge beam. The tile was replaced with composition shingle in the early 1980s, but the roof line and Chinese motif ridge beam, and the skylights that flank both sides of the ridge beam remain. The L-shaped classroom building is a split-level, stucco-clad modern building constructed sometime between 1956 and 1959. The shallow-pitched, side-gabled roof is clad in composition shingles. The east-west wing is one story; the north-south wing is two stories. Fenestration consists of aluminum sliders. This building is not a contributor to the District because it was constructed after the District’s period of significance (1935-1954). In addition, the building does not appear to be historically significant in and of itself. Eligibility Evaluation The project site is not listed in a local register of historic resources, is not identified as being significant in a historical resources survey, has not previously been determined to be a historical resource by the City of El Cerrito, and is not currently listed on the California Register. LSA undertook an evaluation to determine if the District comprising the project site is eligible for listing on the California Register. A finding that the resource is eligible for listing on the California Register would indicate that the District is considered a historic resource pursuant to CEQA. In summary, the District appears eligible for listing in the California Register at the local level under Criterion 1, because it “is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of . . . history.” A historic district is described by the National Park Service as follows: “A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development….The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties.” This finding was made based on the following criteria: Period of Significance. The Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys was established in 1923 by Dr. Shepherd to provide a much-needed care system for male children of Chinese ancestry that fell victim to the “bachelor society” resulting from the United States’ strict immigration laws. For over 30 years, the Chung Mei Home provided shelter and tutelage to abandoned and orphaned Chinese boys in the East Bay until it closed in 1954, when the need for this type of institution lessened due to changing American perceptions of the Chinese community. The period of significance for the District is from 1935, when the Chung Mei Home moved to the 1800 Elm Street location in El Cerrito, until 1954, when Chung Mei Home ceased to exist. The buildings that contribute to the District are those that were built within the period of significance of the Chung Mei Home: the main building, the old garage converted to an art studio, the maintenance building, and the gymnasium. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 43 Significance. The Windrush School campus was the site of the Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys from 1935 to 1954, and the contributing buildings that were used by the Chung Mei boys constitute “a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.” Under Criterion 1, the District is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the history of Chinese experience in the East Bay. Specifically, the District provided institutional care for Chinese-American orphans, which helped the Chinese community of the East Bay to adapt to the social constraints of mainstream American society. According to several undated and unsourced newspaper articles provided by the El Cerrito Historical Society, the Chung Mei Home was the only institution of its kind in the United States for orphaned or abandoned Chinese boys. Under Criterion 2, although the design of the Chung Mei Home was associated with Donald Powers Smith, a recognized architect, he is not a significant figure in California or East Bay history. Under Criterion 3, except for the main building, which may qualify due to embodying distinctive characteristics and high artistic values, the District as a whole is not remarkable in design construction or artistic values. Under Criterion 4, the District does not appear to be able to answer questions important in history. Integrity. The District maintains the historical integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The District is in its original location since Chung Mei moved from Berkeley in 1923. It retains virtually all elements of its design, with the exception of the addition of the L-shaped building, and the playing field and area. The L-shaped building, however, does not detract from the campus feeling of the district. The setting of the District retains the general flow of the pathways and relationships between the buildings and open space. Windrush School has maintained appropriate landscaping, although the landscaping on campus appears to have been planted after the period of significance. Materials in the District buildings are generally those of the period of significance. The original roof tiles on the gymnasium have been replaced with composition shingles, but the change does not detract from the setting or feeling of the building as a contributor to the District. The workmanship of the District has been retained and can be clearly seen in the construction of the buildings and their Chinese motifs. The Chinese architectural elements of each building link them to each other, giving a sense of unity to the District. The District retains its integrity of association as it is the same place the provisional care was provided, and it continues in an educational capacity today. Eligibility. The Windrush School campus appears eligible for listing as a district in the California Register under Criterion 1 at the local level for its association with Chinese experience in the East Bay, specifically the provision of institutional childcare for Chinese boys in El Cerrito. The campus buildings, with the exception of the L-shaped building built in the late 1950s, contribute to the eligibility of the District and have the integrity necessary to convey the District’s historical significance. As a California Register-eligible cultural resource, the District is a historical resource under CEQA. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) As discussed above, the District is eligible for listing on the California Register and is considered a historic resource pursuant to CEQA. The proposed project would result in the removal of a portion of the gymnasium that was added to the building during the District’s period of significance, as well as the introduction of new architectural features to the campus. Therefore, the project would alter a ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 44 portion of a building that contributes to the historical significance of the District, as well as the immediate setting of the campus. The construction of the new classroom addition and library would also introduce buildings not present during the District’s period of significance. These changes would affect some aspects of the District’s historical integrity. The removal of the L-shaped building would not result in an impact because that building is not a contributor to the District’s significance. As part of the project, the main building would be renovated in a manner consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. According to 14 CCR §15064.5(b)(3), a project that follows the Secretary’s Standards would not result in a significant impact to historic resources. The District is significant at the local level under California Register Criterion 1 for its association with the Chinese experience in the East Bay, specifically the provision of institutional childcare for Chinese boys in El Cerrito. As such, the qualities that justify the District’s eligibility for the California Register lie in its expression of institutional architecture, Chinese-themed architectural elements, and educational uses. In each area, the District maintains these expressions and the replacement of the stylistically discordant gymnasium addition with an addition that displays the dominant architectural themes of the campus would contribute to the continuity of the District’s historical significance. The following design elements of the proposed project would protect the historic integrity of the District: • the exterior walls of the new construction would be made of cast-in-place concrete with horizontal form seams to emulate the walls of the main building in form, material, and texture; • the proposed construction would incorporate balcony panel and window pane patterns reflective of the square and rectangle forms on the main building; • the vertical sunshade that would form a large portion of the proposed addition’s west façade is designed to express classical ordering and frontal regularity, and is intended to create an “institutional” feel to match that of the main building; • the western façade of the gymnasium addition was also designed to include repetitive vertical planar elements, alternating solid and transparent surfaces, horizontal ties at the vertical midpoint, stylistic design panels, and a cornice consistent with the main building; • the roof of the proposed addition would use skylights to take advantage of natural light, consistent with the use of skylights in the gymnasium; and • the core of the campus open area, including the entrance, lawn, and trees, would be preserved as open space to maintain the historical spatial organization of the campus, as well as to maintain open space values for the neighborhood. However, the project would result alter the gymnasium building, which is one of the four buildings that contribute to the District. This alteration would result in minor diminishment of some aspects of the District’s integrity. Implementation of the following recommended measure would further reduce this less-than-significant impact: Recommended Measure CULT-1: The project applicant shall undertake the following activities: ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 45 • Photo-documentation: photo-document the gymnasium prior to its modification. This should consist of photographs of the gymnasium’s principal elevations, those portions of the gymnasium that will be removed, and several representative views from the gymnasium toward other portions of the District and from the District grounds toward the gymnasium; • Historical Summary: prepare a brief historical description of the district and its historical significance to accompany the photo-documentation. The bulk of this summary could be taken from the existing evaluation report, but focused research should be done to obtain additional photographs and information from the District’s period of significance. The historical summary and photo-documentation should be distributed to the El Cerrito Historical Society and the Northwest Information Center, and made available at the Windrush School Library. • Interpretive Panel: design and install an outdoor interpretive panel to allow visitors to the Windrush School campus to gain a sense of the historical significance of the District. This panel could be placed in a location that would allow a visitor to view a photo of the pre-project gymnasium and a brief description of the history of the District. From that position, the visitor could look up to have an instant visual connection to the gymnasium. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Prior to 1935, the project site was used as a farm. The site may also have been used by American Indians, prior to or during the early years of European/Anglo settlement. These uses, in addition to use of the site by Chung Mei residents, could be associated with archaeological resources. These resources could be encountered on the site when ground is disturbed during the construction period). Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-2: If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the finds, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. Adverse effects to such deposits shall be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the deposits shall be avoided or mitigated. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results of the assessment, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the archaeological deposits. The report shall be submitted to the applicant, the City of El Cerrito, and the Northwest Information Center. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 46 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic fea- ture? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Areas around the project site are underlain by Late Pleistocene alluvium. This substrate has a high potential for containing fossil resources, and there is the possibility that significant paleontological resources could be discovered during project ground-disturbing activities. However, the potential for identification of paleontological resources on the project site is diminished due to substantial ground disturbance that has occurred on the site since at least 1935. Contact with fossil resources during the construction period could result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-3: If paleontological resources are discovered during project activities, all work within the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified paleontologist has assessed the situation and made recommendations regarding the treatment of fossils. Project personnel shall not move or collect any paleontological resource. Adverse effects to paleontological resources shall be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, project activities shall avoid disturbing the deposits, or the adverse effects of disturbance shall be mitigated. Upon completion of the paleontological assessment, a report shall be prepared documenting the methods, results, and recommendations of the assessment. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant and the City of El Cerrito. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Although American Indian prehistoric remains have not been identified within or in the vicinity of the project site, there is a possibility that human remains exist in the project site. Such remains could be uncovered during construction period activities that involve ground disturbance. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure CULT-4: If human remains are encountered during construction of the pro- posed project, work within the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant, the appropriate City of El Cerrito agencies, and the Northwest Information Center. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 47 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ˆ ˆ ˆ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ˆ ˆ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ˆ ˆ ˆ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ˆ ˆ ˆ iv) Landslides? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ˆ ˆ ˆ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ˆ ˆ ˆ The following section is based on the Geotechnical Study, Windrush School, El Cerrito, California, prepared by Fugro West, Inc., in 2004 (see Appendix A).12 The study focused on the eastern and northern portions of the Windrush campus, the locations of proposed Master Plan-related construction. The geotechnical investigation included six test borings to gain additional information about soils underlying the project site. 12 Fugro West, Inc., 2004. Geotechnical Study, Windrush School, El Cerrito, California. October. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 48 a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geol- ogy Special Publication 42; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; iii) Seismic-related ground fail- ure, including liquefaction; iv) Landslides? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) i) Fault Rupture. The San Francisco Bay region is a seismically active region that is subject to large earthquakes; there are 30 known faults in the Bay Area that are considered capable of generating earthquakes. The Hayward Fault is the nearest active fault to the project site and is located approximately 0.9 mile east of the site. However, the project site is not located within an Alquist- Priolo zone. The project site is not located in close proximity to other faults. Other faults around the project site include: the Rogers Creek fault, approximately 10.3 miles to the northwest of the site; and the Concord-Green Valley and Calaveras faults, approximately 15 miles to the east and southeast of the site, respectively. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 17.4 miles to the west of the site. Since surface faulting or ground rupture tends to occur along previous fault lines and identified fault lines are not located within the site, implementation the proposed project would not adversely affect persons or structures due to the rupture of a know earthquake fault. ii) Ground-shaking. The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is considered one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. In 2003, the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, in conjunction with the United States Geological Survey, found that there is a 62 percent probability that at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will occur in the Bay Area between 2003 and 2032. Earthquakes on any of the faults within the Bay Area could cause strong ground shaking at the project site depending upon the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance of the project site from the earthquake epicenter, the type of geologic materials that underlie the site, as well as other factors. Because it affects a much broader area, ground shaking, rather than surface fault rupture, is the cause of most damage during earthquakes. The project is likely to be subject to earthquakes during its operation period. Structural damage to buildings results from the transmission of earthquake-induced vibrations through the ground. A large earthquake on any of the faults within 18 miles of the project site (but especially an earthquake on the Hayward Fault) would result in strong ground shaking at the project site. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) Chapter 16, Division IV Earthquake Design requires that structures be designed using certain earthquake design criteria. The proposed project would be designed in accordance with the geotechnical report and applicable building codes. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact of ground-shaking to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Implement the recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Study, Windrush School, El Cerrito, California, prepared by Fugro West, Inc., and published in October 2004. The recommendations include: ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 49 • Construction in accordance with the seismic design criteria outlined in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC); • Proper site preparation and grading; • Management of surface water so that it does not flow over the top of slopes or down slope faces; • Limiting the grade of cut slopes; • Supporting buildings on conventional continuous and isolated spread footings; • Adequate supporting interior slabs-on-grade; • The provision of adequate clearance between exterior slabs and buildings that overhang these slabs (such as window sills or doors that open outward); • Design of basement/retaining walls to resist both lateral earth pressures and any additional lateral loads caused by surcharging; and • Use of flexible pavement design. iii) Ground Failure and Liquefaction. Ground failure hazards of potential concern at the project site include densification and liquefaction. Densification occurs when ground-shaking causes predominantly granular soils to become compact and occupy less volume, which results in settlement. Soil liquefaction is a closely-related phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located near the ground surface. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are relatively loose, clean, poorly-graded, fine-grained sands. These soils lose strength during ground shaking and become incapable of supporting overlying structures. Due to the loss of strength, the soil acquires “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. The surface soils encountered in the borings conducted as part of the geotechnical investigation include very stiff to hard clays, which extend to a depth of 10 to 20 feet below the ground surface. Below these clays, mainly sandy lean clays were encountered (and extend to a depth of approximately 31.5 feet). The high-plasticity surface clays have sufficient cohesion to not be prone to densification, liquefaction, or other forms of ground failure. iv) Landslides. The project site has been mapped as being located at the base of a large, south- trending landslide complex associated with the Hayward Fault zone. In fact, a 1975 study by T.H. Nilsen indicated that the majority of the southwest-facing slope within El Cerrito is an extensive landslide complex. In the vicinity of the project site, the landslide complex extends to the crest of the hill slope, near Arlington Boulevard. The hill slope area has been extensively developed with moderately dense residential housing. According to Fugro West, “None of the available information, as well as data generated for [the geotechnical] study indicate a current regional or local instability of the hill slope, or that the existence of these subsurface materials underlying the site would preclude site development,” if the recommendations in the geotechnical study are implemented. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with the landslide complex uphill of the project site to a less-than-significant level: ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 50 Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitiga- tion Incorporated) Because the clayey soils on the site are highly expansive subject to expansion and contraction during dry/wet cycles), exposed slopes on the site could be subject to soil erosion, soil creep, gradual soil failure (raveling), and soil sloughing. Erosion potential could be high for both artificial and natural slopes on the site and could be exacerbated by the presence of a historic drainage swale located under the existing gymnasium. This drainage swale was identified by Fugro West during a review of historic topographical maps, and it is thought that the swale may have been graded during development of the site and surrounding areas. The swale could indicate a preferred path for surface water originating uphill, and could also provide a preferred path for groundwater. The movement of surface water through the site would increase the potential for erosion. The potential for soil erosion exists during the period of earthwork activities and between the time when earthwork is completed and new vegetation is established or hardscape is installed. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Erosion Control Plan are a routine requirement of projects requiring grading permits. The identifies best management practices to protect the quality of stormwater runoff, and the Erosion Control Plan, which is required for the grading permit, provides the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the site. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts on soil erosion or loss of topsoil to a less-than- significant level: Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) As noted in VI.a, the project site is not prone to liquefaction or other forms of ground failure, but is located at the base of a regional landslide complex. In addition, the historic drainage swale has been identified under the existing gymnasium building. Flow of surface water or groundwater into this drainage swale could result in soil erosion and slope instabilities. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure GEO-4: Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and Mitigation Measure HYD-1. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incor- porated) The clayey soils on the project site are highly expansive and could cause displacement and cracking of proposed building foundations. Expansion could particularly be a problem for structures on the project site during seasonal changes in moisture context. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with soil expansion to a less-than-significant level: ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 51 Mitigation Measure GEO-5: Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Less-than- Significant Impact) Sewer infrastructure is available on the site and septic tacks or alternative waste water disposal systems would not be used as part of the project. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazard- ous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ˆ ˆ ˆ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ˆ ˆ ˆ f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private air- strip, would the project result in a safety hazard for peo- ple residing or working in the project area? ˆ ˆ ˆ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacua- tion plan? ˆ ˆ ˆ ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 52 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where resi- dences are intermixed with wildlands? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Implementation of the proposed project would result in the expansion of existing school uses by 23,000 square feet. Although small quantities of commercially-available hazardous materials could be used within the proposed buildings and in landscaped areas in the project site for cleaning and maintenance, these materials would not be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to human or environmental health. All toxic materials used during the construction period would be handled in compliance with hazardous materials regulations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environ- ment? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The project site has been used as an orphanage or school since 1935, and is not expected to contain soil contamination that could pose an adverse risk to human health. Prior to development of the Chung Mei Home, the site was used as a dairy farm. This historic land use would not typically be associated with soil contamination in the site. However, all of the permanent structures at the project site were constructed prior to the 1980s, and therefore may contain lead-based paint (LBP) and/or asbestos-containing materials. Demolition of a portion of the gymnasium as part of Phase 1 and demolition of the classroom building as part of Phase 4 may have the potential to release lead particles and asbestos fibers into the air, where they could potentially pose a health risk to construction workers and the general public. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impacts of exposure to LBP to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to demolition of structures on the site, a comprehensive United States Environmental Protection Agency/United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (EPA/HUD) level Lead Based Paint (LBP) survey shall be conducted. If any LBP is identified, it shall be removed from the site in accordance with all applicable regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impacts of exposure to asbestos-containing materials to a less-than-significant level: ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 53 Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Prior to demolition of structures on the site, a complete Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act-level pre-demolition Asbestos Survey shall be conducted. If asbestos is identified, a licensed asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to abate identified asbestos-containing material in accordance with all applicable regulations. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Windrush School currently occupies the project site. As described in VII.a, the proposed project includes the construction of new academic facilities, and would not result in the routine use, transport, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. As described in VII.b, the proposed project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level: Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The project site is not included on any of the hazardous materials/contaminated sites lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The proposed project would expand academic facilities on the existing site of Windrush School by approximately 23,000 square feet. No circulation changes are proposed on public streets as part of the project. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 54 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Areas of “Very High Fire Hazard Severity” are designated in the General Plan. These areas are located near East Bay Regional Park District open space and certain City parks. The proposed project site is located in a developed urban area that is not within the vicinity of a wildfire hazard area. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? ˆ ˆ ˆ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ˆ ˆ ˆ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ˆ ˆ ˆ ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 55 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ˆ ˆ ˆ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ˆ ˆ ˆ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ˆ ˆ ˆ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The following section describes the agencies that regulate surface water and groundwater quality; existing storm water regulations; proposed storm water management features on the project site; and required mitigation measures to reduce the project’s effects on water quality to a less-than-significant level. Regulatory Agencies. Water quality in surface and groundwater bodies is regulated by the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The project site is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board which is responsible for implementation of State and federal water quality protection regulations. The is responsible for implementing the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan),13 a master policy document for managing water quality issues in the region. The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water bodies within the region. Storm Water Regulations. Runoff water quality is regulated by the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Nonpoint Source Program (established through the Clean Water Act); the NPDES program objective is to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from nonpoint discharges, such as polluted runoff from parking lots. The City of El Cerrito is a participant in the Contra Costa Clean Water Program which administers the County’s NPDES permit. The which includes representatives of Contra Costa County, 19 incorporated cities in the County, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, maintains compliance with the NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit and promotes storm water pollution prevention within that context. County compliance with the NPDES permit is mandated by State and federal laws, statutes, and regulations. 13 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1995. Water Quality Control Plan, June 21. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 56 Participating agencies (including the City of El Cerrito) must comply with the provisions of the County permit by ensuring that new development and redevelopment mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, water quality impacts to storm water runoff both during construction and operation periods of projects. In February 2003, the San Francisco Bay and the Central Valley Region revised Provision C.3 in the NPDES permit governing discharges from the municipal storm drain systems of Contra Costa County and cities and towns within the County. The C.3 requirements started in 2005, but new requirements were added in 2006. C.3 requirements apply to “Group 1” and “Group 2” projects. Group 1 projects are developments that create or replace 1 acre or more of impervious surfaces. Provision C.3 requires a Stormwater Control Plan to be prepared for Group 1 projects that includes treatment measures specified in the NPDES permit and the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. In addition, Group 1 projects must also show that post-project runoff does not exceed estimated pre-project flows or durations. Group 2 projects are developments that would create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces. As with Group 1 projects, Provision C.3 requires the sponsors of Group 2 projects to show that treatment measures specified in the NPDES permit and the C.3 Guidebook are included in the project’s Stormwater Control Plan. However, unlike Group 1 projects, Group 2 projects are not required to show that these treatment measures would reduce post-project runoff to pre-project volumes and durations. However, the project sponsor must show that pollutants in storm water runoff are reduced to the maximum extent practicable. For both Group 1 and Group 2 projects, if a new project results in an increase, or replacement of, 50 percent or more of existing impervious surfaces, and the existing development was not subject to storm water treatment features, then the entire project must be included in Stormwater Control Plan. The proposed project, which would increase impervious surfaces on the site by approximately 0.17 acres (and would replace less than 1 acre of impervious surfaces) is a Group 2 project. Therefore, the project sponsor will be required to prepare a Storm Water Control Plan with storm water management features that would reduce pollutants in runoff to the maximum extent practicable. However, the increase in impervious surfaces would not comprise a 50 percent increase over existing impervious surfaces, so the project sponsor is required to provide treatment only for the runoff caused by new surfaces. The sponsor would also be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to reduce runoff, erosion, and water contamination during the construction period. Proposed Storm Water Management Features. The Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan prepared for the Master Plan indicates that runoff from existing and proposed buildings would be routed to on-site pervious surfaces, including lawns, swales along the southern and northeastern boundaries of the site, and three planters adjacent to paved areas and buildings. These features are designed to treat the runoff from the portions of the campus that would be altered by the Master Plan. In its preliminary form, the plan appears to satisfy the requirements of Provision C.3 by using best management practices to reduce pollutants in storm water to the maximum extent practicable. The project sponsor would also be required to submit a to reduce adverse effect to storm water during the construction period. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure the adequacy of the Final Storm Water Control Plan and would reduce the project’s impacts on water quality to a less-than-significant level: ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 57 Mitigation Measure HYD-1a: The project applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Pre- vention Plan designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality during the construction period of the project. It is not required that the be submitted to the but must be maintained on-site and made available to staff upon request. The shall include specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. At minimum, BMPs shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with storm water. The shall specify properly designed centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain. The shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor, and shall include both dry and wet weather inspections. Mitigation Measure HYD-1b: The project applicant shall prepare a Final Storm Water Control Plan that fulfills the requirements outlined in the Contra Costa Clean Water Program, Stormwater Quality Requirement for Development Applications, C.3 Guidebook (October 2006). b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The project would not result in the removal of water from the local groundwater table or other direct impacts to groundwater supplies. Implementation of the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the project site by approximately 0.17 acres. However, after implementation of the proposed project, approximately 44.8 percent of the project site would remain covered with pervious surfaces, such as landscaping. As indicated in the Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, all storm water runoff from the portion of the site affected by the Master Plan would be routed to pervious surfaces, allowing for the infiltration of runoff into the groundwater system. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially adversely affect groundwater recharge. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial ero- sion or siltation on- or off-site? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The project site slopes generally to the southwest. Implementation of the proposed project would not alter this general drainage pattern. As noted under VIII.a, the Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan would ensure that runoff generated by modified portions of the project site would be treated in a series of swales and planters. These storm water management features would slow the velocity of runoff and allow for the removal of sediments and other pollutants. Therefore, additional runoff generated by the project would not be expected to cause substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. No creeks or rivers flow through the project site. A historic drainage swale was identified in the location of the existing gymnasium. The project would not affect this swale, which was buried when the site was developed. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 58 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Less-Than-Signifi- cant Impact) The Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan would direct all storm water runoff from the Master Plan area to a series of storm water treatment features. Therefore, the project is not expected to increase storm water runoff on- or off-site, or otherwise result in localized flooding. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Implementation of the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the site by approximately 0.17 acres. Increased runoff from these surfaces would be routed to and treated in a series of swales and planters. Therefore, the project is not expected to generate increased storm water runoff that would be deposited off-site. According to the City Public Works Department, the existing storm drain system in the vicinity of the project site has adequate capacity to accommodate runoff from the project site.14 In addition, runoff generated during the operational period of the project would be treated on-site. Therefore, the project is not expected to create a significant source of polluted runoff. Polluted runoff could be generated during the project construction period due to erosion from soil stockpiles, oil and gas leaks, and ground disturbance. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that the project does not increase the volume or substantially reduce the quality of runoff from the project site: Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1a and HYD-1b. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) No other elements of the project would cause substantial degradation of water quality. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Impact) Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency indicate that the only portion of El Cerrito within the 100-year flood zone is south of Central Avenue and west of Carlson Boulevard. The project site is not located within this area. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (No Impact) See VIII.g, above. 14 King, Bruce, 2007. Maintenance and Engineering Manager, City of El Cerrito Public Works Department. January 19. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 59 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (No Impact) The project site is not located in a flood-prone zone, including an area subject to flooding as a result of dam or levee failure. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact) The project site is not located in an area subject to inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Seiches and mudflows are not considered hazards in most areas of El Cerrito, including the project site. Tsunamis are only likely to substantially affect portions of El Cerrito that are within close prox- imity to San Francisco Bay. However, even in these areas, the risk is not considered significant. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Physically divide an established community? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The physical division of an established community would typically involve the construction of large features (such as freeways) that then function as physical or barriers between communities, or the removal of roads through the assembly of numerous parcels and the creation of “superblocks”) such that access from one neighborhood to another is diminished. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the expansion of school facilities on the existing campus of the Windrush School. Buildout of the Master Plan would not change access patterns around the project site, create barriers within the site, or otherwise prevent persons from traveling in the vicinity of the school. Therefore, the proposed project would not divide an established community. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 60 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal pro- gram, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The project site is designated for Institutional and Utility uses in the El Cerrito General Plan. According to the General Plan, the Institutional and Utilities designation is “applied to public and privately owned lands used for activities such as private utilities (electrical, gas, water, and telecommunications), schools (both private and public), and other city, county, state, or federal facilities. A major intent of this land use designation is to preserve and protect limited valuable resources, facilities and sites for possible future public use and to allow for careful consideration by the City Council of changes in land use when private institutional uses are no longer viable.” The proposed project, which would expand school facilities on an existing school campus, would be consistent with this designation. The General Plan species a “normal range” of intensity (floor-area- ratio, or FAR) for Institutional and Utilities designated land of up to 1.0 (and up to 2.0 with City incentives). Implementation of the Master Plan would increase the FAR from 0.20 to 0.34, well within the normal range outlined in the General Plan. The project site, with the exception of the southwestern corner, is zoned Single-Family Residential District The southwestern corner of the site is zoned Duplex Residential District However, the City is in the process of revising the Zoning Ordinance; the Administrative Draft of the Zoning Ordinance revision would change the zone of the site to Public/Semi-Public (PS). Single- family dwellings, accessory uses, home occupations, and small family-care facilities are all permitted as of right in the R-1 District. Private schools are permitted uses, but are subject to a Commission Use Permit. Single-family dwellings, duplexes, accessory buildings, home occupations, and small family care facilities are permitted as of right in the R-2 District; as in the R-1 District, private school uses are permitted with a Commission Use Permit. The proposed Master Plan would be consistent with the design and intensity regulations outlined for the R-1 and R-2 Districts. The purposes of the proposed PS District are to: A) create, maintain, and enhance areas of the City that are appropriate for public or semipublic uses, including, private utilities (electrical, gas, water and telecommunications), schools (both private and public), other private uses of an institutional or community services nature and other city, county, State or federal facilities; B) Preserve and protect limited valuable resources, facilities and sites for possible future public use and to allow for careful consideration by the City Council of changes in land use when private institutional uses are no longer viable; and C) ensure that public and semipublic land uses protect and enhance the character and quality of life of the surrounding area. Schools are permitted in the PS District with a Commission Use Permit. The development standards of the PS District are dictated by the standards of surrounding zones. As noted above, the Master Plan would be generally consistent with the design and intensity regulations outlined for both the R-1 and R-2 zones. The proposed project would not conflict with other land use policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 61 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Impact) The site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or a natural community conservation plan. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? (No Impact) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact) The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans as a locally-important mineral recovery site. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? ˆ ˆ ˆ ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 62 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise lev- els in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ˆ ˆ ˆ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ˆ ˆ ˆ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The following section includes a discussion of the project’s potential effects on noise levels during the construction and operation period. The evaluation was based in part on a site reconnaissance and noise monitoring conducted by LSA staff on January 17, 2007, which concluded that the project would substantially increase noise levels during the construction period, but not during operation of the school. A summary of this analysis is preceded by a description of the fundamental characteristics of noise, applicable noise regulations, and the existing noise environment in the vicinity of Windrush School. Characteristics of Noise Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiolo- gical or damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A deci- bel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative intensity of a sound. Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Sound intensity is nor- mally measured through the A-weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the fre- quencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for 24-hour sound measurements which better represent the increased sensitivity to sound during the ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 63 nighttime hours. These measurements include the day/night noise level (Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).15 Noise Regulations The City has set acceptable noise exposure levels, consistent with the California Building Code, as shown in Table 1. The California State Noise Insulation Standards require a study of proposed project design to ensure that interior noise levels of new housing units will not exceed an Ldn of 45 dBA. Where residential units are exposed to external noise levels of 60 dBA Ldn or higher, the City stipulates that interior instantaneous noise levels should not exceed 50 dBA in the bedrooms or 55 dBA in other rooms. This measure is particularly important for areas exposed to noise from Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) trains, which may often exceed the 60 dBA Ldn threshold. The City has set a noise level goal of 60 dBA Ldn for outdoor residential uses, which are defined as backyards associated with single-family houses and recreation areas in multi-family housing. The Planning Commission is permitted to raise this threshold to 65 dBA. In addition, if the noise source is BART, the City allows outdoor noise exposure up to 70 dBA Ldn for residential uses. Residential uses exposed to higher levels may be permitted once noise insulation techniques are included in the project design. Existing Noise Environment Primary sources of noise at the project site include traffic on Elm Street, BART trains, and children at play in school yard during recess and lunch times. Five sound measurements were conducted by an LSA technician on January 17, 2007, at 15 to 20- minute intervals during existing recess and lunch periods at the school. Figure 10 shows the monitoring locations. Noise levels on the school property ranged from 56.3 dBA to 70.5 dBA Leq. Noise levels at the neighboring residential property ranged from 53.1 dBA to 54.2 dBA Leq. The results of the noise measurements are shown in Table 2. Simultaneous measurements were conducted on both sides of the sound barrier wall on the south side of the project site. Results indicate that the sound barrier wall provides at least an 8 dBA reduction in noise levels from school-related noise sources. 15 Ldn is the 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. CNEL is the 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 5 decibels to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Source: Harris, Cyril M. 1991. Handbook of Acoustical Measurement and Noise Control, Third Edition. Table 1: General Plan Noise Level Standards Location Standard Residential Exterior 60 dBA Ldn a Residential Interior 45 dBA Ldn Schools Exterior 60 dBA Ldn Playgrounds Exterior 65 dBA Leq a Does not apply to apartment patios. Where 60 dBA is not feasible, the Planning Commission may increase the standard to 65 dBA. Projects located near BART are allowed a level of 70dBA Ldn. Source: El Cerrito, City of, 1999. General Plan. August & LSA Associates, Inc., 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- Administrative / Classroom Classrooms Gymnasium Play Field Basketball Court Classroom Walnut Street Elm Street Key Blvd 3" DIAM TREE TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF PHASE 1 12' DIAM TREES TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF PHASE 4 PLAY AREA TO BE RELOCATED AS PART OF PHASE 4 LOW BUSHES & SMALL TREES TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF PHASES 1 & 2 24" MONTEREY PINE TREES TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF PHASE 1 1A 1B 2 3 feet 40 0 20 noise monitoring locations project site 3 legend FIGURE 10 Windrush School Master Plan Noise Monitoring Locations SOURCE: RATCLIFF, OCTOBER 2006. I:\CEC0602 windrush\figures\Fig_10.ai (1/25/07) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 65 Table 2: Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, January 17, 2007 Start Time End Time Location # Reference Monitoring Location Noise Sources Leq Lmax Lmin Lpeak L2 L50 10:15 10:30 2 Next to basketball court, approximately 10 feet from sound wall Approximately 35 children at play structure and at basketball court, traffic on Elm Street, BART 56.3 85.7 43.5 110.6 62.6 53.1 12:10 12:30 1A Next to play field directly behind 1780 Manor Circle, approximately 5 feet from sound wall Approximately 45 children at play structure and at basketball court, traffic on Elm Street, BART 63.7 80.8 52.5 93 70.7 60.9 12:10 12:30 1B Backyard of 1780 Manor Circle, approximately 8 feet from sound wall Approximately 45 children at play on other side of fence, BART 54.2 76.5 41 101.2 62.3 49.6 12:55 1:15 3 NW corner of gym, at top of stairs to Administration building Approximately 60 children at play structure and at basketball court, traffic on Elm Street, BART 70.5 85.4 55.9 106.9 79.4 65.9 12:55 1:10 1B Backyard of 1780 Manor Circle, approximately 8 feet from sound wall Approximately 60 children at play on other side of fence, BART 53.1 75.6 43.3 94.1 60 50.1 Source: LSA Associates, Inc., January 2007. Short-Term Construction Activities The proposed project is currently bordered by residential land uses and the existing school site. Project construction would result in short-term noise impacts on these adjacent land uses. The level and types of short-term noise impacts that would occur during construction are described below. The transport of workers and construction equipment and materials to the project site would incre- mentally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Noise impacts from trucks would occur on the site for the duration of the construction period. Workers and construction equipment would use existing access routes. Noise from passing trucks (87 dBA Lmax at 50 feet) would be similar to existing truck-generated noise. Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of bulldozers, front-end loaders, backhoes, haul trucks, water trucks, and pickup trucks. Pile drivers and rock drills are not expected to be used on a regular basis during construction. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 66 As shown in Table 3, the typical maximum noise level generated by each earthmover on the project site is assumed to be 88 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the operating earthmover. The maximum noise level generated by water and pickup trucks is approximately 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from these vehicles. Each doubling of the sound sources with equal strength would increase the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance apart from the other equipment, the worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 91 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from an active construction area. Construction activities are regulated by the El Cerrito Municipal Code, which restricts construction work hours to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays.16 There would, at times, be high intermittent short-term construction noise in the project area during the construction period. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce these noise impacts to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Construction of the proposed project shall comply with the following multi-part mitigation measure: • When school is not in session, the contractor shall comply with the hours of construction listed in the Municipal Code: construction work shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. When school is in session, Windrush School shall work with City staff to determine construction timing that would have the least effect on school activities (and adjacent residential uses). • During all construction, the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards. • The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all project construction. • The construction contractor shall coordinate with Windrush School to schedule construction operations to minimize impacts to existing school facilities. 16 El Cerrito, City of, 2006. Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.02, Section 110.1. July. Table 3: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Level Type of Equipment Range of Sound Levels Measured (dBA at 50 feet) Suggested Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet) Pile Drivers 81 to 96 93 Rock Drills 83 to 99 96 Jackhammers 75 to 85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85 Pumps 74 to 84 80 Scrapers 83 to 91 87 Haul Trucks 83 to 94 88 Cranes 79 to 86 82 Portable Generators 71 to 87 80 Rollers 75 to 82 80 Dozers 77 to 90 85 Tractors 77 to 82 80 Front-End Loaders 77 to 90 86 Hydraulic Backhoe 81 to 90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86 Graders 79 to 89 86 Air Compressors 76 to 89 86 Trucks 81 to 87 86 Source: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 67 Project Operation Noise sources for the proposed project would include traffic noise, mechanical noise, and additional noise from students playing outside during recess and lunch times. Noise generated by new machinery, such as air conditioners, would not create a significant increase in noise levels. Implementation of the project would increase staff and parent use of the parking areas and driveways, resulting in an increase in noise levels. The associated noise- producing activities would include vehicles cruising at slow speeds, door slamming, cars starting, and people talking. Vehicles cruising at slow speeds generate relatively low noise levels, or less than 60 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Door slamming would generate intermittently high impact noise levels up to 75 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Conversation between two persons at a distance of 3 to 5 feet apart would generate a noise level of 60 dBA at 5 feet. At 50 feet, this noise would be reduced to approximately 40 dBA. Noise generated on the project site’s parking lot and driveways would not result in noise levels that would exceed the City's exterior noise standards during daytime and nighttime hours within or adjacent to the project site. Typical central and northern California residential buildings built after 1970 reduce exterior to interior noise by approximately 15 dBA when windows are open, and by approximately 25 dBA when windows are closed. Therefore, residential uses adjacent to the project site (with windows either opened or closed) would be exposed to interior noise levels of 45 dBA Lmax or lower from parking lot and driveway use (including door slamming). The expected increased use of the parking areas and driveways would not generate noise levels that exceed City noise standards. Traffic volumes on Elm Street would increase by an estimated 125 daily vehicle trips with implementation of the proposed project. The increase in traffic noise levels, when averaged over 24 hours, would not raise the ambient noise levels measured in Ldn by a perceptible amount and would not expose persons to noise levels in excess of established standards. Therefore, the increase in traffic noise levels associated with implementation of the project would not result in a significant noise impact. Implementation of the project would permit an increase in student enrollment of up to 97 students (from 250 students to 330 students 5 percent). This increased number of students would contribute to existing noise levels during recess and lunch periods. However, single daytime or nighttime events, even with relatively high noise-generating activities such as periodic whistles, loud talk and yelling would not necessarily cause the Ldn to exceed the 60 dBA standard in neighboring residences. As noted above, Ldn is a weighted, 24 hour average noise scale, not an instant noise level denoted by a simple dBA reading. Although a single event taking place at the project site may generate an instant noise level several times higher than the ambient or background noise level without that particular event, it does not necessarily represent a violation of the City's noise code. As long as the Ldn levels identified in the City's General Plan and Noise Ordinance are not exceeded, no violation of the City's code would occur. According to Harry Levitt and John C. Webster in Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control (Third Edition, edited by Cyril M Harris, 1991), in acoustics, every doubling of an equal sound energy results in a 3 dBA increase in combined noise level. A worst case scenario for the proposed project can be calculated using the maximum number of 60 students observed to be on the play areas at one time during lunch, and adding an equal percentage of the new enrollment after ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 68 implementation of the project, it is expected that there would be a maximum of 83 students in the play areas at a given time). This increase in students on the play fields would result in a 30 percent increase in sound energy – an increase of less than 3 dBA. In addition, this noise level, when averaged over 24 hours, would not result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, noise levels due to increased student enrollment would not subject sensitive receptors to a significant increase in ambient noise levels and would not exceed established standards. No additional mitigation measures would be required. It can be similarly shown that for residences northeast of the project site near the proposed play area, noise levels due to increased student enrollment would also not subject sensitive receptors to noise levels that exceed established standards. The proposed play area would be located farther away from residences than the existing play area; in addition, the Phase 4 building would shield residential uses north of the site from noise associated with the proposed play area (reducing noise by up to 15 dBA). Therefore, no additional mitigation measures would be required. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Existing noise sources in the project site vicinity include BART trains, traffic on Elm Street, and children playing in the school yard during recess and lunch times. The BART tracks located approximately 700 feet west of the project site are elevated, reducing potential ground-born vibration levels. Therefore, vibration levels at the project site are less than significant. Proposed academic uses at the site would not be expected to generate significant levels of ground-borne vibration or noise. However, construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could temporarily expose persons in the vicinity of the project site to ground-borne vibration or ground- borne noise levels. Implementation of the following mitigation measure mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Existing noise levels at the project site range from 56.3 dBA to 70.5 dBA Leq. The uses associated with the proposed project would generate noise resulting from traffic, an increased number of students, and mechanical equipment. However, as shown in Section XI.a, these sources are not expected to create a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, project impacts to ambient noise levels would be less than significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorpo- rated) Project related construction activities could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less a less- than-significant level: Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: Implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 69 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons in the project area to high levels of airport-related noise. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons in the project area to excessive airport-related noise. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and busi- nesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Implementation of the proposed project would result in the expansion of an existing school. After amendment of the Master Plan, student enrollment would be permitted to rise from 250 students to 346 (330 5 percent) students during the regular school year, and from 125 students to 175 students during summer sessions. This increase in student enrollment is not likely to increase the residential population of El Cerrito because families who do not currently live in El Cerrito are unlikely to move to the City solely on the basis of living near their children’s private elementary/middle school. Employment at the school would also increase from 41 full-time-equivalent (FTE) employees to 49 FTE employees as part of the project. A portion of these eight FTE workers who do not currently live ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 70 in El Cerrito or adjoining cities could move to the area after procuring a job at the school. However, residence of these employees in the area would not be considered substantial population growth. The expansion of Windrush School would occur within the existing school campus. No infrastructure would be extended to currently undeveloped areas that could encourage future growth. No other changes would occur as part of the project that would directly induce growth in El Cerrito and adjacent municipalities. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) The project site does not currently contain any residential units. Implementation of the proposed pro- ject would not displace existing housing. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) See XII. b above. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physi- cally altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construc- tion of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ˆ ˆ ˆ Fire protection? ˆ ˆ ˆ Police protection? ˆ ˆ ˆ Schools? ˆ ˆ ˆ Parks? ˆ ˆ ˆ Other public facilities? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govern- mental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 71 order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, other public facili- ties? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The following section includes a discussion of the project’s potential effects on fire service; police service; schools; and parks and other public facilities. Impacts to public services would occur if the project increased demand for the services such that new or expanded service facilities would be required, and these new facilities themselves cause environmental impacts. Fire The El Cerrito Fire Department operates two fire stations that provide first response services to the project site. In addition, the City has an automatic response agreement with the Richmond, Kensington, and West County fire departments to provide service across jurisdictional boundaries. Service standards set a maximum response time of 6 minutes for 95 percent of emergency calls. Based on this standard, the first engine should arrive in 6 minutes or less after an emergency call is made, and is required to have at least a 3-person company having training levels of Fire Fighter 1 and Emergency Medical Technician 1 or greater. As part of the development review process, the project applicant is required to demonstrate that adequate emergency water supply, storage, and conveyance facilities, and access for fire protection exist or will be provided. The Fire Department also would review the project application to ensure that protection services can be provided. A new fire hydrant and valves would be installed west of the Phase 1 addition to the gymnasium. In addition, the existing fire/emergency truck access route extending off the main campus driveway would be upgraded. The Fire Department has indicated that additional enrollment and employment at the project site could be accommodated by existing facilities. No new or physically altered fire department fighting would be required.17 However, the Fire Department has expressed concern over congestion at the intersection of Key Boulevard/Hill Street/Elm Street during school opening and closing times, and other times of the day.18 Traffic congestion at this intersection is discussed in Section XV. Police The City provides police services and contracts with the City of Richmond for emergency dispatching and with State and County agencies for investigative support services. The Police Department has a 3-minute service standard for emergency responses. General Plan policies also set a level of service standard of 1.8 officers per 1,000 persons. As part of the development review process, the General Plan requires the Police Department to make a determination regarding the ability of the department to provide services and to make recommendations in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. The Police Department has indicated that the increase in enrollment and employment at the school would not compromise the Department’s ability to meet emergency response standards, or otherwise require the need for new or expanded Police Department facilities. However, like the Fire Department, the Police Department has expressed concern over congestion at the intersection of Key 17 Bond, Michael, 2007. City of El Cerrito Fire Department. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. January 22. 18 Bond, Michael, 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 72 Boulevard/Hill Street/Elm Street during school opening and closing times, and other times of the day.19 Traffic congestion at this intersection is discussed in Section XV. Schools The project involves the expansion of an existing private school and would not increase enrollment at other schools in El Cerrito, including both public and private schools. Parks The most recent tally of parks and open space in El Cerrito was conducted in 1998 and 1999, when the General Plan was being prepared. As of 1999, the City of El Cerrito had a total of 181.4 acres of recreation and open space facilities, including 31.6 acres of City-owned parks, 99.9 acres of City- owned open space, 23.3 acres of other City-maintained recreation facilities, and 26.6 acres of School District-owned recreation areas. The project site is within ¼ mile of Canyon Trail Park (10.5 acres), Hillside Natural Area (85 acres), and Castro Park (2.7 acres). Implementation of the proposed project would increase school enrollment by a maximum of 96 students during the regular school year and 50 students during summer sessions. Students are expected to occasionally visit local parks during field trips; however, this occasional use would not be considered a substantial increase in demand for local parks, and would not require the provision of additional parks or expanded park facilities in El Cerrito. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighbor- hood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the envi- ronment? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Implementation of the proposed project would increase school enrollment by a maximum of 96 students during the regular school year and 50 students during summer sessions. Students are expected to occasionally visit local parks, such as Canyon Trail Park and Hillside Natural Area, 19 Kirkland, Scott, 2007. Chief, El Cerrito Police Department. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. January 18. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 73 during field trips (including science class/ecology outings). This occasional use would not be expected to result in physical deterioration of any parks in El Cerrito, including those in the vicinity of Windrush School. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The proposed project includes two new recreational facilities: a plaza and play area in the northeast corner of the campus adjacent to the proposed Phase 4 classroom building. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-2, CULT-2, CULT-3, CULT-4, GEO-1, HYD-1a, and HYD-1b would ensure that these proposed facilities would not have a substantial adverse physical effect on the environment. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street sys- tem result in a substantial increase in either the num- ber of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ser- vice standard established by the county congestion man- agement agency or designated roads or highways? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom- patible uses farm equipment)? ˆ ˆ ˆ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ˆ ˆ ˆ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ˆ ˆ ˆ g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs support- ing alternative transportation bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ˆ ˆ ˆ ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 74 a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Traffic impacts were analyzed under existing conditions and existing plus project conditions. Intersection level of service was analyzed for one intersection (the only one determined to have the potential for significant adverse effects) to identify project impacts. Details and results of the analysis are described below and the traffic data used in this evaluation are included as Appendix C. The traffic analysis was conducted using the methods outlined in the Transportation Research Board's 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), as discussed below. The HCM methodology was utilized for the one analyzed intersection (which is signalized) to account for delay caused by signal phasing. It should be noted that anticipated intersection level of service can vary significantly when evaluations are performed using various LOS methodologies. In the case of the study intersection, for instance, use of the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) LOS methodology, which is based on roadway capacity (and not intersection delay), would yield an improved level of service. However, the HCM methodology was used in this analysis because it is thought to be more representative of the intersection’s actual operating characteristics. The LOS results of the HCM analysis reflect the intersection delay experienced during peak hour conditions. Nevertheless, use of either model would not change the conclusion regarding the project’s less-than-significant impacts on traffic congestion. Existing Conditions To document existing traffic conditions, intersection turn movement counts were collected by LSA Associates, Inc. on Wednesday, January 10, 2007. The counts were collected from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. to identify traffic conditions during the AM peak period and from 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to identify conditions during the school PM peak period. The school PM peak was evaluated instead of the citywide PM peak period because the new trips generated by the school during the citywide PM peak are relatively low in comparison to those generated during the school PM dismissal period. The project would add minimal trips to area roads during the citywide PM peak hour. The intersection of Key Boulevard, Hill Street, Elm Street and the project driveway was evaluated to determine the impacts of existing traffic conditions at the school during the morning arrival and afternoon school dismissal period. No other intersections underwent a detailed analysis because the study intersection was determined to be the only intersection in the vicinity of the project site that could potentially be substantially affected by proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 75 The study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. The existing lane geometry consists of one northbound left turn lane and a northbound shared through right lane; a southbound shared through, left and right turn lane; a southeast shared through, left and right turn lane; an eastbound shared through and left turn lane and a right turn lane; and a westbound shared right and left turn lane. The existing level of service (LOS) for the study intersection was calculated using (traffic modeling software), and the methodology set forth in Chapter 10 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM methodology defines LOS in terms of total intersection delay in seconds per vehicle for all signalized and all-way stop- controlled intersections. The approach delay of a minor street is reported if it operates at an unacceptable LOS for two-way stop-controlled intersections. The resulting delay is expressed in terms of LOS, where LOS A represents free-flow activity and LOS F represents over-capacity operation. According to the LOS criteria set forth in the City of El Cerrito General Plan, the worst acceptable operation is LOS D for signalized intersections. The relationship between delay and LOS at both signalized and unsignalized intersections is summarized in Table 4. The existing intersection level of service results indicate that the intersection of Key Boulevard/Hill Street/Elm Street and the project driveway currently operates an acceptable level of service during both peak hours. Project Trip Generation and Distribution The project trip generation for the proposed project was calculated using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition. According to the trip generation shown in Table 5, the additional 97 students (maximum) would generate approximately 161 new daily trips, including 33 AM peak hour, and 22 school PM peak hour trips. Project trips were distributed through the study area intersection based on existing circulation patterns observed by LSA. In summary, 40 percent of inbound project trips approach the site from an eastbound direction, 11 percent of inbound project trips approach from Key Boulevard and head southeast to the project driveway, 11 percent of the project trips access the site from a southbound direction on Elm Street, and 38 percent of project trips approach from a northbound direction on Elm Street. Table 4: LOS/Delay at Intersections Level of Service (LOS) Signalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle (sec) Unsignalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle (sec) A <10.0 <10.0 B >10.0 and 20.0 >10.0 and 15.0 C >20.0 and 35.0 >15.0 and 25.0 D >35.0 and 55.0 >25.0 and 35.0 E >55.0 and 80.0 >35.0 and 50.0 F >80.0 >50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Table 5: Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour School PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Unit ADT In Out Total In Out Total Trip Ratesa Elementary School Students 1.29 0.1 9 0.1 5 0.34 0.10 0.1 3 0.23 Trip Generation High School 97 Students 161 18 15 33 10 12 22 Total Project Trip Generation 161 18 15 33 10 12 22 a Trip Rates referenced from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition (2003). Trip rate is based on the fitted curve equation using the schools potential future total number of students (346) and ITE Land Use Code 520, Elementary School Source: LSA Associates, Inc., March 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 76 Existing Plus Project Conditions The addition of project trips to existing traffic establishes the anticipated existing plus project traffic conditions. Existing plus project intersection traffic volumes would result in the LOS conditions shown in Table 6. Results indicate the study intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project trips. Table 6: Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions LOS Summary Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project AM Peak School PM Peak AM Peak School PM Peak Intersection Criteri a Delay LOS Delay LOS Dela y LOS Dela y LOS 1 Elm Street / Hill Street / Key Blvd. / Project Driveway D 47.6 D 43.3 D 48.1 D 43.4 D Source: LSA Associates, Inc., March 2007 Collected traffic data indicate traffic spikes between 8:15 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on weekday mornings, due primarily to student drop-offs. However, when averaged over the 1-hour time period (the time period used by the City to identify LOS impacts of projects), traffic flow resumes at an acceptable level of service. Traffic modeling of existing and existing plus project conditions indicate that vehicle queues at the intersection would clear with each signal cycle, resulting in an acceptable level of service. Impacts to traffic flow due to proposed school uses would continue to be minimized due to the school’s on-site circulation pattern, which allows for student drop offs on-site with minimal disruption to the surrounding roadways. As shown in Table 6, the proposed project would increase delay at the intersection of Elm Street/Hill Street/Key Boulevard and the project driveway by less than 1 second. During the demolition and construction period it is expected that minimal soil and other debris material would be exported from the site. Construction traffic during this period would consist of heavy construction vehicles and equipment as well as employee vehicles. During the construction phase of the project, the construction traffic would consist of large trucks delivering equipment and materials, employee vehicles, and limited debris pickup vehicles. The number of delivery and construction vehicles accessing and leaving the site would fluctuate during the construction period. Traffic associated with delivery and haul trucks could result in potentially significant impacts to surrounding roadways intermittent periods of significant congestion). Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level: Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: The contractor shall submit a Traffic Control Plan for approval by City staff prior to the issuance of necessary grading and building permits. The Traffic Control plan shall designate travel routes. It shall also stipulate that site access points be monitored and controlled by flaggers for large construction equipment access and egress. It shall require construction employee parking to be provided on the project site for all employees to assure no conflict with other school parking demands. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 77 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways? (Less-than- Significant Impact) The addition of project traffic is not considered substantial in relation to the existing traffic load. As shown in Table 6, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the existing level of service of the intersection that would be most subject to project-related traffic. Due to the relatively low number of new trips generated by the project, and the distribution of these trips, the project would have a less-than-significant effect on roadways under the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (the designated Congestion Management Agency). c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No Impact) The proposed project would not result in the construction of tall buildings or other features that could impair flight patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses farm equipment)? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Vehicular access to the project site would be provided from Elm Street, Hill Street and Key Boulevard. The planned circulation system would be adequate to accommodate the anticipated land uses. Access and egress to the site would be provided by driveways connected by pathways to campus buildings. All proposed sight lines would be adequate, and there would be no anticipated conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less-than-Significant Impact) After implementation of the project, three access points would be provided at the site: 1) a surface parking lot in the southwest portion of the site, adjacent to and accessible from Elm Street (pathways connect this parking lot to the rest of the project site); 2) a driveway extending from the intersection of Hill Street and Elm Street that terminates in a parking lot adjacent to the main administrative/ classroom building; and 3) a driveway extending along the northern boundary of the project site from Elm Street. School bus drop-offs would occur on Elm Street (but out of main traffic flow); all other pick-ups and drop-offs would occur within the campus at designated locations. The project would result in an upgrade to a driveway extending from the main driveway to the vicinity of the existing gymnasium; this driveway would be widened to accommodate fire trucks. Based on the proposed site plan, adequate emergency access would be provided to the project site. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Windrush School currently provides 57 parking spaces, including two handicap spaces, and would continue to provide 57 parking spaces as part of the proposed project no additional parking is included in the Master Plan). City of El Cerrito Parking Code20 requires the existing school to provide 20 El Cerrito, City of, 2006. Title 19 Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 19.24: Off-Street Parking and Loading. July. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 78 23 parking spaces. The proposed project would be required to provide a total of 29 parking spaces. The project would therefore provide more parking spaces than required under existing City of El Cerrito parking requirements and would not result in inadequate parking capacity. In addition, Windrush School provides parent-student drop off areas; parking demand is expected to be reduced since many students and faculty walk, bicycle or take BART to and from school. g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The City of El Cerrito General Plan Circulation Element establishes goals and policies that promote the use of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. Policies encourage the use of transit services and promote bicycle and pedestrian circulation. The project would provide employment/academic opportunities in an area supported by BART and AC Transit service. To support bicycle uses, the project site currently has bike racks for 11 bikes, and under the proposed project the site would contain 19 bike racks for bike storage. The project site is easily accessible by alternative modes of transportation, including BART, AC Transit, and bicycle and pedestrian routes. The proposed project would not adversely affect alternative mode users, and would enhance pedestrian circulation within the site. As a result, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signifi- cant environmental effects? ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? ˆ ˆ ˆ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the pro- ject from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ˆ ˆ ˆ ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 79 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commit- ments? ˆ ˆ ˆ f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? ˆ ˆ ˆ g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regula- tions related to solid waste? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The project site is currently served by utility infrastructure, including sanitary sewer and water lines. Minor extensions of these lines would be made to enable the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure to convey wastewater away from the project site. The approximately 96 new students and eight new FTE employees (in addition to 23,000 square feet of new floor space) would incrementally increase the amount of wastewater generated on the project site. For the purposes of this analysis, wastewater generation is assumed to be approximately 90 percent of water usage (the 10 percent differential includes consumed water and water used for irrigation). The General Plan EIR identifies a commercial use water consumption rate of one gallon per day per 55 square feet. Commercial and institutional uses typically have a similar pattern and rate of water use. Based on these water demand rates for commercial uses, the proposed project would require approximately 432 gallons of water per day; however, water use by students and new staff could result in a higher water consumption rate. Based on this water consumption rate, the project is anticipated to generate 389 gallons of wastewater per day. This increase in demand for wastewater treatment would comprise a small portion of the wastewater treated by East Bay Municipal Utility District’s (EBMUD’s) Wastewater Treatment Plant in Oakland (which has an average annual daily flow of approximately 80 million gallons a day (MGD). The Wastewater Treatment Plant has an primary treatment capacity of 320 MGD and a secondary treatment capacity of 168 MGD.21 21 East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), 2007. Wastewater Treatment. Website: www.ebmud.com/wastewater/treatment/. January 22. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 80 This wastewater would be fully treated by the existing wastewater treatment plant operated by EBMUD and would not cause an exceedance of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s treatment standards.22 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expan- sion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Water supply and treatment are provided to the City by EBMUD. Stege Sanitary District provides the City with wastewater collection services. Both water and sewer impact fees are collected and levied by EBMUD. As noted in Section XVI.a, the project site is currently served by sanitary sewer and water lines. Minor extensions of these lines would be required to serve new structures on the site. Based on water demand rates for commercial uses (which are anticipated to be similar to water demand rates for school uses), the proposed project would require approximately 432 gallons of water per day and would generate approximately 389 gallons of wastewater per day. The most current EBMUD Urban Water Management Plan (2005) has projected that current water demand will be approximately 232 MGD in 2030 after anticipated buildout of the Master Plan).23 The increased demand that would result from the proposed project is an insignificant fraction of this anticipated demand. As noted in Section XVI.a, the EBMUD Wastewater Treatment Plant has an average daily flow of 80 MGD and a primary and secondary treatment capacity of 320 MGD and 168 MGD, respectively. Therefore, increased water demand and wastewater generated by the proposed project would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less-than-Significant Impact) At the time of the drafting of the General Plan, the City had completed the first phase of storm drain rehabilitation, which addressed the most critical drainage concerns in El Cerrito. This $6.3 million bond issued in 1993 reduced system overflows and the occurrence of localized flood events during heavy rainstorms and dramatically improved the capacity of the system. The City is also placing greater emphasis on creek restoration and use as part of the storm drain system. The City’s management guidelines were adopted in order to comply with the Clean Water Program and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The project would be required to comply with these regulations (including Provision C.3), which require the use of storm water management practices that reduce the volume and pollutant load of runoff. The Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan is designed to capture and treat all the storm water runoff generated by portions of the campus that would be changed as part of the Master Plan. Therefore, the 22 Feagans, Brian, 2007. Architect, Ratcliff Architecture. Personal communication with Adam Weinstein, LSA Associates, Inc. January 11. 23 East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), 2007. Urban Water Management Plan. November. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 81 proposed project is not expected to add additional runoff volume to the City’s existing storm drain infrastructure.24 No expansion of existing storm water facilities would be required. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Refer to Section XVI.b. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Less-than-Significant Impact) Refer to Section XVI.b. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (Less-than-Significant Impact) The City of El Cerrito is within the jurisdiction boundaries of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA). WCCIWMA sends waste to two landfills: the West Contra Costa Landfill and Keller Canyon Landfill.25 The City also contracts with East Bay Sanitary Company for garbage collection. East Bay Sanitary Company hauls waste to the West Contra Costa Landfill. Although the West Contra Costa Landfill had a scheduled closure date of January 2006, it has not reached capacity and will operate for a few more years. According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, Keller Canyon Landfill has a remaining capacity of 91 percent (68,279,670 cubic yards) and is scheduled to remain open through December 2030.26 Existing landfills have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Less- than-Significant Impact) Every year, the City must divert at least 50 percent of its solid waste through reduction, recycling, composting, and other activities. In order to achieve this aim, the City offers recycling services through its franchise, East Bay Sanitary Company, and requires new development projects to comply with Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding recycling area design. The City would not issue a building permit for the proposed project until the recycling area is approved by the design review board. A recycling/waste area is proposed in an area between the proposed Phase 4 structure and the existing one-story classroom structure. Therefore, the project is expected to comply with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 24 King, Bruce, 2007. Maintenance and Engineering Manager, City of El Cerrito Public Works Department. January 19. 25 California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2007. Jurisdiction Landfill Operations, Active Landfill Profiles. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/profiles/default.asp. January 22. 26 California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2007. Facility/Site Summary Details. Website: www.ciwmb.ca.gov/swis/detail.asp. January 22. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 82 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife popula- tion to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the num- ber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ˆ ˆ ˆ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually lim- ited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively con- siderable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current pro- jects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ˆ ˆ ˆ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ˆ ˆ ˆ a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitiga- tion Incorporated) The proposed project site is located in an area that has been previously developed. This infill site is within an urbanized area having little biological value. Despite the absence of biological resources on the site, the project would potentially contribute to the degradation of water quality through storm water runoff, which may adversely affect riparian wildlife species. The project site contains buildings associated with the Chung Mei orphanage, which represent an important example of California History. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to natural and historic resources to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and CULT-2 through CULT-4. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)? (Less-than-Significant Impact) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 83 The proposed project would result in the expansion of an existing school campus. The project’s close proximity to BART and its location in a central urban area with existing infrastructure would reduce the possible cumulative effects the project may have in combination with other planned development in El Cerrito and surrounding communities. The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The project could have substantial adverse effects on human beings through: air quality degradation during the construction period (including potential exposure to lead and asbestos); placing people at risk to seismic and soils hazards; and creating substantial noise during the construction period. However, these potential impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 84 E. REPORT PREPARERS LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Lynette Dias, AICP, Principal In Charge Adam Weinstein, Senior Planner Amy Fischer, Senior Planner Phil Ault, Air Quality/Noise Analyst Jennifer Morris, Word Processing Patty Linder, Graphics 157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801 Christian Gerike, Principal Andrew Pulcheon, Senior Cultural Resources Manager Karin Goetter, Historian/Archaeologist F. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1996 (Amended 1999). BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. April. Bond, Michael, 2007. City of El Cerrito Fire Department. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. January 22. California Air Resources Board, 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October. California Department of Conservation, 2007. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Website: www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/index.htm. July. California Department of Transportation, 2007. California Scenic Highway Program. Website: January 18. California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2007. Facility/Site Summary Details. Website: www.ciwmb.ca.gov/swis/detail.asp. January 22. California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2007. Jurisdiction Landfill Operations, Active Landfill Profiles. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/profiles/default.asp. January 22. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), 2007. Urban Water Management Plan. November. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), 2007. Wastewater Treatment. Website: www.ebmud.com/wastewater/treatment/. January 22. El Cerrito, City of, 2006. Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.02, Section 110.1. July. Feagans, Brian, 2007. Architect, Ratcliff Architecture. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. January-March. Fugro West, Inc., 2004. Geotechnical Study, Windrush School, El Cerrito, California. October. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . W I N D R U S H S C H O O L M A S T E R P L A N J U N E 2 0 0 7 I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N P:\CEC0602\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Initial Study-PublicReview.doc (6/7/2007) 85 King, Bruce, 2007. Maintenance and Engineering Manager, City of El Cerrito Public Works Department. January 19. Kirkland, Scott, 2007. Chief, El Cerrito Police Department. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. January 18. Lim, Glenn 2007. Lim Family History. Website: limfamilyhistory.pbwiki.com. January 3. LSA Associates, Inc., 2007. Historical Resources Evaluation for the Windrush School Project, El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California. March. Maw, Eve 2000. Interview with George Haw. El Cerrito Wire. Website: elcerritowire.com. Mar 25. San Francisco Air Quality Management District, 2007. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Bay Area Attainment Status. Website: www.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm. January 19. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1995. Water Quality Control Plan, June 21. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B HISTORICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION REPORT ---PAGE BREAK--- H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A March 2007 ---PAGE BREAK--- H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T EL CERRITO, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: City of El Cerrito Community Development Department City Hall, 10890 San Pablo Ave. El Cerrito, California 94530 Prepared by: Karin Goetter, M.A., RPA No. 15758, RPH No. 597 Andrew Pulcheon, M.A., RPA No. 11693, RPH No. 581, AICP LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810 LSA Project No. CEC0602 March 19, 2007 ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Windrush Evaluation 031607.doc (03/16/07) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PROJECT PROJECT RESOURCE HISTORICAL Chinese in Chinese Exclusion Institutional Homes for Project Area Historical LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT California Environmental Quality Act California Register of Historical Resources Public Resources Code §5097.5 Human Remains METHODS Background Internet and Archival Research Project Meeting Field ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION Period of Significance Significance Integrity POTENTIAL Project Design Impacts Design Mitigation Accidental Human Remains REFERENCES APPENDICES A: Figures B: Photographs C: California Department of Parks and Recreation form 523 record D: Consultation Letters E: El Cerrito Historical Society Documents ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Windrush Evaluation 031607.doc (03/16/07) ii FIGURES In Text Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity Figure 2: Project Area Figure 3: Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys – Historic District Appendix A Figure 4: Proposed Changes to Windrush School Master Plan Figure 5a-b: 1949 Blueprints of Gymnasium Figure 6a-b: 2006 Blueprints of Gymnasium Figure 7: Proposed Gymnasium, Detailed Elevation West ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 1 INTRODUCTION Windrush School (applicant) is amending the Master Plan (project) for its four-acre campus in El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California (Figures 1 and The Windrush School campus, opened in 1987, consists of a main administrative/classroom building, a maintenance building, an old garage converted to an art studio, an L-shaped classroom building, a gymnasium, playfields, basketball court, lawn areas, pathways, roads, and trees. From 1935 to 1954, the campus served as the Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys, an orphanage that provided care and education for boys of Chinese ancestry. Since 1954, the campus served as a part of the Western Baptist Bible College (1956-1974) and the Preparatory School (1974-1987). The proposed project will be implemented in four phases: phases one and two will involve the removal and replacement of a portion of the gymnasium, and the construction of a new library/performing arts classroom adjacent to the gymnasium. Phases three and four will consist of renovation of the main classroom building and the demolition and replacement of the L-shaped classroom building. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) prepared this historical resources evaluation for the applicant in support of environmental documentation being prepared for the project. The purposes of this historical resource evaluation are to: evaluate the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) eligibility of Windrush School and, specifically, the gymnasium; assess the potential for impacts to cultural resources that may result from project implementation; and recommend ways to avoid or mitigate significant impacts to cultural resources that may result from project implementation. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Register. LSA’s archival research and field study identified one cultural resource in the project area: the Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys Historic District (District). LSA’s historical evaluation found that the District, consisting of four contributing buildings and one non-contributor, appears to be eligible for listing in the California Register at the local level for its association with the history of the East Bay Chinese. The District, because it appears eligible for listing in the California Register, is considered a historical resource under CEQA. The proposed project will diminish some aspects of the District’s historical integrity. However, implementing the design developed by the applicant, as well as mitigation recommended by LSA, will reduce the potential impacts to the District to less than significant levels. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project would result in an amendment to the existing use permit (which was last amended in November 1998). The amended use permit would allow Windrush School to proceed with the following key changes to the existing Master Plan over a four phase, 20-year period: • Increase enrollment from 250 students to 330 students 5 percent) during the regular school year and from 125 students to 175 students during summer sessions; • Improve accessibility; • Undertake a 23,750 square foot (net) increase in additional floor space; and • Increase building height limits from two stories to a maximum of 35 feet. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 2 Phase one would include the replacement of an existing one-story classroom wing in front of the gymnasium with a new two-story 13,500 square-foot addition in the same location. The new addition would contain an interim library, classrooms, and a supporting circulation area. Phase two would include the construction of a new library, performing arts classroom, and a dance classroom adjacent to the gymnasium and Phase one classrooms. These uses would be accommodated in a 9,000 square- foot addition. Phases three and four would include the renovation of the existing main classroom and administration building, and the replacement of an existing 5,000 square-foot classroom with a new 5,500 square-foot classroom, respectively. PROJECT AREA The project area is in El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California, in the unsectioned lands of the Rancho San Pablo land grant. The project area is located on an undulating hillside bordered by Elm Street to the west and residential housing to the north, east, and south. Currently, the project area contains five buildings and associated playfields, pathways, roads, and trees. The buildings consist of a main administrative/classroom building, a maintenance building, an old garage converted to an art studio, an L-shaped classroom building, and a gymnasium (Figure RESOURCE DESCRIPTION The District is the remnant of a 5.5-acre campus in El Cerrito, where, from 1935 to 1954, abandoned or orphaned boys of Chinese ancestry in the East Bay were cared for and educated. The District consists of the current Windrush School campus, with four of its five buildings contributing to its California Register eligibility. Contributors to the District include the main building (administrative/classroom); the former garage (classroom); the maintenance building (attached to main building on the east elevation by a covered walkway); and the gymnasium (Figure The L- shaped classrooms building in the northeast corner of the campus is the only building on campus that does not contribute to the District. See Appendix C for detailed descriptions. The entrance to the campus, once gated with a sign (Appendix B: Photo is on Elm Street; the paved drive curves up the hill to the main building where the driveway circles around a planter that once contained rose bushes and a flag pole, both no longer present (Appendix B: Photo Tall trees, also no longer present, blocked the view of the gymnasium from the lower levels of the campus (Western Baptist Bible College 1956; Appendix Sidewalks and stairs join the upper level main building, art studio, and L-shaped classrooms with the gymnasium, play areas, and the newer visitor parking lot, on the lower levels (Figures 3 and The main building, constructed in 1935, is a three-story, poured-in-place reinforced concrete modified International-style building with Chinese architectural embellishments. This building was the primary residence for the boys at Chung Mei. The low-pitched, hipped roof is clad in terra cotta tile painted green and flared at the corners and ridge ends to evoke Chinese architecture. Decorative molding on the exterior walls, stylistic fenestration, and dragon motifs add to the Chinese-style architecture (Appendix B: Photo 3; Appendix The former garage, north of the main building, is a one-story, flat roofed, stucco-clad Art Moderne style building constructed in 1935 (City of El Cerrito This building is currently used as an art ---PAGE BREAK--- Benicia MILES FIGURE 1 SOURCE: ©2002 DeLORME. STREET ATLAS USA®2003. P:\CEC0602\g\Fig1_RegionalLocation.cdr (3/14/07) 10 0 N Project Location and Vicinity Historical Resources Evaluation Windrush School Project El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California Project Location El Cerrito µ ---PAGE BREAK--- 0 1,000 2,000 500 FEET I:\CEC0602\GIS\Maps\Project Area.mxd (2/16/2007) FIGURE 2 Historical Resource Evaluation Windrush School Project El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California Project Area Source: USGS 7.5’ Quads: Richmond, Calif. (1980) Project Area ---PAGE BREAK--- Feet FIGURE 3 SOURCE: Ratcliff Architecture, Emeryville, Ca P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Figure_3.cdr (3/10/07) 40 0 Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys - Historic District Historical Resources Evaluation Windrush School Project El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California N Historic District ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 6 studio (Appendix B: Photo 4; Appendix The maintenance building is a one-story, hipped roof, stucco-clad Art Moderne-style building constructed in 1948 (City of El Cerrito The building is attached to the main building via a covered walkway. The east entrance is framed by a modified torii (Appendix B: Photo 5; Appendix The gymnasium is a one-story, stucco-clad International-style building constructed in 1949. The front (west) elevation, which housed classrooms, lockers and bathroom facilities, has a flat roof, while the back (east) elevation is the open beam, side-gabled roof of the gymnasium (Appendix A: Figures 5 and The gabled roof was clad in tile and topped with a prominent red Chinese motif ridge beam (Western Baptist Bible College 1956). The tile was replaced with composition shingle in the early 1980s, but the roof line and Chinese motif ridge beam, and the skylights that flank both sides of the ridge beam, remain (Appendix B: Photo 6; Appendix The L-shaped classroom building is a split-level, stucco-clad modern building constructed sometime between 1956-1959 (U.S. Geological Survey 1959; Western Baptist Bible College 1956). The shallow-pitched, side-gabled roof is clad in composition shingles. The east-west wing is one-story; the north-south wing is two-story. Fenestration consists of aluminum sliders. This building is not a contributor to the District because it was constructed after the District’s period of significance. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW This overview provides the historical context for the California Register eligibility evaluation of the District. The overview discusses the initial in-migration of Chinese during the Gold Rush, the development of immigration restrictions and exclusion laws, and the advent of the Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys in El Cerrito, California. Chinese in California As with many others, the majority of Chinese immigrants came to California during the Gold Rush (Daniels 1988:12-13, 15). The Chinese ideogram for California, “Golden Mountain,” represents the economic importance of California. The economic boom created by the discovery of gold in 1848, brought political refugees and economic opportunists to California, where the tremendous labor shortage in the developing mining and collateral industries created the highest wage level in the world. The Chinese in California quickly became an integral part of the labor force, participating in the mining industry and railroad construction, as well as in the unskilled workforce of collateral industries such as laundry service. Although Chinese laborers in California were paid less than the average white male, they made considerably higher wages than their counterparts back home (Daniels 1988:15). The Chinese population in California between 1860 and 1880 was more than 8 percent of the total population of the state. The overwhelming majority of Chinese immigrants, however, had no intention of emigrating permanently. The very word for emigrant in Chinese means “sojourner” and carries the implication of eventual return. The “sojourners” were encouraged to seek their fortune in the United States and then come back to China for their families (Mock Wyman 1997:247). ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 7 One reason for Chinese immigrants to maintain only temporary resident status was the imbalance of males to females in California and the nation as a whole. Confucian belief dictated that a wife should stay home to care for her husband’s family (Mock Wyman 1997:247). In 1880, California listed more than 70,000 Chinese males, with fewer than 4,000 Chinese females. Johnson (1993:16) states that by the late nineteenth century, Oakland’s “sex ratio was approaching parity,” with many women finding work in food processing plants. In 1920, seventy years after the immigration to California began, the Chinese community was still a “bachelor society” with women numbering fewer than ten percent (Daniels 1988:16-17). The imbalanced gender ratio of the Chinese community within the United States remained distorted for years due to subsequent legislation that prevented further immigration by Chinese to the United States. Chinese Exclusion Laws In 1882, the United States Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which suspended immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States for 10 years, issued residency certificates to those that were already in the country and leaving with intent to return, and restated the bar against naturalization. Amendments and renewals of the act occurred over several decades when, in 1924, the United States Congress passed the Immigration Act (also known as the National Origins Act) imposing a quota on immigration of only 2 percent of the number of people from any nonwestern country based on the number of people from that country in the United States at the time of the 1890 census (Daniels 1988:96). Illegal immigration into the United States began as early as the exclusionary laws were instituted, and became commonplace after the San Francisco earthquake in 1906 destroyed the city’s vital statistics records, which allowed many Chinese to enter the country using counterfeit paperwork (Daniels 1988:94). Chinese fraudulently claiming American citizenship could not only enter and exit the country at will, but “any children fathered abroad could also claim derivative citizenship under American laws,” (Daniels 1988:94). These children were predominantly sons; forged documentation also allowed Chinese to enter as other men’s sons, known as “paper sons” (Daniels 1988:94). The 1924 immigration law contributed to the already existing gender imbalance of the Chinese community, making it impossible for United States citizens of Chinese ancestry to bring alien Chinese wives to the country (Daniels 1988:96). The concept of paper sons further shifted the gender ratios. The census of 1930 showed four times as many married men as married women (Daniels 1988:97). Anti-Chinese sentiments and the gender imbalance created a growing population of children born of Chinese ancestry living on the streets; children who were orphaned by their parents “because of illness, unfit homes, abandonment, or because of the death of a parent or a parent having to temporarily return to China” (Mock Wyman 1997:260). These children were banned from non- Chinese orphanages due to their ancestry (Chung Mei / Ming Quong 2003; Gutman 2002:11). The Second World War brought a dramatic change to how most Americans viewed Chinese immigrants and those already living in the United States. Prior to the attack, Chinese in California, and the nation as a whole, demonstrated against Japan’s economic and military expansion that led to the Second Sino-Japanese War (against China) in 1937 (Daniels 1988:188). After Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor in 1941, the status and prestige of the Chinese community was elevated in the eyes of Americans, and regard for Japan and the Japanese community in the United States fell (Daniels 1988:187,188). China, unlike Japan, had never interjected itself in the affairs of the United States, and the surprise attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, which killed over 2,400 ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 8 people and catapulted the United States into the Second World War, made China an ally (Daniels 1988:188,195). Perception of Chinese Americans during the early 1940s in the United States prompted a repeal of the exclusionary laws against the Chinese which allowed legal immigration for the first time since 1882 and enabled Chinese nationals already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens (Daniels 1988:193, 321). Due to these changes, the total Chinese population rose over 50 percent during the 1940s (Daniels 1988:191). Institutional Homes for Children Shelters for indigent children were not uncommon in East Bay during the twentieth century. In the late 1920s, the Alameda County Welfare Council supervised three shelters for homeless children (Gutman 2002:10). There were two nonsectarian children’s institutions in Oakland, and several faith- based orphanages. However, those institutions had rules against accepting “children of color or Asiatic races” (Gutman 2002:11). Dr. Charles R. Shepherd, an Englishman schooled at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, who also spent four years as a professor in China, recognized a need for an orphanage for boys of Asian ancestry in the East Bay. Ming Quong, a Presbyterian Mission Home for Chinese girls established in San Francisco in 1874 and relocated to Oakland after the 1906 earthquake and fire, provided a suitable home for girls of Chinese ancestry, but they did not admit boys until the 1950s (Mock Wyman 1997). In 1923, Dr. Shepherd established the Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys in a wood frame house in Berkeley (Appendix B: Photo 7; Shepherd 1938). Chung Mei was the only institution of its kind in the United States (El Cerrito Historical Society, Appendix The residents of Chung Mei attended public schools and went to Sunday services at the First Baptist Church in Berkeley (Deaton 2001). Dr. Shepherd, known as “Captain,” was a “firm” and “consistent” leader who believed in the regimented style of the military to shape the children’s upbringing (Appendix B: Photo 8; El Cerrito Historical Society, Appendix The boys planted and maintained their gardens, cleaned and ironed clothes, performed minstrels, and harvested fruits and vegetables to earn money (El Cerrito Historical Society, Appendix E; Shepherd 1938:65). The Chung Mei Home soon outgrew itself, and moved from Berkeley to the current Windrush School campus on Elm Street, in El Cerrito in 1935. Project Area Historical Overview The Chung Mei Home was relocated to El Cerrito on land that was previously owned by the Heidie family who operated a dairy (Lim 2007:6). The land was purchased for $10,000 which was earned by the boys through musical performances and other endeavors (El Cerrito Historical Society, Appendix The main building was constructed in 1935 and dedicated in June of that year (El Cerrito Historical Society, Appendix By 1940, the Chung Mei Home was already in need of expansion, and again the boys stepped up to raise money for the cause. They earned $12,000 by harvesting crops and salvaging paper and other scrap materials (El Cerrito Historical Society, Appendix Additional funds were donated by entertainer (and adoptive parent) Bob Hope, who contributed 10 percent of the proceeds from several of his Bay Area performances. Money raised locally and in the greater San Francisco Bay Area added to the fund, and in 1948 a maintenance building was attached to the east elevation of the main building (El Cerrito Historical Society, Appendix In 1949, a gymnasium was constructed to the ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 9 southeast of the main building of the Chung Mei Home (El Cerrito Historical Society, Appendix E; Figure 5a,b). Both of these buildings incorporated motifs, fenestration, and roof lines that evoked Chinese architecture (Appendix B: Photos 5 and The Chung Mei Home was established to provide for young Chinese boys who were in need of care and guidance and for whom there was no other provision (El Cerrito Historical Society, Appendix After World War II, the need for welfare facilities like the Chung Mei Home was reduced because of the change in perception toward people of Chinese descent. The Chinese community had become fairly integrated into the general society and the children were more welcomed into regular child care facilities and foster homes. The Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys, the only institution of its kind, closed its doors in the summer of 1954. For over 30 years, nearly 700 boys benefited from the care, guidance, and structure provided by Dr. Charles R. Shepherd and the Chung Mei Home (El Cerrito Historical Society, Appendix For two years the former site of the Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys remained unoccupied when in 1956 the “property evolved to the Western Baptist Bible College” (El Cerrito Historical Society, Appendix It was during this ownership the L-shaped building in the northeast corner of campus was constructed, as well as minor additions to the gymnasium (Western Baptist Bible College 1956; Windrush School The campus changed hands in 1974 when Preparatory School took over (El Cerrito Historical Society, Appendix It appears that during this ownership, the roof on the gymnasium was changed from tile to composite shingle, while keeping the roof line, ridge beam and Chinese motif, and skylights intact (El Cerrito Historical Society, Appendix The Windrush School purchased the campus in 1987 (City of El Cerrito Windrush was a private primary education facility until 1989, when it added a middle school (grades six through eight). Enrollment today is around 250 students. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) CEQA applies to all discretionary projects undertaken or subject to approval by the state’s public agencies (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14(3) §15002(i)). CEQA states that it is the policy of the State of California to “take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with… historic environmental qualities…and preserve for future generations examples of the major periods of California history” (Public Resources Code [PRC] §21001(b), Under the provisions of CEQA, “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(b)). CEQA defines a “historical resource” as a resource which meets one or more of the following criteria: • Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register; • Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined at PRC §5020.1(k)); • Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of §5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; or ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 10 • Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(a)). A historical resource consists of “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California…Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources” (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(a)(3)). CEQA requires that historical resources and unique archaeological resources be taken into consideration during the CEQA planning process (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5; PRC §21083.2). If feasible, adverse effects to the significance of historical resources must be avoided, or the effects mitigated (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(b)(4)). The significance of an historical resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources. If there is a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, the preparation of an environmental impact report may be required (CCR Title 14(3) §15065(a)). If the cultural resource in question is an archaeological site, CEQA (CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(c)(1)) requires that the lead agency first determine if the site is a historical resource as defined in CCR Title 14(3) §15064.5(a). If the site qualifies as a historical resource, potential adverse impacts must be considered in the same manner as a historical resource (California Office of Historic Preservation 2001a:8). If the archaeological site does not qualify as a historical resource but does qualify as a unique archaeological site, then the archaeological site is treated in accordance with PRC §21083.2 (CCR Title 14(3) §15069.5(c)(3)). In practice, most archaeological sites that meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource will also meet the definition of a historical resource (Bass, Herson, and Bogdan 1999:105). CEQA defines a “unique archaeological resource” as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one or more of the following criteria: • Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; or • Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or • Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (PRC §21083.2(g)). If an impact to a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14(3) §15126.4 Mitigation of significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on the resource. Generally, the use of drawings, photographs, and/or displays does not mitigate the physical impact on the environment caused by demolition or destruction of a historical resource. However, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if it does not mitigate impacts to a less than significant level (California Office of Historic Preservation 2001a:9; see also CCR Title 14(3) §15126.4(a)(1)). ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 11 California Register of Historical Resources The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is a guide to cultural resources that must be considered when a government agency undertakes a discretionary action subject to CEQA. The California Register helps government agencies identify and evaluate California’s historical resources (California Office of Historic Preservation 2001b:1), and indicates which properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (PRC §5024.1(a)). Any resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register is to be considered during the CEQA process (California Office of Historic Preservation 2001a:7). A cultural resource is evaluated under four California Register criteria to determine its historical significance. A resource must be significant in accordance with one or more of the following criteria: 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Age. In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time must have passed to allow a “scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource.” Fifty years is used as a general estimate of the time needed to understand the historical importance of a resource (California Office of Historic Preservation 2006:3; CCR Title 14(11.5) §4852 The State of California Office of Historic Preservation recommends documenting, and taking into consideration in the planning process, any cultural resource that is 45 years or older (California Office of Historic Preservation 1995:2). Period of Significance. The period of significance for a property is “the span of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, persons, cultural groups, and land uses or attained important physical qualities or characteristics” (National Park Service 1999:21). The period of significance begins with the date of the earliest important land use or activity that is reflected by historic characteristics tangible today. The period closes with the date when events having historical importance ended (National Park Service 1999:21). The period of significance for an archeological property is “the time range (which is usually estimated) during which the property was occupied or used and for which the property is likely to yield important information” (National Park Service 2000:34). Archaeological properties may have more than one period of significance. Integrity. The California Register also requires a resource to possess integrity, which is defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association” (California Office of Historic Preservation 2006:2). Eligibility. Resources that are significant, meet the age guidelines, and possess integrity will generally be considered eligible for listing in the California Register. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 12 Public Resources Code §5097.5 California Public Resources Code §5097.5 prohibits excavation or removal of any “vertebrate paleontological site…or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands.” Public lands are defined to include lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Section 5097.5 states that any unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological materials or sites located on public lands is a misdemeanor. Human Remains Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. METHODS Background Search Background research was conducted to identify previously recorded cultural resources within, and previous studies of, the project area. On January 11, 2007, LSA conducted a records search (File No. 06-1075) of the project area and a 1/8-mile radius at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. The NWIC, an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, is the official state repository of cultural resources records and reports for Contra Costa County. As part of the records search, the following inventories were reviewed: • California Inventory of Historic Resources (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976); • Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California (California Office of Historic Preservation 1988) • California Points of Historical Interest (California Office of Historic Preservation 1992 and updates) • California Historical Landmarks (California Office of Historic Preservation 1996) • Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File (California Office of Historic Preservation, September 18, 2006). The directory includes the listings of the National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 13 No cultural resources have been recorded within or adjacent to the project area. Two previous cultural resource studies have been done, one study is along the eastern periphery of the Windrush School, and the other study adjacent to the school. Neither study identified cultural resources within or adjacent to Windrush School. Consultation On January 19, 2007, LSA sent a letter to Tom Panas at the El Cerrito Historical Society (Society) inquiring about the Chung Mei Home for Boys and several of the buildings that are now part of the Windrush School campus (Appendix Mr. Weinstein asked for information the Society had on the historic significance of these buildings, including: the building’s architect and architectural style; the historical use of these buildings, including the Chung Mei Home; and information relating to notable persons who may have used the buildings in the past. Mr. Panas of the Society graciously provided photographs and newspaper articles regarding the Chung Mei Home and the fundraising efforts for the gymnasium. Some newspaper articles do not contain the name of the newspaper. Mr. Panas forwarded Mr. Weinstein’s letter to Lynne Choy Uyeda Gin and Henry Gin (a former resident of the Chung Mei Home) of Belmont, California (Appendix Included in the responses from Mr. and Mrs. Gin was information about campus buildings in 1949, and the fundraiser and dedication ceremony for the gymnasium. On February 13, 2007, LSA sent an email to the American Institute of Architects (AIA) in Washington, D.C. regarding the architect of the Windrush School gymnasium, Donald Powers Smith. Ms. Hadley, Associate AIA, Archivist and Records Manager for the Library and Archives of AIA, responded on February 15, 2007, with information about Smith’s AIA membership and suggestions for further research on Smith’s career (Appendix On February 20, 2007, LSA sent a letter and a map depicting the project area to the Chinese Historical Society of America in San Francisco, asking for any concerns or information they may have about the project area (Appendix On March 12, 2007, LSA made a follow-up phone call, and left a message on the answering machine requesting a response to the letter. No response has been received to date. On February 20, 2007, LSA sent a letter and a map depicting the project area to the Contra Costa County Historical Society in Martinez, asking for any concerns they might have regarding the project area (Appendix On March 12, 2007, LSA made a follow-up phone call, and left a message on the answering machine requesting a response to the letter. No response has been received to date. Internet and Archival Research An internet search for the Chung Mei Home was done, and identified an interview with George Haw, a former resident of the Chung Mei Home (El Cerrito Wire 2007). Mr. Haw was one of the original seven boys that lived in the home in Berkeley, California, when the Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys first opened its doors in 1923. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 14 Historical background research was conducted in February and March 2007 at the Bancroft Library and the Environmental Design Library of the University of California, Berkeley, as well as the Contra Costa County Library in El Cerrito. This research included a review of the Avery Index of Architectural Periodicals at the Environmental Design Library; the San Francisco News-Call Bulletin Newspaper Photograph Archive, the Chinese in California Collection, and the Charles C. Dobie Papers at the Bancroft Library; and other books and a video about the Chinese orphans’ experience in the mid-20th century in California at the El Cerrito branch of the Contra Costa County Library. Project Meeting On March 13, 2007, LSA met with Ratcliff project designer and architect Brian Feagans regarding project design considerations for the Windrush School Master Plan. Mr. Feagans provided LSA with information about the applicant’s goals for retaining the historical setting and character of the campus and its architecture. Mr. Feagans described the various considerations that affected the project design, including incorporating Chinese architectural elements in the new construction; preserving open space; and providing disabled accessibility within the challenging context of a hilly project site. Field Methods On February 21, 2007, LSA archaeologists Karin Goetter and Joy Longfellow conducted a field review of the project area. The field review was documented through notes and photographs. During the field review, Ms. Goetter and Ms. Longfellow met with Bonnie Whitler, Director of Finance and Operations at Windrush School, for a tour of the gymnasium and main administration buildings. Ms. Whitler provided photocopies of blue prints and other historical documents pertaining to the Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys. Based on the field review, California Department of Parks and Recreation form 523 records were completed for each building, as well as a form for the District (Appendix ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION The District appears eligible for listing in the California Register at the local level under Criterion 1, because it “is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of . . . history.” A historic district is described by the National Park Service as follows: “A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development….The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties” (National Park Service 1997). Period of Significance The Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys was established in 1923 by Dr. Shepherd to provide a much- needed care system for male children of Chinese ancestry that fell victim to the “bachelor society” resulting from the United States’s strict immigration laws. For over 30 years, the Chung Mei Home provided shelter and tutelage to abandoned and orphaned Chinese boys in the East Bay until it closed in 1954, when the need for this type of institution lessened due to changing American perceptions of the Chinese community. The period of significance for the District is from 1935, when the Chung Mei Home moved to the 1800 Elm Street location in El Cerrito, until 1954, when Chung Mei Home ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 15 ceased to exist. The buildings that contribute to the District are those that were built within the period of significance of the Chung Mei Home: the main building, the old garage converted to an art studio, the maintenance building, and the gymnasium. Significance The Windrush School campus was the site of the Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys from 1935 to 1954, and the contributing buildings that were used by the Chung Mei boys constitute “a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction” (National Park Service 1997:5). Under Criterion 1, the District is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the history of Chinese experience in the East Bay. Specifically, the District provided institutional care for Chinese-American orphans, which helped the Chinese community of the East Bay to adapt to the social constraints of mainstream American society. According to several undated and unsourced newspaper articles provided by the El Cerrito Historical Society (Appendix the Chung Mei Home was the only institution of its kind in the United States for orphaned or abandoned Chinese boys. Under Criterion 2, although the Chung Mei Home was associated with Donald Powers Smith, a recognized architect, he is not a significant figure in California or East Bay history. Under Criterion 3, except for the main building, which may qualify due to it embodying distinctive characteristics and high artistic values, the District as a whole is not remarkable in design construction or artistic values. Under Criterion 4, the District does not appear to be able to answer questions important in history. Integrity The District maintains the historical integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The District is in its original location since it moved from Berkeley in 1923. It retains virtually all elements of its design, with the exception of the addition of the L-shaped building and the playing field and area. The L-shaped building, however, does not detract from the campus feeling of the district. The setting of the District retains the general flow of the pathways and relationships between the buildings and open space. Windrush School has maintained appropriate landscaping, although the landscaping on campus, specifically the several areas around the proposed construction and renovation that is slated for removal, appear to have been planted after the period of significance (Western Baptist Bible College 1956). Materials in the District buildings are generally those of the period of significance. The original roof tiles on the gymnasium have been replaced with composition shingles, but the change does not detract from the setting or feeling of the building as a contributor to the District. The workmanship of the District has been retained and can be clearly seen in the construction of the buildings and their Chinese motifs. The Chinese architectural elements of each building link them to each other, giving a sense of unity to the District. The District retains its integrity of association as it is the same place the provisional care was provided, and it continues in an educational capacity today. Eligibility The Windrush School campus appears eligible for listing as a district in the California Register under Criterion 1 at the local level for its association with Chinese experience in the East Bay, specifically the provision of institutional childcare for Chinese boys in El Cerrito. The campus’ buildings, with the exception of the L-shaped building built in the late 1950s, contribute to the eligibility of the District and have the integrity necessary to convey the District’s historical significance. As a California Register-eligible cultural resource, the District is a historical resource under CEQA. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 16 POTENTIAL EFFECTS The proposed project will result in physical effects on a portion of the gymnasium, which is a contributor to the historical significance of the District. The project will also introduce new architectural features to the setting of the District. However, design elements incorporated by the project and documentation and mitigation recommended by LSA will substantially reduce the impact of the effects. Based on the project’s mitigation, no substantial adverse change to the District’s significance will occur. Therefore, it is LSA’s opinion that the project will not result in significant impacts to the gymnasium or the District. Project Design The project applicant is minimizing effects on the historical values of the District through project design. The proposed design takes into account the form and setting of the school campus and buildings, and uses several design approaches to minimize effects on the existing campus architecture and, therefore, the District. The following list presents key elements of the project design approaches: • the exterior walls of the new construction will be made of cast-in-place concrete with horizontal form seams to emulate the walls of the main building in form, material, and texture; • the proposed construction will incorporate balcony panel and window pane patterns reflective of the square and rectangle forms on the main building; • the vertical sunshade that will form a large portion of the proposed addition’s west façade is designed to express classical ordering and frontal regularity, and is intended to create an “institutional” feel to match that of the main building; • the western façade was also designed to include repetitive vertical planar elements, alternating solid and transparent surfaces, horizontal ties at the vertical midpoint, stylistic design panels, and a cornice consistent with the main building. An example of the horizontal ties, balcony and window design, and design panels, is presented in Figure 7 in Appendix A; • the roof of the proposed addition will use skylights to take advantage of natural light, consistent with the use of skylights in the gymnasium; • the core of the campus open area, including the entrance, lawn, and trees, will be preserved as open space to maintain the historical spatial organization of the campus, as well as to maintain open space values for the neighborhood. Impacts Assessment The proposed project includes the following elements: replacement of the one-story classroom addition to the west elevation of the gymnasium with a two-story, 13,500 square foot classroom building; construction of a new library, performing arts classroom, and a dance classroom adjacent to the gymnasium; renovation of the main classroom building; and demolition and replacement of the L-shaped classroom building. This construction will require the removal of a portion of the gymnasium that was added to the building during the District’s period of significance, as well as the introduction of new architectural features to the campus. Therefore, the project will alter a portion of a building that contributes to the historical significance of the District, as well as the immediate setting of the campus. The construction of the new classroom addition and library will also introduce buildings not present during the District’s period of significance. These changes will affect ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 17 some aspects of the District’s historical integrity. Below, the seven aspects of integrity are assessed as it relates to the District’s significance and the proposed construction. Integrity. In addition to meeting one or more of the significance criteria, a cultural resource must retain its historical integrity to be considered eligible for listing in the California Register (14 CCR §4852(c)). To retain integrity, a property must be able to convey its significance. There are seven aspects of integrity to consider: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The potential of the project to diminish the integrity of the District is discussed below, aspect by aspect. Location. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The District currently possesses integrity of location. Aside from minor changes in vegetation and the alignment of circulation elements, the District and its contributing elements are in the same location as they were during the District’s period of significance. The District will not be moved as part of the project. Therefore, the District and the gymnasium will retain integrity of location after project implementation. Design. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. The District currently possesses integrity of design. The proposed addition will alter the form of the gymnasium by removing the existing western addition, and will diminish the District’s integrity of design. The current project was designed with the intention of minimizing impacts to the historical values of the Windrush School campus. The incorporation of the design elements discussed above will create a new addition and library that, while distinguishable from the original District buildings, will be consistent in form, composition, and institutional appearance with the main building. To further offset diminishing the District’s integrity of design, LSA recommends mitigation to document the existing gymnasium and addition through photographs, a historical summary, and an interpretive panel. Please see the Recommendations section for details. The L-shaped building will be removed for the construction of a new classroom building on roughly the same footprint. This removal, however, will not affect the District’s integrity of design because the L-shaped building was constructed outside of the District’s period of significance, and is a noncontributing element. The renovation of the main building will be accomplished in a manner consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Secretary’s Standards). This approach will retain the main building’s integrity of design, and will reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Based on proposed project design elements that will be architecturally compatible with the historical values of the District, as well as adherence to the Secretary’s Standards, integrity of design will be retained after project implementation. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 18 Setting. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property, and refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. The District currently possesses integrity of setting. The urban setting of today is not significantly different than during its period of significance, when houses were beginning to surround the campus. The project will introduce a two-story addition adjacent and to the west of the gymnasium, as well as a new library building adjacent and north of the gymnasium and a new classroom building to replace the L-shaped building. The proposed addition, library, and classroom building will affect the internal setting of the District. In particular, the new addition and library will obscure the roofline of the gymnasium. LSA’s research suggests that conditions that existed during the District’s period of significance lessen the effect the proposed addition and library will have on the District’s integrity of setting. Historical photos indicate that views of the gymnasium from the school entrance and main open grounds were substantially blocked during the District’s period of significance by large trees. Because of this, the gymnasium was not as visually prominent in the District setting. Historically, the roofline of the gymnasium, which will be visually blocked by the proposed addition and library, could only be clearly seen as a visitor neared the southeast corner of the main building. Therefore, the gymnasium was not an integral part of the District’s setting during its period of significance. The construction of the new classroom building will occur on roughly the same footprint as the existing L-shaped building, with an increase of square footage from 5,000 to 5,500. The new building will not diminish the District’s integrity of setting because it will merely replace a preexisting, noncontributing building rather than introduce an architectural element that substantially alters the spatial organization of the campus. Because of the historical lack of visual prominence of the gymnasium relative to the setting of the District, as well as the project design elements incorporated to increase the architectural compatibility of the new addition, library, and classroom building, the District’s integrity of setting as a whole will be retained after project implementation. Materials. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The District currently possesses integrity of materials. The contributing elements of the District possess an overall consistency of materials compared to the period of significance. The project will introduce a two-story addition adjacent and to the west of the gymnasium, which will require the removal of the existing classroom addition. The removal of the addition will remove materials present during the District’s period of significance. In addition, the renovation of the main building has the potential to alter interior architectural elements that contribute to the building’s significance. Despite having been constructed during the District’s period of significance, the gymnasium addition consists of a wood frame and stucco building nearing the end of its serviceable life. The materials used for its construction contrast significantly with those used for the main building and ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 19 other District contributors. The proposed addition will, however, incorporate cast-in-place concrete and other design elements for consistency with the other District buildings. The renovation of the main building will be accomplished in a manner consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. This approach will retain the main building’s integrity of materials, and will reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Based on project design elements for architectural compatibility and adherence to the Secretary’s Standards, the District as a whole will retain integrity of materials after project implementation. Workmanship. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. The District currently possesses integrity of workmanship. The contributing elements of the District possess an overall consistency of workmanship, especially with regard to the institutional character of the campus. The project will introduce a two-story addition adjacent and to the west of the gymnasium, which will require the removal of the existing classroom addition. The removal of the addition will alter the workmanship present during the District’s period of significance. The renovation of the main building also has the potential to alter interior architectural features that were present during the District’s period of significance. The architectural character of the District hinges on the presence of the Chinese-themed, institutional architecture designed in the context of a unified landscape plan. The gymnasium addition, though constructed during the period of significance, does not reflect the formative years of the District’s historical association that produced the architectural signature of the campus. The renovation of the main building will be accomplished in a manner consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. This approach will retain the main building’s integrity of workmanship, and will reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Based on project design elements that will be architecturally compatible, specifically those that will reinforce the dominant architectural theme of the campus, as well as adherence to the Secretary’s Standards, the District as a whole will retain integrity of workmanship after project implementation. Feeling. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historical sense of a particular period of time. The District currently possesses integrity of feeling. The contributing elements of the District are situated in the same manner as they were historically, and the institutional character of the campus, which will be emulated by the proposed addition, conveys a sense of administrative order and specialized function. The proposed addition, library, and classroom building will be new elements of the campus, but their form and composition will be compatible with the other contributors to the District. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 20 Based on the compatibility of the proposed addition, library, and classroom building with the existing District contributors, the District as a whole will retain integrity of feeling after project implementation. Association. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. The District currently possesses integrity of association. The contributing elements of the District are situated in the same manner as they were historically, and they also are used in an educational context. Based on the continued use of the District contributors as primary or support facilities for the education of children, as well as the fact that the District is at the location of its historical association, the District as a whole will retain integrity of association after project implementation. Conclusion. The project proposes a two-story addition, a library, a classroom building, and the renovation of the main building. The removal of the L-shaped building will not result in an impact because it is not a contributor to the District’s significance. The applicant has committed to renovate the main building in a manner consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. According to 14 CCR §15064.5(b)(3), a project that follows the Secretary’s Standards will not result in a significant impact. Some of the proposed project elements will directly and indirectly alter the physical characteristics of the District, and will result in minor diminishment of some aspects of the District’s integrity. However, the project’s historically sensitive design approach and LSA’s recommended mitigation will reduce and offset any potential impacts to the District’s significance. LSA’s proposed mitigation provides for the documentation of the gymnasium prior to its alteration, as well as the interpretation of the District’s historical significance (see Recommendations section). As a result of design modification and architectural mitigation, the project will not reduce the District’s overall integrity and, therefore, will not materially impair its significance. The District is significant at the local level under California Register Criterion 1 for its association with the Chinese experience in the East Bay, specifically the provision of institutional childcare for Chinese boys in El Cerrito. As such, the qualities that justify the District’s eligibility for the California Register lie in its expression of institutional architecture, Chinese-themed architectural elements, and educational uses. In each area, the District maintains these expressions and, in fact, the replacement of the stylistically discordant gymnasium addition with an addition that displays the dominant architectural themes of the campus will contribute to the continuity of the District’s historical significance. Based on the project design approach, recommended mitigation, and adherence to the Secretary’s Standards, it is LSA’s opinion that the project will not result in a substantial adverse change to the District’s significance, and therefore will not result in a significant impact on the environment. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 21 RECOMMENDATIONS This section describes LSA’s recommendations as they pertain to the design approaches, the mitigation, accidental discoveries, and human remains. Design Approaches The applicant has developed design approaches that will effectively reduce the potential impact of new construction and building renovation on the significance of the District. LSA’s impacts assessment is contingent on the effectiveness of the design approaches as presented in March 2007, as well as the applicant’s commitment to adhere to the Secretary’s Standards for the renovation of the main building. LSA recommends that changes to the design approaches be avoided. If design changes or departures from the guidance provided in the Secretary’s Standards are necessary, LSA recommends that they be developed in such a way that the original objectives of architectural compatibility be retained. Changes not in substantial conformity with the objectives of the original design approaches, or renovation inconsistent with the Secretary’s Standards, may result in significant impacts to the District. Mitigation The alteration of the gymnasium addition has the potential to directly and indirectly diminish the District’s integrity, thereby altering the characteristics that justify its eligibility for listing in the California Register. However, design approaches that take into account the District’s architectural character have been incorporated in the project. These design approaches will reduce the potential direct and indirect diminishment of the District’s historical integrity. To augment the design approaches and offset any potential impacts to the District, LSA recommends that mitigation be implemented prior to project construction. The mitigation should include the following elements: • Photo-documentation: photo-document the gymnasium prior to its modification. This should consist of photographs of the gymnasium’s principal elevations, those portions of the gymnasium that will be removed, and several representative views from the gymnasium toward other portions of the District and from the District grounds toward the gymnasium; • Historical Summary: prepare a brief historical description of the district and its historical significance to accompany the photo-documentation. The bulk of this summary could be taken from the existing evaluation report, but focused research should be done to obtain additional photographs and information from the District’s period of significance. The historical summary and photo-documentation should be distributed to the El Cerrito Historical Society and the Northwest Information Center, and made available at the Windrush School Library. • Interpretive Panel: design and install an outdoor interpretive panel to allow visitors to the Windrush School campus to gain a sense of the historical significance of the District. This panel could be placed in a location that would allow a visitor to view a photo of the pre-project gymnasium and a brief description of the history of the District. From that position, the visitor could look up to have an instant visual connection to the gymnasium. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 22 Accidental Discoveries If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery should be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the finds, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel should not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. It is recommended that adverse effects to such deposits be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological deposits should be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the deposits must be avoided, or such effects must be mitigated. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist should prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the archaeological deposits discovered. The report should be submitted to the applicant, the City of El Cerrito, and the Northwest Information Center. Prehistoric materials can include flaked-stone tools (e.g. projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite toolmaking debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil midden soil often containing heat-affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, faunal bones, and cultural materials); and stone milling equipment mortars, pestles, handstones). Prehistoric archaeological sites often contain human remains. Historical materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics, metal, and other refuse. Project personnel should not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. Human Remains If human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the discovery should be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist should be contacted to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel should not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archeologist should prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report should be submitted to the applicant, the City of El Cerrito, and the Northwest Information Center. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 23 REFERENCES American Architects Directory 1970 “Smith, Donald Powers.” Third Edition. R. R. Bowker. The American Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C. Bass, Ron, Albert I. Herson, and Kenneth M. Bogdan 1999 CEQA Deskbook. Solano Books, Point Arena, California. Bohn, Dave 1971 East of these Golden Shores: Architecture of the Earlier Days in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Ross Valley Book Company, Berkeley, California. California Office of Historic Preservation 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1996 California Historical Landmarks. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2001a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources. Technical Assistance Series No. 1. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2001b California Register of Historical Resources: Q&A for Local Governments. Technical Assistance Series No. 4. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2006 California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register). Technical Assistance Series No. 6. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. Chung Mei / Ming Quong 2003 Joint Reunion of the Chung Mei and Ming Quong Homes, August 8, 2003. Video on file at Contra Costa County Library, El Cerrito Branch, El Cerrito, California. City of El Cerrito v.d. Property Cards for 1800 Elm Street, El Cerrito, California. Provided by City of El Cerrito. Daniels, Roger 1988 Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States since 1850. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Deaton, J.R. 2001 “Man Remembers Chung Mei Home.” West County Weekly October 19, 2001, pp. 1,3. Richmond, California. El Cerrito Wire 2007 Celebrating Culture and Community History Project: George Haw, May 25, 2000. Accessed January 11, 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 24 Feagans, Brian J. 2007 Windrush School Expansion Presentation. Ratcliff, Emeryville, California. Presented March 13, 2007 at LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California. Gutman, Marta 2002 Adopted Homes for Yesterday’s Children: Constructing Care in Oakland, California. Working Paper No. 32. Center for Working Families, University of California, Berkeley. Hadley, Nancy 2007 Email response of February 15, 2007, to inquiry regarding biographical/historical information on Donald Powers Smith, AIA. American Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C. Johnson, Marilynn S. 1993 The Second Gold Rush: Oakland and the East Bay in World War II. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Lim, Glenn P. 2007 “The Lim Family History.” Accessed January 3, 2007. McAlester, Virginia, and Lee McAlester 2003 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York. McDannold, Thomas A. 2000 California’s Chinese Heritage: A Legacy of Places. Heritage West Books, Stockton, California. Mock Wyman, Nona 1997 Chopstick Childhood In a Town of Silver Spoons: Orphaned at the Ming Quong Home, Los Gatos, California. MQ Press, Walnut Creek, California. National Park Service 1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 1999 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 2000 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Richards, J.M., editor 1977 Who’s Who in Architecture: From 1400 to the Present Day. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. Shepherd, Charles R. 1938 The Story of Chung Mei. The Judson Press, Philadelphia, ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/21/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Evaluation.doc) 25 United States Geological Survey 1959 Richmond, California. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Photorevised 1980. United States Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. Weinstein, Dave 2006 Signature Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area. Gibbs Smith, Layton, Utah. Western Baptist Bible College 1956 Operation Share. August 1956. Western Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary, El Cerrito, California. William T. Comstock Company 1913 The Architect’s Directory and Specification Index. William T. Comstock Company, New York. Windrush School v.d. Blueprints and assorted papers, various dates. On file at Windrush School, El Cerrito, California. Viewed February 21, 2007. Wodenhouse, Lawrence 1977 American Architects from the First World War to the Present. The William T. Comstock Co., New York. Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1994 Cultural Resources Technical Report, Storm Drain and Creek Restoration Program, City of El Cerrito, Report No. 6. February 1994. ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Windrush Evaluation 031507.doc (03/15/07) APPENDIX A Figures Figure 4: Proposed Changes to Windrush School Master Plan Figure 5a & 5b: 1949 Blueprints of Gymnasium Figure 6a & 6b: 2006 Blueprints of Gymnasium Figure 7: Proposed Gymnasium, Detailed Elevation West ---PAGE BREAK--- Feet FIGURE 4 SOURCE: Ratcliff Architecture, Emeryville, Ca. P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Figure_4.cdr (3/10/07) 40 0 Proposed Changes to Windrush School Master Plan Historical Resources Evaluation Windrush School Project El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California N ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE 5a P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Figure_5a.cdr (3/12/07) 1949 Blueprints of Gymnasium Historical Resources Evaluation Windrush School Project El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California Not to Scale ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE 5b P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Figure_5b.cdr (3/12/07) 1949 Blueprints of Gymnasium Historical Resources Evaluation Windrush School Project El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California Not to Scale ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE 6a SOURCE: Ratcliff Architecture, Emeryville, Ca. P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Figure_6a.cdr (3/12/07) 2006 Blueprints of Gymnasium Historical Resources Evaluation Windrush School Project El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California Not to Scale ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE 6b SOURCE: Ratcliff Architecture, Emeryville, Ca. P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Figure_6b.cdr (3/12/07) 2006 Blueprints of Gymnasium Historical Resources Evaluation Windrush School Project El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California Not to Scale ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE 7 SOURCE: Ratcliff Architecture, Emeryville, Ca. P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Figure_7.cdr (3/14/07) Proposed Gymnasium, Detailed West Elevation Historical Resources Evaluation Windrush School Project El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California Not to Scale ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/19/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Windrush Evaluation 031607.doc) APPENDIX B Photographs ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/19/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Windrush Evaluation 031607.doc) Photo 1. Entrance gate to Chung Mei Home (Courtesy of El Cerrito Historical Society [ECHS]) Photo 2. Rose garden in front of main building (Courtesy of ECHS) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/19/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Windrush Evaluation 031607.doc) Photo 3. South elevation of main building Photo 4. West and south elevations of former garage ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/19/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Windrush Evaluation 031607.doc) Photo 5. East elevation of maintenance building with main building in background Photo 6. West and south elevations of gymnasium ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/19/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Windrush Evaluation 031607.doc) Photo 7. Original Chung Mei Home in Berkeley (Courtesy of ECHS) Photo 8. Dr. Shepherd and Chung Mei resident (Courtesy of ECHS) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/19/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Windrush Evaluation 031607.doc) APPENDIX C California Department of Park and Recreation Form 523 Record ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\District\District Primary.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Page 1 of 17 Resource Name: Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys District P1. Other Identifier: Windrush School P2. Location 9 Not for Publication : Unrestricted: a. County: Contra Costa b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Richmond, CA Date: 1995 T1N; R 4W in unsectioned lands of the San Pablo Rancho; Mount Diablo Baseline & Meridian c. Address: 1800 Elm Street City El Cerrito Zip 94530-1925 d. UTM: Zone ; mE / mN e. Other Locational Data: None P3a. Description: The Chung Mei School for Chinese Boys Historic District is the remnant of the 5.5-acre campus of an orphanage built in 1935 as a replacement for the original outmoded residential facility at Ashby and 9th Street in Berkeley, California. Four of the five existing school buildings, the Administrative-Classroom Building, the Garage, the Maintenance Building, and the Gymnasium, are contributors to the district. See individual Primary Records for detailed descriptions. P3b. Resource Attributes: (HP3) Multiple Family Property: Children’s Home; (CH HP36) Ethnic Minority Property P4. Resources Present: : District P5a. Photograph: P5b. Description of Photo: Aerial view of campus, north at top of photo. P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: 1935 P7. Owner and Address: Windrush School 1800 Elm Street El Cerrito, California 94530 P8. Recorded by: Joy Longfellow Karin Goetter LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 P9. Date recorded: February 21, 2007 P10. Survey Type: Intensive P11. Report citation: Shepherd, Charles. 1948. The Story of Chung Mei. American Baptist Home Mission Society, New York. Goetter, Karin, and Andrew Pulcheon. 2007. Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Windrush School Project, El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California. Attachments: :Location Map :Sketch Map : Continuation Sheet : District Record DPR 523A (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\District\District.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial Page 2 of 17 NRHP Status Code 3CS Resource Name: Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys D1. Historic Name: Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys D2. Common Name: Windrush School D3. Detailed Description The district, on a hillside with views of San Francisco Bay, is approximately four acres, reduced from its historical maximum of 5.5 acres during the district’s period of significance. Four of the district’s five buildings date from the district’s period of significance (1935-1954) and are contributors: the main administrative/classroom building, the maintenance building, the garage, and the gymnasium. The main administration/classroom building has a Chinese architectural theme consisting of tile roofing, a mix of metal framed rectangular casement, round, and octagonal windows, and an elaborate dragon motif The gymnasium has a decorative “Chinese” roof ridge beam. All the buildings are tied together via concrete or asphalt walkways and landscaping. The grounds originally had a wooden flagpole and arched gate, both of which have since been removed. D4. Boundary Description The original campus consisted of five and one-half acres. The district is within the current four-acre Windrush School campus, which dates to 1987. D5. Boundary Justification: Fencing divides the campus from surrounding residences to the north, south, and east; the sidewalk adjacent to Elm Street bounds the western edge. D6. Significance: Theme: Chinese immigration and orphanages Area: East (San Francisco) Bay Area Period of Significance: 1935-1954 Applicable Criteria: 1 By the early twentieth century anti-Chinese sentiments and a gender imbalance in Chinese immigration created a growing population of children born of Chinese ancestry living on the streets; children who were orphaned by their parents “because of illness, unfit homes, abandonment, or because of the death of a parent or a parent having to temporarily return to China” (Wyman 1997:260). These children were banned from orphan homes due to their ancestry (Chung Mei / Ming Quong 2003). A girls’ orphanage had been established in San Francisco in 1874 and in Oakland in 1915, but until Chung Mei (from Chung: China + Mei: America), there was no corresponding facility for boys. The Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys was built in 1923 near the tidal flats of Berkeley by Charles Shepherd with the donations of mostly San Francisco Chinese and Baptist groups. Shepherd, who spoke fluent Cantonese, was born in England, received theological degrees in Kentucky, and taught church history and English in China from 1913 to 1917. Over the years the boys raised money to augment funding from Bay Cities Baptist Union by picking fruit in various counties in northern California and by mounting “minstrel shows” and original musical plays. The plays were performed both locally and in other towns for a paying public. Continued on Page 3. D7. References: Shepherd, Charles. 1948. The Story of Chung Mei. American Baptist Home Mission Society, New York. City of El Cerrito Property Cards, 1948-1982. On file at the City of El Cerrito Community Development Department. Chung Mei / Ming Quong. 2003. “Joint Reunion of the Chung Mei and Ming Quong Homes, August 8, 2003.” Video on file at Contra Costa County Library, El Cerrito Branch, El Cerrito, California. El Cerrito Historical Society. Chung Mei Home. Accessed throughout February and March, 2007. Wyman, Nona. 1997. Chopstick Childhood In a Town of Silver Spoons: Orphaned at the Ming Quong Home, Los Gatos, California. MQ Press, Walnut Creek, California. D8. Evaluator: Karin Goetter, M.A., RPA, RPH Date: February 21, 2007 Affiliation and address: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place, Point Richmond, California 94801 DPR 523B (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\District\Dist Continuation.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 3 of 17 Resource Name: Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys Recorded by: Joy Longfellow and Karin Goetter Date: February 21, 2007 : Continuation Continued from Page 2 In 1935, the State of California bought the deteriorating Berkeley home and lot for the right-of way for the Eastshore Freeway and the Bay Bridge approach. A new facility was built in El Cerrito, again with donations from Baptists and the Chung Mei boys. Nearly 700 boys came through the home until its closure in 1954 due to dwindling enrollment as the boys grew up and left. Expanding state institutions, such as foster care programs, opened to children of all backgrounds after World War II, filling the need formerly served by Chung Mei. Bay Cities Baptist Union sold the school to the Western Baptist Bible College in 1956. California Register of Historical Resources Eligibility Under Criterion 1, the Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys Historic District (District) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the history of Chinese experience in the East Bay. Specifically, the District provided institutional care for Chinese-American orphans, which helped the Chinese community of the East Bay to adapt to the social constraints of mainstream American society. According to several undated and unsourced newspaper articles provided by the El Cerrito Historical Society, the Chung Mei Home was the only institution of its kind in the United States for orphaned or abandoned Chinese boys. Under Criterion 2, although the Chung Mei Home was associated with Donald Powers Smith, a recognized architect, he is not a significant figure in California or East Bay history. Under Criterion 3, except for the main building, which may qualify due to it embodying distinctive characteristics and high artistic values, the District as a whole is not remarkable in design construction or artistic values. Under Criterion 4, the District does not appear to be able to answer questions important in history. Integrity The District maintains the historical integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The District is in its original location since it moved from Berkeley in 1923. It retains virtually all elements of its design, with the exception of the addition of the L-shaped building and the playing field and area. The L-shaped building, however, does not detract from the campus feeling of the district. The setting of the District retains the general flow of the pathways and relationships between the buildings and open space. Windrush School has maintained appropriate landscaping, although the landscaping on campus, specifically the several areas around the proposed construction and renovation that is slated for removal, appear to have been planted after the period of significance. Materials in the District buildings are generally those of the period of significance. The original roof tiles on the gymnasium have been replaced with composition shingles, but the change does not detract from the setting or feeling of the building as a contributor to the District. The workmanship of the District has been retained and can be clearly seen in the construction of the buildings and their Chinese motifs. The Chinese architectural elements of each building link them to each other, giving a sense of unity to the District. The District retains its integrity of association as it is the same place the provisional care was provided, and it continues in an educational capacity today. Eligibility Conclusion The Windrush School campus appears eligible for listing as a district in the California Register under Criterion 1 at the local level for its association with Chinese experience in the East Bay, specifically the provision of institutional childcare for Chinese boys in El Cerrito. The campus’ buildings, with the exception of the L-shaped building built in the late 1950s, contribute to the eligibility of the District and have the integrity necessary to convey the District’s historical significance. As a California Register-eligible cultural resource, the District is a historical resource under CEQA. A proposed project to increase enrollment and improve classroom conditions involves the removal and replacement of a portion of the gymnasium, construction of two new classroom buildings, and renovation of the main building. These changes will diminish some aspects of the District’s historical integrity. However, implementing the design developed by the applicant, and mitigation recommended by LSA, will reduce the potential impacts to the District to less than significant levels. Reference: A Historical Resources Evaluation for the Windrush School Project, El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California (Goetter and Pulcheon 2007). LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California. DPR 523L (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\District\Hist Continuation 1.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of 17 Resource Name: Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys Recorded by: Joy Longfellow and Karin Goetter Date: February 21, 2007 : Continuation Entry to Chung Mei Home, main building upper left. Date unknown Photographs courtesy of El Cerrito Historical Society DPR 523L (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- Residential Residential Residential d esi e tial R n 0 40 ft. 20 TN Administration/ C assroom l Class o m r o Cl ssr oms a o Gymnasium Walnut Street Key District Boundary Contributing Building Non-Contributing Building Paved Street/Driveway Vegetation Based on: Ratcliff (Architect) Emeryville 2006 Gle Ma r n w Elm t e t S r e Parking lot Driveway State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SKETCH MAP Primary # Trinomial Page 5 of 17 Resource Name: Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys District Recorded by: K. Goetter Date: February 21, 2007 HRI # DPR 523K (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- Scale: 1:24,000 Date of Map: 1980 Resource Name: Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys District State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION LOCATION MAP Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 6 of 17 Map Name: USGS 7.5’ Quad, Richmond, Calif. Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys I:\CEC0601\GIS\Maps\DPR_loc_map.mxd DPR 523J (1/95) 0 1,000 2,000 Feet ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\Main Bldg\Chung Mei Main Primary.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Page 7 of 17 Resource Name: Main Building, Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys P1. Other Identifier: Windrush School Administration Building P2. Location 9 Not for Publication : Unrestricted: a. County: Contra Costa b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Richmond, CA Date: 1995 T1N; R 4W in unsectioned lands of the San Pablo Rancho; Mount Diablo Baseline & Meridian c. Address: 1800 Elm Street City El Cerrito Zip 94530-1925 d. UTM: Zone ; mE / mN e. Other Locational Data: None P3a. Description: This resource is a three-story, poured-in-place reinforced concrete Art Moderne office and classroom building in a compound rectangular ground plan. The exposed rafter, low pitched hip-gable roof is clad in mission Spanish style terra cotta tile painted green and flared upward at the corners and ridge ends to evoke Chinese architecture. Ovolo and Deco molding ornament the exterior between the first and second floors. The main building is a contributor to the district. Continued on Page 8. P3b. Resource Attributes: (HP3) Multiple Family Property: Children’s Home; (CH HP36) Ethnic Minority Property P4. Resources Present: :Building : Element of District P5a. Photograph: P5b. Description of Photo: Front of building, south elevation View to northwest P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: 1935 (Shepherd 1948) P7. Owner and Address: Windrush School 1800 Elm Street El Cerrito, California 94530 P8. Recorded by: Karin Goetter Joy Longfellow LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801 P9. Date recorded: February 21, 2007 P10. Survey Type: Intensive P11. Report citation: Shepherd, Charles. 1948. The Story of Chung Mei. American Baptist Home Mission Society, New York. Goetter, Karin, and Andrew Pulcheon, 2007. Historical Resource Evaluation for the Windrush School Project, El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California. Attachments: :Location Map :Sketch Map : Continuation Sheet : District Record DPR 523A (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\Main Bldg\Continuation 1.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 8 of 17 Resource Name: Main Building, Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys Recorded by: Joy Longfellow and Karin Goetter Date: February 21, 2007 : Continuation Continued from Page 1 Fenestration consists of metal framed windows. Rectangular articulating two fixed over six-lite casement windows alternate with small hexagonal windows with a center articulating pane on the second floor of the eastern and western elevations. The same casement windows carry over to the second floor on the northern and southern elevations. The first floor windows of the northern and southern elevations have three fixed lites over casement windows with offset stiles and rails. The basement level on the southern elevation has 2- and 4-lite awning windows at the west end and large circular windows at the east end. Decorative molded panels are under the first floor windows to the west of the main entrance (see Page 12). Rain gutters and downspouts are round weathered copper, with leader-headed downspouts draining into an underground collection system. The cornice is decorated with a dentil band with ornamentation. A scallop-edged Art Moderne staircase to the second floor is located on the eastern elevation. An elaborate Chinese dragon motif sculpture is mounted at the front entry. The Chinese theme is carried into the lobby in a colorful round mural that also dates to the early days of the building (see Page Changes made to the building over the years include front and east entrance door replacement with aluminum-framed glass doors, the removal of a fireplace chimney, and replacement of modern Spanish with Mission tile roofing. References Consulted McAlester, Virginia and Lee 1985 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. DPR 523L (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\Main Bldg\Main Continuation P3.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 9 of 17 Resource Name: Main Building, Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys Recorded by: Joy Longfellow and Karin Goetter Date: February 21, 2007 : Continuation Main Entrance, view to north DPR 523L (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\Main Bldg\Main Continuation P4.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 10 of 17 Resource Name: Main Building, Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys Recorded by: Joy Longfellow and Karin Goetter Date: February21, 2007 : Continuation Lobby mural, view to north Interior detail, inside on the reverse side of upper photo. DPR 523L (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\Main Bldg\Main Continuation P5.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 11 of 17 Resource Name: Main Building, Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys Recorded by: Joy Longfellow and Karin Goetter Date: February21, 2007 : Continuation Windows, belting, and side entrance detail, west elevation, view to south. Eastern elevation stairway DPR 523L (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\Main Bldg\Main Continuation P6.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 12 of 17 Resource Name: Main Building, Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys Recorded by: Joy Longfellow and Karin Goetter Date: February 21, 2007 : Continuation Decorative molded panel under southern elevation first floor window. Windows at east end of south elevation, view to north DPR 523L (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\Maintenance\Maintenance Primary.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Page 13 of 17 Resource Name: Maintenance Building, Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys P1. Other Identifier: Windrush School Maintenance Building P2. Location 9 Not for Publication : Unrestricted: a. County: Contra Costa b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Richmond, CA Date: 1995 T1N; R 4W in unsectioned lands of the San Pablo Rancho; Mount Diablo Baseline & Meridian c. Address: 1800 Elm Street City El Cerrito Zip 94530-1925 d. UTM: Zone ; mE / mN e. Other Locational Data: None P3a. Description: This resource is a one-story, hip-gable roofed, stucco-clad Chinese/Moderne building in a rectangular ground plan. Fenestration consists of metal framed eight-lite casement windows on the north and south elevations and metal framed round windows with a center articulating square lite. The front entrance was originally a closed porch and is now open stairs, framed by a modified torii. The Maintenance building is attached to the main building via a covered walkway. This resource is a contributor to the district. P3b. Resource Attributes: (HP3) Multiple Family Property: Children’s Home; (CH HP36) Ethnic Minority Property P4. Resources Present: :Building : Element of District P5a. Photograph: P5b. Description of Photo: Maintenance building, east and south elevation, view to northwest. P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: 1948 (City of El Cerrito property card) P7. Owner and Address: Windrush School 1800 Elm Street El Cerrito, California 94530 P8. Recorded by: Joy Longfellow Karin Goetter LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801 P9. Date recorded: February 21, 2007 P10. Survey Type: Intensive P11. Report citation: Shepherd, Charles. 1948. The Story of Chung Mei. American Baptist Home Mission Society, New York. Goetter, Karin, and Andrew Pulcheon, 2007. Historical Resources Evaluation, Windrush School Project, El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California. Attachments: :Location Map :Sketch Map : Continuation Sheet : District Record DPR 523A (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\Garage\Garage Primary.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Page 14 of 17 Resource Name: Garage, Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys P1. Other Identifier: Windrush School Art Studio P2. Location 9 Not for Publication : Unrestricted: a. County: Contra Costa b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Richmond, CA Date: 1995 T1N; R 4W in unsectioned lands of the San Pablo Rancho; Mount Diablo Baseline & Meridian c. Address: 1800 Elm Street City El Cerrito Zip 94530-1925 d. UTM: Zone ; mE / mN e. Other Locational Data: None P3a. Description: This resource is a one-story, flat-roofed, stucco-clad Art Moderne building in a rectangular ground plan that was originally used as a garage for vehicle storage and repair, but is currently used as an art studio. Fenestration consists of articulating four-lite windows framed by six-over-four fixed lites. The outer corners of the building are radiused and fluted. P3b. Resource Attributes: (HP3) Multiple Family Property: Children’s Home; (CH HP36) Ethnic Minority Property P4. Resources Present: :Building : Element of District P5a. Photograph: P5b. Description of Photo: Garage, west and south elevation, view to northeast. P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: 1935 (Shepherd 1948) P7. Owner and Address: Windrush School 1800 Elm Street El Cerrito, California 94530 P8. Recorded by: Joy Longfellow Karin Goetter LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801 P9. Date recorded: February 21, 2007 P10. Survey Type: Intensive P11. Report citation: Shepherd, Charles. 1948. The Story of Chung Mei. American Baptist Home Mission Society, New York. Goetter, Karin, and Andrew Pulcheon, 2007. Historical Resources Evaluation Report, Windrush School, El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California. Attachments: :Location Map :Sketch Map : Continuation Sheet : District Record DPR 523A (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\Gym\Gym Primary.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Page 15 of 17 Resource Name: Gymnasium, Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys P1. Other Identifier: Windrush School Gymnasium P2. Location 9 Not for Publication : Unrestricted: a. County: Contra Costa b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Richmond, CA Date: 1995 T1N; R 4W in unsectioned lands of the San Pablo Rancho; Mount Diablo Baseline & Meridian c. Address: 1800 Elm Street City El Cerrito Zip 94530-1925 d. UTM: Zone ; mE / mN e. Other Locational Data: None P3a. Description: This resource is a one-story, stucco-clad Art Moderne style building in a rectangular ground plan. A classroom section with a tar and gravel clad flat roof extends from the gymnasium on its west elevation. The open beam, side gabled roof of the gymnasium was originally clad in clay tile like the main and maintenance buildings. The ceramic tiles were replaced with composition shingles in 1982, but the prominent red Chinese motif ridge beam was retained. A band of skylights flank both sides of the ridge beam. Fenestration consists of a mix of metal framed three-lite awning windows on the west, north and south elevations, and aluminum sliders on the eastern portion of the north and south elevations. The gymnasium is a contributor to the district. P3b. Resource Attributes: (HP3) Multiple Family Property: Children’s Home; (CH HP36) Ethnic Minority Property P4. Resources Present: :Building : Element of District P5a. Photograph: P5b. Description of Photo: Gymnasium, west elevation, view to east P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: 1949 (City of El Cerrito Property Card) P7. Owner and Address: Windrush School 1800 Elm Street El Cerrito, California 94530 P8. Recorded by: Joy Longfellow Karin Goetter LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801 P9. Date recorded: February 21, 2007 P10. Survey Type: Intensive P11. Report citation: Shepherd, Charles. 1948. The Story of Chung Mei. American Baptist Home Mission Society, New York. Goetter, Karin, and Andrew Pulcheon, 2007. Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Windrush School Project, El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California. Attachments: :Location Map :Sketch Map : Continuation Sheet : District Record DPR 523A (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\Gym\Gym Continuation P2.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 16 of 17 Resource Name: Gymnasium, Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys Recorded by: Joy Longfellow and Karin Goetter Date: February 21, 2007 : Continuation Gymnasium north and west elevation, view to southeast. Gymnasium south elevation, view to northeast. DPR 523L (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- P:\CEC0602\Cultural\DPR Forms\L Bldg\L Primary.doc (03/14/07) State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Page 17 of 17 Resource Name: L-Shaped Classroom Building P1. Other Identifier: Windrush School Classroom Building P2. Location 9 Not for Publication : Unrestricted: a. County: Contra Costa b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Richmond, CA Date: 1995 T1N; R 4W in unsectioned lands of the San Pablo Rancho; Mount Diablo Baseline & Meridian c. Address: 1800 Elm Street City El Cerrito Zip 94530-1925 d. UTM: Zone ; mE / mN e. Other Locational Data: None P3a. Description: This resource is a split-level, stucco-clad modern building in an L-shaped linear rectangular ground plan. The shallow pitch side gabled roof is clad in composition shingles. The east-west wing is one-story; the north-south wing is two-story. Fenestration consists of aluminum sliders. This building is a non-contributor to the Chung Mei Home for Chinese Boys Historic District. P3b. Resource Attributes: (HP15) Educational building P4. Resources Present: :Building P5a. Photograph: P5b. Description of Photo: L-Shaped Building, west and south elevation, view to northeast. P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: Ca. 1959 and 1980, USGS topo Richmond, Calif. 1959 (1980) P7. Owner and Address: Windrush School 1800 Elm Street El Cerrito, California 94530 P8. Recorded by: Karin Goetter Joy Longfellow LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 P9. Date recorded: February 21, 2007 P10. Survey Type: Intensive P11. Report citation: Shepherd, Charles. 1948. The Story of Chung Mei. American Baptist Home Mission Society, New York. Goetter, Karin and Andrew Pulcheon, 2007. Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Windrush School Project, El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California. Attachments: :Location Map :Sketch Map : Continuation Sheet : District Record DPR 523A (1/95) ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/19/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Windrush Evaluation 031607.doc) APPENDIX D Consultation ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- L S A A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . H I S T O R I C A L R E S O U R C E S E V A L U A T I O N F O R T H E M A R C H 2 0 0 7 W I N D R U S H S C H O O L P R O J E C T E L C E R R I T O , C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A 03/19/07 (P:\CEC0602\Cultural\Report\Windrush Evaluation 031607.doc) APPENDIX E El Cerrito Historical Society Documents ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C TRANSPORTATION DATA ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK---