Document elcerrito_gov_doc_b087ff3c86

1 of 39 Draft Initial Environmental Study and NegativeDeclaration This negative declaration was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines (Public Resources Code, Division 13 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3) for the project, which is described below. 1. Project title: El Cerrito Climate Action Plan 2. Lead Agency name and address: City of El Cerrito, Environmental and Development Services Department, 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94530-2392 3. Contact person and phone number: Maria Sanders, Environmental Analyst (510) 559-7685 4. Project location: The El Cerrito Climate Action Plan (CAP) is intended to provide strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions throughout the City of El Cerrito. (See Figure 1, Regional/City Location) 5. Project sponsor’s name and address: City of El Cerrito, 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94530-2392 6. General Plan designation: The CAP would be implemented throughout the City. Consequently, the project would occur in all General Plan areas, including Residential, Commercial/Mixed Use, Parks and Open Space, and along public rights-of-way. 7. Zoning: The plan would be implemented in all zoning districts, including RS, RD, RM, TOM, CC, NC, PS, PR, and OS-N. 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.) The City of El Cerrito has prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP or plan) with input from the City Council, City staff, community members, and citizen committees. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City has prepared this Initial Study (IS) to assess the environmental impacts of adoption and implementation of the CAP. This IS consists of a summary, followed by a description of potential environmental effects that may result from adoption and implementation of the CAP. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 of 39 Background and Purpose The City’s proposed Climate Action Plan will serve as roadmap for mitigating the significant and unavoidable effects of greenhouse gas emissions associated with meeting existing and future needs of daily living, such as from transportation, housing, and consumption. The CAP serves to aid the State in its implementation of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires California to reduce statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 directed the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement regulations that reduce statewide GHG emissions. The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was approved by ARB in December 2008 and outlines the State’s plan to achieve the GHG reductions required by AB 32. The Scoping Plan contains the primary strategies that California will implement to achieve a reduction of 169 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2e), or approximately 28 % from the State’s projected 2020 emission levels, which includes actions to be taken by local governments In the Scoping Plan, ARB encourages local governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal emissions and move toward establishing similar goals for community emissions that parallel the State commitment to reduce GHGs. The City of El Cerrito adopted emission reduction goals of 15% by 2020 and 30% by 2035 in February 2011 (Resolution 2011-12). El Cerrito’s CAP articulates the City’s strategy for reducing community-wide GHG emissions to meet its emission reduction goals, which are consistent with the Scoping Plan’s recommendations for local governments. Throughout the CAP, the City outlines goals, objectives and strategies to reduce GHG emissions, such as those that minimize energy consumption and waste; create an interconnected transportation system and land use pattern; and conserve, create and enhance natural assets that improve the community’s quality of life and reduce the City’s overall carbon footprint. Future City actions would be considered consistent with the CAP if, considering all of its aspects, it would further the goals, objectives, and strategies set forth within the CAP and not obstruct their attainment. It is important to note that the CAP is a roadmap that outlines the potential actions the City would need to take if it were to meet its GHG emissions reduction targets. Many of the strategies articulated in the CAP recapitulate and reinforce existing programs, policies and projects that are underway in the City. Many of the proposed strategies may need to go through their own public review and adoption, and/or procurement processes. Those that do result in a project as defined under CEQA will go through their own environmental review processes. The CAP is not intended to be used as a tiering document for the purpose of streamlining analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions pursuant to CEQA. Any project undergoing environmental review would still need to be analyzed to determine if it would exceed the GHG thresholds established by BAAQMD or other acceptable standards. If a project is determined to exceed the thresholds, the CAP ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 of 39 could be used to guide the project's mitigation efforts. In this way, incorporation of the CAPs strategies at a project level would demonstrate to the public that the project furthers El Cerrito's climate action goals and leverages the co-benefits that are a part of the climate action efforts. Figure 1, Regional/City Location ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 of 39 Purpose of CAP The CAP includes GHG reduction goals and objectives for both Municipal and Community emissions that focus on transportation and land use, energy and water, and solid waste. The CAP provides a roadmap which outlines potential actions the City would need to take if it were to meet its adopted GHG reduction goal of 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 30% below 2005 levels by 2035. (Resolution 2011-12). The purpose of the CAP is to: Demonstrate El Cerrito’s commitment to helping the State and the Bay Area reach their mandated greenhouse gas reduction goals Provide guidance to the City in pursuing reductions in GHG emissions Inspire residents, businesses, and employees to participate in community efforts to reduce GHG emissions Provide a policy framework for incorporation of climate goals in the City’s General Plan Description of CAP Development of the CAP is based on a methodology developed by ICLEI and Local Governments for Sustainability and further refined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). This methodology investigates the potential of reducing local GHG emissions from transportation, energy consumption, water use, and waste generation at the local level by:  Establishing a baseline inventory of emissions from these activities  Setting a percentage reduction target in comparison to the baseline inventory  Outlining the potential of reducing annual GHG emissions through existing and proposed policies, programs, and projects that can be enacted by the City  Implementing the Plan and monitoring the results through subsequent inventories and adjustments The CAP utilizes 2005 as the baseline year, and 2020 and 2035 as the 1st and 2nd target years for achieving reductions. The 2005 baseline was chosen as part of a larger effort by ICLEI to conduct emissions inventories for cities in Contra Costa County. The 2020 target year corresponds with goals set forth in the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The 2035 target date is consistent with other current state climate-related planning efforts (such as the Sustainable Communities Strategy required by SB 375). El Cerrito’s planning process has been informed by input from the City Council; City staff; and from the public via a survey of 450 residents, three public workshops, and numerous updates at publically noticed meetings of the Environmental Quality Committee, the City’s ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 of 39 citizen advisory committee on environmental issues. Additional comments will be solicited from the public during workshops and a 30-day comment period after public release of the Draft CAP. This period will be concurrent with the comment period for this Initial Study/Negative Declaration. The CAP’s goals, objectives and strategies will inform the next update of the City’s General Plan, as well as other planning documents and are consistent with the growth recommendations of the region’s Sustainable Community Strategy, Plan Bay Area (March 2012). Emissions Inventory, Baseline and Projections El Cerrito’s 2005 baseline inventory documents emissions of 146,788 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). At 51%, emissions from automobile traffic constitute the single largest source of emission in El Cerrito. At nearly 44%, energy consumption is the second largest source of emissions, with residential energy use being almost twice as much as commercial energy use. Emissions associated with the decomposition of waste from El Cerrito in landfills constitute Finally, water use and wastewater treatment (as measured by the amount of energy used per gallon conveyed and treated) comprise less than one percent of emissions. Similar to other communities in the region, El Cerrito’s baseline inventory puts per capita emissions at less than 6 tons CO2e. Climate Action Goals, Objectives and Strategies El Cerrito has identified and developed a number of goals and objectives designed to reduce the major sources of Municipal and Community GHG emissions (e.g. transportation, residential and commercial buildings etc.) Under each emission source, the CAP quantifies a number of goals, objectives and strategies that will help to implement the reduction targets, as summarized below (See Appendix A to this document for a list of all goals, objectives and strategies contained in the CAP)  Transportation: Land Use, Community Development and Transportation goals to reduce the vehicle miles traveled by El Cerrito residents by encouraging higher- density, transit-oriented development; making pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly infrastructure improvements; promoting urban greening; and offering trip reduction programs.  Energy and Water Use: Resource conservation goals designed to achieve greater energy efficiency, water efficiency, and renewable energy in existing and new buildings through education, incentives, and ordinances.  Waste: Waste reduction and recycling goals to increase participation in waste reduction programs, expand recycling opportunities at the Recycling and Environmental Resource Center, and develop a “Zero-Waste” 2035 Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 of 39  Municipal Operations: Cross-sector goals to reduce GHG emissions from municipal operations, particularly those associated with transportation, energy and water use, procurement, and waste generation in municipal operations. Implementation The goals outlined in this CAP highlight a collection of strategies that the City should pursue in order to meet its GHG emissions reduction target. In order to effectively implement the CAP, the City will need to prioritize these strategies based on scope, feasibility, timing, available funding, and results from ongoing monitoring. As trip reduction, energy efficiency, and waste reduction strategies outlined in the CAP are based on voluntary action, implementation will also require active participation from City staff, residents and businesses owners and sometimes will require collaboration with other jurisdictions and regional agencies. Implementation of the CAP’s transportation and land use strategies will be further developed, refined, and put into action through the implementation of other City planning efforts, including the El Cerrito Circulation Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians (2007), to be updated in the next couple of years, adoption of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, the City’s upcoming Urban Greening Plan, and most importantly, the pending update to the 1999 General Plan and subsequent Zoning Ordinance. Many of the strategies articulated in the CAP recapitulate and reinforce existing programs, policies and projects that are underway in the City. The following is a list of prior environmental review documents adopted or certified by the City that address the impacts of existing measures incorporated into the Plan.  City of El Cerrito General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report. Adopted by the El Cerrito Planning Commission on July 1999. Resolution PC 99-12.  El Cerrito Circulation Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians, Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Adopted by the El Cerrito Planning Commission on May 16, 2007.  Ohlone Greenway Master Plan, Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Adopted by the El Cerrito Planning Commission on May 20, 2009. Resolution PC 09-08.  El Cerrito Recycling and Environmental Resource Center, Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Adopted by the El Cerrito Planning Commission on February 16, 2011. Resolution PC 11-03. El Cerrito Housing Element, Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Adopted by the El Cerrito City Council on February 6, 2012. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting. (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings.) El Cerrito is adjacent to I-80 in the East Bay region of the San Francisco Bay area. It is the southernmost jurisdiction in Contra Costa County. The City of Richmond is to the east and west, the unincorporated Contra Costa County community of East Richmond Heights lies to the north, and the City of Albany (Alameda County) to the south. The East Bay Regional Park District’s Wildcat Canyon Regional Park is adjacent to El Cerrito on the east, as is the unincorporated Contra Costa County community of Kensington. El Cerrito ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 of 39 is a primarily residential community with its main commercial areas focused around the San Pablo Avenue corridor (State Route 123) between the city’s southern and northern boundaries and the El Cerrito Plaza shopping area, located at San Pablo Avenue and Carlson Boulevard. Secondary commercial areas are found at several locations in the City, including along Stockton Street and Fairmount Avenue. 10. Required Approvals permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) The proposed El Cerrito CAP would need to be adopted by the El Cerrito City Council subsequent to approval of this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND). The CAP is a roadmap with a broad collection of strategies to support the Council’s adopted GHG emission reduction targets. If the CAP is adopted, some City planning documents and regulations will be amended, updated or developed over time to promote consistency with and to further the goals of the CAP. The policies, code changes, programs and projects that will implement the CAP will each go through their own approval process as necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 of 39 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this proposed program, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Dangerous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Services Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed program COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. I find that although the proposed program could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the proposed program have been made by or agreed to by the proposed program proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared. I find that the proposed program MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed program MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately 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 the attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed program 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 program, nothing further is required. Signature Date ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 of 39 EVALUATIONOF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A. AESTHETICS Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?     2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?     3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?     4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?     Explanations: A.1) The eastern hills of El Cerrito offer scenic vistas of the San Francisco and San Pablo bays, extending beyond to the San Francisco skyline, the Golden Gate, and Marin County. As the goal of El Cerrito’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) is to reduce the GHG emissions throughout community, the CAP does not directly propose any new structures that could adversely affect El Cerrito’s scenic vistas. The CAP includes a recommendation to update the General Plan to include higher density (transit-oriented) development along transportation corridors (per Policy TLU-1), notably along San Pablo Avenue and at the BART stations. Implementation of this action could increase average building heights along such corridors. However, the CAP does not recommend specific densities, building heights massing or design of any projects. Higher density could only be implemented through subsequent planning processes, such as through the update to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, adoption of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, and project-specific development. If there were potential impacts to viewsheds that would be associated with specific zoning requirements or projects, these would be addressed in the CEQA review for these plans, ordinances and updates. This would result in aless-than-significant- impact. A.2) There are no designated state scenic highways within El Cerrito, or within view of the ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 of 39 city. Therefore, there would be no impact. A.3) The CAP recommends that the property owners and the City upgrade all buildings within the community to make them more energy efficient. This also includes the construction of new buildings to “CalGreen” Tier 1 or 2 Green Building Standards. Making buildings more energy efficient does not inherently involve any design features that would negatively affect the visual character or quality of the overall community. However, as photovoltaic (PV) and thermal panels are a recommended strategy to promote clean energy, their installation on rooftops of buildings, garages, or elsewhere on parcels could be seen as a change in the urban design of the community as a whole. PV and thermal panels on rooftops are allowed by State and City codes and are statutorily exempt under CEQA. City codes and design review would regulate the location and design of accessory structures, such as carports, which may be necessary for some installations. This is also true of the location and design of associated electrical equipment, such as inverters. In addition, existing design review procedures would continue to be implemented by the City. Implementation of the CAP would result in a less-than-significant-impact. A.4) One of the CAP’s Municipal goals recommends pursuing energy efficiency improvements in all City facilities. Implementation of this goal would replace current streetlights and outdoor park lighting in the City with high efficiency LED lighting. LEDs provide a higher quality light that can be directed more precisely to control for glare and light pollution. Implementation of the CAP would thus result in no impact. B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) 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 non- agricultural use?     2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?     ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 of 39 Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact 3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526?     Explanations: B.1, B.2 and B.3. The City does not contain any land that is currently in agricultural production, nor land zoned for agricultural use, or that is under a Williamson Act contract. Asthere is no farmland located in the City,noconversion from farmland to non-agricultural use would occur. There would be no impact in relation to agriculture. C. AIR QUALITY Would the proposed program: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?     2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?     3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the proposed program region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?     4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?     ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 of 39 Would the proposed program: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?     Explanations: C.1 and C.2) El Cerrito lies within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Control Management District (BAAQMD). According to the California Air Resources Board, the air quality in the San Francisco Air Basin exceed the Federal health-based standards for ground-level ozone 35 to 40 days per year, and exceeds the more stringent California standards for ozone more than 100 days per year. Currently, the basin is classified as non-Attainment for the Federal ground-level ozone and PM10 standards, as severe non-attainment for the California ozone standard, and non-attainment for the California PM10. The El Cerrito CAP is consistent with BAAQMD Air Quality Plans. It would not conflict with, but rather contribute to, fulfillment of the BAAQMD’s air quality standards and policies for the San Francisco Bay Air Basin by encouraging compact development patterns, alternate modes of transportation and greater connectivity and access to biking and pedestrian resources to decrease vehicle miles travelled, and by promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy programs to reduce air pollution associated with energy generation. In addition to reducing GHG emissions in El Cerrito and its neighboring communities, these actions also would assist in diminishing the emissions of other air pollutants. Implementing the CAP would especially help to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with motor vehicle use (ground level ozone and PM10), and would be considered to have a beneficial air quality impact. Therefore, the CAP’s implementation would result in less- than-significant impact to air quality. C.3) See explanation for items C.1 and C.2. The targeted increase in residential density along transit corridors would not result in significant additional emissions. The intent of CAP policies relative to new development is to situate infill and transit oriented development (TOD) along transit corridors so the increased density and additional residents would be balanced by reduced VMTs, as the relative convenience of transit, as well of the greater proximity of goods and services for those residents would reduce the need for automotive use. The CAP’s implementation would result in a less-than-significant impact. C.4) The San Pablo Avenue Corridor has been designated as a Priority Area for exposure ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 of 39 to outdoor toxic air contaminants, especially for fine particulate matter (PM) from diesel truck exhaust. As such, some new residential projects along the San Pablo Avenue Corridor, as recommended in the Sustainable Communities goals in the CAP, especially in areas that are in close proximity to Interstate 80 where truck traffic is plentiful, could expose residents (or sensitive receptors) to these air contaminants. However, there are also many areas along the Corridor where these concentrations do not pose a problem. In recommending higher densities along transportation corridors to be specified in the General Plan update, the CAP does not specify where residential development should happen, nor does it implement the development of any specific residential development. If there are potential impacts to new residential development along the San Pablo Avenue Corridor from PM, these would be addressed in the CEQA review for these specific projects. In cases where residents could be impacted, appropriate mitigations would have to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis through project-specific environmental review. The CAP’s implementation would result in a less-than-significant impact. C.5) The goals and strategies presented in the CAP would not create any objectionable odors. The CAP’s implementation would result in no impact. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) 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 California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?     2) 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?     ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 of 39 Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 3) 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?     4) 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?     5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?     6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?     Explanations D.1) The proposed CAP would have neither direct nor indirect impacts on sensitive or special-status species in the City. The development referenced by the CAP’s Policy SC-1 would be located along existing transit corridors. The CAP would not modify, either directly or indirectly, habitats of any species identified as a candidate sensitive, or special status species. Furthermore, existing General Plan Policies R.1.1 (Habitat Protection) and R.1.2 (Rare and Endangered Species) would significantly constrain development in areas that support sensitive or special status species. In addition, if development projects in these areas were to involve such species, project-specific biological studies and mitigation would be required as part of specific project approvals in compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and CEQA review. The CAP’s implementation would therefore result in a less-than-significant impact to these species. ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 of 39 D.2) More than 70 % of El Cerrito’s Baxter, Cerrito and an unnamed creek system are culverted or are part of the City’s storm drain system. Several branches in the eastern hills remain above ground, though these are largely confined to residential back yards. There are several above ground creek segments in City parks (such as Baxter Creek Gateway Park, the Ohlone Greenway, Canyon Trail, Poinsett, Creekside, and Huber Parks, and along El Cerrito Plaza). None of the upper watershed channels or creeks in parks would be affected by the CAP’s implementation. In addition, the City’s General Plan ( Policy R1. 9) requires adequate building setbacks from creek banks for all new development adjacent to creeks and major drainages in El Cerrito, and the City’s Municipal Code further defines and establishes creek setbacks through the Creek Protection Overlay District (Chapter 19.12). Thus, it would result in a less-than-significant impact to the riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. D.3) While El Cerrito has very small jurisdictional wetlands associated with Cerrito Creek, the implementation of the CAP would have a less-than-significant impact on them. See also Explanation to Item D.1. D.4) See Explanations for Items D.1 and D.2. The primary wildlife corridors in El Cerrito are within the City’s Hillside Natural Area and to a lesser extent along open reaches of the City’s creeks in the hills, neither of which will be affected by the CAP. The CAP’s implementation would result in a less-than-significant impact. D.5) The El Cerrito CAP would not conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources. The CAP recommends, through Goal SC-4, the development and implementation of a comprehensive Urban Greening Plan and the creation of green space and open space to help restore natural processes, keep storm water clean, and conserve resources. Implementation of the El Cerrito CAP would result in net beneficial impact relative to biological resources. Thus, the CAP’s implementation would result in a less-than-significant impact. D.6) There are no habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan applies to the City’s incorporated area. The CAP’s implementation would thus have no impact on any habitat conservation plans. E. CULTURAL RESOURCES ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 of 39 Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5?     2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?     3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature?     4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?     Explanations E.1) The CAP would have no impact on historical resources, as it would not directly involve excavation, demolition, tree removal, nor other physical changes that would affect a historical resource in the community. If there are potential impacts to historic resources that would be associated with specific projects, these would be addressed in project-specific CEQA reviews. In addition the 1999 General Plan requires protection of significant historic resources per Policies R2.1 (Historic Preservation) and R2.2 (Development Approvals must be consistent with local, state, and federal laws pertaining to such resources). A less-than- significant impact would occur with the implementation of the CAP. E.2, E.3, and E.4) The CAP would not enable any earth moving, construction, or excavation activities. Therefore, subsurface cultural resources would not be disturbed or negatively impacted as a result of the plan’s implementation. Thus, the CAP would have no impacts on archaeological or paleontological resources, unique geologic features, or human remains. ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 of 39 F. GEOLOGY Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as described 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.)     b) Strong seismic ground shaking?     c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?     d) Landslides?     2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?     3) 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?     4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-A of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property?     5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?     ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 of 39 Explanations F.1) The North Hayward Fault Zone passes beneath the eastern portion of the City and is considered a high earthquake hazard. The strategies contained in the CAP do not propose to add and would not enable new development within the vicinity of this fault zone. Any new structures elsewhere in the City and clean energy retrofits would be required to meet the State’s Uniform Building Code and adhere to the City’s structural and seismic requirements. The CAP’s implementation would result in a less-than-significant impact. F.2) New development that would be associated with the CAP’s implementation would occur in infill and TOD sites along transit corridors and in adapting existing roadways to accommodate bicycles. If, in the event that any new pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and any retrofits to accommodate efficient/renewable energy require the displacement of top soil, the City’s Building Code standards for soils’ movement would mitigate any potential impacts. See also Explanation for Item F.1. Carrying out the City’s CAP would have a less-than-significant impact in relation to erosion or loss of topsoil. F.3 and F.4) Multiple areas of the city have been identified as zones that could be prone to liquefaction, particularly along sandy soils associated with El Cerrito’s three creeks. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities would have to meet engineering and structural requirements and new structures and renewable/energy efficiency retrofits would be required to adhere to applicable UBC codes and seismic requirements. The hillsides in the north and east of El Cerrito are prone to landslides. The City’s General Plan discourages development from these areas. The CAP does not propose any development in these areas; new pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and any retrofits to accommodate efficient energy use in these areas would not add to the risk of a landslide. The CAP’s implementation would have a less-than-significant impact in relation to landslide prone areas and expansive soils. F.5. No septic tanks or disposal systems are proposed as part of the plan. No impact would thus occur with implementation of the CAP. ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 of 39 G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?     2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?     Explanations G.1) The CAP creates a comprehensive and community-wide GHG emissions reduction strategy for El Cerrito that sets forth 46 measurable objectives grouped by the following types/themes: a) Transportation and Land Use; b) Energy/Water, c) Waste Reduction and d) Municipal strategies. The CAP outlines a course of action to reduce GHG emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 30 % below 2005 levels by 2035. The CAP accounts for the greenhouse gas emissions reductions associated with statewide bills by incorporating them in the Greenhouse Gas Forecast. Pursuant to the Guidance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the proposed 15% reduction target includes these statewide savings. Approximately half of the City’s GHG reductions will be accomplished exclusively through the proposed measures. By mitigating both direct and indirect GHG emissions arising from activities in El Cerrito, implementation of the El Cerrito CAP is intended to decrease GHG emissions. It would not result in a significant increase in GHG emissions and therefore would result in a less-than-significant impact. G.2) In support of the State’s fulfillment of its AB 32 targets and in recognition of the threats of increasing global greenhouse gas emissions, the City’s first target is to reduce its GHG emissions to 15% below the 2005 baseline levels by 2020. This target would translate to El Cerrito lowering its GHG emissions by 41,850 Tons below 2005 baseline, or a total of 89,596 Tons CO2e below the projected 2020 emissions forecast. Implementation of the El Cerrito CAP would result in a net beneficial impact relative to GHG planning emissions and thus would have no impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 of 39 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?     2) 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 environment?     3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?     4) 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?     5) 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?     6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?     7) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?     ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 of 39 Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact 8) 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?     Explanations H.1) Any project associated with implementing a CAP strategy, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, new development and building retrofits to accommodate renewable or efficient energy, would entail negligible transport and disposal of hazardous materials. Any such materials would be transported, stored, and used in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. The CAP’s implementation would thus result in a less-than- significant impact with respect to transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials. H.2) Retrofitting of buildings constructed prior to 1978 could create a risk of worker exposure to lead-based paints and asbestos. Contractors would be required to conform to strict state and federal EPA regulations regarding work on such structures, including worker training and containment and removal of hazardous materials. This would reduce the risk on the surrounding environment and on worker health to a less-than-significant level. H.3) The implementation of the CAP would not involve direct handling or emission of hazardous materials. Indirect effects associated with future projects, including those on sites nearby or upwind of sensitive receptors residential land uses), or within one- quarter mile of a school, would be addressed through environmental review when an application is submitted to the City. As the CAP does not enable any specific development project, no impact would occur relative to this issue. H.4) The CAP presents a citywide program, though proposed development associated with it would be concentrated along and in the vicinity of San Pablo Avenue. El Cerrito has one site that is included the Department of Toxic Substances Control “Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List,” the “Cortese List,”). This site known as the “MacDonald San Pablo Wall 45th Plume” involves a hazardous materials plume that extends from Richmond into El Cerrito. The CAP does not propose or enable any specific development project. New development in this corridor would be required to ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 of 39 go through its own environmental review and would be evaluated and controlled by the General Plan’s Policy H1.9 (Potential Hazardous Soils Conditions). The El Cerrito CAP’s implementation would have a less than significant impact relative to this issue. H.5 and H.6) There are no public or private airports within the City limits of El Cerrito, nor is the city within two miles of a private or public airfield. The nearest airport is the Buchanan Field, approximately 13 miles to the east. No portion of the City of El Cerrito is within an airport land use plan. The CAP’s implementation would result in no impact relative to airports. H.7) The CAP does not include any strategies that would impair implementation of or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the CAP’s implementation would have no impact relative to emergency evacuation plans. H.8) No project that could be associated with the CAP’s strategies would expose residences or wildlands to any wildfire threat. The policies of the CAP seek to mitigate the impacts of climate change and lower precipitation rates which could generate a higher frequency of wildfires in El Cerrito’s hillside parklands and wooded areas. The CAP’s implementation would have no impact in relation to wildland fires. I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?     2) 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)?     ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 of 39 Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 3) 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?     4) 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?     5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?     6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?     7) 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?     8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?     9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?     10) Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?     ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 of 39 Explanations I.1) The CAP strategies and any project that may be indirectly associated with it would not violate water quality standards or wastewater discharge requirements based on existing General Plan and Clean Water Act permitting requirements. The El Cerrito General Plan and the City’s Municipal Code strictly regulate the City’s water quality standards and waste water discharge requirements. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board, which has primary authority for regulating non-point source discharges under the federal Clean Water Act, has adopted a statewide National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities. Under the Construction General Permit, individual NPDES permits or Construction General Permit coverage must be obtained for discharges of storm water from construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres. Compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit would require that project applicants develop and implement a spill prevention and control program to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during all construction activities. Development that would disturb soil within the City would also be required to apply for and obtain a grading permit, which would require the preparation of a Grading and Erosion Control Plan and establish requirements for the prevention and alleviation of dust and the removal of dirt and debris from adjacent public streets. At the program level, existing policies of the El Cerrito General Plan and compliance with applicable State and local regulations, such as the NPDES Permit would be sufficient to reduce impacts related to construction water quality to a less-than-significant level. Future projects would undergo their own environmental review at the time they are proposed and plans submitted to the City. The CAP’s implementation would result in a less-than-significant impact. I.2) Implementation of the plan would not involve the pumping of groundwater and would not interfere with groundwater recharge as the implementation of the CAP does not require an increase in impervious surfaces. The plan is encouraging an increase in rainwater catchments among its water conservations strategies, which would have a beneficial effect by promoting groundwater recharge (i.e. Strategy EW-4.2). No impact would occur. I.3) The proposed CAP would not alter drainage patterns nor modify any creek channels in El Cerrito. No impact would occur. I.4 and I.5.) The proposed CAP encourages the development of an expanded network of bike and pedestrian facilities, expansion of existing transit facilities, new TOD and mixed- use projects, and retrofitting existing residential and commercial structures for renewable energy. Runoff that would result from these facilities and developments could contribute to the flood potential of existing stream channels, accelerate soil erosion and stream channel ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 of 39 scour, and facilitate the conveyance of additional pollutants to enter the creeks and storm water channels and ultimately the San Francisco Bay. However, the CAP does not directly enable this development and all proposed projects would be subject to environmental and regulatory reviews. The Resources and Hazards Element of the El Cerrito General Plan contains several policies that would limit the potential for increased runoff from development that may be associated with the El Cerrito CAP. These include Policy R1.6 (runoff Water Quality) that would hold the City to comply with the NPDES requirements to achieve the highest water quality possible, Policy R1.7 requiring the city’s creeks and their vegetation to be protected from flooding associated with development, and Policy R1. 9, which calls for adequate building setbacks from creek banks for all new development adjacent to creeks and major drainages in El Cerrito. This last policy is implemented by El Cerrito’s Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 19.12 - Creek Protection Overlay District. The Contra Costa Clean Water Program also requires new development and redevelopment projects that create one acre or more of impervious surfaces that are likely to cause increases in erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollution or other impacts to beneficial uses, to submit a hydrograph modification management plan (HMP). Specifically, projects must address potential increases in the frequency and duration of flow magnitude and runoff volume from increased impervious surfaces. In addition, a component of the NPDES Construction General Permit includes post- construction standards. Coverage under the permit will require projects to replicate the pre-project water balance for volume through the use of non-structural or structural measures. For sites larger than two acres, a project shall also maintain the site’s pre-project runoff rate. At the program level, existing policies of the El Cerrito General Plan policies and compliance with applicable State and local regulations that pertain to erosion and flood control would be sufficient to reduce impacts related to flooding control to a less-than-significant level. Future projects would undergo their own environmental review at the time they are proposed and their applications are submitted to the City. I.6) See Explanations to Items I.3, 4, and 5. The implementation of the CAP would result in a less-than-significant impact. I.7 and I.8) The only 100-year flood zone area that is mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in El Cerrito is in the area west of San Pablo Avenue and south of Central Avenue. The Resources and Hazards Element of the El Cerrito General Plan contains several policies that would mitigate the potential for increased flooding hazard from development that may be associated with the El Cerrito CAP, as previously discussed in the Explanation to Items I.4 and I.5. These include Policies R1.7 (Creek ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 of 39 Protection), R1. 9 (Creek Setbacks/Development Near Creeks), and H1.6 (Development on Steeper Slopes). In addition, Chapter 19.13.080 - Flood Hazard Zones of the Zoning Ordinance, regulates the development of properties in the flood zone to protect human life and minimize property damage, by establishing a HZ Hazard overlay district for new construction and additions in this area that they comply with Federal Flood Plain Guidelines for construction in these areas. At the program level, existing policies of the City’s General Plan, applicable regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, and compliance with applicable State and federal regulations regarding housing and structures in the 100-year flood zone would be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. In addition, future development projects would undergo CEQA review when formal applications are submitted to the City. I.9) El Cerrito is not of a dam, nor would it be subject to flooding as result of a levee failure. No impact would occur as result of the CAP’s implementation in terms of increased risk of flooding from levee or dam failure. I.10) The CAP does not include strategies and policies that would expose people and structures to inundation byseiches, tsunamis, or mudflows. The CAP’s implementation would result in no impact. J. LAND USE Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) Physically divide an established community?     2) 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?     3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?     ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 of 39 Explanations J.1) CAP includes strategies and policies that would improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and at the same time provide alternatives to vehicular transportation. The CAP encourages the creation of infrastructure that improves connectivity throughout the community. The plan contains no language that recommends or supports the division of an established community. No impact would occur as result of the plan’s implementation. J.2) The CAP is consistent with, and builds upon the goals, of the 1999 El Cerrito General Plan. Since El Cerrito will be updating its General Plan, the City will ensure that the new objectives and strategies contained in the CAP will be incorporated into the General Plan update. Growth in El Cerrito will be accommodated through compact development on urban infill sites that are served by existing infrastructure. All discussion in the CAP regarding development in El Cerrito over the next 30 years is consistent with the regional growth estimates and the RHNA. Since the City is required to include in its Housing Element its Regional Housing Needs Allocation, the CAP does not presume the inclusion of potential development that would induce substantial growth above and beyond what is required by the existing Housing Element or future housing elements. The CAP’s implementation would have a less-than-significant impact relative to applicable land use plans. J.3) No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan applies within City limits. No impact would occur as result of the CAP’s implementation relative to conservation plans. K. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) 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?     2) 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?     ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 of 39 Explanations K.1 and K.2) There are no significant mineral resources in El Cerrito. The proposed CAP’s implementation has no impact in relation to mineral resources. L. NOISE Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) 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?     2) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?     3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?     4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?     5) 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?     6) 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?     Explanations ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 of 39 L.1 and L.2) El Cerrito’s General Plan sets forth stringent policies to regulate project construction period noise. The General Plan policies also require contractors to use best available control technology (such as noise attenuation fences, mufflers and engine shrouds) to reduce the amount of noise generated. Existing policies of the El Cerrito General Plan and provisions of the Zoning Ordinance (Section19.21.050) would help reduce or avoid noise impacts associated with the CAP’s implementation (although, as discussed before, the CAP does not directly enable specific development projects). General Plan policies contained in Chapter 7, Resources and Hazards, i.e., Policies H3.1 (Noise Levels in New Residential Projects) and H3.2 (Outdoor Noise Levels), H3.6 (Outdoor Noise Levels), and H3.11 (Commercial or Industrial Source Noise) would ensure that short-term construction noise would be reduced to the extent feasible and constrained to exempted hours and help ensure that operational noise sources from new development, such as those promoted by the El Cerrito CAP would be analyzed, mitigated or minimized. For example, Policy H3.11 regulates construction noise and specifically prohibits all construction operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless there is an emergency. While the proposed CAP does encourage the expansion of the city’s pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and any retrofits to accommodate renewable and efficient energy, noise generated by these projects would be regulated by the above noted policies and ordinance. The plan’s implementation would thus result in a less-than-significant impact. L.3 and L.4) The El Cerrito CAP encourages strategies designed to reduce vehicular traffic and to increase alternative modes of travel, therefore future ambient noise levels should be similar to or somewhat reduced from present levels. While bus headways may increase over time on transportation corridors, and moving bus noise levels average about 10 decibels above those of automotive traffic (84 sound exposure level (SEL) at 50 feet for buses versus about 74 SEL for cars), their noise is intermittent rather than continuous for car and truck traffic. The CAP’s implementation would thereforeresult in a less-than- significant impact relative to increasing ambient noise levels permanently. L.5 and L.6) There are no public or private airports within El Cerrito, nor is the City within two miles of a private or public airfield. See also Items H.5 and H.6, above. The CAP’s implementation would result in no impact in relation to this issue. M. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 of 39 Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) 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)?     2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     Explanations M.1) El Cerrito is essentially built-out in terms of developable vacant land. Any new development that would occur to fulfill the objectives of the CAP would occur on urban infill sites. The CAP does not recommend any specific development, density or number of residential units. It recommends that any new growth in the City be accommodated through higher density housing and mixed use and through infill development along existing transportation corridors. Although the CAP does not specify a particular density or number of units, it does recommend that the number of new units added to El Cerrito by 2035 be consistent with ABAG’s Sustainable Community Strategy (Plan Bay Area), a regional process that intends to harmonize the Regional Transportation Plan with land use and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Through the RHNA process, ABAG allocates a “fair share” by income category based on projected housing need for each jurisdiction for the particular planning period. The allocations are intended to be used by jurisdictions when updating their housing elements, as the basis for assuring that adequate building sites and appropriate zoning are available to accommodate at least the number of units allocated through the RHNA. When updating its Housing Element in the General Plan, a jurisdiction must use the numbers allocated under the RHNA to identify measures (policies and ordinances) that are consistent with these new housing goals. Because the CAP defers to the RHNA, it would not induce population growth beyond planned levels identified in the City’s Housing Element (2007-2014) or that would be determined by future RHNA processes. This represents a less-than- significant impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 of 39 M.2 and M.3) The CAP contains no strategies that encourage the displacement of existing housing. The plan’s implementation poses a less-than-significant impact in relation to displacement of housing or people. N. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection?     Police Protection?     Schools?     Parks?     Other Public Facilities?     Explanations N.1) Fire and Police Protection. The Explanations for Items M.1 and M.2, above, indicated that new TOD and mixed-use development could be associated with the CAP’s implementation. However, it would not result in a substantial increase of residents, and the increase in population would be consistent with the RHNA, the Housing Element, , and the El Cerrito General Plan, which contains policies to provide for adequate and orderly increase in police and fire protection services. In addition, new residents would be concentrated in the most easily accessed and existing fire and police protection service areas, the transit corridors. Finally, as the CAP does not recommend any specific ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 of 39 projects, all future development would undergo environmental review when formal applications are submitted to the City. Therefore, the implementation of the plan would not increase the need for Fire and Police Departments’ protection services within the City. The plan’s implementation would result in a less-than-significant impact in relation to the provision of these services. Schools, Parks, and Other Public Facilities. The Explanations for Items M.1 and M.2, above, indicated that new TOD and mixed-use development could be associated with the CAP’s implementation. However, it would not result in a substantial increase of residents, and the increase in population would be consistent with the RHNA, the Housing Element, and the El Cerrito General Plan, which has policies to provide for adequate and orderly improvement of public services. Finally, all future development would undergo environmental review when formal applications are submitted to the City. Therefore, the implementation of the CAP would not necessitate an increase in school district, park, or other municipal services beyond those determined in the General Plan to accommodate future growth. In addition to the locations and sizes of this infrastructure, the General Plan also may establish funding mechanisms to assure their adequate implementation. The implementation of the plan would have less-than-significant impacts in relation to these services. O. RECREATION Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) 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?     2) 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?     Explanations O.1 and O.2) The Explanations for Items M.1 and M.2, above, indicated that TOD and mixed-use development that could be associated with the CAP’s implementation has the ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 of 39 potential to increase the city’s population. However, it would not result in a substantial increase of residents and the increase in population would be consistent with the El Cerrito General Plan, which contains a number of policies to provide for adequate and orderly improvement of public services including recreation. In addition, all future development would undergo environmental review when formal applications are to the City. Therefore, the implementation of the CAP would not necessitate an increase in school district, park, or other municipal services. The implementation of the plan would have less-than-significant impacts in relation to recreational services. P. TRAFFIC Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) 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 of roads, or congestion at intersections)?     2) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?     3) 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?     4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses farm equipment)?     5) Result in inadequate emergency access?     6) Result in inadequate parking capacity?     ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 of 39 Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 7) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?     Explanations P.1 and P.2) None of the proposed objectives and strategies in the CAP encourages, promotes, or causes an increase in vehicular traffic relative to existing conditions. To the contrary, the plan call for programs that provide incentives for reducing vehicular traffic and encourages the development of alternative modes of transportation through promoting transit options, enhancing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure throughout El Cerrito, and encouraging higher density housing along transportation corridors, and greater connectivity to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) within El Cerrito. This is particularly evident in CAP Objectives TLU-3.1 (Develop standards for bicycle and pedestrian friendly design), TLU-3.2 (Maintain an active streetscape improvement and maintenance program), and TLU-3.4 (Expand and improve the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure) and TLU-3.5 (Advocate for and support improvements to transit facilities within the city). The intent of CAP policies relative to new development is to situate infill and TOD along transit corridors, so that the increased density and additional residents would be balanced by reduced VMTs, as the relative convenience of transit, as well of the greater proximity of goods and services for those residents would reduce the need for automotive use. The CAP’s implementation would result in less- than- significantimpacts in relation to traffic and road network level of service. P.3) Buchanan Field is located roughly 13 miles east of the El Cerrito City limits. The CAP has no measure, policy, or strategy that would result in a change in air traffic patterns. The plan’s implementation would result in no impact in relation to changing air traffic patterns. P.4) The CAP encourages development of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and features that will serve to reduce VMT as documented in Items P.1 and P.2 above. These facilities would not increase hazards but rather have the opposite effect by providing features to make crossings and roads safer and more convenient for pedestrians and cyclists, including a number of strategies, including use of new signage, paving materials, and bike lanes. In having a beneficial effect on the public safety aspects of the City’s road network particularly for non-motorized traffic, the plan’s implementation would have no impact relative to this issue. ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 of 39 P.5) One of the primary goals in the CAP is to reduce traffic and increase the opportunities for non-automotive modes of transportation. Although certain street designs might be enhanced as a result of the document’s strategies, they would not compromise current emergency access standards or features within El Cerrito. The CAP’s implementation would have a less-than-significant impact in relation to emergency access. P.6) The CAP discourages uses that would increase automotive traffic and encourages alternative transportation and TOD development throughout the city. As a result and in the long term, demand for parking is anticipated to decrease because of the plan’s objectives and strategies. The CAP supports the El Cerrito General Plan policy of developing “parking requirements that are consistent with the goals for increased use of alternative transportation modes” (Policy T4.1). The plan’s implementation in relation to parking has a less-than-significant impact. P.7) The El Cerrito CAP supports and enhances adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore the CAP’s implementation would have no impact in relation to this issue. Q. UTILITIES Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?     2) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     3) 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?     ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 of 39 Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?     5) 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?     6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?     7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?     Explanations Q.1 and Q.2) The Explanations for Items M.1 and M.2, above indicate that infill development could be associated with the CAP’s implementation. However, it would not result in a substantial increase of residents, and the increase in population would be consistent with the El Cerrito General Plan, Housing Element, and RHNA. The main objective of infill development is to direct projected growth into areas already served by existing infrastructure and utilities. Consequently, no new or expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities would induced by the CAP. In addition, the CAP contains several water-efficiency objectives, including EW-1.1, 1.2, 2.3, 4.1, and 4.2 to encourage the use of water efficiency and conservation strategies in both new construction and existing buildings in order to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions associated with transporting and treating water and wastewater. The plan’s implementation would result in noimpact. Q.3) The Explanations for Items M.1 and M.2, above, indicate that infill development could be associated with the CAP’s implementation. However, it would not result in a substantial increase of residents, and the increase in population would be consistent with the El Cerrito ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 of 39 General Plan, Housing Element, and RHNA. The main objective of infill development is to direct projected growth into areas already served by existing infrastructure and utilities. Implementation of the CAP would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. In addition, the CAP does not directly enable development and all projects would be subject to environmental and regulatory review. See also Explanation to Items I.4 and I.5 above regarding existing policies regulating storm water run-off from projects the CAP’s implementation would result in a less-than-significant impact in relation to storm-water drainage facilities. Q.4 and Q.5) The Explanations for Items M.1 and M.2, above, indicated that infill development could be associated with the CAP’s implementation. However, it would not result in a substantial increase of residents, and the increase in population would be consistent with the El Cerrito General Plan, Housing Element, and the RHNA. The main objective of infill development is to direct projected growth into areas already served by existing infrastructure and utilities. EBMUD has sufficient water capacity available to serve the potential increase in population that would be accommodated by the plan. In addition, the CAP contains several water-efficiency objectives, including EW-1.1, 1.2, 2.3, 4.1, and 4.2 to encourage the use of water efficiency and conservation strategies in both new construction and existing buildings in order to reduce the amount of water consumed throughout the community. The CAP’s implementation would therefore have no impact on water supplies. Q.6) With only slight increases in the population projected due to the CAP’s strategies recommending an increase in housing density along transportation corridors, there would be minimal increase in the City’s solid waste production. El Cerrito is served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Additionally the CAP includes several objectives, including W-1.1 through W-1.4, aimed at reducing the total amount of waste going to the landfill by 35% by 2035. The CAP’s implementation would result in no impact on solid waste disposal needs and capacities. Q.7) The CAP complies with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Additionally, the CAP includes strategies to encourage recycling, composting, and the proper disposal of all hard-to-recycle and universal waste. The CAP’s implementation would result in no impact relative to solid waste regulations. ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 of 39 R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Would the project: Significant or Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 1) 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?     2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?     3) 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)?     4) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?     Explanations R.1) The CAP intends to reduce El Cerrito’s contribution of GHG in the environment through implementation of its goals, objectives, and strategies. The document encourages actions by residents, businesses, institutions, and the City to find alternative methods of transportation, conserve water and energy, decrease the amounts of solid waste going to landfills, lessen VMT, and provide public education on climate change. TheCAP does not encourage projects that would diminish wildlife habitats or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Rather it encourages accommodating any new growth in the city through in-fill development ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 of 39 served by existing infrastructure and utilities. The CAP includes several objectives, including SC- 4.1 and 4.2, intended to encourage the preservation and expansion of habitat, green spaces, and park facilities as a way of protecting and promoting biodiversity, conserving natural resources, and improving the health and quality of life for residents and workers. The CAP does not directly enable development and all projects would be subject to environmental and regulatory reviews. In addition the 1999 General Plan requires protection of significant biological and historic resources per Policies R2.1 (Historic Preservation) and R2.2 (Development Approvals must be consistent with local, state, and federal laws pertaining to such resources). Therefore, the CAP’s implementation would have a less-than-significant impact in relation to this issue. R.2 and R.3) The only impact that is cumulatively considerable as a result of the CAP is the beneficial reduction of GHG in the environment. The CAP contains measures that, if enacted, would reduce GHG emissions through focusing future development in compact land use patterns as infill, along existing transportation corridors in areas already served by existing infrastructure and utilities, encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation, promoting residential and commercial energy and water efficiency, increasing use of renewable energy, investing in green infrastructure and open space, and reducing waste. These measures would, in general, have beneficial effects on the environment. Future land uses and development determined to be consistent with the CAP would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the production of GHG emissions. In addition, The CAP’s short-term and long-term goals are in alignment in this regard; so it is highly unlikely that it would have short-term goals that would disadvantage long-term environmental goals. The CAP’s implementation would thus have no impact in relation to this issue. R.4) This Initial Study has analyzed the effects that the CAP would have on the environment and has found that they would be less-than-significant but would have a positive effect on the environment as a whole. The actions that would be implemented by the CAP would reduce GHG levels by encouraging urban greening, alternative transportation modes, energy efficiency, water conservation, and waste reduction, and promoting compact, infill development along existing transportation corridors already served by all utilities. As a result, the environmental effects would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The CAP’s implementation would thus have no impact, with respect to adverse effects on humans. ---PAGE BREAK--- 40 of 39 References  Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines, Updated May 2011.  California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2008.  City of El Cerrito, El Cerrito Circulation Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians, Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Adopted by the El Cerrito Planning Commission on May 16, 2007.  City of El Cerrito, City of El Cerrito General Plan Update. August 30, 1999. o Community Development and Design Element, Chapter 4 o Transportation and Circulation Element, Chapter 5 o Public Facilities and Services Element, Chapter 6 o Resources and Hazards Element, Chapter 7  City of El Cerrito, City of El Cerrito General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report. Adopted by the El Cerrito Planning Commission on July 1999. Resolution PC 99-12.  City of El Cerrito, City of El Cerrito 2007-2014 Housing Element. Adopted February 2012.  City of El Cerrito, City of El Cerrito Housing Element, Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Adopted by the El Cerrito City Council on February 6, 2012.  City of El Cerrito, El Cerrito Recycling and Environmental Resource Center, Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Adopted by the El Cerrito Planning Commission on February 16, 2011. Resolution PC 11-03.  City of El Cerrito, Zoning Ordinance and Maps, 2008.  Metropolitan Planning Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area: Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, May 2012 http://onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan-bay-area.html  Ohlone Greenway Master Plan, Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Adopted by the El Cerrito Planning Commission on May 20, 2009. Resolution PC 09-08.  State Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List, Office of Environmental Information Management, dated April 1998, by Ca. EPA, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.