Document elcerrito_gov_doc_c81804a175

801 BATES AVENUE INITIAL STUDY FOR THE CITY OF EL CERRITO OCTOBER 19, 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- In Association with ALAN KROPP ASSOCIATES PAGE & TURNBULL ENVIRONMENTAL COLLABORATIVE OCTOBER 19, 2010 Prepared by 801 BATES AVENUE INITIAL STUDY FOR THE CITY OF EL CERRITO ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT SUMMARY INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY PROJECT I. AESTHETICS 19 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST III. AIR QUALITY IV. BIOLOGICAL V. CULTURAL VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS VII. GREENHOUSE GAS VIII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY X. LAND USE AND PLANNING XI. MINERAL XII. XIII. POPULATION AND XIV. PUBLIC XV. XVI. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Appendix A: Existing Structures Appendix B: Tentative Parcel Map with Tree Removal Plan Appendix C: Page & Turnbull Historic Resource Report Appendix D1: GeoTrinity Geotechnical Report Appendix D2: Alan Kropp Geotechnical Peer Review Report i ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y ii Figures Figure 1 Regional 4 Figure 2 Project 5 Figure 3 Existing Site Plan 8 Figure 4 Tentative Parcel Map 9 Figure 5 Existing Site Photographs 10 Figure 6 Existing House Photographs 11 Figure 7 View of 801 Bates from Gelston 12 Figure 8 Aerial Photograph from 1949 with 801 Bates 13 Figure 9 Special-Status Species Occurrences 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y PROJECT SUMMARY INFORMATION 1. Project Title: 801 Bates Avenue Subdivision 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of El Cerrito, Planning Division 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Sean Moss, AICP Senior Planner (510) 215-4330 4. Project Location: 801 Bates Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 APN 505-282-027 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Richard Lau 801 Bates Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 6. General Plan Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential (up to 9 units per acre) 7. Zoning: RS-5 (Single-family Residential) 8. Description of Project: The project would involve demolition of the existing single-family home at 801 Bates Avenue, subdivision of the parcel into four parcels, and construction of four single-family homes ranging in size from 2,000 to 2,500 square feet. Approval of a Tentative Parcel Map is required. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The surrounding area is all low-density, single-family residential with a park and open space cor- ridor along Moeser Lane. Moeser Lane is a steeply inclined minor arterial between San Pablo Avenue and Arlington Boulevard. 10. Required Approvals: Tentative Parcel Map 11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: None 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is Potentially Significant, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use Mineral Resources Noise Population & Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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 DECLARA- TION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 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 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 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 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 revi- sions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Printed Name For 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y PROJECT DESCRIPTION This chapter describes the proposed project at 801 Bates Avenue, (also referred to as “the proposed project”) analyzed in this Initial Study. The description of the project includes the Project Location, Access, and Setting; Description of Existing Property; History of Existing Property; Location of the Hayward Fault in the Site Vicinity; Project Characteristics; Required Permits and Approvals; and Standard Conditions of Approval. In addition to site visits and additional specific information sources as footnoted in the text, this Initial Study is based on the following sources: ♦ Development Application, filed with the City of El Cerrito on September 28, 2009 ♦ Existing Structures Plat in the Vicinity of MS 451-09, by Moran Engineering Inc.1 ♦ Tentative Parcel Map MS-451-09, dated November 2009, by Moran Engineering Inc.2 ♦ Revised Surface Fault Rupture Hazards and Geotechnical Investigation, 801 Bates Avenue, El Cerrito, California, GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc., June 24, 2009 (the Geotechnical Report)3 ♦ Final Stormwater Control Plan Report for Parcel Map MS-451-09, a 4 Lot Parcel Map, 801 Bates Avenue, El Cerrito, California, December 2009, by Moran Engineering, Inc. ♦ Memo from Michael J. Bond, El Cerrito Fire Department, to Jennifer Carmen, Planning Depart- ment regarding the 801 Bates Subdivision ♦ City of El Cerrito General Plan, August 30, 1999 (the General Plan) A. Project Location, Access, and Setting Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project and Figure 2 the project vicinity. 1. Setting The proposed project at 801 Bates Avenue is in the hillside area of the City of El Cerrito where the land slopes upwards from San Francisco Bay, forming the East Bay Hills. Most roads follow the hill- side contours. Due to this topographic relief there are spectacular views of the Bay and low-lying ar- eas of El Cerrito, Albany, and Richmond. 2. Location and Access The project is located at 801 Bates Avenue. Bates Avenue is a cul-de-sac that runs northeast-southwest and is accessed from Moeser Lane, a major northeast-southwest street. Moeser Lane, which is divided in its upper portion, leads up from San Pablo Avenue which takes traffic from the Interstates 80 and 580 through intersections at Potrero Avenue to the north and Central Avenue to the south. At its top, Moeser Lane intersects with Arlington Boulevard, which carries traffic through the adjacent area of Kensington (unincorporated Contra Costa County), to the cities of Albany and Berkeley. Bates 1 Please see Appendix A of this Initial Study. 2 Please see Appendix B of this Initial Study. 3 Please see Appendix D1 of this Initial Study. 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- SAN PABLO AVE EL CERRITO EL CERRITO RICHMOND RICHMOND ALBANY ALBANY KENSINGTON KENSINGTON BERKELEY BERKELEY 80 580 801 Bates Ave POTRERO AVE POTRERO AVE MOESER LN MOESER LN BARRETT AVE BARRETT AVE ARLINGTON BLVD ARLINGTON BLVD CENTRAL AVE CENTRAL AVE COLUSA AVE COLUSA AVE F I G U R E 1 R E G I O N A L L O C AT I O N C I T Y O F E L C E R R I T O 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y 0 0.25 0.125 0.5 Miles N O R T H Source: DC&E, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- GELSTON PL BATES AVE BAYTREE LN ROBERTA DR F I G U R E 2 P R O J E C T V I C I N I T Y C I T Y O F E L C E R R I T O 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y 0 40 20 80 Feet N O R T H 839 Bates Ave 830 Bates Ave 736 Gelston Pl 732 Gelston Pl 728 Gelston Pl 716 Gelston Pl 785 Bates Ave 775 Bates Ave 820 Bates Ave 801 Bates Ave 8504 Roberta Dr 724 Gelston Pl 839 Bates Ave Source: DC&E, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y Avenue connects to Arlington Boulevard via Roberta Drive, a short street located just before the end of Bates Avenue. In the General Plan, Moeser Lane and Arlington Boulevard are classified as minor arterials, and the other aforementioned roads as local streets. Moeser Lane has a relatively steep incline of approximately 15-20 percent in the steepest places, and trucks over 8 tons in weight are prohibited from travelling on Moeser Lane east of Navellier Street. Heavy trucks are also prohibited from going up hill on Potrero Avenue, which is the next major east- west street to the north. Therefore, construction vehicles must take a circuitous route to the project site. The most likely route would be via Stockton Avenue and Terrace Drive, or Barrett Avenue and Arlington Boulevard. Construction vehicles could also use Arlington Avenue (which becomes Ar- lington Boulevard in El Cerrito) from Kensington and Berkeley to the south. The end of Bates Avenue provides access to three other properties: 775 Bates Avenue, 785 Bates Ave- nue and 820 Bates Avenue. This access would be maintained after construction of the proposed pro- ject. 3. Surrounding Uses The project area is residential with mostly low-rise, one-story and some two-story buildings built 20 to 30 years ago on smaller lots (7,000 to 8,000 square feet in size). There are a few remaining larger lots of one acre or more that date from the 1894 subdivision of San Pablo Rancho. The 801 Bates Avenue lot is one of these few remaining lots. The property to the east – 820 Bates Avenue – is another. Certain areas of this hillside zone, particularly those with the steepest slopes, have been acquired by the City of El Cerrito and left undeveloped and are classified as Hillside Natural Areas in the General Plan. There is a Hillside Natural Area to the northwest of Moeser Lane, across from the intersection with Bates Avenue. An area of high landslide danger to the east with tall eucalyptus trees is also of high value to wildlife according to the General Plan. The larger undeveloped area of Wildcat Canyon Regional Park, part of the East Bay Hills, is 0.3 miles to the east and contains some heavily wooded and some open areas. Residences surrounding the property, northwest along Bates Avenue, and north along Roberta Drive, are mainly small and medium-sized single-family homes of one to two stories. The house at 801 Bates Avenue is larger, although not taller, and occupies an expansive landscaped area of over one acre. Houses along Gelston Place are generally medium-sized with some modern, unique architecture. B. Description of Existing Property Figure 3 shows the existing site plan. Figure 4 shows the Tentative Parcel Map, and Figures 5 and 6 show various photographs of the house and grounds. Figure 7 is a photograph of the existing house as seen from Gelston Place. Figure 8 is an aerial photograph from 1949 that includes the property. 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y 1. Grounds The property is trapezoidal in shape with the longer sides approximately 250 feet long. It is oriented northwest-southeast, parallel to the East Bay Hills. It has an area of approximately 46,300 square feet, which is more than one acre. The width in a northeast-southwest direction, perpendicular to the Hills and the Bay, varies from around 140 to 200 feet. As seen from the east (the Bates Ave- nue/Roberta Drive side of the property) the land is flat or gradually sloping towards the Bay, with a sharp break in slope to the west of the house that allows for the grand Bay vistas from the house. As seen from the west, Gelston Place, Bay side, the house is located at the top of a rocky ridge. A tall hedge separates the 25-foot-wide portion of Bates Avenue from the property (Figure 5, photo The main gate is at the northeast corner of the property on Bates Avenue, and it leads to a curv- ing driveway that ends at the house, which is approximately in the center of the property. There are several tall trees in the grounds, some of which are over 60 feet in height. The trees include redwoods, Monterey pines, cedars, cypress, eucalyptus, and fruit trees.4 Flat, pebbly, sparsely vegetated areas lie to the east and south of the house and there is a marble foun- tain within the southern area. There are rocky outcroppings in the area north of the house and a ter- raced rocky area with tall trees between this northern area and the driveway. The southeast side of the property is bordered by a chain link fence and a mostly vegetated slope which is marked on the Tentative Plan as a 10-foot slope control easement. The closest neighboring property at 785 Bates Avenue is set back from this easement by around 2 feet. The steep slope on the western side of the house (Figure 5, photo immediately to the west of the enclosed swimming pool (Figure 6, photo varies in inclination from a slope of 2:1 to 2.5:1. It is steepest in the southern portion near Gelston Place, where it is terraced with some stone and wood retaining walls and has been planted with fruit trees (Figure 5, photos C and The more gentle northwest portion has not been terraced or planted and remains undeveloped. There is a stone retain- ing wall from 4 to 8 feet high on the edge of the slope that partially supports the swimming pool edge and there is a second, lower 3-foot-high wall further down the slope. The southwest corner of the property can be accessed via a wooden stairway with two wood retaining walls up to 3 feet high in this part of the slope. A wood and chain-link fence is present near the west property boundary. 2. House The house was built in 1932. The building has a mostly textured stucco exterior, rests on a concrete foundation, and has a cross-gabled roof covered in clay tiles. It has been altered several times in its history, notably through the addition of a new wing with ground-floor garage, a new enclosed circular staircase at the southeast side of the building, a pool, and new windows. The house also has an in-law unit located south of the garage doors in the new wing. The interior of the house has been 4 Existing trees and trees planned for removal are included on the revised Tentative Parcel Map included in this Ini- tial Study as Appendix B. 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- F I G U R E 3 E X I S T I N G P R O J E C T P L A N C I T Y O F E L C E R R I T O 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y Source: Based on Tentative Parcel Map from Moran Engineering; DC&E, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- PARCEL A PARCEL B PARCEL C PARCEL D F I G U R E 4 T E N TAT I V E PA R C E L M A P C I T Y O F E L C E R R I T O 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y 0 35 70 140 Feet BATES AVE Source: Based on Tentative Parcel Map from Moran Engineering; DC&E, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- C I T Y O F E L C E R R I T O 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y E X I S T I N G S I T E P H O T O G R A P H S F I G U R E 5 A View down Bates Avenue to road narrowing and 801 Bates Driveway B North side of house with rocky terracing D View from south looking upslope at house C View from house downslope to south showing wood retaining walls Source: DC&E, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- C I T Y O F E L C E R R I T O 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y E X I S T I N G H O U S E P H O T O G R A P H S F I G U R E 6 A East side and main entry B West side with facade protected by tarpaulin D Inside covered swimming pool on west side C South side behind marble fountain Source: DC&E, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- F I G U R E 7 V I E W O F E X I S T I N G H O U S E F R O M G E L S T O N P L A C E C I T Y O F E L C E R R I T O 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y Source: DC&E, 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- C I T Y O F E L C E R R I T O 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y A E R I A L P H O T O G R A P H D A T E D S E P T E M B E R 1 6 , 1 9 4 9 S H O W I N G H O M E A N D E X T E N S I V E G R O U N D S F I G U R E 8 Source: Pacifi c Aerial Surveys; DC&E, 2010. N O RT H 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y modernized and does not contain original features or finishes.5 Figure 5, photos A through D, show pictures of the house. According to the Applicant’s statement, recently mold and dry rot were dis- covered in the entire south-facing façade. This façade has since been partially demolished, revealing substantial structural damage, water leakage, and mold. Mold and water leakage have also been found in other parts of the house. The black mold in the walls is considered a serious health concern for the property inhabitants. Historical photos of the site and borings carried out for the geotechnical report reveal that an old pool, or pond, was once located on the south side of the house.6 It has since been filled in and there is no more surface trace of the pool. C. History of Existing Property The history of 801 Bates Avenue, as summarized below, is based on information in the Historical Re- source Technical Report completed by Page & Turnbull in September 2010. The report can be found in Appendix C of this Initial Study. The site of 801 Bates Avenue was owned and developed by Edward Clifford Gill, the second son of Edward G. Gill, a horticulturalist and nursery businessman known throughout the Bay Area for the exotic plants and antique roses that he raised. Edward G. Gill bought a 104-acre nursery at Buchanan Street and San Pablo Avenue in Albany in 1889. The Gill family owned this large nursery until 1928 when they sold it to the University of California. Edward C. Gill was also listed as a horticulturist in the U.S. Census records between 1910 and 1930, though he lived in the Hotel Royal, a residential hotel on San Pablo Avenue, in 1920 and 1930. He was purportedly also a professor and doctor. According to local historian Mervin Belfils, Dr. Gill purchased 801 Bates Avenue in the Rancho San Pablo Tract of the El Cerrito hills around 1927. When the property was purchased, it was a barren, rocky lot without any trees. Dr. Gill started land- scaping the original six acres, planting fruit trees and imported shrubs. The rear of the property con- tained a pond stocked with large trout. Dr. Gill built the house that currently resides on the property in 1932. He planned his home to be located at the top of a knoll overlooking San Francisco and the Golden Gate. The original architect is unknown and no Sanborn Fire Insurance maps exist for the area to map development over time. The house was built on solid rock that had been leveled off. Though the house was imposing and designed in a turreted Spanish Eclectic style, it contained only two bedrooms and was regarded as a studious retreat rather than a place to entertain guests. Dr. Gill lived in the house up until his death in 1949. 5 Page & Turnbull, August 2010, 801 Bates Avenue, El Cerrito California: Historical Resource Technical Report, page 12. Please see Appendix C of this Initial Study. 6 The old pool, or possibly fish pond, is delimited from borings in Figure 2 of Geotechnical Report in Appendix D1 of this Initial Study. 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y Following the death of Dr. Gill, Dr. Victor Stallone purchased 801 Bates Avenue and made significant alterations to the property so that by 1975, the house had eleven rooms, five baths, and a new rear patio, pool, and pool cover. Dr. Stallone owned the property until the 1980s. During Dr. Stallone’s period of ownership, portions of the original six-acre property were subdivided into smaller parcels and houses were built on them. In 1953, the property reportedly contained four acres, and by 1975, two acres of the property remained. Today, the property comprises a little over one acre. The current owner, Mrs. Meilin Lau and her husband, Mr. Alan Lau, purchased the property from Dr. Stallone in 1983. The Laus have made many additions to the residence, including a new wing to the north, an in-law unit, a new rear stair tower, a new west exterior wall, and replaced most win- dows. D. Location of Hayward Fault in the Site Vicinity 1. Location in Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone The property is within the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone for the Hayward Fault, as defined by the State Geologist in 1982, and included in the General Plan. The Alquist-Priolo Act Section IV 3603 states the following: No structure for human occupancy, identified as a project under Section 2621.6 of the Act, shall be permitted to be placed across the trace of an active fault. Furthermore, as the area within fifty (50) feet of such active faults shall be presumed to be underlain by active branches of that fault unless proven otherwise by an appropriate geologic investigation and report prepared as specified in Section 3603(d) of this subchapter, no such structures shall be permitted in this area. In compliance with the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Act, the City of El Cerrito Municipal Code, Section 19.13.030, requires a soils report and geologic report for all new construction for pro- jects located in the General Plan –HZ Hazard overlay district identified as “Active Faults – Earth- quake Fault Zone” and “High Landslide Risk Areas” on the Hazard Special Study Map.7 The City of El Cerrito does not mandate a specific setback from active faults but leaves this decision to the rec- ommendations of the Geotechnical report. 2. Geotechnical Investigations of 801 Bates The Project Applicant hired GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc. who completed an initial Geotechnical In- vestigation in September 2008. The GeoTrinity Geotechnical Report fulfills both the soils and geo- logic report criteria. The report was reviewed by the City of El Cerrito’s peer reviewer, Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. GeoTrinity produced a revised report in June 2009 to address the reviewer’s con- 7 http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=16333&stateId=5&stateName=California, accessed on July 30, 2010. 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y cerns and provide updated recommendations based on additional subsurface exploration at the site.8 The revised report was reviewed by Alan Kropp & Associates as part of this Initial Study. The revised Geotrinity Report and the Alan Kropp Peer Review Report are included as Appendices D1 and D2, respectively. E. Project Characteristics Figure 4 shows the proposed new subdivision with post-project grading. 1. Demolition and Construction The construction debris would be removed by East Bay Sanitary as per its contract with the City of El Cerrito, unless the Applicant’s contractor will provide this service. At this time, there are no esti- mates of the volume nor types of demolition and construction equipment. Given the age of the house, it is likely that there could be asbestos and lead-based paint that would require removal by a qualified contractor. East Bay Sanitary sends the waste to the West Contra Costa County Resources Recovery Facility. Recycling of construction debris is limited by the ability of West Contra Costa Resource Recovery Recycling Center to process it. The Applicant must sort material on-site in order to maximize recy- clability. If the project begins after January 1, 2011, the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) will be in force. These require the Applicant to have a waste management plan involving on-site sorting of construction debris so that up to 50 percent of the non-hazardous waste can be diverted from landfills and recycled. 2. Grading and Soil Removal Calculations of the amount of soil to be removed are included on the Tentative Parcel Map. This states that 1,400 cubic yards of soil and rock debris would be excavated and 200 cubic yards of soil suitable for use as fill would be imported. The destination of the soil and rock debris is not known at this time. 3. Proposed Design The outline of the building footprints is presented on the Tentative Parcel Map. No building design is yet available and no further design review would be required by the City for this project. Each of the buildings would be between 2,000 and 2,500 square feet in size. For the purpose of this Initial Study, a standard building envelope is used that steps down with the building topography. Although, the Code does not specify the maximum number of stories, given the site topography, there are likely to be one-, or two-story buildings. 8 GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc. (GCI), 2009. Revised Surface Fault Rupture Hazards and Geotechnical Investiga- tion and Response to City of El Cerrito Peer Review Comments, 801 Bates Avenue, El Cerrito, California. June 24, 2009. Please see Appendix D1 of this Initial Study. 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y 4. Zoning The property is located in an area of El Cerrito zoned as RS-5 (Single-family Residential).9 This allows up to 9 units per acre with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The subdivision would divide the property into four lots, each of which would be larger than the required 5,000 square feet. Although this density is allowed under this zoning, it is less than the normal range which, according to the Gen- eral Plan, is 7 to 10 units per acre. 5. Tree Removal/Protection and Landscaping Detailed landscaping plans for the proposed new development are not known at this time and the City does not require their review. Details of the tree removal have been included the Tentative Par- cel Map included as Appendix B to this Initial Study. The Applicant also proposes to plant trees along the widened Bates Avenue. As the project would be located in an area of Very High Fire Hazard Severity, the City’s Fire Hazard Reduction Guidelines apply.10 These include vegetation management standards and recommendations for the selection of fire resistant plants and roofing materials. 6. Road Modification, Utilities, and Drainage Road improvements, utility lines, and a drainage scheme are shown on the Tentative Parcel Map (Fig- ure 4 and Appendix Bates Avenue would be widened by 25 feet in the area alongside the property to the end of Lot C, to match the 50-foot-width to the northeast alongside neighboring properties. This additional 25-foot-wide strip would be dedicated to the City of El Cerrito. The 25-foot strip would consist of the asphalt road with a new curb, gutter, sidewalk, and a green strip. The strip of road in the southeast, alongside the proposed new home on Lot D, would not be widened and is re- served for future dedication. Existing utility lines would be used, and undergrounded in conformance with City code. A new storm drain would run northeast-southwest down the side of the property and intersect with a new catch basin near the northwestern corner. The total new impervious area provided by the project, including the road, would be 16,876 square feet. Because soils on the property are clays with low permeability, runoff must be carefully controlled. Drains within the property, on each of the subdi- vided lots, would each exit onto a rain garden. These permeable areas would be protected from future development through covenant. The rain gardens for each of the four lots, A through D, comprise 3.0, 1.9, 1.9, and 2.2 percent of each of the individual lot areas. The rain gardens would be designed and constructed using criteria from the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, Third Edition, as described in the project’s Stormwater Control Plan Report. The Applicant would submit a Stormwater Facilities Operation and Maintenance Plan prior to occupation of the residences. 9 Zoning map is available online at this link: http://www.el-cerrito.org/planning/Zoning_Ordinance.html, ac- cessed on August 4, 2010. 10 http://www.el-cerrito.org/fire/prevention_tips_residential.html, accessed on August 10, 2010. 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y 7. Lighting In conformance with Section 19.21.050.A of the Municipal Code, all exterior lights would be de- signed, located, installed, directed and shielded in such a manner as to prevent glare across property lines. Exterior lighting would be directed downward and away from adjacent properties and the pub- lic right-of-way. “Shielded” implies that the light rays are directed onto the project site, and any ob- jectionable glare is not visible from an adjacent property or rights-of-way. 8. Energy Efficiency and Green Components Although details of the construction of each of the new houses are not known at this time, the project design would be subject to all requirements of the most recent edition of the California Building Code, which contains numerous energy efficiency features.11 In addition, the Applicant states in the project application that LEED® certification might be pursued for some, or all, of the proposed build- ings. F. Required Permits and Approvals In addition to approval of the CEQA documentation by the lead agency, the City of El Cerrito, the proposed project would require a Tentative Parcel Map for the 801 Bates Avenue Subdivision. No other permits or approvals are required. 11 If the project beings after January 1, 2011, the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) will be in force. 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I. AESTHETICS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qual- ity of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Although the El Cerrito General Plan does not specifically define scenic vistas in El Cerrito, the Gen- eral Plan references views along Moeser Lane and includes Policy R1.13 (stated below), which dis- cusses public views and vistas. Policy R1.13 View Protection and Vista Points Preserve prominent view of visual resources and the Bay, and consider visual access and view corridors when reviewing development proposals. Require assessment of critical public views, ridgelines, scenic overlooks, Bay vista points, significant knolls, stands of trees, rock outcrops, and major visual features as part of the project review process to assure that projects protect natural resources through proper site planning, building design and landscaping, and that pub- lic access is provided if possible to vista points. This General Plan policy describes the importance of protecting ridgeline views in El Cerrito. Al- though the project is not located on the East Bay Hills ridgeline, it is located on a minor ridgeline and is silhouetted against the skyline from several viewpoints immediately below such as from Gelston Place (see Figure Policy R1.13 notes that significant knolls, stands of trees, and rock outcrops should be protected as they are part of the view. 1. Views looking east from Gelston Place and below Demolition of the existing house, removal of several trees, and construction of four smaller structures, located in a similar position near to the break in slope, would change the views as seen from below (to the west). The four new structures, each one or two stories high, would be visible to varying extents from Gelston Place and surrounding streets. The house to be built in Lot D would be the most visible because of the lack of tree cover, and because it would be only a few feet from the rock wall that marks the break in slope. The house on Lot C would be the next most visible. Houses on Lots A and B are unlikely to be clearly visible. 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y Tree removal plans have been incorporated on the Tentative Map.12 These show that the 40-inch di- ameter Monterey Pine would remain. This tree is estimated to be 60-70 feet tall and is located on the topographic high immediately northwest of the existing house and just to the west of House B. How- ever, as described in Section X, the new house in Parcel B would be constructed in very close prox- imity and could damage the tree. The rocky knoll in which it is embedded also largely remains, al- though the side of it would be graded to make way for House B. A cluster of medium-sized (up to 22- inch diameter) redwood trees in the northwest of the property located where House A is proposed for construction, would be removed. These are not clearly visible from the west and Gelston Place, al- though they affect views from neighboring properties to the northwest. However, there would still be trees between the adjacent house and the House A. Removal of the small trees (mostly below 15 feet tall) currently to the south of the house, or the pine and cedar in the south of the property next to the chain link fence, would not have an effect upon views from the west, and would have only a mi- nor effect on views from the Gelston Place properties to the southeast. Loss of the prominent Mon- terey Pine tree due to construction of the house in Parcel B too close to the roots of this tree would be a potentially significant impact because it would alter the view. 2. Views looking west from Roberta Drive and above There are spectacular views of San Francisco Bay from streets above Bates Avenue, particularly look- ing down Roberta Drive. Removal of the house and its replacement with smaller houses would affect this view in that instead of the tall house with some street trees in front, there would be more views of the Bay, with some views of the new houses. Although the house is visually appealing, and its re- moval would change the view, this would still be a less-than-significant impact. There are several tall trees on the property. Loss of the tall Monterey Pine located immediately north of the proposed house on Parcel B would change the view of the site and cause a potentially significant impact. Impact AES-1: Loss of the tall Monterey Pine located immediately north of the proposed house on Parcel B would be change the view of the site. Mitigation Measure AES-1: Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would be applied. Significance after Mitigation: With inclusion of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, the root zone of this tree would be protected and the tree would remain as part of the view of the site. The impact would be reduced to less than significant. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock out- croppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? There are no State Scenic highways in the project area from which the project is visible. There would therefore be no impact. 12 Tree removal plans were incorporated on the Tentative Parcel Map included in Appendix B of this Initial Study. 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its sur- roundings? The visibility of the site from below was addressed under The existing house on the site is visually attractive and its removal and replacement with four smaller houses, which are unlikely to be as archi- tecturally spectacular, would alter the existing visual character of the site. The proposed four smaller homes would, however, be consistent with the size of other homes in the surrounding area. Overall, the there would be a less-than-significant impact on the existing visual character or quality of the site as seen from neighboring properties. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? As described in the Project Description, the City of El Cerrito requires exterior lighting to be de- signed so that neighborhood properties are not adversely affected. With this safeguard in place, there would not be substantial light affecting day or nighttime views in the area. The proposed new homes would presumably include southwest-facing windows so that residents can enjoy the view. Because the existing property also has southwest-facing windows, any issues from glare are therefore unlikely to be greater than for the existing situation and the impact would be less than significant. II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Would the project:13 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farm- land 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? 13 In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information com- piled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement meth- odology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Would the project:13 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or of conversion of forest land to non-forest use? a-e) The site is an existing residence with landscaping. It is not occupied by farmland, forest land, or tim- berland and is not on land under Williamson Act contract. There would be no impact to agriculture and forest resources. III. AIR QUALITY Would the project:14 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applica- ble air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substan- tially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions which ex- ceed quantitative Standards for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant con- centrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 14 Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y a-c) The San Francisco Bay Area occasionally violates State and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). Ozone forms when precursor chemicals, known as criteria pollutants, nitrous oxides (NOx), and reactive organic gases (ROGs), react with oxygen and sunlight. Diesel-powered construction equipment and passenger vehi- cles associated with the project would generate PM10, PM2.5, and ozone precursor chemicals. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for developing regional plans for ozone reduction. On-site operation of construction equipment is subject to BAAQMD Rules and Regulations. Compliance with the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations would help meet the goals of regional air quality plans. Demolition and construction of the project would produce dust, which could add to the amount of airborne particulates. This would be a potentially significant impact. Due to the age of the structure to be demolished, it is likely to contain asbestos and lead paint. Asbes- tos removal would be conducted in accordance with the procedures specified in Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing) of BAAQMD regulations. The project site is underlain by some areas of asbestos-containing serpentinite rock as indicated in the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation. Release of fibers during drilling for foundations could release this material to the air and this would be a potentially significant impact. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated guidelines for the renovation and re- modeling of buildings or other structures when such activities may create a hazard. Guidelines are found at 40 CFR Section 745.227. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regu- lations require that workers not be exposed to lead in concentrations greater than the permissible ex- posure limit, listed at 29 CFR Section 1910.1025. Adherence to these regulations would ensure that the impact would be less than significant. There would be few on-road construction-related vehicles and the impact to air quality from these would be less than significant. Impact AQ-1: Demolition and construction of the project would produce dust, which could add to the amount of airborne particulates. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The project would comply with BAAQMD Basic Control Measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10: ♦ Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Watering should be sufficient to pre- vent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary when- ever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y ♦ Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e. the minimum required space between the top of the load the top of the trailer). ♦ 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 streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Significance after Mitigation: With adherence to the BAAQMD Basic Control Measures for re- ducing construction emissions of PM10, the impact would be reduced to less than significant. Impact AQ-2: Drilling into asbestos-containing serpentinite rock could release fibers to the air during construction. Asbestos-containing soils could release fibers to air after project construction. Use of asbestos-containing basalt bedrock as a fill material offsite could cause offsite exposure to asbestos fi- bers if the recipients are unaware of the fill’s contents. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure AQ-2a: When drilling is being undertaken in rocky areas, watering, use of respirators, and similar practices and controls should be available and used when needed to pre- vent dust. The earthwork contractor(s) should, at a minimum: ♦ Implement appropriate earthwork, material-handling, and personal safety measures to mini- mize inhalation of potential airborne asbestos fibers by onsite workers and ♦ Use measures to minimize movement of airborne dust offsite downwind, or to other neighboring properties. ♦ The contractor(s) should use the services of an industrial hygienist to monitor worker and neighborhood health and safety regarding this issue. Mitigation Measure AQ-2b: In areas of building pads underlain by areas of serpentinite bedrock, the bedrock should be over-excavated to a depth of 2 feet below finished subgrade and replaced with non-serpentinitic “cover” material. A knowledgeable geologist should be present on-site to observe the earthwork and provide field recommendations regarding exposure of serpentinite and its over-excavation and replacement with non-serpentinitic cover material. Mitigation Measure AQ-2c: If serpentinitic material is exported from the site, recipients of such material should be made aware that the material they are receiving contains asbestos. Significance after Mitigation: With adherence to Mitigation AQ-2a, b, and c, the impact from re- lease of naturally occurring asbestos fibers to air would be less than significant. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors typically include residences, schools, parks, and hospitals. According to Google Earth, there are at least two schools within one quarter mile of the project site. These are: German International School and Skytown Preschool, at 1 Lawson Road, Kensington. However, the area be- 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y tween the project site and these schools contains a relatively large number of trees and this would re- duce any dust exposure (also described in a-c, above). There would be a less-than-significant impact to sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Project construction would involve standard paints, resins, and other construction materials. These could produce minor odors lasting for a few days. The impact would be less than significant. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact 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 Califor- nia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service? 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 Califor- nia Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wild- life Service? 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? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with es- tablished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Con- servation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or State habitat conser- vation plan? 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y a) Would the project 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? Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the State and/or federal Endangered Species Acts15 or other regulations, as well as other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, communal roosts and other essential habitat. Species with legal protection under the Endangered Species Acts often repre- sent major constraints to development, particularly when they are wide-ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a "take" of these species.16 A search of records contained in the California Natural Diversity Data Base together with other relevant information, indicates that occurrences of numerous plant and animal species with spe- cial-status have been recorded or are suspected to occur in western Contra Costa County and the El Cerrito vicinity. Figure 9 shows the distribution of known occurrences of special-status species in the surrounding area as recorded in the These include both plant and animal species such as Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea), western leather- wood (Dirca occidentalis), Bridges’ coast range shoulderband snail nickliniana bridgesi), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), western pond tur- tle (Actinemys marmorata), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis) and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). A habitat suitability analysis was conducted as part of the field reconnaissance for this IS to determine whether there remains a potential for one or more special-status species to be present on the site. The habitat on the site was compared to habitat from the surrounding areas of El Cerrito known or sus- pected to be used by special-status species. The site has been extensively disturbed by past grading, construction of the existing residence and ter- raced hillside and planting of non-native species throughout the property. Due to the extent of past disturbance, no potential remains for occurrence of any special-status plant species. Suitable habitat for most special-status animal species including listed species such as the State and federally-threatened Alameda whipsnake, and non-listed species such as Bridges’ coast range shoulderband snail and west- ern pond turtle, is also absent from the site. A row of blue gum eucalyptus remains along the south- eastern edge of the site, but is not suitable as winter roost habitat for monarch butterfly because of the exposed conditions. 15 The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 declares that all federal departments and agencies shall utilize their authority to conserve endangered and threatened plant and animal species. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of 1984 parallels the policies of FESA and pertains to native California species. 16 "Take" as defined by the FESA means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or col- lect" a threatened or endangered species. "Harm" is further defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to in- clude the killing or harming of wildlife due to significant obstruction of essential behavior patterns breeding, feeding, or sheltering) through significant habitat modification or degradation. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) also considers the loss of listed species habitat as take, although this policy lacks statutory authority and case law support under the CESA. 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- 801 Bates Avenue pallid bat hoary bat Bridges' coast range shoulderband fragrant fritillary Bridges' coast range shoulderband California seablite fragrant fritillary silver-haired bat western leatherwood fragrant fritillary Alameda song sparrow western leatherwood Santa Cruz tarplant Santa Cruz tarplant Santa Cruz tarplant Santa Cruz tarplant Sacramento perch/ western pond turtle Santa Cruz tarplant Santa Cruz tarplant C I T Y O F E L C E R R I T O 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y F I G U R E 9 S P E C I A L - S T A T U S S P E C I E S O C C U R R E N C E S Source: California Natural Diversity Database, USGS, July 2010. Note: the indicates that the monarch butterfly and Alameda whipsnake may occur anywhere within the extent of this map. 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Plant Species Animal Species ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y There is a remote possibility that raptors or other migratory birds protected under the federal Migra- tory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) could establish new nests on the site before proposed tree removal and construction begins. These birds include: Cooper’s hawk, white-tailed kite, red-tailed hawk, great horned owl, and other raptors. None of these have formal listing status under the State or federal En- dangered Species Acts, but some are recognized as California Special Concern (CSC) species by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Nests in active use are protected under the MBTA, and raptor nests in active use are further protected under Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. Although no evidence of any bird nesting, including stick nests of raptors, was ob- served during the field reconnaissance survey, new nests could be established before construction is initiated. Loss of active nests of raptors of other protected migratory birds would be a potentially sig- nificant impact. It is also possible that special-status bats could inhabit the property. No evidence of suitable bat roost- ing opportunities was observed in the existing trees on the site or in the attic space of the existing resi- dence. An interior inspection was conducted on August 10, 2010. All accessible spaces in the attic were inspected for any signs of bat occupation, and no evidence of bat presence was found. However, the west-facing wall of the existing residence has been partially removed and this could allow future bat access to the interior of the structure, where they could roost. No special status bats have been reported from the immediate vicinity according to the records, although both pallid bat and silver-haired bat have been observed in the El Cerrito Hills in the past. The fact that the residence remains occupied limits the likelihood of use by special-status bat species, as these species tend to avoid human activity. A preconstruction survey would serve to confirm that no new roosting activity has become established in the existing residence before it is demolished. Although considered unlikely, the remote potential for loss of roosting habitat for special-status bats would be a potentially significant impact without effective mitigation. Impact BIO-1: Construction during bird nesting season could lead to loss of active nests of raptors of other protected migratory birds. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If construction activities and any tree removal is initiated during the bird breeding season between March 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist shall be required to survey areas within 100 feet of the project site for nesting birds, within 30 days prior to any ground-disturbing activity or tree removal. If any active nests of raptors or other protected migra- tory birds are detected, CDFG shall be notified of the survey results prior to any ground disturb- ing activity and an appropriate buffer established around the nest location within which construc- tion shall be restricted. The buffer zone shall be developed by the qualified biologist based on in- put from CDFG and specific conditions associated with the nest. Typically, a construction set- back of at least 100 feet shall be provided. Depending on conditions specific to each nest, and the relative location and rate of construction activities, it may be feasible for construction to occur as planned within the buffer without im- pacting the nest(s). In this case (to be determined in consultation with CDFG), the nest(s) shall be monitored by the qualified biologist during construction within the buffer. If, in the professional 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y opinion of the monitor, the project would impact the nest or result in nest abandonment when eggs or young are still present, the biologist shall immediately inform the construction manager and CDFG. The construction manager shall immediately stop construction activities within the buffer until either the young have successfully fledged and the nest is no longer active or the pro- ject receives written approval to proceed from CDFG. If construction activities and any required tree removal occur during the non-breeding season (September 1 through February 28), no preconstruction bird surveys would be required. Impact after Mitigation: With protection of active nests as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO- 1, the impact would be less than significant. Impact BIO-2: The existing residence could provide habitat for special-status bats, and its demolition could result in inadvertent take of individual bats, or loss of a roosting colony, if bats occupy the resi- dence before it is demolished. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: A pre-construction survey for roosting bats shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to the commencement of demolition of the existing resi- dence. To determine presence or absence of bats, the survey shall be conducted by a biologist with experience surveying for bats. If no special-status bats are identified during the pre- construction survey, then no impacts would be expected during building demolition. If, however, any special-status bats are identified in the existing residence, reproductive status shall be determined, and appropriate measures developed in consultation with CDFG to allow for pas- sive relocation through building exclusions and other methods. Additional recommendations may be made by the qualified bat specialist following the pre-construction survey, such as opening the roofs of the structures, construction monitoring, and other measures to avoid take of individual bats. Restrictions on timing of construction and conduct of the pre-construction survey would prevent direct take of individuals or destruction of any maternity roost locations in active use. No imme- diate replacement of roosting habitat is currently recommended given the lack of evidence of any colonial maternity roosts in the structures. However, if a maternity roost or occupied roost is de- tected during the pre-construction survey, the CDFG shall be notified and consulted to determine if protection measures are adequate and if replacement for loss of occupied habitat is required. Significance after Mitigation: With passive relocation and/or protection of an active maternity roost as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-2, the impact would be less than significant. 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y b) Would the project 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service? The site has been highly disturbed in the past and supports a cover of poorly maintained landscape plantings and non-native, ruderal (weedy) grasses and forbs. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community types occur on the site, and there would therefore be no impact. c) Would the project 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? Although definitions vary, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are periodically or per- manently inundated by surface or groundwater, and support vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as important features on a regional and national level due to their inher- ent value to fish and wildlife, use as storage areas for storm and floodwaters, and water recharge, filtra- tion and purification functions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CDFG have jurisdiction over wetland areas. No indicators of jurisdictional wetlands were observed on the site during the field reconnaissance survey and none occur on this upland site. There would therefore be no impact. d) Would the project 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 na- tive wildlife nursery sites? The proposed project would not have any significant adverse impacts on wildlife movement opportu- nities or adversely impact native wildlife nursery sites. Wildlife which frequent the site vicinity are common in suburban habitats and are already acclimated to human activity. The construction activi- ties would temporarily disrupt current foraging and dispersing behavior of individuals, but would not result in the extirpation (local extinction) of any of these species. Species common to the area would continue to utilize the surrounding area, even during construction, and would eventually utilize the new structures and landscaped yards of future residences on the site. Impacts would therefore be less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The proposed project would not in general conflict with any relevant goals and policies in the City of El Cerrito related to protection of biological and wetland resources. Adequate mitigation is recom- mended to ensure that potential impacts on special-status species are addressed, and no wetlands or other sensitive resources are present on the site that would be affected by the proposed project. The Landscaping and Buffer Yards section of the City of El Cerrito Zoning Code (Chapter 19.25) in- cludes a subsection on “Existing Trees” and states that “existing trees shall be maintained whenever possible.” The Applicant has prepared a tree removal plan that is incorporated in this IS on the Ten- tative Parcel Map in Appendix B of this Initial Study. No landscape plans have been prepared for the 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y project, but new plantings of trees, shrubs, and groundcovers would generally serve to replace the trees and other vegetation removed as part of the project. Existing trees meeting size requirements and consistent with applicable limitations on trees species may be counted toward required landscap- ing in a proposed project, and existing trees to be retained are to be protected from root damage dur- ing construction. A variety of trees grow on the site, many of which were planted as part of the original Gill Estate. These include non-native blue gum (Eucalyptus globules), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Mon- terey pine (Pinus radiata), green wattle (Acacia decurrens), blackwood acacia melanoxylon) and smaller native oaks (Quercus agrifolia), among others.17 An estimated 27 trees with trunk diameters ranging from 6 to 48 inches would be removed to accommodate the proposed development, including two mature blue gums in the southeast corner of the site, four coast redwoods in the northeast corner, several coast live oaks within the footprint of improvements on Parcel A, numerous small blackwood acacias along the property line between Parcels C and D, and at least one mature Monterey pine within the house footprint on Parcel D. Several other Monterey pines would be located within five feet of the proposed house footprint and rain garden on Parcel D, and construction could severely damage the root systems of these three trees with trunk diameters ranging from 24 to 30 inches. These trees provide some partial screening between the site and existing residences at the end of Bates Avenue, and provide foraging and possible nesting sites for numerous species of birds. The proposed house footprint on Parcel B would also be located within 5 feet of a 40-inch pine, which could damage the health of this specimen tree on the site. This tree is over 60 feet tall and can be seen clearly in many long-range views of the site. Damage to this and other tall trees on the site in close proximity to future residences on Parcels B and D would be inconsistent with Chapter 19.25 of the El Cerrito Zon- ing Code and would be a potentially significant impact. Impact BIO-3: Damage to existing tall trees that would be would be inconsistent with Chapter 19.25 of the El Cerrito Zoning Code. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: A qualified arborist shall prepare an inventory of trees to be re- tained on the site, and shall specify appropriate avoidance measures to protect these trees during construction. This shall include flagging of all trees to be retained, fencing the edge of the con- struction zone in proximity of the trees, and restrictions on access within identified setback zones necessary to protect the tree root systems. At a minimum, the footprint of the proposed houses on Parcels B and D, and the footprint of the proposed rain garden on Parcel D shall be adjusted to provide a minimum 10-foot setback from the trunks of nearby pine trees to be retained. Impact after Mitigation: With the footprint of the proposed houses on Parcels B & D moved to ensure an adequate buffer zone around the tall trees, the project would be consistent with Chapter 19.25 of the El Cerrito Zoning Code and the impact would be less than significant. 17 The City of El Cerrito Municipal Code (Section 10.90.190) now prohibits planting of all three of these species due to one or more of the following characteristics: rapid growth, height at maturity, dense foliage, shallow root structure, flammability, breakability or invasiveness. 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y f) Would the project Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or State habitat conservation plan? The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved conservation plan. No such plans have been adopted for the site vicinity, and no impacts are therefore anticipated. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as de- fined in Section 15064.5? An evaluation of the historic value of the property is included in the Historic Resource Report by Page & Turnbull included in Appendix C of this Initial Study. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource because the project does not possess sufficient his- toric integrity to qualify it as a historical resource. The property could have been considered histori- cally significant for its connection to Dr. Edward C. Gill, who developed the property in 1932 and was a horticulturalist and professor whose family was well-known locally for their large nursery that was sold to the University of California. However, the project has undergone extensive alterations and additions, including a three-story addition with garage, pool and pool cover, an enclosed circular staircase, replacement windows, two towers, and significant landscaping changes. Therefore, the pro- ject no longer retains sufficient historic integrity to convey the significance of the structure on site. Because no qualified historical resources are located on the project site, there would be no impact to the significance of a historical resource. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? The project would include site excavation, which could potentially disturb buried archaeological re- mains. 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y Impact CULT-1: During construction, the project could potentially disturb buried archaeological remains. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If an archaeological resource is uncovered during demolition or construction activities for the proposed project, the project applicant shall be required to immedi- ately notify the City of El Cerrito and immediately cease all excavation work within 10 feet of the archaeological resource. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine the necessity for monitoring the remaining excavation and to evaluate any cultural resource exposure during con- struction. Upon consultation with the City of El Cerrito and upon implementation of the rec- ommendations of the archaeologist, project construction activity shall resume. Cultural resources include, but are not limited to: railroad ties, foundations, privies, shell and bone artifacts, ash and charcoal. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the DPR 523 (historic properties) forms. Impact after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would lead to a less- than-significant impact. c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geo- logic feature? Because the project site is located on volcanic and metamorphic bedrock, it is highly unlikely that the project would encounter any unique paleontological resource. It has been extensively trenched and no site or unique geologic feature has been identified. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact. d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The project would include site excavation, which could potentially disturb human remains. Impact CULT-2: During construction, the project could potentially disturb buried human remains. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure CULT-2: In the event that human skeletal remains are encountered during demolition or construction activities for the proposed project, the project applicant shall immedi- ately notify the County Coroner and the City of El Cerrito. Excavation work within 10 feet of the find shall cease immediately. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact the California Native Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Impact after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-2 would lead to a less- than-significant impact. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact 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 Zon- ing 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 Publi- cation 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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 spread- ing, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 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? 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 wastewa- ter? a) Would the project 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 sub- stantial evidence of a known fault; ii) strong seismic ground shaking; iii) seismic-related ground failure, in- cluding liquefaction; iv) landslides? Detailed information on the geology is included in the Geotrinity Geotechnical Investigation in Ap- pendix D1 and the Alan Kropp Peer Review Report in Appendix D2 of this Initial Study. Location in Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone The property is located within the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone for the Hayward Fault, as defined by the State Geologist in 1982, and included in the General Plan. The State Geologist had shown one uncer- tain (dashed and questioned) fault trace located either on the property or just to the northeast, and another that coincided with the northwestern continuation of Arlington Avenue.18 18 As shown on Figure 4 of the Applicant’s Geotechnical Report in Appendix D1 of this Initial Study. 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y In compliance with the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Act, the City of El Cerrito Municipal Code, Section 19.13.03019, requires a soils report and geologic report for all new construction for pro- jects located in the General Plan –HZ Hazard zone identified as “Active Faults – Earthquake Fault Zone” and “High Landslide Risk Areas” on the Hazard Special Study Map. Requirements for Fault Setback The Alquist-Priolo Act Section IV 3603 a) states the following: No structure for human occupancy, identified as a project under Section 2621.6 of the Act, shall be permitted to be placed across the trace of an active fault. Furthermore, as the area within fifty (50) feet of such active faults shall be presumed to be underlain by active branches of that fault unless proven otherwise by an appropriate geologic investigation and report prepared as specified in Section 3603(d) of this subchapter, no such structures shall be permitted in this area. The City of El Cerrito does not mandate a specific setback but leaves this decision to the recommen- dations of the project geotechnical report. Geotechnical Investigations of 801 Bates The Project Applicant hired a geotechnical consultant, GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc. who completed an initial Geotechnical Investigation in September, 2008. This report, which fulfils the City of El Cerrito requirement as a soils and geologic report, was reviewed by the City of El Cerrito’s peer re- viewer, Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering stated in their Peer Review letter that they were concerned by the possibility of recent (Holocene, or within the last 12,000 years) movement along faults uncovered in two of the trenches excavated for the research, and of the possi- bility that soils along the descending west-facing slope could creep downslope. GeoTrinity produced a revised report in June 2009 to address these concerns and provide updated recommendations based on additional subsurface exploration at the site.20 These revised recommendations included fault set backs to reduce risks to the buildings from fault rupture and a recommendation for structures to be sup- ported on pier foundations that would address concerns about soil creep. The revised report (Applicant’s Geotechnical Report) was reviewed by Alan Kropp & Associates (AKA) as part of this Initial Study21. The AKA Peer Review Report concluded that the potential for fault rupture at the site was adequately addressed by the revised report. However, a recommendation is contained in the AKA Peer Review Report that the Applicant’s consultant GeoTrinity provide spe- 19 http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=16333&stateId=5&stateName=California. Accessed July 30, 2010. 20 GeoTrinity Consultants, Inc. (GCI), 2009. Revised Surface Fault Rupture Hazards and Geotechnical Investiga- tion and Response to City of El Cerrito Peer Review Comments, 801 Bates Avenue, El Cerrito, California. June 24, 2009. This is included as Appendix D1. 21 Alan Kropp & Associates, Inc. (AKA), 2010. Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review, Revised Surface Fault Rupture Hazards and Geotechnical Investigation, 801 Bates Avenue, El Cerrito, California. September 10, 2010. Please see Appendix D2 of this Initial Study. 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y cific recommendations for minimum lateral design loads on foundation piers in order to account for the existing site slope and possibility of slope creep. Previous Investigations of Fault Location The US Geological Survey (USGS) maintains online maps that show the results of the latest research on the location of surface fault traces.22 A branch of the Hayward Fault is shown running along the base of the slope, just southwest of, but parallel to, the property boundary, but not running through the property. The USGS maps also show that two other, parallel branches run north of Bates Avenue and cross Roberta Drive at right angles. The Hayward Fault traces, as defined by the USGS data, run through several adjacent residential properties in this area of El Cerrito. The GeoTrinity Report re- views fault evaluation reports for investigations on three neighboring properties and summarizes the findings. It should be noted that the USGS maps are not based on detailed subsurface information in the project area, therefore the fault locations shown should be considered approximate. Methodology for Locating of Hayward Fault Several types of evidence can be used to determine the position of active faults. These are outlined in the GeoTrinity Report. Aerial photographs, particularly stereoscopic pairs of the area prior to development, can show natural features such as narrow valleys, alignment of springs, vegetation changes expressed as lineaments, and relatively linear ground scarps. Active landsliding can be detected from the presence of scarps, hum- mocky topography, and vegetation anomalies. Some of these topographic features can also be seen on the ground in site visits. Fault movement is also visible through offsets or deflections in curbs and sidewalks in streets perpendicular to the fault, en echelon cracking of pavements, or cracking of build- ing foundations and retaining walls.23 The strongest evidence for the location of faults comes from the excavation of trenches perpendicular to suspected faults, and a detailed descriptive record of the deposits (referred to as a log). These logs provide cross sections showing the subsurface deposits and fault-related offsets. Deposits of highly crushed, or powdered rocks, known as fault gouge, located in shear zones, are also indicative of faults. The age, or activity of the fault, is estimated from the age of the oldest deposits that overlie the fault. Conclusions on Active Fault Location at 801 Bates Site The GeoTrinity Report included extensive fault trenching within the site. The trenches encountered probable active fault traces in the southeast portion of the site. The GeoTrinity Report recommends a setback of 25 feet from a major fault trace and a 10-foot setback from a minor fault trace located within southeast portion of the property. The AKA Peer Review Report concluded that these set- backs are appropriate to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture associated with the identified faults. However, without strict adherence to these guidelines, there would be a potentially significant impact. 22 http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/haywardfault/, accessed on July 30, 2010. 23 According to the City of El Cerrito Public Works Department, Roberta Drive and Bates Avenue were last sur- faced in 2003. The curbs are almost certainly original. The curbs on Roberta Avenue therefore date from sometime between 1949 and 1953. 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y Seismically Induced Groundshaking, Liquefaction, and Landslides The site will experience strong ground shaking during future large earthquakes occurring on the Hay- ward fault or other nearby faults such as the San Andreas, San Gregorio, and Concord-Green Valley faults. The project would be required to conform to the earthquake provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) and specifications in the Geotrinity and Alan Kropp Geotechnical Reports. This should reduce the risk of loss of life and property damage to acceptable levels to less than signifi- cant levels. The Applicant’s Geotechnical Report concludes that the site is underlain by bedrock and is not within a landslide area and the AKA Peer Review Report concurs with this finding. Therefore seismically- induced landslide movement, liquefaction, or other types of seismically-induced ground failure are not considered a significant risk, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. Impact GEO-1: Due to the site’s location in the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone around the Hayward Fault, there is a risk to structures from fault rupture due to their location close to known active fault traces. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Construction plans shall adhere to the fault setbacks described in the Applicant’s Geotechnical Report, which are 25 feet from the major fault trace and 10 feet from the minor fault trace, respectively, that cross the property. Impact after Mitigation: With adherence to these setback distances the risks from fault rupture would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Impact GEO-2: Due to the site’s location in close proximity to major earthquake faults, there is a risk to structures from strong seismic groundshaking. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Construction shall proceed according to the most recent edition of the California Building Code and shall adhere to specifications in the GeoTrinity Geotechnical Report. Impact after Mitigation: With adherence to the recommendations in the GeoTrinity Geotechni- cal Report and with further consideration of expansive soil mitigation measures as recommended in the AKA Peer Review Report, the impact from construction on expansive soils would be re- duced to a level of less than significant. 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Currently, landscaping and drainage facilities at the site are poorly maintained. The project will in- clude extensive landscaping which should reduce erosion compared to the existing condition of the site. In addition, the project will include construction of an improved drainage system that conforms to current practices and ordinances. As a consequence, the project is not expected to result in substan- tial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and the impact would be less than significant. c) Would the project 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, lique- faction or collapse? The GeoTrinity Report concludes that the site is not located in a landslide area and the AKA Peer Review Report concurs with this finding. The site is located in an area underlain by a relatively com- petent bedrock formation at shallow depth and therefore landsliding, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and soil collapse are not considered significant hazards. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. 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? Highly expansive soils were documented by the GeoTrinity Report in the eastern portion of the site within the fault setback zone. The GeoTrinity Report did not specifically document these soils within the proposed development areas. However, the available information is not considered de- tailed enough to preclude the possibility that these soils could exist in those areas. Recommendations were contained in the GeoTrinity Report for mitigation of expansive soil effects on improvements. However, the AKA Peer Review Report recommends further consideration of the expansive soil mitigation recommendations by GeoTrinity. Without these recommendations there would be a poten- tially significant impact from construction on expansive soils. Impact GEO-3: Construction could occur in areas of expansive soils. This would be a potentially sig- nificant impact. Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Recommendations for construction on expansive soils that are con- tained in the GeoTrinity Geotechnical Report (with further consideration of expansive soil miti- gation measures as recommended in the AKA Peer Review Report) shall be followed. Significance after Mitigation: With adherence to the recommendations in the GeoTrinity Geo- technical Report and with further consideration of expansive soil mitigation measures as recom- mended in the AKA Peer Review Report, the impact from construction on expansive soils would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. 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 wastewater? The project will utilize the existing City sewer system. The use of on-site septic tanks or wastewater disposal systems is not anticipated. Therefore, there would be no impact. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emis- sions of GHGs? a,b) The project would generate GHGs through the energy required for: building demolition and disposal of materials; manufacture of construction materials and their transport to the site; construction of the new houses; and operation of the new houses. Although the new houses are likely to be considerably more energy efficient than the older building they replace, there would be four structures, rather than one, and it is probable that this would use more energy in heating and lighting, and result in produc- tion of more GHGs. Significance criteria were adopted by the BAAQMD in June 2, 2010. There are no construction re- lated thresholds. The threshold for operations is 1,100 MY CO2e/year24. The BAAQMD provides a screening level that relates this threshold to the square footage of development proposed. BAAQMD recommends that GHG modeling is not required for projects below 56 dwelling units because it is extremely unlikely they would result in an exceedence of this threshold. The project is therefore con- siderably below this threshold. The City of El Cerrito is developing a Climate Action Plan but one is not yet in place with which the proposed project could be compared. There would therefore be a less-than-significant impact from GHGs. VIII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 24 The unit is metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent units, per year. 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y VIII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazard- ous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a pub- lic airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, re- sult in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacua- tion plan? 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? a-d) The project would use small amounts of hazardous materials, such as paints, solvents, and resins, and other construction-related materials. Although it is conceivable that there could be accidents from their transport and use, it is not likely. The project site is underlain by rocks that include some asbestos-bearing serpentinite and asbestos could be released during drilling. This issue is discussed in Section III Air Quality. The property is not on a list of known hazardous materials sites. There are no known hazardous ma- terials on the property – although there are no reports that it has been surveyed for their presence. The property is over 80 years old and it is therefore possible that chemicals such as cleaning materials, paints, or heating oil are, or have been, stored on the property during that time. However, even if there had been such chemicals and they had leaked, the house is underlain by rock, not porous sedi- ment, they are unlikely to have remained in a location where they could spread to groundwater and cause future contamination. There would therefore be a less-than-significant impact. 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y e-f) The project is not located within two miles of a public or public use airport nor is it located within an airport land use plan; therefore, there would be no impact. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emer- gency evacuation plan? There are no emergency response or emergency evacuation plans with which this project would inter- fere. There would therefore be no impact. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wild- land fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The project is located 0.3 miles to the west of Wildcat Canyon Park, part of the East Bay parks which is undeveloped land with a mixture of heavily wooded areas and some open areas. To reduce the risk of fires spreading from the East Bay hills to El Cerrito, the City of El Cerrito maintains a buffer zone between the parks and developed areas. The project is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone that encompasses most of the hillside areas of El Cerrito. To reduce the fire risk, property owners are required to take special precautions with their properties including vegetation management. Fire Hazard Reduction Guide- lines have been developed by the El Cerrito Fire Department in conformance with State Law and na- tional fire protection standards25 and their maintenance of property in conformance with these stan- dards is mandated in Section 8.30.020 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code. The following Vegetation Management Standards apply to properties within Firebreaks and Fuel Breaks ♦ Firebreaks must be created and maintained in areas within 30 feet of any occupied dwelling. ♦ Fuel Breaks must be created and maintained in areas extending from 30 to 100 feet surrounding any structure. ♦ Fuel Breaks must be created and maintained on vacant lots 30 feet wide along the property line and 100 feet from neighboring structures. Vegetation Management for Firebreaks ♦ All flammable vegetation or combustible growth must be removed and cleared away, thereby eliminating fire hazardous vegetation fuels which can rapidly transmit fire. ♦ Adequately irrigated and maintained ornamental landscaping is not flammable vegetation or com- bustible growth, and is encouraged within a firebreak. 25 Available online at: http://www.el-cerrito.org/fire/prevention_tips_residential.html, accessed on August 6, 2010. 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y ♦ Trees, shrubs, bushes or other vegetation adjacent to or overhanging any structure shall be main- tained free of dead limbs and other combustible matter such as vines and loose papery bark. On mature trees, limbs should be removed up to 10' above the ground. Smaller trees should be limbed to 1/3rd of their height up to 6' above the ground, but in no case less than 18 inches from the ground. ♦ Trees shall be maintained so that no portion is closer than 10 feet from any chimney opening. ♦ All roof surfaces shall be maintained free of substantial accumulations of needles, twigs, and any other combustible matter. ♦ All cut vegetation and debris must be disposed of either by hauling and dumping in a lawful man- ner, or by chipping and dispersing over the property in a manner and to a height which will not constitute a fire hazard. ♦ Chipped materials which are spread on the ground shall be of a size no greater than 1 inch by 1 inch by 3 inches. Vegetation Management for Fuel Breaks ♦ Maintain ornamental landscaping in yards. ♦ All fire hazardous vegetation with the exception of weeds and grass shall be cleared and main- tained to a height no greater than 18 inches above the ground. ♦ All weeds and grass shall be cleared and maintained at a height no greater than 6 inches above the ground. ♦ Remove from trees all vines, loose papery bark and dead branches. ♦ All cut vegetation and debris must be disposed of either by hauling and dumping in a lawful man- ner, or by chipping and dispersing over the property in a manner and to a height which will not constitute a fire hazard. ♦ Chipped materials which are spread on the ground shall be of a size no greater than 1 inch by 1 inch by 3 inches. Ornamental Landscaping Ornamental landscaping is encouraged as a fire safety measure, but within in the 30-foot firebreak adjacent to structures, it must meet the following requirements: ♦ Ornamental landscaping shall be maintained free of dead wood and litter, and trimmed of small twigs and branches at least two feet or 1/3 of their height from the ground, whichever is less. ♦ Ornamental landscaping must be healthy, pruned, adequately irrigated and regularly maintained so that plants and the area beneath them are free from dead or dying material. ♦ Single specimen trees must be trimmed and maintained. ♦ Ground cover may be used as part of ornamental landscaping provided it is kept green, free of dead wood and litter, and at a height so that they do not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from native growth (located outside the firebreak) to any building or structure. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y In addition to these measures that prevent fires spreading through vegetation that surrounds proper- ties, there are special requirements for roofing materials. The City of El Cerrito requires that all roof- ing be Class B fire-resistant roofing material, or better, and wood shake shingle roofing materials are prohibited in new construction or replacement of more than 50 percent of the roof. In addition, spark arresters with a maximum of one half inch openings in the mesh are required over the outlet of every chimney. Due to the project’s location in the there could be a potentially significant impact from fire hazards. The El Cerrito Fire Department has made project-specific recommendations to prevent fire hazards that are included in Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 below. Impact HAZ-1: The property at 801 Bates Avenue is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is at risk from wildfires. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Building Construction. Building construction shall meet all federal, State, local codes including the El Cerrito Municipal code. Plan Requirements. ♦ The lot subdivision as shown shall require the extension of Bates Avenue to the property line splitting Lots and ♦ Road extension shall be built to El Cerrito Road Standards. ♦ Roadways greater than 150 feet in depth shall be provided with an emergency vehicle turn- around. ♦ Dead end roadways greater than 150 feet in depth shall have a fire hydrant installed near the end of the dead end of the road. Fire Sprinkler System. Structures built on Lots and shall be required to have Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems. Gates. Electronic gates will be required to have Knox Emergency Access Keys. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone ♦ Due to its location in the the subdivision shall be subject to all local and State codes pertaining to Wildland Urban Interface development and construction. ♦ The property shall comply with all local and State vegetation management codes for 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y Premises Identification. ♦ Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided in such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. ♦ Address numbers shall be of contrasting color to the background. ♦ Addresses shall be internally or externally illuminated. Plan Review. The Fire Department shall review building plans before a building permit is issued. Significance after Mitigation: With application of the Fire Department recommendations, the impact would be reduced to less than significant. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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 (e.g. the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in substantial ero- sion or siltation on- or off-site? 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? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pol- luted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade 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? 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) 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? j) Inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? During project construction, it is possible that sediment and rock debris could be entrained in rain- water and wash into the storm sewer. The City of El Cerrito has adopted management guidelines to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. These are contained in Section 8.40.010 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code. As required by the Municipal Code, all construction shall conform to the requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion & Sediment Control Measures, the City's grading and ero- sion control ordinance and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as re- quired by the director when undertaking construction activities. Due partly to the addition of the widened strip of roadway, the project will add an impervious area of 16,876 square feet, and therefore be subject to additional stormwater control requirements in confor- mance with the City-wide NPDES permit. The project Applicant submitted a Stormwater Control Plan Report to the City that was reviewed by the City and revised in response to City comments. The El Cerrito Public Works Department is now satisfied that the Plan is adequate.26, 27 Adherence to Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control would ensure that the im- pact to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements from construction is less than signifi- cant. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwa- ter recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not sup- port existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The project would not use groundwater as a drinking water supply but would be connected to the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Although the project does create an additional 16,876 square feet 26 Moran Engineering, Inc., December 2009, Stormwater Control Plan Report for Parcel Map MS-451-09, a 4 Lot Parcel Map, 801 Bates Avenue, El Cerrito, California. 27 Yvetteh Ortiz, City of El Cerrito Public Works, August 2, 2010, email to Sean Moss, City of El Cerrito Planning Department. Subject: FW 801 Bates. 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y of impervious surface, the site is underlain mainly by rock, or by very shallow soils and no aquifer would be substantially affected. The impact would be less than significant. c-f) There are no known streams that cross the property. Construction of the new houses would require some grading and drainage patterns would be altered. As described by the Stormwater Control Plan, the property is underlain by low-permeability soils (Hydrologic Soil Group D) which prevents runoff from draining into an underlying aquifer. The Plan recommends that landscaped areas, referred to as rain gardens, are present on each lot and are maintained through covenant. Apart from stormwater runoff, the project would not generate other sources of pollution that could degrade water quality. Impact HYDRO-1: Due to the low permeability of the underlying substrate on the property, in- creased development could cause excessive stormwater runoff. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1: The project would be required to adhere to the recommenda- tions of the project-specific Stormwater Control Plan. Impact after Mitigation: With adherence to the Stormwater Control Plan recommendations, the impact from excessive stormwater runoff would be reduced to a level of less than significant. g-j) The property is not within a 100-year flood hazard area, or liable to other sources of flooding, includ- ing dam failure, nor is it likely to be affected by seiches, tsunamis or mudflows. Although located in a hillside area, the area above the property is well developed with adequate drainage structures. There- fore, there would be no impact. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regu- lation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (in- cluding, 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y a-c) The project is in conformance with all local zoning standards and General Plan policies. There are no other plans such as habitat conservation plans, or natural community conservation plans with which it is in conflict. Therefore, there would be no impact. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral re- source that would be of value to the region and the resi- dents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local gen- eral plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a-b) The property is not associated with known mineral resources or locally important mineral resource recovery sites. Therefore, there would be no impact. XII. NOISE Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground- borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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? 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? 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y a-d) The project is located in a quiet residential area of El Cerrito. Noise is generally restricted to traffic on local streets and on the minor arterials of Moeser Lane and Arlington Boulevard. Demolition of the existing structure and construction of the new houses, extension of Bates Avenue, and all accessory structures, will generate noise that could disturb adjacent residences. According to the City of El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.21.050, the goal for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn (day night level) of 60 decibels (dB). Common types of construction equipment generally exceed this value. However, the project would be subject to standard City con- struction hours of between 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. It is likely that much of the site preparation work that involves drilling into rock could cause excessive noise, some of which would be groundborne, and, even though this would be temporary, it could cause undue disturbance to neighbors. This could be a potentially significant impact. When the project is built, the uses are residential, and no excessive noise is anticipated. There would be a less than significant impact from this aspect of the work. Impact NOISE-1: As the project involves considerable drilling into bedrock to secure the foundations for the new residences, there could be short periods of excessive noise. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall de- velop a site-specific noise reduction program prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant to re- duce construction noise impacts to the maximum extent feasible, subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The noise reduction program could include, but shall not be lim- ited to, the following measures: ♦ A Noise barrier shall be installed at the site boundary adjacent to the abutting residential property, if the acoustical analysis proves such a barrier to be substantially effective in reduc- ing noise impact at the adjacent residential property. ♦ Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise con- trol techniques (e.g. improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, en- gine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible). ♦ Impact tools (e.g. jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construc- tion shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed-air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible. ♦ An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be available to respond to and track complaints. The manager will be responsible for responding to any complaints regarding con- 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y struction noise and for coordinating with the adjacent land uses. The manager will determine the cause of any complaints and coordinate with the construction team to implement effective measures (considered technically and economically feasible) warranted to correct the problem. The telephone number of the coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and provided to neighbors in a notification letter. The manager shall notify the City’s Building Official of all complaints within 24 hours. The manager will be trained to use a sound level meter and should be available during all construction hours to respond to complaints. ♦ Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a pre-construction meeting shall be held with the Building Official and the general contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices are completed (including construction hours, neighborhood notifica- tion, posted signs, etc.). Significance after Mitigation: After implementation of Mitigation NOISE-1, the impact would be less than significant. e-f) As the project is not located in the vicinity of a public or private airport, there would be no impact. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessi- tating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a-c) The project involves demolition of one large single-family home and replacing it with four smaller single-family homes. Although the number of new residents is unknown, assuming an average house- hold size of 2.3, and one existing resident who would move elsewhere, there is unlikely to be more than 8 new local residents. Impacts from population growth would be less than significant. 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physi- cally 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 pub- lic services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance ob- jectives for any of the public services: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, other public facili- ties? The project involves the demolition of one large single-family residence and the construction of four smaller residences in its place. Fire suppression measures and adequate fire engine access was described in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. There would be a very slight increase in the num- ber of residents as a consequence of the project but this would have a less-than-significant impact upon fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or other public services. XV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact 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? 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? 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y a-b) The small size of the project and addition of around 8 new local residents would have a less-than- significant impact upon recreational facilities. XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy es- tablishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, high- ways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management pro- gram, including, but not limited to level of service stan- dards and travel demand measures, or other standards es- tablished by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that re- sults in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regard- ing public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or oth- erwise decrease the performance or safety of such facili- ties? a-b) The small size of the project, and the addition of around 8 new local residents would not greatly affect local traffic or conflict with locally adopted transportation plans as this is an area with residential streets and existing traffic volumes are already low. There would be a less-than-significant impact. c-d) The project would not be developed at a height that would affect air traffic patterns. Additionally, the project would not introduce any hazardous design features nor would it introduce an incompatible use. Therefore, there would be no impact. 51 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Emergency access as pertaining to fire suppression access was discussed under Section VIII Hazards and Hazardous Materials. It was concluded that there would be a less-than-significant impact. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facili- ties, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The project would not alter or interfere with sidewalks, bicycle routes, or public transit routes. Therefore there would be no impact. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the appli- cable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the pro- ject from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regula- tions related to solid waste? a-g) The project consists of the replacement of one large single-family residences with four smaller ones. There is likely to be a net increase in the number of local residents of around 8 people. This would not greatly affect the water supply, wastewater treatment needs, or solid waste disposal needs for the project upon completion. The City of El Cerrito Public Works Department has indicated that the Tentative Parcel Map is adequate and that they have no outstanding issues with the utility provision. 52 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y The Public Works Department has also reviewed the Final Stormwater Control Plan submitted in December 2009 and is satisfied that it has responded to its November 2009 comments. 28 Assuming that the project begins after January 1, 2011, the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) will be in force. Section 4.408, Construction Waste Reduction Disposal and Recycling mandates that, in the absence of a more stringent local ordinance, a minimum of 50 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris must be recycled or salvaged. The Code re- quires the Applicant to have a waste management plan, for on-site sorting of construction debris, which is submitted to the City of El Cerrito for approval. The plan: 1. Identifies the materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project or sal- vage for future use or sale. 2. Specifies if materials will be sorted on-site or mixed for transportation to a diversion facility. 3. Identifies the diversion facility where the material collected will be taken. 4. Identifies construction methods employed to reduce the amount of waste generated. 5. Specifies that the amount of materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not by both. The construction debris would be removed by East Bay Sanitary as per its contract with the City of El Cerrito, unless the Applicant’s contractor will provide this service. At this time, there are no esti- mates of the volume. Given the age of the house, it is likely that there could be asbestos and lead paint that would require removal by a qualified contractor. East Bay Sanitary sends the waste to the West Contra Costa County Resources Recovery Facility. Recycling of construction debris is limited by the ability of West Contra Costa Resource Recovery Recycling Center to process it. With compliance with this policy to minimize the amount of debris destined for the landfill, the im- pacts would be less than significant. 28 August 2, 2010, email from Yvetteh Ortiz, City of El Cerrito Public Works Department to Sean Moss, City of El Cerrito Planning Division. Subject: FW 801 Bates. 53 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E S U B D I V I S I O N I N I T I A L S T U D Y XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact 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 re- strict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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 ef- fects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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? The project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, sub- stantially reduce fish or wildlife numbers of habitat, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commu- nity, significantly affect any endangered plant or animal. The existing house, although originally con- structed in 1923, is not considered an important example of a major period of California history and its demolition would be a less-than-significant impact. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively 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)? It is possible that there could be some street repaving in the area during the period of project construc- tion, although this is not known in detail. Bates Avenue is due to be repaved during Fall 2010 be fin- ished prior to project construction. There are no other planned development projects known in the neighborhood and there would therefore be a less-than-significant cumulative impact. 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 0 1 B A T E S A V E N U E I N I T I A L S T U D Y 55 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human be- ings, either directly or indirectly? The project would not have substantial adverse effects upon human beings either directly or indi- rectly. There would be a less-than-significant impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK---