Document elcerrito_gov_doc_e7afb54660

CITY OF EL CERRITO 1715 ELM STREET CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR: CITY OF EL CERRITO 10890 SAN PABLO AVENUE EL CERRITO, CA 94530 PREPARED BY: PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS 2729 PROSPECT PARK DRIVE RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95670 JANUARY 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF EL CERRITO 1715 ELM STREET CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR CITY OF EL CERRITO 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 PREPARED BY PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS 2729 PROSPECT PARK DRIVE RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95670 JANUARY 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF EL CERRITO 1715 ELM STREET CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Introduction: This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Section 2100 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines. Project Title: 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project Project Location: 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, California, on the west side of Elm Street, between Blake and Hill streets, approximately 1,000 feet east of San Pablo Avenue Assessor’s Parcel Number: 502-112-038 General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (up to 35 units per acre) Zoning: RM (Multi-family Residential) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of El Cerrito Community Development Department 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 Contact Person: Margaret Development Services Manager Phone: (510) 215-4332 Project Applicant: Edward Biggs Biggs Property Development 820 Kains Avenue, #108 Albany, CA 94706 ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 2 EXISTING SETTING El Cerrito is located in Contra Costa County, in the northern San Francisco Bay Area, approximately 13.5 miles north of Oakland (Figure Contra Costa County is bordered by the counties of Alameda to the south, Solano to the north, and San Joaquin to the east. El Cerrito is bordered by Richmond to the north and west, Albany to the south, and Wildcat Canyon Regional Park and Kensington to the east. El Cerrito is approximately 5 miles from the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, and is located approximately one-half mile east of San Francisco Bay. The project site is a fairly level, rectangular 0.42-acre lot located at 1715 Elm Street. There is currently a fence running across the front of the property to restrict access to the site. The site slopes from a high point along the Elm Street frontage to the western boundary, representing a gentle 3 percent slope across the property. It currently includes a vacant two-story house built in 1897, a detached garage, a well house, and a shed. There are currently several persimmon trees and one miniature lemon tree on site. The site has fallen into disrepair and is now overgrown with weeds and unkempt landscaping. An open, rock-lined stormwater channel runs east–west across the site along the southern edge of the property approximately 20 feet from the house. The channel is approximately 4 feet deep and continues westerly onto the adjacent property in an open box culvert. The channel conveys stormwater runoff from upstream properties to the east. The project site is primarily surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Elm Street and residential properties are to the east, residential properties and Hill Street to the north, residential properties and Liberty Street to the west, and a day care and Blake Street are located to the south (Figure Summit K2, a public charter school, is approximately 700 feet to the northeast (due to open in fall of 2014). San Pablo Avenue, which is a major commercial corridor, and a Safeway store are a few blocks to the west. The El Cerrito del Norte BART station is approximately one- quarter mile to the northwest. This project has connections to sewer, water, electricity, gas, and cable television along the Elm Street frontage. The sanitary sewer main, which is located along the centerline of Elm Street, is at a low enough elevation that it can serve all proposed units. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Elm Street condominium project proposes 14 new condominiums in a three-story structure with parking on the ground floor, as well as the renovation and relocation of the existing single- family detached house on the site to provide a fifteenth living unit (see Figure 3, Site Plan). The existing 1,065-square-foot house contains two bedrooms. The proposed condominium would be 14,311 square feet, with 3 one-bedroom units (approximately 869 square feet per unit) and 11 two-bedroom units (approximately 1,064 square feet per unit). The project proposes a residential density of 35.7 units per acre. Project elevations are shown in Figure 4. Parking will be provided within a gated parking garage located below the units and includes one parking space designed to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The project proposes 15 new parking spaces and is requesting an exception to the City parking requirements, which require 21 spaces. The proposed parking exception is based on the proximity of the project site to the El Cerrito del Norte BART station (less than one-half mile), several bus lines, and nearby commercial uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- S a n S a n F r a n c i s c o F r a n c i s c o C o u n t y C o u n t y S o l a n o S o l a n o C o u n t y C o u n t y A l a m e d a A l a m e d a C o u n t y C o u n t y M a r i n M a r i n C o u n t y C o u n t y C o n t r a C o s t a C o n t r a C o s t a C o u n t y C o u n t y S o n o m a S o n o m a C o u n t y C o u n t y N a p a N a p a C o u n t y C o u n t y S a n M a t e o S a n M a t e o C o u n t y C o u n t y S a n t a C l a r a S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y C o u n t y Oakland San Jose Concord Antioch San Rafael--Novato Santa Rosa Vallejo Fairfield Napa Livermore Petaluma Sonoma Sonoma Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay Dixon Dixon Fairfield Southwest Fairfield Southwest Yountville Yountville Sacramento River T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\EL_CERRITTO\ELM_STREET\FIG 1 REGIONAL LOCATION.MXD - 11/12/2009 @ 11:01:54 AM 3.5 0 3.5 MILES Project Location Figure 1 Project Regional Location Source: ESRI Streetmap USA P a c i f i c O c e a n San Pablo Bay San Francisco Bay ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Source: Microsoft Bing Maps, 2013 T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\EL_CERRITTO\ELM_STREET\FIG 2 PROJECT LOCATION.MXD - 2/7/2013 @ 5:09:36 PM 500 0 500 FEET Project Location Figure 2 Project Location ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- FEET 8 0 8 16 Source: LCA Architects T:\_CS\Work\El Cerrito, City of\1715 Elm Street 29-0152\figures Figure 3 Site Plan with Conceptual Streetscape and Buffer Yard Planting ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- FEET 8 0 8 Source: LCA Architects T:\_CS\Work\El Cerrito, City of\1715 Elm Street 29-0152\figures Figure 4 Conceptual Building Elevations ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 LANDSCAPING Project landscaping includes densely planted landscape setbacks around the proposed buildings to provide a buffer between the project and adjacent residential sites. Trellises and picket fencing are featured along the street frontage to enhance the residential character of the street and separate public street space from private common open space. Both hard- and softscape outdoor areas are proposed for the use of residents and will be open to the street. Landscaping proposed in the common areas includes edible garden plantings (fruit trees and herbs), drought-tolerant plant species, and seasonal flower displays. Permeable brick pavers, crushed granite walkways, natural turf, and a stone seat-wall are features proposed at various locations to enhance the human scale of the garden. Two stormwater bioswales are proposed to mitigate storm runoff and would be vegetated with a combination of native grasses and wildflowers to provide additional natural habitat adjacent to the channel. The existing stormwater channel will be maintained in its current location, and a small footbridge is proposed to cross the channel to provide access to the proposed common open space on either side. The channel will be planted with a combination of native trees, shrubs, and vines. The irrigation system will specify commercial quality equipment consistent with City standards and will be selected based on water conservation, durability, and ease of maintenance. Proposed landscape areas will be irrigated with a low-volume spray/bubbler combination system designed to provide optimal coverage without overspray or runoff. GRADING Grading will balance the earthwork so that there is no net import or export of soils needed to accommodate construction. To comply with the Provision C.3 requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit (adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2009) and the City of El Cerrito, the project will provide on-site treatment of stormwater runoff into bioswales and potentially permeable pavement options, subject to recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. CONSTRUCTION Construction would occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM, and on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. There would be no construction on Sundays. REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS The project applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment, Use Permit, Planned Development, Zoning Map Amendment, Development Agreement, Tentative Map, and Design Review. Pursuant to El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 19.14, Planned Development District, the applicant is requesting relief from the following development standards: 1. Height standards described in the Municipal Code Chapter 19.06 for residential districts. 2. Setback standards described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.06 for residential districts. The minimum side yard setback in the RM zoning district is 5 feet or 10 feet for portions of a building greater than 25 feet in height. The project proposes a 5-foot setback with a ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 12 building height of 35 feet. A shadow study was prepared for the project to inform the decision-makers of the effects of shadows on surrounding properties. 3. Setback standards described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.12 for the CP (Creek Protection) overlay district. Construction within a creek setback (including undergrounding the existing on-site ditch) would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit following discretionary review and public hearing by the Planning Commission. 4. Parking requirements described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.24 for off-street parking. The project is requesting an exception to the City parking requirements, which require 21 spaces, and proposes 15 new parking spaces. 5. Density standards described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.06. The code allows for one residential unit per every 1,250 square feet; the project proposes one unit per every 1,220 square feet. 6. As the proposed density exceeds 35 units per acre, a General Plan Amendment is also required. RESPONSIBLE/TRUSTEE AGENCIES The City of El Cerrito is the lead agency for the proposed project. Responsible and trustee agencies may include, but are not limited to:  San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board  Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)  California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly the Department of Fish and Game) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 14 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: 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 quality 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? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located at the base of the East Bay hills on a site that has relatively flat topography and is surrounded by existing one- and two-story residential development. Though ground slopes in the project vicinity are gentle, properties located north and east of the project site begin sloping upwards and are elevated above the project site. Views of the project site are shown in Figures 5 and 6. Because of the existing conditions surrounding the project site, views of San Francisco Bay, Point Richmond, Mount Tamalpais, and the San Pablo Hills are limited and/or nonexistent in the project vicinity. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. Scenic vistas include natural features such as topography, watercourses, rock outcrops, natural vegetation, and man-made alterations to the landscape. The project site is located in an area surrounded by relatively flat topography to the west and south and by gradually upward-sloping properties to the north and east. The project site does not contain unique visual features that would distinguish the site from surrounding areas, nor is it located within a designated scenic vista. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas, as there would be no change to existing conditions regarding scenic vistas or scenic resources. The proposed project does not include any components that would change the overall character of the project site, block significant views from or in the vicinity of the project site, or change the nature of scenic resources. b) No Impact. There are two state-designated scenic highways and one eligible scenic highway in Contra Costa County (Caltrans 2012). The designated scenic highways are State Route (SR) 24 from the east side of the Caldecott Tunnel to Interstate 680 (I-680) near Walnut Creek and I-680 from the Alameda County line to near Walnut Creek. The eligible scenic highway is SR 4 between SR 160 near Antioch and SR 84 near Brentwood. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 FIGURE 5 VIEW LOOKING ONTO THE PROPERTY FROM ELM STREET FIGURE 6 VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST ONTO THE PROPERTY FROM ELM STREET ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 16 There are no state scenic highways in the project area from which the project is visible. There would be no impact. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and surrounding vicinity are developed and consist of the adjacent school and residences. The houses to the east of the project site are two-story units set back approximately 20 feet from the street. The visibility of the site relative to scenic vistas was addressed under the discussion of Impact a above. The existing house on the site would be moved but would be renovated and would still be prominent on the site. The project has been designed to blend with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood and existing house. The proposed development would place structures closer to side and rear property lines than the existing residence. While this would change the site characteristics, the change would be consistent and compatible with the predominant residential development patterns in the project vicinity. In addition, densely planted landscape setbacks would be provided around the proposed buildings to provide a buffer between the site and adjacent properties. Because the proposed project would be consistent with the residential nature of the area, it would not cause substantial degradation to the existing residential character or visual quality of the project site and its surroundings. Overall, there would be a less than significant impact on the existing visual character or quality of the site. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing nighttime light sources are predominantly from interior and exterior building lighting, vehicle headlights, and street lighting. Daytime sources of glare in the project vicinity include reflections off of light-colored surfaces, windows, and metal details on cars traveling on nearby roadways. Under the proposed project conditions, these existing sources of light and glare would remain. The project would include exterior lighting. Section 19.21.050.A of the El Cerrito Municipal Code requires all exterior lights to be designed, located, installed, directed, and shielded in such a manner as to prevent glare across property lines. Lights must be directed downward and away from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way. “Shielded” is defined in the code to mean that the light rays are directed onto the project site and any objectionable glare is not visible from an adjacent property or rights-of-way. Compliance with these regulations would ensure a less than significant impact related to light and glare. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (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))? d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland 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 nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is surrounded by existing development within El Cerrito. There are no agricultural resources in the vicinity of the project site or in the surrounding area. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) No Impact. The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use. b) No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The project site is zoned RM, PD (Multi-family Residential, Planned Development Overlay). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 18 c, d) No Impact. The project site is in an urban area and is not located in the vicinity of existing forestland. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, would result in conversion of forestland. e) No Impact. The project site is in an urban area and is not located in the vicinity of existing forestland or active or fallow agricultural land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, would involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 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 in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The SFBAAB comprises a single district, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which encompasses Napa, Marin, San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, the southern portion of Sonoma County, and the western portion of Solano County. The project site is located in the Contra Costa County portion of the air basin. Within the SFBAAB, there are eleven major climatological subregions. In Contra Costa County, marine air traveling through the Golden Gate, as well as across San Francisco and through the San Bruno Gap, is a dominant weather factor. The Oakland-Berkeley Hills cause the westerly flow of air to split off to the north and south of Oakland, which causes diminished wind speeds. The prevailing winds for most of this climatological subregion are from the west. At the northern end, prevailing winds are from the south-southwest. Temperatures in the El Cerrito area have a narrow range due to the proximity of the moderating marine air. The maximum temperatures during summer average in the mid-70s, with minimums in the mid-50s. Winter highs are in the mid- to high 50s, with lows in the low to mid-40s. The air pollution potential is lowest for the parts of the climatological subregion that are closest to the bay, due largely to good ventilation and less influx of pollutants from upwind sources. The occurrence of light winds in the evenings and early mornings occasionally causes elevated pollutant levels. The air pollution potential in Contra Costa County is marginally higher than communities directly east of the Golden Gate because of the lower frequency of strong winds. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 20 The county contains a variety of industrial air pollution sources. Some industries are quite close to residential areas. Contra Costa County is also traversed by frequently congested major freeways. Traffic and congestion, and the motor vehicle emissions they generate, are increasing. Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The SFBAAB is currently designated as nonattainment for the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 as well as the state standards for PM10. CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. On June 2, 2010, the BAAQMD’s Board of Directors unanimously adopted thresholds of significance to assist local jurisdictions during the review of projects that are subject to CEQA. These thresholds of significance were designed to establish the level at which the BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. The BAAQMD’s justification for the adopted thresholds of significance was incorporated into Appendix D of the BAAQMD’s updated California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (2011a). DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously stated, the project site is located within the SFBAAB, which comprises a single air district, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The project site is located in the Contra Costa County portion of the air basin. The BAAQMD prepares plans to attain ambient air quality standards in the air basin. The BAAQMD also prepares ozone attainment plans for the national ozone standard and clean air plans for the California standard, both in coordination with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The BAAQMD prepared the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan to address the air basin’s nonattainment status with the national 1-hour ozone standard and the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS). The purpose of the Clean Air Plan is to: 1. Update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; 2. Consider the impacts of ozone control measures on particulate matter (PM), air toxics, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan; 3. Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and 4. Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2009–2012 time frame. The emissions inventories contained in the ozone attainment plan and Clean Air Plan are based on projected population growth and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the region. These inventories are largely based on the predicted growth identified in regional and ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 community general plans, including associated development projects. Projects that result in an increase in population or employment growth beyond that identified in regional or community plans could result in increases in VMT and subsequently increase mobile source emissions, which would not have been accounted for in the BAAQMD’s air quality plans, making the projects inconsistent with the plans. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation of the City’s General Plan; therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in population or employment growth, and thus VMT, beyond that anticipated in the ozone attainment plan and Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ozone attainment plan or Clean Air Plan. A project is also determined to be consistent with these air quality plans if the project includes applicable control measures in the plans and does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures. As discussed in more detail under Impact b, the proposed project would not result in construction-generated or operational-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursor emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Furthermore, although not required for consistency with these plans, adherence to mitigation measure AQ-1 would further reduce project emissions and ensure project consistency with the air quality plans. The proposed project would support the goals of the ozone attainment plan and Clean Air Plan, would include feasible control measures, would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures, and would not result in vehicle trips greater than the projected population increase for the project site. Therefore, the project would be considered consistent with BAAQMD air quality plans, resulting in a less than significant impact. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The BAAQMD has developed project-level thresholds of significance in order to provide a conservative indication of whether a proposed project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. To meet the project-level threshold of significance for construction- and/or operational-related criteria air pollutant and precursor impacts, the proposed project must emit no more than 54 pounds per day (lbs/day) of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and/or PM2.5 and no more than 82 lbs/day of PM10. Construction Emissions Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but have the potential to represent a significant air quality impact. The proposed project would result in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, the movement of construction equipment, and architectural coatings. Fugitive dust, the dominant source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, is generated when wheels or blades disturb surface materials. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby. Off- road construction equipment is often diesel-powered and can be a substantial source of NOx emissions, in addition to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Worker commute trips and architectural coatings are dominant sources of ROG emissions. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 22 The predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions of ROG, NOx, coarse particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) associated with project construction are compared with the BAAQMD significance criteria in Table 1. TABLE 1 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM) POUNDS PER DAY Construction Phase ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO Construction Activities 5.52 29.90 2.32 1.97 20.10 BAAQMD Significance Criteria 54 54 82 54 None Significant? No No No No N/A Source: Emissions modeled by PMC using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2013.2.2 computer program. Notes: CO = carbon monoxide. Proposed rehabilitation of existing single-family unit assumed to be completely reconstructed for conservative analysis. Building construction, site paving, and painting activities assumed to occur concurrently. Refer to Appendix A for model data outputs. As shown in Table 1, maximum daily emissions would total approximately 5.52 lbs/day of ROG, 29.90 lbs/day of NOx, 2.32 lbs/day of PM10, 1.97 lbs/day of PM2.5, and approximately 20.10 lbs/day of CO. Actual daily emissions would vary from day to day and would be dependent on the specific activities conducted. Therefore, during construction of the proposed project, emissions generated would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for air pollutant emissions, which would be considered a less than significant impact. Operational Impacts Increases in operational air impacts with implementation of the proposed project would generally consist of stationary and mobile sources. Implementation of the proposed project would result in regional emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, as well as ROG, NOx, and carbon monoxide (CO), due to increased use of motor vehicles, thereby increasing potential operational air quality impacts. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through a complex series of chemical reactions between ROG and NOx, while the principal sources of PM10 and PM2.5 include fuel burned in cars and trucks, power plants, factories, fireplaces, agricultural activities, and woodstoves. PMC estimated criteria pollutant emissions generated during a typical year of project operation. In addition to projected stationary emissions, mobile emissions have also been quantified and compared to BAAQMD significance thresholds in Table 2. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 TABLE 2 ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM) POUNDS PER DAY Total Emissions Emission Source Pounds per Day ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO Summer Operational Emissions 7.61 1.05 1.72 1.33 13.86 Winter Operational Emissions 7.62 1.15 1.72 1.33 14.34 BAAQMD Significance Thresholds (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54 – Significant? No No No No N/A Source: CalEEMod version 2013.2.2. Refer to Appendix A for model data outputs. Refer to subsection 7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for discussion of carbon dioxide emissions. As shown in Table 2, the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for air pollutant emissions. Therefore, the long-term operational air quality impacts of the proposed project would be considered less than significant. The proposed project would not exceed project-level thresholds of significance for construction- and/or operational-related criteria air pollutants, resulting in a less than significant impact. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The SFBAAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards. The SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. According to the BAAQMD, no single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. According to the BAAQMD, if a project exceeds its identified significance thresholds, the project would be cumulatively considerable. As demonstrated under Impact b, the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for air pollutant emissions during construction or operations (see Tables 1 and Therefore, since the project does not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, it would result in less than significant cumulative impacts. d) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors are generally defined as uses that house or attract groups of children, the elderly, people with illnesses, and others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Schools, hospitals, residential areas, and convalescent facilities are examples of sensitive receptors. The project site is considered a sensitive receptor (following construction of residential uses) and is adjacent to other residential areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 24 Short-Term Construction Toxics Construction activities would involve the use of a variety of gasoline- or diesel-powered equipment that emits exhaust fumes and generates dust during soil disturbance. These temporary air quality impacts could negatively affect sensitive receptors in the project area. With implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1, these temporary impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. Localized Carbon Monoxide Localized carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations near roadway intersections are a function of traffic volume, speed, and delay. Transport of CO is extremely limited because carbon monoxide disperses rapidly with distance from the source. Based on BAAQMD guidance, projects meeting all of the following screening criteria would be considered to have a less than significant impact to localized carbon monoxide concentrations: 1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plans, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The project would not increase traffic volumes at any intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited as determined by the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, 8th Edition (2008), which estimates an average of 85 trips per day generated as a result of the project. As such, the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for carbon monoxide. Toxic Air Contaminants There are many different types of toxic air contaminants (TACs), with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs potentially affecting the project site include commercial operations, such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners. Mobile sources of air toxics include freeways and major roadways. These roadways are sources of diesel particulate matter (DPM), which CARB has listed as a toxic air contaminant. The proposed project would not be a source of TACs. However, there is a potential that the project site could be exposed to TAC emissions from stationary and/or mobile sources. According to the BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool (2011b), there is one fueling station and one hardware store in the vicinity of the project site. Gas ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 refueling facilities and hardware stores are regulated by BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, which provides for the review of TAC emissions in order to evaluate potential public exposure and health risk, to mitigate potentially significant health risks resulting from these exposures, and to provide net health risk benefits by improving the level of control when existing sources are modified or replaced. Pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, stationary sources having the potential to emit TACs, including gas stations and dry cleaners, are required to obtain permits from the BAAQMD. Permits may be granted to these operations provided they are operated in accordance with applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations. Given that compliance with applicable standards and regulations is required as part of the normal permit procedure, TAC emissions from the one fueling station and one hardware store in the project vicinity would not be anticipated to result in a risk to future sensitive receptors of the proposed project. In April 2005, CARB released the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which offers guidance on siting sensitive land uses in proximity to sources of air toxics. The handbook recommends that sensitive land uses be sited no closer than 500 feet from a freeway or major roadway with 100,000 vehicles per day, in order to avoid excessive exposure to diesel exhaust particulates. The project is located more than 1,063 feet from San Pablo Avenue and 662 feet from Potrero Avenue and is therefore consistent with the CARB siting guidance. For the reasons noted, future residents of the project would not be negatively affected by toxic air contaminants generated at any of the potential stationary sources or major transportation facilities in the vicinity. Impacts to sensitive receptors are considered to be less than significant. e) No Impact. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not classify residential uses as a project that could create objectionable odors. In addition, the proposed project is not located downwind from any significant odor sources landfills, sewage treatment plants) that could affect persons on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people or subject people to objectionable odors, and no impact would occur. MITIGATION MEASURES AQ-1 To adequately control dust, the project applicant shall ensure construction contracts contain requirements for implementing the BAAQMD’s basic construction mitigation measures from Table 8-1 of the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. Construction contracts shall also contain the following measures in order to reduce the emissions of toxic pollutants generated by heavy-duty diesel- powered equipment during construction. 1. Keep all construction equipment in proper tune in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. 2. Use late-model heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment during construction to the extent that it is readily available in the San Francisco Bay Area. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 26 3. Use diesel-powered equipment that has been retrofitted with after-treatment products engine to the extent that it is readily available in the San Francisco Bay Area. 4. Use low-emission diesel fuel for all heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment operating and refueling at construction sites to the extent that it is readily available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay Area. (This requirement does not apply to diesel-powered trucks traveling to and from the site.) 5. Utilize alternative-fuel construction equipment compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay Area. 6. Limit truck and equipment idling time to 5 minutes or less. 7. Rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife 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 established 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 conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Note to the reader: As of January 1, 2013, the agency formerly known as the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) changed its name to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). For purposes of this discussion, the agency names and abbreviations are interchangeable. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Two steps were taken to characterize the environmental setting on and adjacent to the proposed project. First, preliminary database searches were performed to identify special-status species with the potential to occur in the area. Second, a site survey was conducted to collect site-specific data regarding habitat suitability for special-status species and to identify potentially jurisdictional waters. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 28 Database searches were performed on the following websites:  US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Sacramento Office Species Lists (2012)  California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG 2012)  California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (2012) A search of the USFWS’s database was performed for the Richmond, California, US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle to identify special-status species within their jurisdiction that may be affected by the proposed project. In addition, a query of the provided a list of known occurrences for special-status species within a 1- and 5-mile radius of the proposed project. Lastly, the CNPS database was queried to identify special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the Richmond, California, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. Please see the discussion below for a summary of the database search results and potential impacts to protected species as a result of the proposed project. The site survey on September 21, 2012, revealed that urban residential land uses dominate the proposed project site and adjacent lands. (Table 3) The site contains a residential structure along with a garage, well house, and shed. The vegetation on-site is characterized by ruderal herbaceous species, with scattered orchard trees. In addition, a U-shaped surface water feature traverses the property from east to west. This feature is characterized by cobble-reinforced sidewalls and bed, and is dominated by watercress (Nasturtium officinale). TABLE 3 EXISTING LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS Land Use Acreage Urban 0.41 Surface Water 0.01 Total 0.42 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES Candidate, sensitive, or special-status species are commonly characterized as species that are at potential risk or actual risk to their persistence in a given area or across their native habitat. These species have been identified and assigned a status ranking by governmental agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the USFWS, and private organizations such as the CNPS. The degree to which a species is at risk of extinction is the determining factor in the assignment of a status ranking. Some common threats to a species’ or a population’s persistence include habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, as well as human conflict and intrusion. For the purposes of this biological review, special-status species are defined by the following codes: 1. Listed, proposed, or candidates for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.11 – listed; 61 Federal Register [FR] 7591, February 28, 1996, candidates); ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 2. Listed or proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code [FGC] 1992 Section 2050 et seq.; 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 670.1 et seq.); 3. Designated as Species of Special Concern by the CDFW; 4. Designated as Fully Protected by the CDFW (FGC Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515); and 5. Species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA (14 CCR Section 15380) including CNPS List Rank 1b and 2. The result of the USFWS, and CNPS database queries identified several special-status species with the potential to be impacted by the proposed project. Table 4 provides a summary of all species identified in the search results, a description of the habitat requirements for each species, and conclusions regarding the potential for each species to be impacted by the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 30 TABLE 4 SENSITIVE HABITAT AND PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project Plants Pallid manzanita Arctostaphylos pallida T E 1B.1 Siliceous shale, sandy or gravelly soil. Broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Santa Cruz tarplant Holocarpha macradenia T E 1B.1 Clay, sandy soil. Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Critical habitat, Santa Cruz tarplant X – – – No critical habitat on or near the project site. California seablite Suaeda californica E – 1B.1 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt) (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Alkali milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. tener – – 1B.2 Alkaline soils. Playas, valley and foothill grassland (adobe clay), vernal pools (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Bent-flowered fiddleneck Amsinckia lunaris – – 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Coastal bluff morning- glory Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola – – 1B.2 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub, north coast coniferous forest (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Diablo helianthella Helianthella castanea – – 1B.2 Broadleaf upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project Fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea – – 1B.2 Serpentinite soils. Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Franciscan thistle Cirsium andrewsii – – 1B.2 Mesic, sometimes serpentinite soils. Broadleafed upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Loma Prieta hoita Hoita strobilina – – 1B.2 Usually serpentinite, mesic soils. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Oregon meconella Meconella oregana – – 1B.1 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Point Reyes bird's-beak Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre – – 1B.2 Marshes & swamps (coastal salt) (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Round-leaved filaree California – – 1B.1 Clay soils. Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Saline clover Trifolium hydrophilum – – 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline), vernal pools (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Western leatherwood Dirca occidentalis – – 1B.2 Mesic soils. Broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian woodland (CNPS 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Invertebrates Callippe silverspot butterfly Speyeria callippe callippe E Host plant: violet (Viola pedunculata) (Essig 2012). None. Host plant does not occur on-site. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 32 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project Fish Green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris T (NMFS) T Oceanic waters, bays, and estuaries during non-spawning season. Spawning habitat = deep pools in large, turbulent, freshwater mainstems (NMFS 2005). None. No habitat on-site. Tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi E E Brackish water, shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches, still water (USFWS 2005). None. No habitat on-site. Delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus T E Brackish water below 25°C non- spawning season. Spawning habitat = shallow, fresh, or brackish backwater sloughs with good water quality and substrate (USFWS 1995). None. No habitat on-site. Coho salmon – central CA coast kisutch T T Spawning habitat = small streams, stable gravel substrates. Non-spawning = estuarine, marine waters (Weitkamp et al. 1995). None. No habitat on-site. Central California coastal steelhead mykiss T (NMFS) T Spawning habitat = gravel-bottomed, fast-flowing, well-oxygenated rivers and streams. Non-spawning = estuarine, marine waters (Busby et al. 1996). None. No habitat on-site. Central Valley steelhead T (NMFS) T None. No habitat on-site. Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon T (NMFS) E Spawning habitat = fast moving, freshwater streams and rivers. Juvenile habitat = brackish estuaries. Non- spawning = marine waters (Myers et al. 1998). None. No habitat on-site. Critical habitat, winter-run Chinook salmon X – No critical habitat on or near the project site. Winter-run Chinook Salmon, Sacramento River E (NMFS) SSC None. No habitat on-site. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project Amphibians California red-legged frog Rana draytonii T – Ponds/streams in humid forests, woodlands, grasslands, coastal scrub, and streamsides with plant cover in lowlands or foothills. Breeding habitat = permanent or ephemeral water sources; lakes, ponds, reservoirs, slow streams, marshes, bogs, and swamps. Ephemeral wetland habitats require animal burrows or other moist refuges for estivation when the wetlands are dry. From sea level to 5,000 feet (1,525 meters) (Nafis 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Critical habitat, California red-legged frog X – No critical habitat on or near the project site. Reptiles Alameda whipsnake [=striped racer] Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus T T Canyons, rocky hillsides, chaparral scrublands, open woodlands, pond edges and stream courses (Nafis 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Critical habitat, Alameda whipsnake X No critical habitat on or near the project site. Birds Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus T Barren to sparsely vegetated sand beaches, dry salt flats in lagoons, dredge spoils deposited on beach or dune habitat, levees and flats at salt- evaporation ponds, river bars, along alkaline or saline lakes, reservoirs, and ponds (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on-site. California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus E Warm coastal marine and estuarine environments. Rare inland. Breeds primarily on islands (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on-site. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 34 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus E E Salt marshes and mangrove swamps (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on-site. California least tern Sternula antillarum (=Sterna, =albifrons) browni E Seacoasts, beaches, bays, estuaries, lagoons, lakes and rivers, breeding on sandy or gravelly beaches and banks of rivers or lakes, rarely on flat rooftops of buildings (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus D E Typically nest in forested areas adjacent to large bodies of water, staying away from heavily developed areas when possible. Tolerant of human activity when feeding, and may congregate around fish processing plants, dumps, and below dams where fish concentrate. For perching, prefer tall, mature coniferous or deciduous trees that afford a wide view of the surroundings. In winter, bald eagles can also be seen in dry, open uplands if there is access to open water for fishing (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on-site. Cackling (=Aleutian Canada) goose Branta hutchinsii leucopareia D – Breeds in coastal marshes, along tundra ponds and streams, and steep turf slopes above rocky shores (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on-site. California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus – T Nests in high portions of salt marshes, shallow freshwater marshes, wet meadows, and flooded grassy vegetation (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). None. No habitat on-site. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status CNPS Rare Plant Rank General Habitat Characteristics Potential to Be Affected by the Project Mammals Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris E E Salt marshes with dense stands of pickleweed; adjacent to upland, salt- tolerant vegetation (USFWS 1984). None. No habitat on-site. Key Federal & State Status Endangered – Listed as being in danger of extinction. Threatened – Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. (NMFS) Species under the jurisdiction of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service. Consult with them directly about these species. Critical Habitat – Area essential to the conservation of a species. Critical habitat designated for this species. Delisted CNPS Rare Plant Rank Rareness Ranks (1A) Presumed Extinct in California (1B) Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but More Common Elsewhere More Species Information Needed Limited Distribution Threat Ranks (0.1) Seriously threatened in California (0.2) Fairly threatened in California (0.3) Not very threatened in California ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 36 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Several special-status species were identified in the area by the database queries; however, the urban land uses on and adjacent to the proposed project site do not provide suitable habitat for any of the special-status plant species listed as occurring in the area. Several wildlife species were also identified. The majority of the species with the potential to occur in the project vicinity are associated with coastal habitats salt marshes, mangroves, brackish/estuarine waters). These habitats do not occur on-site; therefore, no impacts to special-status species associated with coastal habitats will occur. The on-site surface water feature was historically a natural creek that was subsequently channelized for stormwater conveyance and is a tributary of Baxter Creek. A geographic information system (GIS) data layer was obtained from Contra Costa County that depicts the location and extent of creeks within El Cerrito (Contra Costa County 2007). An analysis conducted using the creek GIS layer and aerial photo-interpretation of existing land uses, to determine the extent of the Baxter Creek tributary that has been undergrounded, determined that the Baxter Creek tributary crossing the project site is approximately 9,550 feet in length, approximately 7,750 linear feet have been undergrounded, and 1,800 linear feet remain daylighted (Figure The on-site surface water on the project site represents approximately 115 linear feet of the daylighted segments. A few species associated with streams and creeks were identified as having the potential to occur in the project vicinity. The special-status fish species associated with streams and creeks that have the potential to occur in the project vicinity are anadramous. Although Baxter Creek eventually drains into San Francisco Bay, approximately 1.25 miles of the creek is undergrounded between the project site and the bay. The extent of creek that is underground before reaching the property precludes the migration of any special-status fish species into the on-site surface water. In addition, the lack of natural connections to suitable habitat for the special-status amphibian and reptile species associated with streams and creeks in the project vicinity and the unsuitable habitat conditions within the on-site surface water eliminate the potential for these species to occur on-site. Therefore, no impact to special-status species would occur as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project does, however, have the potential to impact migratory birds, raptors, and bats. Trees on and adjacent to the project site may provide suitable nesting habitat for birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), as well as Sections 3503.5 and 3800–3806 of the FGC. In addition, the abandoned structures on-site have the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for protected birds and roosting habitat for bats. Demolition of structures and removal of trees during construction activities could result in noise, dust, human disturbance, and other direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats on or in the vicinity of the project site. Potential nest abandonment and mortality to eggs and chicks would be considered a potentially significant impact to protected bird species; however, implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 will reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, mortality of roosting bat species during construction would be considered a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of mitigation measure BIO-4 will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. ---PAGE BREAK--- Tributary of Baxter Creek Baxter Creek Source: Bing Maps, 2012; Contra Costa County, 2012; PMC, 2012 T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\EL_CERRITTO\ELM_STREET\FIG CREEK.MXD - 2/7/2013 @ 5:11:27 PM 500 0 500 FEET Figure 7 Creek Map Legend Project Site El Cerrito City Limit Daylighted Underground ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 b) Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies and those that are protected under CEQA, Section 1600 of the FGC, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The on-site stormwater channel is currently characterized by cobble-reinforced sidewalls and bed. The predominant vegetation is watercress. There is no riparian habitat associated with this feature. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. To date, a jurisdictional determination for the project has not been verified by any state or federal agencies. However, the on-site water feature (stormwater channel) is presumed to be jurisdictional to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the CDFW. The project proposes to maintain the stormwater channel in its current location. The channel would be preserved in its current state and would not be filled or otherwise altered. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Although the project does not propose alterations or fill in the channel, Mitigation BIO-5 is included to ensure waters of the United States would not be negatively affected by project activities. d) No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. No established migratory routes are identified on or adjacent to the project site. Additionally, the on-site drainage feature has no natural connections to perennial features utilized by anadromous fish species. Due to the highly urbanized land uses in the project vicinity, it is unlikely that any significant aquatic or wildlife corridors exist in the project vicinity. Therefore, no impact will occur. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Chapter 19.12 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code affords protective measures to natural watercourses identified in the CP (Creek Protection) overlay zone. Specifically, El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 19.12.010 states: The City Council finds that public health and safety require creek and watershed management and planning in order to control flood and erosion damages and to preserve natural watercourses as an important public asset that provides environmental, recreational and aesthetic value within the city. A dependence on structural solutions such as creek channelization, culverting and channel riprapping has often been found to result in the loss of property from unanticipated problems associated with their design and can result in serious bank erosion and flooding. Streams managed as close to a natural system as possible without interference from structures, maintain a geomorphic equilibrium or watercourse best suited for carrying stream flows, and carrying and depositing suspended sediment loads. Natural streams have significant benefits in that they filter pollutants and provide wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors. Accordingly, the purposes of the -CP Creek Protection overlay district is to delineate creeks and major drainages and ensure that development or other activities in these sensitive areas achieves the following goals: A. Preserves, enhances and restores natural drainage ways as parts of the storm drainage system, minimizing any alterations or structures within the natural stream channel and streambed. B. Preserves riparian vegetation and protects wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors along natural drainage ways. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 40 C. Protect lands adjacent to riparian areas as public or private permanent open space through dedication or easements. D. Protects property owners and the public from erosion and flooding. E. Increases access to creeks for maintenance purposes and for potential public access to creek-side amenities. F. Ensures that projects are consistent with City Council adopted guidelines and resolutions for creek restoration and improvement, including designated creeks as natural corridors with habitat enhancement. G. Furthers the Joint Watershed Goals Statement of restoring creeks by removing culverts, underground pipes, and obstructions to fish and animal migration, and daylighting creeks where they can be enjoyed by people and wildlife. Municipal Code Chapter 19.14 establishes PD (Planned Development) overlay zones to allow deviations from development standards where superior community design or public benefit will be achieved. The project site is incorporated in the PD overlay, and the on-site surface water has been incorporated into the CP overlay and is therefore afforded protection measures under the Municipal Code unless waived as part of the planned development review. The CP overlay prohibits placement of fill or any other obstruction and establishes a minimum 30-foot setback from the top of creek bank or upland edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, for all features in the CP overlay. As described previously, the stormwater channel would be maintained in its current location and would not be filled or otherwise obstructed. However, as shown on the proposed site plan (see Figure the minimum 30-foot setback would not be provided, as structures, walkways, hardscape features, and landscaping are proposed within approximately 5 feet of the channel. In addition, a footbridge is proposed to cross the channel to provide access to the shared common area. Although the project does not include the 30-foot setback from the channel pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 19.14, because the on-site surface water feature lacks characteristics of a natural riparian corridor and provides only marginal habitat value for wildlife that may include utilization by local birds and mammals, as well as by feral and domesticated pets, there would be less than significant impacts to biological resources. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code, which is intended to protect natural riparian areas. f) No Impact. There are currently no adopted or proposed habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that affect the proposed project. Therefore, no impact would occur. MITIGATION MEASURES BIO-1 Survey for Migratory Birds. If clearing and/or construction activities will occur during the migratory bird nesting season (April 15–August 15), preconstruction surveys for nesting migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, up to 14 days before initiation of construction activities. The qualified biologist shall ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 survey the construction zone and a 250-foot radius surrounding the construction zone to determine whether the activities taking place have the potential to disturb or otherwise harm nesting birds. If active nest(s) are identified during the preconstruction survey, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest to determine when the young have fledged. monitoring reports, documenting nest status, shall be submitted to the City Planning Division until the nest(s) is deemed inactive. The biological monitor shall have the authority to cease construction if there is any sign of distress to a raptor or migratory bird. Reference to this requirement and to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be included in the construction specifications. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division BIO-2 Survey for Active Raptor Nests. If construction activities will occur during the nesting season for raptors (January 15–August 15), all suitable raptor nesting habitat within 0.5 mile of the impacted area shall be surveyed for active raptor nests before construction activity commences. If an active raptor nest is located within 0.5 mile of the construction site, a no-activity buffer shall be erected around the nest while the nest is active to protect the nesting raptors. This buffer distance may be amended to account for nests that are not within the line of sight of the construction activity. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division BIO-3 Conduct Surveys for Bird Nests in Structures. If demolition of on-site structures is proposed to take place during the migratory bird nesting season (April 15–August 15), a survey for nesting migratory birds swallows, phoebes) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to demolition. If bird nests are discovered in the structure, the structure shall not be removed until the nest(s) become inactive. Timing/Implementation: Prior to demolition Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division BIO-4 Conduct Surveys for Potential Bat Roosts. Demolition of on-site structures shall be preceded by a survey for bat presence. Structures being used by bats will not be removed until it has been determined that bats are no longer using the site or until demolition can be carried out without harming any bats. Timing/Implementation: Prior to demolition Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division BIO-5 Mitigate for Loss of Waters of the United States. If the US Army Corps of Engineers identifies that the feature is jurisdictional, the project applicant shall ensure that the project will result in no net loss of waters of the United States by providing ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 42 mitigation through impact avoidance, impact minimization, and/or compensatory mitigation for the impact, as determined in the CWA Section 404/401 permits and/or 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 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 geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following is based on the Historic Resource Evaluation for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, California, prepared by VerPlanck Historic Preservation Consulting. The area immediately surrounding the property, historically a semirural area of small ranches and single-family dwellings, was built out during the post–World War II era as suburban development overtook the once semirural enclave of Little Italy. Ambrose and Virginia Rodoni eventually purchased three adjoining lots, creating a larger landholding measuring 150 feet along Elm Street (originally Union Street) and 130 feet deep. This property, comprising nearly a half acre, was more than sufficient to create a compact “weekend ranch” capable of supporting their large family with homegrown produce, fruit, wine, and possibly livestock. A well and water pulled from the creek were used to irrigate the property and to provide drinking water, until the property was hooked up to municipal water in the 1940s. The project site currently contains four buildings: the main house, garage, well house, and shed, as well as other features characteristic of rural agricultural properties. The house was constructed in 1897 by Ambrose Rodoni and, based on information from the Contra Costa County Assessor, it is the third-oldest building in El Cerrito. The Rodoni house is a two-story, wood-frame, T-plan, Queen Anne–style dwelling with a compound hip and gable roof. Permit applications from the 1940s indicate that the Rodoni family completed an interior remodel, which included a new kitchen, carpeting, and other unspecified changes on the first floor level of the house. In 1949, the rear portion of the basement was converted into living quarters, and after 1968, the original wood windows were replaced with aluminum sliders, and the tank house and a windmill were demolished. The garage was built before 1930 by the Rodoni family to provide shelter for their vehicles and possibly farm equipment. The shed is mainly clad in corrugated metal and fiberglass panels and is supported by metal pipe railings and wood studs and ceiling joists. The shed is of unknown origin, but it appears to have been built within the last 25 to 30 years. The well house was possibly built after 1968, when the original windmill and tank house were demolished. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 44 The channel that runs through the southern third of the property appears on nineteenth-century USGS maps, and the Contra Costa County Assessor shows the unnamed channel on its GIS maps, indicating that it is not simply a ditch. The channel is straight-sided and bounded by dry- laid stone walls. The stone is of various types and is not uniformly dressed. The purpose of the walls appears to contain flows, stabilize the banks, and prevent erosion. The channel exits the property to the southwest, where it passes under a fence and enters a culvert beneath the adjoining property. It is bridged at several places by nonhistoric wood bridges, metal pipes, and scrap lumber. The channel appears to have been an aesthetic and functional feature of the property and was probably used for irrigation long after the house was hooked up to municipal water in the 1940s. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The historic resource evaluation (VerPlanck 2013) found that 1715 Elm Street appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) and Criterion 3 (Design/Construction), as a very early residential property in the city and as a property closely associated with El Cerrito’s Little Italy. The property is clearly a rare remnant of El Cerrito’s pioneer period, which ended in 1906. The house on the property is the third-oldest building in El Cerrito, and assessor’s parcel data indicates that there are only seven more extant buildings in El Cerrito built between 1900 and 1906, meaning that there are only 11 known properties in El Cerrito dating from the city’s pioneer period. The evaluation also found that the property is significant for its association with El Cerrito’s Little Italy, a once-thriving immigrant enclave centered at the intersection of San Pablo and Potrero avenues. The proposed project would relocate and rehabilitate the Rodoni house. Though it would be moved, it would remain on the same property, and the California Register allows for buildings to be moved if it will result in their being saved. According to Section 15126.4(b)(1) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA Guidelines): “Where maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of the historical resource will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, the project’s impact on the historical resource will generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant.” Because the proposed project would likely have a substantial adverse effect on a potential historic resource, mitigation is required. Implementation of mitigation measure CULT-1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. While the project site has previously been disturbed, construction activities, such as construction of the subgrade components of the project, may uncover archeological resources. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure CULT-2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. No fossils or evidence of exposed geomorphological features that typically contain fossils were evident on the project site, but that does not preclude the possibility of their existence below the ground surface. Because the proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, this is considered a potentially significant impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 Implementation of the mitigation measure CULT-3 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. d) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. It is not anticipated that any human remains would be encountered during construction at the project site. However, there is a possibility that previously unknown human remains could be disturbed or destroyed by project-related ground-disturbing activities. Adverse impacts to these unknown human remains would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure CULT-4 would ensure that potential impacts to such resources are minimized. MITIGATION MEASURES CULT-1 Prior to any alterations of structures on the project site, the project applicant shall complete Historic American Building Survey (HABS) level documentation. Prior to occupancy of any structure on the project site, the applicant shall complete façade restoration, and salvage and reuse building materials and landscape features, as discussed below. a) The project applicant shall document the affected historical resource and its setting, in accordance with HABS. The intent is to preserve an accurate record of historic property that can be used in research and other preservation activities. To serve these purposes, the documentation must include information that permits assessment of its reliability. Generally, this includes:  Drawings: Select existing drawings, where available, should be photographed with large-format negatives or photographically reproduced on Mylar.  Photographs: Photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and interior views, or historic views, where available.  Written data: History and description in narrative or outline format. HABS material standards regarding reproducibility, durability, and size shall be met. Copies of the photographs and report shall be presented to repositories that are invested in archiving the history of El Cerrito. b) Restore the building façade, including windows, the historic wood trim around the doors and windows on the primary façade, and the door in the main entrance, as determined by documentation by either physical and/or documentary evidence to the extent documentation is available. If physical evidence is inconclusive or historic photographs are not available, comparable, intact properties built during the same period as the Rodoni house may be used to inform the appearance of the façade. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction or demolition activities Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division CULT-2 In the event any archeological resources are encountered during construction, work within 100 feet of the find shall cease and a qualified paleontologist shall be ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 46 contacted by the project applicant to determine whether the resource is significant. If the find is determined to be of significance, an excavation plan shall be created and resources shall be donated to an appropriate cultural center. All work products and plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to execution. Timing/Implementation: During construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division CULT-3 In the event paleontological resources are encountered during construction, the construction manager shall cease operation at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department. The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources is carried out. Timing/Implementation: During construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division CULT-4 If human remains are encountered during project construction, work within 100 feet of the remains shall be suspended immediately, and the City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department and the Contra Costa County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours. A professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience shall conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department will be responsible for the approval of recommended mitigation, taking account of the provisions of state law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement the approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of El Cerrito Environmental & Development Services Department, before the resumption of activities at the site where the remains were discovered. Timing/Implementation: During construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death, involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 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 spreading, 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 wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING REGIONAL GEOLOGY, FAULTING, AND SEISMICITY The project site is in the northern portion of the Coast Range geomorphic province of California, which is characterized by northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys that generally parallel the major geologic structures, such as the San Andreas and Hayward faults. The Hayward fault is the active fault nearest to the project site, located approximately 1 mile east of the project site. The Hayward fault is a northwest-trending zone about 51 miles long, which extends from southeastern San Jose through the East Bay communities into San Pablo Bay. During historic times, well-documented surface creep has occurred along the Hayward fault at ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 48 average rates ranging from about 0.14 to 0.35 inches per year. Beneath San Pablo Bay, the faulting probably steps right (east) to the Rodgers Creek fault. The geotechnical characteristics of a project site determine its potential for structural and safety hazards that could occur during construction and/or operation of a proposed project. The following discussion illustrates that the design-controllable aspects of building foundation support, protection from seismic ground motion, and soil or slope instability are governed by existing regulations of the State of California or the City of El Cerrito. These regulations require that project designs reduce potential adverse soils, geology, and seismicity effects to less than significant levels. Compliance with these regulations is required, not optional. Compliance must be demonstrated by the project applicant to have been incorporated in the project’s design before permits for project construction would be issued. Several large earthquakes have occurred in the region during historic times. These included several earthquakes on the Hayward fault as well as earthquakes on the San Andreas and Calaveras faults. These earthquakes ranged in Richter magnitude from 6.0 to 8.3. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) i) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (1982), the project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for the Hayward fault. No mapped active fault traces traverse the project site. The project would have a less than significant impact. ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The entire San Francisco Bay Area is subject to periodic earthquake ground shaking. The potential for strong seismic shaking at the project site is high. Due to their close proximity and historical seismic activity, the Hayward/Rodgers Creek, San Andreas, and Concord/Green Valley faults present the highest potential for severe ground shaking. For example, the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities in conjunction with the United States Geological Survey found that there was a 31 percent probability that a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will occur on the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault system in the next 30 years, a 21 percent probability that a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will occur on the San Andreas fault, and a cumulative 63 percent probability that a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will occur in the San Francisco Bay Region in the next 30 years (USGS 2008). The State of California provides minimum standards for structural design and site development through the California Building Code (CBC; California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part Each jurisdiction in the state may adopt its own building code based on the CBC. Local codes are permitted to be more stringent than Title 24, but, at a minimum, are required to meet all state standards and to enforce the regulations of the CBC. The City of El Cerrito has adopted the 2010 CBC as the basis for the City Building Code (see El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 16.02.010). The City’s enforcement of its Building Code ensures the project would be consistent with the CBC. State and local regulations require design-level geotechnical investigations for the foundations of any structure for human occupancy proposed at the project site, including specific recommendations to reduce or eliminate post-construction settlement. The design-level geotechnical investigation for the project would be reviewed by the ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 City Department of Public Works for compliance with existing building codes and ordinances. The City would inspect the recommended site preparation activities. Before construction of the proposed project, the City Building Code requires a site- specific soils report that identifies any potentially unsuitable soil conditions (such as expansive, liquefiable, or compressive soils) that could be affected by ground shaking, and CBC Chapter 16 provides certain earthquake design standards that must be incorporated into project structures. The design for soil support of foundations must conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the Building Code. Compliance with the Building Code would ensure that the effects of seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. iii) Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose sand and silt that is saturated with water behaves like a liquid when shaken by a seismic event, potentially resulting in a loss of soil strength and settling or subsidence. In some instances, lateral movements of the ground surface can also occur as a result of liquefaction through a phenomenon known as lateral spreading. Liquefaction and lateral spreading can constitute a significant geologic hazard, causing damage to buildings and other site improvements. As noted above, the project would be required to incorporate recommendations made in the soils report to eliminate inappropriate soil conditions. Compliance with the design criteria described in the City’s Building Code for soil support of foundations would ensure that impacts related to ground failure would be less than significant. iv) Less Than Significant Impact. The topography of the project site is fairly level, and areas surrounding the project site do not have the potential for landslides. The likelihood of a landslide is low, and the impact is considered less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not expected to create substantial erosion or contribute to loss of topsoil because the project site is nearly level, so the water erosion hazard is considered low. However, construction activities would disturb soils, which could lead to erosion. A stormwater pollution prevention plan will be prepared for the project, as are required by El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 8.40, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, for projects requiring grading permits. The erosion control plan would detail erosion control measures for the site, and the would include best management practices (BMPs) to protect water quality due to stormwater runoff. Implementation of a would ensure a less than significant impact related to erosion. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under Impact a, compliance with existing regulations in the CBC would ensure that impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils typically contain clay minerals that can cause the soil to shrink and swell in response to changes in moisture and have the potential to damage improvements that are supported by them. As noted above, before construction of the proposed project, the City Building Code requires a site- specific soils report that identifies any potentially unsuitable soil conditions (such as expansive, liquefiable, or compressive soils) that could be affected by ground shaking. In addition, CBC Chapter 16 provides certain earthquake design standards that must be incorporated into project structures. The design for soil support of foundations must conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the Building Code. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 50 Compliance with the Building Code would ensure that the effects of expansive soils would be less than significant. e) No Impact. Public utilities, including sewer service, are provided to the project site by the City of El Cerrito. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be utilized. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 51 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Since the early 1990s, scientific consensus holds that the world’s population is releasing greenhouse gases (GHG) faster than the earth’s natural systems can absorb them. These gases are released as byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, waste disposal, energy use, land-use changes, and other human activities. This release of gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons, creates a blanket around the earth that allows light to pass through but traps heat at the surface preventing its escape into space. While this is a naturally occurring process known as the greenhouse effect, human activities have accelerated the generation of GHGs beyond natural levels. The overabundance of GHGs in the atmosphere has led to an unexpected warming of the earth and has the potential to severely impact the earth’s climate system. While often used interchangeably, there is a difference between the terms “climate change” and “global warming.” According to the National Academy of Sciences, climate change refers to any significant, measurable change of climate lasting for an extended period of time that can be caused by both natural factors and human activities. Global warming, on the other hand, is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere caused by increased GHG emissions. The use of the term climate change is becoming more prevalent because it encompasses all changes to the climate, not just temperature. To fully understand global climate change, it is important to recognize the naturally occurring greenhouse effect and to define the GHGs that contribute to this phenomenon. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. For most nonindustrial development projects, motor vehicles make up the bulk of GHG emissions produced on an operational basis. The primary GHGs emitted by motor vehicles include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons (CARB 2004). Table 5 provides descriptions of the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including a description of their physical properties, primary sources, and contribution to the greenhouse effect. Because the project site is currently unoccupied, it does not generate GHGs. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 52 TABLE 5 GREENHOUSE GASES Greenhouse Gas Description Carbon dioxide (CO2) CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas and is emitted in a number of ways, both naturally and through human activities. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities, and other sources. A number of industrial production processes and product uses such as mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum- based products can also lead to CO2 emissions. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere.1 Methane (CH4) CH4 is a colorless, odorless gas that is not flammable under most circumstances. CH4 is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. CH4 is emitted from both human-related and natural sources. Human- related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (livestock intestinal fermentation and manure management), biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of CH4 to the atmosphere. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. Methane‘s atmospheric lifetime is about 12 years.2 Nitrous oxide (N2O) N2O is a clear, colorless gas with a sweet odor. N2O is produced by natural and human-related sources. Primary human-related sources are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. N2O is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years.3 Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) HFCs are man-made chemicals, many of which have been developed as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances for industrial, commercial, and consumer products. The atmospheric lifetime for HFCs varies from just over a year for HFC-152a to 260 years for HFC-23. Most of the commercially used HFCs have atmospheric lifetimes less than 15 years HFC-134a, which is used in automobile air conditioning and refrigeration).4 Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) PFCs are colorless, highly dense, chemically inert, and nontoxic. There are seven PFC gases: perfluoromethane (CF4), perfluoroethane (C2F6), perfluoropropane (C3F8), perfluorobutane (C4F10), perfluorocyclobutane (C4F8), perfluoropentane (C5F12), and perfluorohexane (C6F14). The largest current source is aluminum production, which releases CF4 and C2F6 as byproducts. The estimated atmospheric lifetimes for CF4 and C2F6 are 50,000 and 10,000 years, respectively.4,5 Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) SF6 is an inorganic compound that is colorless, odorless, nontoxic, generally nonflammable, and is primarily used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment. The electric power industry uses roughly 80 percent of all SF6 produced worldwide. Significant leaks occur from aging equipment and during equipment maintenance and servicing. SF6 has an atmospheric life of 3,200 years.4 Sources: 1EPA 2011a, 2EPA 2011b, 3EPA 2010a, 4EPA 2010b, 5EFCTC 2003 Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Gases with high global warming potential (GWP), such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, are the most heat-absorbent. Methane (CH4) traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs 310 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weight each gas by its GWP. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. Table 6 shows the GWP for different GHGs for a 100-year time horizon. TABLE 6 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL FOR GREENHOUSE GASES Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1 Methane (CH4) 21 Nitrous oxide (N2O) 310 Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 6,500 Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 23,900 Source: California Climate Action Registry 2009 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. GHG emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change. No single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature. The combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future projects contributes substantially to the phenomenon of global climate change and its associated environmental impacts and as such is addressed only as a cumulative impact. GHG emissions associated with the project would occur over the short term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. There would also be long-term regional emissions associated with project-related new vehicular trips and indirect source emissions, such as electricity usage for lighting. Construction Emissions The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction- related GHG emissions. However, the BAAQMD recommends quantification and disclosure of GHG emissions that would occur during construction, in addition to making a determination on the significance of these construction-generated GHG emissions impacts in relation to meeting Assembly Bill (AB) 32 GHG reduction goals. AB 32 is the California Global Warming Solutions Act, enacted by the State Legislature in September 2006. AB 32 requires the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As shown in Table 7, the construction of the proposed project would result in a maximum of 135 metric tons per year of construction-generated CO2e over an estimated one-year construction period. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 54 TABLE 7 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – METRIC TONS PER YEAR Construction Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Methane (CH4) Nitrous Oxide (N2O) CO2e Construction 134 0.03 0.00 135 Source: Emissions modeled by PMC using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2013.2.2 computer program. Notes: Proposed rehabilitation of existing single-family unit assumed to be completely reconstructed for conservative analysis. Refer to Appendix B for model data outputs. In addition to quantifying construction-generated GHG emissions, the BAAQMD recommends that all construction projects incorporate best management practices minimizing GHG emissions. To ensure that best management practices are incorporated into the project, the proposed project will be required to implement mitigation measure GHG-1. Implementation of mitigation measure GHG-1 would reduce the incremental emissions from project construction. Additionally, mitigation measure AQ-1, included in subsection 3, Air Quality, would further reduce the emissions of heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment during construction. Implementation of these measures would minimize construction- related GHG emissions to the extent feasible, consistent with AB 32 greenhouse gas reduction goals, and would therefore result in a less than significant impact. Operational Emissions For GHG emissions resulting from project operations after construction, the BAAQMD threshold of significance applicable to the project is whether the project would exceed 1,100 metric tons per year of CO2e. The projected annual GHG emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project are summarized in Table 8. TABLE 8 OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS – METRIC TONS PER YEAR Source CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Area 1 0.00 0.00 1 Energy 40 0.00 0.00 40 Mobile 98 0.00 0.00 98 Solid Waste 2 0.09 0.00 4 Water 2 0.03 0.00 3 Total 143 0.13 0.00 146 BAAQMD Threshold 1,100 Source: CalEEMod version 2013.2.2. Refer to Appendix B for model data outputs. As shown in the table, the proposed project would be far below BAAQMD significance thresholds for operational GHG emissions and would result in less than significant GHG impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 55 b) Less Than Significant Impact. California has adopted several policies and regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. On December 11, 2008, the California Air Resources Board adopted the AB 32 Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32, mentioned above. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The proposed project is subject to compliance with AB 32, which is designed to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As identified above, the project-generated GHG emissions would not surpass the BAAQMD greenhouse gas significance thresholds, which were prepared with the purpose of complying with the requirements of and achieving the goals of AB 32. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the state goals listed in AB 32 or in any preceding state policies adopted to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, on May 21, 2013, the El Cerrito City Council adopted the El Cerrito Climate Action Plan and associated targets to reduce GHG emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2035 (City of El Cerrito 2013). Some of the primary provisions of the Climate Action Plan are to promote greater density and infill development, water conservation, energy efficiency, and waste reduction strategies. No aspects of the proposed project would inhibit these goals. The proposed project would not be considered to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG emissions and therefore represents a less than significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURES GHG-1 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall specify on the final project plans implementation of BAAQMD-recommended construction-related measures to reduce GHG emissions during construction activities. These measures include, as feasible: 1. Use alternative-fueled biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles and equipment to the maximum extent possible. 2. Use local construction materials (within 100 miles) to the maximum extent possible. 3. Recycle construction waste and demolition materials to the maximum extent possible. Timing/Implementation: Prior to grading permits Enforcement/Monitoring: City of El Cerrito Planning Division ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 56 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the 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 hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 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 residences are intermixed with wildlands? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the term “hazardous substance” refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties: toxicity, ignitability, corrosiveness, and reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article A hazardous material is defined as a substance or combination of substances that ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness, or may pose a substantial presence or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no longer have practical use, such as materials that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, or contaminated or are being stored until they can be disposed of properly (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 66261.10). Soil that is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials is a hazardous waste if it exceeds specific CCR Title 22 criteria. While hazardous substances are regulated by multiple agencies, cleanup requirements of hazardous wastes are determined on a case-by-case basis according to the agency with lead jurisdiction over the project. Public health is potentially at risk whenever hazardous materials are or would be used. It is necessary to differentiate between the “hazard” of these materials and the acceptability of the “risk” they pose to human health and the environment. A hazard is any situation that has the potential to cause damage to human health and the environment. The risk to health and public safety is determined by the probability of exposure, in addition to the inherent toxicity of a material. Factors that can influence the health effects when human beings are exposed to hazardous materials include the dose the person is exposed to, the frequency of exposure, the duration of exposure, the exposure pathway (route by which a chemical enters a person’s body), and the individual’s unique biological susceptibility. The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2012). The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or airstrip. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable building, health, fire, and safety codes. Hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts during construction and occupancy of the project. Construction and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and herbicides. The amount of materials used would be small, so the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, assuming such use complies with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including but not limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. With respect to operation of the project, residential uses do not generate significant amounts of hazardous materials, and only a minimal amount of routine household chemicals would be stored on-site. These materials would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Impacts a and c, the proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 58 environment. Implementation of Title 49, Parts 171–180, of the Code of Federal Regulations would reduce any impacts associated with the potential for accidental release during construction or occupancy of the proposed project or by transporters picking up or delivering hazardous materials to the project site. These regulations establish standards by which hazardous materials would be transported, within and adjacent to the proposed project. Where transport of these materials occurs on roads, the California Highway Patrol is the responsible agency for enforcement of regulations. The project also includes renovations to the existing house, which, given the age of the structure, could contain asbestos and lead. Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction before being banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the 1970s. Because it was widely used prior to discovery of its negative health effects, asbestos can be found in a variety of building materials and components including sprayed-on acoustic ceiling materials, thermal insulation, wall and ceiling texture, floor tiles, and pipe insulation. Asbestos is classified into two main categories: friable and non-friable. Friable asbestos can release asbestos fibers easily when disturbed and is considered Regulated Asbestos- Containing Material (RACM). Friable (easily crumbled) materials are particularly hazardous because inhalation of airborne fibers is the primary mode of asbestos entry into the body, which potentially causes lung cancer and asbestosis. Non-friable asbestos will release fibers less readily than RACM and is referred to as Category I or Category II, non-friable. Non-friable asbestos and encapsulated friable asbestos do not pose substantial health risks. The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) considers asbestos-containing building materials (ACBM) to be hazardous when a sample contains more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight; Cal/OSHA requires it to be handled by a licensed, qualified contractor. Lead can be found in paint, water pipes, plumbing solder, and in soils around buildings and structures with lead-based paint. In 1978, the federal government required the reduction of lead in house paint to less than 0.06 percent (600 parts per million [ppm]). However, some paints manufactured after 1978 for industrial uses or marine uses legally contain more than 0.06 percent lead. Exposure to lead can result in bioaccumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones. Children are particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because lead is easily absorbed into developing systems and organs. Prior to any building demolition, CCR Title 8 Section 5208 requires that a state-certified risk assessor conduct a risk assessment and/or paint inspection of all structures constructed prior to 1978 for the presence of asbestos. If such hazards are determined to exist on site, the risk assessor would prepare a site-specific hazard control plan detailing ACBM removal methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and gear for abatement personnel. If necessary, the project sponsor would be required to retain a state-certified ACBM removal contractor (independent of the risk assessor) to conduct the appropriate abatement measures as required by the plan. Wastes from abatement and demolition activities would be disposed of at a landfill(s) licensed to accept such waste. Once all abatement measures have been implemented, the risk assessor would conduct a clearance examination and provide written documentation to the City that testing and abatement have been completed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to lead-based paint. These include Construction Safety Order 1532.1 from Title 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 59 of the CCR and lead-based paint exposure guidelines provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In California, lead-based paint abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certification from the California Department of Health Services. Compliance with existing regulation would ensure impacts related to hazardous materials exposure would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is a residential lot and is adjacent to two existing schools. As discussed in Impacts a and b, the proposed project is a residential use that would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment, including at an existing or proposed school. d) No Impact. The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2012). The closest listed site is located at 11450 San Pablo Avenue, approximately one-quarter mile west of the project site. That site is listed on the HAZNET database for the transfer of relatively small amounts of laboratory waste chemicals, as well as waste oil, oil-containing waste, oil/separator sludge, and organic and inorganic mixture. These materials were disposed of through a deposit at a recycler, transfer station, or incinerator. Additionally, that site was listed in the Contra Costa County Sites List, Cortese, and LUST databases due to a past leaking underground storage tank (LUST) event. Soils were reportedly impacted by gasoline, and the LUST cleanup case for the project was closed as of June 1998 (City of El Cerrito 2010). Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment related to an existing hazardous materials site. e) No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or airstrip. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. f) No Impact. See discussion under Impact e above. g) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would be subject to the requirements contained in the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans. Therefore, impacts related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan are considered less than significant. h) No Impact. The project site is located in El Cerrito and is not located within a wildland hazard area. The surrounding land is developed with urban and residential uses; the project site is not intermixed with wildlands. The proposed project will have no impact on the placement of people or structures next to wildland areas that could result in loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 60 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: 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 the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 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 that 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 polluted 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? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that 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 a failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 61 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is surrounded by existing development within El Cerrito. Surface runoff from the project site enters existing storm drains and is carried to San Francisco Bay through the storm drain system. The City of El Cerrito is a participant in the Contra Costa Clean Water Program which administers the County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The which includes representatives of Contra Costa County, 19 incorporated cities in the county, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, maintains compliance with the NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit. The project would be subject to the County’s NPDES permit and would be required to implement certain measures to protect water quality and prevent erosion by minimizing sediment and other pollutants in site runoff and so that post-project runoff will not exceed pre-project rates and durations. The goal of Provision C.3 is to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and adaptive reuse projects to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and adaptive reuse projects. Provision C.3 would reduce potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed project. The City of El Cerrito has adopted management guidelines to comply with the NPDES requirements, contained in Section 8.40.010 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code. As required by the Municipal Code, all construction must conform to the requirements of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion & Sediment Control Measures, the City’s grading and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Public Works Director when undertaking construction activities. In addition, El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 8.40.050 states that every application for a development project is required to submit a stormwater control plan that meets the criteria in the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction activities would disturb project soils that could result in sedimentation that reaches the storm sewer. However, as noted above, project construction activities would be required to comply with the County’s NPDES permit and El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 8.40, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, which require projects to conform with 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 erosion control ordinance and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control. Consequently, project construction would not be considered to contribute to a violation of water quality standards, and project operations would have a less than significant impact regarding the generation of substantial additional sources of polluted runoff that would contribute to a water quality violation. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not use local groundwater supplies, but would be connected to existing water infrastructure on-site, which is supplied by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). EBMUD’s primary water supply is surface water from the Mokelumne River. Therefore, operation of the proposed project ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 62 would not increase demand for groundwater supplies. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface on the project site. However, as noted above, the proposed project would be required to comply with Provision C.3 of the County’s NPDES permit, which requires projects to implement certain measures to protect water quality and prevent erosion by minimizing sediment and other pollutants in site runoff. Compliance with existing regulations and the NPDES permit would ensure that the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Prior to issuance of a building permit, El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 13.40.045 requires the project applicant to provide plans and specifications that consider factors such as slope, soil conditions, and amount of vegetation in the drainage basin, and the impact on anticipated percolation or infiltration rates, including the effect of successive storms on soil saturation and the resultant ability of the drain, as modified, to accommodate anticipated surface runoff flows. In issuing the permit, the City Manager may impose such conditions as are appropriate to eliminate any diminution in the capacity of the existing drain to carry off the volume of water reasonably anticipated. This would ensure that the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause on- or off-site flooding. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Impact d, with implementation of El Cerrito Municipal Code Section 13.40.045, the project would not negatively affect the capacity of the existing drain to carry off the volume of water reasonably anticipated for the project. Consequently, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or generate substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. f) Less Than Significant Impact. See discussion under Impacts a and c above. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regard to substantial degradation of water quality. g) No Impact. The project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard zone. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not place any housing within a flood hazard area. h) No Impact. The project site is not within 100-year flood hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not place any structures within a flood hazard area in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows. i) No Impact. The project site is not in the vicinity of a levee and is not within the areas indicated by the Association of Bay Area Governments as a potential inundation area resulting from dam failure (ABAG 1995). j) Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is a periodic oscillation of a body of water such as a reservoir resulting from seismic shaking or other causes such as landslides. A tsunami is a series of waves caused by earthquakes that occur on the seafloor or in coastal areas. A mudflow is a flow of dirt and debris that occurs after intense rainfall or snowmelt, volcanic eruption, earthquake, or severe wildfire. The project site is not located near any ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 63 reservoirs or other enclosed bodies of water capable of seiche and is located inland of the zones such as the margins of San Francisco Bay that could be inundated by a tsunami. The topography of the site is fairly level, and the likelihood of mudflow or landslide is low. Impacts related to potential inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow are considered less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 64 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is surrounded by existing development in El Cerrito. The project site is designated in the El Cerrito General Plan for High Density Residential and is zoned RM, Multi-family Residential. The purpose of the High Density Residential land use designation and Multi-family Residential zoning is to provide opportunities for multi-family residential development in a well- designed environment at a density of 21 to 35 dwelling units per net acre. This project will require the approval of General Plan Amendment to construct to its proposed density of 35.7 dwelling units per acre. Although denser than typically allowed in it’s General Plan designation, through the use of the Planned Unit overlay, the project proposes to exceed the minimum required amount of open space, preserve the existing creek, and retain the historic main structure all currently on site. As discussed throughout this Initial Study, the slight increase in density beyond that allowed in the High Density Residential land use designation would not result in any significant physical environmental effects. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) No Impact. The project site is an existing residential parcel surrounded by existing development in El Cerrito. Development of the project site would not result in the physical division of an established community. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with many goals of the General Plan as well as Climate Action Plan. If the proposed entitlements, including the Planned Development District and General Plan Amendment, are approved, the project will also be consistent with the Municipal Code. The applicant is requesting relief from the following development standards: 1. Height standards described in the Municipal Code Chapter 19.06 for residential districts. 2. Setback standards described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.06 for residential districts. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 65 3. Setback standards described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.12 for the CP (Creek Protection) overlay district. 4. Parking requirements described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.24 for off-street parking. 5. Density standards described in Municipal Code Chapter 19.06. The code allows for one residential unit per every 1,250 square feet; the project proposes one unit per every 1,220 square feet. 6. General Plan Amendment to exceed the maximum high density designation for market priced housing. As noted above, the project proponent is requesting a PD district designation. The City Council may approve a Planned Development district that deviates from the minimum lot area, yard requirements, building heights, other physical development standards, and land use and density requirements of other zoning districts. The specific purpose of a Planned Development district is to provide for detailed review of development that warrants special review and deviations from the existing development standards. This district is also intended to provide opportunities for creative development approaches and standards that will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and public benefit, in comparison to subdivision and development under district regulations. The requested changes to the development standards, if approved, would be consistent with Chapter 19.14 of the Municipal Code and, as discussed throughout this Initial Study, would not result in any significant physical impacts. c) No Impact. As discussed in subsection 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 66 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is surrounded by existing development in El Cerrito. The project site has not been historically used for mining operations. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a, b) No Impact. No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 67 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 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 area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project is located in a residential area of El Cerrito. Noise is generally restricted to traffic on local streets. Construction activities on the project site will generate noise that could disturb adjacent residences. According to City 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). Section 16.02.080(b) of the City’s Municipal Code limits the hours of work to between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturday. Construction work is prohibited on Sundays and holidays. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. Noise generated by the project would occur during short- term construction of the proposed units. Operation of the project would be consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity of the project site and would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment. Noise levels during construction would be higher than existing noise levels, but only for the duration of construction. Noise levels from construction activities could average from 76 to 90 dBA within 50 feet of the noisiest ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 68 source and would be audible to residents in proximity to the proposed project. However, as noted above, construction activities are regulated by the El Cerrito Municipal Code, which restricts construction work hours to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, prohibiting construction work on Sundays and holidays. While there would be intermittent construction noise in the project area during the construction period, because the construction would be short term and restricted to the hours allowed by the City’s ordinance, noise impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed project would be residential, which would not involve the use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. Construction activities would likely require the use of various types of equipment, such as forklifts, concrete mixers, and haul trucks. The use of major groundborne vibration-generating construction equipment, such as pile drivers, would not be required for this project. Groundborne vibration levels associated with representative construction equipment are summarized in Table 9. Based on the vibration levels presented in Table 9, ground vibration generated by construction equipment would not be anticipated to exceed approximately 0.076 inches per second peak particle velocity (ppv) at 25 feet. Predicted vibration levels at the nearest on- and off-site structures would not be anticipated to exceed the minimum recommended criteria for structural damage and human annoyance (0.2 and 0.1 inches per second ppv, respectively). As a result, this potential impact would be considered less than significant. TABLE 9 REPRESENTATIVE VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment Peak Particle Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec) Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozers/Tractors 0.003 Source: FTA 2006, Table 12-2. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, long-term operation of the project involves residential use, which is consistent with existing uses in the project vicinity. Residential uses would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Impact a, short-term construction-related activities could result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels at nearby receptors. However, compliance with Section 16.02.080(b) of the City’s Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction to daytime hours outside normal sleep hours, would ensure that potential impacts would be less than significant. e, f) No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or private airstrip. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose individuals to excessive noise levels associated with aircraft operations. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 69 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The estimated population of El Cerrito in 2010 was 23,549 with 10,716 housing units, 10,142 of which are occupied (MTC 2012). This yields an average household size of 2.3 persons. Assuming the city’s average household size, the proposed project would result in the addition of approximately 35 residents to the area. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes construction of residential units that would directly add to the population of the city. The 35 residents added by the project would not be considered substantial, when considering the project area is currently developed and the project would utilize existing infrastructure at the project site. No upgrades to the existing infrastructure would be required to serve the project. The proposed project would not involve any other components that would induce further growth. b) No Impact. There is an existing, unoccupied house on the project site that would be retained as part of the project. The proposed project would not displace housing units at the project site or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) No Impact. There is an existing house on the project site, which as noted above, is unoccupied. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 70 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered 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 following public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is surrounded by existing development within El Cerrito. The project site is served by the El Cerrito Fire Department, El Cerrito Police Department, and West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD). FIRE PROTECTION The project site is located in an urban area of El Cerrito in an area currently served by the El Cerrito Fire Department. The department would continue to serve the project site. The department operates three fire stations: Station 71, located at 10900 San Pablo Avenue; Station 72, located at 1520 Arlington Boulevard; and Station 65, located at 217 Arlington Avenue in Kensington. Station 71 is the closest station to the project site, approximately 1 mile to the southwest. The City also has a mutual aid agreement with the Richmond, Kensington, and West County fire departments to provide service across jurisdictional boundaries. POLICE PROTECTION The project site is currently served by the El Cerrito Police Department and would continue to be served by the department. The El Cerrito Police headquarters building is located at 10900 San Pablo Avenue, approximately 1 mile from the project site. SCHOOLS The WCCUSD operates 57 schools serving the communities of El Cerrito, San Pablo, Richmond, Pinole, Kensington, Hercules, and El Sobrante. The district comprises 38 elementary (K–5) and six middle schools seven high schools, and six alternative schools and continuing education facilities. The project site is within the attendance boundary of Madera Elementary School, Portola Middle School, and El Cerrito High School (WCCUSD 2012). Senate Bill (SB) 50, which revised the limitation on developer fees for school facilities, established a base amount of allowable developer fees (Level One fee) for residential construction (subject to adjustment) and prohibits school districts, cities, and counties from imposing school impact ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 71 mitigation fees or other requirements in excess or in addition to those provided in the statute. Satisfaction of the Proposition SB 50 statutory requirements by a developer is deemed to be “full and complete mitigation.” The proposed project would be required to pay the statutory fees. PARKS The El Cerrito General Plan identifies the city as having a total of 182 acres of parks and open space, including 32 acres of publicly owned parks, 100 acres of public open space, 23 acres of recreation facilities, and 27 acres of school district–owned recreation areas. The General Plan identifies a level of service standard of 5 acres of publicly owned parkland per 1,000 residents. Based on an estimated city population of 23,549, the City of El Cerrito has approximately 7.7 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. All residential projects would be required to provide on-site open space and recreational facilities for residents or a combination of in-lieu fees and on-site facilities. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is served by the El Cerrito Fire Department. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would marginally increase the demand for fire protection services over existing conditions. However, the project would be similar to the land use on surrounding properties, and the site is already served by the City for fire protection. The project would not substantially alter the number of housing units or population in the city and would not result in the need for new fire protection facilities to serve the site. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new fire protection facilities and impacts related to fire protection would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is served by the El Cerrito Police Department for police protection services. The redevelopment of the site would not result in the need for increased patrols or additional units such that new police facilities would need to be constructed. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new police facilities, and impacts related to police protection would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Consistent with SB 50, the proposed project will be required to pay developer fees to the WCCUSD. These fees would be directed toward maintaining adequate service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities. Implementation of this state fee system would ensure that any significant impacts to schools which could result from the proposed project would be offset by development fees, and in effect, reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Assuming student generation rates per multi-family unit of 0.105 for grades K–5, 0.026 for grades 6–8, and 0.013 for grades 9–12, the project would generate approximately two students total. The additional two students generated by the project would not result in substantial physical impacts at any schools serving the project. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would generate a population of approximately 35 residents who would use existing parks. Because the proposed project would result in a very minor increase in population relative to the city’s existing population, significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration at parks and recreation-oriented public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on parks. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 72 e) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, because the proposed project would result in a very minor increase in population relative to the city’s existing population, significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration of public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on public facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 73 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The El Cerrito General Plan identifies the city as having a total of 182 acres of parks and open space including 32 acres of publicly owned parks, 100 acres of public open space, 23 acres of recreation facilities, and 27 acres of school district–owned recreation areas. The General Plan identifies a level of service standard of 5 acres of publicly owned parkland per 1,000 residents. Based on an estimated city population of 23,549, the City of El Cerrito has approximately 7.7 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. All residential projects would be required to provide on-site open space and recreational facilities for residents or a combination of in-lieu fees and on-site facilities. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. See discussion of Impact e in subsection 14, Public Services. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on recreational facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 74 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing 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, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads of highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ROADWAY SYSTEM Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 80 (I-80) and Interstate 580 (I-580), located west of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Elm Street, Richmond Street, Hill Street, Key Boulevard, Blake Street, and Potrero Avenue. All roadways in the immediate project vicinity serve primarily residential neighborhoods and have curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on-street parking, and maximum posted speed limits of 25 miles per hour. On-street parking is limited to four hours (except by residential permit) between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM due to the close proximity of the El Cerrito del Norte BART station. The following describes the local roadways that would serve the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 75  Elm Street. Within the study area, Elm Street is a two-lane, north–south discontinuous roadway extending from Cutting Boulevard on the north to Blake Street on the south. South of Blake Street, Elm Street restarts from a T-intersection with Blake Street one block west of the Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street intersection and continues to Schmidt Lane on the south. Elm Street has a minimum width of 40 feet curb to curb. Parking along Elm Street is limited to four hours (except by residential permit) between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, with parking prohibited near driveways, fire hydrants, and intersections. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour, with a posted speed limit of 20 miles per hour near the project site as Elm Street curves to meet Richmond Street at Blake Street.  Richmond Street. Richmond Street is a two-lane, north–south roadway extending from Blake Street on the north to Fairmont Avenue on the south. On the northbound approach to the Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street intersection, the posted speed limit on Richmond Street is reduced from 25 to 20 miles per hour as it curves to meet Elm Street at Blake Street.  Hill Street. Hill Street is a two-lane, east–west roadway extending from San Pablo Avenue on the west to Elm Street on the east. Hill Street fronts the south side of the El Cerrito del Norte BART station.  Key Boulevard. Key Boulevard is a two-lane, primarily north–south roadway extending from McLaughlin Street on the north to Elm Street on the south. Key Boulevard fronts the east side of the El Cerrito del Norte BART station.  Blake Street. Blake Street is a two-lane, east–west roadway extending from San Pablo Avenue on the west to Navellier Street on the east.  Potrero Avenue. Potrero Avenue is a two-lane, east–west roadway extending from Carlson Boulevard in Richmond on the west to Arlington Boulevard on the east. Potrero Avenue provides access to I-80. INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE A traffic impact study (TIS), which assumed development of 13 new units and rehabilitation of the existing house on the site (14 total units), was prepared for the project site in 2009. Kittelson & Associates reviewed the existing TIS to determine whether the analysis adequately reflects conditions that would occur with the project as proposed. Kittelson also conducted a trip generation analysis based on the latest data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers to verify assumptions made in the traffic impact analysis. Kittelson determined the project would result in 40 additional total daily trips and up to 5 additional peak-hour trips (total for AM and PM peak hours), which does not substantially differ from the 2009 analysis. Therefore, the key level of service (LOS) findings in the 2009 study are applicable to the current project despite changes in project land use, trip generation reference updates, analysis methodologies, and economic conditions (Kittelson 2013). Weekday AM and PM peak-period volumes in the study area were collected in October 2009 following submittal of the project application to the City. The study also incorporates an increase in students and teachers at the Windrush School, based on the 2007 approval by the City of El Cerrito Planning Commission of an amendment to the Windrush School’s use permit to increase their student body and for their 20-year master plan. The counts are considered by the City to accurately depict existing conditions in the project vicinity, given the lack of growth due to the ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 76 economic downturn (Kittelson 2013). This is borne out in the cumulative analysis, which shows that even under buildout conditions, the counts do not change substantially from the counts collected in 2009. Table 10 presents the results of the existing LOS analysis for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Data from three study intersections show current operations at acceptable levels of service during weekday AM and PM peak-hour time frames. Table 11 presents the results of the existing plus project intersection LOS analysis from the 2009 study, which shows the proposed project would result in no change to the peak-hour LOS and would have a minimal effect on delays. The addition of five vehicle trips during each peak hour would not likely reduce the level of service to below the City’s standard of LOS D (Kittelson 2013). All of the study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during all peak-hour scenarios. TABLE 10 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY Intersection Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street/Hill Street/Key Boulevard 24.8 C 22.2 C AWSC Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street 11.5 B 11.4 B Signalized Richmond Avenue/Potrero Avenue 13.9 B 13.6 B Source: PMC 2009 TABLE 11 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY Intersection Existing Plus Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Existing Plus Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street/Hill Street/Key Boulevard 24.8 C 22.3 C AWSC Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street 11.6 B 11.4 B Signalized Richmond Avenue/Potrero Avenue 13.9 B 13.6 B Source: PMC 2009 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Cumulative conditions represent the year 2025 conditions at study intersections. Cumulative conditions traffic volumes were derived by adding 0.5 percent per year growth to existing volumes and incorporating traffic from proposed and approved development projects in the vicinity of the project site. The expansion of the Windrush School from 250 to 330 students and the redevelopment of the former Target store (11450 San Pablo Avenue) to a Safeway and other ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 77 on-site retail stores were also considered in the cumulative conditions for the project traffic study.1 CUMULATIVE PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Table 12 presents the results of the 2009 cumulative surrounding projects plus ambient traffic growth) intersection LOS analysis. All of the study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during all peak-hour scenarios under the cumulative without project condition. It should be noted that for future scenarios cumulative, cumulative plus project), all intersection geometrics are the same as under existing conditions. Cumulative plus project weekday and weekend PM peak-hour volumes were determined by adding the project trip assignment to the cumulative volumes. No changes in intersection geometrics were assumed. Table 13 presents the results of the cumulative plus project intersection LOS analysis. The 2009 study found all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during all peak-hour scenarios. The addition of five vehicle trips during each peak hour under cumulative conditions would not likely reduce the level of service to below the City’s standard of LOS D (Kittelson 2013). TABLE 12 CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY Intersection Cumulative Weekday AM Peak Hour Cumulative Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street/Hill Street/Key Boulevard 27.6 C 25.7 C AWSC Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street 13.4 B 14.0 B Signalized Richmond Avenue/Potrero Avenue 14.1 B 13.9 B Source: PMC 2009 TABLE 13 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY Intersection Cumulative Plus Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Cumulative Plus Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Signalized Elm Street/Hill Street/Key Boulevard 27.6 C 25.7 C AWSC Elm Street/Richmond Street/Blake Street 13.4 B 14.1 B Signalized Richmond Avenue/Potrero Avenue 14.1 B 13.9 B Source: PMC 2009 1 The two projects are forecast to generate approximately 7,607 weekday daily trips, with 302 AM peak-hour trips (180 inbound and 122 outbound) and 795 PM peak-hour trips (402 inbound and 393 outbound). Trip generation estimates for the related projects were developed using trip rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation Rates, 7th Edition. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 78 DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would generate 12 weekday AM peak-hour trips and 13 weekday PM peak-hour trips. When compared to existing and cumulative conditions, the project would not substantially increase traffic volumes or congestion in the study area. The close proximity of the project site to the El Cerrito del Norte BART station, several bus lines, and commercial uses will likely result in transit use and pedestrian activity that will reduce the number of automobile trips associated with the project and the related demand for parking on site. The project proposes to provide 15 parking spaces where standard municipal requirements would require 21 spaces. City parking standards do not constitute a measure of parking effectiveness, but attempt to address parking demand throughout the city. Pursuant to the Planned Development Overlay provisions, these standards may be modified to reflect site-specific conditions. The proposed on-site parking, available pedestrian and transit facilities, and on-street parking support project needs for transportation without creating physical conditions that result in potentially significant impacts. The City will consider these factors when considering the merit of granting a parking reduction for the project. As reflected in Table 11 and Table 13, the project would not create any project-related significant impacts by degrading LOS at study intersections to unacceptable levels during the existing plus project condition or the cumulative plus project condition. The project would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians and as previously noted, the project would add approximately 35 residents, so it would not negatively affect the performance of the circulation system, including mass transit and non-motorized travel. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would generate 12 weekday AM peak-hour trips and 13 weekday PM peak-hour trips (Kittelson 2013). According to Contra Costa Transportation Authority (2006) guidelines for traffic studies, projects generating less than 100 peak-hour trips are considered to have a less than significant impact on the Congestion Management Program roadway network. c) No Impact. The project is a residential development and is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airports. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways, including Elm Street. The project would improve the sidewalk fronting the project along Elm Street, but would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. The project driveway would be consistent with City code requirements at 18 feet in width. Because the project is a residential project in a residential neighborhood, the project would not introduce any incompatible uses. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians or substantially increase traffic on local streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a negative effect on emergency access. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The project would be required to provide a location for on-site bicycle storage (four long-term and two short-term bicycle parking spaces). The proposed project includes a bicycle storage area on the ground floor that meets code requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 79 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 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 significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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 regulations related to solid waste? ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WASTEWATER SERVICE Existing utility infrastructure, including sanitary sewer lines, serves the project site. The Stege Sanitary District provides wastewater collection services in the city; wastewater generated in El Cerrito is treated at the East Bay Municipal Utility District Water Treatment Plant in Oakland. EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant treats domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater for an 83-square-mile area that includes the Stege Sanitary District. EBMUD provides primary treatment for up to 320 million gallons per day (mgd) and secondary treatment for a maximum flow of 168 mgd. Current average daily flow is 73 mgd. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 80 WATER SUPPLY Water service to the project site is provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. EBMUD is a public agency that provides drinking water to 1.3 million people and wastewater systems for 640,000 people in portions of Contra Costa and Alameda counties. The district boundaries for the EBMUD drinking water system extend from Crockett on the north southward to San Lorenzo and encompass approximately 325 square miles. The Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), adopted on June 28, 2011, by the EBMUD Board of Directors, is a long-range planning document that reports on EBMUD’s current and projected water usage, water supply programs, and conservation and recycling programs. Urban water management plans are required by the California Urban Water Management Planning Act. Section 10610.4 of the act specifies that “urban water suppliers shall be required to develop water management plans to actively pursue efficient use of available supplies.” The UWMP tracks EBMUD’s progress toward implementing conservation and water recycling programs and ensuring that supplemental water supply sources are identified. Additionally, the UWMP identifies the security, shortage, and health problems associated with its water supply. EBMUD indicates that the average household demand in 2009 was approximately 179 gallons per day. Therefore, the proposed project would generate a water demand of approximately 2,685 gallons per day. SOLID WASTE The East Bay Sanitary Company provides garbage collection services in El Cerrito. The West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA), a joint powers agency created by the Cities of El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo, serves El Cerrito. The WCCIWMA provides waste processing services (landfilling, recyclables processing, composting, etc.) of the franchised waste stream in western Contra Costa County. The WCCIWMA uses a number of landfills in the Bay Area, including, but not limited to, Pacheco Pass Landfill and Hays Road Landfill. The Hays Road Landfill is not expected to reach capacity until 2077, and the Pacheco Pass Landfill is not expected to reach capacity until 2066. These landfills have an estimated remaining capacity of 21,814,578 cubic yards and 40,600,000 cubic yards, respectively (CalRecycle 2012). DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, wastewater generated by the proposed project would be collected by the Stege Sanitary District and treated at EBMUD’s Main Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Stege Sanitary District (2006) assumes the design sanitary flow to be 100 gallons per person per day, so with approximately 35 residents at the project, it would generate approximately 3,500 gallons of wastewater per day. The current average daily flow to the Main Wastewater Treatment Plant is 73 million gallons per day. The proposed project flows represent approximately 0.005 percent of the average daily flows to the treatment plant. Because the proposed project represents such a minor amount of the treatment plant’s capacity, no new infrastructure is needed to service the proposed project, and project flows would not cause an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 81 b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under Impact a, the proposed project would not result in the need for expanded wastewater treatment facilities. The project’s water demand would be approximately 2,685 gallons per day. The UWMP projects a water demand of 229 million gallons per day in 2030. The proposed project’s demand would be an insignificant fraction of this estimated demand and would not result in the need for new or expanded water supply facilities. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would tie into existing stormwater facilities adjacent to the site. The proposed project would not alter flows such that new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities would be required. See also subsection 9, Hydrology and Water Quality. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project’s water demand would be approximately 2,685 gallons per day, which represents an insignificant portion of EBMUD’s supply. New or expanded water sources or entitlements would not be required to serve the project. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in the need for expanded wastewater treatment facilities. f) Less Than Significant Impact. Assuming approximately 10 pounds of solid waste generated per residential unit per day, the project would generate 150 pounds per day or approximately 27.4 tons per year, which represents a small fraction of any landfill used by the WCCIWMA. While solid waste generated by the proposed project could shorten the life span of the landfill by up to one year, it would not itself require any landfill expansion. Existing landfills in the area have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste generation. g) Less Than Significant Impact. The City must divert at least 50 percent of its solid waste through reduction, recycling, composting, and other activities. In order to achieve this aim, the City offers recycling services and requires new development projects to comply with Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding recycling. The project would comply with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 82 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. See subsection 4, Biological Resources, and subsection 5, Cultural Resources. Implementation of the proposed project, as mitigated, would have a less than significant impact on the quality of the environment, habitat of a fish or wildlife species, fish or wildlife populations, plant or animal communities, rare or endangered plants or animals, or examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the proposed project, all environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study for the following resource areas: air quality (AQ-1), biological resources (BIO-1 through BIO-5), cultural resources (CULT-1 through CULT-4), and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG-1). c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 83 direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 84 REFERENCES ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 1995. Hazard Map, Dam Failure Inundation Areas. Accessed October 17, 2012. http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/damfailure /dfpickc.html. BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. 2011a. Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines. 2011b. Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool. Busby, P. T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, L. J. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. Waknitz, and I. V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of wet coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. Seattle: NOAA Technical Memorandum California Climate Action Registry. 2009. California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1982. Special Studies Zones Map, Richmond Quadrangle. CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2012. CalRecycle website. Accessed October 17, 2012. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2012. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Accessed October 16, 2012. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2004. Climate Change Emissions Control Regulations. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Accessed September 23, 2009. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm. 2010. Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for In-Use Off Road Diesel- Fueled Fleets and the OFFROAD Large Spark-Ignition Fleet Requirements. CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2012. California Natural Diversity Database – Rarefind 3. Sacramento: CDFG Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed October 17, 2012. City of El Cerrito. 1999. City of El Cerrito 1999 General Plan. 2010. El Cerrito Safeway Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2013. El Cerrito Climate Action Plan. CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2012. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-01a). Sacramento: CNPS. Accessed October 22, 2012. Contra Costa County. 2007. Mapping Information Center. Accessed October 2012. http://www.ccmap.us/. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project January 2014 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 85 Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2006. Technical Procedures Update. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2012. All About Birds – Bird Guide (online edition). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Accessed October 22, 2012. DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2012. EnviroStor Database: Hazardous Waste and Substances Site (Cortese) List. Accessed October 17, 2012. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. EBMUD (East Bay Municipal Utility District). 2010. Urban Water Management Plan. EFCTC (European Fluorocarbons Technical Committee). 2003. Fluorocarbons and Sulphur Hexafluoride: Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) Fact Sheet EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. “Nitrous Oxide.” http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/scientific.html. 2010b. “High Global Warming Potential Gases.” 2011a. “Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon Dioxide.” http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html. 2011b. “Methane.” http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html. Essig Museum of Entomology. 2012. California’s Endangered Insects (online edition). Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley. Accessed October 22, 2012. FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 2003. Trip Generation Rates, 7th ed. 2008. Trip Generation Rates, 8th ed. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2013. Letter to Patrick Hindmarsh, PMC. “El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street TIA Review.” Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC 2012. Bay Area Census – City of El Cerrito. Accessed October 18, 2012. http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/ElCerrito.htm. Myers, J. M, R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C Wainwright, W. S. Grant, F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- Nafis, Gary. 2012. California Herps: A Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California (online edition). Accessed October 22, 2012. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) status review update. Santa Cruz, CA: NMFS Southwest Fish Science Center. PMC. 2009. City of El Cerrito 1715 Elm Street Traffic Impact Analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY 1715 Elm Street Condominiums Project City of El Cerrito Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration January 2014 86 SSD (Stege Sanitary District). 2006. Stege Sanitary District Standard Specifications and Details. Accessed October 18, 2012. http://www.stegesan.org/Documents/SSD.pdf. USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 1984. Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Clapper Rail Recovery Plan. Portland, OR: USFWS, Pacific Region. 1995. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes Recovery Plan. Portland, OR: USFWS. 2005. Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). Portland, OR: USFWS. 2012. Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species List (online edition). Sacramento: USFWS. Accessed October 17, 2012. USGS (US Geological Survey). 2008. Accessed February 6, 2013. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/ucerf/. VerPlanck Historic Preservation Consulting. 2013. Historic Resource Evaluation for 1715 Elm Street, El Cerrito, California. WCCUSD (West Contra Costa Unified School District). 2012. “School Boundary Maps.” Accessed October 18, 2012. http://www.wccusd.net/page/665. Weitkamp, L. T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope, and R. S. Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. Seattle: NOAA Technical Memorandum