Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05071996 - C91 C.89, C.90 and C.91 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 7, 1996 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE C.89 LETTER dated April 25, 1996, from Bill McManigal, Chairman, Transportation Partnership f: and Cooperation (TRANSPAC), 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-5250, — requesting the establishment of TRANSPAC as a Joint Powers Partnership. **** REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND COUNTY COUNSEL C.90 LETTER dated April 26, 1996, from Lou Rosas, Mayor, City of Concord, 1950 Parkside Drive, MS//01, Concord, CA 94519-2578, transmitting copies of a report and feasibility study on a proposed Regional Police Air Support Program, and inquiring if the County would be interested in participating in the Program. ****REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND SHERIFF-CORONER C.91 LETTER dated April 25, 1996, from Barron McCoy, Administrative Analyst, Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Pablo, One Alvarado Square, San Pablo, CA 94806, advising that the Redevelopment Agency is the Lead Agency for the preparation of an environmental impact report for the Tenth Township Redevelopment Project and Legacy Redevelopment Project in the City of San Pablo. ****REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations as noted (****) are approved. 1 hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken end entered on the minutes of the Board of Su I ors on e date shown. i A PHIL BATCHE R Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and tounty Administrator $r� o c-c, Transportation Committee County Counsel County Administrator Sheriff-Coroner County Redevelopment Agency - Deputy Director e��yr�✓ Y RECEIVED Notice of Preparation To: State Clearing House and ° List of Local, Regional, State and Federal Agencies CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA Co. Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agencv: Consulting Firm: Agency Name: Redevelopment Agency of the Firm Name: Environmental Science City of San Pablo Associates(ESA) Address: One Alvarado Square Address: 301 Brannon Street, Ste.200 San Pablo,CA 94806 San Francisco, CA 94107-1811 Contact: Barron McCoy Contact: Arlyn Purcell Phone: 510-215-3032 Phone: 415-896-5900 Fax: 510-235-7059 Fax: 415-896-0332 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Pablo will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below and in the attached Project Description. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to the agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by the agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location and potential environmental effects are contained within the attached Project Description. A copy of the Initial Study is attached,therefore,the EIR will not include supporting documentation for all impacts found to be less-than-significant. Due to the time limits mandated by State law,your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after the receipt of this notice. Please send your response to The Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Pabio at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Tenth Township Redevelopment Project& Legacy Redevelopment Project Project Location: City of San Pablo, Contra Costa County Project Description: See attached Project Description. Date: April 25, 1996 Signature: / Title: Administrative Analyst Telephone: 510/215-3032 Attachments: Notice of Preparation Mailing List Project Description Environmental Checklist (eirnop.frm) ��� .� '`- r c.ql TO: State Clearinghouse PLEASE DISTRIBUTE COPIES OF THIS NOP TO THE FOLLOWING LIST OF STATE AGENCIES: Reclamation Board Caltrans Planning State Lands Commission Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Department of Fish and Game State Office of Historic Preservation Air Resources Board Regional Water Quality Control Board State Housing and Development Department State Board of Equalization AC Transit District Bay Area Rapid Transit District Tax Area Services Section Board of Directors Board of Directors 450 N. Street, MIC 59 508 - 16th Street _ 800 Madison Street P.O. Box 942879 Oakland, CA 94612 Oakland, CA 94607 Sacramento, CA 94279 CCC College District CCC Assessors Office Flood Control D-127 Educ. Revenue Augmentation Fund 834 Court Street Chief Engineer 500 Court Street Martinez, CA 94553 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Contra Costa County Public Libraries CCC Superintendent of Schools BAAQMD Library Administration Office of Education Board of Directors 1750 Oak Park Boulevard 75 Santa Barbara Road 939 Ellis Street Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 San Francisco, CA 94109 CCC College District CCC Superintendent of Schools Contra Costa County Auditors Office Board of Directors Educ. Revenue Augmentation Fund 625 Court Street 500 Court Street 75 Santa Barbara Road Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Flood Control Zone 7 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Chief Engineer Contra Costa County Control District 255 Glacier Drive 651 Pine Street 155 Mason Circle Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94520 Contra Costa County Tax Collector Contra Costa County Water Agency East Bay Municipal Utility District 625 Court Street 651 Pine Street Board of Directors Martinez, CA 94553 4th Floor,North Wing 2130 Adeline Street Martinez, CA 94553 Oakland, CA 94607 West Contra Costa Hospital District West County Wastewater District CCC Fire Protection District Board of Directors Board of Directors Fire Commission 200 Vale Road 2910 Hilltop Drive 2010 Geary Road San Pablo, CA 94806 Richmond, CA 94806 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 East Bay Regional Park District WCC Unified School District Board of Directors Board of Education 11500 Skyline Boulevard 1108 Bissell Avenue Oakland, CA 94619 Richmond, CA 94806 THE ABOVE LIST OF LOCAL, REGIONAL AND STATE AGENCIES WERE MAILED THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY VIA CERTIFIED MAIL. NOTICE OF PREPARATION SAN PABLO REDEVELOPMENT PLANS City of San Pablo April 24, 1996 Project Location and Background The City of San Pablo(the "City")is located along Interstate 80, on the east side of San Pablo Bay in West Contra Costa County. Figure 1 shows the regional location and City boundaries. The City has 2.6 square miles of land within its limits and is surrounded mostly by the City of Richmond. The northern and eastern portions of the City occupy a zone of steep to moderate sloping hillsides; the remainder of the city is comprised of flat to gently sloping areas(the Bay Plain) forming the flood plains of San Pablo Creek and Wildcat Creek. These creeks and Rheem Creek cross the City. Within the City, San Pablo and Wildcat Creeks are almost entirely open channels in a natural state. The City is highly urbanized and contains few areas of undeveloped land. With a population of 26,181,population characteristics include a diverse mix of racial and ethnic groups, as well as a growing seniors population. Challenges facing the City include: English as a second language in over half of the City's 9,400 households; an unemployment rate of 12 percent; and the recent loss of several major sales tax revenue producers and employers. Since activating the Redevelopment Agency of San Pablo(RASP) in 1969,the City Council has adopted several redevelopment plans. Between 1970 and 1987,the City Council adopted five redevelopment projects: South Entrance,El Portal,Oak Park, Sheffield, and Bayview. In 1987, the City Council adopted the Alvarado Merged Plan, merging four of the preexisting project areas. The Sheffield Project Area, adopted in 1976, is approximately 31 acres and was not merged in 1987. The total acreage of the Alvarado Merged Area is 1,156 acres,and the combined acreage of the Alvarado Merged and Sheffield Project Areas is 1,187,or approximately 70 percent of the total area within the City. The proposed project involves two components: 1)the amendment and merger of the Redevelopment Plans for the Alvarado Merged Redevelopment Project and the Sheffield Redevelopment Project, creating the Redevelopment Plan for the Tenth Township Redevelopment Project(the "Tenth Township Project"), and 2)the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan for the Legacy Redevelopment Project,which would take effect immediately after the termination of the Redevelopment Plan for the Tenth Township Project. The RASP community development efforts within the existing Redevelopment Project Areas (referred to herein as "Existing Areas")have been frustrated by the limited redevelopment capabilities provided in the existing plans. To most effectively improve the Existing Areas,the RASP is proceeding with a dual track plan amendment/merger and plan adoption process encompassed by the Tenth Township and Legacy Redevelopment Projects. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 1 F r------------- 0. Vawi�Rpga «u vKCKv�uF 11 � STUDI":—�J„�pw cc sew CREEK w' M��. vRE+roKr t \ E t �8r _.. V. A °'6• �r r is I .\opam r t ' \ \' E o - r 1 £ SAN PABL'O CITY BOUNDARY 0 2000 Feet SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates San Pablo Redevelopment Plan/950494 ■ City of San Pablo Figure 1 Environmental Science Associates Project Location Project Description Purpose of the Project The purposes of redevelopment plans are to protect and promote the sound development and redevelopment of economically, socially, and physically deficient areas, and to protect the general welfare of the inhabitants of the communities in which they dwell. The proposed project is intended to more comprehensively attain these purposes by expanding the financial and statutory authority of the RASP to alleviate conditions of blight, revitalize commercial areas, protect residential uses and neighborhoods, construct additional public improvements and facilities, and develop affordable housing. Redevelopm nit Plans The Redevelopment Plan for the Tenth Township Project will enable the RASP to carry out a more effective redevelopment project in the Existing Area. This Plan will amend the existing Redevelopment Plan as follows: - Merge the Redevelopment Plans for the Existing Area into a single redevelopment plan, as shown in Figure 2; - .Establish the merged Tenth Township Project and Project Area; - Establish a new dollar limit on the amount of tax increment revenue the RASP may collect for the Tenth Township Project; - Establish a new time limit on the amount of bonded indebtedness which may be outstanding at any one time; - Extend the time frame within which the RASP may incur indebtedness on behalf of the Tenth Township Project; - Extend the time frame within which the RASP may employ eminent domain proceedings on nonresidential properties; and Expand the list of infrastructure and public facility projects that the RASP may undertake within the Tenth Township Project Area. The Redevelopment Plan for the Legacy Redevelopment Project, incorporates all territory in the Tenth Township Project Area, as well as 313 acres of blighted territory outside the Existing Area (see Figure 3). The provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Legacy Redevelopment Project would remain inactive until after the termination of the Redevelopment Plan for the Tenth Township Project, except for the 313 acres of territory outside the Existing Area. The Legacy Redevelopment Project enables the RASP to continue its redevelopment program in the community beyond the termination of the Redevelopment Plan for the Tenth Township Project. Redevelol2mgnt Projects Adoption of the Legacy and Tenth Township Plans (collectively the "Redevelopment Plans") would enable implementation of numerous projects under consideration by the City. Those projects generally involve improved public infrastructure facilities and services; increased and improved supply of affordable housing; and enhanced employment and economic activity. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR' 3 j- z �; o N i l_�,acQm ® Tenth Township Project Area ii w. --- .San Pablo City Boundary "N ,c 1f r• 3, 1 3 ! t ` n � I s 1 r I txi •,{ f. 2P .r I. G I 1' r� _ Y T 0 2000 I I Feet SOURCE: City of San Pablo San Pablo Redevelopment Plan/950494 ■ City of San Pablo Figure 2 Environmental Science Associates Tenth Township Project Area r P Legacy Redevelopment Project Area 'f --• San Pablo City Boundary f " ON : T r ` J^t` gid F 1 f r,. i f j 4. i`:. '. 0 2000 Feet SOURCE: City of San Pablo San Pablo Redevelopment Plan/950494 ■ CFigure of San Pablo r'1 ure 3 Environmental Science Associates Legacy Redevelopment Project Area i i 1 ' Redevelopment projects would be phased in over time, as sufficient financial resources become available, with only a limited amount of direct activity at any one time. Redevelopment projects would be subject to future review and approval by the City Council, RASP,the Planning Commission and other appropriate bodies after input has been solicited from affected residents, property owners, and other interested parties. Relationship to City of San Pablo General Plan and Environmental Impact Report The City is in the process of updating its General Plan and is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Report(the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR)to evaluate the impacts of implementing the General Plan. Many objectives and policies of the Updated General Plan are redevelopment-oriented; the types of activities contemplated by it, therefore, are similar to those of the Redevelopment Plans. Consequently,the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR is evaluating at a programmatic level the environmental impacts of implementing redevelopment activities in the City. The Redevelopment Plans would conform both to the existing and updated General Plans, propose a consistent pattern of land uses, and include all highways and public facilities as indicated by the General Plan. Given the similarities between the Updated General Plan and Redevelopment Plans and the scope of environmental impacts addressed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR,the City will be preparing a focused EIR for the Redevelopment Plans (the "San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR"). This approach is consistent with the concept of"tiering" in the Guidelines for 1 Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Tiering refers to the coverage of general environmental issues in broader EIRs(such as on general plans)with subsequent FIRS that are narrower in scope incorporating by reference those general discussions rather than repeating the analysis. The scope of the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR, which will tier off of and incorporate the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR by reference, will focus on effects that either were not examined or would differ substantially. Several differences between the Redevelopment Plans and Updated General Plan that might result in different environmental impacts include: (a)the boundaries of the Redevelopment Plans are somewhat smaller than the City boundary; (b)the term for the Redevelopment Plans is longer than the horizon for the General Plan; and (c)the Redevelopment Plans include site-specific projects. Potential Environmental Impacts San Pablo General Plan Update EIR The major topics to be evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR, and issues or conditions that relate to potential environmental impacts,include: San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 6 i c 9l Transportation and Circulation. Most roadways within the City provide good levels of service; a few intersections are congested during peak traffic periods. Congestion on I-80, regional traffic, and the use of San Pablo Avenue as an alternative commute route affect traffic conditions in San Pablo. The partially-completed Richmond Parkway could have a substantial effect on traffic within the City. Other issues include substandard streets and sidewalks and a shortage of parking. Public Services and Utilities. Issues of particular concern are the need for park and recreational facilities; the need to update the City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan; and school enrollments above the official capacities. (The EIR will also look at police and fire services, and water supply, storm drainage, wastewater collection and treatment, telephone,electric,and natural gas services). Cultural Resources. The City contains recorded archaeological sites and historic sites that are on local,State,or national historic listings. There could be other important cultural resources in the City. Biological Resources. There are relatively few biological resources within the City, and the potential for special status species to occur within the City is limited. Biological resources in the City are mainly centered along the creeks. The creeks flow westward into the Bay, where a number of special status species occur within coastal and salt marsh habitats. Geology, Seismicity, and Soils. Portions of the Oak Park District of the City are classified as a high landslide risk area. The Hayward Fault runs through the City,and most of the City would experience an extreme intensity level from a major earthquake on the Hayward Fault. Most of the lowland areas of the City potentially have liquefaction hazards. Hydrology and Water Quality. Three creeks run through the City. Runoff is relatively high because the City is highly urbanized. There are currently flood hazards within the City(though improvements under construction are designed to contain the 100-year flood). Parts of the City may have a relatively high groundwater table. Hazardous Materials. San Pablo generates relatively little hazardous waste compared to nearby cities. However,hazardous materials and wastes are transported through the City regularly. There is one seriously contaminated site in the City, and 16 sites that are "environmentally impaired." Air Quality. Carbon monoxide levels could be a concern at certain hot spots (such as congested intersections). Ozone and particulate matter are also pollutants of concern. There are relatively few sources of toxic air pollutants currently in San Pablo. Noise. Some areas of the City are already exposed to high average noise levels from traffic on major streets and I-80 and from trains. There could also be some areas of the City where noise from existing stationary sources is a concern. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 7 Other topics to be evaluated in the EIR include land use,visual quality, and energy. As required by CEQA,that EIR will evaluate cumulative impacts and alternatives to the proposed project. If the evaluation of the Proposed Land Use Map concept finds that the concept would result in significant impacts, an alternative may be developed for the EIR that attempts to reduce or avoid the significant impacts of the proposed concept. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR Topics to be evaluated in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR will be limited to effects of the project that either were not examined as significant effects in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR or would differ substantially, including: Hydrology and Water Quality. Projects contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans could increase soil erosion, increasing sediment loading in creeks. The proposed replacement of Davis Park Bridge(a redevelopment project) is intended in part to address flooding associated with Wildcat Creek. Biological Resources. Development of hillside and creek-side parks and replacement of the Davis Park Bridge could potentially affect biological resources in these areas. Noise. Proposed improvements to schools and recreational facilities could introduce new sources of noise that could affect nearby sensitive receptors. Light and Glare. Specific development proposals contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans could create new sources of light and glare. Land Use. Potential incompatibilities between proposed redevelopment actions and existing land uses could occur. Other topics to be evaluated in the Redevelopment Plans EIR include increased surface water runoff, air quality, water service,and stormwater drainage. As required by CEQA, the Redevelopment Plans EIR will evaluate cumulative impacts and alternatives to the proposed project. An Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed Redevelopment Plans, attached. The Initial Study indicates the likely impacts of the General Plan and discusses how implementation of the Redevelopment Plans might result in different impacts, where appropriate. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 8 INITIAL STUDY AND CHECKLIST Title of Proposal: San Pablo Redevelopment Plans Date Checklist Submitted: April 24, 1996 Agency Requiring Checklist: The City of San Pablo Community Development Department One Alvarado Square San Pablo,California 94806 Agency Contact: Barron McCoy,Community Development Administrative Analyst (510) 215-3032 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. X I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED. Dated: April 25, 1996 (Signature) Barron McCoy (Print Name) Administrative Analyst (Title) San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 9 0A/ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM - Project Location: The project is located in Contra Costa County in the City of San Pablo, adjacent to Interstate 80 on the east side of San Pablo Bay. Project Address: San Pablo,California Environmental Setting: The areas included in the Tenth Township and Legacy Redevelopment Projects are entirely within the City of San Pablo(please see Figures 2 and 3 in the Notice of Preparation). The City has 2.6 square miles of land within its limits and is surrounded mostly by the City of Richmond. There are several unincorporated areas in Contra Costa County west and east of San Pablo. Please see the Notice of Preparation for a more detailed description of the environmental setting. Description of Project: The proposed project is (1),the amendment and merger of the Redevelopment Plans for the Alvarado Merged Redevelopment Project and the Sheffield Redevelopment Project,creating the Redevelopment Plan for the Tenth Township Redevelopment Project; and(2),the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan for the Legacy Redevelopment Project. Please see the Notice of Preparation for details. Initial Study Checklist Format. As described in the Notice of Preparation,the Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plans will tier off and incorporate by reference the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168 and 15385. This Initial Study Checklist has been formatted to distinguish issues that will be covered in each EIR. The discussion following each checklist item describes the manner in which that subject is ! addressed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR,followed by a discussion as to whether and how that subject will be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 10 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Yes Mavbe No 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? _ _ X Development consistent with the land designations proposed under the General Plan could create unstable earth conditions(e.g.,unstable slopes),but is not expected to affect subsurface geologic materials. This issue will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, impacts related to unstable earth conditions or subsurface geologic conditions are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo-General Plan Update EIR(no new, unstable areas of the City would be affected,for example). Therefore, this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. b. Disruptions,displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? _ _ X Development consistent with the proposed land uses of the Updated General Plan would require grading and compaction of soil on some parcels. Site-specific foundation and drainage requirements on each parcel would depend on slope and soil. Steep-sloped parcels would require leveling, grading and compaction. Some overcovering(fill) could also be required. This impact will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Specific projects that could be implemented as a result of the Redevelopment Plans would require grading and compaction of soil. However, impacts related to disruptions,displacements,compaction or overcovering of soil are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Therefore,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X There would be no large-scale alterations to the regional or local topography in San Pablo resulting from development consistent with the Updated General Plan. Individually proposed developments might alter topical relief features. Localized changes in topography might occur on sloped parcels, if specific plans require extensive } 11 Yes . Maybe No grading that could change topography or ground surface relief features. This impact will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, impacts related to topographical changes are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Therefore,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. d.-- Destruction,covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X There are no unique geological or physical features in the City that would be covered or modified by development consistent with the proposed land uses of the Updated General Plan. There are riparian corridors that could be affected by implementation of the proposed land uses. This issue will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans could affect riparian corridors. However,impacts related to unique geologic or physical features are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San-Pablo General Plane Update EIR. Therefore,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. e., Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,either on or off the site? X Erosion could occur on individual parcels as they are developed pursuant to the Updated General Plan. On-site soil erosion could occur during construction. Erosion potential would be decreased by implementing standard construction mitigation measures as stated in individual erosion and sediment control plans. The increase in impervious surface and related erosion issues will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans could increase erosion during construction.. There may be site-or project- specific effects not addressed in the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore,this issue will be addressed qualitatively in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 12 Yes Mabe. No f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X Portions of San Pablo are drained by Wildcat, San Pablo,and Rheem Creeks. Silt or eroded soils could be deposited in the creeks by future development associated with implementation of the Updated General Plan. Measures to be implemented by developers shall be identified in their erosion and sediment control plans. In general, changes in siltation and deposition into the creeks will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans could result in additional deposition of silt or eroded soils into the creeks (because they might involve activities near the creeks,or they might be projects not specifically contemplated in the updated General Plan). Therefore,this issue will be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,mudslides,ground failure or similar hazards? X Portions of San Pablo located on sloped areas are subject to landslides. Geological and soil conditions in the City could expose populations and structures associated with development consistent with the Updated General Plan to ground shaking in areas of compressed bay mud,due to the proximity of the Hayward fault. Liquefaction and lurching could also occur in the same areas. Modern engineering practices and prudent construction would help to reduce potential geologic hazards.Impacts and general mitigation measures will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans would not be likely to bring population into the City beyond what is contemplated in the updated General Plan. In addition, some projects would involve improving structures so that they would be less vulnerable in an earthquake. Therefore,impacts related to these geologic hazards are not,expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR, and this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 13 Yes Maybe No 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ _ X Emissions associated with development of the proposed land uses associated with the Updated General Plan would result from construction and operation. Construction would result in short-term increases in nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides,carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,hydrocarbons and particulates from diesel-and gasoline- powered equipment. Buildout of the proposed land uses would result in operational. emissions of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides from increased vehicular traffic. Stationary source emissions may also increase, depending on the specific industrial projects that would be built on the proposed land uses. Air quality emissions associated with development of the proposed land use designations will be analyzed. in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Air quality impacts from construction and operation of specific proposals contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans would not differ substantially from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update.EIR(because construction impacts are already addressed in the EIR, and the projects would not involve additional stationary sources of pollution). However,this issue will be analyzed in a qualitative manner in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. b., The creation of objectionable odors? _ r X New industrial development along the western edge of San Pablo consistent with the Update General Plan could potentially create odors impacting adjacent residential development. This impact will be analyzed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans,potential odor impacts are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Therefore,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. c.. Alteration of air movement,moisture or temperature,or any change in climate,either locally or regionally? _ X Local and regional wind patterns would not be impacted by development consistent with the land uses proposed under the . Updated General Plan. Therefore,this issue does not require analysis in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 14 Yes Mavbe No For similar reasons,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents,or the course or direction of water movements,in either marine or fresh waters? X Wildcat Creek,San Pablo Creek,and Rheem Creek serve as the main drainage features in the City. Proposed land use designations would not affect these water courses. Therefore,this impact will not be discussed in the EIR. Improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans are intended in part to address flooding issues associated with Wildcat Creek. Therefore,this issue will be evaluated in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. b.. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X An increase in the amount of impervious coverage from development of land use designations in the Updated General Plan would increase surface runoff and could affect flow levels in Wildcat, San Pablo, or Rheem Creeks. This issue will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans could result in additional increases in impervious surfaces(parking lots,for example). The resulting impacts related to surface water runoff are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. However, this issue will be addressed in a qualitative manner in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ X _ Portions of San Pablo are located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) 100-year flood plain. Although the course of flood waters would not be altered by development consistent with the Updated General Plan,flow levels in Wildcat, San Pablo,or Rheem Creek could be higher during severe storms,due to the potential increase in impervious surface. This impact will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. See Item 3a, above. This issue will be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 15 Yes Maybe No d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ X Development consistent with the land use designations in the Updated General Plan would not change the amount of surface water in San Pablo Bay; however,potential impacts to riparian corridors, including wetlands,could occur. This issue will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. See Item 3a,above. This issue will be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. e. Discharge into surface waters,or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ X _ Construction activities associated with development consistent with the Updated General Plan could result in more soils being carried away in runoff. Operational activities could also have a potential effect on water quality. Storms could carry surface pollutants (e.g., oil,fertilizers)that collect on pavement to nearby waters. This issue will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. See Item le, above. This issue will be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. f.' Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ X Development consistent with the land use designations proposed in the Updated General Plan could alter the direction or rate of flow of ground waters from subsurface construction or dewatering. This issue will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, impacts related to substantial alteration of the direction or rate of groundwater flow are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR(no specific activities are contemplated that would involve substantial additional subsurface construction). Therefore,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 16 Yes Maybe No g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions or withdrawals,or-through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? — _ X Parts of the San Pablo(the western part of the lowlands)may have a relatively high groundwater table varying from 10 to 15 feet, depending on season and location. Although the City is mostly built out,development consistent with the land use designations proposed in the Updated General Plan would increase the amount of impervious coverage. Decreased permeability could result in an effect on groundwater recharge rates. This impact will be analyzed in the San Pablo General`Plan Update EIR. See Item 3b. This issue will be addressed in a qualitative manner in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X The East Bay Municipal Utility District(EBMUD)provides water to the City of San Pablo. The District has indicated it can supply water to the proposed properties and the existing supply is adequate. Therefore, the reduction in amount of water would not be considered substantial. However, water availability will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Potential improvements to parks and other recreational facilities contemplated under the proposed Redevelopment Plans could increase demand on water supplies. Therefore,this issue will be evaluated in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. L Exposure of people or property to water-related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X Areas along the three creeks draining San Pablo are subject to flooding. The principal flooding problem exists near the western edge of the City where flows of San Pablo,Wildcat and Rheem Creek are limited by passage under the Atchison Topeka&Santa Fe Railroad tracks. The possibility could be reduced through standard measures by raising finished floor grades above the flood plain and siting storm drains in coordination with the City Engineer. This issue will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. See Item 3a,above. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, impacts related to exposure to flooding are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 17 Yes Maybe No Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Therefore,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. 4.. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. . Change in the diversity of species,or number of any species of plants (including trees,shrubs,grass,crops,and aquatic plants)? _ X _ Upland oak woodland,'coastal salt marsh, grassland and riparian corridors including wetlands in San Pablo support several non-native plant species. Although there are few biological resources remaining in San Pablo, development consistent with the land use designations proposed in the Updated General Plan could change the number of species present on individual sites. Introduction of non-native habitat (e.g.,buildings,pavement,etc.)could reduce the diversity of some _ plant species. This impact will be discussed in the San Pablo . General Plan Update EIR. Improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans could potentially affect biological resources in these areas;therefore,these issues will be evaluated in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ X No special status plant species have been reported to occur within the City, according to the California Natural Diversity Data Base. The regulatory context and possibility of reduction in the numbers of special status species will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Refer to Item 4a,above. C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ X _ Site-specific residential and commercial development could introduce non-native vegetation for landscaping purposes that could create a barrier for replenishment of existing native species. Existing species could be affected by the introduction of new plant species. This impact will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Refer to Item 4a,above. It is likely that mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Update EIR would cover any additional impacts from non-native vegetation. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 18 Yes Maybe No d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ _ X No agricultural crops are cultivated on the parcels proposed for land use designations. Therefore, no reduction in acreage of agricultural crops would result from implementation of the Updated General Plan. The issue requires no further analysis in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. For similar reasons,this issue will not be evaluated in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. . Change in the diversity of species,or numbers of any species of animals(birds, land animals including reptiles,fish and shellfish,benthic organisms,insects)? — X _ The coastal salt marsh, grassland, and riparian corridors including wetland habitats in San Pablo support a variety of animal species. Development consistent with the land uses proposed in the Updated General Plan could reduce the numbers of some animal species by decreasing the size of their foraging or living habitat. This impact will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. See Item 4a, above. This issue will be evaluated in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X _ Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi(no common name), a federal Category 2 candidate snail, was located along San Pablo Creek in 1950. However no other special status animal species have been reported to occur within the City,according to the California Natural Diversity Data Base. Several special status animal species may live in the San Pablo vicinity. The San Pablo Bay provides habitat for a number of special status birds, mammals,reptiles and amphibians that could be indirectly affected by development in San Pablo, because the creeks that flow through the City flow into the Bay. If found,measures to protect them would be implemented according to law. Potential existence,regulatory context and mitigation measures will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. See Item 4a, above. This issue will be evaluated in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 19 c. qi Yes Mabe. No C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ X New species of animals would not be introduced by development consistent with the land uses proposed in the Updated General Plan. The land use designations and subsequent development could, however,create a barrier to migration or movement of animals across wetland or wildlife corridors. This impact will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, impacts related to migration or movement of animals across wetland or wildlife corridors are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Therefore,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. d.. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X Wildlife habitat could be adversely affected by development consistent with the proposed land use designations of the Updated General Plan. Construction in the vicinity of existing fish and wildlife habitats would be an adverse impact; however, seasonally timed construction could avoid peak wildlife breeding seasons. Mitigation measures, if'necessary, would reduce the impact to wildlife habitat and will also be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. (Refer also to 5b, above.) See 4a, above. This issue will be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. — Increases in existing noise levels? X Noise associated with construction activities on the proposed land use areas in the Updated General Plan would increase noise levels in the vicinity of each parcel and could temporarily affect sensitive receptors (e.g. residences,parks, schools,etc.). Truck traffic, grading and excavation equipment,paving and street painting equipment would increase noise levels in the vicinity and along transport routes. Development could result in increased ambient noise levels due to traffic and commercial and industrial activity. The San Pablo General Plan Update EIR will discuss the effect of projected noise levels on identified noise-sensitive land uses and the compatibility of the proposed land use designations with established noise guidelines. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 20 Yes Maybe No Proposed site-specific improvements to schools, parks, and other recreational facilities could introduce new sources of noise that could affect nearby sensitive receptors;therefore, this issue will be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. No further . discussion of construction noise,beyond the evaluation to be presented in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR,-is anticipated. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ X _ No industrial uses that would generate extreme noise levels would be permitted near sensitive receptors under the proposed land use designations. Some of the proposed mixed-use parcels could expose people to higher levels of noise; however,the uses permitted under these proposed designations would not generate severe noise levels. Existing and new residences could be exposed- to high noise levels from traffic on major arterials and Interstate 80. Construction noise(e.g.,pile driving,bulldozing) will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. None of the specific development proposals contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans is associated with severe noise levels. The establishment of new parks could introduce additional noise- sensitive land uses. It is likely that mitigation measures in the i General Plan Update EIR would prevent additional impacts from occurring. This issue will be evaluated in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ X Buildings constructed according to designated land uses could result in increases in ambient light levels at night from illumination devices, parking lights, automobile beams, and street lighting. Day glare could result from painted and reflective building facades,painted and chrome automobile surfaces, and might be visible from I-80 and surrounding.viewsheds. Light and glare impacts, where produced, will be qualitatively analyzed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Specific development proposals contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans could create additional sources of light and glare; therefore,this issue will be discussed in the San Pablo. Redevelopment Plans EIR. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 21 ' c.q1 Yes . Maybe No 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X _ The proposed Land Use, Economic Development and Urban Design Element would change the existing land use designations. The Preferred Land Use Plan would increase the amount of single-family residential and industrial designations; decrease multi-family residential,commercial,public and vacant designations;and . introduce a new land use designation, mixed-use. Development of areas according to their proposed land use designations would result in a substantial alteration of the present and planned land uses. Some parcels would be developed with more intensive land uses; other parcels would experience a change to a less-intensive land use. Consistency with plans and policies,existing uses,and a comparison with the existing General Plan will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. All potential development contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans would be consistent with land use patterns of the Updated San Pablo General Plan; however,land use incompatibilities,between proposed redevelopment actions and existing land uses, could still occur. For example,businesses that would relocate could create impacts at new locations. Therefore,this issue will be evaluated in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. 9. .- NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. . Increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? X Although vehicles traveling to mixed-use, commercial and industrial projects implemented as a result of the Updated General Plan would use substantial quantities of fuel, a person would unlikely purchase additional amounts of fuel to reach the newly constructed projects in San Pablo. Increases in the use of natural gas would not be considered substantial. Therefore,this issue does not require analysis in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. For similar reasons,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. b. Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? X Development consistent with the land uses proposed in the Updated General Plan would not result in depletion of any non-renewable natural resource. Therefore,this issue does not require analysis in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 22 Yes Maybe No Similarly,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment plans EIR., 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. Risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances(including,but not limited to,oil,pesticides,chemicals,or radiation)in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ X Development consistent with the land uses proposed in the Updated General Plan would not result in the risk of an explosion of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions because none of the proposed land uses would permit activities that would be expected to involve substantial quantities of hazardous substances. Currently the City of San Pablo has relatively little heavy industry and the Preferred Land Use Plan would only marginally increase the amount of land available for industrial development. Because development consistent with the proposed land uses would most likely not involve any hazardous substances,this issue will not be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Although San Pablo residents would not likely be affected by industrial development within the City, activities occurring in the adjacent City of Richmond, which has a significant amount of industry using hazardous materials,could expose residents to hazardous substances. Industrial expansion contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans could involve remediation of contaminated soils;however,this issue will be evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan EIR. Other impacts related to risk of upset and hazardous materials are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Therefore,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? _ X Development consistent with the land uses proposed in the Updated General Plan would not result in interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan,because no structures or facilities would be erected that would obstruct regular emergency response systems. However,the City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan may be out of compliance with current State law, and City staff have expressed concerns about its adequacy for dealing with certain response situations. The Plan's potential inadequacies could present issues or constraints related to the City's ability to provide effective emergency San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 23 Yes Maybe No response services, and new development in the City would bring in more residents,employees, and visitors that would need to rely on the City's response capabilities in a major disaster. This issue will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. No evaluation of this issue,beyond the evaluation that will be presented in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR, is necessary for evaluation of the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans. 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location,distribution,density,or growth rate of the human population of an area? — . _ X The majority of San Pablo is developed. The proposed land use designations in the Updated General Plan would allow for an increase in population, and higher-density mixed use development in certain districts. Population figures and growth trends from the proposed General Plan Update will be analyzed in comparison to ABAG projections in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Fluctuations in the location,distribution,density, and growth rate of the local population resulting from redevelopment projects would be within the overall land use changes anticipated under the Updated General Plan; therefore,no further evaluation of this issue is anticipated. 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing,or create a demand for additional housing? _ _ X In addition,to the changes in residential housing discussed above, approximately 281 acres of mixed-use development would be created from existing commercial,public, and vacant land use designations with implementation of the Update General Plan. San Pablo currently has more housing(employed residents)than jobs. The increase in mixed-use development would potentially improve the jobs/housing balance by employing more people who reside in San Pablo. However,this issue will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Potential improvements to residential,commercial,and industrial uses contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans could likewise improve the jobs/housing balance. Most of the improvements would not generate additional long-term employment that would generate a demand for housing. Therefore, this issue will not be evaluated in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 24 9i Yes Mavbe No 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X Vehicular movement associated with implementation of the Update General Plan would be generated from the potential multi-family residential units, mixed-use,commercial and industrial land uses. The number of vehicle trips generated by the project will be estimated in the EIR and the effect on local and regional roadways assessed. Mitigation measures for the increase in traffic and regulatory context(level of service standards,etc.)applicable to the impacts of development consistent with the proposed land use designations will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Traffic associated with potential improvements to residential, commercial, and industrial uses, as well as potential infrastructure improvements identified in the Redevelopment Plans are anticipated in a general manner in the Updated General Plan. In addition,most of the improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans would not be trip-generating in nature. None of the roadway projects would change roadway capacities or intersection operations. Therefore,traffic related impacts are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. This issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _ X Development consistent with the proposed land uses would increase parking demand by increasing the number of employee-based and housing developments in the City. This impact will be analyzed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, impacts related to parking demand are not expected to differ substantially from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Therefore,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ _. X Development consistent with the proposed land uses in the Updated General Plan would result in a substantial impact on existing transportation systems. Existing intersection levels of service(LOS) could decrease as a result of the potential developments. The San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 25 Yes Maybe No Circulation and Public Facilities Element will identify capital improvements(e.g.,road alignment,road additions)and efficiency improvements (e.g.,restriping, signalizing)to the existing system, and the EIR will assess traffic impacts using the West County Traffic Model and Contra Costa County Measure C guidelines. This impact will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to the Redevelopment Plans,refer to Item 13a,above. This issue will not be discussed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ _ X Development consistent with the proposed land use designations in the Updated General Plan could alter the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. Capital improvements to the existing road network could introduce additional driving routes. Capital improvements and transportation efficiency measures identified in the Circulation and Public Facilities Element will be discussed in the EIR. The need for additional bus routes could also alter the movements of people and/or goods. Impacts to the present patterns of circulation.will discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to the Redevelopment Plans,refer to Item 13a, above. This issue will not be discussed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. e. Alterations to waterborne,rail or air traffic? X No change in waterborne,rail or air traffic is expected as a result of the proposed San Pablo General Plan Update or the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans. f. . Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? _ _ X Development consistent with the proposed land use designations in the Updated General Plan could result in substantial increases in existing traffic levels. This impact will be analyzed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans,impacts related to traffic hazards are generally not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Projects consistent with the Redevelopment Plans San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 26: Yes Maybe No could improve traffic hazards by providing better sidewalks and handicap ramps. Therefore,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _ _ X Development consistent with the proposed land use designations would require additional fire services. Effects on fire protection services will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, impacts related to the provision of fire and police services are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. In addition,the provision of additional street lighting and removal of hazardous buildings could improve public safety in some areas. Therefore,this issue will not be i addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. b. Police protection? _ _ X Development consistent with the proposed land use designations would require additional police protection services. Effects on police protection services will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. See 14a, above. This issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. C. Schools? X Currently, 10 out of 17 schools serving San Pablo are over capacity. Development of proposed land use designations would further exacerbate this problem. Additional students could require portable classrooms and the construction of new school facilities. Impacts to the existing school system will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans would not bring additional population to the City,and therefore, would not result in different impacts on schools from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Therefore,this issue will not be discussed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 27 Yes Maw No d. Parks or other recreational - facilities? _ _ X Currently, San Pablo does not maintain enough park land per existing City standards to serve its population; future increases in population anticipated in the Updated General Plan would add to the unmet need for park and recreational facilities. Impacts to parks and other facilities will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Potential improvements to schools, parks, and other recreational areas contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans would increase the amount of park land or improve the functions of existing parks,to help meet future need for these facilities. This issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. e. Maintenance of new public facilities, including roads? _ _ X Development of the proposed land uses in the Updated General Plan could result in the need for new roads for access to several parcels. Capital improvements would be required to service developed parcels and efficiency (e.g. stoplight timing,road striping)improvements will be identified for the existing transportation network. This could result in additional road maintenance above current levels. Improvements and maintenance of new road facilities will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. The proposed Redevelopment Plans include potential improvements to.streets and other infrastructure. Impacts related to maintenance of public facilities and infrastructure are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Therefore,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. f. Other governmental services? _ _ X Other governmental services are not expected to be affected by the proposed San Pablo General Plan Update or by the proposed San Pablo Redevelopment Plans. 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. :. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — _ X Implementation of the proposed San Pablo General Plan would result in the use of additional fuel or energy; however, it is not known San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 28 Yes Maybe No whether the additional use would be considered substantial. This impact will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, impacts related to energy consumption are not expected to differ substantially from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR(most of the improvements would not be trip-generating in nature, and major new stationary users are not contemplated). Therefore,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. b. - Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? _ _ X Construction and operation of mixed-use,commercial, industrial and housing land uses could result in an increase in demand upon existing sources of energy;however,it would not require the development of new sources of energy. This impact will be analyzed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans,see Item 15a. 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _ — X Development consistent with the proposed land use designations in the Updated General Plan would require additional gas and electrical services. This impact will be analyzed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, impacts to utilities in general are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. The improvements generally would not add population or uses that would place additional demands on utilities. Therefore, this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR(except where noted,below). b. Communications systems? _ _ X Pacific Bell has indicated that there would be no constraints to future provision of additional telephone service to San Pablo. However site- San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 29 Yes Mabe No specific upgrades would be required for some land uses. This issue will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, see Item 16a,above. This issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. C. Water? X East Bay Municipal Utility District(EBMUD)has noted that an adequate distribution system and supply currently exists to provide water to the parcels proposed for land use designations. Therefore, the need for additional water would not require a new system and would not be considered significant. However,this impact will be addressed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, see Item 16a, above. Park projects could result in additional water demands for landscaped areas. This issue will be evaluated in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ X The West Contra Costa Wastewater District(WCCWD) has indicated that existing infrastructure and treatment plant capacity is adequate for existing commercial and residential buildout at existing density levels. However proposed land uses could increase the need for sewer line replacement or repair. This impact will be analyzed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, see Item 16a, above. This issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. e. Storm water drainage? _ X ^ . Development consistent with the proposed land use designations in the Updated General Plan would increase the amount of runoff and consequently the amount of water flowing into the storm drainage system by covering more land with impervious surfaces. The impact to storm water drainage will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, the creation of additional impervious surfaces could lead to additional impacts on storm drainage. This issue will be evaluated in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR` 30 ce7l � • r Y Yes Maybe No f. Solid waste and disposal? __ _ X Development consistent with the proposed land use designations in the Updated General Plan would increase the amount of solid waste generated in the San Pablo. While landfill capacity appears to be available to the City, source reduction of waste, recycling, and composting in compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act could increase the need for solid waste diversion and disposal services. The impact to solid waste services will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, see Item 16a, above. This issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard(excluding mental health)? _ X Development consistent with the proposed land use designations in the Updated General Plan would not result in primary or secondary health hazards or potential hazards to humans,because no land uses are proposed that would expose people to health hazards. Therefore, this issue does not require analysis in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. For similar reasons,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X The potential for exposure to hazardous materials exists on several parcels. 'The EIR will address the potential health hazard exposures in specific resource sections, such as hazardous materials, air quality and land use. This issue will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans, impacts related to exposure to health hazards are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Therefore,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. 31 • , c, r Yes Maybe No 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ _ . X Development of the proposed land uses with mixed-use,commercial, residential and industrial development could create buildings visible from I-80,and other locations in San Pablo. This could affect the existing visual character of the City and its surroundings, and views from points within the viewshed. Specific visual quality impacts would be dependent on the site-specific plans proposed for each parcel. Because the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR is a Program EIR,discussion of visual impacts will be limited to general analyses of short-,medium-and long-range views in San Pablo. With respect to improvements contemplated under the Redevelopment Plans,impacts related to visual quality are not expected to differ from those evaluated in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. Therefore,this issue will not be addressed in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? _ X Currently, San Pablo does not maintain enough park land per existing City standards to serve its population; future increases in population would add to the unmet need for park and recreational facilities. Impacts to parks and other facilities will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plans,refer to Item 14d, above. 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES a._ . Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X Currently,the City of San Pablo has six recorded archaeological sites. Proposed land uses could potentially affect these recognized sites or any undiscovered sites. Standard mitigation measures are available to protect subsurface archaeological sites discovered during construction. The mitigation measures, regulatory context and impacts to cultural resources will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 32 A . • t Yes Maybe No Mitigation measures in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR would address any impacts to archaeological or historical sites caused by implementation of the Redevelopment Plans. No further evaluation of this issue is necessary. b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure,or object? _ _ X The City of San Pablo has identified 14 historical sites and or structures that are recognized by local,State or national historic listings. Proposed land uses could potentially affect these recognized sites. Restrictions and provisions to protect the existing structures would be applied to specific developments proposed on these parcels. This issue will be discussed in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR. With respect to the Redevelopment Plans, see Item 20a, above. C. Does the proposal have the potential i to cause physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ X Development consistent with the proposed land use designations would not have the potential to cause physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values; therefore,this issue does not require analysis in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR or in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? _ _ X Development consistent with the proposed land use designations would not impact any religious or sacred uses in the City; therefore, this issue does not require analysis in the San Pablo General Plan Update EIR or in the San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR. i San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 33 i Yes Maybe No 21. 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 a rare or endangered plant or animal,or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X _ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ _ X C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X _ d.. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? X _ San Pablo Redevelopment Plans EIR 34 -