Exh A - EIR Addendum — San Pablo City Council, March 18, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

CEQA Addendum
City of San Pablo
San Pablo Targeted General Plan
Update and Housing Element Project
February 2024
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 2 Introduction This Addendum, checklist, and attached supporting documents have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the San Pablo 2030 General Plan Certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2008082069, certified April 22, 2011) (2030 GP EIR) sufficiently addresses the potential impacts of the proposed San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update Project (Proposed Project), or whether additional documentation and analysis is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000, et seq.). Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, subd. (a), the attached Addendum has been prepared to evaluate the proposed project. Consistent with the thresholds used by the lead agency in the previous EIR, the attached Addendum uses the standard environmental checklist categories provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines but provides answer columns for evaluation consistent with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a). CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subd. (a) provides that the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration (ND) if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND have occurred (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164, subd. (a)). An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the previous EIR or ND (CEQA Guidelines § 15164, subd. (c)). The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the previous EIR prior to making a decision on the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines § 15164, subd. (d)). An agency must also include a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR or ND pursuant to Section 15162 (CEQA Guidelines § 15164, subd. (e)). Consequently, once an EIR or ND has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR or ND is required or allowed under CEQA unless, based on substantial evidence: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or ND . . . due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or ND . . . due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, or the ND was adopted . . . shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or ND; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or ND; c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 3 d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or ND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162, subd. (a); see also PRC § 21166). This Addendum, checklist, and attached documents constitute substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR or ND is not required. This Addendum addresses the conclusions of the San Pablo 2030 General Plan Certified Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter referred to as the “2030 GP EIR”) in light of the Proposed Project. FINDINGS There are no substantial changes proposed by the Proposed Project or under the circumstances in which the Proposed Project would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the 2030 GP EIR. The Proposed Project does not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR due to either (1) the involvement of new significant environmental effects, (2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or (3) new information of substantial importance. No mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. Applicable mitigation measures from the Certified 2030 GP EIR are identified and discussed in this Addendum. As illustrated herein, the Proposed project is consistent with and within the scope of the 2030 GP EIR and would involve only minor changes, therefore, an Addendum is appropriate and required CEQA compliance for the proposed project. CONCLUSIONS The impacts of the Proposed Project remain within the impacts previously analyzed in the 2030 GP EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15164).

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 4 Project Description INTRODUCTION This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of implementing a targeted update to the San Pablo General Plan 2030 (General Plan 2030), which involves amendments to the Housing, Community Health and Environmental Justice, and Safety Elements required to ensure compliance with State law. The General Plan 2030 was adopted in 2011 and an accompanying Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified on April 18, 2011 (SCH # 2008082069). That EIR described and disclosed the environmental effects associated with implementation of General Plan 2030, adopted by the City Council to guide development within the City limit through the year 2030. As evaluated in the 2011 EIR, the Plan incorporates goals and policies intended to support economic development and fiscal stability; improve community health and safety; promote equitable job and housing opportunities; and foster creation of a network of parks and trails within easy access of home for San Pablo residents. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15164, an addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Accordingly, the primary purpose of this evaluation is to determine, on the basis of substantial evidence, if one or more of the following conditions are met: 1. Substantial changes are proposed as part of the proposed update that would result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the proposed update is undertaken (i.e., a significant change in the existing or future condition) that would result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and/or 3. New information of substantial importance indicates that the proposed update result in a new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Pablo will be the Lead Agency for purposes of environmental review. Lead Agency Contact: Elizabeth “Libby” Tyler, Director Community Development Department City of San Pablo 1000 Gateway Avenue San Pablo, CA 94806 Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 5 PROJECT LOCATION San Pablo is a thriving community with a diverse population, situated within the western portion of Contra Costa County, inland from the eastern shore of San Pablo Bay. The city is surrounded on three sides by the City of Richmond and on its forth by the unincorporated community of El Sobrante. Interstates 80 (I-80) separated the city into east and west portions. San Pablo is roughly bounded north along San Pablo Avenue to Richmond Country Club, northeast to the Rollingwood residential area, east towards Alvarado Park near San Pablo Dam Road, west towards Giant Road and the Union Pacific Railway tracks, and south towards Costa Avenue, as shown on Figure 1. San Pablo is served by six regional bus routes that provide connections to BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) and Amtrak rail stations as well as to the Richmond Passenger Ferry Terminal. BART provides service to San Francisco as well as Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties from the Richmond BART/Amtrak station. Amtrak offers service to cities across California, including San Jose, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Regional and local bus services in the City of San Pablo are provided by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) and Western Contra Costa County Transit (WestCAT), while heavy and commuter rail services are provided by the BART and Amtrak via the Richmond station about 1.5 miles south of San Pablo. The Richmond Ferry also provides regional service between the Richmond Ferry Terminal and downtown San Francisco. AC Transit Route 74 connects the Richmond Ferry Terminal to several bus stops in San Pablo. Additionally, the City also has designated truck routes to reduce truck through traffic from impacting residential streets by restricting certain trucks to Routes of Regional Significance, identified in the Countywide Transportation Plan. BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Existing Conditions The existing structure of San Pablo is defined by I-80, which physically divides the City into two distinct sections: a larger area to the west, characterized by an older, urban scale of medium-density development on small, relatively flat lots with a gridded roadway pattern; and a smaller, hillier, and more suburban, largely residential area to the east. The two sections are linked only by San Pablo Dam Road. The City’s commercial and retail corridors are located in the center of the planning area, along San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and El Portal Drive. These corridors are surrounded by residential neighborhoods, schools, and other institutional uses. There are industrial uses in and adjacent to the southwestern part of the City, along Giant Road and portions of Rumrill Boulevard to the east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad. This area is currently occupied by a mix of warehouses, salvage yards, and wholesalers. Due to the historic pattern of urban development in the City, open space and parkland space remain scarce in San Pablo. The largest public park is John Herbert Davis Park, which is 11.4 acres with developed recreational facilities including two baseball fields and one open field used for soccer or football. Significant recreational open spaces are also provided at Rumrill Sports Park, at Wanlass Park, and along the Wildcat Creek trail. The City also includes undeveloped land designated as open space located east of San Pablo Dam Road, on the sloped hills toward Hillcrest Road and further to the south in the East Bay Regional Park District’s Wildcat Canyon Regional Park and the historic Alvarado Park. ³±
³±
San
Pablo

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
El Cerrito
Del Norte
BART Station
Richmond
BART Station
Point Pinole
Regional Park
Wildcat Canyon
Regional Park
San Pablo Ave
SanPabloAve
Parr Blvd
Stockton Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Brookside Dr
13th St
Mc Bry deAve
22nd St
23rd St
KearneySt
KeyRouteBlvd
DornanDr
S 39th St
Hilltop Dr
Wright Ave
ArlingtonAve
Castro St
1st St
Filbert St
Fairmount Ave
Manor Rd
S 23rd St
Church Ln
S 37th St
Rivers St
S 2nd St
37th St
W
ilson Ave
Marina W
ay
S Garrard Blvd
ColusaAve
Broadway St
Rd 20
Solano Ave
Appian
W
ay
Pennsylvania Ave
BarrettAve
Manila Ave
Schmidt Ln
AshburyAve
San Mateo St
Chesley Ave
SHarborW
ay
SMarinaW
ay
Navellier St
TennentAve
Atlas Rd
Harbour W
ay
ArlingtonBlvd
W Cutting Blvd
McBryde Ave
Maricopa Ave
Richmond
St
Moeser Ln
30thSt
BlumeDr
Giant Hwy
29th St
3rd St
PinoleValleyRd
Esmond Ave
Garvin Ave
Potrero Ave
Central Ave
Roosevelt Ave
34th St
Ohio Ave
Tara Hills Dr
Giant Rd
Market Ave
ValleyViewRd
El PortalDr
Carlson Blvd
Macdonald Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
Cutting Blvd
Richmond Pkwy
%&n(
!"c$
Richmond
North
Richmond
San Pablo Strait
El Sobrante
SOURCE: City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 City Limit
Urban Limit Line
Urbanized Land
Open Space
Interstate Highway
San Pablo Avenue
Major Road
BART Rail
Railroad
J:\GISData\581_SanPablo_GP\GIS\Projects\CEQA\Planning Area.mxd El Cerrito
Hilltop
Bayview
Pinole
Map Date:
11/15/2023
0 ½ 1¼
Mile
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
UV1
San Pablo Bay
Pacific
Ocean
San Pablo
Richmond
Hercules
Oakland
Alameda
Tiburon
Novato
San Rafael
Sausalito
Mill Valley
Pinole
Marin
Contra Costa
Alameda
San Francisco
Solano
Sonoma
!"c$
%&n(
%&v(!"c$
IÆ
Regional Location Figure 1: Planning Area
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 7 San Pablo is a largely built out city and there is relatively little vacant land available for new development. Only 2.2 percent of the total land area in the city was vacant in 2021, and as shown in Figure 2, much of that land is in areas of environmental hazard. These hazards include the North Hayward Fault, which runs directly through the northern and eastern part of the city, as well as areas of flood risk and very high liquefaction risk located in proximity to the San Pablo and Wildcat creeks. An earthquake fault zone approximately 1,500 feet wide has been established around the trace of the North Hayward Fault. Given the high risk of ground-shaking and surface rupture within the zone, residential construction is not permitted in order to protect public safety and minimize the potential for loss of life and property. Residential construction is permitted within the 100-year flood plain and areas of liquefaction risk, subject to the regulatory standards of the California Building Code designed to ensure adequate protection. Residential areas comprise over 45 percent of land within the City limit, primarily concentrated in small lot single-family neighborhoods. Approximately 78 percent of the residential land in San Pablo is developed with single-family homes, while 8 percent is developed with multi-family homes and 1.4 percent with mobile homes. The city's major commercial corridors, however, offer significant potential for redevelopment with residential and job-generating uses. Today, these corridors are typically lined with older buildings and low-slung strip mall developments with large areas of surface parking. Recognizing the potential for redevelopment to help further community priorities for economic development, housing choice, and improved quality of life, the City has designated three corridor segments as Priority Development Areas (PDAs), making them eligible for regional grant funding to support planning and public investment in transportation and utility infrastructure which in turn will help attract private investment to achieve the envisioned land use pattern and growth. Shown on Figure 3, the three PDAs are: • San Pablo Avenue PDA - This PDA spans the full length of San Pablo Avenue as it passes through the city. A specific plan was adopted in 2011 to guide the redevelopment of the 261-acre area, envisioning several new mixed-use districts centered around key community services and regional destinations, like Contra Costa College and Lytton Casino. There are three entitled but as yet unconstructed projects in this PDA, which will see construction of 255 new high density multi-family units. • 23rd Street PDA - This PDA extends the full length of 23rd Street from Brookside south to the City limit, encompassing an area of 22 acres. A specific plan was adopted in 2007 to provide a long-term strategy for the revitalization of 23rd Street by facilitating mixed use infill development on vacant and underutilized parcels, fostering a safe and pedestrian-friendly streetscape, and supporting the vitality of neighborhood businesses. While the area has significant potential for new housing development, almost no construction has occurred in the last 15 years. • Rumrill Boulevard PDA - Rumrill Boulevard is a major four-lane community corridor that extends north from San Pablo’s southwestern City limit to connect with Broadway and San Pablo Avenue. The southern portion of the corridor between Brookside and Costa is designated as a PDA, currently identified as an Employment Focus Area in Plan Bay Area and projected to see 22 new households and 194 jobs added by 2040. A community wide survey conducted in 2022 identified strong community support for the incorporation of high density housing in the Rumrill PDA and the City has received grant funding for preparation of a Corridor Plan to guide revitalization of the area and incorporate strategies to foster transit-oriented development, enhance regional equity, and bring mobility, housing, and economic development opportunities to a diverse community in need.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads
Vacant Land
J:\GISData\581_SanPablo_GP\GIS\Projects\CEQA\Figure 2 Environmental Hazards and Constraints.mxd Environmental Hazards
Hayward Fault
Alquist Priolo Zones
Very High Liquefaction
100 Year Flood Zone
Figure 2: Environmental Hazards
and Constraints
Date: 11/15/2023
SOURCE: City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 1,000 2,000500
FEET
Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
!
23rd Street
Specific Plan
City of
Richmond
21st St
11th St
San Pablo Ave
17th St
Vale Rd
Dover Ave
20th St
Stanton Ave
Pine Ave
Miner Ave
19th St
16th St
15th St
Amador St
Rivers St
Sutter Ave
Emeric Ave
12th St
14th St
Hillcrest Rd
Rollingwood Dr
13th St
Sanford Ave
Lake St
Ridge Rd
California Ave
22nd St
18th St
Bush Ave
John Ave
Willow Rd
Alpine Rd
Brook Way
Palmer Ave
Tyler St
Espanola Ct
Van Ness St
Powell St
Arundel Way
Arundell Way
10th St
Devon Way
Marin Ave
Mason St
Wilcox Ave
Standard St
Post Ave
Chevy Way
Alfreda Blvd
Stone St
Bayo Vista Ave
Kelley Ave
Fordham St
Greenwood Dr
Manor Dr
Yuba Ave
Manchester Ave
Pullman St
Folsom Ave
Mission Ave
Avon Ln
Villa Dr
Mission Bell Dr
Macarthur Ave
Morrow Dr
Beau Rivage
Bowhill Ln
Douglas St
Miflin Ave
Trenton Blvd
Bonita Rd
Merritt Ave
Glenlock St
Del Camino Dr
Fillmore St
Pablo Vista Ave
Lovegrove Ave
Glenn Ave
Colin St
Acapulco Dr
Marelia Ct
Bancroft Ln
Montoya Ave
Ventura Ave
Abella Cir
Clare St
Joel Ct
Gerald Ave
Evens Ave
Manzanilla Dr
Carlfield StCorte St
Ohare Ave
Contra Costa Ave
Casino Ave
Rumrill Rd
Crucero Ave
Wyman St
Riverside Ave
Regina Ave
Barranca St
Humboldt St
E Victoria Ct
Shasta Ave
Harborview Ave
Clement Ave
Baywood Ln
Connecticut Ave
Chattleton Ln
University Ave
Barbara Ln
Kirk Ln
Jean Ct
Madrone Way
W
estgate Cir
W
Victoria Ct
Frieda Ct
Brookside Ave
Regello Ct
Monte Buena St
Dodson St
Judith Ct
Wanlass Ave
Drake Way
Larchmont Ln
18th St
19th St
20th St
19th St
Bush Ave
15th St
15th St
21st St
18th St
Shasta Ave
Glenn Ave
17th St
Merritt Ave
Riverside Ave
14th St
18th St
Dover Ave
19th St
22nd St
Mason St
15th St
16th St
17th St
17th St
Post Ave
Lake St
20th St
21st St
Rivers St
Lake St
Yuba Ave
19th St
22nd St
16th St
17th St
Glenn Ave
Miner Ave
Rose ArborAv e
Bayview A ve
Bolduc Ct
CapitolHill Ave
W estview Pl
NArlington Blvd
HillcrestRd
MiffinAve
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
San Pablo Avenue
Specific PlanRumrill Boulevard
Corridor Plan
!
!
Priority Development Area (PDA)
SP1 - 23rd Street Specific Plan
SP2 - San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan
23rd Street/San Pablo Avenue Overlap
Rumrill Blvd Corridor Plan
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads
J:\GISData\581_SanPablo_GP\GIS\Projects\CEQA\Figure 3 Priority Development Areas.mxd Date: 11/15/2023 SOURCE: Plan Bay Area 2040, MTC, ABAG; Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), July 2017; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 1,000 2,000500
FEET
Figure 3: Priority Development Areas
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 10 The City has also adopted a PDA Overlay District into the Zoning Code, which permits residential development at between 20 and 60 dwelling units per acre on all sites in the district. Additional standards for height and development density are also established, and the standards of the PDA overlay prevail in cases of conflict with the base designation. GENERAL PLAN 2030 Adopted in 2011 as a comprehensive update to the City’s 1996 General Plan, General Plan 2030 is composed of goals, policies, a land use diagram, and other graphic figures and maps (e.g., open space systems, a transportation network, and public facilities) to guide future development within the City’s boundaries, through the year 2030. The Plan included the seven elements required by State law at the time of adoption: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, Noise, and Safety. The Housing Element was adopted concurrently with the General Plan but was contained in a separate volume. The Plan also included four optional elements of importance to the community: Economic Development; Growth Management; Health; and Parks, Schools, Community Facilities and Utilities. Key Features of the General Plan 2030 Based on the planning objectives that were set forth, nine key features emerged as the General Plan took shape. These initiatives were large-scale themes that address the planning objectives. The maps and policies in the General Plan were structured around these key initiatives. • Integrating economic development into the General Plan. The Economic Development Element brought a strategy for economic growth into the General Plan and underscored the City’s goals for fiscal health, a strong regional center, and job creation. • Pedestrian and Bicycle-Friendly Community. The General Plan established a comprehensive set of principles and strategies to enhance the existing pedestrian and bicycle system and promote a well-integrated and coordinated network to parks, schools and neighborhood retail. • Community Facilities. The General Plan responded to community desires for family-oriented community facilities through new land use designations, such as Mixed Use Center South that allows community uses to develop among residential and retail development, and direction for impact fees to fund improvements. • Safety and Health. In response to community feedback, the General Plan aims to improve health and safety through greater cooperative efforts with the Police Department as well as by transportation planning, encouraging healthy-living through food strategies, equitable job and housing opportunities, and safety through community design. • Parks and Open Space. City officials and residents alike recognize the need for more parks in San Pablo and the proposed Plan sets out to achieve this with a network of community parks, neighborhood parks and trails to provide recreational areas in close proximity to residents. Key Features of the Fifth Cycle Housing Element San Pablo’s Fifth Cycle Housing Element covering the period from 2015 to 2023 outlined a plan to accommodate a total of 449 new housing units, with 265 of those units for households making above moderate income, 75 units for households making moderate income, 53 units for low-income households and 65 units for very low income households. The Fifth Cycle Housing Element identified adequate sites, with an 825-unit development capacity, including accessory dwelling units (ADUs), sufficient to meet its assessed share of the regional housing need at that time with a buffer. The sites inventory was organized Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 11 into High Density and Medium & Low-Density sites. High Density sites were generally located along San Pablo Avenue, Church Lane, and City Hall, whereas Medium & Low-Density sites are located along 23rd Street, near City Hall, and across San Pablo. Key strategies to achieve RHNA included redevelopment of underutilized or transitional uses, as well as amendments to Zoning Ordinance to reflect land use priorities and consistency with density standards in the General Plan 2030. Projected Buildout of General Plan 2030 Growth projections for the 2030 General Plan anticipated a total of 34,950 residents, 11,510 homes, and 8,510 jobs at buildout in 2030. Buildout projections assumed an average household size of 3.1 persons per primary dwelling unit sand 1.5 persons per secondary units. The 2030 GP EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts of projected buildout in 2030. A full list of significant impacts and mitigation measures from the 2030 General Plan EIR is included in Appendix A to this document. PROPOSED PROJECT The Proposed Project is a targeted update to General Plan 2030 that involves amendments to the Housing, Safety, and Community Health and Environmental Justice Elements as required for compliance with State law. The Housing Element update involves comprehensive revisions to the Fifth Cycle Housing Element, undertaken to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need and address new State law. To help maintain internal consistencies as required by State law, updates to the Community Health and Environmental Justice Element and Safety Elements were undertaken in parallel. Following is a summary of the planning process and the key components of the Proposed Project. Planning Process The City employed a range of public outreach and engagement strategies to solicit meaningful community input that has informed the Proposed Project. These strategies included community-wide surveys, virtual forums, focus group discussions, stakeholder interviews, and pop-up outreach at popular locations around town. A summary of these engagement activities is described below: • Community Planning Survey. A citywide survey was conducted from December 28, 2021, to February 21, 2022. The survey provided opportunities for residents, business owners, and people who work or go to school in San Pablo to help identify appropriate locations for housing as well as to provide input on key policy topics. In total, 262 people participated and respondents strongly supported adding new, higher density housing along the community's major arterial corridor. • Housing Focus Group - A focus group discussion with affordable housing developers and service providers was conducted in January 2022 to learn more about opportunities and challenges from the developer perspective, get input on housing needs and constraints, and discuss what the City can do to facilitate the production of affordable housing. • Housing Survey - An online survey in English and Spanish was distributed to the community online from June to mid-July 2020 to gather feedback on the community’s key issues with housing and their priorities for future housing-related work. A total of 198 survey responses were collected, including 173 responses from the English version of the survey and 25 responses from the Spanish version of the survey. • Targeted Stakeholder Interviews - Strategic Economics interviewed various public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and developers to gather information on affordable housing needs and Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 12 resources in San Pablo/Contra Costa County, as well as opportunities and constraints to residential development in San Pablo/Contra Costa County. In total, nine stakeholder interviews were held. • Affordable Housing Forums - The City of San Pablo, in collaboration with Strategic Economics, the San Pablo Economic Development Corporation, the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC), and Contra Costa County, hosted two virtual “Affordable Housing Forums” open to the San Pablo community, in both English and Spanish. The Affordable Housing Forums served to inform San Pablo residents about existing and upcoming resources/programs available to them from the City, County, Housing Authority and State, as well as provide San Pablo residents the opportunity to ask questions about existing and upcoming programs and initiatives. • Environmental Justice Pop-Up Outreach – The City of San Pablo held two environmental justice outreach events at the San Pablo Community Hall and Kidd Manor, an affordable senior housing facility, on separate occasions to better here from residents of San Pablo’s Disadvantaged Communities about issues, opportunities, and priorities to be addressed through the General Plan and Housing Element Update process. Feedback has informed the policies and programs in both the Housing and Health and Environmental Justice Elements. A total of 48 community members participated in these events, including older adults, Spanish-speaking community members, adolescents, and disabled community members. • Public Review Period - The First Draft Housing Element was released for a 30-day public review period on August 19, 2022. Public hearings for review of the Draft Housing Element were held before the Planning Commission on August 30th and before the City Council on September19th. During the public comment period, two comment letters were received – one from East Bay Municipal Utilities District and one from YIMBY, which generally expressed support for the content of the Draft. • Decision-Maker Review - Following review of the Draft by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), public hearings will be scheduled for review and adoption of the Housing Element. Principal Components of Proposed Project Housing Element The proposed Sixth Cycle Housing Element outlines a plan to facilitate construction of at least 746 new homes by 2031, which is the City's assessed share of the regional housing need. The new housing would be constructed on sites throughout San Pablo, as shown on Figure 4, with the majority to be located within the San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and Rumrill PDAs. High density housing would be focused along key commercial corridors in proximity to transit and services, while smaller scale housing, including single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) would be encouraged on sites in established residential neighborhoods. No rezoning is needed to accommodate RHNA; however, the Housing Element includes programs proposing zoning changes necessary to remove regulatory constraints on housing construction and ensure consistency with new State law. These programs include:

Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
21st St
11th St
San Pablo Ave
17th St
Vale Rd
Dover Ave
20th St
Stanton Ave
Pine Ave
Miner Ave
19th St
16th St
15th St
Amador St
Rivers St
Sutter Ave
Emeric Ave
12th St
14th St
Hillcrest Rd
Rollingwood Dr
13th St
Sanford Ave
Lake St
Ridge Rd
California Ave
22nd St
18th St
Bush Ave
John Ave
Willow Rd
Alpine Rd
Brook Way
Palmer Ave
Tyler St
Espanola Ct
Van Ness St
Powell St
Arundel Way
Arundell Way
10th St
Devon Way
Marin Ave
Mason St
Wilcox Ave
Standard St
Post Ave
Chevy Way
Alfreda Blvd
Stone St
Bayo Vista Ave
Kelley Ave
Fordham St
Greenwood Dr
Manor Dr
Yuba Ave
Manchester Ave
Pullman St
Folsom Ave
Mission Ave
Avon Ln
Villa Dr
Mission Bell Dr
Macarthur Ave
Morrow Dr
Beau Rivage
Bowhill Ln
Douglas St
Miflin Ave
Trenton Blvd
Bonita Rd
Merritt Ave
Glenlock St
Del Camino Dr
Fillmore St
Pablo Vista Ave
Lovegrove Ave
Glenn Ave
Colin St
Acapulco Dr
Marelia Ct
Bancroft Ln
Montoya Ave
Ventura Ave
Abella Cir
Clare St
Joel Ct
Gerald Ave
Evens Ave
Manzanilla Dr
Carlfield StCorte St
Ohare Ave
Contra Costa Ave
Casino Ave
Rumrill Rd
Crucero Ave
Wyman St
Riverside Ave
Regina Ave
Barranca St
Humboldt St
E Victoria Ct
Shasta Ave
Harborview Ave
Clement Ave
Baywood Ln
Connecticut Ave
Chattleton Ln
University Ave
Barbara Ln
Kirk Ln
Jean Ct
Madrone Way
W
estgate Cir
W
Victoria Ct
Frieda Ct
Brookside Ave
Regello Ct
Monte Buena St
Dodson St
Judith Ct
Wanlass Ave
Drake Way
Larchmont Ln
18th St
19th St
20th St
19th St
Bush Ave
15th St
15th St
21st St
18th St
Shasta Ave
Glenn Ave
17th St
Merritt Ave
Riverside Ave
14th St
18th St
Dover Ave
19th St
22nd St
Mason St
15th St
16th St
17th St
17th St
Post Ave
Lake St
20th St
21st St
Rivers St
Lake St
Yuba Ave
19th St
22nd St
16th St
17th St
Glenn Ave
Miner Ave
Rose ArborAv e
Bayview A ve
Bolduc Ct
CapitolHill Ave
W estview Pl
NArlington Blvd
HillcrestRd
MiffinAve
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
Air Quality Health Risk Overlay Zone
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads
Low and Very Low Income
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
Mixed Income
Figure 4 Housing Opportunity Sites
Date: 11/15/2023
SOURCE: City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 1,000 2,000500
FEET
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 14 • Program 1-C which involves repealing or revising the 23rd Street Specific Plan to Permit residential uses by right in either a standalone or mixed-use format, eliminate requirements for ground floor retail and replace with regulatory or process incentives, and establishing objective standards for live/work units so that they can be provided without the need for a conditional use permit; • Program 1-D which involves amending standards to incorporate provisions for lots in the R4 and CMU zones that do not meet the requirements for minimum parcel size; • Program 1-E which involves providing incentives for small lot consolidation in PDAs; • Program 1-J which involves incentives “missing middle” housing, such as reducing or waiving processing fees if the new lots and units are designated for the affordable housing development; and • Program 1-K which involves developing objective standards for ministerial review, as required by the Housing Accountability Act and other State requirements (e.g. urban lot splits under SB 9 and expedited ministerial review pursuant to SB 35). Additionally, the proposed Housing Element incorporates strategies to incentivize and promote ADU production, such as reduced parking requirements in proximity to transit stops; streamlined processing, or technical assistance (Program 1-O); encourage co-housing, eco-housing, manufactured housing (Programs 1-M and 1-N); and increase the feasibility of residential development in the PDAs, potentially including increased credits for mixed use development, proximity to transit, and implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) incentives by residential projects (Program 1-F). Other programs in the proposed Sixth Cycle Housing Element address rental assistance for those at risk of homelessness, preserving the existing affordable housing stock, promoting home-sharing and tenant matching, amending regulations to allow SRO units to be occupied by two persons, providing low interest loans for home rehabilitation, and updating the municipal code for consistency with new State law regarding emergency shelters, employee housing, residential care facilities, and transitional and supportive housing. The Housing Element is organized into four chapters with background data and information in a series of appendices as described below: • Chapter 1 – - Introduction: Provides an introduction to the purpose of the document and the legal requirements for a Housing Element, together with an overview of the community and the community involvement process. • Chapter 2 – Community Profile: Documents population characteristics, housing characteristics, and current development trends to inform the current housing state of San Pablo and to identify community needs. • Chapter 3 – Adequate Sites for Housing: An inventory of adequate sites suitable for construction of new housing sufficient to meet needs at all economic levels. • Chapter 4 – - Housing Action Plan: Articulates housing goals, policies, and programs to address the City’s identified housing needs, including those of special needs groups and the findings of an analysis of fair housing issues in the community. This Housing Element identifies a foundational framework of five overarching goals to comprehensively address the housing crisis and needs of San Pablo residents. • Appendix A – Sites Inventory: Summarizes the City’s ability to accommodate the RHNA on available land, and the selection of sites in light of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. • Appendix B – Housing Needs Assessment: Presents community demographic information, including both population and household data, to identify San Pablo’s housing needs. • Appendix C – Constraints Analysis: Includes an analysis of constraints to housing production and maintenance in San Pablo. Constraints include potential market, governmental, and environmental Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 15 limitations to meeting the City’s identified housing needs. In addition, an assessment of impediments to fair housing is included, with a fuller analysis of actions needed to affirmatively further fair housing included in a separate appendix. • Appendix D – Fair Housing Assessment: Identifies fair housing issues and solutions to meet San Pablo’s AFFH mandate. • Appendix E – Accomplishments of the 2015-2023 San Pablo Housing Element: Summarizes the City’s achievements in implementing goals, policies, and actions under the previous Housing Element. • Appendix F - Includes outreach materials, summaries and a description of how community and stakeholder input has been reflected in the Housing Element. Safety & Noise Element State law (Government Code 65302(g)(5)) requires that the Safety Element identify residential developments in any hazard area identified in the safety element that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. The area of San Pablo southeast of I-80 is adjacent to the Wildcat Canyon area identified as a Very High Fire Hazard Zone and is the most at risk from natural hazards. Accordingly, the City's Safety and Noise Element has been updated to identify available evacuation routes for the area, which include Hillcrest Road, Morrow Drive, Alpine Road, and Arlington Boulevard. Additionally, as a strategy to improve outbound evacuation traffic flow during an evacuation, policy direction regarding manual traffic control at the intersections and temporary roadway signage has been incorporated. Community Health & Environmental Justice Element State law (Government Code 65302(h)(1) through (4)) also requires that California cities and counties identify disadvantaged communities within territory covered by the general plan and adopt an Environmental Justice Element with goals and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities, promote civic engagement in the public decision-making process, and prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities. The Health Element of the 2030 General Plan, one of the first in California, already addresses many of the requirements for the Environmental Justice Element, incorporating policies related to healthy transportation and physical activity; healthy food access and equity; and access to public services. Accordingly, to ensure full compliance with State law new data, maps, and policies have been added to the Health Element, which is being renamed Community Health and Environmental Justice. Amendments incorporated include: • Inclusion of a map identifying the seven Census tracts in San Pablo designated as Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) by the State, pursuant to Senate Bill 535. Encompassing all of the western part of the city and most of the south, these tracts experience an elevated level of pollution exposure relative to the statewide median, and their socio-demographic profile means the residents are more susceptible to adverse health outcomes. • Current data regarding the socio-demographic conditions in San Pablo that contribute most to disparities in opportunity, including poverty, low educational attainment, and linguistic isolation, as well as prevalent public health issues. • Policies to increase tree canopy coverage in residential areas and establish cooling centers to help mitigate the adverse health impacts from the projected increase in extreme heat events and average daily summertime temperatures. These policies address an approximately 30-degree difference projected between the hottest and coolest areas of the City, and localized urban heat islands include Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 16 Helms Middle School, Lifelong Emergency Medical Clinic, and the industrial/commercial center between Giant Highway and Center Street. • Policies to ensure continued focus on improving air quality and public health through regional collaboration. • Policies to help bridge the "digital divide" in San Pablo, where 12.2 percent of the population either has no computer in their home or has a computer but lacks an internet subscription. These policies include pursuing partnerships to provide public Wi-Fi in certain parks or public areas, as well as expanding mobile-friendly and non-digital communication with residents. • Policies to promote place-based community revitalization, safe and sanitary housing, and improve neighborhood quality of life, including requirements for reducing human health risk from diesel-powered construction equipment. • A strategy to prioritize investments in DACs, which includes the preparation of a Corridor Plan for Rumrill Boulevard to improve environmental conditions, economic opportunities, and housing choices along a segment of the corridor that runs between Brookside and Costa, designated as a PDA. BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS Table 1 summarizes the total number of housing units that can be accommodated in the 2023-2031 planning period in the Housing Element, with a breakdown by Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) category. The location of the sites is shown on Figure 4. No rezoning is needed to accommodate RHNA; however, programs identifying zoning changes necessary to facilitate development of housing sites and ensure consistency with new State law have been incorporated into the Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4). Table 1 also shows projected ADU production at all affordability levels, based on the annual rate of ADU permitting in San Pablo since 2018 and the findings of the ADU affordability study completed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). There is sufficient capacity to meet RHNA obligations at all levels of affordability with a substantial buffer to ensure the City can navigate the no net loss provisions of State law in the event that sites do not develop as projected.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 17 Ta bl e 1: San Pablo Sites Inventory - Summary Low/Very Low Moderate Above Moderate TOTAL UNITS Vacant SFR 0 9 47 56 MFR in San Pablo Ave PDA 161 145 340 646 MFR in 23rd St PDA 0 9 19 28 MFR in Rumrill Blvd PDA 0 91 211 302 MFR in Outside of PDAs 158 24 14 196 Pipeline 213 8 174 395 Subtotal 532 286 805 1623 ADU 40 20 6 66 TOTAL 572 306 811 1689 RHNA 273 132 341 746 BUFFER +299 +174 +470 +943 Source: 2023-2031 City of San Pablo Housing Element Based on population and housing estimates from the California Department of Finance (DoF) for 2023, the latest available data, there were 31,301 residents, 9,604 households, and 9,971 housing units in San Pablo. The latest available employment data is from the U.S. Census, which indicates that in 2021 there were 5,749 jobs in the city in 2021. Assuming an average household size of 3 persons and a vacancy rate of 3.7 percent consistent with DoF estimates, the addition of 1,689 new housing units projected for the 2023-31 planning period in the Draft Housing Element would result in 36,182 residents, 11,231 households, and 11,660 homes in 2031, as shown in Table 2. Assuming 2,610 new jobs consistent with ABAG projections and the increment of growth assumed in the 2030 GP EIR, there would be 8,359 jobs in the city in 2031. This represents 150 housing units more than analyzed in the 2030 GP EIR, but 151 fewer jobs than previously analyzed. Accordingly, buildout of the Proposed Project would result in a substantially similar increment of growth as analyzed in the 2030 GP EIR. Ta bl e 2: Population, Housing Units, Households, and Jobs at General Plan Buildout1 Existing (2023) Additional Buildout (2031) Population 31,301 4,881 36,182 Households 9,604 1,627 11,231 Housing Units 9,971 1,689 11,660 Jobs 5,749 2,610 8,359 Source: California Department of Finance; U.S. Census, 2023 1 State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2021-2023. Sacramento, California, May 2023 and U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, LEHD, 2023.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 18 Environmental Analysis CEQA CHECKLIST The purpose of the checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any changed condition (e.g., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) (CEQA Guidelines § 15162). The questions posed in the checklist come from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The following topics are evaluated in accordance with current CEQA Guidelines: • Aesthetics, Light, and Glare • Agricultural Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources • Geology, Seismicity, and Soils • Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services and Recreation • Transportation • Utilities and Service Systems • Wildfire • CEQA Required Conclusions For reach resource category, the checklist summarizes the findings of the 2030 GP EIR; the relationship of the Proposed Project's potential impacts to the findings of the 2030 GP EIR; applicable standards and mitigations; and the resulting level of significance. Analysis to support the determinations are provided together with a discussion of the conclusion relating to the analysis.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 19 AESTHETICS Aesthetics Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant 2030 GP LU-I-45, OSC-I-2, OSC-I-7 Less than Significant b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; Less than Significant 2030 GP LU-I-45, OSC-I-2, OSC-I-7 Less than Significant c. If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; or Less than Significant Housing Element Program 1-K Less than Significant d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant 2030 GP PSCU-I-7 Less than Significant

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 20 Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criterion 1a The 2030 GP EIR notes that there are no regional scenic features or formally designated scenic roadways in San Pablo. Given that the development under the General Plan 2030 would be required to comply with design guidelines and General Plan policies that are intended to maintain and improve the overall scenic quality of San Pablo, the 2030 GP EIR found that implementation of the 2030 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to scenic vistas. Development under the Proposed Project would also be required to comply with existing General Plan policies that would reduce the impact, such as 2030 General Plan Policy LU-I-45 that would protect the semi-rural character of the hillside area through the integration and balance of usable open space areas and residential uses, as well as Policy OSC-I-2 that would identify, preserve, and enhance scenic vistas to and from hillside areas and other visual resources. New development from the Proposed Project would be designed to minimize obstructions of scenic vistas and preserve or enhance important attributes of view corridors. Therefore, as with the 2030 General Plan, impacts to scenic vistas under the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Criterion 1b The 2030 GP EIR determined that the adoption and implementation of the 2030 General Plan would result in a less than significant impact related to degradation of scenic views within designated State scenic highways, as there are no designated State scenic highways within the Planning Area. Therefore, similar to the 2030 General Plan, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact related to degradation of scenic views within designated State scenic highways. Criterion 1c The 2030 GP EIR found that implementation of the 2030 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to the creation of significant contrasts related to visual character, as adherence to the City’s design guidelines and the additional standards in the 2030 General Plan governing design and character would ensure compatibility with existing character. Based on the CEQA guidelines, in urbanized areas such as the Planning Area, significant impacts related to conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality would result if the Proposed Project was inconsistent with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The Proposed Project would focus new development and redevelopment primarily within the San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and Rumrill PDAs, with additional single-family and ADU development in established neighborhoods. Development under the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the standards in the San Pablo Zoning Code, including new objective standards that would be adopted by the City Council pursuant to Program 1-K of the 2023-31 Housing Element, which calls for the adoption of objective standards to help streamline project approvals. Compliance with zoning standards would ensure that impacts would be less than significant, as with the 2030 General Plan. Criterion 1d The 2030 GP EIR determined that the adoption and implementation of the 2030 General Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the creation of new source of substantial light or glare, as General Plan policies (including PSCU-I-7) and existing regulations would reduce the potential for new or significant sources of light pollution or glare in San Pablo to a less than significant level. Development under the Proposed Project would also be required to comply with General Plan policy and applicable regulations, Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 21 including the standards in Chapter 17.56 of the San Pablo Municipal Code, which include requirements for nuisance prevention, maintenance, shielding, maximum height, and level of illumination. Therefore, similar to the 2030 General Plan, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact related to substantial light or glare. Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 GP EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of impacts identified, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to aesthetics that were not identified in the 2030 GP EIR. Since the approval of the 2030 General Plan, no new information has emerged, nor have environmental conditions changed such that, new environmental impacts pertaining to these impact categories would be expected to emerge or previously identified impacts would become more severe. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Agricultural Resources Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance 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 non-agricultural use?; Scoped out - Less than Significant
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Scoped out - Less than Significant c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Scoped out - Less than Significant
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 22 Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criteria 2a-2e Section 3.1 Land Use of the 2030 GP EIR noted that based on data from the California Department of Conservation, there is no Farmland, Williamson Act lands, or land protected for agriculture uses in San Pablo; buildout of the 2030 General Plan and land use changes would focus growth on existing urban infill sites. Circumstances and conditions have not changed2. As such, impacts would be the same as under the 2030 GP EIR and less than significant. Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 General Plan, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any impacts 2 California Department of Conservation, 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed: January 2, 2024.

Agricultural Resources Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)); d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or Scoped out - Less than Significant e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Scoped out - Less than Significant
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 23 identified in the 2030 GP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related agricultural resources that were not identified in the 2030 GP EIR. Further, since the certification of the 2030 GP EIR, no new information has emerged, nor have environmental conditions changed such that, new environmental impacts would be expected to result or previously identified impacts would become more severe. AIR QUALITY Air Quality Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; Less than Significant 2030 GP LU-I-1, GME-I-3, GME I-5, C-I-12, C-G-6, C-G-7, C-I-27, C-I-29, C-I-30, C-G-4, GME-G-3, C-I-25, C-I-27, C-I-1, C-I-13, C-I-15, C-I-20, GME-G-1, GME-G-3, GME-G-4, LU-I-1, LU-I-16, HEA-I-11, OSC-I-17, OSC-I-18 Less than Significant
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; Significant and Unavoidable 2030 GP OSC-G-7, OSC-I-20, OSC-I-23, OSC-I-24, OSC-I-25, OSC-I-26 Less than Significant c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; Less than Significant Health and EJ Element Policy HEA-I-38; 2030 GP OSC-I-18, OSC-I-19; BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 Less than Significant
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 24 Air Quality Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people; Not analyzed - Less than Significant
Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions includes a detailed summary of the data used in this analysis. Criterion 3a The 2030 GP EIR analyzed air quality impacts under Section 3.3, Air Quality. The EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would be consistent with goals and control measures of the Clean Air Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. A project that would not support the 2017 Clean Air Plan’s goals would not be considered consistent with the plan. On an individual project basis, consistency with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)’s quantitative thresholds is interpreted as demonstrating support for the 2017 Clean Air Plan’s goals. The Proposed Project would facilitate construction of high density housing along key commercial corridors in proximity to transit and services, while placing smaller scale housing, including single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and accessory dwelling units on sites in established residential neighborhoods. By focusing development in established areas next to existing transit and services, development facilitated by the Proposed Project would reduce the use of personal vehicles and subsequent mobile emissions than if development were placed further from transit and services. In addition, development facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 regulations, including requirements for residential indoor air quality. The analysis is based on compliance with 2022 Title 24 requirements (individual projects developed under the plan would be required to comply with the most current version of Title 24 at the time of project construction). These requirements currently mandate Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 (or equivalent) filters for heating/cooling systems and ventilation systems in residences (Section 150.0[m]) or implementation of future standards that would be anticipated to be equal to or more stringent than current standards. Therefore, the Project would improve air quality compared to development farther from transit and services through reducing VMT per capita compared to the existing condition and would protect public health through stringent requirements for MERV-13 filters or equivalent indoor air quality measures, which would be consistent with the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The project’s consistency with applicable control measures in the 2017 Clean Air Plan is shown in Table 3.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 25 Ta bl e 3: Proposed Project Consistency with Applicable 2017 Plan Control Measures Clean Air Plan Control Measures Consistency Transpor tation TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities. Encourage planning for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in local plans, e.g., general and specific plans, fund bike lanes, routes, paths and bicycle parking facilities.

Consistent: The Proposed Project would locate higher density residential development in proximity to employment, shopping, transit, recreation, and other services. Goal C-G-5 of the San Pablo General Plan 2030 aims to develop a safe and comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network. Policies C-I-14 and C-I-15 call for expanding the bicycle system and routes. Policies C-I-21 and C-I-23 of the San Pablo General Plan 2030 would complete and enhance the pedestrian network and provide pedestrian facilities. By placing future residents in proximity to bicycle lanes and pedestrian facilities, the project would facilitate pedestrian and bicycle circulation and minimize automobile trip generation. Energy EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand. Work with local governments to adopt additional energy-efficiency policies and programs. Support local government energy efficiency program via best practices, model ordinances, and technical support. Work with partners to develop messaging to decrease electricity demand during peak times.

Consistent: Future development facilitated under the Project would be required to comply with San Pablo General Plan 2030 Policy OSC-I-26, which requires the promotion of energy efficiency in architectural design for new construction. Additionally, the Housing Element includes Goal H-5, which calls for proactive energy conservation and waste reduction in all residential neighborhoods. Housing Element Policy 5-1 promotes energy conservation programs and incentives and Policy 5-2 encourages the incorporation of energy conservation design features in existing and future residential development. Policy 5-3 encourages the use of building placement, design, and construction techniques that promote energy conservation, including green building practices, the use of recycled materials, and the recycling of construction and demolition debris. Buildings BL1: Green Buildings. Collaborate with partners such as KyotoUSA to identify energy-related improvements and opportunities for on-site renewable energy systems in school districts; investigate funding strategies to implement upgrades. Identify barriers to effective local implementation of the CALGreen (Title 24) statewide building energy code; develop solutions to improve implementation/enforcement. Work with ABAG’s BayREN program to make additional funding available for energy-related projects in the buildings sector. Engage with additional partners to target reducing emissions from specific types of buildings.

Consistent: Future development facilitated by the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the energy and sustainability standards of Title 24 (including the California Energy Code and CALGreen). For example, the current CALGreen standards require a minimum 65 percent diversion of construction/demolition waste. Additionally, Housing Element Policy 5-3 encourages the use of building placement, design, and construction techniques that promote energy conservation, including green building practices, the use of recycled materials, and the recycling of construction and demolition debris. Water Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 26 WR2: Support Water Conservation. Develop a list of best practices that reduce water consumption and increase on-site water recycling in new and existing buildings; incorporate into local planning guidance.

Consistent: Future development requiring new or expanded water service would be required to comply with the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s (EBMUD) water efficiency regulations, which include water use restrictions and water efficient irrigation rules. As shown in Table 3, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable measures in the 2017 Clean Air Plan as development would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 regulations and would increase density in urban areas, allowing for greater use of alternative modes of transportation. Development facilitated by the Proposed Project does not contain elements that would disrupt or hinder implementation of a 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures. Therefore, the project would conform to this determination of consistency for the 2017 Clean Air Plan and would not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than those identified in the 2030 GP EIR. Criterion 3b The 2030 GP EIR analyzed criteria pollutant emissions under Section 3.3, Air Quality. The analysis determined that implementation of the proposed San Pablo General Plan could result in an increase in VMT at a rate that would exceed the rate of population increase, which would exceed the BAAQMD plan-level threshold. The EIR discussed how General Plan policies would assist in reducing VMT and thus reducing emissions; however, impacts were assessed as significant and unavoidable. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions – Construction Construction activities such as demolition, grading, construction worker travel, delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris, and fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment would generate pollutant emissions. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants, particularly during site preparation and grading. The extent of daily emissions, particularly reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions, generated by construction equipment, would depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each project. The extent of Particulate Matter - Fine (PM2.5) and Particulate Matter (PM10) emissions would depend upon the following factors: 1) the amount of disturbed soils; 2) the length of disturbance time; 3) whether existing structures are demolished; 4) whether excavation is involved; and 5) whether transporting excavated materials offsite is necessary. Dust emissions can lead to both nuisance and health impacts. BAAQMD also identifies screening sizes of development projects in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines that apply to development projects in San Pablo and throughout BAAQMD’s jurisdiction. Development projects that are below the screening size are assumed to have less-than-significant impacts. Development projects that are larger than the screening size are required to demonstrate that the construction phase of the project would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, project applicants would be required to incorporate project-specific mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions (e.g., NOX, ROG, PM10,PM2.5) during construction activities to below the thresholds. Development of future projects would be subject to the City’s standard CEQA review process and would be required to assess project-specific emissions in relation to the BAAQMD significance thresholds if they exceed the BAAQMD screening sizes. Additionally, the BAAQMD recommends implementation of nine Basic Best Management Practices for Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Emissions to reduce fugitive dust levels that projects Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 27 would implement. Future development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with Goal OSC-G-7 of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the San Pablo General Plan 2030. Policy OSC-I-20 requires developers to use best management practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emissions and dust associated with construction activities as a condition of approval for subdivision maps, site plans, and grading permits. The BMPs include, but are not limited to, regular materials and vehicle tire watering, covering, and dust prevention measures during clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation operations. Given the aforementioned, construction criteria pollutant emission impacts would be less than significant. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions – Operation The Proposed Project would involve facilitating construction of high density housing along key commercial corridors in proximity to transit and services, while placing smaller scale housing, including single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and accessory dwelling units on sites in established residential neighborhoods. Long-term criteria pollutant emissions may result from the operation of an increased number of residential units supported by the Proposed Project. Operational air quality emissions are evaluated in terms of area source emissions, energy demand emissions, and mobile emissions. Area source emissions are the combination of many small emission sources that include use of outdoor landscape maintenance equipment, use of consumer products such as cleaning products, and periodic repainting of a project. Energy demand emissions result from the use of natural gas. Mobile emissions result from automobile and other vehicle sources associated with daily trips to and from the project vicinity. Operation of the Proposed Project would potentially result in increases in emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) since it would increase the density and number of residential units within the city. Nonetheless, development of future projects would be subject to the City’s standard CEQA review process and would be required to assess project-specific emissions in relation to the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Additionally, future development would be required to comply with Goal OSC-G-7 of the San Pablo General Plan 2030. Policy OSC-I-23 calls for the continued support of BAAQMD’s efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from stationary sources; Policy OSC-I-24 supports working with surrounding jurisdictions and agencies to establish parallel air quality programs and implementation measures, as necessary, to improve air quality standards; Policy OSC-I-25 supports non-polluting transportation modes and opportunities (i.e. pedestrian, bike, carpooling opportunities and public transit improvements); and Policy OSC-I-26 promotes energy efficiency in architectural design for new construction including building orientation to take advantage of wind and sun, and site design features (such as clustering of uses), pre-wiring for optional photovoltaic or solar heating systems. Future development would also be required to comply with the San Pablo General Plan 2030’s Land Use & Physical Design and Circulation Elements that contain land use and transportation policies that would provide air quality benefits from sustainable land use planning and design consideration, complete streets and other mobility considerations that would reduce vehicle trips, and infrastructure planning to support alternative means of transportation. In addition, as discussed in the section below, under the project, the city’s population would increase at a faster rate than the VMT would increase, indicating that VMT per capita would be more efficient in terms of air quality emissions than the existing scenario. Therefore, operational emission impacts would be less than significant and the Project would not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Project VMT and Population Growth According to the BAAQMD 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the threshold for criteria air pollutants and precursors includes an assessment of the rate of increase of plan VMT versus population growth. To result in a less than significant impact, the analysis must show that the Project’s projected VMT increase would be less than or equal to its projected population increase. Table 4 summarizes the net increase in Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 28 population versus VMT based on VMT modeling (Kittleson & Associates 2023). Population under the Project would increase at a rate of 15 percent, while VMT would increase at a rate of 6 percent. Therefore, under the Proposed Project, the VMT per capita is more efficient than the existing condition. This would result in a less than significant impact per the BAAQMD threshold, and the project would not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than those identified in the 2030 GP EIR. Ta bl e 4: Increase in Population Compared to VMT Under Proposed Project Scenario Existing (2023) Project (2031) Net Increase Percent Change Population 31,301 36,182 4,881 15% Vehicle Miles Traveled 321,683 342,214 20,531 6% Source: Kittleson & Associates, 2023 Criterion 3c The 2030 GP EIR analyzed TACs under Section 3.3, Air Quality. Citing implementation of land use diagrams to identify health risk overlay zones around existing and planned sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and policies to require site-specific project design improvements to reduce public health risks for projects within a health risk overlay zone, impacts were determined to be less than significant. The EIR did not analyze construction TAC emissions. Carbon Monoxide Hotspots A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard. The entire SFBAAB is in conformance with State and federal CO standards, as indicated by the recent air quality monitoring. There are no current exceedances of CO standards within the air district and the Bay Area has not exceeded CO standards since before 1994.3 For 2019, the Bay Area’s reported maximum 1-hour and average daily concentrations of CO were 5.6 ppm and 1.7 ppm respectively (BAAQMD 2019).4 These are well below the respective 1-hour and 8-hour standards of 20 ppm and 9 ppm. Given the ambient concentrations, which includes mobile as well as stationary sources, a project in the Bay Area would need to emit concentrations three times the hourly maximum ambient emissions for all sources before project emissions would exceed the 1-hour standard. Additionally, the Proposed Project would need to emit seven times the daily average for ambient concentrations to exceed the 8-hour standards. Typical development projects, even plan level growth, would not emit the levels of CO necessary to result in a localized hot spot. Therefore, impacts to CO hotspots would be less than significant, and the Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Toxic Air Contaminants Construction Development facilitated by the Proposed Project would result in DPM exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment associated with site preparation (e.g., excavation, grading, clearing), building construction, and other miscellaneous construction activities. DPM was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM, as discussed below, outweighs the potential 3 BAAQMD only has records for annual air quality summaries dating back to 1994. 4 Data for 2019 was used as the data for 2020 and 2021 are not currently available.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 29 non-cancer5 health impacts.6 Generation of DPM from construction typically occurs in a single area for a short period of time. Construction of development facilitated by the Project would occur over approximately seven years but use of diesel-powered construction equipment in any one area would likely occur for no more than a few years for an individual project and would cease when construction is completed in that area. It is not possible to quantify risk without identified specific project details and locations, as impacts would vary based on location, intensity, construction methods, and other project-specific factors. For example, a project proposing construction of a small-scale building on an infill site over a six-month construction period would generally have less impacts than a large-scale development on an undeveloped site with a two-year constriction period. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the development.7 BAAQMD uses an exposure period of 30 years.8 The maximum PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur during demolition, site preparation and grading activities, which would only occur for a portion of the overall construction duration. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would decrease for the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction and architectural coating would require less intensive construction equipment. To identify and reduce potential risk exposure to nearby sensitive receivers during the construction of individual projects facilitated by the Proposed Project, projects would be required to comply with Policy HEA-I-38 of the Health and Environmental Justice Element Update that would require certain projects to conduct an HRA for construction activities. In addition to the above policy, future projects facilitated by the project would also be required to be consistent with the applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan, BAAQMD regulatory requirements and control strategies, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which are intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. Therefore, construction-related TACs exposure impacts would be less than significant, and the project would not result in new or substantially more significant construction impacts than those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR 5 Non-cancer risks include premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic heart and lung disease, including asthma, increased respiratory symptoms, and decreased lung function. 6 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2021. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. Accessed April 2023. 7 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Available: https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0. Accessed: April 2023. 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. Resolution Adopting a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal and Commitment to Develop a Regional Climate Protection Strategy. Avaliable: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/board-of-directors/adopted-resolutions/2013/2013-11.pdf?la=en&rev=cec111dbf84b419d89751bfbca59419f. Accessed: April 2023.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 30 Operation In the Bay Area, there are several urban or industrialized communities where the exposure to TACs is relatively high in comparison to others. According to the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (Figure 5-1)9, most of the city is located in an impacted community for 24-hour PM2.5 due to its proximity to the freeway, rail, and industry. TACs are emitted into the air from a wide range of sources in the Bay Area, including diesel engines, cars, trucks, industrial processes, and gas stations.10 Residences do not typically include new stationary sources onsite, such as emergency diesel generators. Therefore, operation of development facilitated by the Proposed Project would not involve these uses; therefore, it is not considered a source of TACs. However, if residences did Include a new stationary source onsite, it would be subject to BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2 (New Source Review) and require permitting. This process would ensure that the stationary source does not exceed applicable BAAQMD health risk thresholds. Additionally, BAAQMD employs the Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program, which applies strategies to reduce health impacts in impacted communities.11 CARE is currently activated in San Pablo since it is an impacted community. Future development would be required to comply with San Pablo General Plan 2030 Policy OSC-I-18, which calls for the City to work with BAAQMD to develop and implement a Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP) to address the exposure of sensitive populations to toxic air contaminant emissions in San Pablo. Policy OSC-I-19 requires that a 500-foot Air Quality Health Risk Overlay Zone be maintained on either side of I-80 within the Planning Area to protect sensitive receptors from toxic air emissions. Within this overlay, approval of new sensitive land uses must be avoided and permitted projects are required to include site-specific project design improvements (such as higher-performance windows and HVAC systems) in order to reduce public health risks associated with poor air quality in these locations. Therefore, operational impacts from TAC emissions would be less than significant, and the Project would not result in new or substantially more significant operational impacts than those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Asbestos BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions from demolition or renovation of structures and the associated disturbance of asbestos-containing waste material generated or handled during these activities.12 The rule addresses the national emissions standards for asbestos along with some additional requirements. The rule requires the Lead Agency and its contractors to notify BAAQMD of any regulated renovation or demolition activity. This notification includes a description of structures and methods utilized to determine whether asbestos-containing materials are potentially present. All asbestos-containing material found on the site must be removed prior to demolition or renovation activity in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, including specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of material containing asbestos. Therefore, individual projects that 9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Adopted April 19, 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: April 2023. 10 BAAQMD. 2023. 2022 CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Accessed: April 2023. 11 BAAQMD. 2022. Community Air Risk Evaluation Program. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/community-air-risk-evaluation-care-program. Accessed: April 2023. 12 BAAQMD. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, CA. May 2017. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: April 2023.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 31 comply with Regulation 11, Rule 2 would ensure that asbestos-containing materials would be disposed of appropriately and safely. By complying with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, thereby minimizing the release of airborne asbestos emissions, demolition activity would not result in a significant impact to air quality. Per the BAAQMD Guidelines, because BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 is in place, no further analysis about the demolition of asbestos-containing materials is needed in a CEQA document.13 Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Criterion 3d During construction activities, heavy equipment and vehicles would emit odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust both during normal use and when idling. However, these odors would be temporary and transitory and would cease upon completion. Therefore, construction of development facilitated by the Project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Table 5 below provides BAAQMD odor screening distances for land uses with the potential to generate substantial odor complaints. Those uses include wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, refineries, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, smelting plants, and chemical plants. Since the Proposed Project would only include residential development, none of the uses identified in Table 5 would occur on the sites. Development facilitated by the Proposed Project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during operation, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than those identified in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 GP EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any impacts identified in the 2030 GP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to air quality. Since the approval of the 2030 General Plan, no new information has emerged, nor have environmental conditions changed such that, new environmental impacts would be expected to emerge, or previously identified impacts would become more severe. Ta bl e 5: BAAQMD Odor Source Thresholds Odor Source Minimum Distance for Less than Significant Odor Impacts (in miles) Wastewater Treatment Plant 2 Wastewater Pumping Facilities 1 Sanitary Landfill 2 Transfer Station 1 Composting Facility 1 Petroleum Refinery 2 Asphalt Batch Plant 2 Chemical Manufacturing 2 Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 Painting/Coating Operations 1 13 Ibid.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 32 Odor Source Minimum Distance for Less than Significant Odor Impacts (in miles) Rendering Plant 2 Coffee Roaster 1 Food Processing Facility 1 Confined Animal Facility/Feed Lot/Dairy 1 Green Waste and Recycling Operations 1 Metal Smelting Plants 2 Source: BAAQMD, 2023 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Biological Resources Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Less than Significant 2030 GP OSC-G-3, OSC-G-4, OSC-G-5, OSC-I-4, OSC-I-5, OSC-I-6, OSC-I-7, OSC-I-10, OSC-I-11, OSC-I-12, OSC-I-20, SN-I-36, SN-I-37, SN-I-38, PSCU-I-34 Less than Significant
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish Less than Significant Less than Significant
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 33 Biological Resources Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; Less than Significant
2030 GP LU OSC-G-3, OSC-I-4, OSC-I-6, OSC-I-20, SN-I-6, SN-I-7. In addition, policies listed under impacts 4a and 4b would also help reduce this impact to less than significant.

Less than Significant
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; Less than Significant
2030 GP SN-I-13. In addition, policies listed under impacts 4a, 4b, and 4c would also help reduce this impact to less than significant.

Less than Significant
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or Less than Significant - Less than Significant
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 34 Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criterion 4a The 2030 GP EIR determined that the adoption and implementation of the 2030 General Plan would have a less than significant impact on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species, as habitat for sensitive species (monarch butterfly, California red-legged frog, the western pond turtle, the San Pablo song sparrow, and the Bridges coast range shoulderband snail) is limited within the urbanized context of the City of San Pablo. The Proposed Project would facilitate infill housing construction in previously developed areas, primarily along key commercial corridors in proximity to transit and services, while placing smaller scale housing, including single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and accessory dwelling units on sites in established residential neighborhoods. The Proposed Project does not involve development along the creeks. As with the 2030 GP EIR, development pursuant to the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the following General Plan policies which would reduce potential impacts on special-status species possibly present in San Pablo would be reduced to less-than-significant levels : OSC-G-3, OSC-G-4, OSC-G-5, OSC-I-4, OSC-I-5, OSC-I-6, OSC-I-7, OSC-I-10, OSC-I-11, OSC-I-12, OSC-I-20, SN-I-36, SN-I-37, SN-I-38, and PSCU-I-34. These policies protect and enhance wetlands, creek systems, and rare and endangered species and their habitats, as well as protect water supply and quality through conservation and good stormwater management practices. Additionally, the policies call for the City to coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure City staff is providing developers with the best guidance and standards for project design to avoid impacts to creeks, wetland features, woodlands, or other sensitive natural features. There have been no changes in circumstances or new information such that new or more substantially severe impacts to special status species would result. Thus, similar to the findings in the 2030 GP EIR, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impact to special status species. Criterion 4b The 2030 GP EIR determined that the adoption and implementation of the 2030 General Plan would have a less than significant impact on riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities. Riparian corridors Biological Resources Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance 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? Less than Significant - Less than Significant
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 35 associated with both San Pablo Creek and Wildcat Creek are identified as sensitive natural communities by the CNDDB and Significant Ecological Resource Areas by the Contra Costa County General Plan. Potential impacts on riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities are possibly present in San Pablo Creek and Wildcat Creek would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through General Plan policies listed under Criterion 4a. These policies prohibit the use of invasive plant species, such as pampas grass and ivies, adjacent to wetlands, riparian areas, or other sensitive habitat. As described above, the Proposed Project would facilitate housing construction in previously developed areas, primarily along key commercial corridors in proximity to transit and services, while placing smaller scale housing, including single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and accessory dwelling units on sites in established residential neighborhoods. The Project does not involve development in riparian areas along the creeks. There have been no changes in circumstances or new information such that new or more substantially severe impacts to special status species would result. Thus, similar to the findings in the 2030 GP EIR, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impact to riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities. Criterion 4c The 2030 GP EIR determined that the adoption and implementation of the 2030 General Plan would have a less than significant impact on state of federally protected wetlands. The Planning Area contains streams and associated riparian habitat, San Pablo Creek, Wildcat Creek, Rheem Creek, and an unnamed tributary. Potential impacts on wetlands are possibly present as development and redevelopment of property within the City of San Pablo could increase surface runoff and could increase seasonal flows within the creeks which could impact the jurisdictional waters. However, new development and redevelopment involving 5,000 square feet or more would be required to comply with Provision C.3 of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. Provision C.3 requires site designs for new developments and redevelopments to minimize the area of new roofs and paving by implementing best management practices. Runoff should be dispersed to landscaping where possible. Where feasible, pervious pavements can be used so that runoff can infiltrate to the underlying soil. Remaining runoff from roofs and pavement must be treated using bio-retention. In some developments, the rates and durations of site runoff must also be controlled. In addition, project applicants must execute agreements to maintain stormwater treatment and flow-control facilities in perpetuity. Individual developments under the Proposed Project would also be required to comply with these requirements, which would limit increases in runoff to the maximum extent practicable.. Thus, similar to the findings in the 2030 GP EIR, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impact on wetlands and other jurisdictional waters. Criterion 4d The 2030 GP EIR determined that the adoption and implementation of the 2030 General Plan would have a less than significant impact on migratory fish or wildlife species. While implementation of the 2030 General Plan has the potential to affect migratory and breeding birds through building collisions and increases in nighttime lighting, the Planning Area is an urbanized area with buildings and nighttime lighting. The anticipated development intensification due to the implementation of the 2030 General Plan would not substantially increase building heights or night lighting levels beyond those that now exist such that a substantial increase in bird strikes or disruption of migratory patterns would result. Further, General Plan policy PSCU-I-7 would work to reduce the overall impact of light pollution and glare as noted in Aesthetics Impact 1d, which would help to ensure that lighting for new development is held to high design standards for light pollution reduction. Additionally, the San Pablo Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 regulates lighting to balance the safety and security needs for lighting with the City’s desire to preserve dark skies and to ensure that light trespass and glare have negligible impact on surrounding property especially residential, roadways, and animals. There have been no changes in circumstances or new information such that new or more substantially severe impacts to migratory fish and wildlife species would result. Thus, similar to the Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 36 findings in the 2030 GP EIR, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impact to migratory fish and wildlife species. Criteria 4e-4f The 2030 GP EIR determined that the adoption and implementation of the 2030 General Plan would have a less than significant impact on conflict with local policies, ordinances, an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) as there are no HCPs nor HCCP within the Planning Area. Since the adoption of the 2030 GP EIR, there have been no adopted HCP, NCCP, or no changes in circumstances or new information such that new or more substantially severe impacts to the conflict of regulations would result.14 Development from the Proposed Project comply with the City’s Floodplain Management and Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and implement appropriate mitigation measures to minimize surface water run-off. Thus, similar to the findings in the 2030 GP EIR, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impact to conflict of regulations. Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 GP EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project should not increase the impacts identified, or result in new significant impacts, pertaining to biological resources. Provided the Proposed Project require adhere to General Plan policies identified as part of the 2030 GP EIR to reduce significant impacts to special status species, riparian habitats, or migratory corridors, impacts should be reduced to a less than significant impact. Because no information or environmental circumstances have changed related to the presence of wetlands or inclusion in Habitat Conservation Plans, no impacts should occur under the Proposed Project. Adherence to existing policies and regulations and ordinances related to protection of biological resources would result in a less than significant impact under the Proposed Project. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES Cultural Resources Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions: Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Cause a substantial change to the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5; Less than Significant 2030 GP OSC-I-13, OSC-I-14, OSC-1-15 Less than Significant
b. Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological Less than Significant Less than Significant 14 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2024. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP). Available: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP. Accessed: January 2, 2024.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 37 resource pursuant to §15064.5; c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries Less than Significant Less than Significant Tribal Cultural Resources a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

2030 GP OSC-I-13, OSC-I-14, OSC-I-15, and OSC-I-16

i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Not Analyzed Less than Significant
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its Not Analyzed Less than Significant Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 38 discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Appendix C Supporting Materials for Cultural Resources lists and describes all historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources NWIC identified in the Planning Area. Appendix D Supporting Materials for Tribal Cultural Resources includes correspondence with tribes, though no responses were received in the consultation process. Criteria 5a-5c The 2030 GP EIR documented the presence of historic buildings and structures, including four properties that appear eligible for listing on the National Register and one property, the Alvarado Adobe, that is listed on the State Register. The 2030 GP EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies OSC-I-13, involving the creation of a register of historic and potentially historic resources to serve as the basis for a local preservation program, and OSC-I-15, which requires records review, pre-construction surveys, and actions such as avoidance or preservation as appropriate, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Continued implementation of these policies would ensure that potential impacts to historic resources from development under the Proposed Project would also be reduced to a less than significant level, as with the 2030 General Plan. Additionally, the 2030 GP EIR documented the existence of recorded Native American cultural resources (archaeological sites) and noted the high likelihood of as yet undiscovered archaeological and tribal cultural resources in the planning area, particularly in the vicinity of ridgelines, midslope terraces, alluvial flats, ecotones, and sources of water. The 2030 GP EIR determined that impacts to know cultural resources sites and as yet undiscovered resources as well as to undiscovered human remains would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with existing regulations, including PRC 5097 which establishes protocols for the protection of archaeological, paleontological, and historic sites and resources, as well as CEQA 15064.5, which further defines steps that must be taken to protect resources in the event of the Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 39 accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery. Development pursuant to the Proposed Project would also be required to comply with these regulations, and as such impacts would be less than significant as under the 2030 General Plan. Criterion 6a.i-iii In 2017, the State of California amended its CEQA Guidelines to require the analysis of impacts to Tribal Cultural resources, defined in the Public Resources Code as sites, features, places, geographically defined cultural landscapes, sacred places, or objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. This represents a change in circumstances that could potentially result in new impacts not previously identified in the 2030 GP EIR. As part of the Proposed Project, the City of San Pablo requested a records search from the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). The City of San Pablo contains ten recorded Native American archaeological resources including tool processing sites, habitation sites, hearth or pits, burials, and two historic-period archaeological resources, including landscaping, fences, and a 1906 Earthquake Refugee camp. Based on evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, there is a high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the Planning Area. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code 21080.3.1, the City contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 15, 2022 with a request to facilitate involvement of interested Native American tribes in the planning process and a search of the Sacred Lands File for sites within the Planning Area. The NAHC responded on December 6, 2022, providing contact details and indicating that the results of the search of the Sacred Lands File were positive. On December 7, 2022, the City sent tribal outreach letters to the eight Native American representatives from seven tribes that were previously identified by the NAHC to consult on the Proposed Project. Of the tribes contacted, the Confederated Villages of Lisjan requested consultation and the City met with tribal representatives on January 18, 2023. Details of the recorded tribal cultural resources are included in Appendix D – Supporting Materials for Tribal Cultural Resources. Implementation of the Proposed Project would primarily involve infill development on previously disturbed sites; however, given that the NAHC Sacred Lands file search results were positive and the likelihood for as yet undiscovered tribal cultural resources in the planning area, the potential for accidental discovery during ground disturbing construction activities exists. As with the 2030 General Plan, implementation of General Plan policies and compliance with existing regulations would reduce the potential for damage, disturbance, or other adverse change to tribal cultural resources. Specifically, General Plan Policy OSC-I-15 would require records review, pre-construction surveys, and actions such as avoidance or preservation as appropriate, while Policy OSC-I-16 call for the City to work with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, and to educate developers and the community-at-large about the connections between Native American history and the environmental features that characterize the local landscape. Further, compliance with PRC 5097, which establishes protocols for the protection of archaeological, paleontological, and historic sites and resources, as well as CEQA 15064.5, which further defines steps that must be taken to protect resources in the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery would be required. Therefore, overall, the Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more adverse impacts related to tribal cultural resources than analyzed in the 2030 GP EIR and impacts would be less than significant.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 40 Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 GP EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project should not increase the impacts identified, or result in new significant impacts, pertaining to cultural and tribal cultural resources. Adherence to existing policies and regulations and ordinances related to protection of tribal and cultural resources would result in a less than significant impact under the Proposed Project. ENERGY Energy Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; Less than Significant 2030 GP C-I-33, PSCU-G-6, PSCU-I-24; Housing Element Policy 5-1, Policy 5-2, Policy 5-3 Less than Significant
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact No Impact Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criteria 7a and 7b Analysis in the 2030 GP EIR indicated that implementation of the 2030 General Plan, combined with anticipated regional growth and improvements in vehicle technology, would result in a slight increase in per service population energy use (relative to existing conditions) related to residential, commercial, and industrial development, while at the same time a substantial decrease in per service population energy use (relative to existing conditions) from transportation, largely as a result of implementation of existing State policy. However, as new development is required to meet California’s Title 24 energy efficiency requirements, the 2030 GP EIR determined that development under the 2030 General Plan would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy and that, accordingly, no impact would result.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 41 Since the adoption and certification of the 2030 General Plan, the City of San Pablo adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2012. San Pablo CAP contains goals and policies related to energy conservation, including compliance with Title 24 energy regulations and encouraging project design that increases energy efficiency during project construction or operation. Development of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the goals and policies in the San Pablo CAP, as well as the Title 24 regulations. The City of San Pablo General Plan also features several goals and policies regarding energy efficiency or renewable energy aside from those contained in the CAP. These include the following, which apply to the Proposed Project: amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish “green” parking design standards that have multiple benefits (C-I-33), support the efficient use and conservation of water (PSCU-G-6), and establish water saving and conservation standards for new development (PSCU-I-24). Further, the Proposed Project contains various goals, policies and programs that would apply to the consumption of energy resources and compliance with state/local plans for energy efficiency. Proposed Housing Element Policy 5-1 aims to have proactive energy conservation and waste reduction activities in all residential neighborhoods, by the promotion of energy conservation programs and incentives; Policy 5-1 encourages the incorporation of energy conservation design features in existing and future residential developments to conserve resources and reduce housing costs; and Policy 5-3 encourages the use of building placement, design, and construction techniques that promote energy conservation, including green building practices, the use of recycled materials, and the recycling of construction and demolition debris. Therefore, similar to the 2030 GP EIR, compliance with existing regulations and General Plan policies would ensure development under the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and would avoid potential conflicts with adopted energy conservation plans. Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 GP EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the impacts identified to energy resources or result in new significant impacts. The existing General Plan policies included in the 2030 GP EIR and Climate Action Plan policies, Proposed Project policies, and up-to-date building code standards would be applicable such that no new environmental impacts would be expected to emerge, or previously identified impacts would become more severe. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Geology and Soils Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

Less than Significant - Less than Significant
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 42 Geology and Soils Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance 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 Less than Significant
2030 GP SN-I-1, SN-I-2, SN-I-3, SN-I-4, SN-I-5
Less than Significant
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking; Less than Significant Less than Significant iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; Less than Significant Less than Significant iv. Landslides? Less than Significant Less than Significant b. Result in substantial soil erosion and topsoil loss; Less than Significant 2030 GP SN-I-6 Less than Significant 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 Less than Significant 2030 GP SN-I-1, SN-I-2, SN-I-3, SN-I-4, SN-I-5 Less than Significant Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 43 Geology and Soils Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance 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 direct or indirect risks to life or property; Less than Significant Less than Significant
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater; or Not analyzed - No Impact
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant 2030 GP OSC-I-15 No Impact
Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criteria 8a and 8c Figure 5 shows seismic hazards in the Planning Area, including the presence of faults and liquefaction risk. Given the extent of seismic hazards, the potential for loss or damage due to fault rupture, ground shaking, and liquefaction is high. The 2030 General Plan General Plan acknowledges the existence of the underlying risk related to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslide that exists in the Planning Area and the surrounding region, and incorporates policies to proactively reduce it, including the creation of a Geologic Hazard Abatement District (Policy SN-I-1), the prohibition of critical or habitable development in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone around the Hayward Fault (Policy SN-I-2), and the identification of at-risk buildings (Policy SN-I-4), and promotion of State and federal funding sources to support necessary safety retrofits (Policy SN-I-5). The 2030 GP EIR found that implementation of these policies and mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including the construction standards established in the California Building Code (based on the Uniform Building Code), the requirements of the Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 44 City of San Pablo Municipal Code, would reduce vulnerability to an acceptable level that is less than significant. Buildout of the Proposed Project would not involve construction on sites within the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone show on Figure 5, although some sites would be located in areas of very high liquefaction risk. As with the 2030 General Plan, compliance with General Plan policies SN-I-1, SN-I-2, SN-I-4, and SN-I-5 together with the standards of the California Building Code and the City of San Pablo Municipal Code would be required for development under the Proposed Project, and therefore associated impacts would be similarly reduced to an acceptable level that is less than significant. Criterion 8b The 2030 GP EIR determined that impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil from the 2030 General Plan would be less than significant. The 2030 GP EIR notes the Soil Survey for Contra Costa County indicates the hazard of erosion of site soils varies from slight where gently sloping, to moderate in the hilly areas at the northern and eastern edges of the Planning Area. However, erosion hazards are highest during construction activities because excavation, backfilling, grading, and demolition can remove stabilizing vegetation and expose areas of loose soil that, if not properly stabilized, can be subject to soil loss and erosion by wind and stormwater runoff. Concentrated storm water runoff, if not managed or controlled, can eventually result in significant soil loss that can threaten foundations and undermine sidewalks and roadways. Development and redevelopment projects that disturb areas that are greater than one acre are required to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit which must include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). These SWPPPs typically contain numerous erosion control measures that effectively reduce the potential for erosion and loss of topsoil. As these same existing City policies and regulations would also apply to development under the Proposed Project, similar to the 2030 General Plan, impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil from the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Criterion 8d The 2030 GP EIR determined that the impact of the adoption and implementation of the 2030 General Plan on expansive soils was less than significant. There are existing City policies and General Plan requirements for expansive soil measures that would apply to the Planning Area for individual development or redevelopment projects proposed under the 2030 General Plan. As these same existing City policies and regulations would also apply to development under the Proposed Project, similar to the 2030 GP EIR, impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil from the Proposed Project would also be less than significant, as with the 2030 General Plan. Criterion 8e Development pursuant to the Proposed Project would not use septic tanks. Chapter 16.22.030 of the San Pablo Municipal Code requires that new development be served by the sanitary sewer system that serves the city. Therefore, there would be no impact related to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems from the Proposed Project, and the Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more adverse impacts than identified in the 2030 GP EIR. Criterion 8f The 2030 GP EIR determined that there were no known paleontological resources within the Planning Area and that due to the built-up urban nature of the planning area, there is a very low possibility of finding any paleontological or unique geologic resources, thus resulting in a less than significant impact. Further, compliance with General Plan Policy OSC-I-15 that stipulates provisions for the accidental discovery of Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 45 paleontological resources, in addition to State laws and regulations would be required in the event of accidental discovery of paleontological or geologic resources to protect these resources from disturbance and destruction. The Proposed Project would primarily involve infill development on previously developed sites and, as with the 2030 General Plan, compliance with General Plan Policy OSC-I-15 and applicable State regulations would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, similar to the 2030 GP EIR, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact related to paleontological or geologic resources. Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 GP EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the impacts identified to geology and soils or result in new significant impacts. The existing General Plan policies included in the 2030 GP EIR and up-to-date building code standards would be applicable such that no new environmental impacts would be expected to emerge, or previously identified impacts would become more severe.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Local Roads
Railroads
J:\GISData\581_SanPablo_GP\GIS\Projects\CEQA\Figure 5 Seismic Hazards.mxd Hayward Fault
Alquist Priolo Zones
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Very high
High
Moderate
Low
Very low
Figure 5: Seismic Hazards
Date: 11/15/2023
SOURCE: California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazards Program, 2018 City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 0 1,000 2,000500
FEET
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 47 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project:
2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; Less than Significant Less than Significant
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Housing Element Goal #2, Goal #5, Program 5-A, Program 5-B, Program 5-C Less than Significant
Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criteria 9a and 9b The 2030 GP EIR analyzed GHG emissions under Section 3.4, Energy and Greenhouse Gases. The criteria used for GHG emissions included exceeding the per service population (residents plus employees) threshold of 6.6 MT CO2e per year or conflicting with existing local, regional, or state efforts to implement AB 32 or SB 375. The EIR analysis determined that the GHG emissions per service population would not exceed the threshold, which would also make the 2030 General Plan consistent with GHG regulations. Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant. Analysis of Proposed Project To determine the significance of GHG impacts, the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions per capita are compared to the GHG emissions per capita analyzed in the 2030 GP EIR. In addition, the project’s consistency with GHG reduction plans, such as the 2022 Scoping Plan, is analyzed. Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions includes a detailed summary of the data used in this analysis. Criterion 9a Construction Development facilitated by the project would result in GHG emissions during construction. GHG emissions during construction would result primarily from fuel consumption associated with heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators for lighting. Temporary grid power may also be provided to Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 48 construction trailers or electric construction equipment that may result in indirect GHG emissions from the energy generation. Development facilitated by the project would incorporate BAAQMD best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction activities. Development would also utilize construction contractors that comply with applicable CARB regulations such as accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road equipment, and restricted idling of heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles. Construction contractors are required to comply with the provisions of CCR Title 13, sections 2449 and 2485, prohibiting diesel-fueled commercial and off-road vehicles from idling for more than five minutes, minimizing unnecessary GHG emissions. Construction equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would minimize inefficient fuel consumption and thus GHG emissions. These construction equipment standards (i.e., Tier 4 efficiency requirements) are contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Per applicable regulatory requirements of CALGreen, development would comply with construction waste management practices to divert construction and demolition debris from landfills. These practices would result in efficient use of energy by construction and therefore would minimize unnecessary GHG emissions. Furthermore, in the interest of cost efficiency, construction contractors would not utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary, which would also have the effect of minimizing GHG emissions. According to BAAQMD, greenhouse gas emissions from construction represent a very small portion of a project’s lifetime GHG emissions. The proposed thresholds for land use projects are designed to address operational GHG emissions that represent the vast majority of project GHG emissions. Therefore, the evaluation of GHG emissions impacts associated with implementation of the project is focused on operational emissions, discussed below. Operation Operation of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions associated with mobile sources (vehicles trips), area sources, energy and water usage, wastewater and solid waste generation, and refrigerants. Table 6 shows the estimated operational GHG emissions associated with development of the project, which were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.1.17. The model inputted land uses based upon the residential units in Table 2, with single-family uses including both the vacant single-family lots and ADUs, and VMT data from Kittleson & Associates (2023). As shown therein, the GHG emissions per service population from the project would be 1.60 MT CO2e per year. This would be below the GHG emissions per service population of 5.99 MT CO2e in the 2030 GP EIR. The majority of the reduction is due to reduced mobile emissions. Criterion 9b The principal State plans and policies for reducing GHG emissions are AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; the goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; and the goal of AB 1279 is to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions no later than 2045 and reduce GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan expands upon earlier plans to include the AB 1279 targets. The 2022 Scoping Plan’s strategies that are applicable to the Proposed Project include reducing fossil fuel use and vehicle miles traveled and decarbonizing the electricity sector. In support of 2022 Scoping Plan strategies, the Housing Element would implement Goal H-5, Proactive Energy Conservation and Waste Reduction Activities in All Residential Neighborhoods. This includes the following programs: Program 5-A, Energy Efficient Design, which promotes the use of solar energy and other environmentally sound, energy-efficient methods for heating and cooling Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 49 Ta bl e 6: Annual Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e) Operational Mobile 4,698 Area 103 Energy 1,604 Solid Waste 331 Water, Wastewater 130 Refrigerants 2 To t a l 6,869 Service Population 4,286 GHG Emissions Per Service Population 1.60 2030 General Plan EIR GHG Emissions Per Service Population 5.99 Note: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Source: Rincon Consultants, Inc. homes, consistent with adopted building, mechanical and plumbing codes; Program 5-B, Green Building Incentives, which would provide incentives for green design; and Program 5-C, Sustainable Design, which would encourage and facilitate environmentally sensitive construction practices. Additionally, future development would receive electricity from PG&E, which complies with SB 100 that requires renewable portfolio standards of the utility to reach 60 percent by December 31, 2030 and 100 percent of retail sales from eligible renewables and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045. The Proposed Project also contains various policies to support affordable housing under Goal H-2. Per the 2022 Scoping Plan, units that are affordable to lower-income residents have shown a reduction in VMT, and therefore a reduction in GHG emissions. Future development facilitated by the project would also be located in proximity to transit such as the six regional bus routes that provide connections to BART and Amtrak rail stations as well as to the Richmond Passenger Ferry Terminal. A such, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan and this impact would be less than significant. Conclusion As demonstrated above in Table 6, the Proposed Project would result in lower GHG emissions per service population compared to the 2030 forecast in the 2030 General Plan EIR. This is further demonstrated in Table 4, which shows that VMT per capita would be lower under the Proposed Project than the existing condition. In addition, the project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan strategies, including strategies to decrease fossil fuel use and vehicle miles traveled and decarbonizing the electricity sector. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions and with consistency with GHG plans and regulations.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 50 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project:
2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; Less than Significant 2030 GP PSCU-G-8, PSCU-I-39, PSCU-I-40, SN-G-4, SN-G-5, SN-I-20, SN-I-21, SN-I-22, and SN-I-23 Less than Significant
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; Less than Significant Less than Significant
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; Less than Significant Less than Significant
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 51 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project:
2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; Less than Significant
2030 GP PSCU-G-8, PSCU-I-39, PSCU-I-40, Safety and Noise Element SN-G-4, SN-G-5, SN-I-20, SN-I-21, SN-I-22, and SN-I-23 Less than Significant
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area; No Impact - No Impact
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; Not addressed Less than Significant
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact Less than Significant Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 52 Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criteria 10a through 10c The 2030 GP EIR determined that compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations together with implementation of 2030 General Plan policies would reduce to less than significant levels impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; the release of hazardous due to accident or upset; and the emission or handling of acute hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Implementation of the Proposed Project would involve facilitation of housing construction and would not involve the transport, use, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Demolition or development under the Proposed Project may involve the handling and transport of hazardous materials that could result in the need to handle and transport asbestos or lead based paints; however, such activities are subject to various federal, State, and local regulations, including BAAQMD regulations pertaining to asbestos abatement; Construction Safety Orders 1529 (pertaining to asbestos) and 1532.1 (pertaining to lead) from Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations; Part 61, Subpart M of the Code of Federal Regulations (pertaining to asbestos); and lead exposure guidelines provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Asbestos and lead abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the State Department of Health Services. Construction activities may involve the use of diesel-powered equipment or the application of architectural coatings, but not at levels that could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Similarly, once constructed, the residents of new homes constructed pursuant to the Proposed Project may use cleaning solvents or landscaping chemicals, but not at levels that could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Overall, any transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials would be required to comply with existing regulations established by several agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Transportation, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The construction and operation of housing generally does not involve the release -- accidental or otherwise -- of hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public, nor would it involve emitting or handling acutely hazardous materials or wastes in the vicinity of schools. Overall, compliance with existing regulations would result in a less than significant impact, as with the 2030 General Plan. Criterion 10d The 2030 GP EIR identified a number of known sites within the Planning Area where releases of hazardous materials have occurred, as well as other areas where either light industrial or commercial uses have entailed hazardous materials in the past might be the source of undocumented releases that could be exposed during earthwork activities associated with future development. However, the 2030 GP EIR determined that with implementation of 2030 General Plan policies requiring an evaluation for potential risks and remediation, if necessary, prior to reuse of contaminated sites, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. In 2023, a search of federal, State, and local environmental regulatory agency databases was conducted in order to identify sites within the planning area which may have been historically impacted by hazardous materials or wastes. Search results indicate there are 27 leaking underground storage tank cleanup sites within the Planning Area, shown on Figure 6. All but two of these sites have been remediated and are considered closed. The two open sites, neither of which is in proximity to a housing opportunity site identified in the Housing Element, include:

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 53 • 2145 Rumrill Boulevard. Historical dry-cleaning operations at the site involved the use of tetrachloroethylene (PCE). The dry cleaning equipment was replaced and the use of PCE was discontinued in 2009. The Site is subject to RWQCB Order No. R2-2011-0040, pursuant to which monitoring of groundwater conditions, soil vapor extraction, and indoor air quality is ongoing. A low-threat closure request has been submitted. • 13484 San Pablo Avenue. The site is historically operated as a general storage yard and a trucking company storage yard, but was redeveloped with a single one-story building between 1962 and 1968 and has operated as a skilled nursing facility called Vale Healthcare Center since that time. Soil vapor extraction and sub-slab depressurization activities are ongoing. Therefore, continued compliance with existing federal and State regulations together with implementation of 2030 General Plan policies that require evaluation and remediation of hazardous materials sites prior to redevelopment would ensure that impacts resulting from Proposed Project implementation would be less than significant, as with the 2030 General Plan. Criterion 10e The 2030 General Plan EIR noted there are no airports located in San Pablo. The nearest airport to the City of San Pablo is the Oakland International Airport, which is located approximately 18 miles south. Therefore, the 2030 General Plan EIR would not expose people residing or working in the plan area to excessive airport hazards and there would be no impact. Circumstances have not changed since certification of the 2030 GP EIR and the Proposed Project would also have no impact with respect to exposure of people to excessive airport hazards, as with the 2030 General Plan. Criterion 10f Since the certification of the 2030 GP EIR, the City of San Pablo has partnered with Contra Costa County to develop a hazard mitigation plan to reduce risks from natural disasters in the Contra Costa County Operational Area. The plan, Contra Costa County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP), was published in 2018 and addresses the following hazards of concern within the Planning Area: earthquake, flood, landslide, sever weather, tsunami, and wildfire. Additionally, the City of San Pablo is under the authority of the Contra Costa County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), which provides an analysis of wildfire hazards and risk in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). The CWPP aims to reduce hazard through increased information and education about wildfires, hazardous fuels reduction, actions to reduce structure ignitability and other recommendations to assist emergency preparedness and fire suppression efforts. The Proposed Project would involve continued implementation of Safety and Noise Element policies that support the HMP and CWPP, including SN-I-31, which requires the adoption and update of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan , SN-I-32, which would involve development of an emergency evacuation map showing potential evacuation routes, and a list of emergency shelters that can be used in case of catastrophic emergencies; . Policy SN-I-33, which would initiate periodic public information programs that explain the City’s emergency preparedness programs; and Policy SN-I-34through which the City would continue participation in the Association of Bay Area Governments’ multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation planning process. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more adverse impacts than identified in the 2030 GP EIR, and impacts from the Proposed Project on emergency response and emergency evacuation plans would be less than significant. Criterion 10g Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 54 The 2030 GP EIR determined that buildout of the 2030 General Plan would not increase the threat of wildfire hazards as less than one percent of the Planning Area is designated as high or very high threat of wildfire by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and because buildout would occur primarily on urban infill sites away from designated high and very high wildfire threat. Since adoption of the 2030 General Plan and certification of the 2030 GP EIR, the frequency and severity of wildfires in California have increased due to multiple sequential years of drought and the increasing effects of anthropogenic climate change. In response, the State of California amended its CEQA Guidelines in 2019 to require additional analysis related to wildfire risks. The Planning Area is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designated by the State, nor is it located within the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Area designated by the City.15 As discussed above, the City of San Pablo prepared a Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) in partnership with the County of Contra Costa, and the 2018 draft included mitigation actions related to public education and risk reduction in WUI areas. The City of San Pablo is also party to the Contra Costa County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), which aims to reduce hazard through increased information and education about wildfires, and actions to reduce structure ignitability. Given that the Planning Area is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or in the WUI area and that high-risk wildfires are relatively infrequent in the urbanized context of the Planning Area, the Proposed Project’s implementation of General Plan policies and regulations would result in less than significant impact related to wildfire. Additionally, continued implementation of Safety and Noise Element policies would serve to protect San Pablo residents and property from potential fire hazards by continuing work with the County Fire Department (SN-I-16), working cooperatively with the Fire Department to promote public awareness of fire safety and emergency life support (SN-I-17), reviewing the Fire District’s fire hazard standards and annual report to determine if there should be a modification or additional types of services based on local population needs (SN-I-18), as well as requiring sprinklers in addition to fire breaks or fire doors in all mixed use development and buildings exceeding 5,000 square feet to protect residential uses from non-residential uses (SN-I-19). Continued implementation of the HMP, CWPP, and Safety and Noise Element policies would result in less than significant impact related to wildfire, as with the 2030 General Plan. Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 GP EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any impacts identified in the 2030 GP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to hazardous materials and wildland fires. Since the approval of the 2030 General Plan, no new information has emerged, nor have environmental conditions changed such that, new environmental impacts would be expected to emerge, or previously identified impacts would become more severe. 15 State of California Office of the State Fire Marshal, CAL FIRE, Local Responsibility Area for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6660/fhszl_map7.pdf. Accessed November 9, 2023. ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
21st St
11th St
San Pablo Ave
17th St
Vale Rd
Dover Ave
20th St
Stanton Ave
Pine Ave
Miner Ave
19th St
16th St
15th St
Amador St
Rivers St
Sutter Ave
Emeric Ave
12th St
14th St
Hillcrest Rd
Rollingwood Dr
13th St
Sanford Ave
Lake St
Ridge Rd
California Ave
22nd St
18th St
Bush Ave
John Ave
Willow Rd
Alpine Rd
Brook Way
Palmer Ave
Tyler St
Espanola Ct
Van Ness St
Powell St
Arundel Way
Arundell Way
10th St
Devon Way
Marin Ave
Mason St
Wilcox Ave
Standard St
Post Ave
Chevy Way
Alfreda Blvd
Stone St
Bayo Vista Ave
Kelley Ave
Fordham St
Greenwood Dr
Manor Dr
Yuba Ave
Manchester Ave
Pullman St
Folsom Ave
Mission Ave
Avon Ln
Villa Dr
Mission Bell Dr
Macarthur Ave
Morrow Dr
Beau Rivage
Bowhill Ln
Douglas St
Miflin Ave
Trenton Blvd
Bonita Rd
Merritt Ave
Glenlock St
Del Camino Dr
Fillmore St
Pablo Vista Ave
Lovegrove Ave
Glenn Ave
Colin St
Acapulco Dr
Marelia Ct
Bancroft Ln
Montoya Ave
Ventura Ave
Abella Cir
Clare St
Joel Ct
Gerald Ave
Evens Ave
Manzanilla Dr
Carlfield StCorte St
Ohare Ave
Contra Costa Ave
Casino Ave
Rumrill Rd
Crucero Ave
Wyman St
Riverside Ave
Regina Ave
Barranca St
Humboldt St
E Victoria Ct
Shasta Ave
Harborview Ave
Clement Ave
Baywood Ln
Connecticut Ave
Chattleton Ln
University Ave
Barbara Ln
Kirk Ln
Jean Ct
Madrone Way
W
estgate Cir
W
Victoria Ct
Frieda Ct
Brookside Ave
Regello Ct
Monte Buena St
Dodson St
Judith Ct
Wanlass Ave
Drake Way
Larchmont Ln
18th St
19th St
20th St
19th St
Bush Ave
15th St
15th St
21st St
18th St
Shasta Ave
Glenn Ave
17th St
Merritt Ave
Riverside Ave
14th St
18th St
Dover Ave
19th St
22nd St
Mason St
15th St
16th St
17th St
17th St
Post Ave
Lake St
20th St
21st St
Rivers St
Lake St
Yuba Ave
19th St
22nd St
16th St
17th St
Glenn Ave
Miner Ave
Rose ArborAv e
Bayview A ve
Bolduc Ct
CapitolHill Ave
W estview Pl
NArlington Blvd
HillcrestRd
MiffinAve
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Local Roads
Railroads
J:\GISData\581_SanPablo_GP\GIS\Projects\CEQA\Figure 6 Hazardous Materials.mxd State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
Cleanup Sites
") LUST Cleanup Site
") Cleanup Program Site
S Closed Sites (Case Closed)
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
EnviroStor Status (March 2023)
Active
Certified O&M - Land Use Restrictions
Refer to Another Agency
No Further Action
Figure 6: Hazardous Materials
Date: 11/15/2023
SOURCE: Geotracker, State Water Resources Control Board, 2021; Envirostor, Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2023; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023
0 1,000 2,000500
FEET
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 56 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project:
2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality; Less than Significant - Less than Significant
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?; Less than Significant
2030 GP PSCU-G-5, PSCU-G-6, PSCU-G-7, OSC-G-3, OSC-G-4, OSC-G-5, PSCU-I-34, OSC-I-10, OSC-I-11, OSC-I-12 Less than Significant
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would; 2030 GP PSCU-I-31, PSCU-I-32, PSCU-I-33; Safety and Noise Element SN-G-2, SN-I-7, SN-I-8, SN-I-9, SN-I-10, SN-I-11, SN-I-12, SN-I-13, SN-I-14, SN-I-15

i. result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than Significant Less than Significant ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in Less than Significant Less than Significant
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 57 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project:
2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance flooding on- or offsite? iii. 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? Less than Significant Less than Significant
iv. impede or redirect flood flows? Less than Significant Less than Significant d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation; or No Impact Safety and Noise Element SN-G-2, SN-I-7, SN-I-8, SN-I-9, SN-I-10, SN-I-11, SN-I-12, SN-I-13, SN-I-14 No Impact
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Less than Significant - Less than Significant
Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criteria 11a-b Implementation of the 2030 San Pablo General Plan could result in degradation of water quality and depletion of groundwater supplies by increasing nonpoint source pollutants including sedimentation in stormwater runoff through creation of new impervious surfaces in new development. The Planning Area is already largely developed and widely covered by impervious surfaces; therefore, the 2030 GP EIR determined that any increase in impervious surfaces due to redevelopment is anticipated to be small. A net Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 58 increase in impervious surfaces might affect the amount of precipitation that is recharged to the shallow aquifer. Groundwater within the Planning Area is not used for water supply use but is considered by the RWQCB as a potential resource. However, as new development and redevelopment occurs, on-site drainage plans would be designed to retain, capture and convey increased runoff in accordance with C.3 site control features. According to the C.3 provision in the Contra Costa Clean Water Program NPDES permit, the 2030 San Pablo General Plan falls in the “significant redevelopment projects” category under Group 1 Projects. A significant redevelopment project is defined as a project on a previously developed site that results in addition or replacement of a total of 43,560 square feet (one acre) or more of impervious surface. However, stormwater flows generated from the Planning Area would generally remain unchanged, or potentially decrease, following implementation of required source control measures, which would not affect the drainage system in the Planning Area. As noted in 2030 GP EIR, groundwater recharge and nonpoint source pollutants would not be expected to be significantly affected due to the built-out nature of the city and the current amount of impervious surface area. The 2030 San Pablo General Plan also includes policies that would mitigate degradation of water quality and depletion of groundwater supplies, which include requiring new developments to reduce impermeable surface area and increase infiltration with permeable paving and parking area design, Grading that lengthens flow paths and increases runoff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate, and canopy trees and shrubs to absorb water (PSCU-I-34). The 2030 General Plan also sets out to maintain, protect, and enhance San Pablo’s creeks, as shown on Figure 7, by strengthening management requirements for properties adjacent to creek areas (OSC-1-10). Adherence to the aforementioned requirements as well as the 2030 General Plan policies would result in a less than significant impact related to water quality in stormwater runoff, groundwater recharge, and generally altering drainage patterns. As with the 2030 General Plan, implementation of the Proposed Project could result in degradation of water quality and depletion of groundwater supplies by increasing nonpoint source pollutants including sedimentation in stormwater runoff through creation of new impervious surfaces in new development; however, compliance with local county design standards, 2030 San Pablo General Plan policies, PSCU-I-34 and OSC-1-10, and the City of San Pablo’s ordinances on grading, erosion, and sediment control, would reduce potential impacts from the Proposed Project to a less than significant level. Criterion 11c The 2030 GP EIR determined the adoption and implementation of the 2030 San Pablo General Plan could adversely affect water quality and drainage patterns in the short term due to erosion and sedimentation during construction activities, as well as result in additional runoff exceeding the capacity of existing stormwater facilities and increasing potential flooding of receiving waters and areas in downstream. The 2030 GP EIR noted that depending on the project location, polluted stormwater runoff could be intercepted by local storm drain catch basins, culverts, flood control channels, and ultimately discharged into receiving waters. Most runoff in urban areas is eventually directed to either a storm drain or water body, unless allowed to stand in a detention area and filter into the ground. For this reason, even projects not directly adjacent to or crossing a sensitive area could have an impact. However, all projects that would disturb one acre or more are required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), in accordance with the SWRCB’s General Construction Permit, which includes erosion control measures. Incorporation of these or equivalent practices in accordance with the requirements of the SWRCB’s General Construction Permit process Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
21st St
11th St
San Pablo Ave
17th St
Vale Rd
Dover Ave
20th St
Stanton Ave
Pine Ave
Miner Ave
19th St
16th St
15th St
Amador St
Rivers St
Sutter Ave
Emeric Ave
12th St
14th St
Hillcrest Rd
Rollingwood Dr
13th St
Sanford Ave
Lake St
Ridge Rd
California Ave
22nd St
18th St
Bush Ave
John Ave
Willow Rd
Alpine Rd
Brook Way
Palmer Ave
T yler St
Espanola Ct
Van Ness St
Powell St
Arundel WayArundell Way
10th St
Devon Way
Marin Ave
Mason St
Wilcox Ave
Standard St
Post Ave
Chevy Way
Alfreda Blvd
Stone St
Bayo Vista Ave
Kelley Ave
Fordham St
Greenwood Dr
Manor Dr
Yuba Ave
Manchester Ave
Pullman St
Folsom Ave
Mission Ave
Avon Ln
Villa Dr
Mission Bell Dr
Macarthur Ave
Morrow Dr
Beau Rivage
Bowhill Ln
Douglas St
Miflin Ave
T renton Blvd
Bonita Rd
Merritt Ave Glenlock St
Del Camino Dr
Fillmore St
Pablo Vista Ave
Lovegrove Ave
Glenn Ave
Colin St
Acapulco Dr
Marelia Ct
Bancroft Ln
Montoya Ave
Ventura Ave
Abella Cir
Clare St
Joel Ct
Gerald Ave
Evens Ave
Manzanilla Dr
Carlfield St
Corte St
Ohare Ave
Contra Costa Ave
Casino Ave
Rumrill Rd
Crucero Ave
Wyman St
Riverside Ave
Regina Ave
Barranca St
Humboldt St
E Victoria Ct
Shasta Ave
Harborview Ave
Clement Ave
Baywood Ln
Connecticut Ave
Chattleton Ln
University Ave
Barbara Ln
Kirk Ln
Jean Ct
Madrone Way
Westgate Cir
W Victoria Ct
Frieda Ct
Brookside Ave
Regello Ct
Monte Buena St
Dodson St
Judith Ct
Wanlass Ave
Drake Way
Larchmont Ln
18th St
19th St
20th St
19th St
Bush Ave
15th St
15th St
21st St
18th St
Shasta Ave
Glenn Ave
17th St
Merritt Ave
Riverside Ave
14th St
18th St
Dover Ave
19th St
22nd St
Mason St
15th St
16th St
17th St
17th St
Post Ave
Lake St
20th St
21st St
Rivers St
Lake St
Yuba Ave
19th St
22nd St
16th St
17th St
Glenn Ave
Miner Ave
Rose ArborAv e
Bayview A ve
Bolduc Ct
CapitolHill Ave
W estview Pl
NArlington Blvd
HillcrestRd
MiffinAve
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Local Roads
Railroads
J:\GISData\581_SanPablo_GP\GIS\Projects\CEQA\Figure 8 Water Resources.mxd Creeks
Wetlands
Watersheds
Wildcat Creek
San Pablo Creek
Rheem Creek
Baxter / Cerrito Richmond Drainages
Groundwater Basin Boundary
Santa Clara Valley - East Bay Plain Subbasin
Figure 7: Water Resources
Date: 11/15/2023
SOURCE: National Hydrography Dataset, USGS, 2018; National Wetlands Inventory, USFWS, Data accessed 2021; Contra Costa County Watersheds, Contra Costa Clean Water Program (https://www.cccleanwater.org/community/watersheds), 2009; CA Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basins, Department of Water Resources, 2020; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 1,000 2,000500
FEET
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 60 would reduce this potentially significant impact on water resources during construction to a less-than-significant level. As with the 2030 General Plan, implementation of the Proposed Project could adversely affect water quality and drainage patterns due to erosion and sedimentation, as well as result in additional runoff exceeding the capacity of existing stormwater facilities and increasing potential flooding of receiving waters and areas in downstream. However, compliance with SWRCB’s General Construction Permit requirements, 2030 San Pablo General Plan policies, and the City of San Pablo’s ordinances on grading, erosion, and sediment control, would be required for individual projects pursuant to the Proposed Project, which would reduce potential impacts from the Proposed Project to a less than significant level as under the 2030 GP EIR. Criterion 11d The 2030 GP EIR determined that adoption and implementation of the 2030 General Plan would have no impact on tsunami and seiche risk. The Planning Area is located sufficiently inland and away from large water bodies to be out of what would be considered a potential hazard area for seiches, tsunamis, and sea level rise, and therefore no impact discussion for these hazards is included in the 2030 GP EIR. In addition, the relatively gentle topography in much of the Planning Area make the potential for mudflows remote. These conditions remain the same and therefore, similar with the 2030 GP EIR, the Proposed Project would have no impacts on tsunami and seiche risk. However, the 2030 GP EIR determined that adoption and implementation of the 2030 General Plan could result in the placement of housing in the 100-year floodplain or structures that would impede flood flows exposing people to injury or death. The 2030 GP EIR noted there is a 100-year flood zone area located on the western boundary of the Planning Area in and around Giant Road, where new development could be located within. The 2030 General Plan policies would minimize the potential for flooding to adversely impact land uses. Policies include design requirements for new development, assurances of adequate storm drainage capacities (SN-I-7 and SN-I-11) and the continued improvements of the flood control projects associated with San Pablo and Wildcat Creeks, seen on Figure 8. With implementation of the policies, the potential impact from flooding would be less than significant. As with the 2030 General Plan, implementation of the Proposed Project could result in the placement of housing in the 100-year floodplain or structures that would impede flood flows exposing people to injury or death. The 100-year floodplain is located in west San Pablo, where the San Pablo Creek and Wildcat Creek enter the Planning Area, and travels east along Brookside Drive and the City’s creeks. Though not directly within the 100-year floodplain, there are three housing sites of the Proposed Project adjacent to the floodplain near Rumrill Boulevard, on 15th Street, and on 18th Street. However, compliance with City’s Floodplain Management and Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, SWRCB’s General Construction Permit, 2030 San Pablo General Plan policies, would reduce potential impacts from the Proposed Project to a less than significant level. Criterion 11e The 2030 GP EIR noted the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) oversees surface and groundwater in the San Pablo area, and as issued under the San Francisco RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan, the San Pablo area falls under the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Basin. The Basin Plan identifies existing potential beneficial uses and provides water quality objectives designed to protect those uses. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB has included San Pablo Creek and Wildcat Creek as polluted water bodies with the pollutant diazinon causing impairment related to urban runoff and storm sewers. The 2030 GP EIR notes Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
21st St
11th St
San Pablo Ave
17th St
Vale Rd
Dover Ave
20th St
Stanton Ave
Pine Ave
Miner Ave
19th St
16th St
15th St
Amador St
Rivers St
Sutter Ave
Emeric Ave
12th St
14th St
Hillcrest Rd
Rollingwood Dr
13th St
Sanford Ave
Lake St
Ridge Rd
California Ave
22nd St
18th St
Bush Ave
John Ave
Willow Rd
Alpine Rd
Brook Way
Palmer Ave
T yler St
Espanola Ct
Van Ness St
Powell St
Arundel WayArundell Way
10th St
Devon Way
Marin Ave
Mason St
Wilcox Ave
Standard St
Post Ave
Chevy Way
Alfreda Blvd
Stone St
Bayo Vista Ave
Kelley Ave
Fordham St
Greenwood Dr
Manor Dr
Yuba Ave
Manchester Ave
Pullman St
Folsom Ave
Mission Ave
Avon Ln
Villa Dr
Mission Bell Dr
Macarthur Ave
Morrow Dr
Beau Rivage
Bowhill Ln
Douglas St
Miflin Ave
T renton Blvd
Bonita Rd
Merritt Ave Glenlock St
Del Camino Dr
Fillmore St
Pablo Vista Ave
Lovegrove Ave
Glenn Ave
Colin St
Acapulco Dr
Marelia Ct
Bancroft Ln
Montoya Ave
Ventura Ave
Abella Cir
Clare St
Joel Ct
Gerald Ave
Evens Ave
Manzanilla Dr
Carlfield St
Corte St
Ohare Ave
Contra Costa Ave
Casino Ave
Rumrill Rd
Crucero Ave
Wyman St
Riverside Ave
Regina Ave
Barranca St
Humboldt St
E Victoria Ct
Shasta Ave
Harborview Ave
Clement Ave
Baywood Ln
Connecticut Ave
Chattleton Ln
University Ave
Barbara Ln
Kirk Ln
Jean Ct
Madrone Way
Westgate Cir
W Victoria Ct
Frieda Ct
Brookside Ave
Regello Ct
Monte Buena St
Dodson St
Judith Ct
Wanlass Ave
Drake Way
Larchmont Ln
18th St
19th St
20th St
19th St
Bush Ave
15th St
15th St
21st St
18th St
Shasta Ave
Glenn Ave
17th St
Merritt Ave
Riverside Ave
14th St
18th St
Dover Ave
19th St
22nd St
Mason St
15th St
16th St
17th St
17th St
Post Ave
Lake St
20th St
21st St
Rivers St
Lake St
Yuba Ave
19th St
22nd St
16th St
17th St
Glenn Ave
Miner Ave
Rose ArborAv e
Bayview A ve
Bolduc Ct
CapitolHill Ave
W estview Pl
NArlington Blvd
HillcrestRd
MiffinAve
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Local Roads
Railroads
J:\GISData\581_SanPablo_GP\GIS\Projects\CEQA\Figure 7 Flood Zones.mxd 100 year flood zone
500 year flood zone
Figure 8: Flood Zones
FEMA Flood Hazard Zones
Date: 11/15/2023
SOURCE: FEMA, 2020; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 1,000 2,000500
FEET
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 62 compliance with the water quality control plan, Basin Plan; therefore, the 2030 General Plan would not have an impact on conflict of water quality control plan. However, since the certification of the 2030 GP EIR, new CEQA guidelines were adopted by the State to require additional analysis related to sustainable groundwater management plans. As of 2016, The City of San Pablo is within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin—East Bay Plain Subbasin (No. 2-009.04), which is designated by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as a medium priority basin.16 The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) manages the groundwater management plan and is subject to review of certain proposed projects for compliance with applicable water conservation guidelines and requirements of EBMUD as noted in the Chapter 17.48.060 of the City’s Municipal Code. Furthermore, the City has adopted municipal regional stormwater permit as issued by the California RWQCB in order to comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit in Chapter 17.40 of the Municipal Code. As development of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with Basin Plan, EBMUD review, Municipal Code, State, and Federal regulations, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with water quality control plan not sustainable groundwater management basin plans. As such, the Proposed Project would have no impact. Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 GP EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any impacts identified in the 2030 GP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Since the certification of the 2030 GP EIR, no new information has emerged, nor have environmental conditions changed such that, new environmental impacts would be expected to emerge, or previously identified impacts would become more severe. LAND USE AND PLANNING Land Use and Planning Would the project:
2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Physically divide an established community; No Impact - No Impact b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding No Impact - No Impact
16 California Department of Water Resources, 2024. East Bay Municipal Utility District GSA. Available: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/104. Accessed: January 2, 2024.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 63 Land Use and Planning Would the project:
2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance or mitigating an environmental effect? Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criterion 12a and 12b The 2030 GP EIR determined that implementation of the 2030 General Plan would not physically divide any established community, but would provide better connectivity within the city, as the 2030 General Plan provides more linkages within and between existing neighborhoods. The 2030 GP EIR also determined that the 2030 General Plan would not conflict with applicable area land use plans, including adopted specific plans, as other adopted policies, specific plans, programs, the zoning code, and other implementing tools would be amended to conform to the adopted 2030 General Plan, the City’s primary planning instrument. As with the 2030 General Plan, the Proposed Plan would also have no impact with respect to dividing an existing community, as it would primarily involve infill development within the City's three PDAs and would not involve the construction of linear infrastructure such as freeways or railroad line which could physically divide the community. Further, the Proposed Plan would help the City accommodate its assessed share of the regional housing need and increase the amount of development within PDAs, consistent with the regional transportation plan/sustainable community strategy Plan Bay Area 2050. Proposed Housing Element Program 1-C, which calls for revisions to the 23rd Street Specific Plan to facilitate housing production consistent with the objectives of the proposed Housing Element, and Program 1-K, under which the City would update the zoning code to incorporate objective development standards to facilitate housing production in line with the objectives of the proposed Housing Element. Thus, implementation of these programs would help ensure continued consistency between the General Plan, adopted specific plans, and the San Pablo Zoning Code. Therefore, overall the Proposed Plan would have not impact related to physically dividing an existing community or consistency with other plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, similar to the 2030 General Plan. Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 GP EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the impacts identified to land use and planning or result in new significant impacts. The existing General Plan policies included in the 2030 GP EIR and Proposed Project policies would be applicable such that no new environmental impacts would be expected to emerge, or previously identified impacts would become more severe.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 64 MINERAL RESOURCES Mineral Resources Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state; or No Impact - No Impact
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact - No Impact
Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criteria 13a and 13b Section 3.7 Geology and Seismicity of the 2030 GP EIR establishes there are no known mineral resources within San Pablo or the Planning Area, and therefore determined that the 2030 General Plan would have no impact to mineral resources or locally important mineral resource recovery sites. Environmental circumstances have not changed and no new information has emerged related to the presence of mineral resources. Accordingly, the Proposed Plan would have no associated impact, similar to the 2030 General Plan. Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 GP EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any impacts identified in the 2030 GP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related mineral resources that were not identified in the 2030 GP EIR. Further, since the certification of the 2030 GP EIR, no new information has emerged, nor have environmental conditions changed such that, new environmental impacts would be expected to result or previously identified impacts would become more severe.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 65 NOISE AND VIBRATION Noise and Vibration Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; Less than Significant Safety and Noise Element SN-G-9, SN-I-37, SN-I-38, SN-I-39, SN-I-40, SN-I-41, SN-I-42, SN-I-43, SN-I-44, SN-I-45, SN-I-46 Less than Significant
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or Less than Significant Less than Significant c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact - No Impact
Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Appendix E Noise Data includes a summary of the methodology and data used to evaluate the potential noise and vibration impacts from the Proposed Project. Criterion 14a The 2030 GP EIR analyzed noise and vibration impacts under Section 3.9, Noise., determining that implementation of the 2030 General Plan would be consistent with goals and control measures of the Noise Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 66 Element, and impacts would be less than significant. The 2030 GP EIR found that noise generated by construction activity could expose noise-sensitive receptors to temporary noise, however, this impact was determined to be less than significant if development under the proposed General Plan complies with General Plan policies and with limitations on construction activity in the City’s Municipal Code which specifically prohibits construction operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless there is an emergency. Construction Noise from individual construction projects facilitated by the Proposed Project would temporarily increase noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive receivers. Since project-level details are not available for future projects that would be carried out under the Proposed Project, it is not possible to determine exact noise levels or time periods for construction of such projects, or construction noise at adjacent properties. However, noise estimates for typical construction activities are provided below. Construction activities would generate noise from phases such as demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving activities. Each phase of construction has a specific equipment mix and associated noise characteristics, depending on the equipment used during that phase. Construction noise would typically be higher during the more equipment-intensive phases of initial construction (i.e., demolition, site preparation, and grading work) and would be lower during the later construction phases (i.e., building construction and paving). Table 7 illustrates typical noise levels associated with construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet and 100 feet. Ta bl e 7: Ty p i c a l N o i s e L eve l s f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n E q u i p m e n t Equipment Estimated Noise Levels at Nearest Sensitive Receptors (dBA Leq) 50 feet 100 feet Air Compressor 80 74 Backhoe 80 74 Concrete Mixer 85 79 Dozer 85 79 Grader 85 79 Jack Hammer 88 82 Loader 80 74 Paver 85 79 Pile-drive (Impact) 101 95 Pile-driver (Sonic) 95 89 Roller 85 79 Saw 76 70 Scarified 83 77 Scraper 85 79 Truck 84 78 Source: FTA, 2018 Noise would typically drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Therefore, noise levels would be about 6 dBA lower than shown in Table 7 at 200 feet from the noise source and 12 dBA lower at a distance of 400 feet from the noise source. If uncontrolled, construction noise could exceed the thresholds of 65 dBA at noise-sensitive uses and 70 dBA at commercial and industrial uses. Proposed Safety and Noise Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 67 Element Policy SN-I-44 would require construction contractors to implement construction noise reduction measures to prevent exceedance of the significance thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than those identified in the 2030 GP EIR and construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant, as with the 2030 General Plan. Operation Stationary Noise Stationary and other sources of noise in San Pablo include those associated with the standard operation of land uses. These sources could include, but are not limited to, landscape and building maintenance activities, stationary mechanical equipment (e.g., pumps, HVAC units), garbage collection activities, and other stationary and area sources such as people's voices and amplified music. Noise generated by residential uses are generally short-term and intermittent in nature. Residential development tends to have lower noise levels associated than other uses, such as industrial or commercial uses. The Proposed Project would provide for an increase in residential development throughout the City. 2030 General Plan Policies SN-I-38 and SN-I-39 require proposed industrial, commercial, and other uses with potential noise-producing activities to submit a noise study report identifying noise measures that would reduce noise levels to acceptable ranges. New, fixed noise sources (e.g., mechanical equipment) are required to use best available control technology. Therefore, future stationary noise sources under the Proposed Project would comply with City noise standards and would not expose people to excessive noise levels. Associated impacts would be less than significant, as under the 2030 General Plan. Mobile Noise Implementation of the Proposed Project would generate new vehicle trips that could incrementally increase the exposure of land uses along roadways to operational traffic noise. Proposed Project traffic noise increases were estimated using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (see Appendix C). Table 8 summarizes the estimated project traffic noise increases based on average daily traffic (ADT) volume data provided by Kittelson & Associates for 2022 and 2031 conditions. As shown in Table 8, traffic noise increase would be less than significant along all study roadway segments. Therefore, associated impacts would be less than significant, as under the 2030 General Plan.

Ta bl e 8: Summary of Project Traffic Noise Increases
Roadway Segment
Roadway Segment Volumes (ADT) 2022 ADT 2031 Adjusted ADT dBA (DNL) 2022 ADT Count 2031 Adjusted ADT Traffic Noise Level Traffic Noise Level Traffic Noise Increase Threshold dBA Exceed Threshold? 23rd Street Pine Avenue to Emeric Avenue 14,849 16,009 64.1 64.4 0.3 1.5 N Broadway Avenue 15th Street to 16th Street 5,455 5,455 59.8 59.8 0.0 1.5 N Church Lane El Portal Drive to Willow Road 12,748 14,703 63.4 64.1 0.6 1.5 N El Portal Drive Church Lane to Fordham Street 20,221 20,221 67.4 67.4 0.0 1.5 N El Portal Drive Mission Bell Drive to Castro Road 11,571 11,571 65.0 65.0 0.0 1.5 N Giant Road S/O Trenton Boulevard to Parr Boulevard/Road 20 5,674 6,392 63.3 63.8 0.5 3 N Market Avenue 19th Street to 21st Street 9,141 9,222 62.0 62.0 0.0 3 N Road 20 Between El Portal Drive and San Pablo Avenue 4,279 5,722 60.6 61.9 1.3 3 N San Pablo Avenue Rivers Street to Lake Street 20,826 22,928 69.1 69.5 0.4 1.5 N San Pablo Avenue Evans Lane to Vale Road 23,243 27,946 69.6 70.4 0.8 1.5 N San Pablo Avenue Maricopa Avenue to Kirk Lane 22,038 33,690 69.3 71.2 1.8 NA1 N San Pablo Dam Road Morrow Drive to Princeton Plaza entrance 18,274 19,312 68.5 68.8 0.2 1.5 N San Pablo Dam Road From WB I-80 to Ventura Avenue 24,391 34,509 69.8 71.3 1.5 1.5 N Rumrill Boulevard To a d 2 0 t o B ro o k s i d e D r i ve 16,080 18,457 68.0 68.6 0.6 1.5 N 23rd Street Pine Avenue to Emeric Avenue 14,849 16,009 64.1 64.4 0.3 1.5 N Broadway Avenue 15th Street to 16th Street 5,455 5,455 59.8 59.8 0.0 1.5 N 1 Though the traffic noise increase along San Pablo Avenue from Maricopa Avenue to Kirk Lane would exceed 1.5 dBA DNL, there are no residences or other sensitive receptors located along this roadway segment. ADT = Average Daily Traffic DNL = Day-Night Average Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2023

Criterion 14b Construction The 2030 GP EIR determined that while vibration impacts from construction activities associated with buildout of the 2030 General Plan could potentially result, depend on the proximity to sensitive receptors and the types and duration of construction equipment used, such impacts would be short-term and limited to the period of construction and further that compliance with existing City regulations prohibits construction operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. would ensure that construction impacts would be less than significant. Construction of individual projects facilitated by the Proposed Project could intermittently generate groundborne vibration at nearby sensitive receivers. Table 9 lists groundborne vibration levels from various types of construction equipment at various distances. As shown in Table 9Error! Reference source not found., buildings and structures could experience the strongest vibration during the use of pile-drivers and vibratory rollers in the event such equipment is required for construction of individual development pursuant to the Proposed Project. Vibration levels from pile-drivers could approach 1.519 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet from the source and 0.190 in/sec at 100 feet, and vibration levels from vibratory rollers could approach 0.21 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet and 0.026 at 100 feet. Ta bl e 9: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Approximate Vibration Level (in/sec PPV) Equipment 25 Feet from Source 50 Feet from Source 100 feet from Source 200 Feet from Source Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.031 0.011 0.004 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004 0.002 Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011 0.004 Loaded Truck 0.076 0.027 0.010 0.003 Pile Driver (impact) Upper range 1.519 0.537 0.190 0.067 Typical 0.644 0.228 0.081 0.028 Pile Driver (sonic) Upper range 0.734 0.260 0.092 0.032 Typical 0.170 0.060 0.021 0.008 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.074 0.026 0.009 Source: FTA, 2018.

While the City has not adopted quantified limits to assess vibration impacts during construction and operation, the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) establishes standards that may be used to evaluate potential construction vibration impacts. According to FTA criteria, construction vibration impacts would be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.2 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) for residential structures or 0.3 in/sec PPV for commercial structures, which is the limit where minor cosmetic (i.e., non-structural) damage may occur to these buildings. Construction vibration impacts would also be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.12 in/sec PPV for extremely fragile historic buildings. Vibration levels from typical equipment such as bulldozers and jackhammers would not exceed FTA thresholds for historic structures and residential buildings at a distance of 25 feet or greater. At Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 70 a distance of 25 feet from the source, vibration levels from the use of pile-drivers and vibratory rollers could exceed FTFA criteria for historic structures and residential buildings; however, the Proposed Project incorporates Policy SN-I-45, which requires preparation of a vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential vibration impacts related to these construction activities for developments that would involve the use of pile-drivers and vibratory rollers in proximity to sensitive uses. Therefore, implementation of Proposed Project Policy SN-I-45 and compliance with existing regulations would reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable. As with the 2030 General Plan, construction period vibration impacts would be less than significant. Operation Residential land uses facilitated by the Proposed Project would not involve substantial vibration sources associated with operation, such as railroads and subways. Therefore, project operational vibration and groundborne noise impacts would be less than significant. Criterion 14c The 2030 General Plan EIR noted there are no airports located in San Pablo. The nearest airport to the City of San Pablo is the Oakland International Airport, which is located approximately 18 miles south. The City of San Pablo is located outside of the airport’s noise contours and the airport influence area. Therefore, the 2030 GP EIR determined that the 2030 General Plan would not expose people residing or working in the plan area to excessive noise levels and there would be no impact. Circumstances have not changed since certification of the 2030 GP EIR and the Proposed Project would also have no impact with respect to exposure of people to excessive airport noise levels, as with the 2030 General Plan. Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 GP EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any impacts identified in the 2030 GP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to noise and vibration. Since the certification of the 2030 GP EIR, no new information has emerged, nor have environmental conditions changed such that, new environmental impacts would be expected to emerge, or previously identified impacts would become more severe. POPULATION AND HOUSING Population and Housing Would the project:
2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by Not analyzed Housing Element Goal #1, Policy 1.2, Policy 1.4 No Impact Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 71 proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) or b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact Housing Element Policy 1.2, Housing Element Goal #4 No Impact Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criterion 15a Buildout of the Proposed Project would consist primarily of infill development within the City's PDAs, consistent with the objectives of the regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy. Buildout of the Proposed Plan would occur incrementally over a period of 8 years and would result in an increase in population and housing units consistent with regional planning projections, facilitating accommodation of the City's assessed share of the regional housing need. The Proposed Project sets out to increase housing supply and facilitate production of at least 800 new homes by 2031 (HE Goal #1), which is planned growth in line with the 2030 General Plan projections. Specifically, the Proposed Project promotes the development of a variety of housing types, sizes, and densities that meet community needs based on the suitability of the land, including the availability of infrastructure, the provision of adequate services and recognition of environmental constraints (HE Policy 1.2). The Proposed Project would not involve the extension of roads or infrastructure into undeveloped areas in a way that would induce substantial unplanned growth. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with population growth, either directly or indirectly. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more adverse effects than the 2030 General Plan, as related to unplanned population growth. Criterion 15b The 2030 GP EIR determined the adoption and implementation of the 2030 San Pablo General Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing residents or housing units and that associated impacts would be less than significant. The 2030 GP EIR found that redevelopment resulting from new permitted land uses or different densities may temporarily remove housing in certain areas, but overall the 2030 General Plan will increase the number of housing units in San Pablo so anyone displaced will be able to find accommodation in the same area. The Proposed Project would primarily involve infill development within the City’s PDAs and established neighborhoods. Redevelopment could potentially displace existing residents or housing units, directly or indirectly; however, several Proposed Plan policies and programs address the risk of displacement. Housing Element Program 6-G would require any units removed from a non-vacant site through redevelopment to Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 72 be replaced units affordable to the same or lower income level; while Program 1-B calls for a strong suite of anti-displacement measures to be incorporated into the future Rumrill Corridor Plan. Further, the proposed Housing Element also includes measures to preserve the existing housing stock: Program 4-E would involve the establishment of a Healthy Homes program; through Program 4-F the City will continue the residential health & safety (RH&S) program to inspect existing housing and facilitate improvements for Code compliance; and Program 4-G under which the City would explore enhancements the RH&S program to improve conditions in rental housing. Therefore, overall, the Proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of re-placement housing elsewhere, and a less than significant impact would occur, as with the 2030 General Plan. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION Public Services Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. 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 public services;

Fire protection? Less than Significant Safety and Noise Element SN-I-24, SN-I-26, SN-I-27, SN-I-28, SN-I-29, SN-I-30, Less than Significant Police protection? Less than Significant Less than Significant Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 73 Public Services Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance Schools? Less than Significant Safety and Noise Element SN-I-29 Less than Significant Parks? Less than Significant - Less than Significant Other public facilities? Less than Significant - Less than Significant 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; Less than Significant
GP 2030 PSCU-I-1, PSCU-I-4, PSCU-I-5, PSCU-I-6, PSCU-I-8

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect Less than Significant Less than Significant
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 74 Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criteria 16a-b and 17a-b The 2030 GP EIR determined that implementation of the 2030 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to the provision fire, police, school, parks, and recreational facilities. Since the certification of the 2030 GP EIR, the Contra Costa Fire Protection District has constructed a new station on 23rd Street in San Pablo, and construction on the new San Pablo Police Department Headquarters and Regional Training Center is underway as of February 2024. Additionally, the City has plans to construct the Bush Avenue pocket park and to renovate and expand the existing facilities at 2600 Moraga Road (adjacent to the El Portal Soccer Fields). Given that, as discussed above, buildout of the Proposed Project would result in a substantially similar increment of growth as analyzed in the 2030 GP EIR, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase demand for fire, police, school, parks, and recreational facilities over what was previously analyzed in the 2030 GP EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more adverse impacts than analyzed in the 2030 GP EIR and associated impacts would be less than significant, as with the 2030 General Plan. Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 GP EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any impacts identified in the 2030 GP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related public services and recreation facilities Since the certification of the 2030 GP EIR, no new information has emerged, nor have environmental conditions changed such that, new environmental impacts would be expected to emerge, or previously identified impacts would become more severe.

Public Services Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance on the environment?
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 75 TRANSPORTATION Transportation Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; Less than Significant Less than Significant
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b); Not analyzed Significant and Unavoidable c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or Not analyzed Less than Significant
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? Not analyzed Less than Significant Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criterion 18a The 2030 GP EIR determined that the 2030 General Plan would have a less than significant impact with respect to programs, plans, ordinances or policies addressing transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Since certification of the 2030 GP EIR, the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA) adopted the 2018 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP). Buildout of the Proposed Project would primarily involve construction of housing within the City's PDAs consistent with Plans Bay Area 2050 and other regional efforts, which would support increased use of transit to, from and Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 76 within the PDAs and would also support the CBPP, which plans for new bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements within PDAs. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact relate to conflicts with adopted programs, plans, ordinances or policies addressing transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as with the 2030 General Plan. Criterion 18b Subsequent to certification of the 2030 GP EIR, the passage of Senate Bill 743 (SB743) changed the way transportation impact analysis is conducted as part of CEQA compliance. Automobile delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion can no longer be the basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. In December 2018, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) completed an update to the CEQA Guidelines to implement the requirements of SB 743. The guidelines state that vehicle miles travelled (VMT) must be the metric used to determine significant transportation impacts. The guidelines require all lead agencies in California to use VMT-based thresholds of significance in CEQA documents published after July 2020. The City of San Pablo has not adopted thresholds for VMT; therefore, a threshold of 15 percent below existing countywide VMT is used for the purpose of this analysis, consistent with guidance from OPR and CCTA. Accordingly, for the purpose of this analysis, VMT impacts would be significant if new residential development would exceed the following threshold: Aggregate Future (2031) Citywide Residential VMT per capita exceeds 15 percent below Aggregate Baseline (2023) Countywide VMT per capita. Kittleson & Associates analyzed VMT under the following scenarios were analyzed using the Contra Costa Countywide travel demand model: • Baseline. The CEQA baseline year and land use described earlier in this memorandum. Baseline levels normally correspond to existing year conditions, which should be consistent with the CEQA baseline year. For this analysis, the baseline year is 2023 as represented by the CCTA model base year. • 2023-2031 Proposed Project. Projected 2031 land use resulting from buildout under the Proposed Project. Table 10 provides the comparison of residential VMT per Capita for the City of San Pablo, for existing and with Proposed Project, and Contra Costa Countywide. As shown, VMT per capita with Proposed Project (8.4) is below the threshold (14.7) and hence, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact. Ta bl e 10: Residential VMT per Capita Summary Year Scenario Area Population Home-Based VMT VMT/Capita Potential Impact? 2023 Existing Contra Costa County 1,155,101 19,993,544 17.3 - Threshold 15% below Existing Contra Costa County 14.7 2023 Existing San Pablo* 36,414 321,683 8.8 - 2031 With Project San Pablo* 40,582 342,214 8.4 No * Including 4 overlap zones in Richmond with Proposed Housing Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2023 Criterion 18c and d Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 77 The Proposed Project would primarily involve construction of housing within the City's PDAs and in established neighborhoods. As such, it would not require the construction of new roads or the realignment of existing roadways. Similar to the 2030 GP EIR, individual developments associated with the Proposed Project would be required to be assessed for impact to emergency vehicle access and designed in accordance with all City applicable design standards for emergency access within and around the site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact with respect to hazards related to roadway design or emergency access. The Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more adverse impacts than identified in the 2030 GP EIR. Conclusion Since certification of the 2030 GP EIR, the State has adopted new CEQA Guidelines requiring the analysis of VMT for determining the significance of traffic impacts. Further, the Proposed Project is projected to result in a net increase of jobs in the Planning Area, which would bring the VMT per employee under the proposed Housing Element higher than the threshold, which will result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project could potentially result in new or substantially more adverse impacts than analyzed and mitigated in the 2030 GP EIR. However, as future development under the Proposed Project would be subject to existing City policy and regulations, impacts related to roadway hazards, adequate emergency response, conflicts with a circulation plan would be less than significant as with the 2030 General Plan. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Utilities and Service Systems Would the project:
2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant
2030 GP PSCU-G-6, PSCU-I-23, PSCU-I-24, PSCU-I-25, PSCU-I-26, PSCU-I-27, PSCU-I-28, PSCU-I-29, PSCU-I-30 Less than Significant
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 78 Utilities and Service Systems Would the project:
2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years; Less than Significant GP 2030 PSU-I-23, PSU-I-24, Less than Significant c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; Less than Significant GP 2030 PSCU-I-31, PSCU-I-33 Less than Significant d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; or Less than Significant
GP 2030 SN-G-5, Garbage, Recyclable Materials, and Organic Waste Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 8.12), Less than Significant
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Not analyzed 2030 GP PSCU-I-39, PSCU-I-40, PSCU-I-41, and PSCU-I-42 Less than Significant

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 79 Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criteria 19a-c The 2030 GP EIR found that while population at buildout of the General Plan would slightly exceed that of the ABAG 2005 projections used to project water demand in the East Bay Municipal Utilities District service area, the additional demand would be minimal in relation to total available supply and with implementation of 2030 General Plan policies for water conservation, including PSCU-I-24 calling for the establishment of water conservation standards for new development and PSCU-I-25 calling for reduced water use in municipal operations, impacts would be less than significant. The 2030 GP EIR also found that the capacity of the West County Wastewater District treatment plant in Richmond would be sufficient to meet the projected needs of the 2030 General Plan and determined that associated impacts would be less than significant. As discussed above in the Project Description, buildout of the Proposed Project would result in a substantially similar increment of growth as analyzed in the 2030 GP EIR - 150 housing units more than analyzed in the 2030 GP EIR, but 151 fewer jobs than previously analyzed. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not require substantially more water supply or sewer capacity than previously analyzed and impacts would be less than significant, as with the 2030 General Plan. Further, buildout of the Proposed Plan would primarily involve infill development within the City's PDAs and in established neighborhoods where intensification of development has long been planned. As such, the construction of new or expansion of existing water and sewer conveyance infrastructure over and above that already planned would not be required to meet Proposed Project needs. New development pursuant to the Proposed Project would be required to comply with stormwater regulations, including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and Contra Costa Clean Water C.3 provisions requiring the control of stormwater volume and velocity, minimizing the need for new or expanded public stormwater infrastructure. Therefore, impacts related to the construction or expansion of utility infrastructure would be less than significant, and overall the Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more adverse impacts than analyzed in the 2030 GP EIR. Criterion 19d and e The 2030 GP EIR determined that, with implementation of the solid waste reduction policies in the 2030 General Plan, West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA) solid waste collection and landfill capacity would be sufficient to serve projected need under the 2030 General Plan and that impacts would be less than significant. Since the 2030 GP EIR was certified, several new State laws that require solid waste diversion and reduction have been enacted, including AB 341- Mandatory Commercial Recycling, AB 1826- Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling, AB 1884- Bans on Single-Use Plastic Straws, and SB 1383—Organics Recycling. Additionally, the City has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that incorporates strategies for solid waste reduction and diversion from landfill. Compliance with new State law and implementation of CAP strategies in combination with continued implementation of solid waste reduction policies in the 2030 General Plan would help ensure that the Proposed Project would not increase per capita solid waste generation above the levels analyzed in the 2030 GP EIR. As discussed above, buildout of the Proposed Project would result in a substantially similar increment of growth as analyzed in the 2030 GP EIR. As such, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to solid waste generation, as with the 2030 General Plan. Additionally, new development pursuant to the Proposed Project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste and associated impacts would be less than significant.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 80 Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 GP EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any impacts identified in the 2030 EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to utilities and service system. Since the approval of the 2030 General Plan, no new information has emerged, nor have environmental conditions changed such that, new environmental impacts would be expected to emerge, or previously identified impacts would become more severe. WILDFIRE Wildfire Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Safety and Noise Element SN-G-6, SN-G-7, SN-G-8, SN-I-31, SN-I-32, SN-I-33, SN-I-34, SN-I-35, SN-I-36 Less than Significant
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire No Impact
Safety and Noise Element SN-G-3, SN-I-16, SN-I-17, SN-I-18, SN-I-19 Less than Significant
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may No Impact Less than Significant
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 81 Wildfire Would the project: 2030 GP EIR Findings Relationship to the 2030 GP EIR Findings Project Conclusions Equal or Less Severe New or Substantial Increase in Severity Applicable Standards and Mitigation Resulting Level of Significance result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact Less than Significant
Summary of 2030 GP EIR Findings and Analysis of Proposed Project Criterion 20a-d The 2030 GP EIR determined that buildout of the 2030 General Plan would not increase the threat of wildfire hazards as less than one percent of the Planning Area is designated as high or very high threat of wildfire by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and because buildout would occur primarily on urban infill sites away from designated high and very high wildfire threat. Subsequent to the certification of the 2030 GP EIR, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to incorporate new criteria for the evaluation of impacts related to wildfire and CAL FIRE updated its maps of High and Very High Wildfire Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). As described above under Hazards, based on CAL FIRE mapping, there are no areas within the City of San Pablo designated as either High or VHFHSZ; however, an area adjacent to the City in unincorporated Contra Costa County is designated as a VHFHSZ, as show on Figure 9. While the proposed Housing Element identifies several smaller single-family sites in established residential neighborhoods east of Interstate 80 (I-80) within a half-mile of the VHFHSZ, buildout of the Proposed Project would primarily involve infill development within the City's PDAs on the west side of I-80. New residential construction would be required to comply with California Building Code standards designed to reduce the risk of loss and damage associated with wildfire. Additionally, as discussed above, the Proposed Project would involve continued implementation of Safety and Noise Element policies that support the wildfire risk reduction and emergency evacuation strategies contained in the HMP and CWPP, including SN-I-31 through SN-I-34. Therefore, overall implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency evacuation or response plan; would not exacerbate wildfire risk and expose people to pollutant concentrations from wildfire; would not require the installation of infrastructure that may exacerbate Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 82 wildfire risk; or expose people or structure to significant downslope risks. Overall, impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the 2030 GP EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any impacts identified in the 2030 GP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to emergency response and wildland fires. Since the approval of the 2030 General Plan, no new information has emerged, nor have environmental conditions changed such that, new environmental impacts would be expected to emerge, or previously identified impacts would become more severe. !(P
!(F
Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
21st St
11th St
San Pablo Ave
17th St
Vale Rd
Dover Ave
20th St
Stanton Ave
Pine Ave
Miner Ave
19th St
16th St
15th St
Amador St
Rivers St
Sutter Ave
Emeric Ave
12th St
14th St
Hillcrest Rd
Rollingwood Dr
13th St
Sanford Ave
Lake St
Ridge Rd
California Ave
22nd St
18th St
Bush Ave
John Ave
Willow Rd
Alpine Rd
Brook Way
Palmer Ave
T yler St
Espanola Ct
Van Ness St
Powell St
Arundel WayArundell Way
10th St
Devon Way
Marin Ave
Mason St
Wilcox Ave
Standard St
Post Ave
Chevy Way
Alfreda Blvd
Stone St
Bayo Vista Ave
Kelley Ave
Fordham St
Greenwood Dr
Manor Dr
Yuba Ave
Manchester Ave
Pullman St
Folsom Ave
Mission Ave
Avon Ln
Villa Dr
Mission Bell Dr
Macarthur Ave
Morrow Dr
Beau Rivage
Bowhill Ln
Douglas St
Miflin Ave
T renton Blvd
Bonita Rd
Merritt Ave Glenlock St
Del Camino Dr
Fillmore St
Pablo Vista Ave
Lovegrove Ave
Glenn Ave
Colin St
Acapulco Dr
Marelia Ct
Bancroft Ln
Montoya Ave
Ventura Ave
Abella Cir
Clare St
Joel Ct
Gerald Ave
Evens Ave
Manzanilla Dr
Carlfield St
Corte St
Ohare Ave
Contra Costa Ave
Casino Ave
Rumrill Rd
Crucero Ave
Wyman St
Riverside Ave
Regina Ave
Barranca St
Humboldt St
E Victoria Ct
Shasta Ave
Harborview Ave
Clement Ave
Baywood Ln
Connecticut Ave
Chattleton Ln
University Ave
Barbara Ln
Kirk Ln
Jean Ct
Madrone Way
Westgate Cir
W Victoria Ct
Frieda Ct
Brookside Ave
Regello Ct
Monte Buena St
Dodson St
Judith Ct
Wanlass Ave
Drake Way
Larchmont Ln
18th St
19th St
20th St
19th St
Bush Ave
15th St
15th St
21st St
18th St
Shasta Ave
Glenn Ave
17th St
Merritt Ave
Riverside Ave
14th St
18th St
Dover Ave
19th St
22nd St
Mason St
15th St
16th St
17th St
17th St
Post Ave
Lake St
20th St
21st St
Rivers St
Lake St
Yuba Ave
19th St
22nd St
16th St
17th St
Glenn Ave
Miner Ave
Rose ArborAv e
Bayview A ve
Bolduc Ct
CapitolHill Ave
W estview Pl
NArlington Blvd
HillcrestRd
MiffinAve
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD LRA
FRA
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Local Roads
Railroads
J:\GISData\581_SanPablo_GP\GIS\Projects\CEQA\Figure 11 Fire Hazards.mxd Local Responsibility Area
Federal Responsibility Area
Fire Hazard Severity Zone in LRA
Very High Fire Hazard Zone
!(P Police Station
!(F Fire Station
Figure 9: Fire Hazards
Responsibility Area
Date: 11/15/2023
SOURCE: Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, and SRA, CAL FIRE, 2009, Published 2018 (https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/); City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 1,000 2,000500
FEET
Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 84 List of Preparers A list of contributing City staff and consultant team members, their titles, and affiliations, is provided below. CITY OF SAN PABLO • Elizabeth “Libby” Tyler, Ph.D., FAICP, Community Development Director • Sandra Castaneda Marquez, MPA, Associate Planner CONSULTANTS Dyett and Bhatia • Andrew Hill, Principal • Karen Chavez, Planner • Claire Villegas, Project Assistant • Isha Bhattarai, Senior GIS Specialist Kittleson & Associates • Damian Stefanakis, Senior Principal Planner • Fernando Sotelo, TE, PTP, Principal Engineer • Lilian Wu, PhD, PE, TE, Engineer Rincon Consultants, Inc • Josh Carman, Director • Bill Vosti, Program Manager • Jesse McCandless, Noise Specialist Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 85 References Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2023. 2022 CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Accessed: April 2023 BAAQMD, 2022. Community Air Risk Evaluation Program. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/community-air-risk-evaluation-care-program. Accessed: April 2023. BAAQMD, 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Adopted April 19, 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: April 2023. BAAQMD, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, CA. May 2017. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: April 2023 BAAQMD, 2016. Resolution Adopting a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal and Commitment to Develop a Regional Climate Protection Strategy. Avaliable: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/board-of-directors/adopted-resolutions/2013/2013-11.pdf?la=en&rev=cec111dbf84b419d89751bfbca59419f. Accessed: April 2023. California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2021. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. Accessed April 2023. California Department of Conservation, 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed: January 2, 2024. California Department of Finance, 2023. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2020-2023. Avaliable: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/. Accessed: 2023. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2024. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP). Available: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP. Accessed: January 2, 2024. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2023. Local Responsibility Area for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. https://cdnverify.osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6660/fhszl_map7.pdf. Accessed November 9, 2023. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2023. City of San Pablo's Old Town Pocket Park & Illegal Dumping Outreach. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-popular-links/d4-clean-california/d4-local-grants/d4-local-grants-san-pablo-old-town. Accessed: November 9, 2023. California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2024. East Bay Municipal Utility District GSA. Available: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsa/print/104. Accessed: January 2, 2024.

Addendum City of San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update and Housing Element Project 86 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Available: https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0. Accessed: April 2023. City of San Pablo, 2023. Police Department Organization. Avaliable: https://www.sanpabloca.gov/187/Police-Department. Accessed: November 9, 2023. City of San Pablo, 2023. Project Fact Sheet/Media Summary New San Pablo Police Headquarters and Regional Training Center. Avaliable: https://www.sanpabloca.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=856. Accessed: November 9, 2023. City of San Pablo, 2021. San Pablo Area for Recreation and Community. Avaliable: https://www.sanpabloca.gov/2636/San-Pablo-Park-Renovation. Accessed: November 14, 2023. City of San Pablo, 2010. San Pablo General Plan 2030 Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008082069). West Contra Costa Unified School District, 2022. Facilities Planning & Construction. Available: https://www.wccusd.net/Page/180. Accessed: November 14, 2023.

Appendix A
2030 SP EIR Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
Executive Summary
E-7
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
Land Use
No Impacts NA NA
Transportation

3.2-1 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan,
in conjunction with
anticipated regional
growth and
development, could
cause conflicts with
existing MTSOs for
Routes of Regional
Significance
presented in the
West County
Action Plan.

C-I-7 Apply traffic Level of Service (LOS) standa rds to signalized intersections on Routes of Regional Significance to be consistent with the Contra Costa Tran sportation Authority’s West County Action Plan. (See Policy GME-I-17 in Chapter 4, Growth Management Element)
C-I-8 Accept LOS F at the intersection of San Pablo Dam Road and San Pablo Avenue opposite Lytton Casino and at I-80 ramps at El Po rtal Drive and San Pablo Dam Road/Amador Street during two hour peak periods (a.m. and p.m.) as an interim standard until feasible traffic improvements can be designed, funded, and constructed.

C-I-9 *Design, evaluate, and implement improvemen ts to the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and San Pablo Dam Road, upon collection of more specific data from Caltrans on anticipated (or measured) changes to tra ffic volumes related to their I-80 ramp improvement projects. Based solely on the CCTA model assumptions, a set of improvements that would mitigate regional growth and proposed project impacts include:
 Converting the southbound through lane on San Pablo Avenue to a left-or- through lane to provide a total of one left-turn-only lane, one left-or-through lane and one through-or-right lane; and
 Modifying the traffic signal timing to allow “split phases” for the northbound and southbound movements.

C-I-10 Manage local residential streets (i.e., stre ets with direct driveway access to homes) to limit average daily vehicle volumes to 2,0 00 or less and keeping speeds between 15 and 25 miles per hour.

C-I-11 Require new development to provide tr affic improvements necessary to accommodate trips generated by the project without viol ating traffic LOS standards established by Policy C-I-8 or increasing the travel delay in dex above that established for Interstate 80 unless the City adopts Findings of Special Circumstances.

C-I-13 Continue cooperative efforts with CCTA to identify streets an d intersections with unacceptable traffic LOS standards and implem ent programs to upgrade them, consistent Significant Cumulative
Impact; Project
Contribution Not
Cumulatively
Considerable

San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-8
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
with the Complete Streets policy. See Growth Management Element for additional details.

3.2-2 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
could conflict with
the adopted
Countywide Bicycle
Master Plan.

C-I-2 Include “Complete Street” considerations in the design of all circulation improvement projects.

C-I-5 Install traffic calming devi ces, such as signage, road bulb s (also called curb extensions), chicanes, raised crosswalks, and speed humps , as needed and appropriate in existing neighborhoods.

C-I-14 Expand and maintain a safe and comprehe nsive bicycle system that connects the City’s neighborhoods to regional bicycle routes.

C-I-15 Acquire land for new bicycle routes along Wildcat Creek, as shown in Figure 5-4, only if land owners are willing to sell such land or provide easements for public access. If landowners object to route designations, seek alternative routes and amend Bicycle Map accordingly.

C-I-16 Require the provision of bicycle parkin g and related facilities in new employment- generating development to facilitate multi-modal commute choices.

C-I-18 Adopt a Bicycle Master Plan to enhance bicycle circulation and planning, based on the route network in Figure 5-4 and the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

C-I-20 Work with the City of Richmond and Co ntra Costa County to develop safe and clearly marked pedestrian and bicycle linkages from downtown San Pablo to the Bay Trail.

Improvements should connect Contra Costa College to the Wildcat Creek bikeway west of Davis Park, and also connect the bikeway at Davis Park to Alvarado Park east of the city. (See Figure 8-1.)
Less than Significant
Executive Summary
E-9
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
Regarding rail crossing safety, the proposed Plan offers Policy C-I-32:

C-I-32 Promote safety at railroad crossings through the following measures, as necessary:
 Improvements to pedestrian warning devices at existin railroad crossings;  Installation of additional warning signage and/or channelization;  Improvements to traffic signaling at intersec tions adjacent to crossings, e.g. traffic preemption;
 Prohibition of parking within 100 feet of crossings to improve the visibility of warning devices and approaching trains;
 Where sound walls, landscaping, buildings, etc. would be installed near crossings, maintaining the visibility of warning devices and approaching trains; and  Rail safety awareness programs to educate the public about the hazards of at-grade crossing.

Proposed General Plan policies and proposed bicycl e linkages and alignments thus do not directly conflict with countywide planning or state agency sa fety considerations, and therefore this impact is less than significant.

Air Quality

3.3-1 Implementation of
the proposed San
OSC-I-17 Prepare a Greenhouse G as Emissions Reduction Plan that focuses on feasible actions the City can take to minimize the adverse impacts of growth and development on climate Significant,
Unavoidable3

3 While the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines require Plan-level analysis to determine significance to be based on the strict relationship between population and VMT, this determination cannot be modified to reflect the fact that improv ements in vehicle fuel efficiency are expected to decrease emissions per vehicle mile traveled over the planning period. As described in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transportation 2035 Plan EIR (2009) air quality a nalysis, emissions of several criteria pollutants are projected to decrease through 2035, not increase, due to these fuel efficiency gains. As a basis for making a finding of overriding considerations, it is reasonable for the City to find that fuel efficiency, combined with the compact land use and multimodal transportation initiati ves represent by proposed Plan policies, would actually result in minimal contribution to the overall regi onal cumulative impact of criteria pollutant emissions. However, in accordance with BAAQMD requirements, the cumulative impact described in this EIR must still found to be significant and unavoidable based on the assumed strict relationship between population and VMT.

San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-10
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
Pablo General Plan
could result in an
increase in VMT at a
rate that would
exceed the rate of
population increase
within the City.
change and air quality. The plan would include, but not be limited to:
 A baseline inventory of all known or reas onably discoverable sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that currently exist in the city and sources that existed in 1990.  A projected inventory of the GHGs that can reasonably be expected to be emitted in the city in the year 2030 in accordan ce with discretionary land use decisions pursuant to this General Plan update and foreseeable communitywide and municipal operations.
 A target for the reduction of emissions from those identified sources reasonably attributable to the City’s discretionary land use decisions and municipal operations, in line with site goals and targets established by the Air Resources Board.  A list of feasible GHG reduction measure s whose purpose shall be to meet the established local reduction target, including energy conservation and “green building” requirements in municipal buildings and private development.

OSC-I-20 Require developers to use best management practices (BMPs) to reduce particulate emissions and dust associ ated with construction activities as a condition for approval of subdivision maps, site plans, and grading permits. These BMPs include, but are not limited to, regular materials and vehicle tire wateri ng, covering, and dust prevention measures during clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation operations.

OSC-I-21 Provide incentives for the installation of EPA-certified wood heaters or approved wood- burning appliances, list permitted and prohibit ed fuels, and create a “no burn” policy on days when air quality is particularly poor.

OSC-I-22 Support CCTA’s efforts to address climate change and ai r quality issues on a regional basis as reflected in the ‘Principles for Collaborative Development of Sustainable Communities Strategies in Contra Costa County’.

OSC-I-23 Continue to support the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from stationary sources.

OSC-I-24 Continue to work with surrounding juri sdictions and agencies to establish parallel air quality programs and implem entation measures, as necessar y, to improve air quality standards.

OSC-I-25 Support non-polluting transportation modes and opportunities (i.e. pedestrian, bike, Executive Summary
E-11
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
carpooling opportunities and public transit im provements) as specified in the Circulation Element.

OSC-I-26 Promote energy efficien cy in architectural design for new construction including building orientation to take advantage of wind and sun, and site design features (such as clustering of uses), pre-wiring for optional photovoltaic or solar heating systems, etc.

Additionally, the following policies would implement transportation demand management strategies to reduce VMT generated within the City:

C-G-10 Promote efficient use of existing transpor tation facilities throug h the implementation of transportation demand management concepts.

C-I-39 Establish travel demand management pr ograms to reduce peak-hour traffic congestion and help reduce regional vehicle miles traveled.

HEA-I-6 Establish an incentive system to encour age land dedication and park development beyond the minimum City requirements. Incentives may include density bonuses, and increased building height at appropriate locations. Tie incentive program to priority areas for parks development.

HEA-I-11 Support the use of clean fuel, “climate fr iendly” vehicles in order to reduce energy use, energy costs, and greenhouse gas emissions by residents, businesses, and city government activities.

HEA-I-12 Use zoning and redevelopment programs to establish incentives for locating healthy food grocery stores at the center of neighborh oods and to increase communitywide healthy food access. Approaches may include:
 Within the Zoning Ordinance, clearly define “healthy food grocery stores” in order to ensure that businesses meeting that description have access to incentives developed with them in mind. Recommended criteria include: 1) dedicates at least 50 percent of retail space for a general line of food and non-food grocery products intended for home preparation, consumptio n, and use; 2) dedicates at least 30 percent of retail space for perishable goods that include dairy, fresh produce, fresh meats-poultry-fish, and frozen foods; and 3) dedicates at least 500 square feet of its retail space for fresh produce;
 Ensure sites are made available that could be developed as healthy food grocery San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-12
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
stores (with a focus on neighborhood areas with little or no access);  Provide expedited permit processing for healthy food grocery store development;  Leverage City staff time, redevelopment funds, and other economic development grant money to help potential new health y food grocers to consolidate parcels and/or make necessary improvements;
 Encourage large healthy food grocers to offer shuttle service and home delivery; and  Develop standards and incentives flexible e n o u g h t o a c c o m m o d a t e “ a l t e r n a t i v e ” grocery stores which use less space, requ ire less parking, and focus on the day-to- day needs of nearby residents.

C-I-14 Expand and maintain a safe and comprehe nsive bicycle system that connects the City’s neighborhoods to regional bicycle routes.

C-I-16 Require the provision of bicycle park ing and related facilities in new employment- generating development to facilitate multi-modal commute choices.

C-I-17 Evaluate multimodal level of service (MML OS) qualitatively, consistent with the criteria in Table 5.2-4, for the following routes:
 For bicyclists, evaluate the routes shown on Figure 5-4, to determine necessary improvements. Bicycle LOS “C” standard is the goal for these streets.  For pedestrians, evaluate st reets within Pedestrian Prio rity Zones (e.g. San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street). As shown on Figure 5-1, to determine necessary improvements. In these zones, the Pedestrian LOS “C” is the goal.

C-I-18 Adopt a Bicycle Master Plan to enhanc e bicycle circulation and planning, based on the route network in Figure 5-4 and the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

C-I-19 Use brightly-colored paint or a one-foot buffer strip along bicycle routes to provide a visual signal to drivers to watch out for bi cyclists and nurture a “share the lane” ethic.

Executive Summary
E-13
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
Start with areas of town where au tomobile-bicycle collisions have occurred in the past, based on data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System maintained by the California Highway Patrol.

C-I-20 Work with the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County to develop safe and clearly marked pedestrian and bicycle linkages from downtown San Pablo to the Bay Trail.

Improvements should connect Contra Costa College to the Wildcat Creek bikeway west of Davis Park, and also connect the bikeway at Davis Park to Alvarado Park east of the city. (See Figure 8-1.)
C-I-21 Complete and enhance the pedestrian network with an interconnected system of walkways, continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street, and pedestrian crossings.

C-I-22 To maintain walkability and pedestrian safety, consider reducing curb-to-curb road widths and employing roadway design features such as islands, pedestrian refuges, and pedestrian count-down signals.

C-I-23 Provide pedestrian facilities that are acce ssible to persons with disabilities and ensure that roadway improvement projects address accessibility and universal design concepts.

C-I-24 In mixed-use areas or other areas with high pedestrian traffic, provide mid-block pedestrian crossings, where feasible, to cr eate more direct walking routes and slow vehicle speeds.

C-G-9 Foster practical parking solutions to serve community needs while avoiding excessive amounts of surface parking that disrupt the urban fabric of the city.

C-I-33 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish “green” parking design standards that have multiple benefits, such as shared parking fo r mixed use projects, photovoltaic panels on parking structures to generate energy for parking lot lighting, landscaping and trees in surface parking, and pervious paving to improve groundwater recharge and promote innovative surface parking design that avoids the appearance of a “sea of asphalt” and reduces environmental impacts. Strategies will include, but are not limited to:
 Require parking to be provided behind buildings, wherever feasible;  Promote the use of time, motion-sensing, and/or solar powered parking lot lights or security lights, wherever feasible;
 Establish specific standards for perimeter landscaping, including the type and San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-14
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
coverage required along the edges of surface parking areas adjacent to streets;  Require a minimum number of trees per parking stall in surface parking areas (e.g. 1 per 8 stalls for double-loaded bays) to prov ide shade, and reduce urban heat island effects;
 Separate pedestrian pathways from car lanes where possible;  Promote the use of porous paving and a variety of drainage features according to the site; and
 Restrict use of vacant lots as vehicle parking and outdoor storage of commercial equipment, construction equipment, and similar items unless screened from view from adjacent streets.

Housing Element Policies
H-4 Promote the development of energy effici ent homes to help protect the environment and lower the energy costs for San Pablo residents.

Program H-2.1.8 Provide by right reductions fr om the standard parking requirements for new residential projects that are located on San Pablo Avenue and have frequent transit service.

Policy H-4.1 Encourage the incorporation of energy conservation design features in existing and future residential developments to conserve resources and reduce housing costs.

Program H-4.1.1 Promote the County’s and PG&D’s weatherization programs to extremely low- to moderate-income homeowners and seniors to improve the energy efficiency of their residence and/or replace existing energy inefficient appliances.

Program H-4.1.2 Promote the use of solar energy and other environmentally sound, energy efficient methods for heating and cooling homes, consistent with adopted building, mechanical and plumbing codes.

Program H-4.1.3 Require developers to complete a GreenPoint Checklist, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Checklist (LEED) or equivalent, as part of their submittal to Executive Summary
E-15
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
the Planning Division and encourage them to attain the equivalent of LEED Silver certification or better.

Program H-4.1.4 Consider a Green Building Design Ordinance that offers density, FAR, and height bonuses for private projects that meet certain green building thresholds.

Program H-4.1.5 Facilitate environmentally sensitive construction practices by:
 Restricting the use of chloroflourocarbons (CFCs), hydrochloroflourocarbons (HCFCs), and halons in mechanical equipment and building materials;  Promoting the use of products that are durable and allow efficient end-of-life disposal (recyclable);
 Requiring large project applicants to su bmit a construction waste management plan for City approval;
 Promoting the use of locally or regionally available materials; and  Promoting the use of cost-effective design and construction strategies that reduce resource and environmental impacts.

3.3-2 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
would result in an
implementing
document that is
consistent with and
implements the
goals and Control
Measures of the
Clean Air Plan.

Refer to Table 3.3-6 for details.

LU-I-1 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to implement new General Plan land use designations and promote Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) at appropriate locations.

GME-I-3 Continue to require new development to pay its fair share of needed transportation improvements through impact fees, community benefit agreements, and other mechanisms.

GME I-5 Approve a development project only after making findings that one or more of the following conditions are met:
 No revenue from Measure J will be used to replace or provide developer funding that has or would have been committed to any mitigation project;  The development project will fully fund public facilities and infrastructure as necessary to mitigate any impacts arising from the new development; and Less than Significant
San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-16
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
 The development project will pay mitigat ion fees for public facilities and infrastructure improvements in proportion to the development’s impacts.

C-I-12 Schedule public transportation impr ovement projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

C-G-6 Encourage the expansion of public transportation systems.

C-G-7 Facilitate the use of public transportation in San Pablo by making it more comfortable and convenient.

C-I-27 Work with public transit providers to advocate the expansion of transit service to underserved areas in the city.

C-I-29 Work with public transit providers, Contra Costa College, and property owners to identify and develop a future Major Transit Hub along San Pablo Avenue, near Mission Plaza.

C-I-30 In partnership with CCTA and the We st Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee, pursue funding to study the feasibility of developing a public transit system along the BNSF Railway corridor.

C-G-4 Maintain acceptable levels of service for all modes of travel.

GME-G-3 Provide new and improved pedestrian, bicycle routes, park ing and transit facilities, as envisioned in the Circulation Element
C-I-25 Work with public transit providers to up grade selected bus-stops with advanced traveler information systems (ATIS).

C-I-27 Work with public transit providers to develop context-sensitive bus-stop designs that would facilitate traffic flow and passenger safety along 23rd Street and San Pablo Avenue.

C-I-1 Design and operate city streets based on a “Complete Streets” concept that enables safe, comfortable, and attractive access and travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users of all ages and abilities
C-I-13 Expand and maintain a safe and compre hensive bicycle system that connects the City’s neighborhoods to regional bicycle routes.

C-I-15 Require the provision of bicycle parking and related facilities in new employment- generating development to facilitate multi-modal commute choices.

Executive Summary
E-17
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
C-I-20 Complete and enhance the pedestrian network with an interconnected system of walkways, continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street, and pedestrian crossings.

GME-G-1 Manage the City’s growth and protect op en space by establishing an Urban Limit Line (ULL).

GME-G-3 Provide new and improved pedestrian, bicycle routes, park ing and transit facilities, as envisioned in the Circulation Element.

GME-G-4 Promote mixed-use, high density infill development and support land use patterns that make more efficient use of the transportation system.

LU-I-1 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to implement new General Plan land use designations and promote Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) at appropriate locations.

LU-I-16 Support residential infill on va cant lots within existing neighborhoods.

H 2.1.8 Provide by right reductions from the st andard parking requirements for new residential projects that are located on San Pablo Avenue and have frequent transit service.

HEA-I-11 Support the use of clean fuel, “climate frie ndly” vehicles in order to reduce energy use, energy costs, and greenhouse gas emissions by residents, businesses, and city government activities.

OSC-I-17 Prepare a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan that focuses on feasible actions the City can take to minimize the adverse impacts of growth and development on climate change and air quality. The plan would include, but not be limited to:
 A baseline inventory of all known or reas onably discoverable sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that currently exist in the city and sources that existed in 1990.  A projected inventory of the GHGs that can reasonably be expected to be emitted in the city in the year 2030 in accordan ce with discretionary land use decisions pursuant to this General Plan update and foreseeable communitywide and municipal operations.
 A target for the reduction of emissions from those identified sources reasonably attributable to the City’s discretionary land use decisions and municipal operations, in line with State goals and targets established by the Air Resources Board.  A list of feasible GHG reduction measure s whose purpose shall be to meet the San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-18
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
established local reduction target, including energy conservation and “green building” requirements in municipal buildings and private development.

OSC-I-18 Work with the Bay Area Air Quality Ma nagement District to develop and implement a Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP) to address the exposure of sensitive populations to toxic air contaminant emissions in San Pablo.

3.3-3 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
results in an
implementing
document that
includes a land use
diagram identifying
overlay zones
around existing and
planned sources of
toxic air
contaminants
(TACs) and address
these TAC sources
and sensitive
receptors in its
goals, policies and
objectives.

OSC-I-19 Maintain a 500-foot Air Quality Health Ri sk Overlay Zone on either side of Interstate 80 within the Planning Area to protect sensitiv e receptors from toxic air emissions. Within this overlay, avoid approval of new sensitive land uses, and for thos e projects permitted, require site-specific project design improvements (such as higher performance windows and HVAC systems) in order to reduce pub lic health risks associ ated with poor air quality in these locations.

And policies OSC-I-23 through OSC-I-25, as detailed in Impact 3.3-1.

Less than Significant
Energy and Greenhouse Gases

3.4-1 Implementation of
the proposed Plan
would result in a
substantial increase
in per service
population
(residents + jobs)
C-I-5 In consultation with PG&E, study the feas ibility of a program for converting city-owned street lights to light-emitting diode (LED ) technology, and take advantage of rate reductions and rebates, as applicable.

C-I-12 Continue coordination efforts with public transit providers to maintain transit service that is safe and efficient with convenient connections to high use and activity intersections in the city.

Less than Significant
Executive Summary
E-19
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
energy
consumption. C-I-14 Work with public transit provides to advocate the expansion of transit service to underserved areas in the City.

C-I-18 Expand and maintain a safe and comprehe nsive bicycle system that connects the City’s neighborhoods to regional bicycle routes.

C-I-20 Require the provision of bicycle parking and related facilities in new employment- generating development to facilitate multi-modal commute choices.

C-I-23 Complete and enhance the pedestrian ne twork with an interconnected system of walkways, continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street, and pedestrian crossings.

C-I-27 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish “green” parking design standards that have multiple benefits, such as shared parking for mixed use projec ts, passive solar on parking structures to generate energy for parking lo t lighting, landscaping and trees in surface parking, and pervious paving to improve groundwater recharge and promote innovative surface parking design that avoids the appearance of a “sea of asphalt” and reduces environmental impacts.

HEA-I-4 Act as a model to other large employer s by selecting and impl ementing a suite of transportation demand management (TDM) programs designed to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and overall vehicl e emissions generated by trip s that start or end in San Pablo. Programs may include, but are not limite d to: Installation of showers, lockers, and secure bike parking facilities in city-owned buildings; Designation of preferred parking spaces for carpools, carshare programs, and cl ean fuel vehicles; and Provision of transit benefits that reduce direct employee public transportation costs.

In addition, several water conservation and waste reduction policies from Chapter 6 of the proposed General Plan would also contribute to per capita and per job energy savings in San Pablo.

San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-20
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation

3.4-2 Implementation of
the proposed Plan,
combined with
forecast countywide
growth, would
cause San Pablo to
exceed the per
service population
(residents + jobs)
GHG emissions
threshold of 6.6 MT
CO
2e/year
established by
BAAQMD.

OSC-I-17 Prepare a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan that focuses on feasible actions the City can take to minimize the adverse impacts of growth and development on climate change and air quality. The plan would include, but not be limited to:
 A baseline inventory of all known or reas onably discoverable sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that currently exist in the city and sources that existed in 1990.  A projected inventory of the GHGs that can reasonably be expected to be emitted in the city in the year 2030 in accordan ce with discretionary land use decisions pursuant to this General Plan update and foreseeable communitywide and municipal operations.
 A target for the reduction of emissions from those identified sources reasonably attributable to the City’s discretionary land use decisions and municipal operations, in line with site goals and targets established by the Air Resources Board.  A list of feasible GHG reduction measure s whose purpose shall be to meet the established local reduction target, including energy conservation and “green building” requirements in municipal buildings and private development.

Furthermore, all policies listed above under Impact 3.4-1 would also reduce GHG emissions as they reduce energy use.

Less than Significant
Hydrology and Flooding

3.5-1 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
could adversely
affect water quality
and drainage
patterns in the short
term due to erosion
None required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
E-21
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
and sedimentation
during construction
activities.

3.5-2 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
could result in
degradation of
water quality and
depletion of
groundwater
supplies by
increasing nonpoint
source pollutants
including
sedimentation in
stormwater runoff
through creation of
new impervious
surfaces in new
development.

PSCU-G-5 Continue to ensure the successful provision, maintenance, and operation of City-owned public infrastructure and utilities.

PSCU-G-6 Support the efficient us e and conservation of water.

PSCU-G-7 Maintain a comprehensive storm drainage system to protect life and property.

OSC-G-3 Protect and enhance wetlands, creek system s, and rare and endangered species and their habitats.

OSC-G-4 Ensure both access and ecological functionality of the creek system in San Pablo.

OSC-G-5 Protect water supply and quality through conservation and good stormwater management practices.

PSCU-I-34 Update zoning standards to minimize storm water runoff rates and volumes, control water pollution, and maximize recharge of local groundwater aquifers. New development will be required to include features that reduce impermeable surface area and increase infiltration. Such features may include, but are not limited to:
 Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
 Grading that lengthen s flow paths and increases runo ff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
 Removing curbs and gutters from park ing areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
 Permeable paving and parking area design;
 Stormwater detention and retention basins to facilitate infiltration; and  Integrated or subsurface water retention fa cilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses.

Detailed recommendations are provided in th e Bay Area Stormwater Management Agency’s “Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection.” Less than Significant
San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-22
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
OSC-I-10 Maintain, protect, and enhance San Pablo’s creeks, including Rheem, San Pablo, and Wildcat creeks, as local environmental an d aesthetic resources, with approaches including, but not limited to:
 Establishing a Creek Improvement Program to widen, day-light, and improve San Pablo and Wildcat creeks for the enjoyment of residents;  Strengthening stormwater management requirements for properties adjacent to the creek areas by applying techniques that maintain or restore nature character;  Enforcing restrictions on the planting of invasive species near creek areas;  Identifying and working with property owners to take advantage of unique opportunities where human active use (e .g. through trail development) would enhance creek appreciation without disrupting ecological function;  Working with developers to “daylight” portions of creeks that have historically been channelized underground under existing paved areas (e.g. parking lots); and  Requiring minimum setbacks from the top of the creek bank for development proposed adjacent to creeks, in keeping wi th City regulations and Best Management Practices.

OSC-I-11 Require property owners with prop erties adjacent to creeks to pay for creek improvement maintenance.

OSC-I-12 Continue to work with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to protect and improve ground- and surface-water quality in the region.

3.5-3 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
could result in
additional runoff
exceeding the
capacity of existing
stormwater facilities
and increasing
In addition to the guiding and implementing policies listed under Impact 3.5-1 above, the following policies also help to reduce this potential impact on the stormwater drainage system:

PSCU-I-31 Require, as a condition of project approval, stormwater drainage and sewer improvements in proportion to a project’s impacts, including upgrades, replacements, or repairs to older stormwater collection systems, as necessary.

PSCU-I-32 Maintain master storm drain system maps that identify locations where easements should be reserved for eventual installation of pipe s and structures to en sure appropriate storm drainage management.

Less than Significant
Executive Summary
E-23
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
potential flooding of
receiving waters and
areas in
downstream.

PSCU-I-33 Coordinate with the West County Wastewater District to address planning capacity and identify deficiencies in the waste water collection system.

3.5-4 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
could result in the
placement of
housing in the 100-
year floodplain or
structures that
would impede flood
flows exposing
people to injury or
death.

SN-G-2 Minimize the risks to property, life, and the environment due to flooding hazards.

SN-I-7 Continue to minimize the risk of flooding to development through the development review process. Require new development within a flood plain to comply with the City’s Floodplain Management and Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and to submit hydrologic studies, identify site development and construction methods, and implement appropriate mitigation measures to minimize surface water run-off.

Developers will be required to provide an assessmen t of a project’s potential impacts on the local storm drainage system as part of the developmen t review process. If development is found to have a negative impact on storm drainage, mitigation measures, such as the creation of permanent or temporary detention or retention basins, provision of additional landscaped areas and green roofs, installation of pump stations, and the use of permeable paving in driveways, walkways and parking areas, may be required.

SN-I-8 Annually review the Land Use Element to identify whether any additional areas subject to flooding have been defined in updated flood plain maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) and adopt amendments to the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance, as warranted.

SN-I-9 Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and ensure that local regulations are in full compliance with Federal.

SN-I-10 Periodically review National Flood Insurance Program maps to ensure that the City’s zoning and building regulations reduce potential risks from flooding pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program of 1968.

SN-I-11 Inform households and businesses locate d in flood-prone areas about opportunities to purchase flood insurance.

The City will regularly remind residents of the va lue of flood insurance for vulnerable properties Less than Significant
San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-24
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
through newsletters and other educational materials. Purchase of flood insurance is required for buildings in Special Flood Hazard Areas defined by the Flood Insurance Rate Map when a federally regulated lender holds the mortgage on the building.

SN-I-12 Site new essential public facilities outside of the 100-year flood plains, including hospital and healthcare facilities, emergency shelters, police and fire stations, and emergency communications facilities to minimize exposure to 100-year floods.

SN-I-13 Cooperate with the Co unty Flood Control District, California Department of Transportation, and the Army Corp of Engin eers to mitigate potential flooding risks, including flood control projects on Wildcat and San Pablo creeks and the maintenance of drainage facilities and infrastructure.

SN-I-14 Work with railroad operators on minimizing downstream flooding related to limited number of culverts.

3.5-5 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
would expose
people or structures
to risk of flooding
due to the failure of
a dam.

The policies listed above under Impact 3.5-4 also help to reduce this potential impact. Less than Significant 3.5-6 Implementation of the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
in combination with
past, present, and
foreseeable future
development in the
surrounding
communities and
with other agencies
in the County, could
The policies listed above under impacts 3.5-1 through 3.5-5 help to reduce this potential cumulative impact.

Less than Significant
Executive Summary
E-25
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
adversely affect
water quality of
regional water
bodies.

Biological Resources

3.6-1 Implementation of
the San Pablo
General Plan could
result in negative
effects, either
directly or through
habitat
modifications, on
special-status
species.

OSC-G-3 Protect and enhance wetlands, creek system s, and rare and endangered species and their habitats.

OSC-G-4 Ensure both access and ecological functionality of the creek system in San Pablo.

OSC-G-5 Protect water supply and quality through conservation and good stormwater management practices.

OSC-I-4 Require protection of sensitive habita t areas and “special status” species through measures implemented in new development in the following order: 1) avoidance, 2) on- site mitigation, and 3) offsit e mitigation, and require assessm ents of biological resources prior to approval for any development within 300 feet of any creeks, wetlands, or other sensitive habitat areas.

The City will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wild life Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and Regi onal Water Quality Control Board to ensure City staff is providing developers with the best guidance and standards for project design to avoid impacts to creeks, wetland features, woodlands, or other sensitive natural features.

OSC-I-5 Develop a list of native plants and landscaping guidelines that residents and business owners should use for public and private la ndscaping plans. Make th is list and guidance accessible through the Planning Department, the Public Library, and the City website.

Urban landscaping design and planting choices should be managed to maximize ecological and health benefits for the whole community.

OSC-I-6 Prohibit the use of invasive plant specie s, such as pampas grass and ivies, adjacent to wetlands, riparian areas, or other sensitive habitat.

Invasive plants are introduced species that can thrive in areas beyond their natural range of dispersal. These plants are characteristically ad aptable, aggressive, and have a high reproductive capacity. Their vigor combined with a lack of natural enemies often leads to outbreak populations that overwhelm local plant species.

Less than Significant
San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-26
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
OSC-I-7 Preserve and protect undeveloped hillside areas for their potential habitat value and as a visual and open space resource.

OSC-I-10 Maintain, protect, and enhance San Pablo’s creeks, including Rheem, San Pablo, and Wildcat creeks, as local environmental an d aesthetic resources, with approaches including, but not limited to:
 Establishing a Creek Improvement Program to widen, day-light, and improve San Pablo and Wildcat creeks for the enjoyment of residents;  Strengthening stormwater management requirements for properties adjacent to the creek areas by applying techniques that maintain or restore nature character;  Enforcing restrictions on the planting of invasive species near creek areas;  Identifying and working with property owners to take advantage of unique opportunities where human active use (e .g. through trail development) would enhance creek appreciation without disrupting ecological function;  Working with developers to “daylight” portions of creeks that have historically been channelized underground under existing paved areas (e.g. parking lots); and  Requiring minimum setbacks from the top of the creek bank for development proposed adjacent to creeks, in keeping wi th City regulations and Best Management Practices.

OSC-I-11 Require property owners with prop erties adjacent to creeks to pay for creek improvement maintenance.

OSC-I-12 Continue to work with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to protect and improve ground- and surface-water quality in the region.

SN-I-36 Use the Community Noise Level Exposure Standards, shown in Table 9.6-1, as review Executive Summary
E-27
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
criteria for new land uses. Require all new development that would be exposed to noise greater than the “normally acceptable” noise level range to reduce interior noise through design, sound insulation, or other measures.

SN-I-37 Require proposed industrial, commercial, and other uses with potential noise and vibration-producing activities to submit a noise study report identifying noise and vibration mitigation measures that would redu ce the noise adjacent level to acceptable ranges based on the Community Noise Environment Standards.

SN-I-38 Require new, fixed noise sources (e.g. mechanical equipment) to use best available control technology to minimize noise and vibration.

Noise from mechanical equipment can often be reduced by applying soundproofing materials, mufflers, or other controls provided by the manufacturer.

PSCU-I-34 Update zoning standards to minimize storm water runoff rates and volumes, control water pollution, and maximize recharge of local groundwater aquifers. New development will be required to include features that re duce impermeable surface area and increase infiltration. Such features may include, but are not limited to:
 Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
 Grading that lengthen s flow paths and increases runo ff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
 Removing curbs and gutters from park ing areas where appropriate to allow stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
 Permeable paving and parking area design;
 Stormwater detention and retention basins to facilitate infiltration; and  Integrated or subsurface water retention fa cilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses.

3.6-2 Implementation of
the San Pablo
General Plan could
OSC-I-8 If site work or construction (i.e., ground clearing or grading, including removal of trees or shrubs) activities are to occur during the nesting bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31), the City will require a pre-construction survey by a qualified wildlife Less than Significant
San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-28
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
result in the direct
loss of nesting birds.
biologist, assessing potential special-status bi rd nesting habitat within 500 feet of the project site, no more than two weeks in adva nce, of the planned activity. All identified nests should be buffered from the construction activity as recommended by the biologist and confirmed by City staff, in accordance with the nature of the construction and nesting activities.

Construction activities scheduled to occur during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) do not require a survey. Construction activities commencing during the non-breeding season and continuing into the breeding season also do not require surveys. Nests initiated during construction activities would be presumed to be unaffected by the activity, and a buffer zone around such nests would not be necessary. However, a nest initiated during construction cannot be moved or altered.

Furthermore, proposed General Plan policies listed under Impact 3.6-1 would also help to reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

3.6-3 Implementation of
the San Pablo
General Plan has the
potential to affect
migratory and
breeding birds
through building
collisions and
increases in
nighttime lighting.

Proposed General Plan policies listed under impacts 3.6-1 and 3.6-2 would also help to reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Less than Significant

3.6-4 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
may adversely
impact special-status
bat species through
removal of potential
roosting habitat and
OSC-I-9 For any development projects involving re moval of mature trees and/or demolition of vacant buildings (both potential habitats for special-status bats), require a pre- construction survey by a qualified wildlife bi ologist to determine if bats are present using an acoustic detector. Require implementation of feasible recommendations of the biologist on removal of trees with signs of bat activity during a period least likely to adversely affect the bats, or the creation of a “no disturbance” buffer, if a viable alternative.

Less than Significant
Executive Summary
E-29
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
through increases in
noise levels during
construction.

Furthermore, proposed General Plan policies lis ted under impacts 3.6-1 through 3.6-3 would also help to reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

3.6-5 Implementation of
the San Pablo
General Plan could
result in the filling of
wetlands and other
waters.

SN-I-6 Require erosion prevention of hillside areas by re-vegetation or other acceptable methods.

Developers will be required to provide an assessmen t of a project’s potential impacts on the local storm drainage system as part of the developmen t review process. If development is found to have a negative impact on storm drainage, mitigation measures, such as the creation of permanent or temporary detention or retention basins, provision of additional landscaped areas and green roofs, installation of pump stations , and the use of permeable paving in driveways, walkways and parking areas, may be required.

Furthermore, proposed General Plan policies lis ted under impacts 3.6-1 through 3.6-4 would also help to reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Less than Significant

3.6-6 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
could interfere
SN-I-13 Cooperate with the Co unty Flood Control District, California Department of Transportation, and the Army Corp of Engin eers to mitigate potential flooding risks, including flood control projects on Wildcat and San Pablo creeks and the maintenance of drainage facilities and infrastructure.

Less than Significant
San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-30
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
substantially with
the movement of
native resident or
migratory fish or
wildlife species.

Flood control projects will be designed to support the City’s efforts to reestablish natural conditions in these creek corridors.

Furthermore, proposed General Plan policies lis ted under impacts 3.6-1 through 3.6-5 would also help to reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

3.6-7 Subsequent
development
projects associated
with the
implementation of
the San Pablo
General Plan in
conjunction with
other past, present,
pending and
reasonably
foreseeable
development in the
County of Contra
Costa or the City of
San Pablo could
result in cumulative
adverse impacts on
special-status
species, wetlands, or
other waters of the
United States.

The San Pablo General Plan and other future projects within the cumulative geographic context are required to comply with local, state, and federal laws and policies and all applicable permitting requirements of the regulatory and oversight agencies intended to address potential impacts on biological resources, including wetlands, other waters of the United States, and special-status species.

Additionally, new projects would be required to mitigate significant effects on these biological resources to the extent feasible, although it is possible that some projects may be approved even though they would have significant, unavoidable impacts on biological resources.

Existing conditions in the City of San Pablo reflect the results of past development, which has filled or otherwise eliminated much of the original extent of the wet meadow and wetlands once present and resulted in loss and fragmentation of original habitat, as well as the introduction of night lighting and increased noise. Current industrial and residential us es provide little habitat value for the majority of the city. However, the city contains two vegetated riparian corridors that provide valuable wildlife habitat.

Unmitigated significant noise and lighting impacts re sulting from the implementation of the General Plan and other reasonably foreseea ble projects, combined with existing conditions resulting in part from past development, could increase the aggregate effect and be considered cumulatively significant.

However, the current impact analysis has shown that the proposed project has the potential for relatively minor impacts on biological resources an d that these impacts can be minimized to less than significant levels through the application of the General Plan Policies and proposed mitigation measures. When considered relative to all past, pr esent, and reasonably foreseeable similar projects within the geographic context for this analysis, th e incremental contribution of the proposed project to an already existing cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the proposed project on biological resources would be less than significant.

Less than Significant
Executive Summary
E-31
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
Geology & Seismicity

3.7-1 Implementation of
the proposed
General Plan could
expose people or
property to loss,
injury, or death
related to
seismically-induced
surface rupture,
ground failure,
ground shaking,
liquefaction,
landslides, or
tsunamis.

SN-I-1 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for a geologic hazards abatement district for hillside areas at risk of landslides in San Pablo.

The Geologic Hazard Abatement District is a potentially useful tool to effectively abate a landslide hazard that crosses property boundaries. It is a me chanism that responds to the physical realities of landslides, and allows property owners to co operate in solving a common problem. It removes much of the stigma of legal liabilities among ad jacent landowners and allows them to cooperate rather than litigate. It also provides for a cost -effective solution, requiring only one geotechnical engineering firm and one plan to solve the problems of several landowners.

SN-I-2 Pursuant to the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act, continue to review individual projects to prohibit the development of critical or habitable structures within the Fault Zone.

SN-I-3 Continue to maintain and enforce appropriate standards in the Uniform Building Code to ensure new development is designed to m eet current safety stan dards associated with seismic activity.

SN-I-4 Continue to identify and catalogue struct ures that may be subject to serious structural damage in the event of a major earthquake, and provide information to property owners on ways to pay for rehabilitation of existing buildings, including available State and other financing resources.

SN-I-5 Support efforts by State and regional agencies to promot e public awareness of potential geologic and seismic hazards.

Less than Significant

3.7-2 Implementation of
the proposed
General Plan could
require significant
earthwork and road
cuts, increasing the
potential for short-
term and long-term
SN-I-6 Require erosion prevention of hillside areas by re-vegetation or other acceptable methods.

Less than Significant
San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-32
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
soil erosion and
slope failure.

3.7-3 Implementation of
the proposed
General Plan could
cause new
development to be
built on highly
compressible,
expansive, or weak,
unconsolidated soils,
creating substantial
risks to life or
property from on-
or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading,
subsidence,
liquefaction, or
collapse.

The policies listed under impacts 3.7-1 and 3.7-2 reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant, and are incorporated here by reference.

Less than Significant

3.7-4 Implementation of
the proposed
General Plan,
combined with
regional population
growth, would
result in an
increased risk of
exposure of people
and property to
geologic hazards.

None required.

Less than Significant
Cumulative Impact
Executive Summary
E-33
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities

3.8-1 Implementation of
the proposed Plan
will require
additional police and
fire protection
services that exceed
current staffing and
facilities.

SN-I-24 Assess the manpower, training, facility and equipment needs of the Police Department periodically to ensure they meet current and future community needs.

The City will ensure the staffing ratios and response times meet national standards, and hire additional police officers, support training programs, and retrofit police-related facilities and purchase equipment, as needed.

SN-I-26 Explore the feasibility of developing a small police station at Rumrill Boulevard and Market Avenue and/or expansion of existing facility.

SN-I-27 Continue to share information and develop joint law enforcement efforts with adjacent jurisdictions and other public safety agencies.

SN-I-16 Continue to work with the County Fire Department to make San Pablo more resilient to fire hazards.

The City’s Planning Division will work with the County Fire Department to plan for, maintain, and expand local fire service activities. The City’s Building Division will consult with the Fire Department on new construction plan checki ng, building inspections, weed abatement and hazard mitigation activities, and public information resources. The City’s Public Works and Planning Division will work with Fire Departme nt to review, hydrant locations, landscaping and other fire safety criteria. The City’s Police Depa rtment will work with the Fire Department to distribute fire safety information and coordinate public safety education in schools.

SN-I-18 Review the Fire District’s fire hazard st andards and annual report to determine if there should be a modification or additional types of services based on local population needs.

Less than Significant

3.8-2 Implementation of
the proposed Plan
will increase
enrollment, but this
will not exceed the
capacity of existing
schools.

None required Less than Significant

3.8-3 Implementation of
the proposed Plan
PSCU-I-1 Seek to achieve a standard of 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

In addition to parkland dedication by developers, the City will also acquire or re-develop parkland Less than Significant
San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-34
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
would increase the
ratio of parkland
from the existing
ratio but still fall
short of the City’s
goal of 3 acres per
thousand residents.
to meet the goal of 3.0 acres of park per 1, 000 residents, subject to availability of funding.

Specialized recreational facilities, such as school facilities, may be counted as part of the parkland total if they become publicly accessible.

PSCU-I-4 Require residential developers to contribute to the City’s parks and open space system based on their proportional share of needs generated by new residents.

PSCU-I-5 Periodically update park impact fees to assure the City’s ability to maintain park and recreation infrastructure and facilities.

PSCU-I-6 Acquire land for mini-parks in Old Town and other neighborhoods where parks are needed.

The City will acquire and develop a mini-park in the Old Town neighborhood to respond to the recreational needs of that area. A playing field is also being planned on city-owned land for the Rumrill neighborhood. Along San Pablo Avenue, pr oposed mini-parks are shown as symbols, indicating the general location. Details will be developed in a Parks and Recreation Master Plan (see PSCU-I-2).

PSCU-I-8 Continue joint-use park and recreation agreements with West Contra Costa Unified School District and the Contra Costa College to improve the community’s access to park and recreation facilities with minimal or no financial commitments by the City.

HEA-I-6 Establish an incentive system to encourage land dedication and park development beyond the minimum City requirements. Incentives may include density bonuses, and increased building height at appropriate locations. Tie incentive program to priority areas for parks development.

3.8-4 Implementation of
the proposed Plan
will result in the
increase in use of
existing parks, such
that substantial
physical
deterioration of the
facility could occur
PSCU-I-2 Adopt a Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

The Master Plan should include the following components:
 An assessment of existing and future parks and recreational needs including neighborhood parks and facilities;
 Sustainable construction and park maintenance strategies;  Development of an action plan to prioritize the City’s needs, identify preferred sites for new facilities, identify staffing needs, and present a plan for acquisition and Less than Significant
Executive Summary
E-35
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
or be accelerated. improvement of future facilities.

PSCU-I-3 Develop new park and recreation facilities and continue to upgrade existing ones with universal accessibility, durability, and low maintenance in mind.

PSCU-I-9 Involve citizens, especially youths, in main taining park areas through participating in park watches, citizen-based graffiti watch, and clean up and repair.

HEA-I-2 Improve signage directing re sidents and visitors to public pa rks and recreational facilities from all parts of the community. Integrate parks signage with bi keway and pedestrian- oriented signage system throughout San Pablo.

HEA-I-5 Link park facility improvement priorities to a ranking system keyed to public health and recreational goals.

PSCU-I-1, PSCU-I-4, PSCU-I-5, PSCU-I-8, and HEA-I-6 mentioned under Impact 3.8-4 would also help reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. No additional mitigation is needed.

3.8-5 Implementation of
the proposed Plan
will increase the
demand for public
water which may
exceed supply.

PSCU-G-6 Support the efficient us e and conservation of water.

PSCU-I-23 Coordinate with East Bay Municipal Util ities District (EBMUD) to provide an adequate and clean water supply.

The City will work with EBMUD to update and support compliance with the District’s Water Supply Management Program.

PSCU-I-24 Establish water saving and conservation standards for new development. Standards may include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Require new residential developments to install low-flush toilets and water saving shower heads;
 Require new commercial, retail, and industrial developments to install low-flush toilets and auto shut-off faucets in public bathrooms; and  Require the installation of water meters on all new multifamily residential units, mobile homes, and common interest deve lopments, whether owner-occupied or rented, as well as on existing multifamily units at the time of sale, or at the time of Less than Significant
San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-36
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
condominium conversion as a part of the subdivision mapping process.

The City will work with property owners to increase awareness of both the environmental and the economic advantages of sub-metering. Properly do ne, sub-metering of multifamily buildings can cut apartment resident demand by 15 percent.

PSCU-I-25 Reduce water use in municipal buildings and City operations.

The City will develop a schedule and budget for the retrofit of existing municipal buildings with water conservation features, such as auto shut-off faucets and water saving irrigation systems.

PSCU-I-26 Adopt a Water Conservation Ordinance to conserve water and reduce water waste in San Pablo.

The Water Conservation Ordinance will establish restrictions on water uses such as lawn and landscape watering and the filling of fountains and swimming pools, as well as penalties for violations. It also will establish consum ption reduction measures to be adopted when State or countywide water rationing is in effect.

Landscape water conservation standards will apply to new development of more than 10,000 square feet. This ordinance also will:
 Require commercial and public right-of-way projects to submit planting plans, irrigation plans, irrigation schedules and water use estimates for City approval prior to issuance of building permits; and
 Require industrial projects to submit plans for water recycling and explain how water use will meet requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program during the plan review proc ess. They are also required to submit irrigation plans for proposed landscaping.

PSCU-I-27 Promote water conservation through public education, including but not limited to the following:
 Encouraging educators to include water conservation in their curriculums;  Promoting the use of drought resistant plants and turf in yards and gardens;  Highlighting the availability of EBMUD wa ter conservation programs to residents, including the free Residential Water Survey Program, Residential Landscape Rebate Program, Low-flush Toilet Replacement Program, High Efficiency Residential Clothes Executive Summary
E-37
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
Washer Rebate Program and other programs; and
 Providing tips to households and businesses on water conservation.

The City will use its newsletter and website to promote water conservation, and may solicit assistance from EBMUD, environmental groups, and/ or concerned citizens to provide education materials or staff time to assist in public outreach efforts.

PSCU-I-28 Consult with EBMUD about starting a recycled water program for San Pablo to irrigate parks, recreational facilities, and landscaping.

PSCU-I-29 Provide educational materials to support the development of safe and effective on-site gray water systems for local homes and businesses, consistent with State codes.

PSCU-I-30 Provide educational materials to support the development of inexpensive and effective rainwater harvesting systems for local homes and businesses.

3.8-6 Implementation of
the proposed Plan
will generate waste
water that exceed
the treatment
capacity of the
West County
Wastewater District
or require additional
infrastructure to
meet growth
demands.

PSCU-I-33 Coordinate with the West County Wastewater District to address planning capacity and identify deficiencies in the waste water collection system.

PSCU-I-34 Update zoning standards to minimize storm water runoff rates and volumes, control water pollution, and maximize recharge of local groundwater aquifers. New development will be required to include features that reduce impermeable surface area and increase infiltration. Such features may include, but are not limited to:
 Canopy trees or shrubs to absorb rainwater;
 Grading that lengthen s flow paths and increases runo ff travel time to reduce the peak hour flow rate;
 Removing curbs and gutters from park ing areas where appropriate to allow Less than Significant
San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-38
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
stormwater sheet flow into vegetated areas;
 Permeable paving and parking area design;
 Stormwater detention and retention basins to facilitate infiltration; and  Integrated or subsurface water retention fa cilities to capture rainwater for use in landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses.

3.8-7 Implementation of
the proposed Plan
may generate
additional amounts
of solid waste that
may exceed future
annual diversion
targets.

PSCU-I-39 Require recycling collection services in all residential and non-residential buildings.

PSCU-I-40 Promote the importance of waste reductio n and recycling, as well as the safe disposal of hazardous materials, to San Pablo residents and businesses owners.

PSCU-I-41 Establish design standards for new multifamily development in the Zoning Ordinance to make provisions for recycling part of the building design.

PSCU-I-42 Reduce construction waste in San Pablo by adopting a Waste Reduction and Construction Debris Recycling Ordinance that requires developers to:
 Reuse building materials, or use materials with recycled content, to the maximum extent possible;
 Submit a ‘Construction and Demolition Ma terials Management Plan’ indicating the estimated volume or weight of project construction and demolition materials, by materials type, to be generated; the maximum volume or weight of materials the project will divert; the vendor or diversion facility; and the volume or weight of residual materials that would be transported for disposal in a landfill;  Schedule time for deconstruction and recycling activities to take place during project demolition and construction phases; and
 Divert at least 50 percent of recyclable debris (such as paper based boards, ceiling tiles, wood, or aluminum) generated from pr ojects from landfill disposal to reuse or recycling options.

PSCU-I-43 Reduce waste production in all City op erations by using post -consumer recycled paper and other recycled materials.

Less than Significant
Executive Summary
E-39
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
PSCU-I-44 Actively promote reuse by supporting swap meets, flea markets, and providing information on donation pick-up or drop off locations, as well as other waste reduction programs, on the City website.

Noise

3.9-1 New development
under the proposed
General Plan could
potentially expose
existing noise-
sensitive uses to
construction-related
increases in ambient
noise and
groundborne
vibration.

SN-G-9 Protect public health and welfare by eliminating noise problems and maintaining an acceptable indoor and outdoor acoustic environment.

SN-I-40 Work with Caltrans, AC transit and rail road operators to mitigate transportation-related noise impacts on residential areas and sensitiv e uses. Additionally, continue to limit hours for construction and demolition work to reduce construction-related noises.

Less than Significant

3.9-2 Implementation of
the proposed
General Plan,
combined with
regional growth and
development, could
expose persons to
or generate
outdoor noise levels
in excess of
standards found in
the existing San
Pablo General Plan
Noise Element, as
well as proposed
new standards
SN-I-36 Use the Community Noise Level Exposure Standards, shown in Table 9.6-1 in the proposed General Plan, as review criter ia for new land uses. Require all new development that would be exposed to noise greater than the “normally acceptable” noise level range to reduce interior noise through design, sound insulation, or other measures.

SN-I-37 Require proposed industrial, commercial, and other uses with potential noise and vibration producing activities to submit a noise study report identifying noise and vibration mitigation measures that would redu ce the noise adjacent level to acceptable ranges based on the Community Noise Environment Standards.

SN-I-38 Require new, fixed noise sources (e.g. mechanical equipment) to use best available control technology to minimize noise and vibration.

Noise from mechanical equipment can often be reduced by applying soundproofing materials, mufflers, or other controls provided by the manufacturer.

SN-I-39 Establish standards for noise reductio n for new housing exposed to DNL noise levels above 65 dB, including but not limited to, the following:

Less the Significant
Cumulative Impact
San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-40
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
based on state
recommendations.

 All facades must be constructed with substantial weight and insulation;  Sound-rated windows with enhanced noise reduction for habitable rooms;  Sound-rated doors with enhanced noise reduction for all exterior entries at habitable rooms;
 Minimum setbacks and exterior barriers;
 Acoustic baffling of vents is required for chimneys, attic and gable ends; and  Installation of a mechanical ventilation sy stem affording comfort and fresh air under closed window conditions is required.

Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the pr escribed noise level reduction may be approved, provided a certified Acoustical Engineer submit s information demonstrating that the required reductions can be achieved and maintained.

SN—1-41 Require that all new residential building designs for sites where the DNL will exceed 65dBA achieve noise level reductions through acoustical design and construction of the building elements:
 Residential building designs must be based upon a minimum interior design noise level reduction of 35dB in all habitable areas (i.e., garages, storage areas, etc. are excepted).

The 35dB criteria must provide a minimum constructed noise level reduction of 30dB; and
 Residential building designs must also be based upon a minimum design noise level reduction of 40dB in all bedrooms. The 40dB criteria must provide a minimum constructed noise level reduction of 35dB.

SN—I-42 Require that all residential building de signs for sites where the DNL will exceed 65dBA include supporting information for City review and approval demonstrating that an acoustical design providing the necessary noise level reduction has been prepared by a Board Certified Acoustical Engineer for each dwelling unit prior to construction.

Elements of this acoustical review process shall include:
 A letter by a Board Certified Engineer a pproving the acoustical design of each dwelling unit (or group of units, if identical), submitted to the City with building Executive Summary
E-41
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
permit applications. This letter must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit;
 Following construction, a letter by the Board Certified Engineer showing noise level reduction test results for a minimum of two habitable areas within each dwelling unit (or group of units, if identical), submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.

Acoustical analysis pursuant to General Plan noise standards shall be the financial responsibility of the project applicant. All acoustical engineering and measurement must be conducted under the direction of an Acoustical Engineer who is cu rrently Board Certified by the Institute of Noise Control Engineering, USA. General review and approval of groups of buildings or prototype designs may be sufficient to meet these requirements.

Hazardous Materials

3.10-1 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
could result in
exposure to
residents or
workers of
hazardous materials
or wastes from
areas where
releases of
hazardous materials
such as from
underground fuel
storage tanks have
occurred.

PSCU-G-8 Enhance waste reduction and recycling in San Pablo.

PSCU-I-39 Require recycling collection services in all residential and non-residential buildings.

PSCU-I-40 Promote the importance of waste reductio n and recycling, as well as the safe disposal of hazardous materials, to San Pablo residents and businesses owners.

Avenues of communication of waste reduction and conservation messages may include articles in local newsletters, advertisements in local newspapers, and the City website.

SN-G-4 Reduce the risk to the health of San Pablo residents from exposure to hazardous materials.

SN-G-5 Promote the reduction, recycling, and safe disp osal of household and business hazardous wastes through public education and awareness.

SN-I-20 Require applicants for development in a potentially contaminated location to perform inspection and cleanup if the site is found to be contaminated with hazardous substances.

The City will require the project applicant to have the site inspected by a registered Environmental Assessor. Reports detailing the results must be submitted for City review. The level of remediation and cleanup will be in compliance with federal and State standards.

Less than Significant
San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-42
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
SN-I-21 Continue to support West Contra Co sta Integrated Waste Management District’s Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off Program, and encourage citizens and crime watch organizations to report unlawful dumping of hazardous materials.

SN-I-22 Ensure that the production, use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials conform to standards specified in the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.

SN-I-23 Coordinate with Contra Costa County He alth Services, the Contra Costa County Fire District, and other appropriate regulatory agencies in hazardous material emergency response and the review of all proposals that uses hazardous materials, or those properties that may have toxic contamination, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, CAM 17, metals, asbestos, and lead.

3.10-2 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
could result in the
disturbance of
structures
containing
hazardous building
materials, such as
lead-based paint,
asbestos, and PCBs
which could expose
and adversely affect
workers, the public,
or the environment
if not handled
appropriately.

Policies mentioned under Impact 3.10-1 would also help reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. No additional mitigation is needed.

Less than Significant

3.10-3 Implementation of
the proposed San
Policies PSCU-G-8, SN-G-5, SN-I-22 and SN-I-23 listed under Impact 3.10-1 would help reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

Less than Significant
Executive Summary
E-43
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
Pablo General Plan
could result in new
commercial and
light industrial uses
that would involve
the transportation,
use, and storage of
hazardous
chemicals, which
could present public
health and/or safety
risks to facility
workers, patients
and visitors, and the
surrounding area.

3.10-4 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
could result in new
development that
would result in a
cumulatively
considerable
contribution to
hazardous materials
in the planning area.

None required. Less than Significant
Cultural Resources

3.11-1 Implementation of
the proposed
General Plan would
cause a substantial
adverse change in
OSC-I-13 Establish and maintain a register of historic and potentially historic resources in San Pablo.

A historic preservation register is the primary pl anning tool used to identify, record, and evaluate historic properties within a community, neighborhood, project area, or re gion. The City may use the list of historical buildings in the General Plan Map Atlas as a starting point to create a register of sites/buildings San Pablo may wish to desi gnate as landmarks and/or important historical Less than Significant
San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-44
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
the significance of an
archaeological or
historic resource, or
disturb any human
remains, including
those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries.
resources. The register can form an important component of the local preservation program, and can ultimately contribute to community knowledge of local history.

OSC-I-14 Preserve and build upon the historic and multicultural identity of Alvarado District as a defining element of the city.

OSC-1-15 Help to ensure that new development analyzes and avoids potential impacts to historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources by:
 Requiring a records review for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive;
 Requiring pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historic or archaeological sensitivity;  Implementing appropriate measures as a condition of project approval—measures such as avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, and/or data recovery—in order to avoid any identi fied cultural resource impacts.

In the event that historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are accidentally discovered during construction, grading activity in the immediate area shall cease and materials and their surroundings shall not be altered or collected. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist must make an immediate evaluation and avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation should be completed, according to CEQA Guidelines. The Stat e Office of Historic Preservation has issued recommendations for the preparation of Archaeol ogical Resource Management Reports that may be used as guidelines.

OCS-1-16 Work with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, and to educate develope rs and the community-at-large about the connections between Native American hist ory and the environmental features that characterize the local landscape.

Native American cultural resources in the Planning Area have been found near sources of water including perennial and intermittent streams and springs, on midslope terraces and elevated knolls above the floodplain, and near ecotones and other productive environments. There is a high likelihood that additional unrecorded Native American cultural sites also exist in the Planning Area.

Executive Summary
E-45
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation

3.11-2 Implementation of
the proposed
General Plan could
destroy, directly or
indirectly, a unique
paleontological
resource or site or
unique geologic
feature.

Policy OSC-I-15 cited under Impact 3.11-1 would help reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

Less than Significant Visual Resources

3.12-1 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
could adversely
affect visual
resources in the
short-term during
period of
construction by
blocking or
disrupting views.

LU-I-7 Require design review of all new construction and visible exterior alterations of large non-residential buildings.

Any new non-residential construction or remodelin g of an existing building where exterior work alters more than 50 percent of a visible building façade, including exterior improvements, such as new windows, doors or signage, will be subject to a design review.

LU-I-11 Enhance the City’s unique identity and image by adopting a consistent palette of landscaping, street trees, lighting, and si gnage within the publi c right-of-way for neighborhood and street improvements.

Large canopy street trees, such as oaks or the London Plane tree, can create a distinct character for San Pablo. They also provide important environmental benefits.

Less than Significant

3.12-2 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
could block views of
significant landscape
features as seen
from public areas.

LU-I-45 Protect the semi-rural character of the hillside area through the integration and balance of usable open space areas and residential uses.

OSC-I-2 Continue to identify, preserve, and enhanc e scenic vistas to and from hillside areas and other visual resources.

New development should be designed to minimize obstructions of scenic vistas and preserve or enhance important attributes of view corridors.

OSC-I-7 Preserve and protect undeveloped hillside areas for their potential habitat value and as a visual and open space resource.

Less than Significant
San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-46
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation

3.12-3 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
could create
significant contrasts
with the scale, form,
line, color and/or
overall visual
character of the
existing landscape in
areas with sensitive
visual resources or
high visual quality,
or add a modern
element to a
historic area.

LU-I-4 Ensure appropriate transitions between single-family neighborhoods and higher intensity uses.

LU-I-5 Promote the phasing out of old uses in areas designated for new land use in an orderly fashion, consistent with adopted general plan designations. Promote the continuing viability of old uses during the transition period.

LU-I-9 Encourage new residential, commercial an d related forms of development in a manner which fosters both day and appropriate night time activity; visual presence on the street level; appropriate lighting; and minimally obstructed view areas.

LU-I-12 Enhance and celebrate key entrances to th e City with signs, landscaping, street trees, lighting, banners, gateway and/or entry features.

LU-I-13 Ensure that new development in or adjace nt to established neighborhoods is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding area by:
 Promoting a transition in scale and architecture char acter between new buildings and established neighborhoods; and
 Requiring pedestrian circulation and vehicular routes to be well integrated.

LU-I-21 Ensure that noise, traffic, and other potential conflicts that may arise in a mix of commercial and residential uses are mitigated through good site planning, building design, and/or appropriate operational measures.

LU-I-27 Establish design guidelines to assure hi gh quality design and site planning for large commercial and industrial developments. The guidelines should address:
 Architectural finishes, coordinated color palette, massing, and hierarchy in scale;  Pedestrian-scaled amenities, signage, and lighting;
 Site improvements, including parking lot landscaping, perimeter landscaping, foundation landscaping, walkways, and passageways;
 Ground floor transparency requirements al ong shopping streets and limitations on blank walls in these areas;
Less than Significant
Executive Summary
E-47
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
 Anti-theft glass on windows, instead of bars or roll-down metal screens, that are architecturally compatible with building design;
 Screening of truck loading, parking, mechan ical equipment, transformers, ventilation systems, storage containers, and refuse collection areas from the street;  Building entries; and
 Design standards for perimeter walls and fencing.

Where a building exceeds a certain height, the City will evaluate shading created and its relationship and effects on surrounding buildings.

LU-I-38 Develop a distinct design theme with defined desi gn standards and guid elines for each of the special planning areas to foster an identifiable image for each area.

OSC-I-3 Recognize the importance of Alvarado Park as a gateway to Wildcat Canyon Regional Park and an important recrea tional and open space resour ce. Facilitate access to this open space network.

OSC-I-10 Maintain, protect, and enhance San Pablo’s creeks, including Rheem, San Pablo, and Wildcat creeks, as local environmental an d aesthetic resources, with approaches including, but not limited to:
 Establishing a Creek Improvement Program to widen, day-light, and improve San Pablo and Wildcat creeks for the enjoyment of residents;  Strengthening stormwater management requirements for properties adjacent to the creek areas by applying techniques that maintain or restore nature character;  Identifying and working with property owners to take advantage of unique opportunities where human active use (e .g. through trail development) would enhance creek appreciation without disrupting ecological function;  Working with developers to “daylight” portions of creeks that have historically been channelized underground under existing paved areas (e.g. parking lots); and  Requiring minimum setbacks from the top of the creek bank for development proposed adjacent to creeks, in keeping wi th City regulations and Best Management Practices.

San Pablo General Plan Draft En vironmental Impact Report E-48
Table ES-3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed General Policies that Reduce the Impact Impact Proposed General Policies and Mitigation Measures that Reduce the Impact Significance after
Mitigation
OSC-I-13 Establish and maintain a register of historic and potentially historic resources in San Pablo.

OSC-I-14 Preserve and build upon the historic and multicultural identity of Alvarado District as a defining element of the city.

SN-I-6 Require erosion prevention of hillside areas by re-vegetation or other acceptable methods.

The policies LU-I-7 and LU-I-11cited under Impact 3.12-1 as well as policies LU-I-45, OSC-I-2 and OSC-I-7 cited under Impact 3.12-2 would help to reduce this impact and are incorporated by reference. No additional mitigation is necessary.

3.12-4 Implementation of
the proposed San
Pablo General Plan
could create a new
source of substantial
light or glare which
would adversely
affect day or
nighttime views in
the area.

PSCU-I-7 Provide security lighting to illuminate communal areas and pathways in all parks to ensure safety, and where feasible, select lighting fixt ures that will not produce glare or illuminate the night sky.

Whenever possible, the City will select lighting fixtures that will not produce glare or illuminate the night sky, are solar–powered, and/or can turn on automatically in low light conditions.

Less than Significant

Appendix B
GHG and Air Quality Data
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
1 / 31
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
2 / 31

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
3 / 31

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
4 / 31

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
5 / 31

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
6 / 31

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name San Pablo HE v2
Operational Y ear 2028
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Plan/community
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.60
Precipitation (days) 18.0
Location San Pablo, CA, USA
County Contra Costa
City San Pablo
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1560
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.17

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
122 Dwelling Unit 39.6 237,900 1,428,969 0.00 301 —
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
7 / 31
Apartments Mid Rise 1,567 Dwelling Unit 41.2 1,504,320 0.00 0.00 3,867 —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 42.4 83.2 35.7 251 0.44 1.92 27.8 29.7 1.92 7.04 8.96 689 61,304 61,994 72.6 1.90 101 64,475 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 31.8 72.9 37.3 160 0.42 1.89 27.8 29.6 1.88 7.04 8.91 689 59,027 59,716 72.9 2.07 14.8 62,172 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 32.7 74.6 20.5 184 0.31 0.65 26.2 26.8 0.64 6.64 7.27 689 38,383 39,072 72.3 1.89 48.8 41,491 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.96 13.6 3.74 33.6 0.06 0.12 4.78 4.89 0.12 1.21 1.33 114 6,355 6,469 12.0 0.31 8.08 6,869

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
8 / 31
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Mobile 31.1 29.6 14.0 146 0.30 0.21 27.8 28.0 0.20 7.04 7.23 — 30,985 30,985 1.82 1.49 88.2 31,562 Area 10.7 53.3 16.8 103 0.11 1.32 — 1.32 1.33 — 1.33 0.00 20,402 20,402 0.39 0.04 — 20,423 Energy 0.57 0.29 4.91 2.09 0.03 0.40 — 0.40 0.40 — 0.40 — 9,638 9,638 1.10 0.08 — 9,689 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 118 280 398 12.1 0.29 — 788 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 572 0.00 572 57.1 0.00 — 2,000 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 12.5 12.5
Total 42.4 83.2 35.7 251 0.44 1.92 27.8 29.7 1.92 7.04 8.96 689 61,304 61,994 72.6 1.90 101 64,475 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 29.3 27.7 16.6 151 0.28 0.21 27.8 28.0 0.20 7.04 7.23 — 28,964 28,964 2.21 1.66 2.29 29,516 Area 1.86 44.9 15.9 6.75 0.10 1.28 — 1.28 1.28 — 1.28 0.00 20,146 20,146 0.38 0.04 — 20,166 Energy 0.57 0.29 4.91 2.09 0.03 0.40 — 0.40 0.40 — 0.40 — 9,638 9,638 1.10 0.08 — 9,689 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 118 280 398 12.1 0.29 — 788 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 572 0.00 572 57.1 0.00 — 2,000 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 12.5 12.5
Total 31.8 72.9 37.3 160 0.42 1.89 27.8 29.6 1.88 7.04 8.91 689 59,027 59,716 72.9 2.07 14.8 62,172 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 27.7 26.2 14.8 134 0.27 0.20 26.2 26.4 0.19 6.64 6.82 — 27,842 27,842 1.94 1.51 36.3 28,378 Area 4.40 48.1 0.84 47.5 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 0.00 623 623 0.01 < 0.005 — 624 Energy 0.57 0.29 4.91 2.09 0.03 0.40 — 0.40 0.40 — 0.40 — 9,638 9,638 1.10 0.08 — 9,689 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 118 280 398 12.1 0.29 — 788 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 572 0.00 572 57.1 0.00 — 2,000 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 12.5 12.5
Total 32.7 74.6 20.5 184 0.31 0.65 26.2 26.8 0.64 6.64 7.27 689 38,383 39,072 72.3 1.89 48.8 41,491 San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
9 / 31
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.05 4.78 2.69 24.5 0.05 0.04 4.78 4.81 0.03 1.21 1.25 — 4,610 4,610 0.32 0.25 6.01 4,698 Area 0.80 8.79 0.15 8.67 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 103 Energy 0.10 0.05 0.90 0.38 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,596 1,596 0.18 0.01 — 1,604 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 19.5 46.3 65.8 2.01 0.05 — 130 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 94.6 0.00 94.6 9.46 0.00 — 331 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.07 2.07
Total 5.96 13.6 3.74 33.6 0.06 0.12 4.78 4.89 0.12 1.21 1.33 114 6,355 6,469 12.0 0.31 8.08 6,869

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

3.74 3.56 1.69 17.5 0.04 0.03 3.33 3.36 0.02 0.85 0.87 — 3,722 3,722 0.22 0.18 10.6 3,792 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

27.4 26.1 12.3 128 0.27 0.18 24.4 24.6 0.17 6.19 6.37 — 27,263 27,263 1.60 1.31 77.6 27,771 Total 31.1 29.6 14.0 146 0.30 0.21 27.8 28.0 0.20 7.04 7.23 — 30,985 30,985 1.82 1.49 88.2 31,562 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
10 / 31
3,5460.270.200.273,4793,479—0.870.850.023.363.330.030.0318.21.993.333.52Single Family
Housing
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

25.8 24.4 14.6 133 0.25 0.18 24.4 24.6 0.17 6.19 6.37 — 25,484 25,484 1.94 1.46 2.01 25,970 Total 29.3 27.7 16.6 151 0.28 0.21 27.8 28.0 0.20 7.04 7.23 — 28,964 28,964 2.21 1.66 2.29 29,516 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.62 0.59 0.33 3.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.59 0.59 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 — 568 568 0.04 0.03 0.74 578 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

4.43 4.19 2.36 21.5 0.04 0.03 4.19 4.22 0.03 1.06 1.09 — 4,042 4,042 0.28 0.22 5.27 4,120 Total 5.05 4.78 2.69 24.5 0.05 0.04 4.78 4.81 0.03 1.21 1.25 — 4,610 4,610 0.32 0.25 6.01 4,698

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 422 422 0.07 0.01 — 426
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,988 2,988 0.48 0.06 — 3,017
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,409 3,409 0.55 0.07 — 3,443 San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
11 / 31
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 422 422 0.07 0.01 — 426
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,988 2,988 0.48 0.06 — 3,017
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,409 3,409 0.55 0.07 — 3,443 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 69.8 69.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 70.5
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 495 495 0.08 0.01 — 500
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 564 564 0.09 0.01 — 570

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.17 0.08 1.42 0.61 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,807 1,807 0.16 < 0.005 — 1,812 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.41 0.20 3.48 1.48 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 4,421 4,421 0.39 0.01 — 4,434 Total 0.57 0.29 4.91 2.09 0.03 0.40 — 0.40 0.40 — 0.40 — 6,229 6,229 0.55 0.01 — 6,246 San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
12 / 31
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing

0.17 0.08 1.42 0.61 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,807 1,807 0.16 < 0.005 — 1,812 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.41 0.20 3.48 1.48 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.28 — 0.28 — 4,421 4,421 0.39 0.01 — 4,434 Total 0.57 0.29 4.91 2.09 0.03 0.40 — 0.40 0.40 — 0.40 — 6,229 6,229 0.55 0.01 — 6,246 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.03 0.02 0.26 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 299 299 0.03 < 0.005 — 300 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.07 0.04 0.64 0.27 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 732 732 0.06 < 0.005 — 734 Total 0.10 0.05 0.90 0.38 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,031 1,031 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,034

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 1.86 0.93 15.9 6.75 0.10 1.28 — 1.28 1.28 — 1.28 0.00 20,146 20,146 0.38 0.04 — 20,166 Consum
er
Products
— 37.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
13 / 31
————————————————6.72—Architect
ural
Coatings
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

8.82 8.35 0.91 96.0 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.04 — 0.04 — 256 256 0.01 < 0.005 — 257 Total 10.7 53.3 16.8 103 0.11 1.32 — 1.32 1.33 — 1.33 0.00 20,402 20,402 0.39 0.04 — 20,423 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 1.86 0.93 15.9 6.75 0.10 1.28 — 1.28 1.28 — 1.28 0.00 20,146 20,146 0.38 0.04 — 20,166 Consum
er
Products
— 37.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 6.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.86 44.9 15.9 6.75 0.10 1.28 — 1.28 1.28 — 1.28 0.00 20,146 20,146 0.38 0.04 — 20,166 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 82.2 82.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 82.3 Consum
er
Products
— 6.80 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.79 0.75 0.08 8.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 20.9 20.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.0 Total 0.80 8.79 0.15 8.67 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 103

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
14 / 31

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.51 73.5 82.1 0.88 0.02 — 111
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 109 206 316 11.2 0.27 — 677
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 118 280 398 12.1 0.29 — 788 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.51 73.5 82.1 0.88 0.02 — 111
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 109 206 316 11.2 0.27 — 677
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 118 280 398 12.1 0.29 — 788 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.41 12.2 13.6 0.15 < 0.005 — 18.3 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 18.1 34.2 52.3 1.86 0.04 — 112
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 19.5 46.3 65.8 2.01 0.05 — 130 San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
15 / 31

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 38.8 0.00 38.8 3.88 0.00 — 136
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 533 0.00 533 53.3 0.00 — 1,864
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 572 0.00 572 57.1 0.00 — 2,000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 38.8 0.00 38.8 3.88 0.00 — 136
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 533 0.00 533 53.3 0.00 — 1,864
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 572 0.00 572 57.1 0.00 — 2,000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.43 0.00 6.43 0.64 0.00 — 22.5
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 88.2 0.00 88.2 8.82 0.00 — 309
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 94.6 0.00 94.6 9.46 0.00 — 331 San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
16 / 31

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 12.5 12.5
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.70 1.70
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 12.5 12.5
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.78 1.78
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.07 2.07
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
17 / 31

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
18 / 31
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
19 / 31
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
20 / 31
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
21 / 31

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Single Family
Housing
1,152 1,164 1,043 415,338 4,674 4,724 4,233 1,685,652
Apartments Mid Rise 8,524 7,694 6,409 2,957,824 34,597 31,226 26,011 12,004,361

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 24
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 98
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
22 / 31
Gas Fireplaces 799
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 768
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
3527995.5 1,175,999 0.00 0.00 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 754,553 204 0.0330 0.0040 5,639,075 Apartments Mid Rise 5,345,743 204 0.0330 0.0040 13,795,979 San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
23 / 31

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 4,439,864 20,844,943
Apartments Mid Rise 57,026,773 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 72.1 —
Apartments Mid Rise 989 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
24 / 31

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
25 / 31

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 7.96 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.65 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
26 / 31

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
27 / 31
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 6.38
AQ-PM 40.3
AQ-DPM 81.9
Drinking Water 4.21
Lead Risk Housing 80.8
Pesticides 34.4
Toxic Releases 75.2
Traffic 19.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 77.8
Groundwater 66.4
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 89.2
Impaired Water Bodies 87.0
Solid Waste 60.1
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 93.2
Cardio-vascular 76.4
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
28 / 31
Low Birth Weights 35.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 82.2
Housing 65.2
Linguistic 69.8
Poverty 57.3
Unemployment 35.0

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 19.88964455
Employed 30.46323624
Median HI 12.97318106
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 26.52380341
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 19.41485949
Transportation —
Auto Access 9.303220839
Active commuting 90.73527525
Social —
2-parent households 21.26267163
Voting 55.83215706
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 4.516874118
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
29 / 31
Park access 44.45014757
Retail density 71.34607982
Supermarket access 94.25125112
Tree canopy 69.85756448
Housing —
Homeownership 16.91261388
Housing habitability 30.11677146
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 55.07506737 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 39.17618375
Uncrowded housing 18.00333633
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 14.28204799
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 7.1
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 17.9
Cognitively Disabled 14.5
Physically Disabled 27.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 20.2
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
30 / 31
Pedestrian Injuries 42.0
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 59.5
Elderly 30.9
English Speaking 5.6
Foreign-born 79.7
Outdoor Workers 40.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 21.6
Traffic Density 76.4
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 82.2
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 23.9

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 81.0 San Pablo HE v2 Detailed Report, 8/17/2023
31 / 31
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 26.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) Richmond a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Operations: Hearths No gas fireplaces per BAAQMD
Land Use CalEEMod default population adjusted to match HE Update increase.

Operations: Vehicle Data Modified trip lengths to reflect project VMT of 13,421,591.

Appendix C
Supporting Materials for
Cultural Resources
Print Name: Claire Villegas Date:

I, the the undersigned, have been granted access to historical resources information on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Califronia Historical Resources Information System.

I understand that any CHRIS Confidential Information I receive shall not be disclosed to individuals who do not qualify for access to such information, as specified in Section III(A-E) of the CHRIS Information Center Rules of Operation Manual, or in publicly distributed documents without written consent of the Information Center Coordinator.

I agree to submit historical Resource Records and Reports based in part on the CHRIS information released under this Access Agreement to the Information Center within sixy (60) calendar days of completion.

I agree to pay for CHRIS services provided under this Access Agreement within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of billing.

I understand that failure to comply with this Access Agreement shall be grounds for denial of access to CHRIS Information.

Signature:

Affiliation: Dyett & Bhatia
Address:

Billing Address (if different from above):

City/State/ZIP:

Special Billing Information
Telephone: Email: [email protected]
Purpose of Access:

Reference (project name or number, title of study, and street address if applicable):

City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update
County: CCO USGS 7.5' Quad:
**This is not an invoice. Sonoma State University will send separate Invoice** File Number: 22-0803

ACCESS AGREEMENT SHORT FORM
Richmond
1 22-0803
January 13, 2023 N W I C F i l e N o .: 22-0803

Claire Villegas
Dyett & Bhatia
1330 Broadway, Ste. 604
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Record search results for the proposed City of San Pablo (GP/HEU) General Plan/Housing Element Update
Dear Claire Villegas:

Per your request received by our office on the 16
th of November, 2022, a records search
was conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information Center (NWIC) base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic-period maps, and literature for Contra Costa County. An Area of Potential Effects (APE) map was not provided; in lieu of this, the sphere of influence was provided depicting the City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area will be used to conduct this records search. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or structures.

San Pablo is an incorporated city in Contra Costa County, located approximately 15 miles north of Oakland. The Planning Area encompasses approximately 1,900 acres. The General Plan and Housing Element Update project involves a targeted update to several "elements" (chapters) of the General Plan: Land Use, Housing, Safety, and Public Health. Updates are needed to respond to changing conditions in the community and new State laws. An important objective of the project is to stimulate housing construction and new jobs in the city to provide a greater variety of choices for people of all ages, abilities, and income levels. The project also involves a new Corridor Plan for Rumrill Boulevard that will be incorporated into the General Plan to describe the community’s vision for the future of the areas and guide change over time. The project could result in the development of up to 1,623 new housing units, primarily on vacant and underused properties within the City's three designated Priority Development Areas, located along the commercial corridors of San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and Rumrill Boulevard. No zoning map changes are needed to accommodate new development.

Review of this information indicates that there have been eighty-seven (87) cultural resource studies that cover approximately ¼ of the City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area. See attached Report Listing. This City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area contains ten (10) recorded Native American archaeological resources including tool processing sites, habitation sites, hearth or pits, and burials, and two (2) historic-period archaeological resources, including landscaping, fences, and a 1906 Earthquake Refugee camp. In addition, there are two recorded Archaeological Districts, including the Alvarado Park- Grand Canyon Park District, P-07-001320, and the Lower San Pablo Creek Archaeological District, P-07-004534. See attached Resource List.

2 22-0803
The State Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (OHP BERD), which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, lists one hundred four (104) recorded buildings or structures within or adjacent to the proposed City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area. See attached BERD Listing and California Historical Resource Status Codes List. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show thirty (30) recorded buildings or structures within the proposed City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area, and two recorded Districts, including Circle S Mobile Home Historic District, P-07-002678, and Chattleton Housing District, P-07-002681. See attached Resource List.

At the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of the Chochenyo language, part of the Costanoan/Ohlone language family (Levy 1978:485). Using Milliken’s study of various mission records, the proposed project area is located within the lands of the Xucyun or Huchiun, that seem to have extended over a large area along the East Bay shore, from Temescal Creek opposite the Golden Gate, North at least to the lower San Pablo and Wildcat Creek drainages in the present area of [San Pablo] Richmond (Milliken 1995:243, Levy 1978:485).

Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of Contra Costa County have been found in areas marginal to the San Pablo Bayshore and inland on ridges, midslope benches, in valleys, near intermittent and perennial watercourses and near areas populated by oak, buckeye, manzanita, and pine, as well as near a variety of plant and animal resources. The City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area is located in Contra Costa County approximately ¾ mile inland from the margins of the southeastern shore of San Pablo Bay. The project area is situated along the hill to valley interfaces of the bases of El Sobrante and San Pablo Ridges and includes the opening of the San Pablo Creek Valley. The project area is bisected by portions of San Pablo Creek and Wild Cat Creeks. Aerial maps indicate an area with many buildings and structures, ball fields, parking lots, areas with creeks surrounded by riparian environs, and a few open space areas with low grasses and scattered trees. Given the similarity of these environmental factors, there is a high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the proposed City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area.

Review of historical literature and maps indicated historic-period activity within the City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area. Early Contra Costa County maps indicated several roads, buildings and structures, as well as a portion of the California and Nevada Railroad (1895, 1899, and 1915 San Francisco USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangles). With this in mind, there is a high potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources to be within the proposed City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area.

The 1942 San Francisco USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangle depicts numerous buildings or structures within the City of San Pablo GP/HEU project area. If present, these unrecorded buildings or structures meet the Office of Historic Preservation’s minimum age standard that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1) There are twelve (12) recorded archaeological resources in the proposed Town of Woodside HEU project area, as well as two recorded Archaeological Districts, Alvarado Park- Grand Canyon Park District, P-07-001320, and the Lower San Pablo Creek Archaeological 3 22-0803
District, P-07-004534. There have been eight-seven (87) cultural resource studies covering approximately 1/4 of the City of San Pablo HEU project area. According to our research there is a high potential of identifying Native American archaeological resources and a high potential of identifying historic-period archaeological resources in unsurveyed portions of the project area.

Given that the proposed City of San Pablo Housing Element Update project area covers such a large area with known sensitivity, and the proposed improvements will guide future projects, it is recommended that these future projects be considered on an individual basis under the Northwest Information Center’s Project Review Program. This Program is organized to aid cities and counties in meeting their CEQA obligations on a project-by-project basis. These reviews result in project specific information and recommendations. Please contact the NWIC Coordinator at 707/588-8455 for additional information.

2) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic-period resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies.

3) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR 523 historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic Preservation’s website: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28351

4) As per Senate Bill 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), local governments are required to consult with California Native American tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of general plans (defined in Government Code §65300 et seq.). Each time a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend the general plan, they are required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/373-3710.

5) Our research indicates that there are one hundred four (104) recorded buildings and structures included in the OHP BERD within the City of San Pablo General Plan/ Housing Element Update. NWIC Base Maps show thirty (30) recorded buildings and structures, and two recorded Districts; the Circle S Mobile Home Historic District, P-07-002678, and Chattleton Housing District, P-07-002681. The Caltrans Bridge Inventory also includes twelve (12) bridges.

Additionally, the project area has the potential to contain other unrecorded buildings or structures that meet the minimum age requirement.

Therefore, prior to commencement of project specific activities, it is recommended that the above listed resources, and any other ones that have yet to be inventoried, be assessed by a 4 22-0803
professional familiar with the architecture and history of Contra Costa County. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org.

6) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered comprehensive.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area.

Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public.

Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

Thank you for using our services. Please contact this office if you have any questions, (707) 588-8455.

Sincerely,

J illian Guldenbrein
R e s e a r c h e r

5 22-0803

LITERATURE REVIEWED

In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed:

Bennyhoff, James
1977 Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication Number 5. University of California, Davis.

Bowman, J.N.
1951 Adobe Houses in the San Francisco Bay Region. Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties, Bulletin 154. California Division of Mines, Ferry Building, San Francisco, CA.

Contra Costa County Planning Department
1976 Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department, n.p.

Cook, S.F.
1957 The Aboriginal Population of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. University of California Anthropological Records 16(4):131-156. Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Fickewirth, Alvin A.
1992 California Railroads. Golden West Books, San Marino, CA.

General Land Office
1863, 1872 Survey Plat for Rancho San Pablo, Townships 1 &2 North/Range 4 West.

Heizer, Robert F., editor
1974 Local History Studies, Vol. 18., “The Costanoan Indians.” California History Center, DeAnza College, Cupertino, CA.

Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair 1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region - Their Geology and Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Geological Survey and Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Hope, Andrew
2005 Caltrans Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory Update. Caltrans, Division of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, CA.

Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1976)

6 22-0803
Levy, Richard
1978a Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1978b Eastern Miwok. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 398-413. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Meyer, Jack
2011 Buried Archaeological Site Assessment and Extended Phase 1 Subsurface Explorations for the I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project, Caltrans District 04, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. Submitted by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Submitted to Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc.

Milliken, Randall
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43, Menlo Park, CA.

Myers, William A. (editor)
1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California.

Prepared by The History and Heritage Committee, San Francisco Section, American Society of Civil Engineers. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA.

Nelson, N.C.
1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):309-356. Berkeley. (Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York, 1964)

Nichols, Donald R., and Nancy A. Wright
1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshland, San Francisco Bay, California. U.S.

Geological Survey Open File Map. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.

Sanborn Map Company
1913 San Pablo, California.

State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.

State of California Office of Historic Preservation **
2022 Built Environment Resources Directory. Listing by City (through September 23, 2022).

State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.

Wagner, Theodore and George Sandow
1894 Map Showing Portions of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, City and County of San Francisco, California. (Photo Lith Britton and Rey SF) 7 22-0803

Welch, Lawrence E.
1977 Soils Survey of Contra Costa County, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. n.p.

Williams, James C.
1997 Energy and the Making of Modern California. The University of Akron Press, Akron, OH.

Woodbridge, Sally B.
1988 California Architecture: Historic American Buildings Survey. Chronicle Books, San Francisco.

Works Progress Administration
1984 The WPA Guide to California. Reprint by Pantheon Books, New York. (Originally published as California: A Guide to the Golden State in 1939 by Books, Inc., distributed by Hastings House Publishers, New York.)

**Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have undergone Section 106 review.

Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs
NWIC File # 22-0803 City of San Pablo General Plan/Housing Element Update S-000871 1977 Cultural Resource Survey of the Wildcat and San Pablo Creeks Water Resources Project,
Contra Costa County, California.

Anthropology Laboratory,
Sonoma State College
Peter Banks, David A.

Fredrickson, Lai-Ning
Lee, and Susan
Agency Nbr -
DACWO7-77-E-1320
S-001248 1977 An Archaeological Field Survey, San Pablo Avenue Widening, San Pablo, California
Ecumene AssociatesBenjamin F. Ananian
S-001254 1978 Archaeological Assessment of the Senior
Citizen's Center and Sear's Building Site, San
Pablo, California.

Institute of Cultural
Resources, California State
University, Hayward
E. Breck Parkman
S-001262 1978 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed
North Richmond Bypass, Contra Costa
County, California.

The Anthropology
Laboratory, Sonoma State
University
Robert A. Stillinger and
David A. Fredrickson
S-001295 1978 Archeological Testing for the Proposed San Pablo Avenue Widening Project, San Pablo,
California
Institute of Cultural
Resources, California State
University, Hayward
Benjamin F. Ananian,
Joseph S. Eisenlauer,
and George R. Miller
S-001535 1979 An Archaeological Investigation of the El Rancho Drive-In Property, San Pablo, Contra
Costa County, California
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.

Peter M. Banks
S-001610 1979 An Archaeological Investigation of a Parcel on El Portal Drive, San Pablo, Contra Costa
County, California.

California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.

Peter M. Banks
S-001611 1979 An Archaeological Investigation of the
Sheffield Redevelopment Project, San Pablo,
Contra Costa County, California.

California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.

Peter M. Banks
S-001716 1979 An Archaeological Investigation of the Rumrill Bridge Widening Project and the Giant
Highway Bridge Replacement Project, San
Pablo, Contra Costa County, California
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.

Peter M. Banks
S-001716a 1979 Historic Properties Survey Report for the Proposed Giant Highway Bridge
Replacement in San Pablo, California; Bridge
Number 28C-326, 04-CC-SAU-A773-SPb
City of San Pablo Public
Works Department
S-001718 1979 An Archaeological Investigation of the Baaba Project, San Pablo, Contra Costa County,
California.

California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.

Peter M. Banks
S-001719 1979 An Archaeological Investigation of the Central Addition to El Portal Redevelopment Project,
San Pablo, Contra Costa County, California.

California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.

Peter M. Banks

Page 1 of 13 ends

San Pablo City CouncilMarch 18, 2024

San Pablo City Council
March 18, 2024