Document elcerrito_gov_doc_01772101bb

Page 1 of 13 Community Development Department - Planning Division 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94530 (510) 215-4330 - FAX: (510) 233-5401 [EMAIL REDACTED] PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: September 4, 2014 I. SUBJECT Applicant: City of El Cerrito Location: San Pablo Specific Plan Area Request: Receive a presentation regarding the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Recommend adoption of the Plan, the Certification of Environmental Impact Report and all other necessary entitlements to City Council II. BACKGROUND The former El Cerrito Redevelopment Agency undertook development of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (SPASP) jointly with the City of Richmond beginning in 2007 to develop a shared vision for the future of San Pablo Avenue, identify improvements for the Plan area, and adopt regulations that can be consistently applied in the Plan area to achieve the vision. Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) was selected as the consultant to support the cities in this effort and prepare the Plan (Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 563). City staff and the consultant worked collaboratively on the Plan along with members of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan Advisory Committee (SPAAC) and through Planning Commission, Design Review Board and general public meetings. A draft Specific Plan was completed in 2009 along with an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Based on comments received, a second draft was completed in 2010. On March 7 2011, at a City Council Study Session, Council directed staff to do further revisions to the Specific Plan to deal with open issues, expand the parking study and economic analysis, create more location-appropriate density, height and land use strategies to better reflect the priorities of the City Council, and better align the plan with contemporary land use and transit standards. A detailed Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Feasibility Analysis and Parking Study was then completed, with funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). A presentation to City Council on November 21, 2011 resulted in a number of recommendations, including that the Plan allow increased height and densities near the BART stations, more flexible parking requirements with lower minimums, and a more flexible approach to mixed-use, including allowing ground floor residential throughout the Plan area. On April 2, 2013 the City Council received an update on the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (Plan) and authorized an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with MIG to complete the Plan, including the additional Complete Streets element and Programmatic Environmental ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 13 Impact Report (EIR). (Resolution 2013-17) The City Council approved staff’s recommendation unanimously. Since that time, Community Development and Public Works staff have been working with MIG and its subconsultants, including Fehr and Peers (Consultants) to update and complete the draft Plan to respond to previous Council comments and to develop a final Plan that was more implementation focused, better incorporated contemporary land use planning and transportation strategies, and was more market-driven and reflective of Council’s current priorities. In addition to responding to previous Council comments, staff has worked to respond to additional policies and direction adopted by the Council, including the City’s 2013-17 Strategic Plan (adopted on April 2, 2013) and the Climate Action Plan (adopted May 21, 2013), as well as to Plan Bay Area, (adopted 2013). The Strategic Plan articulates a vision of El Cerrito as an environmentally-focused destination with vibrant neighborhoods, businesses and public places. The Climate Action Plan (CAP) incorporates a number of land use, transportation and community development goals supportive of higher density housing, multimodal transportation and higher intensity commercial nodes along San Pablo Avenue. The CAP’s Sustainable Community Goal #1 is to “encourage more compact, higher density infill development along transportation corridors to reduce vehicle miles traveled in El Cerrito and beyond.” Plan Bay Area advances initiatives to expand housing and transportation choices, create healthier communities, and build a stronger regional economy across the nine-county Bay Area. III. DISCUSSION The primary objective of the report before Planning Commission (Commission) this evening is to provide an overview of the entire Plan in order for the Commission to be able to consider a recommendation to City Council regarding this document. The Commission received a presentation on the draft Specific Plan at its July 16, 2014 meeting. The proposed SPASP before the Commission tonight reflects revisions made to the June 2014 draft Specific Plan that were incorporated as a result of public comments. Those changes are reflected in red in the document. The secondary focus is to review the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in particular the issues identified in the EIR that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Included in the Planning Commission packet is the Draft EIR, the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program, as well as the proposed SPASP (August 2014). The final objective of the report is to present to the Planning Commission for their consideration for recommendation a list of entitlements that the City Council must approve in order to adopt the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. These entitlements include a General Plan Amendment as well as a Zoning Text and Map Amendment. The draft entitlements are included as exhibits to the Planning Commission Resolution, included as Attachment 1. Overview of the Specific Plan Introduction The first chapter of the Specific Plan describes the purpose as: a framework for transforming the Avenue into a multimodal corridor that functions, not just as a thoroughfare, but as a place that provides a multitude of opportunities for living, working and community life. The Plan’s key principles are to deepen a sense of place and community identity, attract private investment, strengthen partnerships, enhance the public realm, promote the everyday use of transit, walking, and biking, and foster environmental sustainability, and add housing and commercial space. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 13 It sets out the Planning Context, the Urban Design Framework, Plans, Goals and Policies and gives direction as to how to use the Plan. Form Based Code The second chapter establishes the Specific Plan Form-Based Code (FBC) to provide the regulatory code for development projects to support the community vision of a vibrant, walkable, sustainable, and transit-oriented corridor that respects surrounding neighborhoods. The FBC is organized by Transect Zones within a framework of Downtown, Midtown, and Uptown areas. Using context sensitive development standards, the Transect Zones regulate the building heights, parking requirements, and land uses for new development in the El Cerrito portion of the Plan area. The zones are defined primarily by walking distance to the BART stations. A flow chart found on page 02.01-6 directs readers through the various design components of the regulating plan. It also creates the administrative procedures by which development projects will be reviewed. Depending upon the particulars of a development project, it will be deemed as Tier I, II, III or IV. The tier system aims to provide the appropriate level of discretionary review. (See FBC Table 01, p. 02.02-8 and FBC Table 03, p. 02.02-15 for an overview of the Tiers and Designated Approving Authority). The tier system has been reworked since July in response to comments. Below is an overview of the revised system. In addition to the Tier system, uses are still regulated in the FBC. Any use shown on FBC Table 2 starting on page 02.02-11 as requiring a will require a hearing before the Planning Commission as a conditionally permitted use. Tier I provides for the review of minor improvements and additions to non-conforming structures that cost less than 50% of the building’s appraised value. This level of review is to facilitate small, incremental improvement of the existing building stock. It will be done on a Zoning Administrator level and is meant to provide a fast and inexpensive way for property owners to move their land and improvements towards the goals of the Plan. The findings require a) that the project brings the property into closer compliance with the development standards of the Specific Plan as deemed applicable and achievable by the Zoning Administrator; and b) that the project implements applicable goals and policies of the El Cerrito General Plan. It is in the best interest of all of the community for property owners to improve their existing building and land easily. Tier II provides for new construction that complies with all Standards of the Specific Plan and its findings state exactly that goal. This tier is designed to address new construction that will comply with the standards of the regulating plan. The Specific Plan intentionally rewards developers that meet the high design goals of the Specific Plan with a streamlined review process. Once a project has been found to be in compliance with the regulating plan, the approval body shall be the Design Review Board at a public hearing(s). Standards such as height, parking and open space are not discretionary at this hearing, but items such as landscaping; site layout and architecture are subject to additional review and approval. Complex projects, or projects of unique significance, may be required to host a community charette to better understand community priorities prior to design review. Tier III provides for the review of major improvements to 1) non-conforming structures equal to or exceeding 50% of the building’s appraised value or 2) major additions and alterations to the exterior of existing buildings which significantly alter the visual character or function of a building as defined by the Zoning Administrator. This level of review is intended to encourage larger ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 of 13 incremental improvements to existing buildings. The concept for this level of review is to facilitate larger gains toward compliance with existing sites when a property owner invests substantial amounts of money into the renovation of an existing building. (Although depending upon the existing building, layout and relationship to the street, the project will likely not be able to meet all of the standards, as a Tier II new development project would.) The body of review is the Design Review Board to ensure that the process receives a high level of public review. The findings are the same as Tier I, they require a) that the project brings the property into closer compliance with the development standards of the Specific Plan as deemed applicable and achievable by the Design Review Board; and b) that the project implements applicable goals and policies of the El Cerrito General Plan. The subjectivity in the first finding is intentional. It allows for a case by case review of the property and the proposed project, for the opportunity of re-use of many of our existing building stock and in the end, it will be decision of the Design Review Board as to whether or not the project has brought the property as close as possible to the development standards of the Plan. Tier IV is intended to allow high-quality new development projects that would not otherwise be allowed under a strict interpretation of the Specific Plan regulations but nevertheless comply with the intent of the Specific Plan and contribute towards the City’s goals for San Pablo Avenue. The Planning Commission and Design Review Board both have authority under Tier IV. The Planning Commission is authorized to act upon the site plan and the aspects of the project that do not meet the development standards of the Form Based Code; and to act upon a determination that the project achieves an over arching public benefit, subject to the findings. The Design Review Board is authorized to review and act upon the Design Component of a Tier IV Site Plan and Design Review application for consistency with the design goals of this Specific Plan. This tier has been established to allow for the consideration of new projects that do not precisely fit the standards of a Tier II project, but none-the-less provide a significant public benefit for the City. The types of public benefit are left undefined, but applicants are directed to public policy documents approved by the City Council as the criterion to be used. A project seeking Tier IV approval will be required to meet all feasible Tier II standards and will have to demonstrate why the development characteristics that vary from Tier II standards are necessary for the project to proceed. They will also have to demonstrate how the project contributes overall benefits to the City and does not have an adverse affect upon the Transect Zone in which it is located. Both the Planning Commission and Design Review Board have approving authority for Tier IV projects. Complete Streets The Complete Streets chapter of the SPASP is intended to promote the creation of a truly multimodal street through improvements that enhance placemaking, catalyze economic development and improve livability. It aims to contribute to an overall mode-shift and increase the amount of transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel along San Pablo Avenue by providing well- connected, safe and convenient multimodal transportation systems that serve travelers of all ages and abilities. This will be accomplished both by introducing new multimodal performance measures (Multimodal Level of Service/MMLOS) and design standards and by the provision of new bicycle, pedestrian and transit infrastructure. The Complete Streets effort will evaluate how accommodating all travel modes within the existing public right-of-way can reduce the need for additional auto- oriented infrastructure projects addition of vehicle travel lanes) and instead lead to achieving the various City goals of economic vitality, multimodal mobility and sense of place. The Complete Streets plan aims to be a catalyst for future private development improvements and identifies strategic opportunities to use the public right-of-way for commerce and social gathering. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 5 of 13 As a part of the planning process, staff convened a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to confer on the proposed San Pablo Avenue Complete Street Plan infrastructure improvements and MMLOS policies. The TAG has consisted of staff from Caltrans, AC Transit, BART, Contra Costa County Health Division, East Bay Bicycle Coalition, Richmond and Albany. City staff has also been actively involved in the update to the WCCTAC Action Plan where Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) are established for all routes of regional significance, such as San Pablo Avenue. Key policy considerations for the Complete Streets element include prioritization of travel modes and selection of the most appropriate performance metrics for each mode. Through the Complete Streets plan, private development projects will be evaluated to determine if the necessary Built Environment Factor Level of Service standards are achieved or if improvements need to be made as a part of the development project to achieve the standard. Infrastructure Analysis The Plan includes an Infrastructure Analysis that identifies goals and policies and recommends feasible improvements to infrastructure systems to support the Plan objectives. The systems evaluated in the Plan include water, wastewater, storm drainage and dry utilities (e.g. gas, electric, cable.) Public Engagement Process Several years of community engagement have informed the proposed SPASP. The current version of the Plan and its Programmatic EIR was initiated in April of 2013 as described above. The following is a list of pubic engagement opportunities since that date. Community Workshops Two community workshops (July 23rd, 2013 and October 19th, 2013) were held to present information and updates on three concurrent and interrelated El Cerrito planning projects including the Urban Greening Plan, San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Active Transportation Plan. Approximately 50 people attended these meetings. Numerous presentations were held before the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission and City Council. The Design Review Board held a study session on July 2, 2014. The Planning Commission held three study sessions on July 17th and November 20th of 2013, and July 16, 2014. And, the City Council received presentations on April 2nd and November 5th of 2013. Each of these study sessions included a review of the Plan’s key principles, urban design framework, Draft Form- Based Code standards, and discussion of the Draft Complete Streets standards as they were being developed. Recommendations from these sessions guided the development of the proposed SPASP components. Technical Advisory Group Meetings The streetscape design concepts and standards for San Pablo Avenue and adjacent streets were developed in consultation with, and reviewed by a Technical Advisory Group comprised of representatives from the City of El Cerrito, the City of Richmond, the City of Albany, AC Transit, Caltrans, BART, Contra Costa Health Services, and the East Bay Bicycle Coalition. This group will continue to be convened throughout the ongoing planning, design and implementation phases of the Complete Streets plan. Developer and Architect Charrette A developer and architect charrette held in the spring of 2014 was an opportunity for the development and building design community to offer input on the proposed Form Based Code ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 6 of 13 standards. This implementation-oriented perspective from charrette participants helped to ensure financial feasibility and sufficient flexibility in the Code to allow for innovative developments that would fulfill Plan goals, including encouraging practical and market friendly development. Specifically related to the creation of the EIR, city staff also held a scoping meeting for the programmatic EIR on April 10, 2014 and a public comment meeting of the Draft EIR on July 9, 2014. Comments received at the scoping meeting were used to create the draft EIR and comments received at the public meeting are included, along with responses in the Final EIR. A total of twenty-six (26) comments from eight individuals were received at the Public Comment meeting. Sixteen (16) letters were received during the Draft EIR public review period. These comments and responses are reflected in the Final EIR. Approximately, 85 pieces of correspondence were received from members of the public since June of 2014, aside from those directed to the CEQA document. A copy of these letters may be reviewed on the city website and at the Community Development Department. The majority of these letters and emails were in opposition to the Plan, as it is presented, and the majority of the letters came from residents of the Richmond Annex neighborhood, west of San Pablo Avenue. Other letters were very encouraging of the changes, expressing support of the new Plan and its positive impact for El Cerrito and the climate. General concerns could be consolidated into a few themes: 1. The height increase is too tall. The increased height limits are too tall causing significant shading or canyon effect on San Pablo Avenue. It will also cause a wall-like effect on views of the single family residences on both sides of the Avenue. Staff Response: Heights allowed are increasing from 35 feet to as high as 65 feet for market priced housing (up to 85 feet with a density bonus for affordable housing) in Uptown and Downtown, and 55 feet (65 feet with a density bonus for affordable housing) in midtown and some people’s visualization of that is very intimidating. But, the Plan also adds a number of constraints on that height allowance. The shade requirement will limit the heights of buildings along the Avenue if they cast shade on the residential neighbors behind them or cast shadows beyond the curb line on the opposite side of the street. The Plan also calls for breaks in the block frontage every 200-300feet (depending upon transect zone) to open up east/west views, pedestrian paths and urban open spaces. 1,706 new dwelling units literally could not make a continuous wall along San Pablo Avenue. Additionally, the height limit on parcels in the city of Richmond in Midtown will be based upon their proposed Livable Corridors T4 Main Street standards of 3 stories. Richmond parcels Uptown and Downtown will correspond to T5 Main Street, which allows buildings up to 55’ (and 85’ in some areas.) 2. Too much traffic will be generated. The result of adding 1,706 new dwelling units will make an already challenging vehicle environment, worse. There are too many users of San Pablo Avenue already, before this Plan encourages more cars and bikes onto the roadway. It will be a dangerous environment. All traffic will be made to drive slower. Staff Response: In general, national studies have found that mixed-use and transit-oriented neighborhoods generate fewer automobile trips and therefore reduce traffic impacts relative to single-use suburban development. These types of neighborhoods make walking safe and convenient, and are near developments that allow residents and workers to drive less. While the automobile level of service (LOS) analysis shows that congestion and delays are projected to ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 7 of 13 increase with the Plan due to the land use development included in the Plan along with a small increase in regional traffic along San Pablo Avenue, the resulting peak hour service levels are generally projected to be at LOS D or better, the current City standard, with one exception (San Pablo Avenue/Cutting Boulevard in the Cumulative [2040] Plus Project case.) In addition, the projected mode shift that can be achieved with implementation of the Plan--i.e., all of the policy and infrastructure improvements that together will support and promote alternatives to the automobile – would further reduce traffic impacts. The Specific Plan would result in safer conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians, and a streetscape design that would better serve all travel modes - in particular buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists - while reducing conflicts between travel modes. 3. Not enough discretion on case by case projects. Staff Response: Tier II will preclude community members from finding that any particular project is too high. Tier II is really one of the main points of the Plan. Staff listened to concerns from members of the public; especially about views and shadows and developed standards that struck a balance between allowing new growth and making sure that its impacts were reasonably addressed. The bar is high for Tier II, in terms of design, mode shift, open space and other values expressed in our community. Instead of going to both the Planning Commission and Design Review Board, Tier II projects will only be reviewed at a Design Review Board public hearing. The Design Review Board’s decision is appealable to the Planning Commisssion. Complex projects, or those of unique significance, will be asked to also host a Community Charrette prior to the DRB hearing. Tier IV projects, i.e. those that deviate from the Tier II standards, will be considered at public hearingd by both the Planning Commission and DRB and may also be required to host a community charrette early in the process. 4. I like San Pablo Avenue the way it is, now. This plan will urbanize the Avenue in a bad way. Staff Response: San Pablo Avenue has a lot positive attributes. But, it also has a lot of vacant and underutilized sites. Adding more residences will add more vibrancy to the street. It will also add more shops and help our existing shops to thrive and grow. Revitalizing San Pablo Avenue has been a long-term city goal, reflected strongly in the City’s 1999 General Plan, 2006 Economic Development Action Plan, and 2013 Climate Action Plan. The Specific Plan aims to catalyze investment but does not require that any particular landowner make a change. 5. Why does the city think that all these people and businesses are coming? We haven’t experienced growth of this sort before. Staff Response: The State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, the Association of Bay Area Governments, and many other regional state and federal organizations predict that the Bay Area, including El Cerrito will continue to grow. Staff believes that the current height and parking limitations are making it financially infeasible for new housing to be built; not that new housing is not needed, especially near existing infrastructure. Approximately 40% of the 1,706 dwelling units are currently already in the development pipeline (already about to be entitled, entitled or under construction). By allowing context sensitive design to go higher and using a more urban/transit proximate parking ratios, staff believes more development will come. We want to have the high standards of the FBC in place when they do. 6. This is not enough, there is more to do to make this Plan successful in the year 2040. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 8 of 13 Staff Response: Staff agrees. There is a lot more to do, but this Plan is a big leap forward from where we are now. Once it is approved we have a list of ongoing implementation-focused work to do, including business retention, expansion and attraction; developing an affordable housing strategy; ongoing development of parking and transportation management plans and efforts; and seeking outside funding for continuous improvements to the public realm. Consistency with the General Plan and other City Planning Documents General Plan (1999) The San Pablo Specific Plan is consistent in all significant respects with the General Plan; in that supports the spirit and intent of all of the existing goals and policies listed in the General Plan related to the San Pablo Avenue corridor. For example, in the Strategic Framework section there are seven Primary Action Strategies identified “as the most important steps to accomplishing the vision for El Cerrito”. The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan will completely implement the San Pablo Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines. It will also greatly enhance the Del Norte, Midtown and El Cerrito Plaza areas of the city by establishing context based development parameters. In particular, the goals and policies listed in the Strategic Framework, the Community Development and Design, the Housing Element and the Transportation and Circulation Chapters. There are text changes necessary to each of these chapters to reflect the integration of the Specific Plan, but there were very few significant changes. The major change to General Plan in the part of the city within the Plan area is the removal of references to density and Floor Area Ratio, (FAR) and a switch from the current automobile Level of Service standard (LOS) of D to an automobile LOS E along with Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) standards for transit, pedestrian and bicycle uses. Traditionally, density and FAR are ways that planners used to describe and quantify the amount of housing units in an acre and overall building intensity. Instead of using those more indirect building form controls, FBC uses building form regulation to control the configuration, features and architectural aspects of projects as they relate to the public realm. Staff believes that amending the General Plan for the Plan area to adhere to the practices of FBC is in the public interest because it adopts context-sensitive regulations to be applied throughout the Plan area. Please see Exhibit 2 to review the complete set of findings on this issue. The MMLOS is a new way of evaluating the impacts of development projects and street infrastructure projects on all modes of transportation including pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. Also, while consideration for all modes is important, transit and pedestrian modes are identified as the priority modes for San Pablo Avenue. This is due to the importance of the corridor as a transit route serving the City’s downtown and two BART stations, and its role as the City’s main commercial and mixed use corridor, where walking between residential, retail, and office uses as well as walking trips to BART should be promoted. As such, the highest level of services standards are proposed for transit and pedestrian uses while the automobile level of service standard is decreased. Climate Action Plan (2013): According to the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), automobile use is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions, comprising 51% of total emissions. In the Land Use, Transportation and Community Development section of the CAP, changes in land use, development patterns and public places that would make it easier “to leave the car behind” are identified as key goals. The SPASP directly addresses three of the CAP’s Sustainable Community Goals, including: ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 9 of 13 1. Encourage more compact, higher density infill development along transportation corridors to reduce vehicle miles traveled in El Cerrito and beyond; 2. Increase El Cerrito’s economic base to create more jobs, encourage greater vitality and more pedestrian-friendly economic activity; 3. Continue to invest in infrastructure that invites people to walk, bike and take transit more in El Cerrito. Strategic Plan (2013) The City’s strategic plan articulates the mission of the City as to serve, lead and support our diverse community by providing exemplary and innovative services, public places and infrastructure, ensure public safety, and create an economically and environmentally sustainable future. The SPASP directly implements several of the goals and strategies, and is consistent with the overall Strategic Plan. The primary goals and strategies furthered by the SPASP include:  Goal B: Achieve long-term financial sustainability o Attract and maximize opportunities for new/expanding businesses  Goal C: Deepen a sense of place and community identity o Reimagine underdeveloped and underutilized properties through advance planning efforts that encourage investment and/or new development o Encourage use of alternative modes of transportation to connect people and create a sense of community  Goal F: Foster environmental sustainability citywide o Implement the City’s Climate Action Plan, including:  Reducing vehicle miles traveled (by creating a well connected, pedestrian, bicycle and transit-oriented urban form that will make it easier for residents and visitors to leave their car behind Ohlone Greenway Master Plan (2009) The General Plan and Ohlone Greenway Master Plan both call for the Greenway to be better integrated with adjacent and future development. The SPASP identifies the Ohlone Greenway as a “street type” and specifies design standards for private development to better support the use and safety of the Greenway. Environmental Review California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines require preparation of an EIR when a lead agency determines that there is evidence that a plan or project may have a significant effect on the environment. The City, as lead agency, determined that preparation of a program-level EIR for the Specific Plan was warranted to assure all environmental impacts were adequately analyzed, as permitted in Section 15060(d) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR was made available for public and agency review on June 3, 2014. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #[PHONE REDACTED]) analyzed the potential environmental impacts that could result with the implementation of the Specific Plan. The CEQA-mandated 45- day public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on July 21, 2014. The comments on the Draft EIR, changes to the Draft EIR, and the written responses were incorporated into a Final EIR that was published on August 28, 2014. Copies of the Final EIR were made available at El Cerrito ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 10 of 13 City Hall, on the City’s website, and at the El Cerrito Library and at Richmond City Hall and Richmond library. For every impact identified, mitigations have been proposed. There are five areas of study that were not able to be mitigated to the point that their impacts could be found to be less than significant. Due to the nature of specific plans, this outcome is not unusual. Each of these five areas are discussed below and also noted in detail in Exhibit 1. Specific Plan implementation could interfere with scenic views of Mt. Tamalpais, the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco skyline, the East Bay Hills, and Albany Hill from public rights-of-way (roadways and sidewalks), the two BART station platforms (El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito Del Norte), and areas of lower elevation hillside homes located in El Cerrito and Richmond. The mitigation states that future City decision-making actions for individual project proposals under the Specific Plan, Specific Plan Section 2.02 (Administration of Regulating Code) shall be implemented as it applies to the proposal’s potential effect on scenic vistas. Whenever a project may create this impact, the City shall require evaluation (including visual simulations, if deemed necessary) of the proposal’s visual effect as viewed from important on-site and off-site viewpoints, including public rights-of-way of east-west streets (roadways and sidewalks) and the two BART station platforms in the Specific Plan area (El Cerrito Plaza and El Cerrito Del Norte). The evaluation shall address the proposal’s effect on views of Mt. Tamalpais, the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco skyline, the East Bay Hills, and Albany Hill. Staff notes that because the outcome of this decision-making process for any individual, future proposals cannot be guaranteed within the framework of the programmatic EIR, the impact under CEQA is considered significant and unavoidable. Some loss of these views may occur as a result of any project. The Plan elevates the view from east/west running streets and the BART platforms to Mt. Tamalpais, the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco skyline as particularly important to our community’s sense of place and requires that any proposed project that may be located as to impact those views to complete a view study to assist decision makers to quantify these impacts. It is further noted that there may be project considered under Tier IV that may meet all the required findings and still have a significant impact on views. It is important to note that this could happen under the current Zoning Ordinance. However, because the impact cannot be precluded, mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. That finding is acceptable under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines. The City Council will be asked to consider this issue as part of their required findings included in Attachment 1, Exhibit 1, Attachment B. Impacts on Historic Resources There may be one or more properties or features within the plan area that meet the CEQA definition of a historic resource, including properties or features already listed, or properties or features eligible for listing, in a local, State, or Federal register of historic resources. Future development projects that are otherwise consistent with the proposed Specific Plan may cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of one or more such historic resources. This is not the preferred intent of the City of El Cerrito, but it is impossible to preclude the possibility. The process for reviewing any individual discretionary project within the Specific Plan area that the City determines may involve a property that contains a potentially significant historic resource a recorded historic resource or an unrecorded building or structure 50 years or older) is as follows: ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 11 of 13 1. The resource shall be evaluated by City staff, and if warranted, shall be assessed by a qualified professional on the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) list of consultants who meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards to determine whether the property is a significant historical resource and whether or not the project may have a potentially significant adverse effect on the historical resource. 2. If, based on the recommendation of the qualified professional, the City determines that the project may have a potentially significant effect, the City shall require the applicant to implement the following mitigation measures: Adhere to one or both of the following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:  Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings; or  Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The qualified professional shall make a recommendation to the City as to whether the project fully adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and any specific modifications necessary to do so. The final determination as to a project's adherence to the Standards shall be made by the City body with final decision-making authority over the project. Such a determination of individual project adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will constitute mitigation of the project historic resource impacts to a less than- significant level (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5). 3. If #2 is not feasible, the applicant would consider mitigation: the historic resource shall be moved to a new location compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource, and its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment shall be retained, such that the resource retains its eligibility for listing on the California Register. If neither #2 nor 3 are feasible, a project-specific EIR shall be required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, particularly in order for specific project alternatives to be designed and evaluated. This conservative approach provides the incentive for developers to integrate historic buildings into the new development in a way that does not have a negative impact on the historic resource. If a developer decides that the resource cannot be integrated into their project, they will not be able to rely on the programmatic EIR; rather, they will have to do a significant amount of additional analysis to create a project level EIR specific to their proposal. This would either be reviewed under Tier III or more likely, Tier IV based on the parameters of the Administration Section of the Form Based Code. Either level of review would be held at a public hearing allowing for a high level of public analysis and input. It is again important to note that this could happen under the current zoning ordinance. However, because the impact cannot be precluded, mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. That finding is acceptable under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines. The City Council will be asked to consider this issue as part of their required findings included in Attachment 1, Exhibit 1, Attachment B. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 12 of 13 Impacts caused by Noise Businesses and residences would be intermittently exposed to high levels of noise throughout the 2040 plan horizon. Construction would elevate noise levels at adjacent businesses and residences by 15 to 20 dBA or more for short periods of time. Constraints to daily construction times have been noted and a list of ways to lessen noise impacts have been included as mitigations. These mitigations will lessen the significant effects identified in the EIR, although not to a level of insignificance. Due to the nature of construction, there will always be a risk that certain activities will exceed the noise limits stated in the General Plan. Because the impact cannot be completely avoided, mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. That finding is acceptable under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines. The City Council will be asked to consider this issue as part of their required findings included in Attachment 1, Exhibit 1, Attachment B. Impacts caused by Vibration Residences, businesses, and historic structures could be exposed to construction-related vibration during the excavation and foundation work of buildings. A list of changes or alterations have been incorporated into the list of mitigations that will lessen the effects identified in the EIR, although not to a level of insignificance. Even with the mitigation measures it may not be possible to avoid using pile drivers, vibratory rollers, and tampers entirely during construction facilitated by the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. Due to the density of development in the area, some of these activities may take place near sensitive areas. In these cases, the mitigation measures listed above may not be sufficient to reduce groundborne vibrations below a level of significance. Because the impact cannot be completely avoided, mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. That finding is acceptable under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines. The City Council will be asked to consider this issue as part of their required findings included in Attachment 1, Exhibit 1, Attachment B. Cumulative Traffic Impact at San Pablo Avenue/Cutting Boulevard Cumulatively speaking, the Plan may have an impact, relative to the City’s current LOS standard of D, at San Pablo Avenue/Cutting Boulevard, which would fall from LOS D in the Cumulative No Project case to LOS E in the Cumulative with Project case. Adoption and full implementation of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan/Complete Streets Plan is projected to reduce auto trips relative to the baseline assumption in the impact analysis, which would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (Furthermore, adoption of the plan would change the City’s LOS standard of D to an LOS goal of E, which should be considered in conjunction with the multi-modal LOS standards for transit, pedestrian and bicycle modes, with transit and pedestrian modes being the primary priorities in the corridor. This would also render the impact less-than-significant). Because the projected mode shift cannot be guaranteed, and adoption of the proposed new multi-modal LOS goals as defined in the draft plan cannot be assured, the City cannot determine with certainty that this mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact cumulative traffic impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because the impact cannot be completely guaranteed, mitigation to a level of insignificance is infeasible. That finding is acceptable under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines. The City Council will be asked to consider this issue as part of their required findings included in Attachment 1, Exhibit 1, Attachment B. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 13 of 13 V. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the Planning Commission:  Consider all of the information before the Commission this evening;  Receive a presentation regarding the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan; and  Recommend adoption of the Plan, the Certification of Environmental Impact Report and all other necessary entitlements to City Council Proposed Motion: Move adoption of Planning Commission Resolution PC14-xx recommending that the City Council adopt the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, the Environmental Impact Report and all associated entitlements. Appeal Period: Within ten (10) calendar days after the date of the decision, the Planning Commission action may be appealed to the City Council. Attachments: 1) Draft Resolution to Adopt San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan 2) Exhibit 1 Environmental Impact Report a. Attachment A Mitigation Monitoring Plan b. Attachment B Findings 3) Exhibit 2 General Plan Amendment 4) Exhibit 3 Rezone of the Plan Area 5) Exhibit 4 Amendment of Municipal Code 6) Draft San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan dated August 2014 7) San Pablo Avenue Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports and Mitigation Monitoring Program. (Collectively the EIR)